-1-

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

May 31, 2018 Session

IN RE C.T. ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County

No. 3477 John D. McAfee, Judge

No. E2017-02148-COA-R3-JV

J.S. (father) appeals the trial court’s adjudication that his children C.T. and L.T. were 

dependent and neglected and severely abused in the care of father and A.T. (mother). 

Mother, who did not appeal, testified, among other things, that father bought her illegal 

drugs while she was pregnant, and that she and father abused drugs and alcohol during 

her pregnancy. Father denied mother’s allegations. The twin children were born 

prematurely and tested positive for opana, an opioid, and oxycodone. The trial court 

expressly credited mother’s testimony and discredited father’s. On appeal, father bases 

his assertion of error solely on his argument that the trial court incorrectly assessed the 

credibility of the witnesses, and that the trial court should have believed him instead of 

mother. We affirm. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed; Case Remanded

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL 

SWINEY, C.J., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., joined.

Brandon T. Kibert, Tazewell, Tennessee, for the appellant, J.S.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, and W. Derek Green, Assistant 

Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of 

Chidren’s Services.

09/26/2018
-2-

OPINION

I.

Mother discovered that she was pregnant in January of 2016. At the time of her 

discovery, she was living with father and not with her husband. DNA testing later 

confirmed that he is the biological father of the children. Father testified that he also 

learned of the pregnancy in January 2016. Mother admitted that she was addicted to 

opioid pain medication and alcohol, and had been for years. She abused these substances 

over the course of her pregnancy. At the dependency and neglect and severe child abuse 

hearing, mother testified that she and father abused drugs and alcohol together numerous 

times while she was pregnant. She said that father provided her illegal drugs during that 

time. On one occasion, father purposefully drove the vehicle she was riding in into a 

ditch after he had consumed around twelve beers. Mother testified he did that “trying to 

scare me.” 

The children were born prematurely on August 1, 2016. They spent their first 23 

days in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit. As noted, they tested positive for 

opana and oxycodone shortly after birth. 

On January 19, 2017, Department of Children’s Services petitioned the Union 

County Juvenile Court to declare the children dependent and neglected and victims of 

severe abuse by mother and father. After a hearing at which both parents testified, the 

juvenile court granted the petition. At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court 

specifically found mother’s testimony to be credible and true. Father appealed the 

decision to the trial court. Mother did not. At the trial court hearing, mother did not 

dispute that the children were dependent and neglected, and had been severely abused in 

her care by her drug use during pregnancy. 

After hearing both parents’ testimony, the trial court entered an order finding, in 

pertinent part, as follows:

The Court finds the mother’s testimony to be more credible to 

the father, and the Court gives more weight to the mother’s 

testimony tha[n] the father’s testimony, and the Court finds 

the mother’s version of events [is] true, and not the father’s

version of events.

* * *
-3-

The parents both abused drugs together on multiple occasions 

while the mother was pregnant with the children, knowing the 

mother was pregnant, and knowing that the prenatal drug 

abuse was likely to cause a serious bodily injury to the child.

* * *

The mother testified in March of 2016 the parents snorted 

20mg o[f] Opana together.

Later, the parents bought two pills in Clinton and crushed 

them and cooked them. They both injected them 

intravenously.

Later, the parents took Hydrocodone by mouth. They broke 

them into two pieces and shared them.

Later, about a month prior to the children’s birth, the father 

took the mother to a drug dealer. They picked the dealer up 

and drove him to another dealer and purchased a 40mg 

Opana. They dropped the first dealer back off and went back 

to the mother’s house and crushed and snorted the pill 

together.

The parents both testified they drank alcohol together on 

multiple occasions during the pregnancy.

The mother testified that on one occasion during the 

pregnancy, the father drank about a twelve pack of Natural 

Ice beer, and then drove with her in the car with him.

The father testified that, during the pregnancy, he witnessed 

the mother impaired on drugs on a regular basis. He testified 

that she would be so impaired on a regular basis that she was 

“slumped over” and having trouble holding her head up.

Based on these findings, the trial court concluded,
-4-

There is clear and convincing evidence that the children were 

dependent and neglected by the father, under TCA 37-1-

102(b)(13)(G), and that the children are victims of severe 

abuse by the father, under TCA 37-1-102(b)(22)(A), based on 

the father obtaining drugs for the mother without prescription 

during her pregnancy with the children; the father abusing

drugs without prescription with the mother during pregnancy; 

and the father knowing that such conduct was likely to cause 

serious bodily injury to the children.

Father timely filed a notice of appeal. 

II.

Father raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in determining that DCS 

proved by clear and convincing evidence that the children were dependent and neglected, 

and severely abused, under father’s care. 

III.

We review de novo the trial court’s findings of fact in the record with a 

presumption of correctness, and we will not overturn those factual findings unless the 

evidence preponderates against them. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Armbrister v. Armbrister, 

414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review a trial court’s conclusions of law under a 

de novo standard with no presumption of correctness attaching to the trial court’s legal 

conclusions. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996); Union 

Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993).

As we recently observed in In re A.L.H., No. M2016-01574-COA-R3-CV, 2017 

WL 3822901, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Aug. 31, 2017),

Severe child abuse in a dependency and neglect proceeding 

must . . . be established by clear and convincing evidence. 

Evidence satisfying the clear and convincing evidence 

standard establishes that the truth of the facts asserted is 

highly probable and eliminates any serious or substantial 

doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the 

evidence. The evidence should produce a firm belief of 

conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be 

established. In contrast to the preponderance of the evidence 

standard, clear and convincing evidence should demonstrate 
-5-

that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable as 

opposed to merely more probable than not.

(Quoting In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576, 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

IV.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102(b)(22) defines “severe child abuse” to include the 

following:

(A)(i) The knowing exposure of a child to or the knowing 

failure to protect a child from abuse or neglect that is likely to 

cause serious bodily injury or death and the knowing use of 

force on a child that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or 

death[.]

In this appeal, father does not argue that the trial court’s findings, if upheld, would not 

establish severe child abuse under the statute. His position is based solely on the 

argument that the trial court’s assessment of credibility between him and mother was 

erroneous. 

As father correctly states in his brief, mother testified that he “supplied her with 

drugs while she was pregnant, abused drugs with her while she was pregnant, and 

supplied her with alcoholic beverages while she was pregnant.” Mother’s testimony can 

be generally summarized by the following question by the trial court, and her answer:

THE COURT: And, I take it, from your testimony, that the 

moment that you discovered that you’re pregnant, leading up 

to the pregnancy, it became a known thing that you all would 

use drugs together, [father] knew you were addicted and that 

you all continuously used drugs, prescription medications, 

that you bought from drug dealers or that he would buy from 

drug dealers throughout your pregnancy; is that correct?

Mother: Yeah.

Mother also described an incident when father was driving with her as a passenger, 

testifying as follows:
-6-

THE COURT: So it’s your testimony that shortly after that 

first initial euphoria, after that [father] could care less whether 

you were pregnant or not, is that what you’re saying?

Mother: Yeah.

THE COURT: And you say that because he showed no 

interest?

Mother: Well, because he would be drinking and talked to me 

like crap and ‒ well, we both would be drinking actually and

he would be driving us to the store or whatever and he would 

get mad about something and drive his car off in the ditch to 

try to scare me, just put me out of the car.

* * *

Q. You testified earlier about him drinking and driving and 

driving the car off into a ditch to try to scare you?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did that happen during the pregnancy?

A. I was pregnant, yes.

Q. Were you all intoxicated during that time?

A. We were drinking, yeah.

Q. How much did you drink?

A. I had had just a few beers.

Q. How much did he drink?

A. About a 12-pack I would say.
-7-

Q. You saw him, witnessed him drink about a 12-pack of 

beer?

A. Yeah.

Q. And then drive the car with you in it?

A. Yeah.

Q. While you’re pregnant?

A. Yeah.

Q. Then an argument ensued, I assume, between the two of 

you?

A. A little bit.

Q. Your testimony was that he drove the car off into a ditch to 

try to scare you?

A. Yeah.

Mother stated that father had abused methamphetamines for around “fifteen years or so.”

Father denied supplying drugs to mother or abusing them with her during the 

pregnancy, except admitting that they drank alcoholic beverages on occasion. He 

testified that he had been in the Army briefly, and was discharged due to testing positive 

for cocaine and incurring a foot injury. Father denied abusing alcohol or drugs at the 

time of the hearing, but also said that his “drug of choice” was “methamphetamine.” 

As already stated, father’s appeal is based on his argument that the trial court erred 

in finding mother’s testimony to be more credible than his, and concluding that “mother’s 

version of events [is] true, and not the father’s version of events.” Father characterizes 

mother’s testimony as “bizarre,” “contradictory,” and “illogical.” As Tennessee appellate 

courts have stated myriad times, “[q]uestions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight 

and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters 

entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” State v. Stanfield, No. W2015-02503-SCR11-CD, 2018 WL 3762174, at *4 (Tenn., filed Aug. 7, 2018) (quoting State v. Hawkins, 

519 S.W.3d 1, 32 (Tenn. 2017)). “The trial court’s determinations regarding witness 

credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear 
-8-

and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Gibson v. Bikas, No. E2017-00883-COA-R3-

CV, 2018 WL 1124507, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Feb. 28, 2018). The reasons for this 

guiding principle are equally well-established. The trial court is able to perceive and 

assess the facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice of the witness, in addition 

to the words spoken. By stark contrast, the appellate court is presented with printed 

words on a page. Consequently, “[w]e defer to the trial court’s determinations of witness 

credibility because the trial judge could observe the witnesses’ demeanor and hear incourt testimony.” Coleman v. Olson, 551 S.W.3d 686, 694 (Tenn. 2018). 

Father’s argument that mother’s testimony was “illogical” is illustrated by this 

question, asked in his brief: “why would [father] give [mother] money to purchase drugs, 

abuse the drugs with her, and later get mad at her for abusing drugs?” The fact that 

mother testified that father behaved in an irrational way does not necessarily render her 

testimony irrational. The trial court clearly did not determine it to be such. There is no 

clear and convincing evidence in the record contrary to the trial court’s assessment of 

credibility. 

V.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are assessed to the 

appellant, J.S. The case is remanded to the trial court for collection of costs assessed 

below and enforcement of the trial court’s judgment. 

_______________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE