### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Jul y 8, 200 4 S es sio n IN R E: D NG, SD P, et u x, JA SP , v. R LG and KSR
Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 2219-70452 Hon. Betty Adam s Gr een, Judge

No. M2003- 02810-COA-R 3-P T – Filed Oct ober 13, 2004

The Trial Court termi n ated the mother ’s par ental rig hts to the four y ear old child. On appea l, we Af fi rm
.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nileCo ur t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.

Ke lli B arr Sum me rs , B re ntw oo d, Te nn e sse e , f or Ap pe lla nt.
Paul A . Ru the rf

or d, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or Ap pe lle e s.

OP IN ION

This is a p ar en t al termination ca se. The birth mother, KSR (“mother” ), is a drug addict who ha s been a user since the ag e of 14 or 15. She is prese ntly serving an 8 y ear

sentenc e for dealing in coca ine. The minor c hild DNG (“child”) is now four y ear s old. Petit ioners have been the foster pa rents and r ear ed the c hild from birth with the exception of an 8 mon t h p er i o d when the mother wa s on parole.

The mother w as first inca rce rate d for de aling in coca ine in Marc h of 1998. She was parole d in September 1999, then r einca rce rate d on J une 1, 2000 for using. Tw o months later, the c hil d wa s bo rn on Au g us t 7, 20 00

. Th e c hil d le ft the ho sp ita l wh e n tw o day s oldwi th the pe tit ion e rs ,-2-

who have been the foster pa rents eve r since.
Th e stand ardof

re vie w i n te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts cas e s is de novo upon the rec ord, with a pre sumption of corre ctness of the finding s of fa ct by the Trial Court. Tenn. Dept. Of Human Serv ices v . Riley , 689 S.W .2d 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). The iss ue to determine is whether the evidence made out a ca se of c lear and convinc ing e vidence in favor of terminating pare ntal rig hts. See, In re Drinnon , 776 S.W .2d 96, 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). T he cle ar and convincing evidenc e standa

rd i s something more t han a pr eponder ance of the e vidence , but less than bey ond a rea sonable doubt standar d. O’ Da nie l v . M e ssi e r, 90 5 S. W.2 d 1 82 , 1 88 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 5) . T his he ig hte ne d sta nd ard of pr oo f i s d e sig ne d to pr e ve nt the un wa rr a nte d te rm inatio n o r i nte rf e re nc e wi th the biologic al par ents’ rig ht to their children. In re M.W .A., 908 S.W .2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Parents have a fundamental rig ht to the car e, custody and co n t rol of their c hildren. Sta nle y v . I lli no is , 405 U.S. 645 (19 7 2 ). This rig ht is not absolute, and pare ntal rig hts may be terminated if the court finds by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that (1) g rounds exist for termination a s d e te rm ine d u nd e r the statut e , a nd(2 ) i t is in the be st int e re sts of the c hil d to t e rm inate the pa re ntchild relationship. Santosky v . Kramer , 4 55 U. S. 7 45 (1 98 2) ; O’ Da nie l v . M e ssi e r. After trial, the Trial Court ruled that the bi rth mother had wilfully g iven up a se cond opportunity

to rea r her child by violating he r par ole, there by exhibi ting wanton disreg ard f or the child’s welf

are , as def

ined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102( 1)(A) (iv). The Court further found the c hil d’ s g rand mothe r c ou ld h a ve a ssu me d c are fo r the c hil d, bu t ha d s ho wn lit tle inv olv e me nt u nti l the Petition was filed. The Court c oncluded the c hild had thrived i n the continuity and stability

of the petitioners’ car e, and that removing the child from pe titioners’ home would be de trimental to the c hil d’ s b e st i nte re st.

The g roun d s for termination of pare ntal rig hts are se t forth in Tenn. Code Ann. §36- 1- 113(g ). The f

ollowing a

re pe rtinent to this case: (g ) initiation of termination of pare ntal or g uardia nship rights may be base d upon a ny of the fo llo wi ng g ro un ds : (1) Abandonment by t h e p arent or g uardia n, as def ined in § 36-1-102, ha s occur red;

. . . (3)( A) The child has been remove d from the home of the pare nt or g uardia n by

order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (I ) The conditions w hich led to the child’s remova l or other conditions which in all rea sonable proba

bilitywould cause the child to be subj ecte d to further-3- abuse or neg lect and w hich, there fore , p revent the child’s saf e 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 ; (i i) Th e re is l itt le lik e lih oo d th a t th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that th e c hil d c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d to the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) in the nea r future ; and (i ii) Th e c on tin uatio n o f the pa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n an d c hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the child’s chanc es of early integ ration into a safe , s t ab l e a nd perma nent home.
A termination of rig hts ba sed upon proof by clea r and convincing evidenc e of any one o f t he statutory

fac tors will be aff

irmed on appe al. In re C.W .W ., 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 7 3 ( T e n n. Ct. App. 2000).
The Trial Court found that the mother’s conduct constituted a wa nton disreg ard f or the child’s we lfare , which is dee med aba ndonment for pur poses of the f

oster ca re s t at u t e, an d the termination of par ental rig hts. See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-102(1) (A)( iv).

Our c ourts have c onsistentlyheld that an incarc erated parent who has multiple drug offen s es an d wa s t es t h e o p p o rt u n i t y t o re h ab i l i t at e t h em s el v es b y co n t i n u i n g t o ab u s e drug s, resulting i n revocation of their pa role a nd reinc arc eration, constitut es abandonment of the c hild, and demonstrates a

wanton disreg ard f

or the we lfare of t h e ch i l d

. In re C.W .W . , 37 S.W .3d 467, 473 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; State v. J.S., e t al., 2001 Tenn. App. L ex is 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); G.M.C. et al v. A.V.I

., 20 00 WL

11 95 68 6 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; State v. D.G.S.L., 2001 Tenn. App. L e xis 94 1 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 1) ; State v. Grant , 2002 Tenn. App. L exis 158 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Dept. Of Children’s Serv . V. W iley , 1999 WL

1068726 at *7 (Te nn. Ct. App. 1999). Cf. In re C.T.S. , 2004 WL 1838441 (Tenn. Ct. App., Aug . 16, 2004); (the Court found the fa ct t h at the mother inge sted cra ck coc aine during pr eg nancy was c onduct t hat i tself established a wanton disreg ard f or the welf are of the c hild.)
I n th is c a s e th e mo th e r h a d th e b e n e f it o f n u me r o u s tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a ms and interventions, a home to live in, the s upport of her mother and brother, employ ment, parole , a new boy friend, and some limit ed conta ct with her olde r daug hter. De spite all of t hese opportunities, she re turne d to he r o ld l if

e style . Sh e fr e e ly

a dmi tte d inop e n c ou rt

that it wo uldbe a

lie to s a y sh e wo uld ne ve r u se a g a in, a nd sh e c ou ld g ive no pr omi se s. She c on c e de d th a t if sh e do e s r e laps e , it

is n ot i n t h e c h i l d ’s b es ti n t er es tt o b e w i t h h er
. He r d ef en s e w as t h ats h e w as n o w d ea l i n g wi t h t h i n gs “diffe rently ”. In pare ntal rig hts matters, the court does not look to the protestations of a ffe ctions and expressed intentions of the par ent, bu t ra t h er t h e par ent’s cour se of c onduct. Koi v u v . I rwi n , 721 S.W. 2d80 3 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 6) ; Fanche r v. Mann , 432 S.W .2d 63, 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

Th e mothe r’ s b e ha vio r h a s se ve re ly dim ini sh e d, if no t nu lli fi e d, he r a bil ity to discharg e her

proper role a s a par ent. The recor d establishes t hat she used c rac k cocaine during her-4-

preg nancy , and by

her ow n admissio n there is no gua rante e that further re habilitation will be any more succ essful than he r past treat m en t prog rams. Considering the environme nt of addiction, re laps e , a ndov eral l irr e sp on sib ili ty a nddis re g ardfo r the c hil d’ s w e lf are , th e Tria l Co urt pr op e rl y found by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the mother ’s par ental righ t s should be terminated pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( g )(3) (A).

The final issue is w hether termination is in the best interest of the ch i l d

. A nonexhaustive list of the fa ctors to be we ighed i n this determination are set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( I ). A minimum of seven of these fa ctors are dire ctly

implicated in this case. F inding that termination of pare ntal rig hts is in the best interest of the child has bee n justified with as few a s four of the c riteria se t forth. See G .M.C. et al v. A.V.I

. , 2000 WL

1195686 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Expe c tin g a

y ou ng c hil d to wait y e ars on inc arc e rate d p are nts to r e me dy the ir problems i s neither r easona ble nor in the be st interests of the c hild. In re Shipley , 1997 WL 596281 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 7) ; State v. T.K., 2002 WL 1115730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Counsel arg ues that the mother’s e fforts to ge t into treatment and the rea liz ation of her need de scribes a

loving a nd caring mother. Howe ver, the evidenc e is the child has ne ver e stablished a mea ningf ul relationship with the birth mother or the gr andmother. Petitioners ha ve bee n the child’s par ents in rea lityfrom birth, and t h e chil d has known no other family . Moreove r, stability is important to a child’s well-be ing. Con tre ra s v . W

ar d , 8 31 S.W. 2d28 8, 29 0 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 1) . Wh e n p la c ing c hil dr e n, the re is a pre fer ence to return them to their pa rents or pla ce them with r elatives over perma nent place ment thr ou g h a do pti on . T e nn . Co de . A nn . § 37 -2 -4 03 (1 99 3) ; Sta te De pt. Of Hu ma n Se rv . V. S

mi th , 785 S.W .2d 336, 338 (Tenn. 1990)

. Neve rtheless, the best interest of the child rema ins the paramount and utm ost consideration; it is the pol estar, the alpha a nd omeg a in the court’s determination. Ar no ld v . A rn old , 7 74 S.W. 2d61 3, 62 1 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 9) . T he g rand mothe r ha s sh ow n o nly the ba re st interest in the child and of fer ed no conc rete plan for r earing the child. The e vidence in the rec ord ind ic a te s th a t th e g rand mothe r’ s in vo lve me nt with th e g rand c hil d h a s b e e n mi nim a l a t be st. Moreove r, the g randmother did not demonstrate that it would be in the child’s best intere st to place the child with the g randmother . The proof establishes that the child has flourished as a part of the petitioners’ family , and thrives unde r their c are . The evidenc e is c lear and convincing that it is i n the best interest of the child that pare ntal rig hts be terminated.

Th e c os t of

the app e a l is a sse sse d to the de fe nd a nt, KSR

.

_________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.-5-