T h e p a re n ta l rig h ts o f th e p u ta tiv e , k n o w n , a n d u n k n o w n fa th e rs o f th e se c h ild re n w e re a lso ter m in a te d in 1

t he cour t ’ s fi nal or der

. H ow eve r , M ot her i s t he s ol e A ppel l ant he r ei n.



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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 31 , 200 9
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. DEDRUS PETERSO N, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. R5363/I5733 Herber t J. Lane, Judge

No. W2009-00281-C OA-R3-P T - Filed Augu st 27, 2009

This is a terminati o n o f par ental rig hts case. Mothe r appe als the trial cour t's te rmination of her pare nt al ri g hts on gr ounds of per sistence of conditions, abandonment by willful failure to visit or support, failure to substantially comply with the perma nency plans, and mental i n competence. Finding that the g rounds for te rmination of Mothers' s pare ntal rig hts are e stab l i s h ed b y clea r and convincingevidenc e in t he record, and t hat t ermination i s in the best intere sts of the minor children,
we a ffirm.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Af firme d

J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., joined.

Shantell S. S uttle, Cordova, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Dedrus Peter son.
Rob e rt E. Co op e r, Jr ., At torne y G e ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, a ndMic ha e l E . M oo re , So lic ito r G e ne ra l, Amy T. McConnell, Assistant Attorney Ge nera l, Nashville, Tenne s s ee , for Appe llee, State of Te nn e sse e , D e pa

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

OP IN ION Appellant D.P. (“Mother ”) appea ls the t rial court’s termination of her pare ntal rig hts to her si x chi ld ren, C. J .T . (D .O. B. 1/ 9/ 91 ), Q .P . (D .O. B. 2/ 15 /9 4), A.P . (D .O. B. 7/ 15 /9 6), J .S .P . (D .O. B. 9/28/97), D.A.P. (D.O.B

. 1 1 / 2 2/2000), and M.C.S.P. (D.O.B. 12/15/2003). The Te nnessee 1 De pa rtme nt o f C hi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ DC S,” or “ Ap pe lle e ” ) f

ir st b e c a me inv olv e d w ithMo the r i nM o th e r’ s re q u ire m e n ts w e re th e sa m e in e a c h o f t h e c h ild re n ’s p la n s. A n y re q u ire m e n ts th a t a re u n iq u e to 2

a s pec i f i c chi l d w i l l be not ed t hr oughout ; ot her w i s e, t he r equi r em ent i s a ppl i ca bl e t o a l l of t he chi l dr en. -2- J une 1997, when her c hildren we re taken into DCS custody . Custody was re stored to Mother on April 20, 2000.

On May 2, 20 05 , DC S a g a in pe tit ion e d the c ourt fo r a fi nd ingof

de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t w ith a prote ctive custody

order being enter ed on May 2, 2005. I n its protec tive custody order , the cour t found that Mother ha d been a rre sted on April 29, 2005, on robbe ry char g es. Acc ording to the order , the arr e sti ngof

fi c e rs repo rt ed tha t th e y

we re re sp on din g to a

wa rr ant t hat ha d b e e n is su e d a g a ins t Mother’s boy friend, who was on the Memphis Most W anted list. They discovere d Mother and he r boy friend in a

hotel room, nake d, and surrounded by drug s and weapons. The children, who we re also in the room, wer e filt hy , with the y oung est child cover ed in dried fece s. When she wa s arr ested, Mother wa s preg nant with her seventh child. A hearing on the depe ndency and neg lect petition was held and the c hildren we re f ound to be depe ndent and negl ec t ed o n J une 30, 2005. The children
wer e plac ed with a f

oster fa mily

. When the children c ame into custody , they had phy sical sca

rs and suffe red nig htmares. The y would self-mutilate, hoa

rd food, dr ink out of the toilet, w et the bed, a nd g et into fig hts at school. The foste r mother testified that M.C.S .P. had burns on her body when she first came in to th e f

o s te r h o me

. T h is a ll e g a ti o n is c o r r o b o r a te d b y a c o u n s e lo r f r o m th e foster ag ency , Camelot Care Cente r.
On J une 16, 2005, DCS devised the first set of pe rmane ncy plans for the children. The g oal
wa s reunifi c a tio n w ithMo the r b y June 16 , 2 00 6. To a c hie ve thi s g oa l, M oth e r w a s r e qu ir e d to submit t o a mental he alth assessment, a dr u g an d al co h ol assessment, and to follow the
rec ommendations of both. She was to maintain a safe and stable hom e, with no health hazar ds, and
wa s to sh ow pr oo f of e mpl oy me nt an d ste a dy inc ome . I n a dd iti on , M oth e r w a s a sk e d to ma int a in a bond with the childre n, by adher ing to the visitation schedule , and by d em onstrating pare nting sk ill s d ur inghe r v isi ts s o a s to me e t th e ph y sic a l and e mot ion a l ne e ds of

the c hil dr e n. She wa s a lso require d to attend par enting classes a nd counseling

. The re cord indicates that Mother attended the

2 plans’ staff

ing, a nd signe d the plans, which w ere approve d by the trial cour

t on Aug ust 9, 2005.

Acc ording to the rec ord, DCS ref err ed Mother to pa

rentingclasses at the Ex chang e Club, and to Midtown Mental Hea lth for a mental health assessment. On September 21, 2005, Mother’s
ca s e m an age r a t t em p t edt o t ra n s p o rt M o t h er t o t h e as s es s m en t , b u t s h e re fu s ed t o go

. At t h e h ea ri n g, Mother testified that she p ar t i cipated in the assessment at Midtown Mental He alth in November 20 05 ; ho we ve r, sh e did

no t pr ov ide c op ie s o f t

he re su lts of

that ass e ssm e nt, no r d id s he sig n a re le a se so that DCS could obtain the results. Mother did complete the pa rentingclasses in Nove mber 2005. Ar ound that ti me , D CS a lso a ssi ste d M oth e r i n o bta ini nga ho us e and

fu rn ish ing s.
On Dec ember

27, 2005, the per

manenc y plans wer e re vised; howeve r, the g oal and
a c hie ve me nt d a te re ma ine d unc ha ng e d. Th e re vis e d pla

ns re qu ir e d Mo the r to a tte nd a me e tin g wi th F ra y se r F a mily

Couns e lin g to l e arn

a bo ut t re a tme nt f

or C.J.T .’ s A DH D ( a

re qu ir e me nt u

niq ue to C.J .T.’s plan). Mothe r wa s require d to maintain her housing , and to attend th e ch i l d ren’s school-3-

meeting s. Mother wa s also require d to attend mental hea lth counseling in o rd er t o s u b mit to a
me nta l he a lthe va luatio n a nd to f oll owthe re c omm e nd a tio ns the re of . M oth e r s ig ne d th e se pla ns , which we re a

pproved by

the trial cour

t on J anuar

y 1, 2006. On September 18, 2006, the permanenc y plans wer e re vised for a third time. The plans had dual g oals of re unification and a doption, with an achie vement date of October 31, 2007. Mot her w as require d to maintain safe, sta b l e, an d adequa te housing , to participate in school meeting s and de c isi on s r e g ard ingth e chi ldr e n’ s h e a lthand to p ro vid e pr oo f o f f

ina nc ia l st a bil ity . Sh e wa s a lso require d to complete a me ntal health eva luation, and to follow its re commendations. Mother wa s also expected to re solve her le g al issues, and to conduc t herself appropr iately ar o u n d the childre n and their f

oster par ents. Mother a g ree d to the plans, which we re a pproved b y

the trial cour

t on November 7, 2006. I n approving these plans, the J uvenile Court note d that DCS had been making
rea sonable e ffor

ts to reunite Mother with the c hildren, by providing furnishings fo r h er home , helping her to obtain a

mental hea lth assessm en t , an d p rovi ding he r with pare nting c lasses. The
co u rt fu rt h er

fo u n d t h at M o t h er

h a d c o m p l e t edt h e p l an s ’ r eq u i re m en t s t h at s h e o b t ai nh o u s i n g, a tte nd pa re nti ngc la sse s, and pa

rt ic ipate in a

me nta l he a lthe va luatio n. Th e re c or d in dic a te s th a t, i n October 2006, Mother wa s evaluated at L eB onheur Cente r for Children and Pare nts (“CCP”). Dr. Sonny Gentry , who testified as an expert in c linical psy cholog y at the hear ing, perf ormed the 2006 evaluation of Mother. Dr. G entry had also pe rfor

med a pr evi o u s ev al uation in 1997. The ea rlier evaluation wa s perf

ormed due to “ the sever e phy sical abuse of the two older children.” Dr. Ge ntry testified that he ha d observe d a dete rioration in Mothe r’s pare nting skills from 1997 to 2006. T he C C P fu rt h er o b serve d that Mother had poor judgme nt and “no insig ht that any of her pare nting be havio r w a s [in ]suf

fi c ie nt. ” F ur

the rm or e , th e 19 97 CCP a sse ssm e nt te ste d he r I Q at 74 , w hic h is in t he bo rd e rl ine ra

ng e of int e lle c tua l f

un c tio nin g , a

nd “ on ly fo ur po ints abo ve mi ldl y

me nta lly
re tard e d. ” Th e I Q t e st w a s n ot r e pe a te d d ur ingthe 20 06 e va luatio n b e c a us e “ int ell igenc e is considere d a stable tra it, and from obser vati o n s o b t ai n ed in this psy cholog y , it is t houg ht that the assessment re sults remain ac curate.” It was t h i s low intellectual func tioning combined w ith the ps y c ho log ic a l di a g no sis of a pe rs on a lity

dis or de r, and

the de nia l of po or

pa re nti ngsk ill s th a t le d CC P t o o p i n e t h a tM o t h e r

h a s a h i g h p r o b a

b i l i t y o f a b u s i n g o r n e g l e c t i n g t h e c h i l d

r e na g a i n

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Dr. Ge ntry

testified that Mother’ s “prog nosis for future improvement wa s very p o or [and] we
rec ommended that her

pare ntal rig hts be terminated.” Ba sed upon this analy sis, Dr. Gentry testified that, due to her

poor insight a

nd judgme nt, he did not believe tha t DC S co u l d o ffe r Mother a ny service s that would reme dy her pare nting inadequa cies. Dr. Gentry also noted that Mother w as

“ surl y and ang ry and de fe ns ive ,” and

that, “ [g ]ive n h e r p a tte rn

of fu nc tio nin g fo r m or e tha

n 1 0 y e ars , Ithi nk he r p ro g no sis is v ir

tua lly zer o, ” and

that sh e is un li ke ly

to c ha ng e in t he ne ar f utu re . CC P was ultimately

unable to complete a full psy chologi ca l assessment because Mother wa s uncooper ative. DCS case m anag er, D ee K ang al, testified that CCP could have per formed the
re qu ir e d d

ru g and a lc oh ol a sse ssm e nt, bu t th a t Mo the r d id n ot s ub mit to t he se se rv ic e s.
The 2006 CCS assessment also included psy chiatric evaluations of the five oldest childre n. Th e re po rt

ind ic a te s th a t, whe n th e y e nte re d f

os te r c are , “ a ll fi ve of

tho se c hil dr e n h a d p re tty signific ant behavior

and emotional proble ms. They rea lly are specia l needs c hildren.” The repor t g oes on to specif

y that the childre n “we re a g g ressive, a cting out, stealing things, takingtheir clothes-4-

off, pr etty serious beha

viors.” The children g ave CCP “multiple reports of phy sical abuse , emotional
a bu se

.. .[and ] [m]ulti ple re po rt s o f t he ir Mo the r n ot p rot ect ing the m f ro m he r b oy fr ie nd s, wh o d id terrible thing s to them.” One of the childre n repor

ted to the foster mother that Mother’s boy friend had put him in the oven and in the trunk of a ca r. Dr. Gentry

testified that a c hang e in ca retakers [i .e., re moval from the f

oster fa mily ] would be “emotionally dramatic for these kids.”

When M.C.S .P. entere d DCS custody , she wa s diag nosed with f ailure to thrive. I

n 2006, at 16 mon ths old , he r CCP eva luatio n re ve a le d that she wa s st ill ma lno ur ish e d a nd wa s una ble to h old h e r h e a d u

p r i g h t

. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , s h e w a s s t i l l u n d e r w e i g h t

. J. S

. P

. w a s d ia g no se d w ith AD HD and

ne e de d co un se lin g and

me dic a tio n. I n 2 00 8, sh e wa s p la c e d in a sp e c ia l e du c a tio n c la ss that pr ov ide d tutor ingin a n e ff or t to re a dy he r fo r the c or

re c t g ra de le ve l a t sc ho ol. Whe n s he fi rs t
c a me int o th e fo ste r h ome , J.S. P. d isp lay e d o ve rt se xual beh avior

wh e n p layingwi th h e r d oll s. L ikewise, C.J .T. was diagn o s edwi t h “u n ru l y b eh av i o r” an d

wa s p re s cr i b edp s y ch o t ro p i c m ed i cation. At the time of the trial, Q.P. wa s no longe r living in the f oster home. I n Au gu s t 2 0 08, he wa s deeme d a dang er to other

children. After stabbing a child at sc hool and sexually molesting a

foury e ar- old bo y , h e wa s mo ve d f

ro m th e fo ste r h ome int o a “ L e ve l 3 ” pla c e me nt.

Th e fo ste r m oth e r t e sti fi e d th a t, o nc e in h e r care, t he c hil dr e n r e c e ive d c ouns e lin g a t th e ir schools. They

attended summer

camps a nd participated in the Big Br others and BigSist ers Club. T h e c h i l dre nal s o at t en d

i n d i v i d u al i z ededu ca t i o n al p ro gra m s , an d re ce i v edaf

t er -s ch o o l tu t o ri n g. The re cord indicates that, since enter ing DCS’s custody , the childre n’s social skills have improved, they have be en better

behave d g ener ally , and especially in school. The foster

mother testified that she hopes to adopt a ll six children.

The re cord indicates that visits between Mother and the c hildren we re c onsist en t until the
summe r o f 2 00 6. Th e c hil dr e n’ s f os te r M oth e r h a d b e e n tr ans po rt ingthe c hil dr e n to we e ke nd vis its at their g randmother ’s home whe re, Mother testified, she wa s also prese nt. Howeve r, in July 2006, the Juve nil e Court

te rm inate d v isi tatio n w iththe g ra ndmot he r a ft e r le arn ingtha

t th e c hil dr e n s ho uld not be e xp o s e d to th e g r an dmo th e r ’ s h u s b an d , an a ll e g e d s e xu a l p r e d a to r

. T h e la s t v is it between Mother and the children w as Jul y 7, 2006. Mother testified that, onc e the c hildren we re ke pt from the g randmother ’s house, she was no longe r able to visit with the m. Howeve r, Ms. Kang al testified that she off

ere d to arra

ng e a visit on J uly

20, 2006, but that Mothe r indicated that she did not want to s e e the c hil dr e n if

the ir fo ste r m oth e r w a s p re se nt.

On Ap ri l 24 , 20 07 , and in an a me ndme nt fi le d Se pte mbe r 30 , 2 00 7 to a dd Q. P. a nd A. P. t o the petition, DCS petit ioned t he court to terminate Mother’s parental rig hts. As gr ounds, the petition alleg es that Mother is me ntally incompetent to c are for he r childre n; that she has aba ndoned them by willful failure to visit or support, and by failing to establish a suitable home; that she ha s failed to s ub sta nti a lly c omp ly wi th t he pe rm ane nc y

pla ns , d e sp ite re a so na

ble e ff or ts o n th e pa

rt of DC S; and that she has failed to reme dy persistent conditi ons, which pre vent the saf e re turn of the c hildren. DCS further a sserts that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children.-5-

Th e ne xt pe rm ane nc y

pla n s ta ff ingwa s h e ld o n M ay 7, 20 07 . T he g oa l w a s c ha ng e d to
a do pti on , b ut t

he a c hie ve me nt date re ma ine d Oc tob e r 31 , 20 07

. Ag a in, the pla ns re qu ir e Mo the r t o ma int a in s ta

ble , s a fe , a

nd a de qu a te ho us ing , to ma int a in t he fu rn ish ing s and a

pp lia nc e s p ro vid e d to her by DCS, to participate in t he children’s school meeting s, and health appointments, and to provide pr oo f o f s ta

ble inc ome . F ur

the rm or e , M oth e r w a s r e qu ir e d to pro vid e he r m e nta l he a lthre c or ds to DC S , an d

t o c o mp l e t e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n s

. I na d d i t i o n , s h e w a s t o a t t e n d an d c o mpl e te appropr iate pare nting classes, and ang er ma nag ement cla sses if re commended. She w as to resolve he r l e g a l is su e s, dis pla

y a pp ro pr iate c on du c t withhe r c hil dr e n a nd the ir fo ste r p are nts , a

nd ma int a in
c on ta c t w ithDC S. M oth e r s ig ne d th e se pla ns , w hic h w e re a

pp ro ve d b y

the c ourt

.
I n O c tob e r 2 00 7, DC S f

ile d a n a ff ida vit of re a so na ble e ff or ts that it had mad e to r e un ite Mother with the childre n. DCS averr ed that it had re fer red Mother to pare nting c lasses at the Un ive rs ity

of Te nn e sse e , a

nd to M idt ow n M e nta l He a lth fo r a fu ll p sy c hiatr ic e va luatio n. DC S a lso attested to the fa ct that it had provided Mother with f urnishings and appliance s for the home. The trial court f

ound that these e ffor

ts were rea sonable, but that Mother ha d fai l ed t o comply with the pe rm ane nc y

pla ns a s h e r c ur

re nt w he re a

bo uts we re un kn ow n, and sh e ha d n ot m a int a ine d s ta ble housing, nor

completed a

full psy chiatric evaluation.

A final set of perma

nency plans was devised on September 20, 2007. The g oal of a doption and Mothers’ s require m en t s remained uncha ng ed. Mother did not par ticipate in this staffing . On Aug ust 21, 2006, after

the childre n wer e take n into custody , Mother pled guilty to the crimes she had committed prior t o losing custody

. These inc luded fe lony theft over $1,000 (committed on J anuar y 6, 20 05 ), fe lony

ide nti ty the ft (c omm itt e d on July 14 , 20 04 ), and mis de me a no r t he ft un de r $ 50 0 ( a lso committed on J uly 14, 2004). Mother was place d on probation for two y ear s; however , in November 20 08 , s he wa s in c arc e rate d f or six outst and ingwa

rr ants . A t th e tim e of the he ari ng , M oth e r w a s st ill incar cer ated a

nd was pre g nant with her ninth c hild. Although she testified that she expected to be rele ased in J anuar

y 2009, she admit ted t hat s he did not know wher e she w ould live after her r elea se.
Acc ording to DCS’s proof, Mother never paid child support. Mother testified that she was employ ed for

a month and a ha lf in 2005 or 2006, but that she di d not pay support during this ti me. She admitted that she had not provide d DCS with any proof of income. DCS’s petition t o terminat e Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts was hea rd by the J uvenile Court of Shelby County on November

24-25, 2008. I n an orde r filed on January 6, 2009, and in an amended order filed on April 6, 2009, the tria l court terminate d Mother’s pa renta l rig hts o n gro u nds of pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s, a

ba nd on me nt by wi llf

ul fa ilure to v isi t or

su pp or t, f a ilure to s ub sta

nti a lly comply with the perma

nency plans, and menta l incompetence . The court also specific ally found that DC S ha d ma de re a so na

ble e ff or ts to aid Mo the r, and that ter min a tio n of he r p are nta l r ig hts wa s in the best intere sts of t he childre n. Mother appe als and ra ises five issues for revie w as stated in he r brief:-6- I . Whether the trial c ourt err ed by finding that ther e was clear a nd convinci ng evidenc e that [Mother] abandoned he r childre n by wi llf ull y fa ili ngto v isi t.

I I . Whether the trial c ourt err ed by finding that there was c lear and convincing evidenc e that [Mot her] had not substantiall y co mplied with the perma

nency plan.

I I I . Whether the trial court err ed by finding that there was c lear and convincing evidenc e that [Mot her] was incompetent such that her pare ntal rig hts should be terminated.

I V. Whether the tria l court er red by finding that there was c lear and convincing

evid en ce t h at t h er e w er e p er s i s t en tco n d i t i o n s t h at wa rr ant te rm inatio n o f [M oth e r’ s] pa re nta l r ig hts

. V. Whether the tria l court er red by finding th at termination of [Mot her’ s] parental rig hts was in the best intere sts of the children.

A pare nt ha s a fundame ntal rig ht to the car e, custody , and control of his or her c hild. Stan ley
v . I lli noi s , 4 05 U. S. 6 45 , 6 51 (1 97 2) ; Na sh- Put nam v. Mc Clo ud , 921 S. W.2d 170, 174 (Tenn.1996). Thus , th e state may

int e rf e re wi th p are nta l r ig hts on ly if th e re is a c omp e lli ngstate int e re st. N a s h- Putn am , 9 2 1 S

. W

. 2 d

at 1 7 4 -7 5 (c i t i n g Sant

osky v. Kram er , 455 U.S. 745 (1982)). O ur te rm inatio n s tatut e s id e nti fy “ tho se sit

uatio ns in whic h th e state ' s in te re st i n th e we lf are of a c hil d justifies inter fe re n ce wi th a par ent' s constitutional rights by setting f orth g rounds on which termination proce eding s can be broug ht.” I n reW. B. , Nos. M2004-00999-COA- R3-PT, M2004-01572-COA- R3-PT, 2005 W L1021618, at *7 (Te nn.Ct.App. Apr. 29, 2005) (c iting Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )). A pe rson see king to te rminate pa renta l rig hts must prove both the
e xiste nc e of

on e of the statut or

y g ro un ds fo r t e rm ina

tio n and that te rm inatio n is i n th e c hil d' s b e st interest. In r eD. L. B. , 1 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 7 ( T e n n

. 20 03 ); In re V ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn.2002) ; Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 1-113©.

Be cause of the funda

mental nature of t he parent' s rig hts and the g rave conseque nces of the termination of t hose rights, courts mus t require a hig her standa rd of pr oof in dec iding ter mination
case s. Santosky , 4 55 U. S. at 769. Conse qu e ntl y , b oth the g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n a nd the be st interest inquiry

must be established by clea r and c onvincing ev i d en ce. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36 -3 -1 13 (c )( 1) ; In r eV

alentine , 79 S.W .3d at 546. Clear a nd convincingevidenc e “e stablishes that the truth of the fa cts asser ted is highly

probable ... and eliminates a ny serious or substantial doubt about t he cor

rec tness of the c onclusions drawn f rom the evide nce.” In reM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 653 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004). Such evidenc e “produce s in a fact-f inder' s mind a firm belief

or convic tion reg ardingthe truth of the f acts soug ht to be established.” Id . at 653.-7-

I n light of the heig htened standa rd of pr oof in these c ases, a revie wing court must adopt the
c us tom ary

sta nd ard of re vie w s e t f

or th b y Te nn

. R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) . A s to the c ourt ' s f ind ing s o f f

a c t,
our r e vie w i s d

enovo with a pre sumption of corre ctness unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise, in a ccor dance with Tenn. R.App. P. 13(d). Id . We must the n de te rm ine wh e the r t he fa c ts,
as fo u n d b y t he trial c ourt or as suppor ted by the pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, cle arly

and convincing ly

establish the eleme nts nece ssary to terminate pa

renta l rig hts. Id

. The trial c ourt terminated Mothe r’s pa renta l rig hts o n sever al g rounds: (1) pe rsistence of
c on dit ion s p ur su ant t o T e nn . Code Ann. § 36- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) ; (2) a ba nd on me nt by wi llf

ul fa ilure to v isi t
or su pp or t pu rs ua nt t o T e nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 1) ; ( 3) fa ilure to s ub sta nti a lly c omp ly wi th the per manenc y plans pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(2) ; and (4) me ntal incompetenc e purs ua nt to Te nn . Code Ann. § 36- 1- 11 3( g )( 8)

. We wil l add re ss ea c h of the se g ro un ds in t ur n to deter mine whether

DCS proved ea ch by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e.

P e r sis te nc e of C ondi ti ons
Te nn .Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) pr ov ide s: (3) T h e child has be en re moved from the home of 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 neg lect 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 ) 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 medied at a

n ear ly date so that the ch i l d can be
s af ely returne d to the pare nt(s) or guardia n(s) in the
near future; a nd (C) T he continuation 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 t h e c h i l d 's chanc es of e arly

integ ration into a saf

e, stable a

nd perma nent home;

I n In reAudre

y S. , 182 S.W .3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), this Court held that, “base d upon the statutory

text and i t s h i storical deve lopment, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3) [grounds of persistenc e of c onditions] applies as a g round for termination of pare ntal rig hts only wher e the prior
co u rt order

removingthe child from the pa rent' s home was ba sed on a judicia l finding of depende ncy , neg lect, or a buse.” A s s t at ed ab o v e the trial cour t adjudicated the se childre n to be depende nt and neg lected o n J u n e 30, 2005. The specific conditions that led to this determination
wer e that Mother a

nd the children wer e found in a hotel room with a wanted felon a nd the childre n-8-

wer e not prope rly car ed for (in terms of their hy g iene, nutrition, and g ener al welf are and saf

ety ). At that time, Mother had no income, and no adequate housing. Mor eover , she fa iled to demonstrate a prese nt ability

to properly

car e for the childre n.
At the time of the he aring , these conditions ha d not be en reme died. The rec ord indicate s that Mother had not visited the c hildren since 2006. On the day of trial, Mother w as an inmate of the S h el b y C o u n t y

Correc tional Center; conse quently , she had no housingand no employ ment. Dr. Ge ntr y fu rt he r t e sti fi e d th a t Mo the r’ s CCP pr og no sis wa s tha t he r m e nta l st a te wa s su c h th a t sh e wi ll lik e ly ne ve r b e a

ble to p ro pe rl y

c are fo r t he c hil dr e n, and

th at sh e ha d ma de vir

tua lly no pr og re ss toward that end in the three y ear s since the c hildren had be en in DCS custody . Fr om the rec ord as a whole, w e conc lude that there is clear and convinc ing e vidence to support the trial court’ s finding that the conditi ons that led to the re moval of the c hildren fr om Mother’s custody (more tha

n three y ear s prior to the hea

ring ) had not been suff

iciently reme died so that the childre n might be r eturne d to her.

Aba ndonm e nt

Te nn .Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 10 2( 1) (A ) d e fi ne s a ba nd on me nt, in r e le va

nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: (1)( A) For purposes of t erminating the parental or guardia n rig hts of pare nt(s) or guardia

n(s) of a child to that child in order to make that
c hil d ava ila

ble fo r a do pti on , “ a

ba nd on me nt” me ans that: (i) F or a pe riod of four

(4 ) conse cutive months immediately prec eding the fi lin g of

a pr oc e e din g or

ple a din g to t e rm inate the pa re nta l r ig hts of the pa rent(s) or g uardia

n(s) of the child who is the subject of the petition for termination of pa rental ri ghts or adoption, that the pare nt(s) or g uardia

n(s) either have willfully failed to visit o r have wi llf ull y fa ile d to su

pp or t or have wi llf

ull y fa ile d to make re a so na ble pay ments toward the suppor

t of the child; (ii) The c hild has been r emoved f rom the home of the pare nt(s) or g ua rd ian( s) a s th e re su lt o f a pe tit ion fi le d in the juv e nil e c ourt in which the c hild was found to be a depende nt a

nd neg lected c hild, as define d in § 37-1-102, a

nd the child was pla ced in the c ustody of the depar tment or a licensed c hild-placingag ency , that the juvenile cour t found, or the c ourt wher e the ter mination o f p ar en tal rig hts petition is filed finds, that the depar tment or a licensed c hild-placingag ency made r easona

ble ef forts to preve nt removal of t h e child or that the
c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he c hil d' s si tu atio n p re ve nte d r e a so na ble e ff or ts from beingmade pr ior to the child' s removal; and for a period of four (4) m o n t h s fo l l o wi n g t h e r em o v al , t h e d ep ar t m en to r a gen cy h as m ade
rea sonable e ffor

ts to assist t he pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) to e stablish a suitable home for the child, but that the pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) have made no r easona

ble ef forts to p ro v i d e a suitable home and have-9- de mon str a te d a

la c k o f c on c e rn

for the c hil d to su c h a

de g re e that it appea rs unl ikely that they will be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an e arly

date;

“F or purpose s of this subdivis ion (1), willfully failed to visit m eans the willful failure, f or a per iod of four ( 4) conse cutive months, to visit or eng ag e in more than token visitation.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-1-102( 1)(E)

. Token visitation “me ans that the visitation, under the circ umstances of

the individual case, c onstitut es nothing more than pe rfunc t o ry v i sitation or visit ation of such a n infreque nt nature or

of such short dur ation as to mere ly establish minimal or insubstantial conta ct with the child.” Te nn.Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)©.

The recor d demonstrates that, since the children came into protec tive custody , Mother has pr ov ide d n o s up po rt . B y he r o wn te sti mony , M oth e r i s a

ble bo die d a

nd c apab le of

wo rk ingto support the childre n. Despite the f act that she t estified that she was employ ed duringsome period of 20 06 , s he a dmi tte d th a t sh e did no t pay su pp or t dur ing the tim e that sh e wo rk e d. Mo re ov e r, bo th the foster pare nts, a

nd the DCS case ma

nag er te stified that the childre n had not re ceive d any thing (e .g ., c ard s, g if

ts) fr om Mo the r sin c e the y c a me int o c us tod y

. I n s ho rt , M oth e r h a s ma de no e ff or ts to support her c hildren, and ha s provided no justifiable excuse for this failure.

Con c e rn ingvis itatio n, the re c or d d e mon str a te s th a t D CS has made nume ro us a tte mpt s to assist Mother i n v i s i t ing the children. H oweve r, Mother ha d not visit ed in the four months immediately

prec eding the filing of the pe tition t o terminate a nd, in fac t, had not visited since 2006. Fr om the rec ord as a whole, we conclude that there is clea r and convincing evidenc e to support the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat Mo the r ha s a ba nd on e d th e se c hil dr e n b oth in h e r f a ilure to p ro vid e su

pp or t,
and in h e r f a ilure to v isi t.

F ail ur e to Subst ant ial ly C om plywith th e P e r m ane nc y P lan s
Mo the r’ s p aren tal ri ghts were al so ter mi nat ed o n t he grou ndof f ail ure t o s ub st ant ial ly

c omp ly with her re sponsibili ties as set out in the perma nency plans. Tenn Code Ann.. § 36- 1-113(g )(2) . As discussed by

this Court i n In r eM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App.2004):

T e r mi n a ti n g p ar e n ta l r ig h ts b a s e d o nT e n n

. Co d e Ann. § 36- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g ) ( 2 ) r e qu ir e s mo r e p r o o f th an th a t a p ar e n t has not complied wit h ever

y jot and ti ttle of t he permanenc y plan. To succeed
un de r Te nn .Co de Ann. § 36 -1 -1 13 (g )( 2) , the De pa rtment mus t demons t ra t e first that the r equire ments of the per manenc y plan ar e rea sonable a

nd related to reme dying the conditions that c au s ed the child to be re moved from the pare nt's custody in the first place , In r e V alentine , 79 S.W .3d at 547; I n re L .J .C., 124 S. W

. 3 d 6 09, 621 (T e nn . Ct . App .2 00 3) , an d sec on d that the pa re nt' s non c omp lia

nc e is substan t i al i n light of the deg ree of noncomplianc e and the importance of t he particular requireme nt that has not been me t. In re-10- V a l e ntine , 79 S.W. 3d

a t 54 8- 49 ; In r eZ. J. S. , 2003 WL 21266854, at *12. Trivial, minor, or tec hn i ca l deviations from a perma nency plan' s require ments will not be deeme d to a mount to substantial noncompliance

. In reV

ale ntine , 79 S.W. 3d a t 5 48 ; Departm ent of Chi ldren's Servs. v. C.L. , No. Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed).

Id . at 656-57. As set out in more detail above, Mother’s responsibilities unde r the pa rentingplans include: (1 ) m a int a in s ta

ble ho us ing , ( 2) sh owpr oo f o f e mpl oy me nt a nd ste a dy inc ome , ( 3) pa

rt ic ipate wi th the childre n, including visitation, school, and he alth car e, (4) submit t o CCP evaluation and follow all rec ommendations thereof , (5) r esolve pe nding le g al matters, a nd (6) a ct i n a non-thre atening
manner when de aling with depa rt ment personne l and the foster pare nts. These plans we re r atified by the cour t, and, following our re view, we ag ree that the plans a re re as o n ab l e and r elated to the
rea sons that the m i n o r childre n came into custody . Despite the f act that she participated in the majo ri ty of the sta ff ing s, and sig ne d th e pla

ns , th e re c or d d e mon str a te s th a t sh e ha s f a ile d to substantially

comply with an y o f h er pla

n require ments. Giving he r eve ry benef it of the doubt, at
mos t, t his Court c an f ind that sh e on ly

c omp lie d w iththe CCP a sse ssm e nt t a sk , b ut ult imate ly did
no t c omp le te the e va luatio n as she did no t re tur n for on e of the a sse ssm e nts . F ro m th e re c or d a s a whole, ther e is clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e to support the trial c ourt’s finding that mother fa iled to s ub sta nti a lly c omp ly wi th t he re a so na

ble re sp on sib ili tie s c on ta ine d in the pla ns

.
Mental Incom petence

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 8) (B ) p ro vid e s th a t:

The c ourt may

terminate t h e par ental or guardia nship rights of that person if it de termines on the ba sis of clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that: (i) The pare nt or g uardia n of the c hild is i ncompetent to adequately

provide for

the further ca

re a nd
s u p e r v is io n o f th e c h il d b e c a u s e th e p ar e n t' s or g uardia n' s mental condition is prese ntly so i m paire d and is so likely

to r emain so that it is unl ikely that the pa re nt o r gua

rd ian w ill be a

ble to a ssume or

re sume the ca re of and re sponsibili ty for the child in the near futur e ;
Dr. Ge ntry

testified, conc erningthe 2 0 0 6 C C P evaluation, that Mother “did not have the capa bility of providing her c hildren with a safe and loving home and any child in her c are would be at risk for ha

rm.” Dr . Gentry

further testified that mother’s c ondition had not chang ed fr om 1997, when she was fir st inte rviewe d by CCP . Moreove r, Dr. G entry testified that Mother’ s I Q of 74, along with her self

-def eatingbehavior s, rende rs her overa ll prog nosis poor. Dr. Ge ntry opined that-11-

social ser vices would n o t be able to r emedy Mother’s c ondition. C CP ul timately rec ommended te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ig hts , a re c omm end ati on

ma de in o nly

3- 5% of CCP’ s c a se s. Fr om the totality of the circ umstances, we conclude that there is clear and convinc ing e vidence that Mo the r’ s c ur

re nt m e nta l he a lth , a

nd he r ong oin g pr og no sis , mak e he r inc omp e te nt t o c are fo r t he se children.

Best Inter ests

Be fore a cour

t in this State can te rminate a biologica l pare nt's parenta l rig hts, it must find that doing s o is in the best interest of the c hild. SeeTenn Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(c )(2) . I n deter mining whether termination of par ental rig hts is in a child's be st interest, the lowe r cour t must consider the fo llo wi ngfa c tor s:

(1) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n h as m ade suc h an adjustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or c onditions as to make i t s af e and in the child' s best interest to be in the home of the par ent or guardia

n; ( 2 ) Wh e th e r

th e p ar e n t o r

g u ar d ia nh a s f a il e d to e f f e c t a la s ting ad ju 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 a v a il a b le s o c ia l s e r

v ices ag encie s f

o r s u c h d u r a ti o no f ti me th a t l a s ti n g a d

ju s tm e n t d o e s n ot
rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n has maintained r egular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a m e a ningf ul relationship has otherw ise bee n established betwee n the par ent or guardia n and the c hild; (5 ) T he e ff

e c t a c ha ng e of c are tak ers and

ph y sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to have on the c hild 's em o tional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether

the par ent or g uardia

n, or other pe rson re siding with the pare nt or g uardia

n, 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 to wa

rd the c hil d, or

ano the r c hil d or adult in the family

or household; (7 ) W h e t 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 r gu 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 there is such use of a lcohol or controlled substanc es as may rende r the pa

rent or guardia

n consistently

unable to ca re for the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ; (8) Whether

the par ent' s or g uardia

n' s mental and/or e motional status would be detr imental to the chi l d o r p reve nt the pare nt or g uardia n from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and super vision for the child; or (9) Whether the parent or g uardia n has paid c hild support consistent with the child support g uidelines promulg ated by the dep ar t m ent pursuant to § 36-5-101.T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i).-12-

This list is not exhaustive, a nd the statute does not re quire the c ourt to find the exist ence of
ever y fac tor befor e conc lud i n g t h at termination is in a child' s best interest. Sta te v . T .S. W. , No. M2001-01735-COA- R3-J V, 2002 WL970434 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002).

Ba sed upon the for eg oing disc ussion, it i s clea r t hat M other has failed to make an adjustment of c ir c ums tanc e s, c on du c t, o r c on dit ion s so a s to make it s a fe and in t he c hil dr e n’ s be st int e re sts to be with he r. Despite rea sonable eff orts on the part of DCS, Mother has failed to ma k e a lasting
a dju stm e nt a

nd , in fa c t, it a

pp e ars that su c h a dju stm e nt may no t be po ssi ble . M oth e r h a s f a ile d to support the childre n, and has f ailed to visit the children. Be cause of her absenc e from their lives, no meaning ful relationship has developed be tween Mothe r and the children.

The re cord in d i ca t es t hat the childre n have done well in foster c are . They have r ece ived proper service s for their r espec tive specia l needs, they have found stability , and have rec eived pr oper car e and love for pe rhaps the f irst time in their y oung lives. The foster pare nts ha

ve also e x presse d a desire to adopt. Be cause Mother has fa iled to make the diff icult chang es that would be ne cessa ry in order f or her to take custody , and beca

use the children a

re c urre ntly

in a stable, c aring , and loving environment, whe re the y

have a possibili ty of adoption, we conclude that termination of Mother’s pa re nta l r ig hts is i n th e c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts

.
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the o rd er o f t h e trial c ourt. Costs of this appeal ar e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e A p p e l l an t , M o t h e r an d h e r s u r e t y.

___________________________________ J. STE VE N ST AFF OR D, J.