### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Su bm itt ed on B ri ef

s N ove mb er

24, 200 9
In the Ma tter of: A.W.H. a nd N.N.H.
Appeal from t he Juvenile Court for Laud erdale County No. J7-367 Rachel J. Anthony, Jud ge

No. W2009-01955-COA- R3-PT - Filed Dec ember 29, 2009

This appea l involves the termination of pare ntal rights. After State a uthorities rec eived a

report that the mother of the two children at issue was using dr ugs, the mother admitted that she a nd the father used drugs, a nd the parents stipulated that their children wer e depe ndent and ne glected. T he childre n wer e initially placed with family members. After sever al months, a n o -contact order was e ntere d du e to the pa

re nts ’ c on tin ue d d ru g u se a ndre la te d iss ue s. Th e c hil dr e n w e rethe n p la c e d inState custody and pe rmane ncy plans we re c reated. The pla ns require d, inter alia, that th e pa re nts be c ome dr ug -f re e a ndma int a in a

sta ble , s a fe , an d dru g- fr e e ho me

. De sp ite ye ars of c ou ns e lin g, tr e a tme nt, and periods of abstinence from drug use , the par ents continued to intermittently test positi ve for drug use. DCS filed a pe tition for termination of the par ental rights of both parents. After a trial, the trial
c ou rt te rm inate d th e ir

pa re nta l r igh ts o n g ro un ds of aba nd on me nt, su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lianc e wi th thepe rm a ne nc y p la ns , a ndpe rs ist e nt c on dit ion s. Th e pa re nts no w a

pp e a l. W e a ff

ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t ; J udgm e nt of th e Juv e nileCo ur t A ff

ir me d

H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., delivere d the opi nion of the Court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S. , and J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J. , joined. Jobi Teague , Covington, Tennessee f or the Appe llant/Respondent W.H.

Dee Shaun Peoples, Memphis, Tennesse e for the Appellant/Respondent J.H. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter , Michae l E. Moore, Solici t o r Ge nera l, and Elizabe th C. Driver, Na shville, T en n essee for the A ppellee/Petitioner State of T ennesse e, Depa rtment of Children’s ServicesR ul e 10. M emor andum O pi ni on 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he tria l c o urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a f o rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no prec edent i al va l ue. W hen a c ase is d ec i ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ”, s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l no t b e c ited o r r el i ed on f o r any
r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.

Tenn. Ct

. A pp. R. 10.
-2- M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION 1

F ACT S AND P R O C EE D ING S B E L OW During their mar

riage , Respondent/Appellant J.H. (“ Father” ) and Responde nt/Ap pellant W.H. ( “Mother” ) had two c h i l d re n , A.W.H. and N.N.H., born Dec ember 15, 1994 and De cembe r 12, 199 6 , respe ctively. While the c hildren we re in their pa rents’ c ustody, the Petiti oner/Appe llee Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt of Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ DC S” ) c on du c te d at le a st n ine inv e sti gatio ns int o the well-be ing of the childre n. On June 8, 2006, DCS rec eived a ref err al that Mother wa s abusing drugs. That same day, Mother appea

red at a show cause hearing in the Laude rdale County Juvenile Court ( “trial c ourt”). At the he ari ng , M oth e r a dmi tte d th a t sh e us e d me thamph e ta min e a ndmari juana wi th F a the r andsa id candidly that she ne eded a ssistance with her drug u s e. The trial court plac ed the c hildren in the temporary custody of Father’s sister (“ Aunt”) and her husba nd (“U ncle” ) and se t a pre liminary hearing for later

that m o n th. At the schedule d preliminary he aring, the pa rents stipulated that the children were depende nt and neglec ted. By agre ement, the c hildren we re or dere d to remain in the te mpo r ar y c u s t o d y o f

U n c l e a n d A u n t , a n d e a c h p ar e n tw a s o r d e r t o p a y $ 2 2 7 p e r

m o n t h i n c hil d
su pp ort. On Au gu st 21 , 20 06 , the tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d a writt e n o rd e r c on sis te nt w ithits or a l ruli ng s.
On Janua ry 8, 2007, Aunt filed a

petition for termination of the pa rents’ visitation, asserting that th e y c on tin ue d to us e dr ug s, faile d to pay a ny c hil d s up po rt , a ndha d b e e n a rr e ste d f or do me sti c violence. A fter a hearing, the trial court suspended the pare nts’ contac t w ith the c hildren until they completed thre e drug e ducation an d p arenting sessions, passed three random c onsecutive dr ug scre ens, and no longe r had “ law enf orce ment issues.” The pare nts w ere also found in contempt for faili ng to p a y c hil d s up po rt a ndwe re inc arc e rate d f

or te n d a ys

. The ne xt month, on F ebrua ry 1, 2007, Unc le’s dete rio rating hea lth issues compelled Aunt and Unc le to voluntarily place the children in DCS custody. The ini tial permane ncy plans for the
c hil dr e n, de ve lop e d b y D CS in Fe br ua ry 20 07 , r e qu ir e d th e pa

re nts to b e dru g-f

ree a ndsu bmi t to ran d o m d ru g s c r e e n s , t o p ar t i c i p a t e i n p ar e n t i n g s e s s i o n s a n d l e ar n t o p ar e n t e f f e c t i v e l y , a nd to obtain a stable, sa fe, and drug- fre e home e nvironment. Mother re portedly had bi-pola r disorder , and
was require d to f

ollow the direc tions of her mental health profe ssionals. The goal of the pe rmane ncy plans was e ither re unification or plac ement wi t h re l at i ves. Due to the trial court’ s prior orde r, no contac t was permitted between the pare nts and the childre n at that time.-3-

To a ssi st the pa

re nts in me e tin g the go a ls of the ini tia l pe rm a ne nc y plan, th e DC S c a se manage r worke d with them on a weekly t o bi-wee kly basis. She assisted Mother in getti ng a mental h e a lth in ta

k e w ith Pr o f

e s s io n a l Ca

r e Se r v ic e s

. Bo th p ar e n ts w e r e p la c e d o n th e w a iting list for JACOA Rehabilitation Center, a nd wer e given information on A lc o h o li c s A n o n y mo u s an d N arc otics An on ymo us me e tin gs . T he y w e re giv e n in fo rm ati on on ho w t o a pp ly f or pu bli c ho us ing . Bo th pare nts were tested for

illegal drugs one to thre e times per month. During the winter

and spring of 2007, both pa rents continued to test positive f or drug use

. Du ri ng thi s ti me , th e y li ve d f ir st i n a ho te l a nd the n in a

tr a ile r p ark . T he n, ov e r the c ou rs e of Au gu st and September

2007, Mother passed three consec utive drug scre ens. Despite the f act that Father

had not passed thre e con s ec u t i v e d rug scr eens, in Oc tober, 2007, DCS filed a pe tition t o lift the nocontac t order. T he trial c ourt grante d DCS’s reque st and li fted the no-conta ct order. S hortly after that, Mother re fused to take two consec utive drug screens; refusal was considere d the equivalent of faili ng thedr

ug sc re e ns

. In No ve mbe r 200 7, DC S tr a ns fe rr e d the c a se to a ne w c a se ma na ge r. Inlig ht o f the pa re nts ’ continued failure to comply with the require ments in the i nitial perma nency plans, both plans were revised on Dec ember 26, 2007. The goal was change d from reunific ation to exiting custody to li ve w ith a r e lati v e o r , a lt e r n a ti v e ly , a d o p ti o n

. T h e r e v is e d p lan s c o n tain e dth e s a me r e q u ir e me n ts for thepa re nts

. During the first sever al months of 2008, DCS continued to scree n both pare nts for drug use ; so me re su lts we repo sit ive a nd so me we re ne gativ e

. Du ri ng thi s tim e , the y we re liv ing in a ho te l. In Mar ch 2008, both par ents wer e admitted for a thirty-day tr eatment p ro g ra m at a drug reha bilitation center. Both completed the progra m. A t the conclusion of the tr eatment pr ogram, the pa re nts we re ins truc te d to a tte nd 90 Al c oh oli c s A no ny mou s a ndNa rc oti c s A no ny mou s me e tin gs in 90 days, to continue a lcohol and drug c ounseling, and to obtain a sponsor. The y lived with Mother’s sister for about a mont h, and then lived in an apartment for sever al months. Neither pa rent attended the re quired mee tings or acquire d a sponsor. Af ter c ompletion of the reha

bilitation program, Mother tested negative for dr

u g u s e an d was given unsupervised visitation with the children. Father , ho we ve r, re fu se d to be te ste d. In Ju ne 20 08 , bothpa re nts te ste d p os iti ve fo r dru g u se . D uring thi s time pe riod, Mother and Father separ ated temporarily a fter a domestic violence incident. They late r re c on c ile d a nda lte rn a te d li vin g intw o d if fe re nt h ote ls. At no time did the pare nts make the c hild support payments re quired unde r the pe rmane ncy plans, despite spor ad ic employment. Father w as employed a s a roof er and compensated in cash; Mo the r w a s sp or a dic a lly e mpl oy e d a t a mot e l a ndc omp e ns a te d w ithro om andbo ard . J ud gme nts we ree ve ntu a lly e nte re d a ga ins t bo th M oth e r andFa the r f or the c hil d s up po rt

arr e ara ge s.
To determine whether

it would be fea sible to place the children with relatives, DCS obtained a list from the pare nts of pot ential relatives to take custody. The DCS case manage r conta cted e ach relative, but none wer e willing to take custody of the children. Consequently, in Dece mber 2008, the permanenc y plans wer e re vised to e liminate the goal of exiting c ustody to li ve with a r elative. The sole goa l of the re vised plans was a doption.-4-

OnDe c e mbe r 1 8, 20 08 , th e DC S f ile d a pe tition fo r te rm inatio n of the pa re nta l righ ts o f b oth Mother and Fathe r. The gr ounds for termination asserted in the petition included abandonme nt by failure to visit or support, substantial noncomplianc e wi t h perma nency plans, and per sistent conditions that prevented the safereturn of the childre n to their pare nts’ custody. The tria l court appointed a gua

rdian a d litem for the childre n and an attorney f or ea ch par ent. Discove ry ensue d.

On Marc h 16, 2009, a trial wa s held on the petition t o t er m i n at e. At the hearing, the tria l court he ard te stimony from both DCS case manage rs, Father, Mother , and the children’s foste r mother.
At the outset, the first ca se m anage r explained how t he children came to be in DCS custody and the e fforts that she had made to assist the pare nts in meeting the require ments of the permanenc y plans. She det ai l ed t h e drug abuse counseling and housing information that she provided to the pare nts. During t h e t i m e she was assigned to the c ase, both pa rents continued to f

ail the re quired drug scr eens and lacke d a stable home

. In her testimony, the second DCS c ase manage r continued detailing the pare nts’ history of
unsucce ssful drug abuse treatment and the results of the dr ug tests given to the pare nts. She noted that both Mother and Father had tested posi tive for drug use as rec ently as t wo m onths prior to the trial. She outlined the pare nts’ history of itinerant housing, and said that ne ither par ent had made any child support payme nts during the time she was mana ging the case . The c ase ma nager explained that r e un if

ic a tio n w a s eli min a te d a s a go a l be c aus e of

thepa re nts ’ p e rs ist e nt dru g u se a ndina bil ity to m a int a in s ta

ble ho us ing

. She no te d, ho we ve r, that the pa re nts a nd the c hil dr e n ha d man a ge d to
ma int a in a

lov ing re la tio ns hip a ndthat th e c hil dr e n wa nte d to ma int a in that r e la tio ns hip . Sh e a lso testified that the childre n’s beha vior and school gr ades had improved significantly while in the car e of the foste r family. In his testimony, F ather

large ly corrobor ated the DCS c ase manage rs’ testimony about the pare nts’ history of itinerant housing. He a dmitted t h at he and Mothe r we re r esiding in a one-be d ho te l r oo m, b ut e xp la ine d that he ha d a n or a l a gr e e me nt w iththeho te l ma na ge r that hewo uldbe able to obtain another room for the children in the event they w ere awa rded c ustody. Father adde d that he wa s se arc hin g f

or a ne w p la c e to l ive , a way f

ro m th e ho te l. A s to thehis tory o f p os iti ve dr ug te sts attributed to him, Father claimed that, in many instances, he w as credited with a positive drug scr een beca use DCS sent a fe m al e em ployee to administer the te st and a fe male employee could not administer the test for

a male subje ct. Initially, Father maint ai ned that he did not have a drug pr ob le m, b ut l a te r a dmi tte d th a t hedid . H e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th e tria l c ou rt had or de re d h im t o make c hild support payments, but h e co u l d n o t re call the amount he was orde red to pay. He
e xp la ine d th a t it

wa s d if fi c ult to m ake payme nts fo r two c hil dr e n with on ly o ne inc ome be tw e e n h im and Mother.

In her testimony, M o ther de scribed ha ving enjoyable visits with the children a nd giving them p re sents at Christmas. She claimed that she w ould have sought more visitation had she
rea lized that she could. Mother a dmitted to st ill having a drug problem, but said that she no longe r used drugs “ every day.” Mothe r ac knowledged that she used cr ack c ocaine with Father during the month prior to the trial. She explaine d that she bec ame stre ssed at the thought of her children be ing-5-

adopted, and “just wanted something to forge t it.” Mother conceded that the t rial court had orde red her to pay child support and that she had not done so, apart from giving the children poc ket money
a t vi sit a tio n a ndpr e se nts a t Ch ri stm a s.
The children’ s foster mother testified that the children had been in he r car e for el ev en mon ths . Sh e sa id that th e c hil dr e n’ s g ra de s h a d impr ov e d, tha t th e y wer e pa

rt ic ipatin g in extra curricular a ctivities, and that they had ma de new friends. She said that she hoped to adopt the children, but a cknowledge d that they still l oved their pa rents very much.

OnAu gu st 1 7, 20 09 , th e tria l c ou rt e nte re d a n o rd e r t e rm inatin g th e pa re nta l r igh ts o f b oth Mother and Fathe r. In the or der, the trial court c oncluded that Mother and Father had abandoned the children by w illfully failing to contribute to their support for four consecutive m onths prior to t he filing of the petition; that they had not substantially complied with the provisions of the permanenc y plans; that the conditions that le d to the remova l of the children from the pare nts’ custody persisted; and that termination of the pare ntal rights of both Mothe r and Father was in the best interest of the
c hil dr e n. Mo the r andFathe r n ow app e a l.

I S S UE S ON A PP E AL AND S TANDA RD OF R EVIEW
Onapp e a l, M oth e r andFa the r r a ise the fo llo wi ng iss ue s: 1) Whe ther the tria l court err ed in f inding that the pa

rents had not c omplied with the
re qu ir e me nts of

thepe rm a ne nc y p la ns ; 2) W he the r the tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d infi nd ing that Mo the r a nd Fa the r did no t ha ve sta ble housing; and 3) Whe ther the tria l court er red in finding that termination of Mother’s and Father’s pare ntal rights was i n the best interest of the children when the c hildren have a strong bo ndwi th the pa

re nts , a s c on c e de d b y D CS.

The trial c ourt’s findings of fa ct ar e re v iewed de novo wi th a pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss, unless the evidence preponder ates otherwise. T EN N

. R. A PP

. P. 13 (d ). To te rm inate pa re nta l r igh ts,
a tria l c ou rt

mus t f indthe e xis te nc e of

on e of the statutory gro un ds for te rm inatio n s e t f orth i n Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 36-1- 113(g), a nd that termination is in the child’s best interest. T.C.A. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c ) ( 20 08 Sup p. ); se e In r e F.R .R. , I

II , 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006) (citing In r e Val e ntine , 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) ). Both determinations must be supported by clear and
c on vin c ing e vid e nc e . T .C. A. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c ) ( 20 08 Sup p. ); In r e F.R .R. , I

II , 1 9 3 S

. W. 3 d at 530 (citing In r

e Val e ntine , 79 S.W.3d at 546). “Up o n r e v ie w in g a

te r mi n a ti o n o f

p ar e n ta l r

ig h ts , th is Co u r t’ s d u ty , th e n , is to d e te rmine whether the trial court’s findings, made unde r a c lear and convinc ing standard, a re supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e.” In r e F.R .R. , I

II , 193 S.W.3d at 53 0

. “[ W]hether a statutory ground has be en prove d by the requisite standard of evidenc e is a question of l aw to be review ed de
novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss.” In re B.T. , No. M2007-01607-COA- R3-PT, 2008 WL 276012, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2008), no perm. app. (citing In re Ado ption of A.M .H. , 215 S.W.3d 793, 810 (Tenn. 2007) ).-6- A N A L Y SIS
Statu tory Grounds
At the outset, we note that the trial court determined that thr ee of the grounds f or termination under Te nnessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g) had been proved by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e: aba nd on me nt, su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lia nc e wi th the pe rm ane nc y p la ns , a ndpe rs ist e nt c on dit ion s. T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g)(1) –(3) ( 2008 Supp.). On appeal, M other and Father challenge the trial court’ s de te rm inatio n o nly a s to thegrou ndof su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lianc e wi th the pe rm a ne nc y p la ns

. Th e re fo re , th e gr ou nd s o f a ba nd on me nt andpe rs ist e nt c on dit ion s a reun c ha lle n g e d o n a

pp e a l. “ On ly
o n e g ro u n d need be proved, so long as that ground is proved by c lear and convinc ing evidence .” R.G .W . v . S. M. , No. M2009-01153-COA- R3-PT, 2009 WL 4801686, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2009) (c iting In r

e D. L. B. , 118 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tenn. 2003) ). Wewill neverthe less revie w the trial court’s fi nding that the pare nts had not substantially complied with the terms of the permanenc y plans

. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 37-2- 403(a) (1) requires the development of a permanenc y plan for e ach c hild in foster ca

re. T.C.A. § 37- 2-403(a )(1) (2008 Supp.). The plan is r equire d to include a list of pare ntal responsibilities r easona bly r elated to the perma nency goa ls of the plan. T.C.A. § 37-2-403( a)( 2)(A) (2008 Supp.). One gr ound for termination of pare ntal rights is that “[t]he re ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the pa rent . . . with the statement of responsibilities” in the plan. T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g)(2) (2008 Supp.). “The determination of whether noncompliance is substantial
co m p ares the degr ee of

noncompliance with the importance of the unmet obligation.” I n re M. M. M. , No. W2009-00909- COA-R3-PT, 2009 WL 4505435, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 4, 2009) (citing In re M.J. B. , 140 S.W.3d 643, 656 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)) . There fore , trivial or minor departures fr om the require ments of the per m an en cy plan will not be dee med substantial noncompliance

. Id. (citing In r e M. J. B. , 140 S.W.3d at 656-57))

. In the c ase at bar, the primary re ason that Mother and F at h er initially l ost custody of the children w as their admitted drug use. As such, the permanenc y plans requir ed the pa rents to be dr

ugfr e e a nd to obt a in a sta

ble , saf e , an d dru g- fr e e ho me e nv ir on me nt. Pur su a nt t o th e pe rm a ne nc y p la ns , bo th p are nts a tte nd e d a dru g reha bil itatio n p ro gr a m a ndapp are ntl y s uc c e ssf ull y c omp le te d it

. Mother wa s appar ently able to abstain from drug use for a period of months after c ompletion of the progra m. S a dly , b othre laps e d, a ndthe re a ft e r the pe ri od s o f a bs tin e nc e fr om dru g u se we re on ly intermittent. At trial, both Mother and Father admitted a continuing problem with substance a buse. Both tested positi ve for

drug use two months prior to the trial, and Mother admitted that she used
cra ck cocaine with Fathe r in the month prior to the trial. From our revie w of the r ecor d, we c annot
c on clu de th at th e tria l c ou rt e rr e d inc on c lud ing that Mo the r andFa the r h a d n ot s ub stanti a lly
c omp lie d w iththete rm s o f the pe rm a ne nc y p la ns

. Be st I nte re st
In orde r to terminate pa

renta l righ t s , t h e court must also find by clear and convincing evidenc e that termination is in the best interest of the child. See T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c) ( 2008 Supp.).T h e statute p ro v i d es a s fo l l o w s: 2

I n de t er m i ni ng w het her t er m i nat i on of pa r ent al or gua r di ans hi p r i ght s i s i n t he b est int er es t of t he chi l d pur s uant t o t hi s pa r t , t he cour t s hal l c ons i der , but i s not l i m i t ed t o, t he f ol l ow i ng:
( 1) W het her t he par ent or gua r di an has m ade s uch an adj u s t m ent of c i r cum s t anc e, c onduct , or condi t i ons as t o m a k e i t s a f e a n d i n t h e c h i l d ’ s b e s t i n t e r e s t t o b e i n t h e h o m e o f t h e p a r e n t or guar di an; (2 ) W h e th e r th e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n h a s fa iled to e ff e c t a la stin g a dju stm e n t af te r re a so n a b le e ff o rts by a vai l abl e s oci al s er vi ce s a genc i es f or s u ch d u rat i o n of t i m e t hat l as t i ng a dj us t m ent doe s not
r eas on abl y app ear poss i bl e; ( 3) W het her t he par ent or gua r di an has m ai nt ai ned r egul ar vi s i t at i on or ot her cont ac t w i t h t he chi l d; ( 4) W het her a m eani ng ful r el at i on s hi p has ot herw i s e b een est abl i s hed bet w een t he pare nt or gu ar di an and t he chi l d; (5) T h e effect a ch an g e o f caret ak ers an d ph y si cal en v i ron m en t i s l i k el y t o ha v e o n t h e ch i l d ’s
em ot i onal , ps ychol ogi ca l a nd m edi ca l c ondi t i on; ( 6 ) W h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n , or ot h e r pe r s o n r e s i d i n g wi t h t h e pa r e n t or gu a r d i a n , ha s s h o wn brut al i t y, phy s i cal , s exual , em ot i on al o r p s ycho l og i cal ab use , o r n egl ect t ow ar d t he chi l d, or anot her chi l d or a dul t i n t he f am i l y or hous ehol d; ( 7) W het her t he ph ysi cal envi r on m ent of t he pare nt ’ s or gu ar di an’s ho m e i s heal t hy and s af e, w het her t here i s cr i m i nal ac t i vi t y i n t he ho m e, or w het her t here i s s uch u s e of al coho l or cont r ol l ed s ub s t ances
a s m a y re n d e r th e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n c o n siste n tly u n a b le to c a r e f o r th e c h ild in a sa fe a n d sta b le
m an n er; ( 8) W het her t he par ent ’ s or gua r di an’ s m ent al a nd/ or e m ot i onal s t at us w oul d be de t r i m ent al t o t he chi l d or pr eve nt t he par ent or guar di an f r om eff ec t i vel y pr ovi di ng s afe and s t abl e ca r e and s uper vi s i on f or t he chi l d; or ( 9) W het her t he pare nt or gu ar di an has pai d chi l d s up po r t consi s t ent w i t h t he chi l d s up po r t gui del i nes pr om ul gat ed by t he depa r t m ent pur s uant t o § 36- 5- 101.

T

. C

. A

. § 3 6 -1-1 1 3 (i ) ( 2 0 0 8 Su p p

. ).

-7- Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 36-1-113( i) sets forth the f actor s that courts use to dete rmine whe ther 2 termination is in the best interest of the child; how ever , this list is not exhaustive. In r e M. A.R

. , 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) ( citing Sta te v . T .S. W. , No. M2001-01735-COA- R3-JV, 2002 WL 970434, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002) ). On appe al, M other and Father e mphasize the fac tor in Section 36-1-113(i) (4), whe ther the pare nts have a

“mea ningful rel at i o n s h ip” with the childre n. They note that the evidenc e wa s un dis pu te d th a t th e c hil dr e n c on tin ue to l ov e bo th o f the ir pa re nts . W e a gr e e tha

t t hi s is no sma ll fac tor. The Court is awa

re that “[f ]ew conseque nces of

judicial action ar e so gra ve as the sever ance of natura l family ties.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 519 U.S. 102, 119 (1996) (quoting Sant osky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 787 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)).

Unfortunately, despite the children’s love for their pare nts, the evidence in thi s case left the tria l c ou rt wi th l itt le c ho ic e bu t to c on c lud e that te rm inatio n w a s in the ch il dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. Despite r e p e a te d o p p o r tu n it ie s to r e h ab il it a te , th e s u b s tan c e ab u s e o f b o thM o th e r

a n d Fath er persisted, e ven up to a month bef ore the trial. Moreove r, at the t ime of t rial, Mother and Father we re residing in a one- bed hotel room. Ne ither Mother nor Father ha d paid any c hild support during the entire time in w h ic h th e c h il d r e n w e r e o u t o f th e ir c u s to d y
. T h e e v id e n c e g a v e th e tria l c o u r t no-8-

re a so n to be lie ve that Mo the r andFa the r w ou ld r e so lve the ir su bs ta nc e abu se pr ob le ms a ndbe able to meet the childre n’s nee ds. Under the se circ umst an ce s , we cannot c onclude that the trial court
err ed in conc luding that termination was in the best intere st of the childre n.
C ONCL US I ON
Th e de c isi on of

thetr ia l c ou rt is a ff

ir me d. Cos ts on app e a l are to be ta xe d to the app e lla nts , J.H. and W .H. and their

sureties, for

which exe cution may issue, if nec essary.

___________________________________ HOLLY M. K IRBY, JUDGE