### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n B ri ef s S ep te m be r 27, 200 6 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.

PATRICI A DANIELL E STI NSON, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Mc Nairy County No. C-581 The Honorable Danny S m ith, Jud ge

No. W2006-00749-C OA-R3-P T - F iled October 30, 2006

Th is i s a te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts c a se inv olv ing tw o mi no r c hil dr e n. Th e mothe r o f b oth children and the father of one of the c hildren appe al sepa rate ly from the Or der of

the J uvenile Court of Ha rdin County

terminating their re spective pa renta l rig hts. BothA p p e ll an ts a s s ert that the g rounds for termination of their par ental rig hts are not met by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in the re cord, a ndthat te rm inatio n o f the ir pa re nta l r ig hts is n ot i n th e be st i nte re st o f the min or c hil dr e n. B e c aus e we fi ndc le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e in the re c or d to supp ort th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s f ind ing s, we a ff

ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , 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. Stephanie L . Prentis of Savannah, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, J ason He nry Roge r Stanfield of Jackson, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, Patricia Stinson Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Mic hael B. L eftwic h, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral for Appe llee, Te nnessee Depa rtment of Children' s Services

OP IN ION
C.S.L

. S. w a s b o r n o n N o v e mb e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 to Patric ia D a n ie ll e St in s o n
. A t th e ti me of C.S.L .S.’s birth, Ms. S tinson was marrie d to Stephen L

. Stins on and Mr. Stinson was listed as the fathe r on C.S.L.S

. ’s b irth certificate. H oweve r, DNAtesting r evea led that J ason He nry (tog ether with Ms. St inson, “Appellants”) was t he biolog ical father of C.S.L .S. The trial court entere d an or de r o n July

28 , 2 00 3 f

ind ing Mr . H e nry

to b e the bio log ic a l f

a the r o f C .S. L .S.-2-

T.D.S. (tog ether

with C.S.L .S., the “Chi ldren” ) was born on April 20, 2002 to Ms. Sti nson. Although Ms. Stinson w as marrie d to Mr. Stins on at that time, Mr. Stinson surrender ed his pare ntal ri g h ts to T

. D

. S. o n Ja n u ar y 2 7 , 2 0 0 3

. M s
. St in s o n late r r e v e a le d L arr y

T u r n e r to b e th e f

ather

. Howeve r, DNA tes t i n g p ro v ed that Mr. Turne r wa s not T.D.S.’s father and Mr. Turner w as dismiss ed fr om this case on Mar ch 10, 2005. In its Order of Marc h 10, 2005, the trial court found, in a ccor dan ce wi th T .C. A. §§ 36 -1 -1 13 a nd36 -1 -1 17 that th e re wa s n o o nee lse to b e na me d a s a defe ndant in this case a s there wer e no other lega l pare nts to be name d, and no other biologica l or putative par ents to be ser ved.
The Chil d re n were take n into the custody of the State of T ennesse e, De partment of Children’s Service s (“DCS,” or “ Appellee ”) on or about Aug ust 27, 2002. On or about Aug ust 30, 2002, DCS filed a petition for tempora ry custody of t he C hildren. The petiti on alleg es that, at the tim e the y we re take n in to cu sto dy , the Chi ldr e n ha d be e n in th e c are of on e of Ms. Stin so n’ s f

ri e nd s. T h e D C S p e t i t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a tb o t h C h i l d r e n h a d d i ap e r r a s h , h e a d l i c e , a n d w e r e v e r y d i r t y. T. D. S ., who was f

our months old at that time, had what appe are d to be a he aling cig are tte burn. C.S.L .S. also had circ ular mar ks on his body

. Ms. Stinson’s alleg ed history of drug abuse and her inabilityto provide stable housing wer e also listed a s rea sons f or DCS c ustody . On Aug ust 30, 2002, the trial court entere d a Protec ti v e C u s tody Orde r. The Children w ere place d in the foster c are of Ma ry a ndRub e n D a mr on , w he rethe y ha ve re ma ine d sin c e that tim e . T he fo ste r f a mil y wi sh e s to a do pt the Chi ldr e n s ho uldthi s Co urt a ff ir m te rm inatio n o f A pp e lla nts ’ p are nta l r ig hts

. A prelimi nary hearing was held on September 3, 2002. On October 22, 2002, t he trial c ourt enter ed an O rder

in which it found, inte r a lia , that the C hildren were dependent and neg lected. T he trial court g rante d temporary custody to D CS, and a ppointed a Gua

rdian a d L item for the Children. The Or der a lso indicates that, at t h e time of the hea ring , Mr. Henry

was inca

rce rate d. An adjudicatory hearing was held on May 8, 2003. On J uly 28, 2003, the t rial court entere d its “Order of Adjudication of Depe ndency and Neg lect,” in which the tria l court continued te mporary custody of the Chi ldr e n w ithDC S.
After the Chi l d re n ca m e into DCS custody , DCS established a permanenc y plan for e ach c hil d

. O n S e p t e m b e r

1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , M s
. S t i n s o n a g r e e d t o t h e p e r m a n e n c y p l a n s , w h i c h h a d a s t h e ir primary g oal a r eturn of the children to their pa rents and an alternate g oal of a doption. Under the plan s , M s
. St in s o n w a s a s s ig n e d a n u mb e r o f r e s p o n s ib il it ie s in c lu d in g r e s o lv in g a ll le g al and c ri min a l is su e s, takin g pa re nti ng c la sse s, su bmi tti ng to dru g a nda lc oh ol c ou ns e lin g , s ub mit tin g to drug testing, e stablishing pat er n ity , and obtaining and maintaining employ ment. The re cord ind ic a te s th a t Ms . St ins on pa rt ic ipate d in the pr e pa

ratio n o f the se plans
. As brie fl y dis c us se d a

bo ve , at the tim e the Chi ldr e n we re take n int o pr ote c tiv e c us tod y , M s. Stin so n id e nti fi e d Jas on He nry a s the fathe r of C.S. L .S. , de sp ite the fa c t that sh e ha d p re vio us ly tol d M r
. H e n r y t h a th e w a s n o tt h e f a t h e r
. M r
. H e n r y h a s a h i s t o r y o f d ru g ab u s e a n d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. Pr ior to C .S. L .S. ’s birth, Mr . H e nry wa s c on vic te d o f p os se ssi on of Sc he du le I I

dr ug s w ith int e nt t o sell and two counts of theft ove r $1,000. F ollowing his convic tion, Mr. Henry was initially

place d on probation af

ter serving se vera l months i n jail; howe ver, his pr obation was revoke d quickly whenAs di s cus s ed above, M r
. St i ns on ( who wa s mar r i ed t o M s
. St i ns on at t he t i me of T

. D

. S. bi r t h) s ur r ender ed 1 h is rig h ts to the c h ild o n J a n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 3

. A ltho u g h M s. S tinso n n a m e d M r. T u rn e r a s the b io lo g ic a l fa the r o f T .D .S ., he has ne ver l egi t i mat ed t he chi l d. Af t er D N A t es t i ng r eve al ed t hat M r
. T ur ner was not t he f at her of T

. D

. S. , M r
. T ur ner w a s d ism isse d fro m the c a se o n M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 . H e is no t a p a rty to this a p p e a l. -3- he violated the conditions of his pr obation. At the time of the hea ring in this case, Mr. He nry was serving an eig ht y ear

sentenc e. He is not scheduled for rele ase until 2007. By her ow n testimony , Ms. Sti nson beg an usi ng alcohol and marijuana when she was twe lve y ear s old and starting using c ocaine at age fiftee n. Ms. Stins on has been arr ested numer ous times and, on seve ral occa sions, she has spent time in jail on drug and other char g es. One incar cer ation lasted fr om October

7 to November

13, 2003, and anothe r beg an on January 4, 2004.
On or a bout October

14, 2003, the permanenc y plans wer e amende d to make adoption the sole g oal bec ause the Children h ad been in DCS custody for f ourtee n months and there ha d been littl e p rogre ss with Ms. S tinson on completion of her g oals and re quirements under the orig inal plans. At that time, there ha d been a long g ap in visitation, due in l ar ge p ar t t o M s. Sti nson’s inc arc e ratio n, a nd Ms. Stin so n ha d a lle g e dly no t me t a ny of the g oa ls of the perman ency pl a ns
. Although Ms. Stinson did not participate in the re vision of the plans, Mr. Henry ’s father wa s prese nt a ndsig ne d th e plans
. Th ro ug ho ut the se pr oc e e din g s, Mr . H e nry ’s fathe r h a s e xpre sse d s ome int e re st in custody

of C.S.L .S; however, he has only expressed inter est in custody of T.D.S. if, by

taking custody of T.D.S., he can gain custody of hi s biologica l g randson, C.S .L .S. The pe rmane ncy plans we re a g a in r e vie we d inOc tob e r 2 00 4. At that ti me , a do pti on re ma ine d th e so le g oa l.
On J anuary

5, 2004, DCS filed a Petition to t erminate the par ental ri gh t s o f M s . Stins on. This petition also seeks to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of Mr. Henry as t o C.S.L .S. and the parenta l ri g hts of Mr . T urne r a s to T. D. S. Th e Pe tit ionre a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: 1
Pursuan t t o T

. C. A

. 3 6

- 1-102(1) (A)( i) and (iv) and 36-1- 113(g )(1) , the De pa rt me nt s ub mit s tha t gr ou nd s for Te rm inatio n of P are nta l Rig hts e xist b a se d o n a

ba nd on me nt b y the fathe rs in that th e y ha ve ra re ly if e ve r v isi te d o r h a d a ny

c on ta c t with the c hil dr e n; the y ha ve faile d to support the childre n in-kind or direc tly throug h child s u p p o rt ; and they have f ailed to establish a suitable home. The f ather s, both of wh om a re inc arc e rate d, and fo r 4 mon ths prior to the fi lin g of

thi s petition, have willfully

failed to pay

su p p ort for f

our months i m m ed i at el y

p re ce d i n g t h e i n ca rc er at i o n an d h av e e n gage d i n conduct prior to inc arc eration that exhibi ts a wanton disre g ard f or the we lfare of the c hildren.
* * *-4- Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 36-1-113(g )(2) , the De pa rt me nt s ub mit s th a t g ro un ds fo r Te rm inatio n of Pare nta l Rig hts exis t based on substantial nonco m p liance by pare nts with the statement of r esponsibiliti es in the Permane ncy Plan pursuant to the provision of title 37, chapter 2, part 4. a) The Permane ncy Plans, revised, ratified and made an Or der of the Court on September 18, 2002, for these c h i l d re n , contains the fo llo wi ng pr ov isi on s: 1. That the g oals are Return to Parent a nd Adoption. 2. That the mother w ill m ak e an appointment with Quinco Mental Hea lth Center to addre ss domestic violence issues in the home . That sh e w i l l r e s o l v e a l l l e g a l / c r i m i n a l i s s u e s w i t h t h e c o u r ta n d r e ma in fre e of c riminal activities and beha viors. She was to enr oll in the domestic violence co u n s el ing by September 30, 2002 a nd provide su mma ri e s a nda c e rt if ic a te of c omp le tio n to DC S. 3. That Ms. Stinson would attend and participate in pare nting c lasses at Quinco to identify

safe ty and supervision iss ues with the childre n and in the hom e. Monthly summaries and a certificate of

completion we re to b e de liv e re d b y

the mothe r t o D CS. 4. Ms. Stin so n w a s to atte nd a nd pa rt ic ipate in A & D c ou ns e lin g wi th Pathway s in J ackson. She was to submit t o an initial hair scr een f or which she w as re sponsible for payment. She was to g et ra ndom drug u r i n e s c r e e n s f

o r s i x m o n t h s t h e r e a f

t e r f o r w h i c h D C S w o u l d p a y. S h e was to complete the A & D counse ling a nd bring a copy of the c omp le tio n to DC S. Sh e wa s to te st n e g a tiv e on a ll d ru g sc re e ns
. 5. Ms. Sti nson was to o b t ain and maintain e mploy ment to provide financ ially

for the children; bring a copy of her pay chec k eac h pay day to D CS a ndpr ov ide t he nam e an d n umb e r o f h e r e mpl oy e r t o D CS fo r v e ri fi c a tio n p ur

po se s. 6. Ms. Stins on would visit with the children at l east 4 hours eve ry 28 day s a nda dv ise DC S wh e n s he ha d c on fl ic ts w ith he r w or k s c he du le or oth e r v isi ta tio n c on fl ic ts. 7. That she pa

rticipated in the ma k i n g o f the Plan, discussed it and a g re e d w ithit.
* * * b) Th e Cou rt

fo un d th a t th e mothe r fa ile d in e ve ry re sp e c t to c omp ly wi th h e r p la n at the he ari ng on July 28 , 20 03

. She ha s n ot b e e n a ble to comply since that time, either

.

IX-5- Pur su a nt to Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A )( iiii), the Depa

rtment submits t hat g rounds for T ermination of Par ental Rig hts e xist, be c aus e th ec h i l dr e n
. . .h a ve be e n r e mov e d f ro m th e ho me of the pa rents by order of this Court for more than six (6) months, and the conditions which led to t h e chil dren’ s removal, or other condit i o n s which in all re asonable probability would cause the children to be subjected to further a buse or ne g lect, and w hich, the re fo re , p re ve nt the c hil dr e n’ s sa fe re turn to the c are of the pa re nts , still persist; and, there is little likelihood that these conditions will be reme died at an e arly

date so that the c hildren ca n be saf ely returne d to th e p ar e n ts inth e n e ar

f u tu r e ; an d , th e c o n ti n u a ti o n o f th e pare nt and child re lationship gre atly diminis hes th e children’s chances of early integ ration into a saf

e, stable and perma nent home.
The Court found in the Pre liminar y He ar ing O rder enter ed on or about October

22, 2002, that the childre n wer e depe ndent and neg lected by

clea r and co n v i n cing evidenc e as stipulated to by the m o t h erb ec au s e o f t h e f

o l l o wi n g: That the children had bee n left with frie nds of the mother and that the children’ s buttocks were very red and irritated f

rom diaper rash. The four month old had what appea red t o b e a ciga

rette burn in the proce ss of h ea ling a nd both children ha d head lice and we re ve ry dirty . There wer e cir cular marks on the [one] y ear

old. The mother ha d a his tory of dru g abuse a ndmov e d f re qu e ntl y su c h th a t D CS could not locate he r for

investigation.
Jaso n H e nry

sti pu la te d at the tim e that he wa s in c arc e rate d a ndc ou ld not c o n te s t th e p e ti ti o n
. T h e mo th e r h a s ju s t b e e n r e le a s e d f r om Har din County J ail wher e she w as inca rce rate d for 32 day s in October and Nove mber thi s y ear
. She was supposed to g o to reha bilitation or c omp le te a

se nte nc e of

11 mon ths , 2 9 d a y s, bu t sh e we nt t o reha bilitation instead. Howeve r, she only lasted two day s befor e she left. She has not been picke d up by law enf orce ment y et and r emains for the time be ing w ith her g randf ather

. Th e mothe r h ard ly

vis ite d w ith the c hil dr e n f ro m E aster , 2 00 3 u nti l November , 2003 althoug h since Nove mber she ha s started to see them ag ain when t he foster mother initiates the visits. The mother was living in a cr ack house with 4 men prior to the last incarce ration. She is stil l u s i n g d ru gs and is not able to ca re f or the c hildren. The oldest boy

has some familiaritywith h er b ut the y oung est doesn’t know her

.-6- When the mother told the 4 y ear old this past J uly “To kiss Mommy ”, he kissed the f

oster mother.
Th e c hil dr e n h a ve ra

re ly if e ve r s e e n th e ir

fathe rs
. The mother did not appear i n Court for the a djudicatory hearing on J uly 28, 2003 and the c ourt found the c hildren we re de pen dent and neg lected by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. The Court found that the mothe r w a s u sin g c ra c k c oc a ine , li vin g wi th two me n, faili ng to v isi t her children, failing to g o to Pathway s, failing to a ppear fo r drug scre ens, fa iling to co m m u nicate w ith DCS , and without food or money on occa sion.
The Court found that DCS made reasona ble ef forts including but not l i m i t ed t o co u n s el i n g an d p ar en t i n g. Very littl e appe ars to have chang ed since the time of that court order

. The mother does not a

ppear to be able to r emedy her c onditions i n the near future a s she h as d o n e nothing ne w since the time the children have be en re moved. The f ather s, J ason He nry

and L arry

Turner , are in prison. The foste r par ents want to adopt the c hildren and pr ovide them a saf e and loving home. The c hildren ar e bonded w ith the foster pa re nts a ndse e the m a s th e ir on ly pa re nts

. * * *
I t is in t he best intere st of said child[ren] and the public that all of the pare ntal rig hts of Respondents to said children be fore ver te rminated a ndthat t he c omp le te c us tod y , c on tr ol andg ua rd ia ns hip of

sa id children be awa

rded to the State o f Tenne ssee, De partment of Children’s Service s, with the rig ht to place said children f or adoption a ndto c on se nt t o s a id a do pti on s in loc o p are ntis. P urs ua nt t o Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113(i)( 1-9), the Petitioner aver s that it would be in the bes t i n t er ests of the a bove-named children that Respondents’ par ental rig hts be terminated be cause : f) Responde nts have failed to make an a djustmen t o f circ umstance, c on du c t, o r c on dit io ns a s to make it s a fe a ndin the c hil dr e n’ s b e st interests to be in the home of the par ents; and/or ,-7- g ) Respondents have failed to e ffe ct a l ast ing a djustment after r e a s o n ab le e f

f o r ts b y a v a il ab le s o c ia l s e r v ic e s a g e n c ie s f o r s uch duration of time that lasting adjustment does not rea s o n ably appea r possible; and/or, h) Respondents have failed to maintain re g ular visi t at i o n or other contac t with the children; and/or, i) Re sp on de nts ha ve faile d to e sta bli sh a me a nin g fu l rela tio ns hip betwee n the par ent and c hildren; and/or, j) The c hildren’s e motional a n d p sy cholog ical conditions would be adver sely aff ecte d by eff ecting a chang e of c are taker s; and/or k) Respondents have failed to maintain a phy sical environme nt of the pa re nt’ s h ome wh ic h is h e a lth y a ndsa fe , th e re is c ri min a l a c tiv ity in the home, and/or

there is use of alc ohol or cont ro l led substance s as may rende r the pa

rent or g uardia n consistently unable to ca

re f or the children in a

safe and stable ma nner; a nd/or, l) Respondents’ mental and/or e motional status would be detrimental to the children or preve nt the Respondent from eff ectively providing safe and stable c are and supervision for the childre n; and/or m) Re sp on de nts ha ve no t paid c hil d s up po rt c on sis te nt w ith the c hil d support g uidelines at any time during the childre n’s custody in the De pa rt me nt. These c hildren bar ely know their pare nts. They are doing w ell in the foster home and they are thriving. The mother and fathe rs ca n n ot pr ov ide a ny ho me a t all fo r the c hil dr e n. To c ha ng e c are take rs wo uld be de va statin g to the m. T he pa re nts ha ve ma de no e ff

orts t o b e c ome more than biolog ically re l ated to the c hildren; they have paid no su p p o r t an d th e f

a th e r s h a v e s e n t n o g if

ts

. T h e f a th e r s h a v e b e en consistently advised of court procee dings and meeting s to discuss the children and their prog ress in foster car e and ha ve ra

rely , if eve r, a tte nd e d. Th e mothe r has said on oc c a sio n th a t th e fo ste r p are nts should adopt the children. She would show true love for them if she did surr e n d e r h e r r ig h ts a s s h e s o o f te n s tate d s h e w o u ld d o . She c a nn ot s ta y

a way fr om c oc a ine an d ot he r dru g s in the fo re se e able future. She has t o t ak e ca re of herse lf first bef

ore she can ta

ke ca re of t h e s e c h i l d r e n a n d s h e h a s a l o n g w a y t o g o b e f o r e t h a th app e ns
. DCS has tried to help the mother t hroug h various prog rams such a s pare nting a nd counseli ng , ref err als for A & D counseling and re ha bil itatio n, bu t th e mothe r h a s n ot b e e n s uc c e ssf ul.
The trial of

this matter took place be fore the court, sitt ing w ithout a jury , on Marc h 10, 2005, J une 29, 2005, and July27, 2005. Following a hea ring on Fe bruary

14, 2006, the trial court e ntere d an Or der te rminating the par ental rig hts of Ms. Sti nson to C.S .L .S. and T.D.S., and-8-

terminating the par ental rig hts of Mr. Henry to C.S .L .S. I n its Order, the trial court summarizes the e vid e nc e a dd uc e d at th e he ari ng a ndmake s th e fo llo wi ng , r e le va nt, fi nd ing s th e re fr om:

27. That the c hildren ha v e b een in the c ontinuous lega l car e and c on tr ol o f the State of Te nn e sse e , De pa rt me nt of Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, since on or about Aug ust 27, 2002. That the mother stipulated to the depende ncy

and neg lect of the c hildren at the pr eliminary hearing on October 22, 2002 and that the c hildren we re adjudicated to be d epende nt and neg lected c hildren by order of the c ourt on J uly

28, 2003, at which the mother failed to a

ppear
. 28. That the mother ma de no visits with the children from Ea ster of 20 03 un til No ve mbe r 2 00 3 a ndthat the fe w vis its be tw e e n tha t ti me and the fi li n g o f

th e p e ti ti o n to te r mi n a te p ar e n ta l rig h ts o n Ja n u ary 5, 20 04 we re ini tiate d b y

the fo ste r mothe r takin g the c hil dr e n to vis it the mothe r w hil e sh e wa s i ncarc e rate d in the Mc Na iry Cou nty Jail

. Pr ior to h e r e ntry

int o th e Mc Na iry

Cou nty J ail , she faile d to vis it althoug h she wa s capa

ble.
2 9

. T h e c h i l d r e n h a v e b e e n i n c u s t o d y m o r e t h a n 6 m o n t h s, conditions that caused the children to come into custody persist or oth e r c on dit ion s ex is t in w hic h ina ll r e a so na ble pr ob abil ity

wo uld caus e t h e childre n to be subjecte d to further abuse or neg lect and wh ic h the re fo re pr e ve nt the c hil dr e n’ s sa fe re turn to th e pare nts

. There is lit tle likelihood that these conditions will be r emedied at an e arl y date a ndthe co nti nu a tio n o f the pa re nt andc hil d r e la tio ns hip g reatly diminis hes the c hildren’s c hance s of ea rly integ ration i n t o a safe , stable and pe rmane nt home. There is nothing to show that the conditions may

chang e in the for esee able f uture.
30 . T hat J aso n He nry , th e fathe r o f [C. S.L .S. ], ha s h a d o nly ra re if any contac t with his child, t hat h e h as fa i led to provide a ny support fo r the c hil d, ha s fa ile d to est abli sha su ita ble re sid e nc e fo r the c hil d a nd has no abil ity

to d o s o inthe ne ar f

utu re , a ndhe e ng a g e d in c o n d u c t c o n s i s t i n g o f d ru g u s e a n d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y p r i orto h is inc arc e ratio n th a t evi de nc e s a wa nto n d isr e g ardfo r the we lf are of his child. That he had the ability to work, the ability to spend money

on other thing s, the ability

to use drug s, and showed n o interest in the child during that time.
31. That there has bee n substantia l n o n compl iance by the mother, Patricia Danielle Stinson, with the permane ncy plans cre ated f

or her by he r o wn a dmi ssi on a nd the te sti mon y of oth e rs a t the he ari ng s in-9- this cause. The mother did not substantially complete a ny

of the requi r e me n ts p r io r

to th e f il in g o f th e p e ti ti o n to te r mi n a te her pa re nta l r ig hts

. 32. The c hildren ar e in an a doptive home wher e they are well ca red fo r andare thrivi ng a nd are do ing we ll i n th e ho me a ndthe ho me is a stable and loving home.
33 . T hat th e Cou rt

he re by make s th e sp e c if

ic fi nd ing s th a t th e State ha s me t it s b ur de n o f p ro of by c le ar andc on vin c ing evi den c e a s to eac h of the g rounds alleg ed in the petit i o n fi l ed in this cause ba sed upon the fa cts testified at e ach of the hearing s in this cause
. As to the g round of a

bandonment, the f

ather failed to visit for more than four (4 )m on ths prior

to h is inc arc e ratio n an d en g a g e d in ac tiv iti e s p ri or to his incarc eration which evidenc ed a w anton disreg ard f or the we lfare of his child, and that each h ave f ailed to make any

child support payments since the c h ildren have been in state custody . As to the g rounds of failure t o substantially comply with her pe rmane ncy

plan, Patricia Stinson has not taken a part in a staffing in over a y ear and has done little if anything to see k return of the child[ren] or perma nency

for the c hild[ ren] and that there is no evidence , materia l or otherw ise, of any

attempt at compliance . As to the persistent conditio ns and likelihood the conditions will remedy themselves at a n early date, the court hereby finds that beca use t he children have be en remove d from the home of the parents by

order of this Court for more th a n s ix ( 6 ) mo n th s a n d b e c a u s e th e c o n d it io n s w h ic h le d to the c hil dren’s re mov a l or

oth e r c on dit ion s w hic h in a ll r e a so na ble pr ob abil ity wo uldc aus e the c hil dr e n to be su bje c te d to fu rthe r a bu se or ne g le c t and wh ic h, the re fo re , pre ve nt the c hil dr e n’ s saf e re turn to the car e of the pare nts, still pe rsist; a nd the court here by fi n d s t hat there is littl e li kelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an e arl y date so that th e c hil dr e n c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d to the pa

re nts in the nea r future ; and the court here by finds that the continuation of the pare nt and child re lationship gre atly diminis hes the c hi ldren’s c ha nc e s o f earl y in te g ratio n in to a sa fe , s ta ble a ndpe rm a ne nt h ome specific ally

beca use the c hildren we re r emoved from the mother as they wer e not being properly car ed for and had been dropped off and the mother ha d a history

of drug usag e and freque ntly moved; that the fathe r is prese ntly

incar cer ated a nd may

be u n t i l 2007; mother has submitt ed to only

one drug screen in 2002 which she failed and has failed to submi t t o any

more (e ven one r equeste d this summ er a fter her r elea se fr om the Tee n Challeng e Prog ram) e ven thoug h eac h of he r c a se ma na g e rs re qu e ste d th at sh e submi t to sc re e ns ; a s Ms

.-10- Stin so n h a s f

a ile d to ma int a in r e g ula

r c on ta c t w ith e a c h o f her c a se m anage rs including the ca se mana g er she has now a nd since he r rele ase f rom the Teen C h al l eng e Prog ram; and be cause there is no e vid e nc e , mate ri a l or

oth e rw ise , th a t sh e e ve n atte mpt e d to c omp le te her pe rmane ncy

plan prior to the filing of

the petition to terminate her pa re nt rig hts ; th e re fo re , th e c on dit ions that c a us e d th e c hil dr e n to c ome int o c us tod y

pe rs ist a ndc on dit ion s e xist w hic h ina ll r e a so na ble probability would subject the children to f urther neg lect or abuse and the re is n oth ing to s ho w that th e y ma y c ha ng e in the fo re se e able future.
34. As to the best interest of the children, the Court mak es the fo llo wi ng fi nd in gs by

c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e : th a t Pa tr ic ia Danielle Stinson and J ason Henry have failed to make a n adjustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or c onditions as to make it safe a nd in the c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st t o b e in the ho me of the pa re nt; that Pa tr ic ia Danielle S t i n son has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after re asonable eff

orts by available social services a g encie s for such dur a ti o n o 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 o t r e a s o n ab ly ap p e ar possible; that Patricia Danie lle Stins on and J ason Henry have f ailed to maintain reg ular visitation or other contac t w ith the children; that a chang e of c are taker s would have a harmful e ffe ct on the childre n’s e mot ion a l, p sy c ho log ic a l a ndme dic a l con dit ion ; th a t Patr ic ia Danielle Stinson and Jason Henry h ave failed to establish and maintain a mea ningf

ul relations hip betwee n themselves and the children; that Patricia Danielle Stins on and Jason Henry have f ailed to maintain a phy sical/home environme nt which is healthy and saf e; that there is criminal activity in the home, and/or the re is use of alcohol or c ontolled substances as may rende r t he parent or g uardia n c on sis te ntl y un able to c are fo r the c hil dr e n in a safe and sta ble manner ; that eac h of the pa rent’s me ntal and/or e motional status would be detrimental to the child or pre vent the mother f rom eff ectively providing safe and stable c are and super vision fo r t he c hil d; andthat ne ith e r ha s p a id c hil d s up po rt c on sis te nt w ith the c hil d support g uidelines at any time during the childre n’s custody in the De pa rt me nt.
35. Pursuant to Ten n essee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g ), g r o u n d s f

o r T e r mi n a ti o n o f Pa

r e n ta l Ri g h ts e xis t b a sed on abandonme nt by

the mother a s define d by law, beca use of the fac ts as above- enumer ated.-11- 36. Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 36-1-1 1 3 (g ), g rounds for T ermina t i o n of Pare ntal Rights exist based on abandonme nt by

the father, a s defined by law, beca use of the fac ts as above- enumer ated.
37. Pursuant to Tennessee C ode Annotate d section 36-1- 113(g ), g rounds for T ermination of Par ental Rig hts ex ist based on substantial non-complianc e with the perma nency plan by the mother, as def ined by law, bec ause of

the fa cts as above -enume rate d.
38. Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 36-1-113 (g), g rounds for T ermination of Parental R ights ex ist based on per sistence of conditions, as to both pare nts, as define d b y l aw , beca use of the fac ts as above- enumer ated.
39. That the c hildren have been r emoved f rom the par ent’s home a s a re sult of a petition filed i n the j uvenile court in which the children wer e found to be depende nt and negle cted, a s defined in TCA 37- 1- 10 2, a nd pl aced in DC S c us tod y a ndthat D CS ma de re a so na ble eff orts, or would have had the mother parti cipated, to a ssist t he mothe r f or fo ur mon ths fo llo wi ng the re mov a l to e sta bli sh a su ita ble ho me fo r the min or

c hil dr e n b ut the mothe r mad e no re a so na ble e ff orts and sh e ha s d e mon str a te d a la c k o f c on c e rnfo r the c hil dr e n to such a deg ree that it appea rs unl ikely

that she will be able to provide a suitable home f

or the c hildren at a n early date.
40. That the Responde nts have willfully abandone d the childre n for mor e than four c on se c uti ve mon ths [] pr e c e din g the fi lin g of thi s petition. Ms. Stinson a dmitted she has paid no child support and her visitation prior to the filing of the termination petition wa s sporadic, token and at the initiation of the foster pare nt. Mr. Henry

has fa iled to e sta bli sh a re la tio ns hip wi th h is c hil d a nd ha s f a ile d to vo lun tari ly take the ste ps to m a int a in con tac t with his c hil d, to l e g iti ma te his child and eng ag ed in ac tiviti es which e x hibited a w an ton disreg ard f

or his child for the four

months prior to his incarce ration.
41. I t is contrary

to the children’ s welfa

re to rema in in the leg al ca re, custody or control of

either of the par ents based upon the above stated fac ts and based upon the fac ts as found by the Court this date at the t er m i n at i o n h ea ri n g. 42. That it is in the best interest of said c hildren and the public that all of the pare ntal rig hts of the re spondents, Patricia Danielle Stinson-12- and Jason Henry , to said c hildren be f oreve r terminate d and that the comp l ete c ustody , control and f ull gua rdianship of said c hildren be a wa rd e d to the Sta te of

T e n n e s s e e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, wi th t he ri g ht t o p la c e sa id c hil dr e n f or a do pti on a ndto c on se nt t o said adoption in l oc o p are nti s ; 43. That an Orde r for Termination of Parenta l Rights s hall have the eff ect of fore v er se vering all of the rig hts, responsibiliti es and ob lig a tio ns of

the pa re nt t o th e c hil d and o f the c hil d to the pa re nt. The pa rent shall have no further rig ht to notice of pr ocee dings f or the adoption of the children by other persons and the pare nt sha ll ha ve no ri g ht to ob

je c t to the c hil dr e n’ s a do pti on or the re a ft e r, a t a ny

tim e , to have any relationship, l eg al or other wise, with the childre n; 44 . T hat it is in the be st i nte re st o f thec hil dr e n a ndthe pu bli c that a ll the pa re nta l r ig ht s o f the Re sp on de nts , Jas on He nry a ndPa tr ic ia Danielle Stinson, to [ C.S.L .S.] and [ T.D.S.], forever be terminated and that compl ete c ustody , control and f ull gua rdianship should be a wa rd e d t o th eS t ate of

Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, wi th the ri g ht t o p la c e sa id c hil dr e n f or a do pti on a ndto con se nt t o such adoption in l oc o p are nti s . IT IS , THERE FORE, ORDERED, ADJUDG ED, AND DECREED:
1. Th a t th e Pe tit ionfo r the Te rm inatio n of P are nta l Rig hts of Pa tr ic ia Danielle Stinson and Ja son Henry to said children, [C.S.L .S.] and [T.D.S.] , be and is he reby g rante d by clea r and convincing evidenc e up on the fi nd ing s se t f

orth a bo ve a ndupon the g ro un ds a s st a te d in the petition filed in this cause.
2. That all of the pare ntal rig hts of Patricia Danielle St i n s o n and J ason He nry

to said children be , and the sa me ar e, her eby fore ver te rm inate d a ndthat said t e rm inatio n is in the c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st.
Mr. Henry

and Ms. Stinson filed separate notices of a ppeal. Mr. H enry

raises the following issues for re view as se t out in his brief:

I . A . Wh e the r the re wa s c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Appellant’s parenta l rig hts on gr ounds of aba ndonment when Appellant wa s unawa

re he was the biologica l f

ather of the child prior to his incarce ration.-13- B . Wh e the r there wa s c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Appellant’s pa

renta l rig hts based on wa nt o n disreg ard w hen Ap pe lla nt w a s u na wa

re he wa s th e bio log ic a l f a the r prior t o h is incar cer ation.
C. Wh e the r the re wa s c le ar an d c on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Appellant’s pa

renta l rig hts based on lac k o f co ncern when the Appellant wa s unawa

re he was the biologica l f

ather of the child prior to his incarce ration.
I I . W het her

the re wa s c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Ap pe lla nt’ s p are nta l r ig hts on the ba sis of c on dit ion s w hic h le d to r e mo v a l h a v e n o t b e e n r e me d ie d o r o th e r c o n d itio n s p r e v e n t r eturn wh en Ap p el l an twa s i n ca rc er at ed t h e e n t i re t i m e o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs a ndwa s u na wa

re he wa s th e bio log ic a l f a the r o f the c hil d p ri or

to incar cer ation.
I I I

. Whether Appellant’s pare ntal rig hts c an be terminated w hen Mr. Henry was ne ver inc luded in any Permane ncy Plan and was g iven no state me nt of re sp on sib ili tie s to c omp ly wi th in or de r to ha ve the c hil d a wa rd e d to him

. I V. Whe the r the re is c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to te rm inate Appellant’s pare ntal rig ht ba sed on mental incompe tence when ther e was no e vidence of Appe llant’s mental incompetenc e at a ny point thr ou g ho ut the pr oc e e din g s. V. Whether there was clea r and convincing evidenc e that terminating Appellant’s rights [was] in the best interest of the c hild.
Ms. Sti nson raises the f

ollowing issues for

revie w as stated in he r brief : I . Whether the trial c ourt’s fi ndings r eg arding g rounds for termination of Appellant’s pare ntal rig hts a re supported by

clea r and convincing evidenc e. I I . Whether the trial c ourt’s findi n gs t hat termination of pa renta l rig hts of Appellant Patricia S t i n s o n is in the best interest of he r children.
I I I . Whether the trial c ourt er re d i n admi tting into evidenc e, over objection, the ca se re cording s of the Department of Children’ s-14- Service s Caseworke rs without reg ard to the a dmissibi lityof the c on te nts

. Be cause this case wa s tried by the court sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview the case de novo up on the re c or d w itha

pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss o f the fi nd ing s o f f a c t by the tr ia l c ou rt . U nle ss the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm absent er

ror of law. See Te nn . R. App. P. 13(d). F urthermor e, whe n the re solution of the issues in a case depends upon the truth fu lne ss o f w itn e sse s, the tr ia l ju dg e wh o h a s th e op po rtun ity to o bs e rv e the wi tne sse s in the ir ma nn e r andde me a no r w hil e te sti fying is i n a fa r b e tte r p os iti on than th is C ou rt to d e c ide tho se issues. Se e Mc Cal

e b v . Sa turn Cor

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

lie s in the fi rs t in stanc e wi th the tr ie r o f f a c t, andthe c re dib ili ty

a c c or de d w ill be g iven g reat weig ht by

the appe llate court. See id. ; se e als o W alt on v . Young , 950 S.W .2d 956, 959 (Tenn.1997)

. The standa

rd for the termination of pa

renta l rig hts is well settled. The United States Supreme Court has r ecog nized the important nature of case s involving the termination of pare ntal rig hts, stating that “[f]ew conse quence s of judicial ac tion are so g rave as the seve ranc e of natura l family

ties.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J

. , 5 1 9 U. S

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

the Fourteenth Amendme nt.” Id . The c onstitut ional protec tions of the par ent-c hild relationship require certain safe g uards be fore the re lationship can be se vere d. See O'Daniel v. Me ssier , 9 05 S.W. 2d18 2, 18 6 ( Te nn .Ct .A pp .1 99 5) (r e v' d o n o the r g ro un ds ); In re: Swanson , 2 S.W .3d 180 (Tenn .1999) ).
As a saf eg uard, c ourts are require d to apply the heig htened “ clea

r and c onvincing ” proof standard. See Santosky , 4 55 U. S. at 76 9; O'Daniel , 905 S.W .2d at 186. To justify the termination of par ental rig hts, the g rounds for te rmination must be established by clea r and convincing evidenc e. See T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (c )( 1) (2 00 5) ; State Dep't of Hum an Servs. v. Def riece , 937 S.W .2d 954, 960 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). A lthough it does not re quire a s much certainty as the “ bey ond a re asonable doubt” standar d, the “c lear and convinc ing e vidence ” standard is more exacting tha n the “pr eponder ance of the e vidence ” standa rd. O'Daniel , 905 S.W. 2d18 2, 18 8 ( Te nn .Ct .A pp .1 99 5) ; Bra ndo n v . W right , 8 38 S.W. 2d53 2, 53 6 ( Te nn . Ct

. App.1992). In order

to be clea

r and c onvincing , evidenc e must eliminate any serious or substantial doubt about the corr ectne ss of the conc lusions to be drawn fr om the evidenc e. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. , 8 33 S.W. 2d89 6, 90 1 n . 3 (T e nn .1 99 2) ; O'Daniel , 905 S.W .2d at 188. Such evidenc e should produce in the fac t-finder ' s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the alleg ations sought to be e stablished. O' Da nie l, 905 S.W .2d at 188; Wiltcher v. Bradley , 708 S.W .2d 407, 411 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985). In contra st to the preponder ance of the e vid e nc e stand ard , c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e sh ou ld d e mon str a te that th e truthof the fa c ts asserted is “hig hly

probable ” as oppose d to merely “more probable ” than not. Lettner v. Plum m er , 5 59 S.W. 2d78 5, 78 7 ( Te nn .1 97 7) ; Go lds mith v . Ro be rts , 622 S.W .2d 438, 441 (T e nn .Ct .A pp .1 98 1) ; Bra ndo n v . W right , 838 S.W .2d at 536.-15-

T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c)( 2005) g overns termination of pare ntal rig hts and requir es that such termination be ba sed upon:

(1) A f inding by the court by clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e that the g rounds for termination of parental or g uardia nship rig hts have be en established; and (2 ) T hat te rm inatio n o f the pa re nt' s o r g ua

rd ia n' s rig hts is i n th e be st interests of the c hild.
He re , th e tr ia l c ou rt

te rm inate d th e re sp e c tiv e pa re nta l r ig hts of

Mr . H e nry

a ndMs. Stins on based upon g rounds codifie d at T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g ) (2005) , which re ads, in pertinent pa rt , a s f oll ow s: (g ) I nitiation of termination of pare ntal or guar dianship rig hts may be ba se d u po n a ny

of the fo llo wi ng g ro un ds : (1) Abandonment by

the pare nt or g uardia n, as define d in § 36-1-102, has occ ured; (2) There ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the par ent or g uardia n with the s tatement of responsibilities in a permane ncy plan or a pla n of ca

re... (3)( A) T h e c h il d h a s b e e n r e mo v e d f r o m th e h o me o f th e p ar e n t or g uardia n by

order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (i) The conditions which led to the child's re moval or other c onditions whi ch in all re asonable probability would cause the child to be subjected to further a

buse or neg 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), stil l pe rs ist ; (ii) There is little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at a n e arl y date so that the c hil d c a n be sa fe ly re turne d to the pa re nt( s) or g uardia n(s) in the ne ar f uture; (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 the child' s chanc es of early integ ration into a saf

e, stable and pe rmane nt home. Concerning the g round of a bandonment, T.C.A. § 36-1- 102 (2005) de fines that term, in releva nt pa rt , a s f oll ow s: (1)( A) F or purpose s of t erminating the parental or g uardia n rig hts of pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) of a child to that child in or der to make that c hil d a va ila

ble fo r a do pti on , " aba nd on me nt" me a ns that:-16- (i) F or a pe riod of four

(4) c onsecutive months immed iately 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 renta l ri gh t s or adoption, that the pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) e ither have willfullyfailed to v i s it or have wi llf ull y faile d to supp ort or h a ve wi llf ull y faile d to make re a so na

ble payments toward the support of the child;
* * * (iii) A biologic al or leg al father has either willfully failed to visi t or willfullyfailed to make re as o nable pay ments toward the support of the child' s mother during the four (4) mont hs immediately prec eding the bi rth of t he child; provided, that in no instance sha ll a final orde r te rm inatin g the pa

re nta l r ig hts of

a pa re nt a s d e te rm ine d p ur su a nt t o this subdivi sion (iii) be en t ered until at least thirty (30) day s have elapse d since the date of the c hild's birth; (iv) A pa rent or g uardia n is incarc erated at the time of the institution of an action or proc eeding to declar e a c hild to be an aba ndoned child, or the pa rent or g uardia n has bee n incar cer ated during all or part of the four ( 4) month s immediately prec eding the institut ion of such action o r proc eeding , and either has willfully

failed to visit or has wi llf ull y faile d to supp ort or ha s will fu lly faile d to ma ke re a so na

ble payments toward the support of the child for fou r (4 ) consecutive m o n t h s i m m ed i at el y

p re ce d i n g s u ch p ar en t 's o r gu ar d i an 's incar cer ation, or the pare nt or g uardia n has eng ag ed in conduc t prior to incar cer ation that exhibi ts a wanton disreg ard for t he welfare of the child;
* * * (D ) F or pu rp os e s of thi s su bd ivi sio n (1 ), " wi llf ull y faile d to s up po rt " o r " wi l l fu l l y fa i l ed t o m ak e re as o n ab l e pa y m en t s t o wa rd s u ch ch i l d 's support" me ans the willful fa ilure, for a period of four (4) c onsecutive months, to provide monetary support or the willful failure to provide more than toke n payments toward the support of the child; (E ) F or pu rp os e s o f this su bd ivi sio n ( 1) , " wi llf ull y fai led to v isi t" me a ns the wi llf

ul f a ilu re , f or a pe ri odof

fo ur (4 ) c on se c uti ve mon ths , to visit or eng ag e in more tha n token visitation;-17- (F ) Aba ndonment may

not be re pented of

by resuming visitation or su pp ort su bs e qu e nt t o the fi lin g of a ny pe tit ionse e kin g to t e rm inate pare ntal or g uardia nship rights or se eking the adoption of a child; and (G) " Abandonment" and " abandonme nt of an infa nt" do not ha ve any other definition except that which is set forth in this section, it being the intent of the gen era l assembly to establish the only

g rounds for abandonme nt by s tatutory definition. Specifica lly , it shall not be re qu ir e d th a t a

pa re nt b e sh ow n to ha ve e vin c e d a se ttl e d pu rp os e to fore g o all pare ntal rig hts and responsibili ties in order f or a de te rm inatio n o f a

ba nd on me nt t o b e ma de . D e c isi on s o f any c ou rt to the contra ry are here by

leg islatively

overr uled; T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c) a llows for termination of pa renta l rig hts if any

one of the g rounds ou tli ne d inT. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (g ) i s f ou ndby c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e , a ndte rm inatio n is in the best intere st of the child. Gr ound s for term ination of Mr. Henry’s pare ntal rights to C.S.L.S
We w ill fi rs t a dd re ss w he the r the re is c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e in the re c or d to support the g rounds for te rmination of Mr. He nry ’s par ental rig hts to C.S .L .S. From our r eading of the Or der in this case , it appear s that the trial court terminated Mr. H enry ’s par ental rig hts on g rounds of a

bandonment, T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(g )(1) . The trial c ourt based its finding of abandonme nt as to Mr. Henry on at least two of the statutory definitions of that term: (1) w illful failure to support and/or willful failure to visit , T.C.A. § 36-1-102( 1)(A) (i); and ( 2) conduc t demonstrating a wa nton disreg ard f or the we lfare of the c hild, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)( A)(iv) . The trial court a lso based termination of Mr. Henry ’s par ental rig hts on gr ounds of per sistence of conditions. T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g )(3) (A). We will examine eac h of these g rounds ag ainst the rec ord bef

ore us. The re cord indicates that Mr. He nry was inca rce rate d around Ma

rch of 2000 for po sse ssi on of

Sc he du le I I

dr ug s w ithint e nt t o s e ll a ndtw o c ou nts of the ft ov e r $ 1, 00 0. Pr ior

to his incarc eration, Mr. Henry admitted that he had e ng ag ed in ac tiviti es with Ms. Sti nson that could have cause d a child to be c onceive d. Whil e he w as inca rce rate d, Mr. Henry

found out that Ms. Sti nson was pre g nant with C.S.L .S. He testified that he a sked if he w as the father a nd she tol d h im that he wa s n ot. Mr . H e nry too k M s. Stin so n’ s w or d a ndma de no fu rthe r i nq uirie s a s to his pate rn ity . H ow e ve r, he te sti fi e d th a t he ha d s ome do ub ts a s to wh e the r h e wa s th e fathe r, to wi t: Q [to Mr. Henry ]. What–at any point, did y ou still have que stions as to w h e th e r

o r n o t y o u w e r e th e f

ath e r o f [C

. S. L

. S. ]?
A. I had wonde red.-18- Q. You still had wondere d?
A. No. B eca

use I know he is now mine. Q. B e fo rethe DN A t e st?
A. It was alway s in the back of my mind that he could be. And if he wa s, I wante d to be the re fo r h im.
Mr . H e nry

wa s r e le a se d f

ro m jail a ndpla c e d o n p ro batio n in No ve mbe r o f 2 00 0. De sp ite his testimonythat he still wondered if C.S.L .S. was his child, Mr. Henry took no steps toward fi nd ing ou t a

bo ut h is p a te rn ity

or a ny ste ps to e sta

bli sh a re la tio ns hip wi th C .S. L .S. du ri ng his pr ob a tio n, to w it:

Q. What a

bout the time that y ou wer e on probation? Did y ou have discussions at that point of tim e as to whe ther o r n o t y ou wer e the f a th e r o f [C

. S. L

. S. ]?
A. Ye s. * * * Q. Then, at what time during that time did y ou try to determine w h e th e r o r n o t y o u w e r e th e f

a th e r o f [C

. S. L

. S. ]?
A. None
Mr. Henry ’s probation was short lived and he was a rre sted in J uly

of 2001 for

violation of probation. He is curre ntly serving an eig ht y ear s sentence

. Despite the f

act that Mr. H enry

took no steps to determine his paternity even thoug h he had some que stion as to whether he was C.S.L .S.’s father , Mr. Henry knew that he was C.S.L .S.’s father

in Dece mber of 2002, w hen the r esults of the DNA testing w ere available . The re c or d in dic a te s th a t, s inc e that ti me un til the fi lin g of the pe tit ionto t e rm inate his pa re nta l r ig hts in J anuary

2004, Mr. Henry

has take n no steps to form a r elationship with his son. Alt houg h Mr. He nry c ou ld h a ve g ott e n a c c e ss t o th e Damr on s’ ph on e nu mbe r andc ou ld h a ve ma de c a lls to C.S. L .S. , h e too k n o a c tio n, to w it:

Q. I n th e pe nit e nti ary , are y ou able to us e the te le ph on e to t ry to c a ll the child? A. Yes, ma ’am, but they

g ot a list. You got to g et the number to put on y ou r a pp ro ve d li st.-19- Q. So, y ou wouldn’t be able to without having that phone number on y ou r l ist ; c or

re c t?
A

. I c a n g e ti to n m y

l i s t ?
* * * Q. So, what have y ou done as f ar a s g etting h i s [ C.S.L .S.’s] phone number on y our list? You said, that y ou can ma ke–
A. I don’t eve n know Mrs. Da mron’s number. A nd I have cal l ed [Ms . Stins on] i n the past and ta lked to him, while he was ove r there

. Q. Did y ou not ask [Ms. S tinson] for Mrs. Damron’ s phone number?
A. No. Q. Did y ou ask [DCS ] for Mrs. Damron’ s phone number?
A. No. Q. You have not asked a ny one for Mrs. Damron’ s phone number?
A. No.
Mr . H e nry

fu rthe r t e sti fi e d th a t he ha s p a id n o s up po rt fo r C .S. L .S. a ndthat he ha s o nly seen the child two times (both occa sions where Ms. Sti nson broug ht C.S .L .S. to the jail). Con c e rn ing tho se tw o v isi ts, Mr . H e nry te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q. Would y ou ag ree , would y ou not, Mr. Henry , that two visits of an ho ur e a c h is no t e no ug h to e sta bli sh a rel atio ns hip wi th h im [C.S. L .S. ]? I s th a t c or

re c t?
A. Ye s, ma ’am. I n fac t, the rec ord re veals that ne ither Mr. He nry nor his family

has any bond with C.S .L .S. and that C.S.L .S. has no rea l knowledg e of his biolog ical father.
I n his brief, Mr. H enry

seems to indicate that DCS di d not make re asonable eff orts befor e pe tit ion ing fo r t e rm inatio n o f h is p are nta l r ig hts . U nd e r T .C. A. § 3 7- 1- 16 6( a ) ( 20 05 ), the c ou rt is r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r D C S m a d e “ r e a s o n ab l e e f f o r t s ” f o r r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y. T. C.A . § 37 -1 -1 66 (g )( 1) de fi ne s “ re a so na ble e ff orts” a s f oll ow s:-20- As used in this sectio n , “re asonable eff orts” mea ns the exercise of rea sonable c are and dilige nce by the department to provide services r e l a t e d t o m e e t i n g t h e n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h e f a m i l y . In determining re asonable eff orts to be made w ith respec t to the c hild, a s d e sc ri be d inthi s su bd ivi sio n, a nd in making su c h r e a so na ble eff orts, the child' s health and safety shall be the pa

ramount conc ern. Neve rtheless, re unification of a family is a two-way

street, a nd the law doe s not require DCS to carry

the entire burden of

this goa l. The re cord indicates that Mr. He nry rec eived no tif ic a tio n c on c e rn ing the se pr oc e e din g s a ndthat he ha d th e op po rtun ity to p art ic ipate . Within the conf ines of its own resour ces and the spec ific circ umstances of this case ( i.e. Mr. He nry ’s incar cer ation), it is the opinion of this C ourt that DCS has made re asonable eff orts in this case. Unfortunately , Mr. Henry , by virtue of his inca

rce ration and othe r circ umstances, ha s been unable to re ciproc ate in the pr ocess of reunific ation. Fr om the rec ord bef ore us, we conclude that there is clear

and convinc ing e vidence to support the trial court’ s finding that Mr. Henry ’s pare ntal rig hts to C.S .L .S. should be terminated on the g rounds of a bandonment for

willful failu re to s up po rt

a ndwi llf ul f a ilu re to v isi t du ri ng the statut ory pe ri od . F urthe rm or e , th e re is ample evide nce in the r ecor d to support a finding that Mr. Henry ’s ac tiviti es bef ore inc arc eration, during incar cer ation, and during probation demonstrate a wanton disreg ard f or his own welf

are much less that of the c hild. G r ounds forte r m ina ti on o f Ms . St inso n’ s pa r e nt al r igh ts to C. S.L. S and T .D .S.
I n a dd iti on to the g ro un ds of aba nd on me nt andpe rs ist e nc e of c on dit ion s, Ms. Stin so n’ s pa re nta l r ig hts to the Chi ldr e n w e re a lso te rm inate d o n th e g ro un ds of failu re to s ub stanti a lly comply with her re sponsibili ties in the permane ncy plans, T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(2) . As discussed by this Court i n In re M. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004):

T er minating pare ntal rig hts ba sed on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(2) re q u i res more proof tha n that a par ent has not complied with every

jot a nd tittl e of the perma nency plan. To succ eed un de r T e nn .Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 2) , the D e pa rt me nt mus t demonstrat e fi rst that the re quirements of the perma nency plan ar e re a s o n ab le a n d r e late d to r e me d y in g th e c o n d it io n s th a t c a u s ed the child to be removed fr om the pare nt's c ustody in the first place , In re V ale ntine , 79 S.W. 3d at 547; In re L. J. C. , 124 S.W .3d 609, 621 (T e nn .Ct .A pp .2 00 3) , a ndse c on d th a t th e pa re nt 's no nc omp lia nc e is substan t i al i n light of the deg ree of noncomplianc e and the importance of the particular re quirement that ha s not been met . I n re V ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 548-49; I n re Z.J.S., 2003 WL 21266854, at * 1 2

. T ri v i al , m i n o r, o r t ec h n i ca l d ev i at i o n s fr o m a p er m an en cyp l an 's requirem en t s will not be deemed to a mount to subst antial noncompliance

. In re V

ale ntine , 7 9 S. W.3 d at 54 8; Departm en t of Chi ldren's S ervs. v . C.L. , N o
. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 2 7 2 9

- CO A

- R3

- JV , 2 0 0 3 WL-21- 22037399, at (Te nn.Ct.App.Aug .29, 2 0 0 3 ) (No Te nn. R.App. P. 11 application filed)

. Id . at 656-57.
Under the permanenc y

plans established in this case , Ms. Sti nson was re quired to attend pare nting c lasses, to seek dr ug and alc ohol counseling , to submit to drug tests (including a hair

follicle test), to maintain stable e mploy ment, and to re solve all of her criminal issues. The r ecor d supports a finding that these re quirements ar e re asonable and re lated to re medy ing the conditions that cause d the Children to be re moved from Ms. Stinson’s custody in the first place . The re cord indicates that Ms. Stinson understood the require ments of the permanenc y plans and that she ag ree d to same. The r ecor d also indicates that DCS, Ms. Sti nson’s attorney , and Mrs. Damron wer e instrumental in enc ourag ing and assisting Ms. Stinson in t ry ing to mee t those require ments. No ne the le ss, Ms. Stin so n a dmi ts that sh e faile d to c omp ly wi th the plans , to wi t: Q [to Ms

. S t i n s o n ] . Would y ou ag ree that y ou didn’t complete the duties and re sponsibili ties on the Permane ncy Plans that y ou signe d?
A. Ye s. Q

. A n d y o u h a v e s e e n it

[t h e p lan s ]?
A. Ye s. Q. And y our attorney and y ourself have had opportunities to have at le a st s e e n “ Th e Cr ite ri a

fo r T e rm inatio n o f P are nta l Rig hts ” ; c or re c t?
A. Ye s. Q. Do y ou re me mbe r s ig nin g that?
A. Ye s. Q. An d y ou un de rs too d at th a t ti me wh a t it me a nt that y ou ne e de d to do to ge t y our childre n back?
A. Ye s. Q. An d u p u nti l th e tim e that th e Peti tio n w a s se rv e d u po n y ou to te rm inate y ou r p are nta l r ig hts , y ou ha d n ot a c c omp lis he d th e g oa ls that y ou neede d to acc omplish t o have the children returne d to y ou; c or re c t?-22- A. No, I didn’t. I was trying, but I

was fig hting a

losing battle. By her ow n admission, Ms. S tinson has failed to substantially comply with the require ments of the permanenc y

plans. Concerning the g rounds of a bandonment, we cannot c onclude that Ms. Stinson has willfullyfailed to visit with these Children during the statutory period. Althoug h the re cord indicates that he r visitation has alway s been spor adic, a nd that, at one time, she did not visit from Easter until November, she ha s (during the four months immediately prec eding the filing of the petition to terminate her pa renta l rig hts) visited and phoned the c hildren under the supervision of Mr s. Damr on . H ow e ve r, the re c or d d oe s su pp ort a fi nd ing of

aba nd on me nt f

or wi llf ul f a ilu re to su pp ort th e Chi ldr e n. Al tho ug h M s. Stin so n’ s e mpl oyme nt h ist ory is a lso sp or a dic , s he ha d h e ld jobs periodically

throug hout the time the Children have be en in DCS custody . Howeve r, the rec ord indicate s that she has not paid a ny support (other tha n token) for these Children.
F ina lly , o n th e g ro un ds of pe rs ist e nc e of

c on dit ion s, the se Chi ldr e n in iti a lly c a me int o DCS custody

due to indications of abuse (i.e. burn ma rks, hea d lice, diape r ra sh, and being unkempt). As Ms. Stinson poi nts out in her brief, the se conditions have be en re medied by placing the Children in foster c are . This Court, however , is conce rned w ith the underly ing conditions in Ms. S tinson’s life that led to these Children be ing ne g lected w hile they wer e in her leg al custody . The re cord indicates that Ms. Sti nson has abuse d drug s and alc ohol since she wa s twelve y ear s old (at the time of the he aring in this m atter, she was twe nty -three ). B eca use of he r substance a

buse, Ms. Stinson has been unable to maintain stable relationships, employ ment, or ho us ing –a ndthe se are the c on dit ion s th a t ul tim a te ly le d to re mov a l of

the Chi ldr e n. At

the tim e of the he aring , Ms. Sti nson had complete d a drug reha bilitation program at Tee n Challeng e; howeve r, there is some indication in the rec ord, that Ms. Stinson had been see n under the influence since he r re lease from that prog ram. The rec ord also re veals that Ms. Stinson has had previous drug reha

bilitation, bot h in-patient and outpatient, and that she ha s relapse d following those treatments. I n addition, as of the date of the he aring , Ms. Sti nson had no housing of her own, she wa s eng ag ed to Sean Strickland ( a man that she had formerly done drug s with, acc ording to her own a dmission). W hile the hea ring in this case wa s still g oing on, Ms. Stinson quit her job as a c arpe t lay er ( making $8.00 per hour ), and ha s started a nother job making $7.00 pe r h ou r. I n s ho rt , h e r e mpl oyme nt i s st ill no t st able . A lth ou g h, the re c or d in dic a te s th a t Ms

. Stin so n is a t le a st t

rying to g a in c on tr ol o ve r h e r a dd ic tio n a ndto s e e k s ta bil ity in h e r l if e , th e re is n o s u p p o r tf

o r a f i n d i n g t h a tt h e s e c h a n g e s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d t o t h e p o i n to f p e r m a n e n c y. These Children ha ve bee n in DCS custodyfor most of their y oung lives. Ms. St inson has had ample opportunity

to effe ct the nec essary

chang es in her life in order to pa rent he r childre n. Howeve r, the re cord shows that she has not made sig nificant steps towa rd that g oal. The Children are now in a stable e nvironment wher e they are well loved and c are d for. The re is eve ry ind ic a tio n th a t th e Damr on s w ishto a do pt the br oth e rs . A t th is p oin t, c on tin uin g the pa re nt/ c hil d relationship wit h Ms. Sti nson will onlywork to dela y the Children’s integ ration into a saf e, stable, and pe rmane nt home. Consequently , we c onclude that ther e is clea r and c onvincing-23-

e vid e nc e in the re c or d to su pp ort th e g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f M s. Stin so n’ s p are nta l r ig hts to the Children.
Best Inter ests
Be fore a court in this State can te rminate a biologica l pare nt's pa

renta l rig hts, it m ust find that doing so is in the best intere st of the child. See T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c)( 2). I n determining whether termination of par ental rig hts is in a child's be st interest, the lower court must consider the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s:

(1) W h et her the pare nt or g uardia n has made such an a djustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or co n d i t ions as to make it safe and in the child' s best interest to be in the home of the par ent or g uardia n; (2) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after re asonable eff orts by available social ser vices ag encie s for such dur ation of t i m e t h at lasting a djustment does not rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a m e aningf

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

e c t a c hange o f c are ta

ke rs a ndph y sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to have o n t he child' s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether the parent or guar dian, or other person residing 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 , or ne g le c t to wa

rdthe c hil d, or

a no the r c hil d or adult in the fa milyor household; (7 ) W h et h ert h e p h y s i ca l en v i r o 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 tivityin the home, or whe ther ther e is such use of alcohol or c ontrolled substance s as may re n der the pare nt or g uardia n consistently unable to ca

re f or 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 detrimental to the child o r p re v ent the par ent or g uardia n-24- from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and supervision for the child; or (9) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has paid child support consistent with the child support g uidelines pro m u l gated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5-101. T.C.A. § 36-1-113( i) (2005).
This list is not ex haustive, and the statute does not re quire the c ourt to find the exist ence of eve ry fac tor befor e conc luding that termination is i n a child' s best interest. Sta te v . T .S. W. , No. M2001-01735-COA- R3-J V, 2002 Tenn.A pp. LEXI S 340, at *9 (Tenn.Ct .App. May 10, 2002).
The re cord be fore us is replete w ith evidence to support a finding that termination of Mr. Henry and Ms. Stinson’s parental rights is in the best intere sts of these Children. Numer ous witnesses testified that the Children ha ve bonded w ith the Damrons and that the Damrons ha ve pr ov ide d a

sta ble , a ndlov ing ho me fo r the se bo y s. Al tho ug h C. S.L .S. ha s so me bo ndwi th M s. Stins on, the re cord supports a finding that his bond is st rong er w ith his foster mother. The r ecor d indicates that T.D.S. has primarily bonded with the foster

mother. These bonds are not surprising considering the fa ct that C.S.L .S. has been w ith the Damrons since he wa s one and T.D .S. has been w ith them since he wa s four months old.
There is also substantial testim ony conce rning the bond these br others have with eac h oth e r. Ms. Stin so n’ s g rand fathe r t e sti fi e d th a t he ha s so me c on c e rnwi th M s. Stin so n’ s a bil ity to car e for both Chil dren. The re is also some indication in the recor d that Mr. Henry ’s father wi sh e s to ha ve c us tod y

of C.S. L .S. , h is b iol og ic a l g rand so n. Ho we ve r, the re c or d s up po rt s a finding that separ ating these two brothe rs would be e x tremely detrimental to ea ch of the m. On the other ha nd, the Damr ons have e x presse d a desire to adopt both boy s and to raise them toge ther.
As discussed above , neither Mr . Henry nor Ms. Stinson have ever provided a ny sig nif ic a nt s up po rt

fo r the se Chi ldr e n. Al so , n e ith e r p art y ha s b e e n a

ble to m a int a in s ta

ble employ ment and/or housing . There is also no meaning ful relationship between Mr. H enry and C.S.L .S. Although ther e is some bond betwe en the boy s and Ms. Stinson, t here is no indication that the Children suffe r sepa ration anxiety

afte r visiting with Ms. Stins on, or that they ask about her w hen she is abse nt. Rather, the r ecor d indicates that the Children r ecog nize the Damrons as their mother a nd fathe r and ha ve bonded w ith them accor dingly . Consequently , the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interests of these Children is supported by clea r and convincing evidenc e in the re cord.
Case Re cordings
Ms. Sti nson asserts that the tria l court committed reve rsible er ror by admitting, over-25-

objection, the DCS case rec ording s. Specifica lly , Ms. Sti nson asserts that these rec ords contained he arsay . We first note that the trial court is afforde d wide discre tion in the admission or re je c tio n o f e vid e nc e , a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt ' s a c tio n w ill be re ve rs e d o n a pp e a l on ly

wh e n th e re is a showing of an a

buse of discr etion. See Otis v. Cam bridge Mut. F ire Ins. Co. , 850 S.W .2d 439 (T e nn .1 99 2) ; Da v is v . Ha ll , 920 S.W .2d 213, 217 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995).
Th e c a se re c or din g s a t is su e are the bu sin e ss r e c or ds of DC S, w hic h w e re ma int a ine d in acc ordanc e with DCS’s internal proc edure s. As such, these r ecor ds are g ener ally admissible as rec ords of re g ularly

conducte d business activities. See Te nn . R. Ev id. 80 3( 6) . B e c a us e Ms. Stins on made no objec tion to any specific content of the se re cords, ther e is no g rounds for determining whe ther the r ecor ds contained he arsay . Consequently , we c annot say that the trial court a bused its discretion in allowing these re cords into evidenc e. None theless, there is no indication that the trial court relied on these rec ords in rea ching its decision in this case . As discussed above , there is clear and convinc ing e vidence in this record to support the tria l court’s finding s even in the a

bsence of these r ecor ds. There fore , even if we a ssume, arguendo , that the tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld h a ve su sta ine d M s. Stin so n’ s o bje c tio n a s to the a dmi ssi bil ity of the se re c or ds , such er ror would be harmless c onsidering the totality of the re cord.
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the Orde r of the trial court terminating the pa renta l r i g h t s o f M r
. H e n r y a n d M s
. S t i n s o n
. C o s t s o f t h i s ap p e a l ar e a s s e s s e d o n e - h a l f t o J a s o n H e n r y, a n d h i s s u r e t y, a n d o n e - h a l f t o P a tr i c i a

D a n i e l l e S t i n s o n , a n d h e r s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK

CRA WF OR D, PRE SI DINGJUDG E, W.S.