### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

Jul y 20, 200 4
IN TH E MATTE R OF: S.R.C.
Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for G ibson County

No. JC-17,952 Larr y Logan, Ju dge

No. W2004-00238-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Augu st 16, 2004

Th e tria l c ou rt

te rm inate d M oth e r’ s p are nta l rig hts . We a ff irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Jaso n C. Sc ott , T re nto n, Te nn e sse e , f or theAp pe llant, M. C. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter , and Juan G. Villasenor, As s i s t ant Attorney Ge ne ra l, f or theAp pe lle e , St a te 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 This is a termination of par ental rig hts case. In May 2003, the Depa

rtment of Chil d re n’s Se rv ic e s (“ DC S” ) fi le d a pet iti on in Gib so n Coun ty Juve nil e Cou rt to te rminate thepa re nta l rig hts of M. C. ( “ Mo the r” ) t o S. R.C ., bo rnMay 16 , 2 00 1. I n it s p e tit ion , D CS a lso na me d as r e sp on de nts alleg ed fathers S.C.S. and S.D.W . The trial c ourt dismissed S

. D. W. upon mot ion of DCS, and S.C.S . enter ed a w aiver

of intere st in the matter. Thus, Mother wa s the s ole re spondent befor e the trial court whe n it heard this matter.
Th e pe rt ine nt fa c ts of thi s c a se are un dis pu te d. Mo the r su ff e rs fr om pa

rano id s c hizo ph re nia and bipolar disorde r and is “poly substance” d ep endant. In addition to abusing dr ug s, Mother experience s audi to r

y an d v is u al h all u c in ations. Mother was inca rce rate d for public intoxi cation fr om September 5, 2001, until November 16, 2001. I n Marc h 2002, Mother lef t S.R .C. in the careof Mother’s sister. DCS re moved S.R.C

. from Mother’ s sister afte r it determined that Mother’s sister ha d in g e ste d X a na x a nd a lc oh ol an d wa s u nf it t o c arefo r S .R. C. In A pril 2 00 2, mothe r e nte re d in to a permanenc y

plan which included providing child car e, sec uring a stable home , securing f inancial stabilitythroug h employ ment or public assist an ce , re fraining f rom drug use, see king dr ug counseling , and comply ing with tr eatment rec ommendations for bipolar disorder. Mother

continued-2-

to abuse drug s, howeve r, and w as inca rce rate d on sever al occa sions, during which S.R.C . was lef t with unfit care -g ivers.
Th e tria l cou rt a wa

rd e d DCS tem

po ra ry c us tod y of S.R. C. in J un e 20 02 , a ft e r f ind ing S.R. C. to be depe ndent and ne g lected and that remova l w as in S.R.C.’s best interest. In November 2002, Mother wa s admitted to a halfway house t o await admission to a drug treatment facility . She ref used to take a dr

ug test, howeve r, and c onsequently became inelig ible to remain at the fac ility

. I n May 2003, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights and the trial court hear d the matter in Oc tober 2003. At the time of trial, Mother was incar cer ated. Debr a Da venport (Ms. Dave nport), a senior ps y cholog ical examiner who ha d evaluated Mother, testified that, in light of Mother’s mental illness and anti-social traits, itwould take se vera l y ear s, if ever , befor e Mother could provide a

stable environme nt for S.R.C. Ms. Davenport also testified that Mother ha d not
c omp lie d w ithme dic a l tre a tme nt. Th e tria l cou rt a lso he ardthete sti mon y of Pa tti Cun nin g ha m ( Ms. Cunningha m), a DCS case m anage r, who testified that Mother had madeno prog ress on the perma nency

plan and that Mothe r co n t i nued to abuse drug s and alc ohol. The trial court found Mother had not complied with the perma nency plan, that Mother is incompete nt to provide ca re f or S.R.C ., and that termination of Mother’s pa renta l rig hts is in t he bes t i n t er es t of S.R.C. The trial court e ntere d its final o rder terminating Mother’s pa renta l rig hts on J anuary

5, 2004, and Mother fi le d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l to thi s Co urt.

Issues Presented
Mo the r r a ise s th e fo llo wi ng iss ue s, a s w e sli g htl y re state the m, f

or re vie w b y

thi s Co urt: (1) Whether DCS failed t o p ro ve by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that termination of par ental rig hts was in the best intere st of S.R.C .; (2) Whether DCS failed to prove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that it used
rea sonable e fforts to reunify the mother a nd child; (3) Whether DCS failed to pr ove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that Mother had failed to co m p l ywith the perma nency plan wher e Mother’ s dual diag nosis made complianceimpossibl e.

Sta nda rd of Re v ie w
W e r e v i e w t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f a tr i a l c o u rts i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y de novo upon the re cord. W rig ht v . Ci ty of K

nox v ill e , 898 S.W .2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995) . We presu m e t h e trial court’s finding s of fa ct to be corr ect, unless the evidenc e preponde rate s otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Howeve r, no pre sumption of corre ctness attac hes to a trial court’s conc lusions on is sues of law

. Bo wde n v . W

ar d , 275 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).-3-

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 36-1- 113 g overns the te rmination of pare ntal rig hts. The code pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art :

(c ) T e rm inatio n o f p are nta l or g ua rd ia ns hip ri g hts mus t beba se d u po n: (1) A f inding by the court by

clea r and convincing evidenc e that the gr ounds for termination or pare ntal or g uardia nship rights ha ve bee n established; and (2 ) Th a t te rm inatio n of the pa re nt’ s or g ua

rd ia n’ s ri g hts is in thebe st i nte re sts of the c hild.
Tenn. Co d e An n. § 36-1-113( c)( 2001). This section also provide s the g rounds on which pa renta l ri g hts ma y

be te rm inate d. Th e e xiste nc e of a ny statut ory ba sis fo r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l rig hts wi ll support the trial court’s decision to terminate those rig hts. I n r e C

. W. W. , N

. W. W. , Z

. W. W. , & A

. L

. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
A court’s determination to terminate pare ntal rig hts must be supported by clea r and convincing evidenc e. Id. at 474. The “cle ar and convinc ing e vidence ” standa rd is more e x acting than th e “ pr e po nd e ranc e of thee vid e nc e ” stand ard , a lthou g h it do e s n ot d e ma ndthec e rt a inty require d by the “be y ond a re asonable doubt” standar d. Id. To be c lear and convinc ing, the evidenc e mus t e lim inate a ny

su bs ta nti a l do ub t a ndpr od uc e in t he fa c t- fi nd e r’ s mi nda

fi rm c on vic tio n a s to the truth. Id. I ns of

ar a s th e trial cou rt ’s de te rm inatio ns areba se d o n it s a sse ssm e nt o f w itn e ss cre dibilit y , this Court will not ree valuate that assessment absent evidenc e of clea r and c onvincing evidenc e to the contra

ry
. Se e W e lls v . Te nn e sse e Bd

. o f R e ge nts , 9 S.W .3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999)

. Anal y sis
Th e Te nn e sse e Cod e pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art :
I nitiation of termination of pare ntal or guar dianship rig hts may be base d upon any

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

the par ent or g uardia n, as def ined in § 36-1-102, ha s occur red; (2 ) Th e re ha s be e n su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lianc e by thepa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n w ith thestate me nt of re sp on sib ili tie s in a pe rm a ne nc y plan o r a plan o f c a

repu rs ua nt t o the provisions of title 37, chapter 2, part 4; (3)( A)The child has bee n remove d from the home of the par ent or g uardia n by order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (I ) The c onditions which led t o the child's remova l or other c onditions which in a ll re a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity wo uld c aus e the c hil d to be su bje c te d to fu rthe r abuse or neg lect and w hi ch , t h er ef o re, pr event the c hild's saf e re turn to the ca

re of the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (i i) Th e reis l itt le lik e lih oo d th a t th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that the c hild can be safe ly returne d to the parent(s) or g uardia n(s) in t he nea r future; and-4- (i ii) Th e c on tin uatio n o f the pa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n a ndc hil d r e latio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the c hild's c hance s of ea rly integ ration i nto a saf

e, stable and perma nent home.
Tenn. Code Ann. 36- 1-113(g )(1) -(3) (A)( 2001).
Th e tria l c ou rt sp e c if

ic a lly did no t fi nd wi llf

ul aba nd on me nt or

wanto n d isr e g ardfo r the c hil d on the part of Mother. The trial court’ s final orde r is somewhat c ontradictory , howeve r, re g arding the per sistence of

conditions leading to the remova l of S.R.C . from Mother’ s care. Although the trial court stated it did not find “per sistence of conditions,” the tria l court also stated, “ [t ]he Court does find that the child wa s place d as a de pendent and neg lected child in foster careand ther e has be en a tot a l failu re by [Mot

he r] a nd no re a so na

blee ff orts b y he r t o r e me dy

thesituatio n a ndit i s u nli ke ly she will be able to provide a suitable home .” Upon re view of the entire r ecor d in this case, we find overw helmingly clea r and c onvincing evidenc e of g rounds for te rmination of Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts under sec tion 36-1-113(g )(3)(A). As the trial court noted, Mother ente red into two permanenc y plans in this matter, one in Marc h 2 0 0 3 , an d o n e in De ce mb er 2 0 0 3

. S h e ha d n i n et ee n m o n t h s t o co m p l y wi t h t h e pl an s an d , al t h o u gh she wa s incar cer ated for some of that time, she had a substantial amount of time during which she wa s n o t i n ca rc er at ed an d d i d l i t t l e, i f an yt h i n g, t o re m ed y h er s i t u at i o n
. S h e c o n t i n u ed t o ab u s e d ru gs a nd , at th e tim e of

tria l, r e ma ine d me nta lly

inc omp e te nt t o pr ov idec area ndsu pe rv isi on fo r S .R. C. Although w e ar e not insensitive to Mother’s mental illness, the record reflec ts littl e ef fort by Mother to addr ess her illness or to e nd her “poly substance” depende ncy . Mother has not c omplied wi th any re qu ir e me nts of the pe rm a ne nc y plans
. S.R. C. ha s bee n in DCS c us tod y fo r w e ll o ve r s ix
mon ths un de r a

fi nd ing of

de pe nd e nc y

a ndne g le c t a ndthec on dit ion s le a din g to re mov a l of thec hil d clea rly persist. It is unli kely

that Mother will be able to provide a suitable home for S.R.C. in the
near future. Additionally , we a g ree with DCS t hat clea r and c onvincing evidenc e esta blishes gr ounds for te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l rig hts un de r s e c tio n 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 8) , w hic h p ro vid e s:

(B ) The c ourt may terminate the pare ntal or g uardia nship rights of that person if it d e te rm ine s o n th e ba sis of c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e that: (I ) The pare nt or g uardia n of the c hild is i ncompetent to ade quately provide fo r t h e f u rt h e r c a r e a n d s u p er v i s i o n o f t h e c h i l d b ec au s e t h e p ar en t 's o r gu ar d i an 's
me nta l c on dit ionis presen tl yso imp a ir e d a ndis s o li ke ly to r e ma in s o th a t it

is unlikely that the par ent or g uardia n will be able to a ssume or re sume the ca re of and responsibilityfor the c hild in the near f uture, a nd (ii) That termination of pare ntal or g uardia n rig hts is in the best interest of the child.T he T en ne ssee C o d e p ro vid es: 1

(I) In d eterm i ning w he t he r t erm i na t i o n o f p are ntal o r gua rd i an ship ri gh t s i s i n the b est i ntere st
o f t he chi l d pursuant t o t hi s p art , t he co urt s hal l co nsi d er, but i s no t l i m i t ed t o , t he fo l l o wi ng: (1 ) W h e the r th e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n h a s m a d e su c h a n a dju stm e n t o f circ u m sta n c e , co n d u c t,
or c on di t i on s as t o m ake i t s af e an d i n t h e ch i l d' s be s t i n t er es t t o be i n t h e h ome of t h e par en t or guardian;

(2 ) W h e the r th e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n h a s faile d to e ff e c t a la sting a dju stm e n t afte r re a so n a b le ef for t s by a v ai l abl e s oci al s er v i ce s a g en ci es for s u ch du r at i on of t i me t h at l as t i n g a dj u s t men t doe s n ot
r eas onabl y appear poss i bl e;

(3) W het her t he p arent o r guard i an has maint ai ned regul ar vi si t at i o n or o t her contact wi t h t he ch i l d; ( 4) W h et h er a mea n i n g f u l r el at i on s h i p h as ot h er wi s e bee n e s t abl i s h ed bet we en t h e par en t or g u ar di an a n d t h e ch i l d;

( 5 ) T h e e f

fe c t a c h a n g e o f

c a r e t a k e r s a n d p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t i s l i k e l y t o h a v e o n t h e c h i l d 's
em o t i o nal , psy cho l o gi cal and m ed i cal co nd i t i o n;

( 6) W het her t he pare nt or gu ar di an, or ot her per s on r es i di ng wi t h t he pare nt or gu ar di an, ha s s h own br u t al i t y , ph y s i ca l , s ex u al , e mot i on al or ps y ch ol og i ca l a bu s e, or n eg l ec t t owa r d t he ch i l d, or an ot h er c h i l d or a du l t i n t h e f ami l y or h ou s eh ol d;

( 7) W het her t he phy s i cal envi r onment o f t he pare nt ’ s or gu ar di an’ s home i s he al t hy an d s af e, whe t her t her e i s cr i mi nal ac t i vit y in t he home, or whe t her t her e i s s uch us e of al cohol or cont r ol l ed subst ances as m ay rende r t he p arent o r guardian co nsi st ent l y unab l e t o care fo r t he chi l d i n a s afe and st ab l e m anner; ( 8) W het her t he pare nt ’ s or gu ar di an’ s ment al an d/ or e mo t i onal s t at us woul d be det r i ment al t o the c h i l d or pr ev en t t h e par en t or g u ar di an f r om e f fec t i v el y pr ov i di n g s af e an d s t abl e ca r e and
s u per v i s i on for t h e ch i l d; or (9) W het her t he p arent o r guard i an has pai d chi l d s up p o rt co nsi st ent wi t h t he chi l d s up p o rt g u i del i n es pr omu l g at ed by t h e depa r t men t pu r s u an t t o § 36- 5- 101.

T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (I )( 2 0 0 1 ).

-5- Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(8) (B )(2001) . Termination of pare ntal rig hts unde r this sec tion does not r eq u i re a showing of willfulness on the part of the par ent. Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1- 113(8)( C)(2001). Not only does the re cord support termination based on this s ec t i on, but, in her brief to this Court, Mother asse rts that her men t al h ea l t h condition makes long -term dr ug reha bilitation a “near

impossibi lity .” We also ag ree with the tr i al co urt that clea r and c onvincing evidenc e esta blishes that termination of Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts is in the best interest of the c hild under sec tion 36-1-113(I ). 1 S.R.C . has no mea ningf

ul relationshi p with Mother, and Mother cannot c are for S.R.C. Mother cannot pr ovide a safe , healthy home for S.R.C.; she cannot c are for or supervise S.R.C.; Mother’s
c o n ti n u e d drug abuse and mental/emotional condition are likely to be detrimenta l to S.R .C. and make it unlikelythat Mother will be able to car e for S.R.C . in the near

future, if ever
. S.R.C . is in a safe and stable f

oster home, howe ver, w ith a family that i n t en d s to adopt the child. Termination of Mo the r’ s p are nta l rig hts c le arl y is i n S. R.C .’ s b e st i nte re st.-6- Holdin g
I n light of the fore g oing, we affirm t he judgment of the t rial court. Costs of t his appea l are t a x e d t o M o t h e r , M

. C

. , a n d h e r s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE