### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs F eb ru ary 1, 200 6 I N RE 

### G IOR GIA NNA 

### H., S TUART 

### H., S ABRINA 

### H., S AVANNAH 

### H., V ICTO RIA 

### H.,

B ENJ AMIN 

### H., & S ARAHANNA 

### H. Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for P err y County No. 3358 Robert

E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2005- 01697-COA-R 3-P T- Marc h 21, 2006
This appea l involves the pare ntal rig hts of the biological pa rents of seven minor children. After the children ha d been r emoved f rom their biolog ical par ents’ custody for a pproxi mately one y ear , the Te nn e sse e De pa

rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s f ile d a pe tit ion in the Cir c uit

Cou rt fo r P e rry Cou nty seeking to terminate the parenta l rig hts of t he biol og ical par ents. The tria l court conduc ted a be nch trial and then e ntere d an orde r termi n at i ng the biologic al par ents’ par ental rig hts because the conditions that caused the children to be remove d from the pa rents’ c ustody

continued to per sist and beca use the parents had committed sever e child abuse. Both pa rents appe aled. We havedetermined that the re cord c ontains substantial and materia l evidenc es u p p o r ti n g th etrial court’s c onclusions that the biologic al par ents’ conduc t provides subs ta n tive g rounds for te rminating their par ental rig hts and that the termination of the biolog ical par ents’ par ental rig hts is in t he childre n’s best intere sts. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P

. J

. , M

. S

. , delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., joined. W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., filed a se parate conc urring opinion.
B. Ky le Sander s, Dickson, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Mary

Ellen H.
Patricia J. W ilsdorf, Centerville, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, David H. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and R ep o rt er, and L aure n S. L amberth, Assistant Attorney Ge ne ral, f or theTe nn e sse e De pa

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

OP IN ION
I.
I n A pril 1 99 8, Da vidH. a ndMa ry El le n H . w e re liv ing in Gr e e nw oo d, Sou th C aro lin a wi th their six children w hose ag es rang ed fr om eleven y ear s old to two mont hs old. The South Carolina De pa rtme nt o f S oc ia l Se rv ic e s to ok a ll the c hil dr e n in to e me rg e nc y pr ote c tiv e c us tod y

be c aus e Vi c toria H. , th e n tw o mont

hs old , ha d be e n hos pit a lize d for faili ng to thriveandbe c aus e theho meT he d ec i si o n to return the c hil d ren t o t he i r p a r e n ts c a m e wit h sev era l co nd i t i o ns, i nc l ud i ng (1 ) t he p are nts’ 1

a g re e m e n t t o b e p syc h o lo g ic a lly e v a lua te d a n d to fo llo w the re c o m m e n d a tio n s fo r tre a tm e n t a n d c o u n se ling , (2 ) D a v id H .’ s assessm en t fo r sub st an ce ab use an d his ag ree m en t t o co m p l y w i t h t rea t m en t rec o m m en d ati o ns, an d (3 ) t he p are nts’ a g re e m e n t t o e n ro ll the ir sc h o o l-ag e c h ild re n in sc h o o l.

T h e ju v e n ile c o u rt fo u n d tha t t h e p a r ti e s ’ y o u n g e st c h ild w a s failing to thr ive a n d tha t t h e re m a inin g six 2 chi l dren wer e i n dan ger of f ai l i ng t o t hr i ve. T he cour t al s o obs er ved t hat t he pare nt s and t hei r s eve n c hi l dren ha d been l i vi ng i n a s i ngl e ho t el roo m and t hat t he p arent s were m aki ng no eff o rt s t o ed ucat e t hei r s cho o l

- age chi l d ren.
T he cour t un ders t oo d t hat D avi d H

. ’ s brot her pl ann ed t o s eek cu s t od y of V i r gi l l i a H

. an d, t her efore, deci ded 3 t hat s he shoul d remain i n t he D ep art m ent ’ s cust o d y pe nd i ng t he f i l i ng and dis p o si t i o n of t he cust o d y pe t i t i o n.
T he D ep art m ent al l eged (1) t hat D avi d H

. had a s evere d ri nki ng pro b l em , (2) t hat b o t h pa rent s were negl ect i ng 4 t he chi l d ren’ s ed ucat i o n, (3) t hat t he p arent s used severe co rp o ral punis hm ent , and (4) t hat t here had be en vi o l ent c o n fro n ta tio n s b e tw e e n the p a re n ts w ith the c h ild re n p re se n t. -2- was dirty and unsafe for minor children. The six children remained in f oster car e until November 19 98 , w he n th e famil y

c ou rt re turne d th e m to the ir

pa re nts

. 1 The parties’ seventh child, Be njamin H., was born i n September 1999. Soon t here afte r, the South C arolina D epartment of Social Service s rec eived a report that Be njamin H. was be ing neg lected, but by

the time the S outh Carolina authorities followed up on the re port, David H., Ma ry El le n H ., a ndthe ir

se ve n c hil dr e n le ft

thestate a ndmov e d to Mu rf re e sb or o, Te nn e sse e . T he Sou th Caro lin a auth oriti e s a le rt e d th e Te nn e sse e De pa rtme nt of Chi ldr e n’ s Ser vic e s ( De pa rtme nt) to the se e ve nts , andin F e br

ua ry 20 00 , th e De pa

rtme nt f ile d a pet it io n intheRuthe rf

or d Co un ty

Juve nil e Court seeking temporary custody of the seve n children. Thejuvenile court filed an orde r on Fe bruary 11, 2000 determining that all seve n children w eredepende nt and neg lected and plac ing 2 t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e D e p art m e n t ’ s c u s t o d y. The Depa rtment place d the seven children in f oster homes. I n November 2000, Mary Ellen H. g a ve bir

th t o Sa ra hann a H. , th e pa

rtie s’ e ig hthc hil d. Te n d a y s late r, theRuthe rf or d Co un ty J uvenile Court, despite its continuing conce rns about the pare nts’ home, re turned phy sical custody of all t he children except the oldest, Virg illia H., to the pare nts. Howeve r, the c ourt also determined 3 t h a tt h e D e p art m e n ts h o u l dr e t a i n l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n p e n d i n g f u rt h e r h e ar i n g s . In De c e mbe r 2 00 0, thetria l c ou rt re turne d le g a l c us tod y of the se c on d olde st ch ild , Gio rg ia nn a H. , to thepa re nts . T he c ou rt

a lso dir e c te d th a t a ll the sc ho ol- a g e c hil dr e n sho ul d be enrolle d inpu bli c school and that the D epartment should determine the a dequac y of the house in Perry

Countywher e the par ents planned to move. O n J anuary 17, 2001, following an eme rg ency hearing, the Rutherford CountyJ uvenile Court ag ain re moved the childre n from their pare nts’ home. Threemonths later, on Ap ri l 19 , 2 00 1, thec ou rt re turne d le g a l a ndph y sic a l c us tod y of thec hil dr e n to the ir

pa re nts

. I n November

2002, the Depa

rtment filed a pe ti t i o n i n t h e P erry CountyJ uvenile Court a lle g ing tha

t se ve n o f the pa

rtie s’ c hil dr e n w e rede pe nd e nt a ndne g le c te d. Af te r the arr a ng e me nts 4 fo r t e mpo ra

ry pla c e me nt f

e ll thr ou g h, thec hil dr e n w e repla c e d w ithtw o dif fe re nt f os te r f a mil ie s. Giorg ianna H. and Stuart H. wer e plac ed with one family , and Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H.,Th e De p a r t m e n t h a d r e t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f Vi r g i l l i a H. 5

B y t h i s t i me, t h e par en t s ’ ol des t c h i l d, V i r g i l l i a H

. , w as e i g h t ee n y ea r s ol d. 6

T he Se p t em b er 20 , 2 0 0 4 o rder i s b ased, i n p art , up o n t he fo l l o wi ng f i nd i ngs: (1) t hat D avi d H

. has a severe 7 dri nk i ng probl em; ( 2) t hat al l t he chi l dren wer e educa t i onal l y depri ved; ( 3) t hat t he pare nt s en gag ed i n c ons t ant phy s i cal and v er bal al t er cat i ons i n t he pres enc e of t he chi l dren ; ( 4) t hat D avi d H

. us ed i nappropri at el y s eve r e f orms of cor po r al p u n ish m e n t; (5 ) th a t t h e p a re n ts ha d e n g a g e d in se x u a l ac ts in the p re s e n c e o f th e c h il d r e n ; an d (6 ) th a t b o th p a re n ts co m m i t t ed s evere chi l d ab use. W hi l e t he t ri al co urt ent ered an i d ent i cal ord er on M arch 12 , 20 0 4 , t he reco rd co nt ai ns no expl ana t i on for t he ent r y of t he s econd order on Sept emb er 20 , 200 4. For t he pur po s e of t hi s appeal , we wi l l cons i der t he Se p t em b er 20 , 20 0 4 ord er t o be t he f i nal ord er.
I n an opi n i on re l ea s ed c on t empor an eou s l y wi t h t h i s opi n i on , t h i s c ou r t h as v ac at ed t h e Se pt embe r 20, 2004 8 order f i ndi ng t he part i es ’ s eve n y oung er ch i l dren t o be dependent and neg l ect ed becau s e t he pare nt s wer e not provi ded c o u n se l d u rin g tha t p ro c e e d ing

. S t a t e Dep ’ t o f C h i l d r e n ’ s S e r v s . v . Da v i d H. , N o. M 2004- 01043- CO A- R3- JV, ___ W L

_ _ _ (T enn. C t

. A p p . M ar. 21 , 20 0 6 ).

T he D ep art m e n t’s a tt o rney wrote t he p arent s’ at t o rney s ap p roximatel y s i x weeks before t he heari ng on t he 9 t er mi n at i on pe t i t i on i n for mi n g t h em t h at t h e D epa r t men t i n t en ded t o pr es en t t h e t r an s cr i pt of t h e Fe br u ar y 11- 12, 2004 heari ng as evi d ence i n t he up co m i ng t ri al

. T he at t o rney al so i d ent i f i ed t he p ers o ns who se t est i m o ny wo ul d be us ed and t h e pag e n u mber s on w h i ch t h i s t es t i mon y c ou l d be fou n d.

T he t hree chi l d ren who tes t i f i ed at the heari ng w ere G i o rgi anna H

. , who was t hen si xt een y ears o l d , Sab ri na 10 H

. , who was t en, and Sava nnah H

. , who was s even. -3- Be njamin H., and Sarahanna H

. wer e plac ed with another family

. The Perry

CountyJ uvenile Court 5 found the children to be depende nt and neg lected in July 2003, and the pa rents perfec ted a de novo ap p e a l t o t h e C i r c u i tC o u rtf o r P e rry C o u n t y. On J anuary

5, 2004, befor e the Circuit Court f or Perry Countycould conduc t the de novo trial on its dependent and neg lect petition, the Depa rtment filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Perry County to te rminate David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s par ental rig hts reg arding their seve n y oung er children. The De partment so u gh t termination on the g rounds of a bandonment, per sistence of 6 conditions, and sever e child abuse . Approxim ately one m o n t h l at er, the Circuit Court for Perry Countyconducte d a trial on the de pendent and neg lect p et ition and, on September 20, 2004, filed an orde r concluding that the parents’ seven y oung er children were depende nt and neg lected. The 7 pa re nts app e a le d th e Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 04 de pe nd e nc y a ndne g le c t or de r i n a

se pa rate app e a l. 8
On October 5, 2004, within we eks afte r entering its orde r in the depende nt an d n egl ect proce eding , the Circuit Court for Perry Countyconducte d a trial on t h e Department’s te rmination petition. The Depa

rtment’s ca se re lied heavily on the testimony and ex hibits introduced during the depende nt and neg lect trial in F ebrua ry 2004. Over the pare nts’ objections, the trial court permitted

9 the Depa rtment to introduc e the transcript of the depende nt and neg lect trial and certified copies of th e e xh ib it s th a t h a d b e e n in tr o d u c e d a t th a t trial. I n a d d itio n to th is e v id e n c e , th e De partment prese nted eig ht witnesses to support its termination petition. I n addition to three of the childre n, 10 the De pa rtme nt c a lle d a famil y e du c a tio n sp e c ia lis t wh o ha d wo rk e d w iththepa re nts , th e the ra

pis t who had wor

ked with Sabrina H . and Savanna h H., two of the D epartment’s casemanag ers, and one of the foste r par ents who had be en ca ring for f ive of the c hildren since F ebrua ry 2003.T he t ri al co urt s p eci f i cal l y dis cl ai m ed t hat i t s d eci si o n was based on any of t he evi d enc e c o n ta ine d in t he 11 t ran scrip t o r ex hib i t s f

i l ed d uring the F eb rua ry 20 0 4 d ep en d en t an d ne glec t p ro ce ed i ng . T he co urt st ated t ha t “[b ]ec au se of obj ec t i on s f

r om t h e . . . [ par en t s ] , t h e Cour t h as n ot c on s i der ed an y of t h e ev i den ce f

r om t h e t rans cr i pt of

t h e pr i or d e p e n d e n t an d ne g le c te d he a rin g a s a b a sis fo r its ru ling in this c a se .”

Th e m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n e r r o n e o u s l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n v o l v e d n i n e c h i l d r e n . I n f a c t , Da v i d H. 12

a n d M a ry E llen H . ha d o n ly eig h t ch ild re n , an d this p ro c e e d ing inv o lve d o n ly se v e n o f t h e m .

T hi s ri ght e xi st s no t wi t hst and i ng the m ari t al st at us o f the chil d ’ s b i o l o gi cal p arent s where a b i o l o gi cal pa rent 13 h a s e sta b lishe d o r is a ttem p ting to e sta b lish a re la tio n sh ip w ith the c h ild

. Le hr v . Rober t s on , 463 U

. S. 248, 262, 103 S. C t. 2 9 8 5 , 2 9 9 3 -9 4 (1 9 8 3 ); In r e D. A. H. , 1 4 2 S .W .3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 4 (T e n n . 2 0 0 4 ); J o n e s v . G a rre tt , 92 S. W

. 3d 835, 840 (T e n n . 2 0 0 2 ); In r e Swans on , 2 S .W .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 8 n.1 2 (T en n. 1 9 9 9 ). T he ri gh t also ex t en d s t o ad o p t i ve p are nts. Si m m ons v . Si m m ons , 9 0 0 S .W .2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 4 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ).

U

. S. Cons t

. a men d. X I V , § 1; T en n . Cons t

. a r t

. I , § 8. 14
-4- The trial c ourt filed a me morandum opinion on Fe bruary 14, 2005 finding that the De part men t ha d p re se nte d c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e su pp ortin g its c la ims that th e pa re nts ’ pare ntal rig hts should be t er m i n ated under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(3) (A) ( persistenc e of c on dition s) a ndTe nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 4) (sever e c hil d a bu se ). Th e tria l c ou rt

a lso 11 c on c lud e d th a t te rm inatin g thepa re ntal rig hts of

Da vidH. a ndMa

ry El le n H. woul d b e in the ir c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts

. 12
The trial c ourt enter ed a f inal order on May 19, 2005, whi ch d i ff

er ed from the court’s memorand u m opinion in two way s. First, it ref lected that the termination proce eding involved seven, r ather

than nine, child ren. Sec ond, it found that David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s pa

renta l rig hts should be terminated for abandonme nt u n d er T en n . Code Ann. §§ 36-1- 102(1)( A)(ii), - 113(g )(1) even thoug h it had not addre ssed th i s g round in its memorandum opinion. L ike the memorandum opinion, the final or der a lso concluded that David H.’s and Ma ry Ellen H.’s pa

renta l rig hts s h o u l d b e terminated under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 1-113(g )(3) (A), - 113(g )(4) and that terminating their par ental rig hts w ould be in the children’ s best interests. Both David H. and Mary Ellen H. haveappealed.
II. T HE S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW A b iol og ic a l pa

re nt’ s rig ht to the c area ndc us tod y of his or he r c hil d is a mon g theold e st

13 of the judicially

rec og nized liberty

interests protec ted by the Due Process Clauses of the fe dera l and state c on sti tution s. Trox e l v . G ra nv ill e , 5 30 U. S. 5 7, 65 , 1 20 S. Ct . 2 05 4, 20 59 -6 0 ( 20 00 ); Ha wk 14 v . H awk , 8 55 S.W. 2d57 3, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Ray v . Ray , 83 S.W .3d 726, 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). While this right is fund am ental and supe rior to the claims of other per sons and the g overnme nt, it is not absolute. Sta te v . C. H. K. , 1 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d5 8 6 , 5 8 9 ( T e n n . C t

. A p p . 2 0 0 4 )

. It continues without inter

ruption only as long as a pare nt ha s not r elinquished it, a bandoned it, or eng ag ed in conduc t requiring its li mitation or termination. Blair v. Bade nhope , 77 S.W .3d 137, 141 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; In re S.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3d63 2, 63 8 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 4) ; In re M .J.B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 652-53 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2004).T h e s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d s fo r t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a r e fo u n d i n Te n n . Co d e An n . § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g ) ( Su pp. 15 2 0 0 4 ).
T he f act o rs t o be co nsi d ered i n a “ b est i nt erest s” anal y si s are fo und i n T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (i ).

16
-5- Termination proc eeding s in Tennesseeareg overne d by statute. Parties who ha ve standing to seek the termination of a biolog ical par ent’s par ental rig hts must prove two things. F irst, they must prove the exis tence of at least one of the statutory g rounds for te rmination. Tenn. Code Ann. 15 § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) ; In re D.L.B. , 1 18 S.W. 3d36 0, 36 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; J on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W .3d at 83 8. Se c on d, the y

mus t pr ov e that te rm inatin g thepa re nt’ s p are ntal rig hts is i n th e c hil d’ s b e st int e re sts

. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 2) ; I n r e A

. W. , 114 S.W .3d 541, 545 (T enn. Ct. App. 16 20 03 ); I n re C

. W. W. , 3 7 S. W.3 d 4 67 , 4 75 -7 6 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; In re M. W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W .2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
No civil action ca

rries w ith it gra ver c onsequenc es than a petition t o sever

family ties ir re trie va bly a ndfo re ve r. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( i) (1 ); M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 519 U.S. 102, 119, 11 7 S. Ct. 55 5, 56 5 ( 19 96 ); In re Kno tt , 1 38 Te nn . 3 49 , 35 5, 19 7 S .W

. 10 97 , 1 09 8 ( 19 17 ); In re D. D. K. , No. M 2003-01016-COA- R3-PT, 2003 WL 23093929, at *8 (Te nn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2003) (No Te nn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Be cause the stakes ar e so prof oundly high, T enn. Code An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) re qu ir e s p e rs on s se e kin g to t e rm inate a bio log ic a l pa

re nt’ s p are ntal rig hts to prove the statutory

g rounds for te rmination by clea r and c o n v i ncing evidenc e. This heig htened burden of proof minimiz es the risk of e rrone ous decisions. I n re C

. W. W. , 3 7 S. W.3 d a t 47 4; In re M. W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W .2d at 622. Evidenc e satisfying the clea r and c onv i ncing evidenc e standa rd establishes that the truth of the fac ts asserted is hig hly probable , State Dep’ t of Chi ldren’s Serv s. v. De ma rr , No. M2002-02603-COA- R3-J V, 2003 WL 21946726, at *9 (Te nn. Ct

. App. Aug . 13, 2003) (No Te nn. R. App. P. 11 application filed), and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the corr ectne ss of the conc lusions drawn fr om the evidenc e. In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 20 02 ); In re S.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3da t 63 9; In re J .J .C. , 1 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d9 1 9 , 9 2 5 ( T e n n . C t

. A p p . 2 0 0 4 )

. It produce s i n a fac t-finder ’s mind a firm belief or convic tion reg arding the truth of the f acts soug ht to be established. In re A.D .A. , 84 S.W. 3d 59 2, 59 6 (T e nn . Ct. Ap p. 20 02 ); Ray v . Ray , 83 S.W .3d a t 73 3; I n re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d at 474.
Be causeof the g ravity

of their c onsequenc es, proc eeding s to terminate par ental rig hts require individualiz ed decision making

. In re Swanson , 2 S.W .3d at 188. Acc ording ly , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( k) explicitl y require s courts terminating pare ntal rig ht s t o “ente r written or ders containing specific finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law” whether they have be en re quested to do so or not. In re S.M

. , 149 S.W .3d at 639; In re M .J.B. , 1 40 S.W.3d at 65 3- 54 . T he se sp e c if ic finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of l aw f acilitate a ppellate r eview and promote just and spee dy resolution of appe als. When a lower court ha s failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 1 1 3 (k ), t h e ap p e l l at e c o u rt s m u s tre m an dt h e c as e w i t h d i re ct i o n s t o p re p ar e t h e r eq u i re dfi n d i n gs of fa ct and c onclusions of law. In re D.L.B. , 1 18 S.W. 3da t 36 7; In re K.N.R. , No. M2003-01301- COA-R3-PT, 2003 WL 22999427, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

.T h e s e de c i s i on s dr a w a di s t i n c t i on be t w e e n s pe c i f i c f a c t s an d t h e c om bi n e d w e i g h t of t h e s e f a c t s . Ten n . R. 17 A p p . P . 1 3 (d ) re q u ire s u s to d e fer to the trial c o u rt’s sp e c ifi c fi n d ing s o f fa c t as lo n g a s the y a re su p p o rte d b y a pr epon der an ce of

t h e ev i den ce . H owe v er , we ar e t h e on es w h o mu s t t h en de t er mi n e wh et h er t h e combi n ed we i g h t of t hese fact s p rovides cl ear and c o n v inc ing evi d ence supp o rt i ng t he t ri al co urt ’ s ul t i m at e f act ual co ncl usi o n. T he T enness ee Sup rem e C o urt used t hi s ap p roac h i n In r e Va l ent i ne wh en i t r ec og n i ze d t h e di f fer en ce be t we en t h e con cl u s i on t hat a bi ol ogi cal par ent ha d not comp l i ed s ubs t ant i al l y wi t h h er obl i gat i ons i n a per manen cy p l an a nd the f act s r el i ed
u p o n b y the tria l c o u rt to su p p o rt this c o n c lus io n . In r e Val ent i ne , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 548- 49; se e a lso J o n e s v . G a rre tt , 92 S .W .3 d a t 8 3 8 -3 9

.

T he s ame at t orn ey draf t ed t he D epar t ment ’ s pet i t i on and t he f i nal order

. B ot h do cumen t s ar e poo r l y dra f t ed 18

a n d a re far b e lo w the q u a lit y o f t h e c o u rt p a p e rs tha t ar e no w p re p a re d b y the D e p a rtm e n t. -6- The he ighte ned burde n of proof mandated by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( c)( 1) re quires us to a da pt T e nn . R. App . P. 13 (d )’ s c us tom ary stand ardof

re vie w f or c a se s o f this so rt . F ir st, wemus t revie w the trial court’s specific finding s of fac t de novo in a ccor dance with Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Thus, eac h of the trial c ourt’s spec ific fa ctual finding s will be p resumed to be corr ect unless the evidenc e pre ponderates otherwise . Second, we must determi n e wh ether the fac ts, either as f ound by thetria l c ou rt

or a s su pp orte d b y

the pr e po nd e ranc e of

thee vid e nc e , c le arl y

a ndc on vin c ing ly establish the elements require d to te rminate a biological pa rent’s pa renta l rig hts. J

on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W. 3da t 83 8; In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 548-49; In re S.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3da t 64 0; In re M .J.B. , 140 S.W .3d at 654. 17
III .

A BAN D ON M ENT U NDE R T E NN . C OD E A NN . § 36 -1 -1 02 (1 )( A) (i i)
The trial c ourt’s May

19, 2005 order

purports to terminate David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s pa re ntal rig hts ba se d o n a

band on me nt u nd e r T e nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 10 2( 1) (A )( ii) . We area t a los s to understand how this lang uag e found its way into the cour t’s final orde r. Howe ver, he eding the Tenne ssee Supreme Court’s admonition that we should examine all gr ounds for ter mination raised in the trial court, see I

n re D.L.B. , 118 S.W .3d at 367 (noting that trial courts should addr ess all of thea lle g e d g ro un ds fo r te rm inatio n to pre ve nt de lay in re nd e ri ng a fi na l dec isi on ), wewi ll a ddre ss this ground f

irst.
As be st w e c a n d e te rm ine , th e De pa rtme nt’ s o ri g inal pe tit ionto t e rm inate th e pa re nts ’ pare ntal rig hts did not allegethe abandonment g rounds def ined i n T en n . Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)( A)(ii). On Aug ust 23, 2004, approxim ately s i x wee ks prior to trial, the De partment 18 fo rm a lly no tif ie d th e pa

re nts ’ atto rn e y s tha t it was purs uin g te rm inatio n o n o nly tw o g ro un ds – persistenc e of c onditions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g)(3) and sever e child abuseunder Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(4) . Consist ent with the Depa rtment’s letter, the trial court’s F e br ua ry 14 , 2 00 5 mem orand um o pin ionstate s th a t th e De pa rtme nt “ ha s a

rtic ulate d tw o s e pa

rate g ro un ds ” – p e rs ist e nc e of

c on dition s u nd e r T e nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) a ndse ve rec hil d a b u se under Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g )(4)

. After revie wi ng the Depa

rtment’s complaint and its Aug ust 23, 2004 letter, as we ll as the trial court’s Febr

uary 14, 2005 memorandum opinion, we f ind that the trial court’ s relianc e upon Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)( A)(ii) a s a g round to terminate David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s pa renta lIt i s q ui t e p rob ab l e t hat t he i ncl usi o n of t hi s l anguage i n t he f i nal o rder was a d raf

t i ng err o r at t ri b ut ab l e t o t he 19

a tto rn e y w h o d ra fted the o rd e r fo r th e c o u rt.

T h e D e p a rtm e n t’s ap p e llate b rie f like w ise d o e s n o t u n d e rta k e to u p h o ld th e te rm ina tio n o f p a re n ta l righ ts in 20 this c a se b a se d o n T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -1 -1 0 2 (1 )( A )( ii).

D avi d H

. and M ary E l l en H

. have never conc ed ed t hat t hey sexual l y a b used any o f t hei r chi l d ren. H o wever, 21 the y ha v e no t t a k e n issu e w ith the e v id e n c e (1 ) th a t t h e ir c h ild re n w e re e ithe r fa ili n g to thr ive o r i n d a n g e r o f failing to t hr i ve, (2) t hat t hei r chi l dren were ed uca t i onal l y d epri ved, (3) t hat t hey us ed i nappropri at el y s eve r e f orms of cor po r al puni s hment , or ( 4) t hat t hey en gag ed i n v i ol ent ar gu ment s i n t hei r ch i l dren ’ s pre s enc e. -7- ri g hts – to the e xten t that the tria l c ou rt a c tually re lie d up onthi s g ro un d – wa s e rr or . Th e pa

re nts 19 we rene ve r n oti fi e d th a t th e De pa rtme nt w a s se e kin g to t e rm inate the ir pa re ntal rig hts ba se d o n th is g round, and t h e De partment e x plicitlydisclaimed that it was see king te rmination on any g rounds other than pe rsistence of conditions and seve re c hild abuse. 20
IV. P ER SI STEN C E O F C O N D ITI O N S U NDE R T E NN . C OD E A NN . § 36-1-113( g)(3) (A)
B othDa vidH. a ndMa

ry El le n H . ta

ke iss ue wi th the tria l c ou rt ’s concl us ionthat th e ir pare ntal rig hts should be terminated beca use they have failed to remedy the conditions that cause d the Depa rtment to remove the children from their home and beca use thereis lit tle likelihood that they wi ll re me dy tho se c on dition s in the ne ar fu tur e . Whil e the y do no t de ny

thepe rs ist e nc e of

c e rt a in of these c onditions, the parents assert that termination under T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3) (A) 21 was unwar

rante d beca

use the Depa

rtment failed to ma

ke rea sonable eff

orts to reunite the f

amily afte r the childre n wer e remove d from the home. We have determined that the re cord c ontains clea r and convincing evidenc e supporting the t ermination of these parents’ rights based on Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( g )(3) (A).
A.
The e lements of the “per sistence of conditions” g round for termination of par ental rig hts are de fi ne d inTe nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A ) a s f oll ow s: The c hild has been r emoved from the home of the pare nt or g uardian by

order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (i) T h e c o n d itio n s th a t l e dto th e c h il d ’ s r e mo v a l o r o ther c on dition s that in a ll r e a so na blepr ob abil ity

wo uldc aus e thec hil d to be subjec ted to further

abuse or neg lect and that, theref

ore, pr event thec hil d’ s sa fe re turn to the c areof thepa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (ii) Ther e is li t t l e l ikelihood that these conditions will be re me die d at a n e arl y

date so that th e chi ld c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d to the par ent(s) or

g uardian(s) in the ne ar f

uture; andA s a general rul e, a pro p erl y p repa red and a p p rop ri at el y d et ai l ed af f i d avi t m eet i ng t he requir em ent s o f T enn. 22 Code An n . § 37- 1- 166( c) ( 2005) i s s u f f i ci en t t o es t abl i s h t h e e x t en t a n d r ea s on abl en es s of t h e D epa r t men t ’ s r eu n i f i ca t i on ef fo rt s. T hus, unl ess a pa rent t akes i ss ue wi t h t he ad eq uacy o f t he D ep art m ent ’ s ef fo rt s, t he D ep art m ent need not p res ent ad d i t i o nal evi d ence regarding i t s ef fo rt s t o reuni f

y t he f am i l y . H o wever, i f a pa rent t akes i ss ue wi t h t he ad eq uacy o f t he D e p a rtm e n t’s re u n ifi c a tio n e ff o rts, the D e p a rtm e n t m a y b e re q u ire d to p re se n t a d d iti o n a l e v id e n c e r e g a rd ing it s e ff o rts and t o m ake i t s em pl oy ees and cont r act ors i nv ol ved wi t h t hes e e f fort s av ai l abl e f

or di s cover y or cr oss - exa mi nat i on at tria l. In r e C

. M. M. , 2 2 0 4 W L 4 3 8 3 2 6 , at *8

.

S t a t e Dep ’ t o

f Ch i l d r e n ’ s S e r v s . v . D. M

. E. , N o . E 2 0 0 5

- 0 0 2 7 4

- C O A

- R 3

- P T , 20 0 5 W L 3 3 6 9 2 4 9 , at * 3 (T enn. 23 C t. A p p . D e c . 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 ), per m . app . f i l ed (T e n n . F e b . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ); In r e A. L

. B. , N o. M 2004- 01808- CO A- R3- PT , 2005 W L 1 5 8 4 0 6 5 , at *1 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . Ju ly 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) (N o T e n n . R

. A p p . P

. 1 1 a p p lica tio n fi le d ); S t a t e D ep ’tof C h i l d ren’s Ser vs . v . M al one , N o . 0 3 A 0 1 -9 7 0 6 -J V -0 0 2 2 4 , 1 9 9 8 W L 4 6 4 6 1 , a t *2 ( T e n n . C t. A p p . F e b . 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 ), per m . app . deni ed (T e n n . Ju n e 8 , 1 9 9 8 ). -8-

(i ii) Th e c on tin uati on of th e pa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n andc hil d rela tionship gre atl y

d i m i n i s h es t h e c h i l d ’s ch an ce s o f e ar l y i n t egr ati on into a safe , stable and pe rmane nt home. A biologic al par ent’s par ental rig hts cannot be te rminated pursuant to Tenn

. C o d e An n . § 36-1- 113(g )(3) (A) unless the Depa rtment prese nts clear

and convinc ing e vidence establishing e ach of the statutory elements. In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 550.
The succ ess of a pare nt’s reme dial eff orts g ener ally

depends on the Depa

rtment’s assistance and suppo rt

. In re C.M.M

. , N o. M2 00 3- 01 12 2- CO A- R3- PT, 20 04 WL 43 83 26 , at *7 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. Ma r. 9, 20 04 ) ( No Te nn . R. App . P. 11 app lic a tio n f ile d) ; State Dep’ t of Chi ldren’s Serv s. v. De ma rr , 2003 WL 21946776, at *10. Acc ording ly , in the absenc e of a g g ravating c ircumstance s, the Depa rtment is statutori l y re q u i red to make rea sonable e fforts to reunite a f amily afte r re moving c hil dr e n f ro m th e ir pa re nts ’ c us tod y . T e nn . Co de An n. § 37 -1 -1 66 (a )( 2) , (g )( 2) (2 00 5) ; In re M .E. , No. M2003-00859-COA- R3-PT, 2004 W L 1838179, at *9 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug

. 16, 2004), perm. app. denied (T e nn . N ov . 8 , 2 00 4) ; In re C.M.M

. , 2 00 4 WL

43 83 26 , at * 7 . Becau se of thi s obligation, the Department must notonly establish eac h of the e lements in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A ), it mus t a lso e sta bli shby c le ar and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e that it ma de re a so na

blee ff orts to reunite the f

amily and that these eff

orts wer e to no avail. In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL 438326, at *7 n.27, *8. 22
Whil e theDe pa

rtme nt’ s r e un if

ic a tio n e ff or t s ne e d n ot b e “ he rc ule a n, ” theDe pa rtme nt mus t 23 do more than simply

provide the pa

rents with a list of servic es and se n d them on their way . In re C.M.M. , 2004 WL

438326, at *7. The D epartment’s employ ees must use their supe rior insig ht and training to as s i s t the pare nts in addressing and completing the tasks identified in the pe rmane ncy plan. In re A.J

.H. , No. M 2005-00174-COA- R3-PT, 2005 WL 3190324, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28 , 2 00 5) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 11 ap pli c a tio n f ile d) ; In re J

.L.E. , No. M2004-02133-COA- R3-PT, 2005 WL 1541892, at *14 (Te nn. Ct. App. J une 30, 2005) ( No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application fi le d) ; In re D.D .V. , No. M 2001-02282-COA- R3-J V, 2002 W L 225891, at *8 (Te nn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2002) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

.R e u n ifi c a tio n e ff o rts d ire c te d to w a rd m a tter s o f l itt le c o n se q u e n c e a re no t re a so n a b le

. In r e Val ent i ne , 79 24 S .W .3 d a t 5 4 8 -4 9 ( a p e rm a n e n c y p la n m u st b e r e a so n a b le a n d m u st b e re la te d to re m e d ying the c o n d iti o n s tha t l e d to the re m o v a l i n the fi rs t p la c e ). -9- For the purpose of

proce eding s such as this one, the De partment’s r eunification efforts are “re asonable ” if the Depa

rtment has exerc ised “re asonablecar e and dilig ence. . . to provide services related to me eting the needs of the child and the family .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166( g )(1) (2005). The re asonable ness of the D epartme n t’s eff orts depends upon the circ umstances of the particular case . The fa cto rs that courts use to determine the rea sonablene ss of the De partment’s e fforts include: (1) the r easons f

or sepa rating the par ent from his or he r childre n, (2) the pa rent’s phy sical and me ntal abilities, (3) the re source s available to the pare nt, (4) the pare nt’s eff orts to remedy

the conditions that require d the re moval of the c hildren, (5) the re source s available to the Depa rt m en t , (6 ) the d u r a ti o n a n d e xte n t o f th e p ar e n t’ s r e me d ial e f f o rts , a n d ( 7 ) th e c lo s e n e s s o f th e fit betwee n the conditions that le d to the initial re moval of the children, the require ments of the pe rmane ncy plan, a nd the De pa

rtme nt’ s e ff

orts. In re C.M

.C. , No. E2005-00328- COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1827855, 24 a t *9 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . A ug . 3 , 2 00 5) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P . 11 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) ; State Dep’ t of Children’s Servs. v. B .B.M. , N o. E2 00 4- 0049 1- CO A- R3- PT, 20 04 WL 26 07 76 9, a t *6 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. No v. 17 , 2 00 4) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) ; In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL

438326, at *7. The Department does not have the sole obligation to remedy the conditions that require d the remo v al o f ch ildren fr om their pare nts’ custody . When reunification of the family is a g oal, the pare nts share r esponsibility for addre ssing theseconditions as well. Thus, par ents desiring the re turn of t heir children m ust also make reasona ble and appropriate efforts to reha bilitate themselves and t o r e m e d y t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t r e q u i r e d t h e D e p art m e n tt o r e m o v e t h e i r c h i l d r e n f

r o mt h e i r c u s t o d y. S ta te D e p ’ t o f Ch ild re n ’ s S e r

v s . v . B.B.M. , 20 04 WL

26 07 76 9, a t *7 ; In re C.M.M

. , 2 0 0 4 WL 43 83 26 , at *7 ; In re R.C.V. , N o. M2 00 1- 02 10 2- CO A- R3- JV, 2 00 2 WL 31 73 08 99 , at *12 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. Nov. 18, 2002) ( No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed).
B.
This rec ord contains clear and convinc ing e vidence of appr ox imately seven y ear s of par ental abuse and neg lect. Da vid H. and Mary Ellen H. haveconsistently demonstrated a

lack of conce rn for their children’ s welfa

re, a s well as an ina

bilityor disinclination t o reme dy the conditions that ha ve un de rm ine d th e c hil dr e n’ s w e ll- be ing . M os t of thesa me pr ob le ms r e po rt e d b y theSou th Carolina De partment of Socia l Services in 1998 still ex isted at t h e t i m e o f the hea ring on the Depa rtment’s termination petition in October 2004.
Da vid H. a nd Ma

ry El le n H. stil l expe c te d the ir old e r daug hte rs to s up e rv isea ndc arefo r the ir y ou ng e r sib lin g s. Th e y c on tin ue d to be an g ry wi th ea c h othe r an d en g a g e in v iol e nt a rg ume nts in the pre senceo f t h ei r childre n. They continued to use inappr opriately sever e cor

poral punishmentG io rg ia n n a H . t e stif ie d tha t he r m o the r sla p p e d he r in the fa c e . S h e a lso te stif ie d th a t h e r fa the r w a s e sp e c ia lly 25 h a rs h w ith V irg ill ia H

. w h e n sh e a ttem p te d to inte rc e d e d u rin g he r p a re n ts’ ar g u m e n ts a n d tha t he w a s a b u siv e to V ic to ria H

. be ca u s e h e di d n ot be l i ev e t h at s h e wa s h i s c h i l d. -10- on their childre n, and they conti n u ed to i g nore the children’ s education. David H. also showed 25 little imp ro ve me nt w ithhis abu se of a lc oh ol.
Th e pa re nts do no t de ny the e xiste nc e of the se c on dition s in the ir ho me . H ow e ve r, the y ins ist that th e c on dition s con tin ue to exis t bec aus e the De pa rtme nt faile d to mak e re a so na blee ff orts t o h e lp them reme dy

them. The re cord doe s not bear out their claim. To t he contr ary , the re cord c ontains the testimony

of De partment e mploy ees and other service pr oviders demonstrating theDepa rtment’s almost continual eff

orts over thre e y ear s t o assist the pare nts in creating a home environme nt that w o u l de n ab l e t h e s a f

e r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y. The root of

the par ents’ shortcoming s is their ang er towa rd ea ch other , their unce rtainty about thefu tur e of

the ir marria g e , andthe ir

ina bil it y to ag re e on a

sta bleapp ro a c h to pa

re nti ng the ir children. In Marc h 2001, the Depa rtment enr o l l ed t he par ents in its “Home Ties” pr og ram, a n intensive, in-hom e co u n s el i ng prog ram off ere d throug h a loca l mental health ce nter, to assist the pare nts in addressing the fa ct that their c hildren we re f ailing to t h ri v e. I n Oc tober 2001, the Depa rtment institut ed its “F am i ly Crisis I nterve ntion” prog ram a fter V irg illia H. ran a way from home. Out of this int erve ntion came a ref err al for home maker

service s betwee n Dec ember 2001 and Fe bruary 2002.
I n a dd iti on to pr ov idi ng the se se rv ic e s, theDe pa rtme nt c on tr a c te d w ithF a mil y Sy ste ms Service s to provide additional assistanceto the pare nt s . I n 2 0 0 2 , t he par ents wer e enr olled in the “Pare nting Wisely ” prog ram. In 2003, the Depa rtment en ro l l ed t h e par ents in a “Reunif ication Par e n t i n g ” p r o g r a ma n dl a t e r i n a “ S o l u t i o n F o c u s P ar e n t i n g ” p r o g r a m . T h e e d u c a t i o n s p e c i a lis t who w orked w ith the pare nts during e ach of these prog rams testified that the pa rents we re c oo pe rativ e bu t th a t th e y

c ou ld m ake no re a l pr og re ss b e c aus e of the ir inc on sis te nt c omm itm e nt t o a ddre ssi ng the ir

pa re nti ng de fi c its a ndthe ir

ina bil ity to c ommun ic a te wi th e a c h o the r r e g ard ing the ir pa re nting res po nsibi lit ie s. Th e e du c a tio na l sp e c ia lis t te sti fi e d th a t hewo rk e d w iththe se pa re nts muc h lo ng e r than h e or din ari ly wor ks wi th p are nts a ndthat th e De pa rtme nt w a s g e ne ro us in pr ov idi ng him

wi th a dd iti on a l ti me . H ow e ve r, he fi na lly c on c lud e d th a t heha d “ re a c he d th e lim its of what my

capa biliti es ar e in par enting education,” an d t h at he could not recommend the re un if ic a tio n o f the famil y

be c aus e of the pa

re nts ’ ina bil ity to u nd e rs ta nda ndfo llo w thr ou g h w ith the ir pa re nti ng re sp on sib ili tie s. Other D epartment employ ees testified that the par ents neve r expressed or exhibi ted a de sire to c hang e the ir

liv e s inway s th a t w ou ld e nab le th em to be re un ite d w iththe ir c hil dr e n. Th is unfortunate pattern is evident in this rec ord, as is the Depa rtment’s re peate d eff

orts to provide the pa re nts these rv ic e s a ndsu pp ort th a t w ou ld h a ve e na ble d the m, w ithso me re a so na blee ff ort onthe ir part, to addr ess and r emedy the conditions that ha d orig inally cause d the Depa rtment to remove the children f rom t h ei r h ome. Acc ording ly , we f ind that the rec ord contains clear and convinc ing evidenc e that the Depa

rtment made r easona

ble ef forts to support and a ssist David H. and Mary EllenT he t ri al co urt s t at ed i n bo t h i t s m em o randum op i ni o n and fi nal o rder t hat it s d eci si o n w as no t ba sed o n any 26

o f the ev i dence cont ai ned i n t he t r ans cr i pt of t he Febru ar y 200 4 hea r i ng on t he D epar t ment ’ s dependent an d neg l ect p et i t i o n. -11- H. following the re moval of their c hildren, that they failed to re medy

these c onditions, and that there is l itt le lik e lih oo d th a t th e y wi ll b e able to re me dy the se c on dition s a t a n e arl y date . B a se d o n th e se finding s, we ha ve dete rmined that the trial c ourt properly found that g rounds ex i s t ed u n der Te nn. Cod e An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A ) t o te rm inate Da vidH. ’s a ndMa ry El le n H .’ s p are ntal rig hts

. V. S EVER E C HI L D A BUSE U NDE R T E NN . C OD E A NN . § 36-1-113( g)(4)
Davi d H. and Mary

Ellen H. also insist that the Department failed to pre sent clea r and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e that the y c omm itt e d se ve re c hil d abu se . Th e De pa rtme nt ins ists t hat it prese nted ample e vidence during the Octobe r 2004 t ri al t o est ablish clea rly and convinc ingly

that both David H. and Ma

ry Ellen H. had se x ually abused se vera l of their childre n. We have de termined that the portions of the re cord that may appropriately

be conside red on this appe al support the De pa rtme nt’ s c la im.
Be fore addre ssing the substance of this issue, we must fir st c onsider which portions of the rec ord may be used to support te rminating David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s rig hts ba s ed o n T en n. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g )(4) . We have de termined that the only evidenc e that should be c onsidered is the testimonyactua lly

prese nted during the October 2004 trial. Even though t he De partment re lied heavily on the evidenc e in the transcript of the Fe bruary 2004 depende nt and neg lect trial, wehave determined that there aretwo compelling rea sons for dec lining to consider this e vidence

. First, the tria l c ou rt its e lf didno t c on sid e r this e vid e nc e . Se c on d, in a n op ini on iss ue d c on te mpo rane ou sly 26 with this opi nion, w e have conclude d that the order enter ed on September 20, 2004 in the de pendent and neg lect proc eeding must be vacated bec ause of the trial court’s failure to g rant David H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s re quests for a ppoin t ed counsel to re prese nt them in the depende nt and neg lect proce eding . It wo uld be inappropriate to re ly on the evidenc e adduc ed during the trial of the depende nt and neg lect proc eeding now that we have dete rmined that that proce eding was tainted by the failure to provide the pa rents with appointed c ounsel.
Even without the evide nce a dduced in the de pendent and neg lect proc eeding, this rec ord contains cle ar and convincing evidenc e that Da vid H. and Mary Ellen H. sexually

abused thre e of their daug hters. This e vidence includes the testimony of the ther apist for Sabrina H. and Savannah H. wh o re c ou nte d the c hil dr e n’ s sta te me nts de sc ri bin g theg ro ssl y ina pp ro priate se xua l a c tiv iti e s in wh ic h b othDa vidH. a nd Ma ry El le n H . f

or c e d th e m andthe ir

sis te r, Vi c toria

H. , to pa rtic ipate . T his evidenc e wa s corr oborate d b y S ab ri na H. and Savannah H . at trial. Even thoug h they wer e understanda

bly reluc tant to rec ount the details of their a buse to a room f

ull of strang ers, whe n they we reint e rv ie we d inc hambe rs ou tsi de of the ir pa re nts ’ p re se nc e , Sa vann ah H . s tate d th a t sh e ha d to ld the thera pist everything that ha d happene d to them, and both children stated in ge nera l terms that the ir pa re nts ha d to uc he d th e m inina pp ro priate way s.-12-

No purpose w ill be served by providing a detailed acc ount of Sabrina H.’ s and Savannah H.’s descriptions of t heir parents’ conduct. Their testim ony is specific and consistent enoug h to discount any leg itimate conce rn that it is the product of a child’s imag ination or of inappropriate coac hing by the Depa rtment or its contrac tors. Ba s ed on the ther apist’s testimony reg arding the childre n’s descriptions of the conduct of the ir pare nts and t h e ch i l d ren’ s corr oboration, we find that the trial c ou rtpr o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t D a v i d H

. a n d M ary E l l e n H

. h a d c o m m i t t e d s e v e r e c h i l da bu se war r an ti n g termi n ation of their pa renta l rig hts in accor dancewith Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(4)

.

VI . T HE C HILDR EN ’ S B EST I N TERESTS As a fi na l matte r, Da vidH. a ndMa ry El le n H . a

rg ue that te rm inatin g the ir pare nt al r ig hts would not be in their childre n’s best intere sts. Their arg ument focuse s on what they perc eive to be the wea kn es s o f t he De partment’s e vidence reg arding the g rounds for te rminating their par ental rig hts and the i nadequa cy of t he Department’s e fforts to assist t hem in addre ssing the c onditions t hat cause d the childre n to be re moved from their custody

. We have determined that the re cord c ontains clea r and c onvincing evidenc e supporting the trial court’s conclusion that termi n at i n g Da vid H.’s and Mary Ellen H.’s pa

renta l rig hts is in t he best intere sts of their childre n.

A.
Th e ultimateg oa l of

e ve ry pr oc e e din g inv olv ing thec area nd c us tod y of a c hil d is to a sc e rt a in and promote the child’s best intere sts. However , as important as thes e interests ar e, they do not do min a te e ve ry ph a se of a te rm inatio n of pare ntal rig hts pr oc e e din g . T he be st i nte re sts of thec hil d do no t be c omethepa

ramou nt c on sid e ratio n u nti l th e tr ial cou rt has d e te rm ine d th a t th e pa re nt i s unfit based on c lear and convinc ing e vidence of one or more of the g rounds for te rmination listed in Tenn. Cod e A n n . § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g )

. O n c e a p a r e n t h a s b e e n f

o u n dto b e u n f

it , th e in te r e s ts o f

the pare nt and the child diver g e. While the pare nt’s interests do n o t evapor ate upon a finding of unfitness, Santosky v . Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394-95 (1982), the focus of the proce eding s shifts to the best interests of the c hild.
Whil e a f inding of pare ntal unfitness i s a n ec es s ary prer equisite to terminating a par ent’s rig hts, a finding of unfitness does not ne cessa rily requirethat the par en t ’s rig hts be terminated. W hite v. Moody , 1 71 S.W. 3d18 7, 19 3 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 4) ; In re Te rm ina tio n o f P are nta l R igh ts to Alexande r V. , 678 N.W.2d 856, 863 (Wi s. 2004). Not all pare ntal misconduct is irrede emable. Thus, Tenne ssee’ s termination of par ental rig hts statutes recog nize the possibil ity that terminating a n u nf it p are nt’ s p are ntal rig hts is n ot alw a y s inthec hil d’ s b e st i nte re sts

. The concept of the child’s best interests evolved in the contex t of divorce proce eding s and has now mig rate d from leg al discourse into popular culture. What is best for children de pends on values and norms upon which re asonable persons c an diffe r. W hite v. Moody , 171 S.W .3d at 193; Rideout v. Riende au , 761 A.2d 291, 296 n.5 (Me. 2000) . T h u s , cr i t i cs of the be st interests of the child standard of

ten point out that its non-spec ificity leads to unpre dictabl e an d inconsistent outcomes. Trox e l v . G ra nv ill e , 530 U.S. at 101, 120 S. Ct. at 2079 (2000) ( Kenne dy , J ., dissenting) ;-13-

Pr inc ipl e s o f the L a w o f F a mil y Diss ol uti on 2 & n. 2 ( Te ntativ e Dr a ft No . 3 19 98 ); Julie E. Artis , Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges’ Acc ounts of the Tender Y ears Doctrine , 38 L aw & Soc’y Rev. 769, 774-75 (2004)

. Howeve r, others ha ve pointed out that the courts’ pe rsistent relianc e on the be st interests of thec hil d sta nd ard su g g e sts that no mor e app e a lin g fo rmulatio n is like ly to be of fe re d an d th a t it

is not much less worka

ble than other standards the law has adopted. 2 H O M ER H. C LARK , J R ., T HE LAW O F D O M ESTI C R EL AT I ONS I N TH E U NI TED S T A T ES § 20.4, at 495 (2d ed. 1987) [hereina fter T HE LAW O F D OMESTI C R ELAT I O NS ]. P rofe ssor Clark, the author of one of the seminal domestic re lations treatises, has observe d that “fe w i f an y ex p er i en ced judg es and la wy ers think that . . . [the child’s best interests standa

rd] goe s very

far toward de ciding case s. That can only be done by

considering the fa cts of the individual ca se ag ainst the bac kg round of fac tors held to be re levant in ea rlier c ases.” 2 T HE LA W O F D O M ESTI C R ELA T I O N S § 20.6, at 479.
I n rec ent y ear s, the Tenne ssee Ge n e ral Asse mbly , like other state le g islatures, has unde rtake n to c od if y thefa c tor s th a t c ou rt s sh ou ld c on sid e r w he n c a lle d up on to a sc e rt a in a c hil d’ s b e st i nte re sts in various circu m s t an ce s . I n termination of par ental rig hts cases suc h as this one, the Ge nera l Assembly has provided the courts with a non-e x clusive list of nine fac tors to consider. Te nn. Code An n. § 36 -1 - 11 3( i)

. Th us , a sc e rt a ini ng a c hil d’ s b e st i nte re sts in a

te rm inatio n p ro c e e din g is a fa c tint e ns ive inq uiry re qu iring the c ou rt s to we ig h thee vid e nc e in l ig ht o f the statut ory fa c tor s, a s w e ll as any other re levant fa ctors, to determine whether irrevoc ably

severing the relationship between the p ar e n t a n d th e c h il d is in th e c h il d ’ s b e s t in te rests. W hite v. Moody , 171 S.W .3d at 193-94. The Depa rtment is not r equire d to pr evail on eac h and every statutory fac tor befor e a court may conclude that terminating pare ntal rig hts is in a child’s best interests. Stat e De p ’t of Chil dren’s Se rvs. v. T

. S

. W. , No. M2001-01735-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 970434, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002) (No Te nn. R. App. P. 11 application filed).
Th e c hil d’ s b e st i nte re sts mus t bevie we d f ro m th e c hil d’ s, rat her tha n th e pa re nt’ s, perspe ctive. W

hite v. Moody , 171 S.W. 3da t 19 4; In re Ha mm e tt , No. 245221, 2003 WL 22416515, a t *2 (M ic h. Ct. Ap p. Oc t. 2 3, 20 03 ); In re L.N. , J r. , 6 90 N. W.2 d 245 , 24 7 (S .D. 20 04 ); In re Marriage of Pape , 9 89 P.2 d 1 12 0, 11 30 (Wa sh . 1 99 9) . Afo c us on thepe rs pe c tiv e of the child is the common theme r

unning thr oug h the list of mandatory fac tors specifie d in T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i). B y

the time the c o u rtrea ches the best interests analy sis, it wil l have a lrea dy made a findi n g , supported by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, that the pa rent is unfit or poses a

risk of substantial harm to the welfare of t he child. Acc ording ly , the exclusive focus on the pe rspec tive of thec hil d inthebe st i nte re sts a na ly sis do e s n ot c on tr a ve ne thepa re nt’ s c on sti tution a l rig hts

. B.
Al l a du lts wh o te sti fi e d at th e Oc tob e r 2 00 4 tria l e xpre sse d c on c e rn ab ou t thepa re nts ’ c on du c t e ve r s inc e the y mov e d to Te nn e sse e a nd the e ff e c ts of thi s c on du c t on the ir c hil dr e n. It is not disputed that the children ha d been e ducationally deprive d, had bee n subjected to seve re c orpora l pu nis hme nt, an d had be e n p hy sic a lly a ndps y c ho log ic a lly

abu se d b y

the ir pa re nts . It is lik e wi se-14-

un dis pu te d th a t th e reha d b e e n a si g nif ic a nt, po sit ivetr a ns fo rm a tio n inthec hil dr e n s inc e the ir remova l from their pa

rents’ c ustody

. Despite ove r t hree y ear s of i nterve ntion by the Department, David H. and Mary Ellen H. have de mon str a te d li ttl e abil ity or inc lin a tio n to mod if y the ir lif e style s o r t o impr ov e the ir pa re nti ng skill s. Th e y app e ar t o b e dis int e re ste d in ma ny of the ir old e r c hil dr e n, a ndthu s it is n ot l ike ly

that th e y wi ll be able to effe ctively p are nt any of their c hildren in the nea r future . The c hildren who testified e xpre sse d a

pp re he ns ionabo ut b e ing re turne d to the ir pa re nts , a s we ll a s g re a t satis fa c tio n wi th the ir foster pla ceme nts. After c are fully revie wing this recor d in light of the fac tors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( i), we f

ind that there is cle ar and convincing evidenc e to support the trial c ourt’s conclusion that terminating the par ental rig hts of David H. and Mary Ellen H. is in their children’ s be st i nte re sts

. VI I.
Th e jud g me nt t e rm inatin g thepa re ntal ri g hts of Da vid H. a ndMa ry El le n H . w ithre g ardto Gi or g ia nn a

H. , Stua rt H. , Sabrina H. , Sa vann ah H. , Vi c toria H. , B e njamin H. , a ndSara hann a H. is aff irmed, and the caseis remanded to the circuit court for whate ver f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with this opinion may be require d. The costs of this appea l are taxed to the TennesseeDepa rtment of Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

______________________________ WILL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.