### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 9, 200 6 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E, D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN 'S S ER V IC ES v. A.C., ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Haw kin s County No. HJ-05-1322 Her bert A . Holcom b, Jud ge

No. E2006-00747-COA- R3-P T - F ILED NOVEMBER 2, 2006

The State of T ennesse e, De partment of Children’ s Services ( “DCS”) f iled a petition to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of A.C. (“Mother ”) to her thre e childre n, L .A.L .R., K.M.C., and R.S.C . Following a trial, th e Ju v e n il e Co u r t d e te r mi n e d th a t th e r e w a s c le ar a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t g r o u n ds exis ted to terminate Mother ’s par ental rig hts pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 1-113(g )(1) , (g )(2) , and (g )(3)

. The J uvenile Court also determined that ther e wa s clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that t er m i n at i o n o f M o t h er ’s p ar en t al ri gh t s wa s i n t h e c h i l d re n ’s b es t i n t er es t s
. M o t h erap p ea l s , claiming DCS failed to prove by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that g rounds exist ed to terminate her pa renta l rig hts. Mother also claims DCS failed to pr ove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that termination of her pare ntal rig hts would be in the best interests of the children. We af firm the Juvenile Court’s jud g me nt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juvenile Court Aff

irm ed; Case R em anded

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.

Jame s F . T a y lor , Ro g e rs vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe llant, A. C.

Michae l E

. M o o r e , A c ti n g A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l an d Re p o r te r , a n d E li za b e thC. D r iv e r , A s s is tant Attorney Gene ral, Na shville, Tennessee , for the A p p el l ee , State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Chi ldr e n' s Se rv ic e s.A l t ho ugh K

. M

. C

. and R

. S.C

. were bo t h one y ear old when t he p et i t i o n was f i l ed , t hey were b o rn t en m o nt hs 1

a p a rt fro m e a c h o the r. -2- OP IN ION
Bac kgr ound
I n O c tob e r o f 2 00 5, DC S f ile d a pe tit ionto t e rm inate Mo the r’ s p arent al ri ghts to L .A.L .R., K.M.C., and R.S.C , ag es 3, 1 and 1 respe ctively at the time the petition was filed. I n the 1 petition, DCS alleg ed that R.S.C

. had been in D CS custody since J anuary of 2005, and L .A.L .R. and K.M.C. had bee n in DCS custo d y s i nce F ebrua ry of 2005. As g rounds for te rminating Mother’s pa re nta l ri gh ts, DC S a lle g e d th a t: ( 1) Mo the r h a d a ba nd on e d th e c hil dr e n b y wi llf ull y faili ng to support them for more than four c onsecutive months immediately prec eding the filing of the pe tition; (2) the c hildren we re de pendent a nd neg lected and M other had made no rea sonable effort to provide a suitable home f

or the c hildren and it wa s unlikely that she would do so; (3) the c hildren had be en remove d from Mother’ s home for morethan si x m o n t h s b y o rder of the c ourt and the c onditions which led to their r emoval still persisted; (4) Mother ha d failed to substantially com p ly with the state me nt o f r e sp on sib ili tie s c on ta ine d ina pe rm a ne nc y

plan; and(5 ) c on tin uatio n o f the p a r e n t

- c hil d relationship would gre atly diminis h the childre n’s cha nces of an ea rly integ ration into a stable a nd perma nent home. DC S al s o alleg ed that it was in the be st interests of the c hildren for Mother’s pare ntal rig hts to be terminated.

As to Mothe r’ s fa ilu re to co mpl y wi th the state me nt o f r e sp on sib ili tie s c on ta ine d in a permanenc y plan, DC S alleg ed, among other things, that: (1) although the plan require d Mother to complete an a lcohol and drug assessment and r emain drug fre e, Mother f ailed five drug tests and tested positive for illeg al drug s including me thamphetamines, c ocaine , and marijuana; (2) Mothe r didno t ha ve sta

ble ho us ing ; (3 ) Mo the r wa s inc apa ble of fi na nc ia lly

su pp ortin g he rs e lf, mu c h le ss her children; ( 4 ) M o th e r

c o n ti n u e d to u s e d ru g s a n d h a d b e e n in c ar c e r a te d s e v e r a l t im e s ; an d ( 5) Mother wa s employ ed for approximately

two wee ks, but she lost that job when she was incarc erated afte r being found in contempt of c ourt for f ailing a drug test.
The trial wa s conducte d on J anuary 21, 2006, with the first wit n es s being Rebec ca Fletc her ( “F letche r” ), the DCS casew orker assig ned to Mother and her thre e childre n. Fletc her te sti fi e d th a t in the fo ur mon th pe ri od imm e diate ly pr e c e din g DC S f ili ng thepe tit ion , M oth e r p a id no child support. Fletc her state d that Mother knew that she wa s require d to pay child support and that she had be en orde red by the J uvenile Court to do so. Even thoug h Mother wa s briefly employ ed i n Au gu s to f 2 0 0 5 , s h e ne v er p ai d an y ch i l d s u p p o rt

. Fl et ch ers t at ed t h er e w er e s ev en t ea mm ee t i n gs afte r the first child init ially came into DCS custody . Mother wa s prese nt at all seven me eting s and he r o bli g a tio n to pay

c hil d s up po rt

wa s d isc us se d at th e se me e tin g s.
F le tc h e r t e s ti f i e d th at p e rm an e n c y

plans we resu bmi tte d to a ndratif ie d b y the Juve nil e Court, and that Mother ha d participated in the deve lopment of the plans and that Mother had sig ned them. Mother ag ree d to the various g oals and responsibili ties set forth in the pl ans. Among otherM ot her ’ s par ent al r i gh t s t o her four t h c hi l d ar e n ot at i s s ue i n t hi s ca s e. 2
-3- things, t h e p l an s re quired Mother to submit to an alcohol a nd drug assessment and f ollow any rec ommendations. Mother also ag ree d to submit to r andom drug testing. Prior to the f iling of the pe tit ionto t e rm inate Mo the r’ s p are nta l rig hts , M oth e r s ub mitte d to tw e nty -two (22 ) dru g sc re e ns
. F le tc he r t e sti fi e d th at Mo the r t e ste d p os iti ve on fi ve (5) of the dr ug te sts . M or e sp e c if

ic a lly , in Fe bruary of 2005, Mother tested positive for cocaine ; in Marc h of 2005, Mot her te sted positive for cocaine and opiate s; in April of 2005, Mother tested positive fo r coc aine and opiates; in May of 2005, Mo the r tested positive for amphetamines, me thamphetamines, a nd cocaine; and on Aug ust 18, 2005, Mother, who wa s preg nant with her f ourth child at that time, a g ain tested positive f or illeg al drug s. Wit h the most re cent positive dr ug test, Mother was held in c ontempt of co u rt and 2 incar cer ated.
F le tc he r t e sti fi e d th a t th e pe rm anency plans a lso re qu ir e d M oth e r t o h a ve sta ble housing suf

fici en t t o accommodate the c hildren. F letcher added that to her knowledg e, Mother curr ently was li ving with her mother in Roge rsville. Prior to that, Mother re ported living in severa l differ ent place s, including living with a frie nd and with the childre n’s pate rn al gra ndfathe r. The plans also re quired Mother to be able to support herse lf and the children financ ially

. Fletc her state d that Mother has ne ver shown the ability to support herself

or the c hildren.
Fletc her state d that, in her opinion, it would be in the children’s best interests for Mother’s pa

renta l rig hts to be termin at ed

. The c hildren ar e cur rently in foster c are and the f

oster families ar e desirous of

adopting the childre n. The ne x t witness was My ra Rame y

Hale ( “Ha le” ), a ch i ld protective se rvice s investigator with DCS. Hale testified that the y oung est child was r emoved initially from Mother’ s c are by DC S, the n a

bo ut a mon th l a te r the oth e r two c hil dr e n we rere mov e d b y the Juve nil e Cou rt

. Th e y ou ng e st c hil d w a s r e mov e d f ro m Mo the r’ s c aredu e to “ med ica l maltr e a tme nt” a ndbe c aus e the child tested positive for T HC. Hale state d:

Th e c hil d w a s h ospi talizeda t H ols tonVa lle y Ho sp ita l w ith RSV , a ndthe CH AD nu rs e ha d ask e d the famil y to take the c hil d to the do c tor

prior to that ho sp ita lizatio n. The y didno t, andthe c hil d almost died.
Ha le te sti fi e d th a t D CS pr ov ide d a ssi stanc e thr ou g h CH AD , “ wh ic h is a nu rs e that g oe s to the ho me fr om the He a lth De pa

rt me nt. ” Mo the r a lso wa s pr ov ide d a ssi stanc e thr ou g h f a mil y su pp ort se rv ic e s.
DC S’ s n e xt wit ne ss w a s Jean D a vis ( “ D av i s” ), a he a ltha ndde ve lop me nt L PN. Da vis re c e ive d a

re fe rr a l r e g ard ing Mo the r’ s y ou ng e st c hil d in D ecem ber of 20 04 . A c c or din g to D a vis , it was a re fer

ral fr om DCS t hat there was “ possible drug use in the home a nd th at we we re to do ho me vis its .” Da vis ma de a tot a l of fo ur vis its be fo reMo the r r e qu e st e d a no the r n ur se . D a vis testified that during one of the home visits, she instructed Mother to take t h e ch ild to the doctorT h e par en t al r i g h t s of t h e ch i l dr en ’ s f at h er a l s o w ere ter m i nat ed i n t h es e pr oce edi n g s
. T h e f at h er di d n ot 3 ap p ea l t he t erm i na t i o n o f his p are ntal ri gh t s. -4- beca use the c hild was having respiratory problems. Davis stated that to her knowledg e, Mother never took the child to the doctor. Davis added that the child was blue around the m o u t h which indicated a

lack of ox y g en and w hich ce rtainly co u l d b e l i fe- threatening . Davis stated that e ither Mo the r o r the c hil dr e n’ s fa the r re qu e ste d an oth e r nur se be c aus e du ri ng on e of the ho me vis its Da vis ac cu s ed M o t h ero f s l u rr i n g h ers p ee ch

. Da v i s s ai d M o t h erd i d h av e s l u rr ed s p ee ch , an d al t h o u gh 3 Davis did not know exactly why Mother’s spe ech w as slurre d, she “suspe cted” she knew the cause. The ne x t witness was Ang ie B ellamy (“B ellamy ”), who perf

orms preve ntion and inhome servic es for

Fa mily Support Services. Be llamy first was assig ned to Mother’ s case afte r the yo u n g e s tc h i l d h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o mM o t h e r ’ s h o m e
. A c c o r d i n g t o B e l l a m y:
We sta rted out ... [with] t y

pical ca se mana g ement, g oing and chec king in on them. I did do a FamilySupport Service r efe rra l to inhome servic es throug h FamilyTies, and I had Carrie Nelms working with them at I HB I level, ... [which is] the m ost intensive that we c an do....
At th e b e g in n in g , [M o th e r

a n d th e f a th e r ] w e r e c o o p e r a tive , but once Car

rie started working [wit h the parents], there was a lot of visits where the f

amily – the par ents wer e not there

.... B e l l a m y’ s s e r v i c e s e n d e d w h e n a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e r e m o v e d f r o mM o t h e r ’ s c u s t o d y. The fina l witness was Mother, wh o t es t i fied that she w as cur rently unemploy ed. Mother’s most rec ent job was wor kin g at a BP st ation and lasted only three wee ks. Mother wa s te rm inate d f

ro m th a t jo b w he n s he wa s in c arc e rate d inAu g us t of 20 05 a ft e r f

a ili ng a dr ug te st. Mother has not be en employ ed since that time. When asked whe re she had wor ked prior to he r job a t th e B P station, Mo th er r e sp on de d “ No wh e re .” Mo the r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e didno t pay a ny c hil d su pp ort fr om he r pa y c he c ks fo r the thr e e we e ks sh e wo rk e d at th e B P statio n. Mo the r h a d h e r f ou rth c hil d inNo ve mbe r o f 2 00 5 a ndby the tim e of

tria l, s he ha d not been rel eas e d b y he r p hy sic ia n to se e k e mpl oyme nt.

Mother testified that she beg an re ceiving alcohol an d d rug counse ling at Frontier Hea lth in November of 2005, w hich was a fter the fi l i n g o f t he petition to terminated he r par ental rig hts. Mother re ceive d one-on- one counse ling on one occa sion, and she has attended thre e g roup se ssi on s. Mother cur rently is livi ng with her mother. Mother does not have a vehic le and r elies on her g randmother

for transportation. Mother testified that she wanted the Juvenile Court to deny-5-

DCS’s petition t o terminate he r par ental rig hts, and that it was in the childre n’s b es t i n t erests for Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts to r e ma in i nta c t.

A p ortio n o f M oth e r’ s c ro ss- e xami natio n is a s f oll ow s: Q. Do y ou re c a ll the day y ou c a me to C ourt

a ndwe rehe ld i n c on te mpt ?
A. Ye s, Ma ’am. Q. Do y ou rec all that y ou drug scre ened positive?
A. Ye s. Q. Oka y . Yo u un ders tan d th at y ou ’ve been off ered lo ts of A &D c ou ns e lin g du ri ng the pa st y e ar. I s th a t c or re c t?
A. Ye s. Q. You wouldn’t dispute that, would y ou?
A. No. Q. And y ou wouldn’t dispute that y ou wer e serve d [wi t h t he p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e y o u r p ar e n t a l r i g h t s ] i n O c t o b e r ?
A. No. Q. And y ou didn’t start g oing to Frontier until November ?
A. Yes.
* * * Q. You don’t dispute that y ou un derstood that y ou should have be e n p a y ing so me c hil d s up po rt ?
A. No. Q. And y ou did work?
A. Ye s.-6- Q. An d y ou do n’ t di sp ute y ou did n’ t pay a ny c hil d s up po rt ?
A. No. Q. And y ou don’t dispute that y ou h ad s o m e drug and alcohol pr ob le ms?
A. No , M a ’am. Q. An d y ou do n’ t dis pu te that tho se dr ug a nda lc oh ol p ro ble ms c on tin ue d at le a st u nti l A ug us t?
A. No. Q. And that was a lso during y our preg nancy with this l ast child?
A. Yes. Following the trial, the Juvenile Court enter ed a very thoroug h Final Or der terminating Mother’s pa

renta l rig hts to all three childre n. I n the Final Or d er , t h e J uvenile Court stated, inte r a lia , a s f

oll ow s:
On J anuary

14, 2005, the childre n wer e rem o v ed from the custody of the mother be cause the infant, R.S.C. had not rec ei v ed me d ic a l a tt e n ti o n a n d h a d to b e a ir li f te d to th e h o s p ital. The mother ... wa ived the thre e d ay h earing at which time the Court order ed that R.S.C. would remain in the custody of the De partment and K.M.C. and L .A.L .R. w ould r eturn home

... with intensive i nho me se rv ic e s. ... T he Cou rt or de re d r a nd om dru g sc re e ns , fa mil y suppo rt service s in the home and pa renting classes. O n Marc h 3, 2005, [Mot her, throug h her attorney ] ... s t i p u lated to the childre n being depende nt and neg lected w hen the mother failed a drug scre en, a dmi tte d to dr

ug us e , a nd wh e n the se rv ic e s th a t ha d b e e n p la c e d in the ho me a dv ise d the Cou rt that the re ha d be e n no c omp lianc e wi th se rv ic e s. On Ma

rc h 3, 20 05 , th e Cou rt

su a sp on te br ou g ht K .M .C. and L .A.L .R. back into the custody of the De partment....
I n this cause, the Court c oncludes t h at there is clear and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e to s up po rt g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f [M o th e r ’ s] pare ntal rig hts to her childre n u n d er T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 113 (g) (1 ) a s d ef

i n ed b y 3 6 -1 -1 0 2 (1 )( A) (i ), § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g) (2 ) and § 36- 1-113(g )(3) (A)( i) and (ii) and (iii)....-7- To establish [abandonment], the Department m ust show that the fa ilure to pay

support was willful beh av i o r. Further, only that period of time f

our (4) months prior to the fil ing of the petition may be conside red a s g rounds to terminate pa re n t al rig hts. The Court finds by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that [Mot her] has abandoned the childre n within the meaning of the law

. Th e C o u r tf

i n d s t h a tt h e r e l e v a n tf

o u r m o n t h p e r i o d i n thi s cause is betwee n J une 2005 throug h September, 2005

. T he Court finds by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that [Mot her] abandone d the children pur suan t t o T e n n
. Co de Ann. 36- 1-102(1) (A)( i) ... for f ailure to pay child support for a period of four (4) consec utive months prior to the fil ing o f

th is a c ti o n
. T h e Co u r t f in d s th a t at th e A u g u s t 1 8, 2005 hearing, [Moth er ] wa s order ed to pay child support in the amount of fifty

dollars ($50.00) per month. [Mother] was prese nt at the hearing and wa s repr esente d by counsel a nd ... [Mot her kne w she was] obligate d to pay child support. Case Mana g er Rebe cca Fletc her te sti fied th at the mothe r w a s w or kin g a t a B P c on ve nie nc e sto rein Aug ust, 2005 and could have paid child support, but failed to do so. Case Manag er Rebecc a Fletcher testified t hat s he had he ld seven (7) Chi ld a nd F a mil y Te a m Me e tin g s a nd the mothe r a tte nd e d these me e ti n g s a n d c h il d s u p p o r t w a s d is c u s s e d at t h e s e me e ti n g [s ]. No net hel ess, th e mothe r d id n ot p a y c hil d s up po rt . T he mothe r d id not dispute that she was ordere d to pay child support and she did not dispute that she fa iled to pay . She ad m itted that she was e mploy ed fo r a pe ri odof

tim e in A ug us t, 2 00 5. Th e Cou rt fi nd s th a t sh e c ou ld have paid child support and that she willfully failed to do so....
Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(2) , the C ourt may te rm inate pa

re nta l r ig hts wh e rethepa re nt h a s faile d to c omp ly

wi th the statement of r esponsibiliti es of the perma nency plan. The Court fi nd s b y c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid ence that [Mo the r] f a ile d to substantially

comply with t h e s t atement [ of] responsibilit ies of the perma nency

plan pursuant to Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g )(2)

. Case Mana g er Rebe cca

Fletc her te stified that the permanenc y plan require d [Mot her] to submit to A&D assess m ents and follow re c omm e nd a tio ns a ndsu bmi t to rand om dru g sc re e ns . [Mo the r] d id take dr ug assessments, but the Court finds that mother did not follow re c omm e nd a tio ns un til Se pte mbe r, 2005 , whe n s he ha d h e r f ir st appointment with Frontier Mental He alth. The pe rmane ncy plans for the childre n wer e sig ned [ b y M o ther] on March 9, 2005. [Mother] did nothing to addre ss her drug problem for six (6) months. The Court finds that the mother submitted to twenty -t wo (22) r andom-8- dr ug sc re e ns a ndte ste d n e g a tiv e on se ve nte e n ( 17 ) o f tho se sc re e ns
. She te s t e d p o s i t i v e o n M a y 6 , 2 0 0 5 , f

o r a m p h e t a m i n e s, methamphetamines and cocaine; on April 1, 2005, she tested positive for op i ates a nd cocaine; on Marc h 3, 2005, she tested positive for opiates and c ocaine . The Court finds that on Aug ust 18, 2 0 0 5, she was in this Court and the Court order ed a drug scre en at that time, and sh e te ste d p os iti ve fo r me thamph e ta min e s, a mph e ta min e s, a ndTH C. She was a lso preg nant an d h ad not s oug ht prenatal car e.... The pe rm a ne nc y

plan a lso pr ov ide d th a t [Mo the r] wou ld n ot p art ic ipate in any ill e g a l a c tiv iti e s. [Mother] was ja ile d f or c on te mpt

of thi s Court on Aug ust 18, 2005, for testing positive for drug s. The Court fi nd s tha t the De pa

rt me nt use d re a so na

ble e ff orts t o p re ve nt r e mov a l. CPS I nvestig ator My

ra Rame y Hale te stified that she plac ed CHAD and F amily

Su p p ort Service s in the home initiallybeca use the n e w b o r n te s te d p o s it iv e a t b irthf o r T H C. Wh e n a ll o f

th e c h ildr en c a me into c us tod y , F oo thi lls pr ov ide d s e rv ic e s o f the ra pe uti c vis itatio n u nti l th e Cou rt su sp e nd e d th e vis its du e to [M oth e r’ s] continu ed drug use, and F amily Ties supervise d visits for [ Mother] for a period of time.
Th e pe rm a ne nc y

plan r e qu ir ed [ Mo the r t o] pr ov ide sta ble housing f or the children. Case Ma nag er Rebe cca Fletc her te stified that [ Mother] was pre sently living with her

mother. She has be en there since July , 2005. Prior to that [ Mother] reported t h at s he wa s liv ing wi th f

ri e nd s and a lso liv ing wi th the [ch ild re n’ s] f a the r andhis fathe r.
Th e pe rm a ne nc y

plan a lso re qu ir e d [Mo ther] t o b e able to financ ially

support [her s el f] and the c hildren. The Court f inds that [Mot her] worke d some of the tim e. [Mother did not provide] the De pa rt me nt w ithsu ff

ic ie nt i nf orma tio n to de te rm ine that [sh e ] co uld pro v ide for the children.... A ccor dingly , the Court terminates [Mot her’ s] parental rig hts pu rs u ant t o Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 113(g )(2)

.... The Court f

i n d s b y clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the children h a v e b e e n r e mo v e d f r o m [ M o th e r ] f

o r a p e r io d o f

s ix ( 6) months and the conditions that led to the remova l s t i ll persist; that there is lit tle likelihood that these conditions will be r emedied at an e arl y date so that th e c hil dr e n c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d to the pa

re nt i n the nea r future and continuation of the pare nt and child relation g re a tly dim ini sh e s th e [ch ild re n’ s] c ha nces of e arl y int e g ratio n in to a saf e, stable and perma nent hom e, p ursuant to Tenn. Code A nn.-9- § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 3) (A )(i ) and(i i) a nd(i ii) . CH AD nu rs e , Jean D a vis , te sti fi e d that sh e ha d li ttl e c oo pe ra tio n f ro m [Mo the r]. At

the tim e she made her initial contac t the pare nts and childre n were living toge ther in a trailer in Hawkins County

. She testified that she made on ly thr e e (3) visits a t w hic h ti me [Mothe r] c a lle d th e He a lth Depa rtment and re quested a nother wor ker be caus e t hey

wer e not g etting a long. Specifica lly , Nurse D avis testified that in Dec ember , 2005 or J anuary , 2006 the infant had respiratory problems an d she advised the mother

to take the c hild to the doctor. It does not appea r that the mother followe d the advise of the nurse and subsequently the child had to be hospitalized. This inc ident appea rs to the Court to be the c aus e of the mothe r c a lli ng the He a lth De pa rt me nt to req ue st another nurse. Nur se Da v i s noted that the mother’ s words we re slurred. N urse Da vis testifi ed t hat the mother’ s speec h was slurre d and that her

rea ction was slow. Ang ie Be llamy with F amily Support Service s ... testified that

in it ially [Mot her] was c oopera

tive, but when int e ns ive se rv ic e s w e re pla c e d in the ho me the y wo uld no t be a t ho me a nd the c hil dr e n wo uldbe fo un d at a n aun t’ s h ome . [Mo the r] w ou ld not work with servic e provide rs....
Th e Court fi nds th a t th e mothe r d id n ot ans we r t ru thf ull y [a b o u t h e r d ru g p r o b le m w h e n u n d e r g o in g a n A & D a s s e s s me n t. ] ... [Mo th er wa s late r d ir e c te d] to se e k a ssi stanc e wi th G re a t Sta rt s in Knoxvi lle for her drug and alcohol problems. The mothe r t es t i fi ed that she made a phone c all to Great S t ar t s , but that she was a dvised to call bac k afte r the holi day

.... She did not pursue this service ag ain. The Court finds that the mother w as offe red a number of service s and eac h time s h e ei ther did not follow throug h or did not cooper ate. There fore , the C ourt finds clea r and convincing evidenc e to support termi n at i o n of [Mother’s] parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(3) (A).
Af te r de te rm ini ng that thr e e se pa rate g ro un ds to te rm inate Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts had bee n proven by

clea r and c onvinci n g ev i d en ce, the J uvenile Court then conside red w hether te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts wa s in thec hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts . A ft e r r e vie wi ng the fa c ts a s se t f orth a bo ve , th eJu ve nil e Cou rt

ult imate ly

de te rm ine d th a t te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts wa s in the c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts

.

Mother appe als, claiming the J uvenile Court er red when it de termined that c lear and convincing evidenc e had be en esta blished sufficie nt to terminate Mother ’s par ental rig hts under any of the thre e g rounds as found by the J uvenile Court. Mother also c laims the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the J uvenile C ourt’s conclusion that there was c lear and convinc ing e vidence that termination of Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts was in the childre n’s best intere sts.-10- Discussion Our Supreme C o urt rec ently reiter ated the sta ndard of revie w for c ases involving te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts . A c c or din g to the Sup re me Cou rt :

This C ourt must review f indings of f

act made by

the trial c ou rt de novo upon the record “acc ompanied by a pre sumption of the corr ectne ss of the finding , unless the pre ponderance of the evidenc e is o the rw ise .” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 13 (d ). To te rm inate pa re nta l rig hts , a trial c ourt must determine by cl ea r and convinc ing e vidence not only the exis tence of at least one of the statutorygro u n d s for termination but also that termination is in the child's be st interest. In re Valentine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (c i t i n g Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( c)). Upon re viewing a termination of pare ntal ri gh t s , t h i s C o u rt 's d u t y , t h en , i s t o d et er m i n e w h et h ert h e t ri al co u rt 's finding s, made under a clea r and convinc ing sta ndard, a re supported by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e.
In re F.R.R ., III

, 193 S.W .3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006)

. Th e re le va nt s ta tut ory

se c tio ns a dd re ssi ng thethr e e g ro un ds up on wh ic h th e Juve nil e C o u rt t er m i n at ed M o t h er ’s p ar en t a l ri gh t s ar e T en n
. C o d e A n n
. § § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g) (1 ) t h ro u gh (g )( 3) (2 00 5) . T he se se c tio ns pr ov ide that th e fo llo wi ng areg ro un ds fo r t e rm inatin g pa re nta l r ig hts : (1 ) A ba nd on me nt b y

the pa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n, a s d e fi ne d in § 36-1-102, ha s occur

red; (2) The re ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the par ent or g uardia n with the statement of r esponsibiliti es i n a permanenc y plan or a plan of car e pursuant to the provisi ons of title 37, chapte r 2, part 4; (3)( A) The ch ild has been r emoved f rom the home of the pare nt or g uardia n by

order of a court for a period of six (6) months and: (i) The conditions that led to t h e ch i ld's r emoval or oth e r c on d i tio ns that in a ll r e a so na ble pr ob abil ity

wo uldc aus e the c hil d to be su bje c te d to fu rthe r a bu se or ne g le c t a ndthat, there fore , preve nt the chil d' s safe return to the c are of the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) , s til l pe rs ist ;-11- (i i) Th e re is l itt lelik e lih oo d th a t th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y

date so th at th e c hil d c a n b e sa fe ly returne d to the pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) in the ne ar f uture; and (i ii ) T h e c o n ti n u a ti o n o f

th e p ar e n t o r

g u ar d ian a nd child relationship gre atly diminis hes the c hild's c hance s of early integ ration into a saf

e, stable and perma nent home. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 1-113(g )(1) throug h (g )(3)

.

I n addition to the foreg oi n g, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-102(1) (A)( i)(2005) de fines aba nd on me nt a s f

oll ow s: (i ) F or a

pe ri odof

fo ur (4 ) c on se c uti ve mon ths imm e diate ly prec eding the filing of a pr ocee ding o r p l ea ding to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of t he parent(s) or g uardia n(s) of the child who is the subject of the pe tition for termination of par ental rig hts or adoption, that the par ent(s) or

g uardia n(s) e ither have willfullyfailed to visit or have w illfullyfailed to support or ha ve willfully failed to make rea sonable pay ments toward the support of the child....
The fir st issue is whether there was clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that Mother ha d aba nd on e d th e c hil dr e n b y wi llf ull y faili ng to sup po rt the m for the fo ur mon th p e ri odimm e diate ly prec eding the filing of the petition. During the rele vant four month pe riod, Mother cert ai n l ywas capa ble of be ing e mploy ed and in fact was so employ ed for sever al weeks, until she wa s incarc erated due to her own ac tions. Mother never paid any child support during the re levant four month period, althoug h she wa s able to purc hase and use illeg al drug s. We conclude that the J uvenile Court corr ectly determined that, pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( g)( 1 ), there was c lear and convincing evidenc e that Mother had abandoned the children by willfullyfailing to support them for the four month period immediately prec eding the filing of the pe tition.
Th e ne xt iss ue is w he the r the rewa s c lear and con vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Mother’s pa

renta l rig hts pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g )(2) due to Mother’ s alleg ed su bs ta nti a l no nc omp lia nc e wi th the state me nt of re sp on sib ili tie s con ta ine d inthe pe rm a ne nc y plans
. The plans r equire d, among other thing s, that Mother have an A& D assessment, that she follow any rec ommendations, and that she re main drug fre e. Notwithstanding this requireme nt, Mother fa iled fi ve dr ug te sts , s ome of

wh ic h s he fai led whi le pr e g na nt w ithhe r f ou rth c hil d. Th e plans a lso re qu ir e d M oth e r t o o btain h ou sin g su ita ble fo r r a isi ng the c hil dr e n a ndthat sh e be c ome fi na nc ia lly c apa ble of su pp ortin g the c hil dr e n. Mo the r c a me no wh e rec los e to a c c omp lis hin g ei th er o f the se plan re quirements. We conc lude that there was c lear and convinc ing e vidence to terminate Mother ’s pare ntal rig hts pur suant to T enn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(2) based on Mothe r’ s s u b stantial no nc omp lia nc e wi th the state me nt o f r e sp on sib ili tie s c on ta ine d inthe pe rm a ne nc y plans
.-12- Th e thi rdiss ue is w he the r the re was c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate Mother’s pa

renta l rig hts pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3) . At the time of trial, it was undisputed that all three c hildren had been removed from Mother’s home for at lea st six months by order of the J uvenile Court. The conditions w hich led to the children’ s removal f rom Mother’s c are sti ll p e rs ist e d, the se c on dit ion s in c lud e d M oth e r’ s c on tin ue d il le g a l dr ug us e a ndher in abi lit y

to secur e employment and prope r housing

. There is littl e, if any , doubt that the childre n would continue to be neg lected if

they wer e returne d to Mother’s ca re. While Mother did make a last minute eff ort to improve her situation, for the vast majority

of the time after

the childre n wer e re moved, Mother didve ry lit tle tow ardmakin g a

re a so na ble e ff ort to regain cu sto dy

of the c hil dr e n. Th e fa c ts demonstrate no likelihood that Mother w ould remedy the conditions leading to the ch i l d ren’ s re mov a l a t a ny

tim e in the ne ar f

utu re . A s su c h, c on tin uatio n o f the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip wo uld o n ly s e r v e to d im in is h th e c h il d r e n ’ s c h a n c e s o f e ar ly in te g r a ti o n in to a

s a f e a n d s ta b le h o me
. We conclude tha

t t h e re w as cle ar and convincing evidenc e to terminate Mother’s pa renta l rig hts pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3) (A)( i) throug h (iii).

Having conclude d that there was clear and convincing evidenc e supporting all three g rounds for te rminating Mother’s pare ntal rig hts, the final issue is w hether the evidenc e is clea r and convincing that termination of Mot h er’ s pare ntal rig hts was in the childre n’s best intere st. Along thi s li ne , T e nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( i) (2 00 5) pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: (i) I n d e te r mi n in g w h e th e r te r mi n a ti o n o f p ar e n ta l or g ua rd ia ns hip ri g hts is i n th e be st i nte re st o f the c hil d p ur su a nt t o th is p ar t , t h e c o u rt s h al l co n s i d er , b u ti s n o tl i m i t ed t o , t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1) W h e th e r th e p ar e n t o r g u ar d ian h a s ma d e s u ch an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in t h e ch i ld's be st interest to be in the home of the pare nt or g uardia n; (2 ) Wh e the r the pa

re nt o r g ua

rd ian h a s f

a ile d to e ff

e c t a lasting a djustment after r easona blee f f orts by available social ser vices ag e n c ie s f

o r s u c h d u r a ti o n o f ti me th a t la s ti n g a d ju s tm e n t doe s not rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other contac t with the child; (4) W h ether

a mea ningf

ul relationship has otherw ise bee n established betwe en the pa rent or g uardia n and the c hild; (5) The eff

ect a chang e of c are taker s and phy sical environment is likely to ha ve on the child' s emotional, psy cholog ical and medica l condition;-13- (6) Whether

the par ent or g uardian, o r ot her pe rson re siding wi th th e pa

re nt o r g ua

rd ia n, ha s sh ow n b ru ta lit y , p hy sic a l, s e xua l, emotional or psy cholog ical abuse , or neg lect towar d t h e child, or another child or adult in the fa milyor household; (7) Whether

the p h y s ical envir onment of the pa rent' s or g ua rd ia n' s h ome is h e a lth y

a ndsa fe , w he the r the reis c ri min a l a c tiv ity in the home, or wh et her the re is such use of alc ohol or controlled su bs ta nc e s a s may

re nd e r the pa

re nt o r g ua

rd ia n c on sis te ntl y

un able to car e for

the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ; (8) Whether

th e p ar en t 's o r gu ar d i an 's m en t al an d/ or emotional statu s w o u ld b e d e trim e n ta l to th e c h il d o r p r e v e n t th e p ar e nt or g uardia n fr o m eff

ectively providing safe and stable c are and supervision for the child; or (9) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has paid c hild support con s is te n t w ith th e c h il d s u p p o r t g u id e li n e s p r o mu lg a te d bythe department pursuant to § 36-5-101. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i).

I t is clear that Mot her ha s consistently used illeg al drug s and has not made an adjustment of circ umstances or conditions such that it would be safe for the c hildren to be re turned to her c are . DCS c erta inly made a rea sonable e ffort to assist Mot her, but Mother failed to make any la sti ng a dju stm e nt. Af

te r re vie wi ng the statut ory fa c tor s whi c h ar e app lic able to thi s ca se , as w e ll as the J u v enil e Court’s deta iled finding s with respec t to those factor s, we c onclude that c lear and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e wa s su bmi tte d to the Juve nil e Cou rt that it wa s inthe c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts for Mother ’s par ental rig hts to be terminated.
Conclusion The judg ment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed, an d this cause is re manded to the Juve nil e Cou rt fo r co lle c tio n of the c os ts b e low . E xer c isi ng ou r d isc re tio n a nda s Mo the r i s in dig e nt, the costs on appe al ar e asse ssed ag ainst the Appellee , the Stat e o f T en n essee, Depa rtment of Children’s Service s.

__________________________________ D. MI CHAEL

SW INEY, JUDGE