On A p r i l 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , a De f a u l t J u d g m e n t w a s e n t e r e d a g a i n s t F r a n k C a r e y , t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s

. He 1
is no t a p a rty to this a p p e a l.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 11, 200 4 S es sio n
IN TH E MA TTEROF : D .C . A ND S. C. , S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE DEPARTMENT OF CHI LDREN' S SERVI CES v . KAREN CAREY, ET AL 

### .

A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Benton Coun ty No. 3007 The Honorabl e Clyde W. Watson, Judge

No. W2004-00472-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Novem ber 3, 2004

Th is i s a te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts c a se . M oth e r a pp e a ls f ro m th e or de r of the Juve nil e Cou rt of B e nto n Co un ty , te rm inatin g he r p are nta l rig hts on the g ro un ds of pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s. Specifica lly , Mother asse rts that the t rial court err ed in admitting evidence of an eve nt that occur red afte r the Petition to Terminate ha d been f iled, that the termination of he r par ental r i gh t s i s not
su pp orte d b y

c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e in the re c or d, a ndthat te rm inatio n is no t in the be st interest of the children. We re verse and re mand.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nile Co ur t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

J ason W. Pearcy , Camden, F or Appe llant, Kare n Carey

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Julie Ra nd a ll Pa blo , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, For Appellee , Tenne ssee De partment of Children' s Services

OP IN ION

Kar en Care y

(“Car ey ,”“Mothe r,” or

“Appe llant”) is the mother of the two minor childre n at iss ue in this c a se , D .C. (d .o .b . 5 /8/ 91 ) andS.C. (d .o .b . 9 /29 /92 ). Th e natur a l fathe r of D. C. a ndS.C. i s F r a n k C ar e y. 1-2-

On Novembe r 5, 2001, the De partment of Children’s S ervic es (“DCS,” or “A ppellee” ) filed a “Petition for Te mporary Custody ,” base d upon the following information:

. . . [ I] th a s b e e n r e p o r t e d t h a tt h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d r e n , K ar e n C ar e y, is an alcoho l i c and beats the children whe n she is drunk. The childre n have sta ted that their mother drinks all the time, becomes bellige rent whe n she is drunk, and phy sically abuses them. [D.C.] has
re po rt e d th a t he r m oth e r h a s att e mpt e d to cho ke he r andhit s h e r w ith he r f ist s. The c hil dr e n r e po rt

that th e re are of

te n me n in the ho us e when their

mother drinks and la ter pa sses out. Both childre n have
m a d e s t a t e m e n t s t h a ti n d i c a t e p o s s i b l e s e x u a l ab u s e b y t h e s e m e n

. It h a s b e e n r e p o r te d th a t th e s e c h il d r e n r o a m th e n e ig h b o rh ood when their mother is passe d out and, on one oc casion, a neig hbor fo u nd [S .C.] on I nterstate 4 0 att empting to hitchhike. T he home ha d cockr oache s, bag s of g arba g e throug hout, and an outdoor toilet inside the house. Ka

ren Car ey does not have a job at this time, having been terminated f

ro m h er l ast job for be ing dr unk at work. The re ha ve be e n s e ve ra l arr a ng e me nts ma de to he lp Ka re n Care y e nte r t re a tme nt, but she has re fused to ente r treatment.

A “Protec tive CustodyOrde r” wa s enter ed that same day , placing the childre n in the temporary custody of their aunt, Rosema

ry Strickland. At a November 6, 2001 hearing, the trial court f ound probable cause of depe ndency and neg lect due to a lcohol use, phy sical abuse, and lac k of super vision on the part of Care y

and ente red a n “I nterim Orde r” on Dec ember 31, 2001, by which the c hildren
wer e to rema in in Ms. Strickland’s custody and counsel was appointed for Carey

. At a De cembe r 18 , 200 1 he ari ng , Car e y a g re e d to ha ve c us tod y re ma in w ith Ms. Str ic kland . Sh e fu rthe r a g re e d to participate in an in p atie nt treatment prog ram a nd to attend AA mee tings, pa renting classes, a nd ang er manag ement counse ling. These require ments wer e set out in the t rial court’s Orde r of F ebrua ry 12, 2002. Additionally , the Orde r re quired Car ey to have a stable home, seek e mploy ment, pay support afte r proc uring a job, and r emain sober

. The pa rties re turned to c ourt on April 9, 2002. At that time, the trial court found that Care y had not r emained sober. By Orde r of J une 18, 2002, overnig ht visit ation was suspende d, supervised vis itatio n w a s r e ins ta te d, Care y wa s o rd e re d to a vo id c on ta c t w ith a ny us e rs of a lc oh ol, to s ub mit

to random a lcohol scre ens three times pe r month, a nd to c ontinue working on the g oals set forth in the previous order s. Following a Jul y 16, 2002 hearing, the trial court e ntere d an Or der on Septe mber 17, 2002 allowing Carey

unsupervised visitation with the children onc e per wee k, and re iterating that Carey was to comply

with all require ments contained in pre vious orders. F ollowing a hearing, on Oc tob e r 8 , 2 00 2, c us tod y of the c hil dr e n w a s g ive n to DC S a ndCare y wa s o rdered to p a y

c hil d support in the amount of $53.00 per wee k.

On O ct o b er2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , P er m an en cyP l an s we re en t er ed fo r b o t h t h e c h i l d re n

. T h e P erma nency Pla ns we re sig ne d b y Ca rey a ndinc or po rate d a ll o f the re qu ir e me nts that Ca re y wa s o rd e re d toCar ey ’ s f i r s t D U I w as on J u l y 19, 1993 i n H i ck man Coun t y
. H er s ec on d of fen s e wa s on Fe br u ar y 2, 2000 2
in B e n to n C o u n ty.
-3- complete in the tria l court’s previous order s. A Quarterly Review wa s conducte d on November 19, 20 02 a ndit w a s n ote d th a t no pr og re ss h a d b e e n m ade towa rdre du c ing ri sk s th a t ne c e ssi ta te continued foster

car e. Additional re views we re c onducted on April 15, 2003 an d November 16, 2003. At both of these subseque nt review s, it was noted that Care y had made no prog ress towa rd reduc ing the risks that nece ssitated remova l of her c hildren.

On Dec ember

4, 2002, Carey

was a rre sted in Be nton County for her third DUI

. Acc ording 2 to the re c or d, the c hil dr e n w e re in the ve hic le wi th h e r at th e tim e . Ca re y ple d g uil ty

to this of fe ns e a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o e l e v e n m o n t h s a n d t w e n t y- n i n e d a ys i n j a i l

. A l l b u t o n e

- h u n d r e d t w e n t y d a ys wer e suspende d.

A hea ring was held on Dec ember 10, 2002, at which the Permanenc y Plans were approve d by the trial court and the childre n wer e found to be depende nt and neg lec t ed due to Carey ’s
no nc omp lia nc e wi th se ve ra l pr e vio us c ou rt or de rs a nd be c a us e Care y wa s sc he du le d to be g in h e r j a il sentenc e on De cembe r 11, 2002. An Or der to this eff ect wa s entere d on Fe bruary 18, 2003. On September

29, 2003, DCS filed a “Petition to Terminate Parenta l Rights” (the “Petition”) DC S a sse rt e d n ume ro us g ro un ds , inc lud ing Care y ’s wi llf ul failu re to ob e y the tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de rs , willful abandonment ba sed on fa ilure t o p rovide more than token support, showing a wa nton disr e g ardfo r the we lf

are of the c hil dr e n, failu re to m a int a in s uit able ho us ing , d e sp ite DC S’
rea sonable e fforts to assist, failure to substantially comply with t h e P erma nency

Plans, and p er s i s t ence of c onditions. A Guardian Ad L item was appointed by

Orde r of Nove mber 13, 2003. Carey answe red the Petition on November 14, 2003.

On Octobe r 21, 2003, Carey was arre sted in Be nton County for her fourth DUI offe nse. At t h e t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g i n t h i s ca s e, C ar ey ’s cr i m i n al ca s e w as s t i l l p en d i n g.
This matter wa s hear d by the trial court on November 17, 2003

. An “O rder

Terminating Parenta l Rights and De cre e of G uardia nship” (the “F inal Orde r”) was enter ed on J anuary 12, 2004. Th e F ina l O rd e r r e a ds , in pe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: [T] he Court f

inds upon clear

and convinc ing e vidence that the Petition To Terminate Parenta l Rig hts f iled by the State of Te nnessee , De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, is w e ll t aken as to Re sp on de nt, Kar en Care y , and should be sustain ed an d relief g rante d there under for the cau s es t here in stated, and the Court make s the following finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.

Re g ard ing the re qu ir e me nts in the pe rm a ne nc y plan th a t Ms

. Care y wi ll h a ve a no the r a lc oh ol an d d ru g a sse ssm e nt, wi ll c omp ly-4- with its recommendations, including att en d i ng short term or long t er mi n -h o u s e t re at m en ti f r e c o m m en d ed , an d at t en d AA m ee t i n gs once pe r we ek, Ms. Care y did have a nother a ssessment i n October 2003. There was testimony prese nted that re cently Ms. Carey

has not substantia ll y

a tt e n d e d A A me e ti n g s a n d th a t s h e d idn o t f in d the meeting s worth attending . The plan r equire s that counseling include
se ssi on s o n a ng e r m a na g e me nt, pa re nti ng , le arn ing to c ommun ic a te without making threats, a nd random alcohol scre ens. Ms

. C are y signe d rele ase f

orms and participated in a parenting class in Octobe r 2003. There wer e alc ohol scree ns done which wer e not positive, but she did not sub m i t to the blood alcohol test following her a rre st on
c ha rg e s of fo urth of

fe ns e DU I

. Th e plan r e qu ir e s th a t Ms . Ca re y wi ll learn to understand the danger s o f ex posing the g irls to people who
are drinking ex ce ssively , and the Court is unsure tha t she complied with that in any

way

. T he plan r equire s that Ms. Carey provide information re g arding the father of the children, w hich she ha s done. The Court finds t hat Ms. Carey did comply

with severa l of the tasks in the perma nency

plan.

Ho we v er, the Court finds that Ms. Carey has not bee n completely

truthful to the Court. Ms. Car ey testified that she has ha d nothing to drink for

two y ear s. Howeve r, the off icer testified that, at th e t i m e of he r most rec ent ar rest she smelled of

alcohol, that she stag g ere d when she walked, she had sl urre d speec h, and she r efuse d to s ub mit to the blo oda lc oh ol t e st.

The Gua rdian Ad Li t em, J ohn Whit worth, pointed out what the C o u r t f

in d s is th e mo s t i mp o r tan t i s s u e in th is c a s e , th a t the children w eretaken from Ms. Carey beca use she was e ndang ering the children w ith her alc ohol and/or drug use. The G uard i an Ad L item po int e d ou t that a ft e r the c hil dr e n h a d b e e n r e mov e d f ro m th e ho me approximately

one y ear , the c h i ldren we re a llowed to return f or a pe ri odof visit ation. Ms. Care y

ha d th e c hil dr e n inthe ve hic le wi th her w hen she was arrested a nd convicted of a third off

ense of driving under th e i n fl u ence . Ms. Carey say s that it was due to the pr e sc ri pti on dr

ug s th a t sh e wa s u sin g , b ut the Cou rt ha s so me question after

hearing a ll the te stimony and hearing from the g irls as to w h e t h e r

o r n o tt h a tw a s tru e

. N o w s h e h a s a p e n d i n g f

o u r th offe nse DUI

and Driving on a

Revoked License

.
T h e c a s e w o rk e r h a s t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h e n s h e t a l k e d w i t h Ms. Carey to try to help her a nd to tell her what she needed to do, she wa s arg ume ntativ e . The case wo rk e r t e sti fi e d th a t Ms . Ca re y re fu se d to-5- listen. The Court fi n d s t h at Ms. Carey did not absorb anything the
case worke r wa s try ing to tell her

. Obviously

the children have been remove d from the home of the pa re nt b y or de r o f th is Cou rt

fo r a pe ri odof

six ( 6) mon ths ; a c on dit ion wh ic h le d to the c hil dr e n’ s r e mov a l st ill pe rs ist s, wh ic h in
a ll r e a so na

ble pr ob abil ity

wo uldc a us e the c hil dr e n to be su bje c te d to further abuse and neg lect and w hich, there fore , preve nt the children’ s safe r e tu r n to th e c ar e o f

K ar e n Ca

r e y ; th e r e is li tt le li k e li h o o d th at the se c on dit ions w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that th e se children c an be returne d safe ly to Kare n Carey in the near

future; a nd the c on tin uatio n o f the le g a l pa re nt andc hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly dim ini sh e s th e c hil dr e n’ s c ha nc e s to re turn to a safe a ndsta ble perma nent home.

The Court f

inds tha t [DC] and [S C] are obvio u s l youtgoing and very intelligent. The y

deser ve a c hance in life.

T h e C o u r t f

i n d s b y c l e ar a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t i t is also in the best interest of the childre n, . . . for r easons state d above, that the par ental rig hts of Karen Carey to the children be fore ver terminated a nd that custody , control, and partial gua rdianship of the children be awa

rded to the State of

Tenne ssee, De par t m en t of Children’s Service s, with the rig ht to place the children for a doption and to conse nt to such adoption in loco pare ntis ....

The Court find s t h at t he De partment of Children’ s Services has exercise d rea sonable e fforts to prevent re moval and r eu n i fy the f a m i l y.

***

I T I S, THEREFORE, ORDERED, AD J UDGED AND DECREED:

*** 2. That all par ental rig hts of Kar en Care y , to the ch i l d re n , . . . are here by fore ver te rminated; that the c omplet e custody , control, and partial [sic] guar dianship of said chi l d re n is hereby awa rded to the State of Tenne ssee, Department of C hildren’s S ervic es, wit h the rig ht to pl ace the c hil dr e n f

or a do pti on a ndc on se nt t o s uc h a do pti on in loco par entis....-6-

Carey appea ls and raise s three issues a s stated in her brief:

1. Whether t h e trial court e rrone ously terminated the Appellant’s pare ntal rig hts based on “pe rsistence of conditions.”

2. Whether the trial c ou rt err oneously admitted evidenc e that
occur red a fter D .C.S. had filed the Petit i o n t o Terminate the Ap pe lla nt’ s Pa

re nta l Rig hts

. 3. Whether the trial c ourt err oneously held t h at i t was in D.C. and S.C. ’s be st i nte re st t o te rm inate the ir mothe r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

. Since this case w as tried by the court sitting without a jury , we revie w the trial court’s fac tual fi nd ing s de novo acc ompanied by a pre sumption of corre ctness unless th e pre pondera nce of the
e vid e nc e is o the rw ise . T e nn . R. App

. P . 13( d) ; Campb e ll v . Fl a. Ste e l Co rp ., 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn.1996) . The trial c ourt’s l ega l co n clusions are revie wed de novo with no presumption of
corr ectne ss. Campb e ll , 919 S.W .2d at 35. When the resolution of t he is sues i n a case de pends upon the t ru t h fulness of witnesse s, the trial judg e, who ha s the opportunity to observe the manner

and de me a no r o f the wi tne sses as th e y te sti fy , is in a

fa r b e tte r p os iti on than a n a pp e llate c ou rt

to determine cre dibilit y
. M

c C a l e b v . S a t u r

n Cor p ., 910 S. W.2 d 4 12 , 4 15 (T e nn .1 99 5) ; Whit aker v. Whit aker , 957 S.W .2d 834, 837 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). There fore , the weig ht, f aith, and cr edit to be g iven to any

witness’ testimony

will be g iven g rea t we i gh t by the appe llate court. In re Estat e of Wa lto n v . Young , 9 50 S .W. 2d95 6, 95 9 ( Te nn .1 99 7) ; Whit aker , 957 S.W .2d at 837.

Th e sta nd ard fo r the te rm inatio n of pa re nta l ri g hts is we ll se ttl e d. Th e Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou rt ha s r e c og nize d t he im po rt a nt n a tur e of c a se s in vo lvi ng the te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts , statin g t hat “[ f] ew co ns e qu e nc e s o f j ud ic ia l a c tio n a re so g ra ve a s th e se ve ranc e of natur a l f a mil y ties.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 5 1 9 U. S

. 1 0 2 , 1 1 9 (1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g Santosky v. Kram er , 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (R e hn qu is t , J. , d i s s e n t i n g ) )

. A c c o r d i n g l y , “ t h e i n t e r e s to f p ar e n t s i n t h e i r

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e ir children is suff

iciently fundame ntal to come within the finite cla ss of liberty interests protec ted by the Fourteenth Amendme nt.” Id . T he c on stitu ti ona l pr ote c tio ns of the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip require certai n s af

eguards befor e the r elationship can be sever ed. See O'Daniel v. Me ssier , 905 S.W .2d 182, 186 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995) ( rev' d on other g roun d s , In re: Swan son , 2 S.W .3d 180 (Tenn.1999) ).

As a saf eg uard, c ourts are require d to apply the heig htene d “c l ear

and convinc ing” 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 termination must be established by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. See Te nn .Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) (S up p. 20 03 ); State De p't of Hum an Serv s. v. De friece , 937 S.W .2d 954, 960 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). Although it doe s not require as much c erta inty as the “ bey ond
a re asonable doubt” standard, the “cle ar and convincing evidenc e” sta ndard is more exacting tha n t h e “p reponde ranc e of the evidenc e” sta ndard. O'Daniel v. Messier , 9 0 5 S. W. 2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 19 95 ); Bra ndo n v . W right , 838 S.W .2d 532, 536 (Tenn. Ct. App.1992). I n order to be clea r-7-

and convinc ing, e vidence must elimi nate a ny serious or substantial doubt about t he cor rec tness of the conc lusions to be draw n from the e vidence

. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. , 833 S.W .2d 896, 901
n. 3 ( Te nn .1 99 2) ; O'Daniel v. Messier , 905 S

. W

. 2 d at 1 88. Such evidenc e should produce in the fac t-finder ’s mind a firm belief or convic tion as t o the truth of the a lleg ations sought to be
es t ab l i s h ed. O'Daniel v. Messier , 9 05 S.W. 2da t 18 8; Wiltcher v. Bradley , 708 S.W .2d 407, 411 (Tenn

. Ct

. A p p

. 1 9 8 5 )

. I n c o n tr a s t to th e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e s tan d ar d , c le ar a nd convincing evidenc e should demonstrate that the truth of the fa cts asserted is “hig hly probable ” as opposed to mere ly

“more probable ” than not. Lettner v. Plum m er , 559 S.W .2d 785, 787 (T e nn .1 97 7) ; Go lds mith v . Ro be rts , 6 22 S.W. 2d43 8, 44 1 ( Te nn . Ct. A pp .1 98 1) ; Brandon v. Wri ght , 838 S.W .2d at 536.

As a thre shold matter, we w ill first address A p p ellant’s sec ond issue, conce rning the trial court’s a dmission of evidenc e surrounding Carey ’s arrest for the fourth DU I on October

21, 2003. Carey arg ues that this evidence should have been ex cluded since it arose afte r the Petition was filed on Sept em b er 29, 2003. It is well settled that the trial court is af forde d wide discre tion in the admission or rejec tion of evidenc e, and the trial court’ s action will be reve rsed on appea l only when there is a showing of an a

buse of discr etion. Otis v. Cam bridge Mut. F ire Ins. Co. , 850 S.W .2d 439 (Ten n .1992). The pa

ramount conc erns in a c hild custody case are the welf

are and best intere st of the c hil d. See Whitaker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W .2d 837, 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). I t is, therefor e, incumbent upon the court to admit all evidence that is rele vant to that inquiry . Be cause of the g rave and specia l nature of termination proce eding s, no relevant evidence should be excluded. Her e, the testimonyof Off

icer Bola n is releva nt as it goe s directly to the qu es t i o n o f Carey ’s continued drinking , w hic h is a t th e he art of thi s te rm inatio n p ro c e e din g . It is true that Ca re y is c on sti tut ion a lly
c loa ke d w ith a

pr e su mpt ion of

inn oc e nc e on thi s fou rth DU I c ha rg e un til su c h time a s th e ma tte r i s adjudicate d in the criminal court; however , when f aced with Carey ’s objection at the he aring , the trial court g ave the following explanation for allowing the evidenc e:

...I ’m go i n g to allow [Officer Bola n] t o testify

conce rning any persona l knowledg e he ha s of y our client [C are y ]. Aga in, we’r e not looking f or g uilt or innocence in the case , but he has a rig ht to tell the Court any information that he has c oncerning thing s that he may have
se e n y ou r c lie nt do inv olv ing [the ] te rm inatio n o f h e r p are nta l r ig hts to these childre n.
The trial court was corr ect in its assessment and, conseque ntly , did not abuse its discretion in allowing te stimonyconce rning the fourth DU I

.
Te rm inatio n o f P are nta l Rig hts

T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c)( Supp. 2003) governs termination of par ental rig hts and requir es that
su c h te rm inatio n b e ba se d u po n:-8- (1) A finding by the court by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the g rounds for te rmination [of] pare ntal or g uardia nship r ig h ts ha ve bee n established; and (2 ) T hat te rm inatio n o f the pa re nt' s o r g ua

rd ia n' s r ig hts is i n th e be st interest of the child.

The trial court terminated Carey ’s pare ntal rig hts on the g round of per sistence of conditions, which is c od if ie d at T .C. A. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A )( Sup p. 20 03 ):
(3)( A) The child has been remove d from the home of th e p ar en t or g ua rd ia n b y or de r o f a

c ou rt fo r a pe ri odof six ( 6) mon ths a nd : (i) The conditions which led t o the child's remova l or other c onditions which in all re asonable probabilitywould cause the child to be subjected to further a

buse or ne g lect and w hich, there fore , preve nt the
c hil d' s sa fe re turn to the c are of the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (ii) Ther e is littl e likelihood that these conditions w ill be reme died at
a n ea rl y date so that the c hil d c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d to the pa

re nt( s) or g uardia n(s) in the ne ar f uture; and (i ii) Th e c on tin uatio n of the pa re nt or g ua rd ia n a ndc hil d r e la tio ns hip g reatly diminis hes t he child's chance s of ea rly integ ration into a saf

e, stable and pe rmane nt home.

As noted above , the trial court based its decision to terminate Ca rey ’s par ental rig hts upon a finding that she continued to drink excessively and to make unwise choice s when she was under the influenc e. The rec ord indicate s that Carey has complete d two , twelve- wee k alcohol and dr ug treatment pr og rams. At the time of the hearing, Carey had found a job and had maintai n ed h er employ ment for over seven months. DCS’ witness, Corene G ossag e, Care y ’s neig hbor, testified that she had be en in C are y ’s hom e and that, to her knowle dg e, ther e wa s no alcohol pre sent. I n addition, Ms. Gossag e had attended neighbor hood parties where there was drinking and had not s een Ca rey t h e r e

. F u r t h e r m o r e , B e l i n d a D i c k i n s o n , a n e m p l o ye e o f C ar e y C o u n s e l i n g , t e s t i f i e d t h a tC ar e y, pursuant to the Perma nency Plans, had submitt ed to an alcohol and drug assessment. On Octobe r 17, 2003, Ms. Dickinson sent a letter to DCS, which reads, in re levant part, as follows:[ex 11]

Dea r Ms. Prather : The following report conce rns an Alc ohol and Drug Evaluation completed on Kar en Care y by the under signe d on October 17, 2003. This evaluation consisted of the administrat i o n of the Substance Abuse Scre ening I nventory , Ver sio n 3 (S ASSI -3). The time period
c ov e re d b y

thi s in ve nto ry

wa s f or the pa st s ix mon ths

.T

. C. A. §55- 10- 401, u n der w h i ch Car ey w as c h ar g ed, i n di ca t es t h at an i n t ox i ca n t may i n cl u de ei t h er a l coh ol 3

o r drug or bo t h.
-9-

The SASSI -3 is a self- report, stand ar d ized scree ning instrument des ig n e d to id e n ti f

y r e s p o n d e n ts w h o h a v e a h ig h p r o b ab il it yof having a Substance Depe ndence Disorder . The SASSI -3 i dentifies
re sp on de nts a s h avin g a

Sub sta nc e De pe nd e nc e Di so rd e r, e ve n if tho se re sp on de nts do no t op e nly a c kn ow le dg e a

pro ble m w ith
su bs ta nc e mis us e , or de lib e rate ly a tte mpt to c on c e a l su c h a pr ob le m. Resear ch has de monstrated the SASSI -3 cor rec tly identifies 93% of
re sp on de nts wh o do no t ha ve a Sub sta nc e De pe nd e nc e Di so rd e r. Ms. Carey ’s profile on the SASS I -3 indicate s a “ Low P r o b a bility of ha v ing a S ub sta nc e De

pe nd e nc e Di so rde r. ” However , Ms. Carey ’s de f e n s i v e n e s s sc or e i s re l at i v el y h i gh , i ti s n o ts i gn i fi ca n t l y h i gh enoug h to indicate denia l or an attempt to concea l a Substance Depe ndence Disorder

. Ac c or din g to M s. Care y , she d e nie s u se of a lc oh ol i n th e pa st s ix months. Due to the results of the SASSI -3, it is myrec ommendation t h a tM s

. C ar e y not

be re quired to participate in Alcohol/Drug treatment....

We conce de t hat Ms. Dickson’s opinion letter is not completely dispositi ve in that the SAS SI -3 a sse ssm e nt d oe s n ot a c c ou nt f or the fa c t tha t a per so n may abu se a lc oh ol fr om time to t ime without being de pendent upon it. Howe ver, it does c reate some doubt as to the corr ectne ss of the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion abo ut C are y ’s c on tin ue d r e la tio ns hip wi th a lc oh ol. The most troubling e vidence in this record is cle arly Carey ’s third conviction for DUI and her f ourth arr est for the same off ense. Conce rning the third DUI , Carey testified that s h e was not
u n d e r t h e i n f

l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l b u t , r a t h e r , h a d t ak e n p r e s c r i p t i o n m e d i c a t i o n f o r a l e g i n

j u r y. Although the trial court did not g ive cr edenc e to Care y ’s testimony , if the issue her e is her abuse of alcohol and she was not abusing alcohol b u t wa s under the inf luence of a pr escribed medication, then, apply ing the clea

r and convincing standard, that cre ates some que stion in t his Court’s mind as to whether

the t hird DUI

evince s a continued a

buse of alcohol

. There was a lso testimonythat the 3 childre n we re in the truck with Care y when she was c ited for this third DUI ; however , there is no ind ic a tio n in the re c or d th a t Ca re y wa s c ha rg e d w ith c hil d e nd a ng e rm e nt i n r e la tio n to thi s e ve nt. Concerning the arr est for the fourth DUI , Offic er Bola n testified that the vehic le Care y was o c c u p y i n g w a s e xp e r i e n c i n g e n g i n e tr o u b l e a n d w a s n o t a c t u a l l y m o v i n g a t t h e t i m e h e a n d his partne r stopped to of

fer an assist. He also testified that Carey failed three field sobriety tests, which
wer e videotape d. Offic er B olan testified that it wa s his pa rtner, Offic er F lowers, who c onduct the sobriety tests. O ffice r Flowe rs did not testify , nor was the videotape admitted into e vidence . Carey-10-

didno t su bmi t to a

bl oo d te st a nd , at th e tim e of the he ari ng , s he ha d n ot b e e n c on vic te d o f this offe nse.

Fr om all of the evide nce in this rec ord, it is c lear to us that Carey has been g uiltyat times of poor par enting and bad judg ment. We do n o t co ndone her conduct; howe ver, w e must follow the dictates of the leg islature in making our ruling in this ca se. There fore , we respe ctfully disag ree that there is clea

r and convincing evidenc e that g rounds exist for termination in thi s case under T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(3) (A).

Furthermore , at the time of the hearing, D.C. was twelve y ear s old and S.C. wa s eleve n y ear s old. As the trial court pointed out, they appea red to be“outg oing and very intelligent.” I n terms of what is in the best intere st of these c hildren, it is not clear f rom t h e ch i ldren’s ow n testimony , or from the r ecor d as a w h o l e, that termination of Carey ’s par ental rig hts is the best choice he re. Al tho ug h w e c on c e de that th e bo nd be tw e e n this mothe r an d he r ch ild re n is no t th e str on g e st, D. C. and S.C’s respe ctive testimony indicates that eac h is not completely at ease with the prospec t of not seeing their mother:

Q. Of c ou rs e , y ou [D. C.] mi g ht n ot g e t to se e y ou r m om a g a in u nti l 18 a ndy ou g e t ou t of

hig h s c ho ol. Do y ou un de rs ta ndthat?

A. Ye s. Q. Taking that all into consideration, would y ou like to keep visiting wi th y ou r m om?

A. I g ue ss.
S.C. te sti fi e d li ke wi se a s f oll ow s: Q. ...[S .C.] , do y ou under s t an d wh at I was telling y our sister about thi s mi g ht b e the la st t ime y ou g e t to se e y ou r m om?
A. Yes, sir.
Q

. T h e J u d g e i s s i t t i n g h e r e a n d h e ’ s g o i n g t o l i s t e n t o w h a tya ’ l l s a y. What are y ou telling the Judge to do? That y o u d o n ’t want to see y ou r mom a ny mor e or y ou ’d sti ll like to se e he r jus t eve n if it ha d to be at Mc Donald’s or

t h e p ark or something like tha t? What do y ou want to do?

A. I gu es s s o at t h e p ar k

o r s o m et h i n g.-11- Q. So y ou ’dlik e to ke e p the vis its g oin g ? Ma y be no t mov e in w ith he r b ut d o th e vis its ?

A. M ayb e v i s i to r s o m et h i n g.

I n addition to the children’s te stimony , the re cord supports the t rial court’s conclusion that Carey has made substantial ste ps in c omply ing with the Permane ncy Plans. Carey

has maintained
a job f or at least seven months. She pay s a substantial portion of her income in c hild support. She
e xer c ise s h e r v isi ta tio n rig hts wi th the c hil dr e n a ndof te n g ive s th e m mo ne y

a ndsma ll g if

ts at th e se visits. S he has be en able to procure more adequate housing a nd has attende d counseling . Fr om the testimonyof the DCS case worke r and f rom Care y ’s testimony

and her actions, i t i s appar ent that she ca res a bout these childre n. I n additio n, the childre n’s foster pare nt testified that she and he r husband have no prese nt intention to adopt D.C. and S.C. This testimony , coupled with the f act that D.C. and S.C. a

re now teena g ers, does not bode well for their chanc es of being adopted in the ne ar future.

For

the fore g oing r easons, we fin d that the evidenc e bef ore us doe s not assuag e this Court of it s dou bts abo ut the c or re c tne ss o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion that Ca re y c on tin ue s to abu se alcohol or that such abuse ma kes her an unfit mother to these children, e specia lly in l i gh t o f t he pr ogres s Car e y

ha s ma de a ndthe fa c t th a t th e re are no a do pti ve pa re nts wa iti ng in the wi ng s. Apply ing the clea

r and convincing standard, we re verse the Orde r of the trial court, terminating the p ar e n t a l r i g h t s o f

C ar e y. W e r e m a n d t h e c a s e f o r s u c h f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s a s m a y b e n e c e s s ar y, including det er m i n at i o n of visitation and custody . Costs of this appea l are assessed a g ainst the Ap pe lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA WF OR D, PRE S I DI NG J UDG E, W .S.