### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n B ri ef s January 24, 200 8
ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E, D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN 'S S ER V IC ES v. LEI GH ANN MCALI STER, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. R5586 The Honorable Herbert Lane, Sp ecial Judge

No. W2007-00171-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Fe bruary 26, 2008

This is a termination of par ental rig hts case. Mothe r/Appellant a ppeals the O rder of the Shelby Co u n t y J uvenile Court terminatingher pa renta l rig hts to her two minor children. Spe c if ic a lly , App e lla

nt a sse rt s that th e g ro un ds of pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s and

fa ilure to substantially

comply with the perma

nency plans are not supported by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in the rec ord, and that termination of her pare ntal rig hts is not in the best interests of the children. Be cause we f

ind clear and convinc ing e vidence in the rec ord to suppor t te rmination on the g rounds of fa ilure to substantially

comply with the permanenc y plans, and clear and convincingevidenc e that te rm inatio n is in t

he be st i nte re sts of

the c hil dr e n, we a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , J ., delivere d the o p i n i o n of the c ourt, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

W. R ay Glasg ow of Memphis, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, L eig h Ann McAlister
Robert E. C ooper, J r., Att orney Gene ral and Reporter ; Doug las Ear l Dimond, Senior Counsel, for Appellee , Tenne ssee De partment of Children' s Services

OP IN ION

L eig h Ann McAlister ( “M other,” or “A ppellant”) is the biologica l pare nt of K.C. (d.o.b. 2/15/99) and S.M.C. (d.o.b. 7/9/01) (toge ther with K.C., th e “C h i l d re n ”). Keith Capps is the bio log ic a l f

a the r o f t he Chi ldr e n. Mr

. Ca

pp ’s pa re nta l ri g hts we re a lso te rm inate d b y the tr ia l c ourt ; howeve r, he doe s not appea l that ruling. Conseque ntly , Mother is the sole Appe llant here in. On May 27, 2005, the State of Te nnessee , Depa rtment of Children’s Ser

vices (“DCS,” or

“ Ap p e l l e e ” ) f

i l e d a d e p e n d e n c y an d

n e g l e c tp e t i t i o ni nth e J u v e n i l e C o urto f S h e l b y C o u n ty. Acc ording to the Petition, DC S be came involved in this case in Octobe r of 2004, whe n they rec eived-2-

a re fer ral a lleg ing that the Children wer e beingexposed to drugs a nd druguse by

both biologica l pare nts. During the pende ncy of DCS ’s i nvestig ation, Ms. McAlister was incar cer ated for theft, a nd t h e C h i l d r e nw e r e p l a c e d

i nt h e p h ys i c a l c u s t o dy o f th e i r m a t e r

n a l g r an dm o th e r , P r i s c i l l a R i t c h e y, and Mr. Capps. As a

result of a

domestic issue betwee n the g randmother and Mr. Capps, Mr. Ca

pps was a rre sted for a

n outstanding w arr ant.
On Marc h 9, 2005, DCS rece i v ed a s econd r efe rra l, which alleg ed that the Children we re beingexposed to their Mother’s drug use. I t was alleg ed that Mother was living in a “ dope house,” and that she w as injectingpresc ription drug s. DuringDCS’s investigation, it was discove red that the Children wer e curr ently residing in the home of their materna l uncle, Da rry l McAlister, who wa s a re po rt e d d

ru g us e r. Th e de pe nd e nc y and ne g le c t pe tit ion ind ic a te s th a t, a s o f M ay 24 , 2 00 5, Ms. McAlister wa s in St . Fr ancis Hospital due to a “blood infec tion a nd blisters all over her body from I V druguse.” I n its P etition, DCS asser ts that there is no known a dequate place ment for the Children, and that, followingrea sonable e ffor t s to preve nt removal, DCS reque sts custody of the Children. On May 27, 2005, the trial cour

t enter ed a Protective Cus tody Orde r, i n which the court found that the Children should r emain in D CS’s c ustody

. On J une 21, 2005, following a pr el i m i n ary hear ing, the J uvenile Court Refe ree enter ed finding s a n d r e commendations, findingthat the Children “should rema in in the custody of [ DCS] pending results from drug scree ns of L eig h Ann McAlister, [and] Dar ryl McAlister....” The Refer ee’ s findings w ere confirme d by the Special Judge

. On June 16 , 2 00 5, the ini tia l pe rm ane nc y pla ns we re dr a ft e d a

nd a pp ro ve d b y

DC S
c a se wo rk e r D e nis e F a ir

and su pe rv iso r S e ri ta

B ump us . The se pla

ns se t a g oa l of pa re nt- c hil d
re un if ic a tio n. Th e pla

ns se t we e kly vis its be tw e e n Ms. Mc Al ist e r and the Chi ldren , wi th Ms. McAlister be ing r equire d to notify DCS twenty -four

hours in advanc e should she be unable to attend any visits. Ms. McAlister was also require d to have a drugassessment, and to e x plore options other than nar cotics for

her a lleg ed bac k pain. She was required to maintain contac t with DCS as to any c ha ng e s and /or ne e ds , a nd wa s to obta in a dom e sti c vio le nc e a sse ssm e nt. Ms. Mc Al ist e r a g re e d to the pla ns and sig ne d th e m.
On Novembe r 18, 2005, Py ramid Recove ry

Center pe rfo r

me d a n a lc o h o l a n d d r u g a s s e s s ment of Ms. McAlister. The rec ord reve als that, duringthis assessment, Ms. McAlister re ported menta l health issues (i.e. anxiety and depr ession), re cent dr ug use (includingcra ck coc aine, c ry stal
me tha mph e tamin e , a

nd he ro ine) , a

nd oth e r u nd a te d d ru g us e (i nc lud ingdil a

ud id, pe rc oc e t, hy drocodone , and soma). Ms. McA l i s ter a lso reporte d a history of cr iminal/lega l problems and domestic violence

. OnJanu ar

y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , D CS d e v e lo p e d a s e c o n d s e t o f Pe r ma n e n c y Pl an s f o r th e Ch il dr e n. Th e se pla ns a dd a do pti on a s a go a l in a dd iti on to re un if ic a tio n. Un de r t

his se c on d s e t of

pla ns , M s. M c A li s te r

w a s r e qu ir e d

to o b ta in a dr u g a s s e s s me n t, to in f

o r m D CS o f

an y c h an g e s o r

n e e d s , and to ob ta in a do me sti c vio le nc e a sse ssm e nt. Ms. Mc Al ist e r wa s a lso re qu ir e d to su c c e ssf ull y c omp le te alcohol and dr

ug counselingand par enting cl asses, and to pass random drugscre ens. In addition,M s

. M cAl i s t er ’ s t es t i mo ny at t he hea r i ng conf i r ms t hat s he kn ew a nd u nd er s t oo d what was r equi r ed of he r 1

un d er these p l an s. -3- Ms. Mc Al ist e r w a s r e qu ir e d to c on ta c t sh e lte rs and ho us inga uth or iti e s in

or de r t o o bta in s ta

ble housing f or her self and the Children, and to s eek employ ment throug h temporar

y ag encie s in order to ma intain f

inancial stability

. Although Ms. Mc Alister did not sign these plans, the family ’s social worke r testified that the pla ns were sent to Ms. McAlister, that she had seen the plans, and that she
was a war e of he r re quirements ther eunder

. On J anuar y 19, 2006, DCS c asew orker Denise F air filed 1 an Affidavit of R easona

ble Efforts. On J anuar

y 24, 2006, the s econd set of pl ans wa s approve d by the Juvenile Court

Re fe re e . B oth

pa re nts we re c on ta c te d a ft e r t he pla ns we re re vis e d, and

bo th pa re nts ’ o bje c tio ns are no te d. On F e br ua ry 3, 20 06 , Co ur

t App ointe d Sp e c ia l A dv oc a t e P ame la Ros s wa s a pp ointe d to inv e sti g a te and fi le a wr itt e n r e po rt

. On June 27 , 2 00 6, DC S f

ile d it s Pe tit ion

to T e rm inate Pare nta l Rights , w hic h Pe tit ion re a ds , in r e le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s:
3. Respondent, L eig h Ann McAlister...[has] abandoned the children in that [ she has] willfully

failed to make any

contribution whatsoeve r toward the support of the c hildren f o r four ( 4) conse cutive months immediately

prec edingthe filing of this petition despite beingablebo die d a nd c a pa ble of e mpl oy me nt.

IV

1. T h es e chil dren ha

ve bee n remove d by

order of this Court for a per i o d of six (6) months; the conditions which led to their re moval sti ll pe rs ist ; oth e r c on dit ion s pe rs ist wh ic h in a ll pr ob a bi li ty woul d
cause the childre n to be subjecte d to further abuse a nd neg lect and which, therefor e, pre vent the childre n’s re turn to the ca re of Respondents; there is little likelihood that these conditions w i l l be
re me die d at an e arl y

date so that th e se c hil dr e n c an b e ret ur ne d to Respondents in the nea

r future ; t he continuation of the leg al par ent and child re lationship gr eatly diminis hes the c hildren’s c hance s of
ear ly integ ration into a stable a nd perma nent home. 2. Despite fr equent explanations of the statement of r esponsibiliti es s e t o u t in p e r io d ic p e r

ma n e n c y p la n s p r e p a r e d f o r th e Re s p o n d e n t[ ], L eig h Ann M cA l i s t er..., [she has] failed to comply in a substantial
manner with those re as o nable r esponsibiliti es re lated to re medying the c on dit ion s th a t ne c e ssi tate fo ste r c are pla c e me nt.
* * *-4- 4. An initial permane ncy plan was de velop ed at a staff ing on June 16, 20 0 5 , w it

hs u b s e qu e n t p la

n s d e v e lo p e d

an d r a ti f ie d a t r e g u lar i n t erv al s t h er ea ft er

. S ai d p l an s re qu i re d

th at R es p o n d e n t [ ] , L ei gh Ann McAlister...should:

a . Co mpl e te a lc oh ol a

nd dr ugtr e a tme nt; b. Take ra

nd om d ru g sc re e ns ; c . T ake pa

re nti ngc la sse s; d. Maintain stable housing ; and
e . M a int a in s ta

ble e mpl oy

me nt; 5. Respondent[] , L eig h Ann McAlister...[has] completed none of the pe rm ane nc y

pla n r e sp on sib ili tie s.

VI

I t is in t he be st i nte re st o f [S. M. C.] a nd [K. C.] a nd the pu bli c that this procee d i n g b e brought, that all of the par ental rig hts of Respondents, L eig h Ann McAlister a nd Keith Capps to these c h il dren be for ever

terminated, a

nd that the complete custody , control and g uardia nship of the childre n be aw ar d ed to the State of Tenne ssee, Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices, wi th the rig ht to place the children for adoption and to c onsent t o s u ch adopti on in loco pa re nti s
. On J uly 26, 2006, a guardia

n ad litem wa s a

pp ointe d f

or the Chi ldr e n. Th e re a ft e r, on July 31, 2006, the Children’s mater nal g randmother , Priscilla Rit chey filed a “ Petition t o Modify Orde r,” se ekingcustody

of her g randc hildren. DCS case worke r Elea nor Jackson filed an Affida vit of Reasonable Effor

ts on November 7, 2006. T he matter proce edingto trial on October 12 and Nove mber 30, 2006. In a purpor ted final orde r, ente red on January 3, 2007, the trial cour

t terminated Ms. McA lister’s par ental rig hts. As noted above, only Ms. McAlister appe aled. Certain def

ects in the January

3, 2007 Orde r we re c ured a nd the Orde r wa s re- filed on April 25, 2007. The “ Orde r Ter

minating Par ental Rig hts and Fina l Decr ee of Guar dianship” (the“ Final Or de r” ) r e a ds , in

pe rt ine nt p art , a s f

oll ow s:
F I ND I NG S OF F AC T As requir ed by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(k) , the Court makes the f

ollowing f

indings of f a c t by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e ba se d o n th e te sti mony

of the wi tne ss f

or DC S, tri al exhib its , s tatements of c ounsel and the e ntire re cord in this cause . The ch i l d re n ...wer e prope rly

remove d by

Orde r of the Juvenile Court of Memphis an d Shelby

County , Tenne ssee on Ma y 27, 2005 based-5- upon fi n d i n g s of depe nden[cy ] and neg lect, to wit, that the Re s p o n d e nt

m o the r, L e ig h A nn

Mc Al ist e r w a s h os pit a lize d a s a re su lt of druguse.... F urther, sa id children have been in continuous foster
car e since that date. (1) Rea sonable e ffor

ts to pre vent the re moval of the c hildren was not re quired beca

use Respondent mother wa s in the hospital for drugusag e.
* * * (5) The se childre n have be en re moved by Orde r of this Court fo r a pe r i o d

o f s i x ( 6 ) m o n th s ; th e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c hl e d t o the ir
re mov a l st ill pe rs ist ; ot

he r c on dit ion s p e rs ist wh ic h in all p ro ba bil ity would cause the children to be subjecte d to further abuse a nd neg lect and which, the ref

ore, pr event the chi l d re n’s re turn to the ca re of Respondents; there is little likelihood that these condit i o n s will be
re me die d at an ear ly

date so that th e se c hil dr e n c an b e re tur ne d to Respond en ts in the near f uture; the c ontinuation of the leg al par ent and child re lationship gre atly diminis hes the c hil d ren’ s chanc es of
ear ly integ ration into a stable a nd perma nent home.

* * * (7) [S.M.C .] and [ K.C.] came into custody upon a findingof de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t, d

ue to d ru g e xpos ur e and

la c k o f s ta

ble h o u s i n g. (8) The re h as been substantial nonc ompliance by the Respondent[] , L eigh Ann McA lister...with the statement of respon s ib il it ie s in a p e r

ma n e n c y p la n o r p la n o f c ar e

. T h e plan require d that Respondent[] , should:

a . Co mpl e te a lc oh ol a

nd dr ugtr e a tme nt; b. Take ra

nd om d ru g sc re e ns ; c . T ake pa

re nti ngc la sse s; d. Maintain stable housing and
e . M a int a in s ta

ble e mpl oy

me nt. (9) Responde nt[ ], L eig h Ann McAlister...[has] completed
no ne of [he r] r e qu ir e me nts

.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-6- * * *

I n the ca se at ba

r, the Court concluded that there is clear and convincing evidenc e to suppor t grounds for terminatio n o f t he pare ntal rig hts of Respondents L ee Ann McAlister and Keith Capps in that the Respondents ha[ve] a bandoned the children in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. 36- 1-113(g )(1)

. Fur th e r , th e Co urt c o n c lu d e d th a t t h e c h il dr e nh av e b e en remove d from the home by order o f a C o u rt fo r a pe riod of six (6) months pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1- 113(g )(3) (A).
The Court fur

ther c oncluded that ter

mination of the par ental rig hts of the Respondents is in the best interest of the children. Te nn. Code Ann. 36-1- 113(i). On appe al, Ms. McAlister ra ises four issues for revie w, as set out in her

brief:

I

. Whether finding s of fa ct as set f orth by the trial cour

t establish that the e le me nts re qu ir e d to te rm inat e a b i o l o g i c a l pa

re nt’ s p are nta l r ig hts
wer e prove n by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e.
I I . Whether the trial court proper ly hear d and sustained the pe tition fo r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts a bs e nt a n a dju dic ator

y he ari ngto deter mine whether the alleg ations of depende ncy and negle ct wer e true.

I I I . Wh e the r t

he tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in o ve rr uli ngde fe ns e ob

je c tio ns to
u n v e r i f i e d dr u g t e s tr e s u l t s a s i n a dm i s s i b l e h e ar s ay.
I V. Whe the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in ru lin g on the pe tit ion

to t e rm inate pare ntal ri g hts as a petition to modify custody of the mate rnal gra n dm o t h er

wa s p en d i n g.
Be cause this case wa s tried by the cour t sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview the case de novo up on the re c or d w itha

pr e sumpt ion

of c or re c tne ss o f t

he fi nd ing s o f f

a c t by the tr ia l c ourt . U nle ss the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent er

ror of law. SeeTenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Fur

thermore , when the r esolution of the issues in a ca se depe nds upon the tr uth fu lne ss o f w itn e sse s, the tr ia l ju dg e wh o h a s th e op po rt un ity to o bs e rv e the wi tne sse s in the ir
mann e r a nd de me ano r whil e te sti fy

ingis i n a fa r b e tte r p os iti on

tha n th is C ourt

to d e c ide tho se issues. Se eMc Cal

e b v . Sa turn Cor

p ., 91 0 S. W.2 d 4 12 , 4 15 (T e nn .1 99 5) ; Whit aker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W .2d 834, 837 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). T he we ight, f aith, and cr edit to be g iven to any wi tne ss' s te sti mony

lie s in the fi rs t in sta

nc e wi th t he tr ie r o f f

a c t, a nd the c re dib ili ty

a c c or de d w ill-7-

be g iven g reat weig ht by

the appe llate cour

t. See id. ; se eals o W

alt on v . Young , 950 S.W .2d 956, 959 (Tenn.1997)

. T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c) ( Supp. 2007) g overns ter mination of pare ntal rig hts and requir es that such termination be ba sed upon:

(1) A f inding by the cour t by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the g rounds for te rmination of par ental or g uardia nship rights have been e stablished; and (2) That termination of the par ent' s or guardia n' s rig hts is in t he best interest of the child.
The standa

rd for the termination of pa

renta l rig hts is well settled. The United States Supreme Court has r ecognized the important nature of case s involving the ter

mination of pare ntal rig hts, stating that “[f]ew conse quence s of judicial ac tion are so g rave as the seve ranc e of natura l family

ties .” M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 5 1 9 U. S

. 1 0 2 , 1 1 9 (1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Sant osky v. Kram er , 45 5 U .S. 74 5 ( 19 82 ) ( Re hn qu ist , J., dis se nti ng )) . A c c or din g ly , “ the int e re st o f p are nts in t he ir relationship wit h their childre n is sufficiently fundame ntal to come within the finite cla ss of liberty interests protec ted by

the Four teenth Amendme nt.” Id . The c onstitut ional protec tions of the par ent-c hild relationship require cer tain safe g uards be fore the re lationship can be se vere d. See O'Daniel v. Me

ssier , 905 S.W .2d 182, 186 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995) ( rev' d on other g rounds, In re: Swanson , 2 S.W .3d 180 (Tenn.1999) ).
As a saf eguard, c ourts are require d to apply the heig htened “ clea

r and c onvincing ” proof standard. See Santosky , 4 55 U. S. at 76 9; O'Daniel , 905 S.W .2d at 186. To justify the termination of par ental rig hts, the g rounds for te rmination must be established by clea r and convincingevidenc e. SeeT.C.A. § 36-1-113( c)( 1) (2005) ; State Dep't of Hum an Servs. v. Def riece , 937 S.W .2d 954, 960 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). A lthough it does not re quire a s much
cer tainty as the “ beyond a re asonable doubt” standar d, the “c lear and convinc ing e vidence ” standard is more exacting tha n the “pr eponder ance of the e vidence ” standa rd. O'Daniel v. Messier , 9 05 S.W. 2d

18 2, 18 8 ( Te nn .Ct .App .1 99 5) ; Bra ndo n v . W rig ht , 838 S.W .2d 532, 536 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992). I

n order to be clea

r and c onvincing , evidenc e must eliminate any serious or substantial doubt about the corr ectne ss of the conc lusions to be drawn fr om the evidenc e. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. , 8 33 S.W. 2d 89 6, 90 1 n . 3 (T e nn .1 99 2) ; O'Daniel v. Messier , 905 S.W .2d at 188. Such evidenc e should produce in the fac t-finder ' s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the a lleg ations sought to be e stablished. O'Daniel v. Messier , 905 S.W .2d at 18 8; Wiltcher v. Bradley , 708 S.W .2d 407, 411 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985). I n contra st to the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standa rd, cle ar a nd convincingevidenc e should demonstrate that the truth of the f

acts a sserted is “hig hly

probable ” as oppose d to merely “more probable ” than not. Lettner v. Plum m er , 5 59 S.W. 2d 78 5, 78 7 ( Te nn .1 97 7) ; Go lds mith v . Ro be rts , 622 S.W .2d 43 8, 44 1 ( Te nn .Ct .App .1 98 1) ; Bra ndo n v . W rig ht , 838 S.W .2d at 536.

Gr ound s for Term ination-8-

The trial c ourt terminated Ms. Mc Alister' s pare ntal rig hts on the g rounds of pe rsistence of
c on dit ion s, and

fa ilure to s ub sta

nti a lly c omp ly wi th t he re qu ir e me nts of

the pe rm ane nc y

pla ns

. These grounds ar e codif

ied at T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(g )(Supp. 2007): (2) The re ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the par ent or g uardia n with the statement of r esponsibiliti es in a pe rmane ncy plan.... (3) The child has bee n remove d from the home o f the pa rent or g uardia n by order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (A) T he conditions that led to the child' s removal or oth e r c on dit ion s th a t in

a ll r e a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity
wo uld c a us e the c hil d to be su

bje c te d to fu

rt he r a bu se or negle ct and that, there fore , preve nt the child' s safe
re tur n to the c are of the pa

re nt( s) or g ua rd ian( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (B ) T he re is little lik e lih oo d th a t th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re medied at a

n ear ly date so that th e ch ild can be safe ly returne d to t h e par ent(s) or g uardia n(s) in the
near future; a nd (C) The con tinuation of the pare nt or g uardia n and ch i l d re l at i o n s h i p gre at l y

d i m i n i s h es th e c h i l d 's chanc es of e arly

integ ration into a saf

e, stable a

nd perma nent home. As a pre liminary

matter, Ms. McAlister asserts that the trial cour t erre d in its reliance upon the g ro un ds of

pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s in

te rm inatin g he r p aren tal ri g hts . Sp e c if ic a lly , M s. McAlister a

rgues t hat there was no initial finding of depende ncy

and neg lect, or a

buse in this case. Turn ingto t

he re c or d, th e “Pro te c tiv e Cus tod y Or de r, ” e nte re d o n M ay 27 , 2 00 4 d oe s n ot s e t a pr e lim ina ry he ari ng on the de pe nd e nc y and ne g le c t pe tit ion fi le d by DC S, no r do e s thi s o rd e r c on ta in a spec ific findingof depe ndency and neg lect. As noted by M s

. M cA l i s t er i n her br ief, only the pe rm ane nc y

pla ns re fe re nc e an a lle g e d a dju dic a tio n a nd fi nd ingof

de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t. F ur the rm or e , th e June 21 , 2 00 5 “ F ind ing s and Re c omm e nd a tio ns of

Re fe ree” ref

e re nc e s a “pre liminary

hear ing.” Howeve r, there is no transcript or state ment of the e vidence of any adjudicator

y hear ing, nor does t his recor d contain an or der, or other doc umentation, from which w e can c onclude that the alleg ed depende ncy and neg lect was actua lly adjudicate d. I n short, this recor d contains no express judicial finding of depende ncy and neg lect, or a buse. In In Re Audrey S , 182 S.W. 3d 83 8 ( Te nn . Ct . App .) , p e rm . to a pp e a l de nie d ( Te nn . N ov . 7 , 2 00 5) , th is C ourt he ld t hat, “base d upon the statutory text and its historical deve lopment, [ ] Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(3) [grounds of pe rsistence of conditions, see su pr a ] ap p l ies as a ground for termination of par ental-9-

rig hts only

wher e the prior court order removing the child from the pare nt’s home was ba sed on a judicial finding of depe ndency , neg lect, or a buse.” B ased upon our

revie w, as discussed a

bove, ther e is no such finding in this ca s e. C o n s eq uently , the trial cour t’s relianc e upon the g rounds of pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s w a s in c or

re c t.

Howeve r, as se t out above, Ms. McAlister’ s pare ntal rig hts we re terminated base d upon a fi nd ing of bo th pe rs ist e nc e of c on dit ion s and fa ilure to s ub sta nti a lly c omp ly wi th t he re qu ir e me nts of the pe rmane ncy

plans. I f there is clear

and convinc ing evidenc e in the rec ord to support the trial court’s f inding that Ms. McA lis t er fa iled to substantially comply with the perma

nency plans, and clea r and c onvincing evidenc e to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Ms. McAlister’ s pare ntal rig hts is in t he best interests of these Chi ldren, this Court will affirm the F inal Orde r, abse nt other e rror . T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c). As set out above, the perma nency plans requir es five ( 5) thing s of Ms. McAlister: (1) alcohol
and dr ugtr e a tme nt, (2 ) r and om d ru g sc re e ns , ( 3) pa

re nti ngc la sses , ( 4) pr oc ur e me nt o f s ta ble housing, a

nd (5) procure ment of stable e mploy ment. Fr om our revie w of the r ecor d, it appear s that Ms. McAlister’s protrac ted druguse has sty mied her a

bility to properly

car e for these Children. Spe c if ic a lly , th e us e of

dr ug s h a s n egated any possi bil ity fo r t ru e and la sti ngsta

bil ity in M s. Mc Al ist e r’ s li fe . D e sp ite he r p ro te statio ns that sh e lov e s the se Chi ldr e n mo re tha n s he lov e s d

ru g s, the fac ts sug g est otherwise. The rec ord indicates that, from the May 2005 remova l of the childre n int o D CS c us tod

y un til the fi lin g of

the pe tit ion

to t e rm inate he r p are nta l ri g hts in June 20 06 , M s. M c A l i s t e r

d i d l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o w ar d

a c c o mp l i s h i n g th e g o a l s s e to u t i n th e p e r m an e n c y p l an s

. It was not until the petition was filed that Ms. McAlister se emed to find motivation to w ork towar d the specific g oals outlined in those pla ns. Be cause this Court is to look at the period prior to f iling of the petition to terminate parenta l rig hts, the record clear ly and convincingly supports a findingthat Ms. McAlister was in substantial noncompliance with the per manenc y plans duringthe re levant period.
At the Octobe r 12, 2006 hea ring , evidenc e wa s adduce d that, since the filing of the petition to terminate pa

renta l rig hts, Ms. McAlister was, in f act, makingsome prog ress with her
r e qu i r e m e n t s u n d e r

t h e p e r m an e n c y p l an s

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, s h e w a s e n r o l l e d

i na dr u g tr e a t m e n tf

a c i l i ty, wher e she w as beingg iven methadone in order to brea k her addiction to he roine. Fur thermore , she
was attending some of the re quired classes. Be cause there appea red to be some prog ress, the tria l court, in a a ct of leniency

and opportunity

for Ms. McA lister, car

ried the he aringover f

rom Octobe r 12 , 2 00 6 unti l No ve mbe r 3 0, 20 06 in o rd e r t o g ive Ms. Mc Al ist e r ye t ano the r c ha nc e to s ho w s ome sustained ef

fort towar d compliance with the require ments of the plan. B efor e the he aringcontinued
on No ve mbe r 3 0, the tr ia l c ourt ord ered Ms. Mc Al ist e r t o s ub mit to r and om d

ru g sc re e ns , a

nd to provide proof of employ

ment. The court also order ed DCS to visit the house whe re Ms. McA lister was living with her a lleg ed fia ncé, Ronnie Williams.
At the hea

ri n g o n T h ursday , October 12, 2006, Ms. McAlister testified that she ha d been h i r e d b y R u b y T u e s d ay’ s , an d

t h a th e r f i r s td ay o nth e j o b w a s t o b e th e f o l l o w i n g d ay, F r i d ay, October 13, 2006. At the Novembe r 30, 2006 hea ring , the testimony

was that Ms. McAlister ha d-10-

not, in fact, g one to work at Ruby Tuesday ’s until October 31. Mor eover , she had only worke d that one day . As of the Nove mber 30, 2006 hearing , Ms. McAlister wa s not employ ed, nor c ould she pr ov ide any re a so n why sh e ha d n ot b e e n w or kin g a ll a lon g . A t th e Oc tob e r 1 2, 20 06 he ari ng , M s. McAlister a lso testified that she had pr epar ed the C h i l d ren’s rooms in the house re nted by Mr. Wil liams. Although Ms. McAlister is listed as a n “occ upant” on Mr. Williams’ lease, she is not the lease holder on this proper ty . Nonethele ss , M s

. M cAlis ter told the cour t that she had pa inted the Chi ldr e n’ s r oo ms, ha d put up bo rd e rs , and ha d pu rc ha se d b e ds and

toy s. El e ano r Ja c ks on , th e DC S
case manag er a ssigne d to make the home visit, testified that the rooms we re n o t re ad y for the Children to occupy . The photos t aken, a nd admitted into evidence , show K.C.’s room has be en pa int e d; h ow e ve r, S.M .C. ’s ro om i s n ot p a int e d, or oth e rw ise de c or a te d a

nd fu rn ished a s Ms

. McAlister testified at the October 12 hear ing. A lthough we conce de that these rooms could be
re a die d in sh or t or de r, wh a t c on c e rn s th is C ourt is the fa c t that Ms. Mc Al ist e r w a s n ot f or thr ig ht w ith the tr ia l c ourt

in h e r Oc tob e r 12 te sti mony . The se inc on sis te nc ie s, un tr uth s, and e mbe lli sh me nts in he r t e sti mony

dama g e Ms. Mc Al ist e r’ s c redi bi li ty , an d g ive thi s Co ur t pa us e a s to he r o ve ra ll tr uth fu lne ss.
More c oncer

ning a re the results of Ms. McAlister’ s d ru g s cre ens duringthe time betwee n hear ings. D uring this time, Ms. McAlister wa s asked f or five sc ree ns. The first four scre ens (take n on October

12, October

18, October

23 , and Nove mber 7) show ed positive only for metha done (which Ms. McA lister was being give n at t he drug treatment center)

. Howeve r, the re cord indicates that th e tw o te sts g ive n o n N ov e mbe r 1 1 a nd Novem be r 1 6 w e re bo th f

a lsi fi e d. Spe c if

ic a lly , M s. McAlister did not provide he r own urine for these tests. This fact is e vinced by a letter from the dr

ug treatment clinic, and is a lso suppor ted by the fac t that the November 11 and Nove mber 16 samples contained no me thadone. The absenc e of methadone, which Ms. Mc Alister was being g iven, prove s that the urine pr ovided was not he r own.
Ms. McAlister’s fa ilure of the last two scre ens prior to the November 30 hearingis indicative of her behavior all along . Throug hout the course of these pr oce ed ings, Ms. McA lister has bee n unable to complete any

of the re quirements put to her. She has hapha zardly attended the require d classes, she has n o t taken e mploy ment opportunities seriously , she has not proc ured housingor su pp or t in de pe nd e nt o f M r. Willi ams. Al l of the se fa ilure s c an b e tr a c e d to he r i na bil ity to f ina lly conquer her dr ug addiction. Fr om the entire rec ord, we conclude that there is clear and convinc ing
e vid e nc e that Ms . M c Al is t e r h a s f a ile d, de sp ite re a so na

ble e ff or ts o n th e pa

rt of DC S, t o s ub sta

nti a lly comply with the rea sonable a

nd nece ssary

g oals outlined in the permane ncy plans. Best Inter ests
After a findingthat the g rounds for te rmination have be en esta bl i s h ed b y clea

r and convincingevidenc e, the c ourt must then determine if te rmination is in the best interests of the c hild. T. C .A. § 36- 1- 11 3( c )( 2) . Sec tio n 36- 1- 11 3( i) (S up p. 20 07 ) e nume ra te s th e fo llo wi ngfa c tor s c ourt s are to c on sid e r i n ma

kin g the be st i nte re sts de te rm inatio n:-11- (1) Whether the pare nt or g uardia n has made such an adjustme n t of circ umstance, c onduct, or c onditi o n s as to make it safe and in the
c hil d' s b e st i nte re st t o b e in t he ho me of

the pa re nt o r gua

rd ian; (2) Whether

the par ent or g uardia

n has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adju s tm e n t a f

te r r e a s o n a b le e f f o rts b y av a il a b le s o c ia l s e r

v ic es ag encie s fo r s uch duration of time that lasting adjustment does not
re a so na bly a pp e ar p os sib le ; (3) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n has maintained r egular visitation
or oth e r c on ta c t w iththe c hil d; (4) Wheth e r

a mea ningf ul relationship has otherw ise bee n established be tw e e n th e pa

re nt o r gua

rd ian a nd the c hil d; (5 ) T he e ff

e c t a c ha ng e of c are ta

ke rs and phy sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to have on the c hild's e moti o n al , psy cholog ical and me dical
c on dit ion ; (6) Whether the parent or guar dian, or other person residingwith the pare nt or guar dian, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional
or ps y c ho log ic a l a

bu se , o r n e g le c t tow ard the c hil d, or ano the r c hil d
or a du lt i n th e fa

mil y or ho us e ho ld; (7 ) W h et h er

t h e p h y s i ca l en v i ro n m en to f t h e p ar en t ' s o rgu ar d i an 's home is healthy

and saf e, whe ther ther e is criminal ac tivity in the home, or whe ther ther e is such use of alcohol or c ontrolled substance s as m ay r e n d e r th e p ar e n t o r

g u ar d ia nc o n s is te n tl y

un a b le to c ar e f

or the c hil d in

a sa fe and sta ble mann e r; (8) Whether

the par ent' s or guardia

n' s mental and/or e motional status would be d et ri m ental to t he child or pr event the pa rent or guardia

n from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and super vision for the child; or (9) Whether

the par ent or g uardia

n has paid c hild support consistent with the child support g uidelines promul gat ed by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5-101.
This list is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require the court to find the exist ence of
ever y fac tor befor e conc luding that ter mination is i n a c h i l d 's best interest. Sta te v . T .S. W. , No. M2001-01735-COA- R3-J V, 2002 Tenn.A pp. L EXI S 340, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002).-12-

Turningto the rec ord, we find clea r and c onvincin g ev i d en ce that, despite numerous op po rt un iti e s, Ms. Mc Al ist e r ha s fa ile d to e ff e c t pe rm ane nt c ha

ng e in h e r l if

e . Sh e c on tin

ue s to us e illicit drug s, and she has procured no employ ment. Consequently , she is still very much re liant upon oth e rs (s pe c if

ic a lly , M r. Willi ams) to p ro vid e he r w ithho us ing and neces sar ie s. B e c a

us e Ms. Mc Al ist e r h e rs e lf

is a de pe nd e nt ( in h e r d

ru g us e and

in he r lif e g e ne ra lly

), it is the op ini on of

thi s Court that she is neither a ble to car e for

these Children pre sently , nor in the for esee able f uture. Fur thermore , these Children have been in D CS custody for ne arly three y ear s. The evide nce is that the Children ar e cur

rently residingwith foster pa

rents who wish to adopt. Moreover, f rom the foster mother’s testimony , it appear s that continued conta ct with Ms. McAlister is cre ating problems for the ol der child (i.e. he is having difficulty with his studi es, and is ac ting out at sc hool). Given the fa c t th a t Ms . M c Al ist e r h a s n ot b e e n a ble to m ake nec e ssa

ry c ha ng e s in he r l if e , mu c h le ss demonstrate that such cha ng es ar e per

manent, we find that to prolong Ms. McAlister’s involvement i nt h e s e C h i l dr e n ’ s l i v e s w i l l o n l y f un c t i o nt o k e e p th e C h i l dr e ni na s t a t e o f p e n d e n c y. Co n s e qu e n tl y , w e f

in d th a t te r

mi n a ti n g M s

. M c A li s te r ’ s p ar e n ta l r igh ts is in th e b e s t interests of these Children. So doing will al l o w t h em t o i n teg rate into a perma nent and stable home wher e, hopefully , they

will flourish.
Ms. McAlister ra ises two additional issues conce rning the admission of ce rtain evide nce a nd the pe nd e n c y

o f t h e m a t e r

n a l g r an dm o th e r ’ s p e t i t i o nf o r c u s t o dy
. W e w i l l a d dr e s s e a c ho f t h e se issues for re versible e rror

. Adm ission of E vidence
Ms. McAlis t er asser

ts that the trial court e rre d in allowing c erta in drugtest results in the
a bs e nc e of a ff

ida vit s or oth e r e vid e nc e c on c e rn ing the tr uth and re lia

bil ity of the se r e su lts

. Specifica lly , Ms. McAlister’s attorney objected, on grounds of hear say , to the admission of various drugscre ens and a

nnotations that were taken be tween the October 12 hear ing a

nd the continuation on November

30, s e e su

pr a
. W e fi rst note that the trial c ourt is affor ded wide disc retion in the admission or rejec tion of evidenc e, and the trial court' s action will be reve rsed on a ppeal only

when there is a showing of an a

buse of discr etion. See Otis v. Cam bridge Mut. F ire Ins. Co. , 850 S.W .2d 43 9 ( Te nn .1 99 2) ; Da v is v . Ha ll , 920 S.W .2d 213, 217 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). The abuse of discre tion standard r equire s us to consider: (1) whether the dec ision has a suff

icient evidentiar

y foundation; (2) whether the trial court corr ectly identified and proper ly applied the appropr iate leg al principles; and (3) wh et h er the dec ision is wit hin the rang e of a cce ptable alter natives. State ex rel. V

aughn v. Kaatru de , 21 S.W .3d 244, 248 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). Whil e we will se t a side a discre tionary decision if it does not rest on an a dequate evidentiar y foundation or if it is contrar y to the g overninglaw, we will not subst itute our judg ment for that of the trial cour

t merely becaus e we might have chosen another alternative.

E v en i f we assume, arguendo , th a t th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld n ot h ave a llo we d th e dr ugte sts
and /or re su lts duri ngthe pe ri od be tw e e n h e ari ngdate s, a s d iscuss ed abo ve , th e fa c t th a t Ms

. McAlister wa s g iven the opportunity to submit to drugtests during this period was a lag niappe f

or her. A s noted above , the re levant per iod for de t er m i n i ng compliance with the perma nency plans-13-

would ordinarily

be the pe riod b e

for e t h e p et i t i on to terminate is filed. Tur ning to the r ecor d, E x h i b i t s 1 an d

2 , re s u l t s fr o mdru g s cr ee n s gi v en fr o mFe b ru ary th ro u ghAp ri l an d

J u l y th ro u gh Aug ust of 2006, wer e admitted without objection. I n these scr eens, Ms. McA lister repe atedly tested positive for illicit drugs, inc luding c ocaine , benzopdiazepines, and marijuana . Fur thermore , by

her own testimony

at the October 12 hear ing, Ms. Mc Alister admitted to usingun-pre scribed X anax and
c oc a ine ve ry

re c e ntl y . In s ho rt , th e re is c le ar a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e in t he reco rd that Ms

. McAlister continued to use drug s, in de reliction of he r re sponsibili ties under the pe rmane ncy plan, befor e the pe tition t o terminate was filed. Conseque ntly , even if we a ssume arguendo (which w e do not) that the trial cour

t’s decision to allow the drugtests taken duringthe time betwee n hear ing date s w a s e rr or , s uc h e rr or wo uld be ha rm le ss b e c a

us e the re is s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d to clea rly and convinc ingly

prove that Ms. McAlister was using drug s during the re levant per iod before the petition to terminate her pare ntal rig hts was filed.

Mate rnal Gr andmother ’s petition
Ms. McAlister also asserts that it was rever sible err or for the trial cour

t to continue with the termination proce eding s while the Children’s mate rnal gran d m o ther’s pe tition for custody was pending . We disag ree

. The fac t that the g randmother , Ms. Ritche y , petitioned the cour t for custody of t he C hil dr e nh a s n o b e ar in g o nw h e th e r M s

. M c A li s te r ’ s p ar e n ta l r igh ts s h o u ld b e te r mi n a te d. Re g ard le ss o f t

he outcom e of Ms

. McA lis te r’ s h e ari ng , a s th e tr ia l c ourt c or re c tly no te s, “ [Ms. Ritchie] s till has the right to petition for custody

. I t would be up to the ref ere e or judg e hea

ringthe
case to determine what is in the best interest of the children.” Ms. Ritche y ’s petition ha s only to do with the place ment of the c hildren pending adoption, and this pe tition ca n proce ed as a

n independe nt inquiry reg ardle ss of whether Ms. McAlister’s pa renta l rig hts are te rminated. The ref ore, w e find that the trial cour

t did not abuse its discretion, or otherw ise err , in proce edingwith the h ea ri n g o n the p et i t i o nt o t erm i n at e M s

. M cA l i s t er ’s p ar en t al ri gh t s wh i l e M s

. R i ch ey ’s p et i t i o nwa s p en d i n g.
For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the order of the trial c ourt terminatingMs. McAlister’s p ar en t al rig hts to S.M.C. and K.C. Costs of this a ppeal are assessed ag ainst the Appellant, L ei gh A n nM c A l i s t e r , an d

h e r s u r e t y.

__________________________________________

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, J UDGE