It is the p ra c tice o f t h e m id d le se c tio n o f t h is c o u rt to m o d ify the na m e s o f the p a rtie s to m a inta in th e a n o n ym ity 1

o f t he chi l d ren. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 26, 200 4
I N 

### R E 

### : C. L A 

### C. AND 

### D. L. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for White County No. JU1503 Sam m ie E. Benni ngf ield, Jr., Judge

No. M2003- 02164-COA-R 3-P T - F iled March 17, 2004

Mother appea ls the decision of the trial court whic h terminated he r par ental rig hts on two statutory g rounds, aba ndonment and failure to comply with the permanenc y

plan, and upon the f

inding that te rm inatio n w a s in the be st i nte re st o f the c hil dr e n. Mo the r c la ims the e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o satisfy the clea r and c onvincing evidentiary standard ne cessary t o p ro ve the statutory g rounds for te rm inatio n a ndthat te rm inatio n w a s in the be st i nte re st o f the c hil dr e n. We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Aff irm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., joi ned. W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., filed a c oncurring opinion.
Ly nn O. Spa

rkma n, Spa

rt a , T e nn e sse e , f

or the app e llant, A. L a C. 1 Paul G. Summers, A t t o rn ey Gene ral a nd Reporter ; and Doug las Ear l Dimond, Assist ant Attorney Ge ne ra l f or the app e lle e , T e nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s. OP IN ION This appea l arises out of the te rmination of par ental rig hts o f t he mother of two children. Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts we re te rm inate d o n tw o s tatut ory g ro un ds , a

bando nm ent andfailu re to comply with the perma nency

plan, and upon the finding that termination was in the be st interest of the childre n. Mother appe als claiming the evidenc e wa s insufficient to satisfy the clea r and convincing e v i d en t i ary

standard ne cessa

ry to prove the statutory

g rounds for te rmination and that termination was in the be st interest of the c hildren.
Procee dings to terminate par ental rig hts are statutory . Parties see king to terminate a pa rent’s rig hts with reg ard to his or he r c h i l d m u s t prove two thing s. They must prove the existence of atT he st at ut o ry ground s fo r t erm i nat i ng pa rent al ri ght s are fo und i n T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (g)

. 2

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 fa c t s a n 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 . T e n n . R. 3 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 preponder anc e of

t he ev i dence

. H owever , we mus t t hen det er mi ne whe t her t he com bi ned we i gh t of t hes e fact s provi des cl ear and co nvi nci ng evi d ence supp o rt i ng t he t ri al c o urt ’ s ul t i m at e f act ual co ncl usi o n. T he T enness ee S up rem e C o urt used t hi s ap p roac h i n In R e Va l ent i ne when i t recognized t he d i f ference b et ween t he co ncl usi o n t hat a biol o gi cal pa rent h a d no t co m p lied su b sta n tially w ith h e r o b liga tio n s in a p e rm a n e n c y p la n a n d the fac ts re lied up o n b y the trial c o u rt in su p p o rt o f t h is c o n c lus io n . In Re Val ent i ne , 7 9 S .W .3 d a t 5 4 8 -4 9 ; se e a lso J o n e s v . G a rre tt , 92 S. W

. 3d a t 838. -2- le a st o ne statut ory

g ro un d f or te rm in ati on . Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) ; In re D.L.B. , 118

2 S.W. 3d 36 0, 36 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; J on e s v . G ar re tt , 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 8 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 2 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, they must prove that terminating the pare nt’s rig hts is in t he child’s be st interests. Tenn. Code Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 2) ; I

n r e A

. W. , 11 4 S.W. 3d 54 1, 54 5 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; In re M. W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W. 2d62 0, 62 2 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 8)

. Th e fa c tor s to be co ns ide re d in a “be st i nte re sts ” a na ly sis are set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( i). Persons seeking to terminate these rig hts must prove the elements of the ir ca se by clea r and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e . Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c ); In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 20 02 ); I n r e A

. W. , 114 S.W .3d at 545. Evidenc e that s at i s fi es the clea r and c onvincing evidenc e standard e liminates any

serious or substantial doubt about the cor rec tness of the c onclusions drawn from the e vidence

. In re Vale ntine , 7 9 S. W.3 d at 54 6; W alton v. Y oung , 950 S.W .2d 956, 960 (Tenn. 19 97 ); In re C.D.B. , 37 S.W .3d 925, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). It produce s in a fac t-finder ’s mind a firm be lief or c onviction r ega rd i n g t h e truth of the pr opositions s oug 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 726, 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 20 01 ); I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
As a conseque nce of the clea r and convincing standard, this c ourt found it ne cessa ry to adapt Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). In Re Ad op tio n o f M uir , N o . 2 0 0 2-02963-COA

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 3 WL 22 79 45 24 , * 2 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . N ov . 2 5, 20 03 ) e xplaine d th e a da ptatio n inde ta il.
Be cause of the heig htened burden of proof require d by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(c ), we must adapt Tenn. R. A pp. P. 13(d)’s customary standard of

revie w for case s of this sort. F irst, w e must re view the trial court’s specific finding s of fa ct de novo in acc ordanc e with Tenn

. R

. Ap p . P. 13(d). Thus, ea ch of the trial court’ s specific fac tual finding s will be presumed to be corr ect unles s t h e evidence preponde rate s otherwise. Second, we must determine whe ther the f acts, e ither as fo un d b y the tria l c ou rt

or a s su pp orte d b y

the pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e , c le arl y and convinc ingly

establish the g rounds for te rminating the biol o gi cal pa rent’s pare ntal 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 54 6; Ray v . Ray , 8 3 S. W.3 d at 73 3; I n r e L

. S

. W. , No. M2000-01935-COA- R3-J V, 2001 WL 1013079, at *5 (Te nn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2001), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Dec . 27, 2001). 3T o pro t ect t he i d ent i t y of t he chi l d ren, the nam es o f the p art i es as set fo rt h i n t he t ri al judge’ s f i nd i ngs have 4 bee n modi f

i ed. -3- Re g re tta bly , in a numb e r of

te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts c a se s w e ha ve be e n u na ble to b e g in our eva luation to determine whe th er t h er e wa s clea r and c onvincing evidenc e to establish the g rounds for te rmination and to establish whethe r termination wa s in the best intere st of the child due to the failu re of

tr ia l ju dg e s to pr ov ide writt e n fi nd ing s of fa c t. F ortun a te ly , that is no t a n is su e in this case. To the contra

ry , the trial judge set forth an extensive list of his f indings of fa ct. The tria l jud g e ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t are a s f

oll ow s: 4
C. A

. L a C. w a s b o r n to M o th e r o u t o f w e d lo c k o n O c to b e r

1 0 , 1 9 8 9 in

. . . California. D.A.L . was b o rn t o Mother out of we dlock on Octobe r 29, 1995 in . . . Michig an.

. . . . . That C.A.L aC. and D.A.L

. wer e place d in the custody of the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices due to depende ncy and negle ct on Fe bruary 14, 2002 and have rema ined continuously in foster c are since F ebrua ry 14, 2002. The Depar tm e n t o f

Ch il d r e n ’ s Se r v ic e s w a s le g a l c u s to d ian o f th e c h il d r en at the time these pr ocee dings w ere commenced. Ther e ar e no other pare nts, leg al guardi ans or

c us tod ia ns or

a ny oth e r p e rs on wh o w e re e nti tle d to no tic e of the se proce eding s pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-117. Mother has not contributed to the s upport of t he childre n since F ebrua ry 14, 2 0 0 2

. M o t h eri s ab l e b o d i ed an d ab l e t o wo rk

. S h e h as h el d v ar i o u s j o b s , al t h o u gh o n l y f o r v e r y b r i e f p e r i o d s o f t i m e , w h e n s h e w a s n o t i n c ar c e r a t e d , y e t ha s o nly provided token support to her childre n. Mother w as ad v i sed on Mar ch 6, 2002 and January 31, 2003 that willful failure to visit or willful failure to contribute to the sup p o rt of the c hildren wa s g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts

.

. . . . . The c hildren we re removed from the parent, Mother, as the result of a Petition filed in J uvenile Court in which the ch i l d ren w ere found to be de pendent a nd ne g le c te d a s d e fi ne d b y

T. C.A . 3 7- 1- 10 2 a ndthe c hil dr e n w e re pla c e d inDC S custody

. The J uvenile C ourt found t hat t he DCS made reasona ble efforts t o preve nt remova l o f t h e children or the c ircumstance s of the childre n’s situation prevente d rea sonable efforts fr om being made prior to the children’ s removal. DCS made e very eff ort to preve nt removal of t h es e childre n, including f iling a Petition for a

court order ed S a f

e ty Pl a n w h ic h o n ly

[s ic ] s o c u s to d y

o f th e c h il d r e n [s ic ] i f

M o the r vio la te d th e sa fe ty

plan. F or a pe ri odof fo ur (4 ) m on ths fo llo wi ng re mov a l, the DC S ha s ma de re a so na

ble e ff orts to ass ist

the pa re nt, Mo the r t o e sta

bli sh a su ita ble ho me fo r the c hil dr e n, bu t th e pa re nt h a s ma de no re a so na ble e ff orts t o p ro vid e a

su ita ble home and ha s demonstrated a lack of conce rn for the childre n to such a de g ree that it appear s unlikely

that Mother will b e ab l e to provide a suitable home for the-4-

c hil dren at an ear lydat e. T here for e, t he D efen dan t, Mo th er, h as ab and on ed C .A. L aC. a nd D. A. L

. Mo the r wa s hosp ita lize d at Pen ins ula Ho sp ita l in Kn oxvil le , f ro m A pril 18, 2002 throu g h April 25, 2002. She rec eived menta l health treatment while at Peninsula, but did [not ] complete follow up treatment. Mother did not do anything else to comply

with her pe rmane ncy

plan or to provide a

suitable h o m e for her ch i l d re n d u ri n g t h i s fi rs t fo u r- m o n t h p er i o d

. S h e a l s o co n t i n u ed t o ab u s e i l l i ci td ru gs during this period. Th e De fe nd a nt, Mo the r, wa s in c a rc e rate d from No ve mbe r 1 8, 20 02 to F e br ua ry 26 , 2 00 3, in the Cumbe rl a nd Cou nty Jail

. She wa s in c arc e rate d f ro m July 29 , 2 00 2 th ro ug h Se pte mbe r 1 2, 20 02 , inthe Whit e Cou nty Jail . T he se are the on ly times the Defe ndant, M other, ha s been inc arc erated since the children w ere place d in custody

on Fe bruary

14, 2002. Mother willfully failed to support said children f or four ( 4) months immediately prec eding her inc arc erations on J uly 29, 2002. Th e De fe nd a nt, Mo the r, e ng a g e d in su c h c on du c t prior to i nc arc e ratio n a s to exhibi t a wanton disre g ard f or t he welfare of t he children. Mother was on probation in both W hite and Cum b er l and C ounties when the c hildren came into custody on F e br ua ry 14 , 2 00 2. Ho we ve r, a ft e r the c hil dr e n w e re remov e d, sh e c on tin ue d to abuse a lcohol and drug s. She was cha rg ed with DUI

on J uly 29, 2002. She was char g ed wi th violation of probation in both W hite and Cumberland Counties. She tested positive for marijuana on Jul y 24, 2002, and admitted to her probation off

icer using ma rijuana in June of 2002. T h e r e f o r e , t h e D e f

e n d a n t , M o t h e r , h a s ab a n d o n e d C

. A

. La C

. a n d D

. A

. L. The De fendant, Mothe r, has not substantially complied with the provisions of t he p e r man e n c y

p lan s . T h e M ar c h 6 , 2 0 0 2 p e r man e n c y p lan s o n b o thc h il dren requ ire Mother

to attend and pa

rticipate in school staf

fing s and par ent-tea cher c on fe re nc e s f

or C., pa rt ic ipate in b ud g e tin g educ a tio n, c omp le te A& D t re a tme nt, rema in sober, follow throug h with medical tre atment for he r bi-polar disorder, take all medication as pr escribed; keep he r home a dequate ly clea n and fr ee of en v iro n mental hazards; comply with her probation requireme nts, refr ain from f urther illeg a l a c ti v ity

a n d c o mp le te p ar e n ti n g c la s s e s . T h e Ja n u ar y 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 p e r ma nency plans fo r b othc hil dr e n co ntains the abo ve re qu ir e me nts , but al so re qu ir e s Mo the r t o maintain stable housing with appropriate utiliti es; acc ept homemaker ’s servic es and e sta bli sh a me a ns of

le g a l in c ome to s up po rt he rs e lf a ndher chi ld ren. The se re qu ir e me nts are a ll r e a so na ble re la te d to re me dying the c on dit ion s that ne c e ssi ta te fo ste r c are fo r the c hil dr e n. Mo the r ha s no t c omp le te d b ud g e tin g e du c a tio n, be c aus e she has not maintained a

job and has not maint ai n ed an y reported source of leg al income fr om which she c ould be taug ht to budg et. She has not complete d Alcohol and Dr ug Treatment. She was asse ssed for A &D treatment on O ctober 3, 2002 and started treat m ent. However she did not complete this treatment due to he r inc arc e ratio n inNo ve mbe r 2 00 2. Pr ior to O c tob e r 2 00 2, sh e ma de no e ff ort to ob ta in A& D treatment, even thoug h Petitioner ref err ed her to treatment in March 2002. She continued to abuse drug s. She continued to violate the law , resulting in new criminal char g es. She did not comply with her rule s of probation, resulting in being violated-5-

a ndinc arc e rate d inbo th Wh ite a nd Cumbe rl a nd Cou nti e s. She didno t c on sis te ntl y follow throug h with mental health tre atment for he r bi -pol ar disorde r. She did not keep her h ome ade quately clea n and fr ee of

environmenta l hazards. She had a p ar en t i n g as s es s m en to n J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , b u td i d n o tco m p l et e t h e p ar en t i n g tra i n i n g. Since her rele ase f rom jail on Fe bruary 26, 2003, she has started servic es ag ain, but ha s n ot c omp le te d th e m. Mo the r w a s a dv ise d o n M arc h 6 , 2 00 2 a ndJanu ary 31 , 2 00 3 that fai lure to c omp ly wi th the pe rm a ne nc y

plans wa s g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts

. The c hi l d re n h ave been r emoved f rom the custody

of their pa

rent for more than s ix (6 ) m on ths

. The c onditions which led to t h e removal of the c hildren fr om the home of Mo the r sti ll e xist a nd oth e r c on dit ion s e xist in he r ho me , wh ic h in a ll p rob abi lit y wo uldc aus e the chi ld ren to be su bje c t to fu rthe r a bu se a nd /or ne g le c t, m akin g it un lik e ly that the c hil dr e n c ou ld b e re turne d to he r i n th e ne ar f utu re . M oth e r i s mentally ill and require s reg ular a nd ong oing me dical supervision and compliance with her medic ation in order to main t ai n stability . When she has not bee n i n ca rc er at ed, she has not complied with her menta l health treatment. She has not been able to stay focuse d on any of the re quirements of the perma nency plan. When Petitioner has t ried to assist Mother in comply ing with the permanenc y plans, Mother ha s b e e n u na

ble to st ay

fo c us e d o n w hat Pe tit ion e r h a s trie d to te ll h e r. Pr ior to incar cer ation, Mother continued to a buse illicit drugs. She continued to be involved in criminal ac tivity . Whil e inca rce rate d, sh e h as participated in Nar cotics Ano ny mo us , b utwhe n n otin carcera ted has no t been abl e to rem ain focu sed on A&D treatment. She has only

maintained a job for brief pe riods of time. It does not appea r to Petiti oner that she will be able to maintain a stable home or sta

ble job. Th e re is lit tl e like 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 hildren can be re turned to Mother in the ne ar f uture. Th e c on tin uatio n o f the pa ren t or g ua rd ia n a ndc hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the c hild’s chanc e of an earl y i n t egration into a stable and permanent home. Mother has not made an adjustment of circ umstances, c onduct or c onditions as to make it in the children’s be st interest to return home in the fore seea ble future

. Mother’s mental and/or emotional status w ould be detrimental to the c hildren and/or pre vent her

from ef fec tively providing car e and supe rvision for the children. Mother has f

ailed to ef

fec t a lasting adjustment after rea sonabl e ef

fo rt s by available social ag encie s for such a duration of time that lasting adjustment does not rea sonably

appea r possible. Mo the r’ s u se of

a lc oh ol o r c on tr oll e d s ub stances r e nd e r h e r c on sis te ntl y unable to ca

re f or the c hildren. There is criminal activity in Mother’s home. Mother has not pa id a re asonable portion of the children’ s substitut e phy sical car e and ma intenance when f inancially able to do so.T he D epar t ment i s not r equi r ed t o m ake r eas onabl e e f fort s ev er y t i me i t r emo ves a c hi l d. I n c er t ai n a gg r ava t ed 5 ci rcum st ances, such as severe chil d a b use, the D ep art m ent i s rel i eved of t hi s d ut y . T enn. C o d e A nn. 37

- 1

- 1 0 2 , T enn. C o d e A nn. 37

- 1

- 1 6 6 (g) (4) and T enn. C o d e A nn. 36

- 1

- 1 1 3 (g) (7). -6- Mother has not pa id child support consistently with t h e ch i l d support g uidelines promulg ated by the Depa rtment pursuant to T.C.A. 36-5- 101. Whil e Mother ha s visited the children in the four (4 ) m o n t h s prec eding the filing of this P etition or her incar cer ation, she has not maintained r eg ular visitation or conta ct wit h the childre n. Mother’s visitation has bee n sporadic due to the Petitioner fre quently

not b eing able to g et in touch with her to sche dule visits or Mo the r s ta tin g sh e c ou ld n ot s c he du le vis its be c aus e sh e tho ug ht s he wo uldbe in j a il. For all of the for eg oing r easons, it is i n the best intere st of the childre n and the public that any

and all p ar en t al ri g hts that Mother may hold to the children, C.A .L a C. andD. A. L ., be fo re ve r t e rm ina te d a nd that the c omp le te c us tod y , c on tr ol, and g uardia nship of said children be awa rded to the State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, wi th the ri g ht t o p la c e sa id c hil dren for ado pti on a ndto consent to adoption in loc o p are nti s . Final De cre e of G uardia nship (Aug ust 4, 2003).
Be fore we e valuate w hether there is sufficient evide nce to e stablish the grounds for termination, we must asc erta in whether the Depa rtment made r easona

ble ef forts to preve nt the need for r emoval and the rea fter to r eturn the c hildren safel y t o t h ei r hom e for this is not a ca se whe re rea sonable e fforts are e x cused. Unless re maining w ith the pa rent exposes the children to substantial 5 risk of harm, the Depa

rtment must make rea sonable e fforts to prevent the ne ed for remova l of the children prior to separ ating the childre n from the f amily , Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-166(a )( 1 ), and there af te r to r e tu r n th e c h il d r e n to th e ir h o me u n le s s it e xp o s e s th e c h il d r e n to s u b s tan tia l harm. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-166(a )(2) ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-166(g )(2)

. Th e De pa rt me nt mus t e sta

bli sh by c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e that it ma de re a so na

ble eff orts to reunite the children with the par ent. In re Vale ntine , 7 9 S. W.3 d at 54 6; In re C.M.M . & S.D.M. , N o . M 2 0 0 3

- 0 1 1 2 2

- CO A

- R3

- PT , 2 0 0 4 WL

________a t * 1 1 , ( T e n n . Ct

. A p p . M ar c h 9, 2004); Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( c). This burde n require s that the Depa rtment prese nt sufficient evidenc e to ena

bl e u s to conclude, w ithout serious or substantial doubt, that the efforts were rea sonable unde r the c ircumstance s. I n r e V a le n ti ne , 79 S .W .3 d at 54 6; W alton v. Y

oung , 950 S.W. 2d95 6, 96 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; In re C.D.B. , 37 S.W .3d 925, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
I n a n e f f o r t to p r e v e n t r e mo v a l o f th e s e c h il d r e n , th e D e p ar tm e n t e n te r e d in to a Pl a n of Action with Mother on April 11, 2001 and obtained a court ordere d Safety Plan. The purpose of the Plan of Action and the Safety Plan was to assist Mother with the hope of avoiding having to take custody . The De partment, with the a ssistance of an age n cy , Fa m ily Support Services (F SS), pr ov ided in -ho me ser vic e s f or app ro xima te ly

six mo nth s. F SS w a s in the ho me to a dd re ss
“ e du c a tio na l ne g le c t” a lon g wi th co nc e rn s re g ard ing pa re nta l su pe rv isi on a nddr

ug iss ue s. De sp ite-7-

the i n-home services, problems persisted in the home. Specif ically , the childre n wer e see n walking g reat distances to school, and e ach time the D epartment or ag ency repr es entative would visit the home they

would be g ree ted by

differ ent men. M oreove r, problems pe rsisted with excessive unexcused school abse nces. D ue to truanc y and other s ch ool issues, Mother’s continued dr ug use, probation problems, a nd g ener al lack of s u p er v i s i o n of the c hildren, the pe tition t o decla re the c hil dr e n d e pe nd e nt andne g le c te d w a s f ile d o n Jan ua

ry 25 , 2 00 2 a ndthe c hil dr e n we re t ake n in to custody

. Du ri ng the fo ur

mon ths fo llo wi ng re mov a l, the De pa rt me nt m a de sim il ar e ff

orts t o a ssi st Mother to establish a suitable home for the c hildren. These eff orts wer e met with similar r ebuff s by Mothe r w h o a g a in f

a il e d to r e c ip r o c a te a n d w h o a g a in d e mo n s tr a te d a la c k o f c o n c e r n, there by re nd e ri ng it n e ar i mpo ssi ble fo r the De pa rt me nt t o s uc c e e d in its e ff orts to re un ite the famil y . So me of the proble ms with Mother included her providing false information conce rning wher e she wa s or wh y sh e c ou ld n ot p ur su e the pe rm a ne nc y plan. On on e oc c a sio n M oth e r tol d the De pa rt me nt c a se manag er, Jennifer F orester , that she would be in ja il over the ne x t few w eeks; howe ver, Ms. F orester learned that Mother did not go t o j ai l , at least not on that occ asion. On other oc casions, Mother would disappea

r and Ms. Fore ster wa s unable to locate her to pursue the pe rmane ncy plan. On y et other oc casions, Mother w ould tell Ms. Forester that she would not be able to pur sue the plan f or the immediate future due to various reas o n s i ncluding her pr obation duties and alleg ed job-see king effo rt s . Ba sed upon the e vidence befor e us, we have no se rious or substantial doubt that the De pa rt ment , a ndMs. F or e ste r i n p art ic ula r, ma de the ne c e ssa

ry e ff orts t o s a tis fy

the re a so na

ble eff orts criteria. Acc ording ly , we f ind that the Depa

rtment exerted re asonable eff orts, there by satis fying the statut ory

re qu ir e me nts

. I t now becom es o u r responsibilityto determine w hether there is clear

and convinc ing evidenc e to establish either of t he two statutory g rounds found by the t rial court, being abandonme nt or fa ilure to comply

with the perma nency plan. I t is only nece ssary

to prove one statutory

g round for termination. In re D.L.B., 118 S.W .3d 360, 367 (Tenn. 2003) . A pa re nt’ s ri g hts ma y

be te rm inate d w he n h e or sh e c omm its “ aba nd on me nt” a s d e fi ne d in Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 10 2. I n p e rt ine nt p art , “ aba nd on me nt” is d e fi ne d a s f oll ow s: (ii) The c hild has been r emoved f rom the home of the pare n t (s) . . . as the result of a petition .

. . in w hich the child was found to be a depe ndent and ne g lected c hild, . . . and the c hild was place d in t h e cu s t ody of the de partment or a

licensed c hildplacing ag ency , that the J uvenile Court found . .

. that the depa rtment or a lice nsed child-plac ing a g ency

made r easona

ble ef forts to preve nt removal of the child or that the circ umstances of

the child’s situation preve nted re asona b l e efforts from being made prior to the child’s remova l; and for a period of f

our (4) months following the re mov a l, the de pa

rt me nt or a g e nc y ha s mad e re a so na ble e ff orts t o a ssi st the pa

re nt( s)

. . . to e sta bli sh a su ita

ble ho me fo r the c hil d, bu t th e pa re nt .

. . ma de no re a so na

ble eff orts to provide a suitable home and . . . d em o n s t ra t ed a lack of c oncern for the-8-

child to such a degre e that it appear s unlikely that they will be able to provide a su ita ble ho me fo r the c hil d at a n e arl y date ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-102(1) (A)( ii).
Th e De pa rt me nt a lle g e d th a t Mo the r a ba nd on e d C. A. L a C. andD. A. L . b y wi llf ull y faili ng to contribute to the support or m ake rea sonable pay ments towards the support of said childre n for more than four ( 4) conse cutive months prior to the filing of the pe tition. T h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h e fo llo wi ng fa c ts:

* The c hildren we re r emoved a s the result of a Petition filed i n J uvenile C ourt in which the c hil dr e n w e re fo un d to be dep e nd e nt andne g le c te d a ndwe re pla c e d in Depa rtment custody

.

* Mother did not support her c hildren during the four months immediately prec eding her inc arc erations on J uly 29, 2002, though she did occa s i o nally provide g ifts and modest amounts of funds to the childre n.

* Mother wa s on probation in both Whi te and Cumberland C ounties when the c hildren came into custody on Fe bruary 14, 2002. Howeve r, af

ter the c hildren we re r emoved, she continued to a

buse alc ohol and drug s. She was cha rg ed with DUI o n J uly

29, 2002. She was c harg ed with violation of probation in both Whit e and Cumberland Counties. She tested positive for marijuana on J uly 24, 2002, an d ad m i t t ed to her probation off

icer using ma rijuana in J une of 2002. Her c onduct prior to inca rce ration exhibi ted a wanton disreg ard f or the we lfare of the c hildren.

* Mother wa s in ca rc er at ed fr om November 18, 2002 to Febr

uary 26, 2003, in the C u m b er l an d C o u n t y

J ai l

. S h e w as i n ca rc er a t ed fr o mJ u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 t h ro u gh Se pte mbe r 1 2, 20 02 , inthe Whit e Cou nty Jail
The s t at u t e, T en n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -1 -1 0 2 (1 )( A) (i v ), p ro v i d es t h at“aba ndonment” also oc curs when a pare nt, w ho is inc arc erated at the time of the filing of the petition, “has e ng ag ed in conduc t prior to i nc arc e ratio n whi ch ex hi bits a wanto n d isr e g ardfo r the we lf are of the c hil d. ” Ou r c ou rt s h a v e h e ldth a t a

p ar e n t’ s p r e v io u s c r im in a l c o n d u c t, if c o u p le d w ith a

h is to r y o f s u b s tan c e abuse, may constitute a “w anton disreg ard f or the we lfare of the c hild.” I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 474 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) . M oth e r’ s c ri min a l c on du c t a nd his tory of su bs ta nc e abu se , c omb ine d w ith her f ailure to provide pare ntal supervision and support, provide the requisite c lear and convinc ing e vid e nc e to s up po rt

the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e c hil dr e n’ s mo the r a ba nd on e d th e m. We now consider w hether there is sufficient evide nce to establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that Mother f

ailed to satisfy

her duties unde r the pe rmane ncy plan. A pare nt’s rig hts may be terminated for he r substantial non-complianc e with re sponsibili ties contained in a permane ncy plan. Te nn . Co de . A nn . § 36 -1 -1 13 (g )( 2) . Whethe r Mothe r wa s in su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lia nc e is a-9-

question of law which we revie w de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. In re Vale ntine, 79 S.W .3d 539, 548 (Tenn. 2002)

. The De partment a lleg ed that Mother failed to substantially comply with the perma nency p l an s . T h e M arch 6, 2002 perma nency plans (one f

or ea ch child) r equire d Mother to attend a nd participate in pare nt-teac her c onfer ence s, partic ip ate in b u d g e ti n g s tudie s, complete a lcohol and drug treatment, remain sober , foll o w t hroug h with medical tre atment for he r bi-polar disorder, take me dic a tio n a s p re sc ri be d, ke e p th e ho me re a so na bly c le a n a ndfre eo f

e n v i r o n m e n t al ha zar ds , c omp ly with her probation, and complete pa renting classes. The s u b s equent permane ncy plans, dated Janu ary 31 , 2 00 3, c on ta ine d th e abo ve a ndrequ ir ed Mothe r t o maint a in s ta ble ho us ing wi th appropriate utilities and establish a sourc e of inc ome to support herse lf and her c hildren. The trial court found the se re quirements to be r easona ble to reme dy

the conditions and Mother doe s not c on te st the re a so na

ble ne ss o f the re qu ir e me nts

. Sub stanti a l no nc omp lia nc e is n ot d e fi ne d in the te rm inatio n s ta tut e . T he statut e is clea r, howe ver, that noncompliance is not enoug h to justify termination of par ental rig hts; the noncompliance must be substantial. B lack' s L aw Dic tionary define s "sub st ant ial " as "[ o] f real wor th and im po rt ance. " Bl ac k 's La w D ic tio na ry 14 28 (6 th ed.1990). In the context of t he requirements of a permanenc y plan, the re al worth a nd importance of noncomplianc e shoul d be mea sured by both the deg ree of noncompliance and the we ight a ssigne d to that require men t

. T er ms which are not re a so na ble a ndre la te d are ir

re le va nt, a nd su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lia nc e wi th s uc h te rm s is i rr e le va nt. In re Vale ntine, 79 S.W .3d at 548-49.
Th e re cord e stablishes the following fac ts conce rning Mother’s e fforts to complywith the pe rm a ne nc y

plan:

* Mother has not completed budge ting education, she has not maintained a job and has not maintained an income

.

* Mother wa s hosp i t alized at Peninsula Hospital in Knox ville, from April 18, 2002 throug h April 25, 2002. She rec eived mental health treatment w hile at Peninsula, but did not complete follow up with the rec ommended treatment f or h er b i -p olar disorder.

* Mo the r h a s n ot c on sis te ntl y fo llo we d th ro ug h w ithre c omm e nd e d me nta l he a lth tr e a tme nt.

* Pr ior

to O c tob e r 2 00 2, Mo the r m a de lit tle e ff ort to ob ta in dru g a nda lc oh ol t re a tme nt, even thoug h Ms. Fore ster re fer red he r to treatment in March 2002.I t s houl d be not ed t hat t he cr i mi nal conduct upon wh i ch t he l at t er of t he t wo probat i on vi ol at i ons was bas ed 6

o cc urre d p rior to t he estab l i shm en t o f t he p erm an en cy p l an s.

-10- * Mo the r w a s a ssesse d f or su c h tr e a tme nt o n O c tob e r 3 , 2 00 2 a ndsta rt e d tr e a tme nt; ho we ve r, sh e didno t c omp le te tr e a tment, in pa rt du e to h e r i nc arc e ratio n in November

2002.

* Mother has not c ompleted alcohol a nd drug treatment.

* Mother continued to a buse drug s.

* Mother continued to violate the law, re sulting in new c riminal char g es.

* Mother failed to comply with her probation. Her probation was violated and she w as i n c ar c e r a t e d i n W h i t e C o u n t y a n d t h e r e a f t e r i n C u m b e r l a n d C o u n t y. 6

* Mother did not keep her home clea n and fre e of environmenta l hazards. Further, he r home, a trailer, burne d while she wa s incarc erated for a probation violation a nd she has bee n unable to obtain substitut e housing . On occ asion she has slept in the burned out trailer.

* M o t h erh ad a p ar en t i n g as s es s m en to n J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 b u t d i d n o t co m p l et e t ra i n i n g. The for eg oing e stablish that Mother failed to c omply with the majority

of the pe rmane ncy plan re quireme n t s t h o u gh s he partially complied with a fe w of them. More over, he r poor r ecor d prior to the fi li ng of

the te rm inatio n p e tit ionpr ov ide s v e ry lit tle c on tr a st t o h e r p oo r e ff orts there afte r. I mprov em en t t o wa rd compli ance should be consider ed in a pa rent' s favor

. Se e In re Valentine, 79 S.W .3d at 549; Sta t e De p t

. of Human Serv ices v . Defriec e , 937 S.W .2d 954, 961 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996) (stating that decision re versing a trial c ourt' s termination of par ental rig hts was influence d by

eviden c eo f

im proveme nt in mother' s abilityto provide a stable environment for child). Conversely , failure to improve should not be considere d, espec ially in t h e p resence of

the Depa rtment’s re asonable eff

orts.
Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e t h er ef o re find there is clear

and convinc ing e vidence in the rec ord to support the trial cour t’s finding that the child re n ’s m other failed to comply with the pe rm a ne nc y

plans . We must now consider whether there is suf ficient evidenc e to e stablish by clear a nd convincing evidenc e that it is in the children’s be st interest to terminate their mother’s pa

renta l rig hts. I n ord er to terminate pa renta l rig hts, a court must not only determine that at least one statut ory g ro un d e xists jus tif

y ing te rm inatio n, bu t a lso that te rm inatio n is in the c hil d’ s be st i nte re st. Te nn . Cod e An n. § 36 -1 -1 13 (c )( 1) a nd (2 ). Th e ma nn e r in wh ic h su c h a de te rm inatio n is m a de is outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113 (i ). This statute provides that in dete rmining w hether-11-

termination of par ental rig hts is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider, but is not limit ed to: (1 ) Wh e the r the pa

re nt . . . ha s mad e su c h an a dju stm e nt of c ir c ums ta nc e , c on du c t, or conditions as to make it safe and in the child’s best interest to be in the home of the par ent . . . ; (2 ) Wh e the r the pa

re nt . . . ha s f

a ile d to e ff

e c t a la sti ng a dju stm e nt a ft e r r e a so na ble eff orts by available s o cial services a g encie s for such dur ation of time that lasting adjustment does not rea sonably appea r possible;

. . . . . (7) Whether the phy sical environment of the pare nt’s

. . . home is healthy and saf e, whether there is criminal activity

in the home, or whether there is such use of a lcohol or controlled substanc es as may rende r t he parent . . . consist ently unable to ca

re f or the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ; (8) Whether

the par ent’s . .

. mental and/or e motional status would be detrimental to the child or pre vent the par ent . . . from e ffe ctively providing safe and stable c are and supervision for the child; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i).
Th e re c or d e sta

bli sh e s th e fo llo wi ng fa c ts c on c e rn ing the be st i nte re sts of the c hil dr e n:

* Th e c hil dr e n h a ve be e n re mov e d fr om the c us tod y of the ir pa re nt f or mor e than s ix (6 ) m o n t h s , ac t u al l y

s i x t ee n (1 6 ) m o n t h s att h e t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g.

* The c onditions which led to the removal of the childre n continue to exist and other c onditions continue to ex i s t , which in all proba bilitywould cause the children to be subject to f

urther abuse and/or ne g lect, making it unlikelythat the childre n could be r eturne d to Mother in the nea r future

.

* Mother is me ntally ill which condition r equire s medical supervision and compliance with her medic ation to maintain stabilit y .

* Whe n M oth e r h a s n ot be e n in c arc e rate d, sh e ha s n ot c omp lie d w ithhe r m e nta l he a lth treatment.

* Prior to the last two incarc erations, Mother continued to abuse illeg al drug s and continued to be involved in criminal activity

.

* Whil e inca

rce rate d Mother participated in Narc otics Anony mous but when rele ased she has be en unable , or unwilling, to c ontinue treatment.-12-

* Mother failed to pr o v i d e ev idence to establish that she will be able to maintain a sta ble ho me or

sta ble job or re ma in dru g fr e e a ndbe c omp liant w ithhe r m e dic a tio ns .

* Mother only

maintained a job f

or brief intervals.

* Whe n th e De pa

rt me nt, pa

rt ic ula rl y Mr s. F or e ste r, a ttempt ed to as sis t Mo the r i n comply ing w ith the permane ncy plans, Mother wa s unable, or unwilling, to do what was re quired of he r.

* There is lit tle likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the childre n can be returne d to their mother in the nea r future

.

* Mother h as n o t paid a re asonable portion of the childre n’s substitute phy sical ca re and maintena nce w hen fina ncially able to do so.

* Mother’s visitation has bee n sporadic. T houg h she visited the children in the four ( 4) months pre ceding the filing of the petition, she has not maintained r eg ular visitation or conta ct.
Th e abo ve fa c ts l e a d to the fi rm c on c lus ion s th a t th e c on tin uatio n o f the mothe r andc hil d relationship gre atly

diminis hes the c hildren’s c hance s of ea rly in te g r ati o nin to a

s ta ble and pe rmane nt home, that Mother’ s mental and/or emotional status pr event her f rom eff ectively providing car e and su pe rv isi on fo r the c hil dr e n, that sh e ha s faile d to m ake a la sti ng a dju stm e nt a ft e r r e a so na ble e ff orts by the Depa rtment and socia l ag encie s, that her habitual use of alcohol and illega l drug s rende r her unable to ca

re f or the c hildren, and that the re was criminal activity in the home. It is further a ppare nt that Mother has ma de no adjustment in her c ircumstance s, despite more tha n rea sonable e fforts by Ms. Fore ster of the Depa

rtment, that Mother has continued to abuse substanc es, that she ha s failed to p ro vid e a

sa fe a ndsta

ble ho me , th a t sh e has no t e ff e c tiv e ly a dd re sse d h e r m e nta l he a lthiss ue s, a ndthat he r c on tin ue d in abil ity to c on qu e r h e r s ub stanc e abu se andde a l w ithhe r m e nta l he a lth issues, combined with her unsta ble l ifesty le, provide clea

r and convincing evidenc e that termination was in the be st interest of the c hildren. B ased upon the above, w e find ther e is clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in the re cord t o support the trial court’s finding that is was in the best intere st of the children to terminate all par ental rig hts of their mother.
For the rea sons se t f

orth above, we aff

irm the trial court in a ll respec ts and rema nd this matter to the trial court f

or such procee dings as may be necessary . Costs on appea l are assessed a g ainst the mothe r o f the c hil dr e n, Ap pe lla nt, Ms. A. L a C.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE