### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n B ri ef s Ja nuary19, 200 5 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 ER V IC ES v.

DIANE YVONNE SANG STER, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Laud erdale County No. J5-906 The Honorable Rachel J. Anthony, Ju dge

No. W2004-02060-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Fe bruary 4, 2005
This is a termination of par en t al ri gh t s case . The pa rents appe al from the or der of the Juve nil e Cou rt

of L aud e rd a le Cou nty , te rm inatin g the ir pa re nta l r ig hts . Sp e c if

ic a lly , A pp e lla nts assert that the g rounds of a bandonment for

failure to support and seve re c hild abuse cited f or termination are not supported by clea r and convincing evidenc e in the re cord and that termination of their pare ntal rig hts is not i n the best intere sts of the child. Be cause we f ind clear and convinc ing e vid e nc e in the re c or d to su pp ort th e tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s, we a ff ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Ba rbar a A. De ere of Dy ersbur g for Appe llant, L afay ette Doug las Sang ster J . Ba rney Wit hering ton I V for A ppellant, Diane Sang ster Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd R eporte r, Doug las Earl Dimond, Senior Counsel for Appellee , Tenne ssee De partment of Children' s Services
OP IN ION
L aF ay ette Doug las Sang ster and D iane Yvonne Sang ster (tog ether , the “Sang st er s ,”

“ Re sp on de nts ,” or

“ Ap pe lla nts ” ) a

pp e a l f ro m th e te rm inatio n o f the ir pa re nta l r ig hts to the ir

c hil d L .S. (d.o.b. 3-3-98). L .S. has three ha lf-siblings, T

. T

. (d .o.b. 8-5-93) , B.T. ( d.o.b. 10-10-96) and D.T. (d.o.b. 3- 3-98). On A ug ust 20, 2002, nine-y ear -old B.T. arrive d at s chool wit h fac ial injuries that inc lud e d swe lli ng of his low e r lip , his nos e , an d h is f or e he a d, a s w e ll a s b ru ise s a ndsc ars on his back and leg s in various stag es of healing

. B.T., who wore a helmet a s a re sult of a seizure disorder , wa s tr a ns po rt e d b y

a mbu la nc e to Me dSo uth He a lth c are . B .T . re po rt e d tha t his ste pf a the r, L a F a y e tte Sang ster, had hit him. Medica l examinations reve aled that D.T . and T.T. a lso had scar s and bruisesSee T

. C

. A

. § 3 7

- 1

- 1 6 6 (g) (4)(A ) and d i scus si o n i n f ra . 1
A pr obabl e ca u s e h ea r i n g w as w ai v ed by t h e par t i es u pon an Agr ee d O r der e n t er ed on N ov embe r 14, 2002. 2
-2- on their bac ks and leg s in various s t ag es of he aling . On Aug ust 22, 2002, the State of Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices (“ DCS,” or “Appe llee”) filed a “ Petition fo r Temporary Custody .” On that sa me day , the trial court entere d a “Prote ctive Custody Orde r.”

Di a ne Sa ng ste r i nit ia lly

de nie d a ny

abu se . H ow e ve r, sh e la te r a dmi tte d th a t L aFa y e tte Sa ng ste r h a d in

jur e d B .T . b y

hittin g him

in the fa c e a ndthat she a ndL a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r h a d b oth administered whipping s with a double leather c arpe nter’s be lt. L aF ay ette Sang ster admitted hitting B .T . inthe fa c e wi th a

we ig ht b e lt. Th e Sa ng ste rs we rearr e ste d a ndc ha rg e d w itha g g ra vate d c hil d abuse. On September

17, 20 0 2 , DC S p repa

red a Permane ncy

Plan, which was sig ned by the Sa ng ste rs . T he Pe rm a ne nc y Pla n co ntaine d no re sp on sib ili tie s for the Sa ng ste rs a ndno se rv ic e s to be provide d by

DCS. I n an “Af

fidavit of Reasonable Efforts,” signe d and filed on O ctober 7, 2002, DCS case mana g er Patric ia Smith s tated that DCS ha d not provided ser vices to the familydue to the indication that there would be a sever e abuse finding

. The Permanency Plan was ratified by

Orde r 1 enter ed De cembe r 5, 2002.
A final he aring on DCS’ “Petition for Temporary Custody ” was held on October 7, 2002. 2 On Novembe r 14, 2002, t he trial court entered an “Order on Adjudication and Disposition.” “Upon ag ree ment of the parties,” the trial court found by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the ch i l dren we re d ep en d en t an d n egl ec t ed

. T h e Or d er al s o re fl ec t s t h att h e S an gs t er s s t i p u l at ed t o t h e f o l l o wi n g: Ha vin g be e n r e pr e se nte d b y c ou ns e l a ndinf

orme d o f h is rig hts , L aF ay ette Sang ster stipulates to a f inding that [L .S.] is a depe ndent and negle cted child, who has been seve rely abused pur suant to T.C.A. 37-1-102 ( b)(2 1 )(A) , (B ); that L aF ay ette Sang ster knowing ly failed to protect said c hild from the abuse

.... Having been r epre sented by counsel and informed of her rights Dia ne Sang ster stipulates to a finding that [T.T., B.T., D.T

. an d L .S.] are depende nt and negle cted c hildren, who ha ve bee n sever ely abused pursuant to T.C.A. 37-1-102 ( b)(21) (A), (B ); that Diane Sang ster knowing ly

failed to prote ct said childre n from the a buse....
Th e tr ia l c ou rt no te s in this Or de r that th e thr e e old e st c hil dr e n, T. T. , B .T ., a ndD. T. , h a d p re vio us ly be e n ta ke n in to DCS’ c us tod y du e to a s imi lar i nc ide nt i n w hic h L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r i nf lic te d a bu se on these c hildren. The trial court al so imposed support obligations on the Sang sters. Eff ective Oc tob e r 1, 200 2, Di a ne Sa ng ste r w a s o rd e re d to pay tot a l c hil d s up po rt

of $7 80 pe r m on th. L a F a y e tte-3-

Sang ster wa s order ed to pay support of $300 per month for L .S.’s support, also eff ective O ctober

1, 2002. On J uly 22, 2003, DCS filed a “Petition to Terminate Parenta l Rig hts” (t h e “ P etition”) se e kin g te rm inatio n o f the Sa ng ste rs ’ p are nta l rig hts to L .S. As g ro un ds , D CS alle g e d s e ve re c hil d abuse pur su a nt t o T .C. A. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 4) , n oti ng that th e tria l c ou rt ha d f ou ndsu c h a

bu se in i ts November

14, 2002 “Or der of

Adjudicati o n an d Disposition.” DCS also alleg ed abandonment pu rs ua nt t o T .C. A. § 3 6-1 -11 3(g)(1 ), a sse rt ing that th e Sa ng ste rs ha d w ill fu lly faile d to pay

c hil d support. The Sang sters ente red se parate Answe rs to DCS’ Petition. She on September 11, 2003 and he on January

12, 2004. Both de nied the g rounds relied upon by DCS in its P etition. On J anuary 12, 2004, Diane Sang ster also enter ed a Counter- Petition s eeking visitation wit h L .S. On Febr uary 2, 2004, the Sang sters filed se parate “Motion[s] f o r Ex traordina

ry Relief and Me morandum of L aw.” Th e se re sp e c tiv e Mo tio ns re a d th e sa me a nd , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: 1. Re sp on den t[ s] di d p le a d g uil ty to c hil d a

bu se c ha rg e s in L aud e rd a le Cou nty

Cir c uit Cou rt a nd did se rv e a ja il se nte nc e fo r s a id c ha rg e s. 2. On Nov emb e r 1 4, 20 02 , u nd e r the a dv ic e of [the Sa ng ste rs ’ r e s p e c ti v e a tt o r n e y s ], Re s p o n d e n t[ s ] d id s ti p u late to a f inding of sever e child abuse, wher eby this Court did e nter an order re fl ec t ing said stipulation on that same date.
3. Re sp on de nt[s ] [w e re ] un a wa re bo th a t th e tim e [the y ] ple d g uil ty and the time[they ] st ipulated to a finding of seve re c h i l d ab u s e that these c oncessions could result in the termination of [their respe ctive] pa re nta l r ig hts

. 4. Respondent[s] would neither ha ve pled g uiltynor stipulated to a finding [of] child abuse had [t hey ] known t hat t ermination of [their] p ar en t al ri gh t s wo u l d l i k el y re s u l tb y [ t h ei r] s o y i el d i n g. * * *
10 . Re sp on de nt[s ] did no t stipu la te to se ve re c hil d a bu se vo lun tari ly and with full knowledg e of the direc t conseque nces o f [their] stipulation.
11 . Re sp on de nt[s ’] s tip ulatio n[s] to se ve rec hil d a bu se w[e re ] inv a lid and should be set a side.
A h e ari ng wa s h e ld o n A pril 1 9, 20 04 . F oll ow ing that he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d it s “F indings of F act a nd Conclusions of L aw an d Orde r Terminating Par ental Rig hts” (the “ Final Or de r” ) o n July

20 , 2 00 4. Th e F ina l O rd e r r e a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:-4- 11. Respondents Diane Sang ster and L aF ay ette Sang ster did not pay court orde red support f

or [L .S.]

.... Both Respondents wer e aw are of their child support oblig ation. Whil e under the support obligation they wer e temporarily

incar cer ated, lost employ ment, incurre d court costs, fines , and probation fee s, and lost personal pr operty , but they had n ot b ee n incar cer ated, inca pacitate d or re stricted fr om working by a medica l phy sician for

the four months pre ceding the fil ing of the TPR petiti on. Respondent Diane Sang ster admitted to both working and re ceiving unemployment [compensation] during the same fourmonth period. She further testified that the support wa s taken out of her w ag es and une mploy ment benef its; howeve r, the NPSS scree ns fo r the De pa

rt me nt o f H uman Se rv ic e s d o n ot r e fl e c t a ny pay me nts by her duri n g this ti me. Respondent L aF ay ette Sang ster acknow l edged that he had income during this ti me frame from mow ing law ns bu t di d n ot p a y his c hil d s up po rt . Re sp on de nts contend that they

filed bankr

uptcy afte r [L .S.] and her sibling s were re mo veda ndthu s [w e re ] not able to p a y

c hil d s up po rt

. Re sp on de nt[s ’] ba nk

ru ptc y status do e s no t abs olv e the m of th eir obligat i o n t o pay

support. Nor did Respondents provide any inf orma tio n th a t th e y

ha d in c lud e d th e ir

c hil d s up po rt

obli g a tio n in their bankruptcy

. The Respondents’ failure to pay the court-order ed child support for f

our months prec eding the filing of the TPR petition is w ill fu l.
* * *

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
* * *
2. Th e re is cl e ar an d c on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate pa re nta l rig hts pu rs u ant to T.C.A. §36-1-113( g )(1) , in that Respondents Diane Sa ng ste r andL aF a y e tte Sa ng ster hav e wi llf ull y aba nd on e d th e ir minor child, [L .S.] , pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102( 1)(A)(i ), by wi llf ull y faili ng to pro vid e su pp ort or make re a so na

ble pay me nts toward the support of the child for a period of four months pre ceding the filing of the pe tition.
3. Th e re is c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to t e rm inate pa re nta l rig hts pursuant t o Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 36-1- 113 (g )(4) , in that Re sp on de nts ha v eb e e nf

o u n d t o h a vec omm itt e d s e ve reabu se a g a ins t [L .S.] as defined in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 37-1- 102 by order of this Court entere d November 14, 2002.-5- 4. Termination of Par ental Rig hts is in the best interest of the minor child pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-113. The Sang sters appe al from the F inal Orde r and r aise two issues for revie w: (1) Whether the trial court erre d in finding that the State has prove d, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f the Sa ng ste rs ’ p are nta l r ig hts ; a nd(2 ) Wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in fi nd ing , b y

c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e , th a t te rm inatio n o f the Sa ng ste rs ’ p are nta l r ig hts is i n the best intere st of the minor child.

Since this case w as tried by a court sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview the case de novo up on the re c or d w itha

pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss o f the fi nd ing s o f f a c t by the tr ia l c ou rt . U nle ss the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent er

ror of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). T.C.A. § 36-1-113( c)( Supp. 2004) g overns termination of pare ntal rig hts and requir es that su c h te rm inatio n b e ba se d u po n:

(1) A finding by the court by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the g rounds f o r termination [of] pare ntal or g uardia nship rights ha ve bee n established; and (2 ) T hat te rm inatio n o f the pa re nt' s o r g ua

rd ia n' s rig hts is i n th e be st interest of the child.
Gr ound s for Term ination
The trial c ourt terminated the Sang sters’ pa renta l rig hts on the g rounds of a bandonment and sever e child abuse , which ar e codif ied at T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(g )(1) and T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(g )(4) (S up p. 20 04 ) r e sp e c tiv e ly , to wi t:

(g ) I nitiation of t ermination of parenta l or g uardia nship rights may be ba se d u po n a ny

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

the par ent or gua

rdian, as define d in §36-1-102, has occ urre d;
* * * (4) The pare nt or g uardia n has been found to ha ve committed seve re child abuse as define d in §37-1-102, under any prior orde r of a

court or is found by

the court hearing the petition to t er m i nate pa renta l ri ghts or th e pe tit ionfo r a do pti on to h a ve c omm itt e d s e ve rec hil d abu se a g a ins t th e c hild w ho is the su bje c t of the pe tit ionor

a g a ins t-6- any s i b l i n g or half- sibling of suc h child, or any other c hild residing temporarily

or permanently

in the home of such pa

rent or g uardia n;

T.C.A. § 36-1-113 (c) allows for termination of pare ntal rig hts if any one o f t h e grounds ou tli ne d inT. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (g ) a re fo un d b y

c le a r and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e , a ndte rm inatio n is in the best intere st of t he child. We have review ed the entire recor d in this case and w e find that the re c or d is re ple te wi th ev ide nc e to s up po rt the tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that te rm inatio n o f the Sa ng ste rs ’ pare ntal rig hts is warra nted on the g rounds listed in the Final Orde r. We furthe r find, in ac cordance wi th the tr ia l c ou rt , th a t te rm inatio n o f the S angst ers ’ pa re nta l rig hts is i n th e be st i nte re st o f this child.
Abandonment Gr ounds
T. C.A . §36 -1 -1 02 (1 )( A) (S up p. 20 04 ) de fi ne s “ Ab a nd on me nt, ” in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: (1) ( A ) “ A b a n d o n me n t” me a n s , f o r p u rp o s e s o f te r mi n a ti n g the pa re nta l or g ua rd ia n rig hts of

pa re nt(s) o r g ua

rd ia n( s) of

a c hil d to that c hil d inor de r t o ma

ke that c hil d a va ila

ble fo r a do pti on , th a t: (i ) F o r a p e r i o d o f f o u r ( 4 ) c o n s e c u t i v e m o n t h s i m m e d i a te ly prec eding the fili n g o f a procee ding or pleading to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of the pare nt(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 have willfully failed to make rea sonable pay ments toward the support of the child;
The trial c ourt terminated both of the Sang sters par ental rig hts to L .S. on the gr ounds of abandonme nt for their f

ailure to provide any

child support in the four months prec eding the filing o f t h e P et i t i o n . At tri al , Di an e S an gs t ert es t i fi ed t h ats h e h ad p ai d s o m e s u p p o rt fo r L.S

. t h ro u gh wag e assig nment in the months im mediately prec eding DCS’ filing. In its brief, DCS states that

“ [w]hi le the tr ia l c ou rt

a lso te rm inate d M s. Sa ng ste r’ s p are nta l rig hts on [ab a nd on me nt] g ro un d[s], the State ha s r e a so n to be lie ve Ms. Sa ng ste r’ s te sti mon y , a lth ou g h u nd oc ume nte d in the re cord, that she paid child support via wa g e assig nment during at least some of the re levant pe ri oda nd[the State ] wil l no t th e re fo re de fe ndthe tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on a g a ins t he r o n th is g ro un d. ” B e c aus e DC S c on c e de s th a t th is g ro un d is no t app lic able to D ia ne Sa ng ste r, we wi ll a dd re ss o nly

wh e the r the re is c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to s up po rt te rm inatio n o f L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r’ s p are nta l r ig hts on thi s g ro un d. We f indthat su c h e vid e nc e e xists . Co nc e rn ing his support payments during the re levant four month period, L aF ay ette Sang ster testified, in re levant pa rt , a s f oll ow s:-7- Q. So, during those months, four months [ prec eding the filing of the Petition to Terminate], y ou [L aF ay ette Sang ster] were unemploy ed, y ou said?
A. Ye s. Q. Yo ur wi fe te sti fi e d th a t y ou he lpe d h e r p a y the bil ls.
A. Ye s. Q. And that she r elied on y our income during that time?
A. Pus hin g la wn mow e rs . Q. So, y ou wer e able to make some money . You just testified that y ou wer e unemploy ed.
A. Ye s. I wa s ju st s a y ing I

wa sn ’t e mpl oy e d, y ou kn ow , at a fa c tory or su c h. Th a t’ s w hat I ’m

ta lki ng abo ut. Q. Okay . So, y ou wer e making money during that time?
A. Yea h.
* * * Q

. S o , yo u w e r e ab l e t o w o rk a n d d i d m ak e m o n e y?
A. Just w or

kin g y ard s. Q. Did y ou pay

any child support during that time?
A. No , ma ’am. By his own testimony , it is clear that L aF ay ette Sang ster made some income during the four month period prec eding DCS’ filing a nd paid no portion of it toward the support of L .S. Gr ou nd s o f a

ba nd on me nt v is a v is L aF ay ette Sang ster ar e, ther efor e, met by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Severe Child Abuse Grounds T.C.A. §37-1-102( b)(21) (Supp. 2004) def ines “S ev er e C hild Abuse,” in re levant part, as fo llo ws :-8- (2 1) “ Se ve re c hil d a

bu se ” me a ns : (A) T he knowing exposure of a child to or the knowing failure to protect a ch ild from abuse or neg lect that is likely

to cause g reat bo dil y ha rm or de a th andthe kn ow ing us e of fo rc e on a

c hil d th a t is likely to cause g reat bodilyharm or de ath;
I t is c le ar f

ro m th e statut e a ndthe re le va nt c a se law th at a parent wh o kno wi ng ly

pe rm its sever e a b u s e i s as culpable a s the person w ho inflicts such abuse. See, e.g., N ash-Putn am v. Mc Clo ud , 9 21 S.W. 2d17 0, 17 6 ( Te nn . 1 99 6) (h old ing that “ [a]ll ow ing a c hil d to be abu se d is eg reg ious abuse”) . I n this case , the S ang sters, t hroug h counsel, sti pulated that they had committed s evere c hild abuse and the trial court so found by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in its Order of November

14, 2002, se e su

pr a . The Sang sters also pled g uilty to c riminal char g es of child abuse and serve d jail time for those offe nses. Notwithstanding the se stipulations, findings, and ple ading s, the evidenc e adduc ed at the he aring on DCS’ Petition clea rly and convincing ly supports a finding that the three half-sibling s of L .S. were sever ely abused at the hands of the Sang sters. The photog raphs admitted as collec tive Ex hibit 1 evince long- term and sy stematic beatings of these minor childre n. The photogr aphs are corr oborate d by the testimony of April Smith, the DCS case worke r who wa s initiallycalled to the c hildren’s school to investigate, and also by the t estimony of Diane Sang ster, to w it: Q. Ms. Sang ster, do y ou believe that y our husband a bused y our three bo y s, or do y ou be lie ve it w a s c or po ra l pu nis hme nt?
A

. I b e l i e v e i tw a s c o rp o r a l p u n i s h m e n t t h a t w e n to u to f h a n d

. It went out of ha nd. Q. You can’t eve n acknow ledg e that it was a buse? A. Well, it, y ou know, at the time I believed i t to be cor

poral punishment, but the way

it’s, y ou know, t he way it’s looked at now, it’s abuse.
* * * Q. I ’m sorry . You said y ou now ag ree that it’s abuse?
A. We ll, at the time, y ou know, at the time we thought that, y ou kn ow , th a t it

wa s ju st c or

po ra l pu nis hme nt. But, y ou know, as we’v e had time to, y ou know, as we ’ve be e n a way

fr om the c hil dr e n a nde ve rythi ng , w e ha ve ha d time t o talk, talk about our fe eling s and eve rything, y ou know.T

. C

. A

. § 36

- 1- 10 2(9) ( Supp. 200 4) def i nes “ A gg r ava t ed ci r cums t anc es ” t o i ncl ude s eve r e c hi l d abus e. 3
-9-

I t w a s a bu se , b ut i t w a s u nin te nti on a l. It w a s u nin te nt io nal. I t w a s u nin te nti on a l. Q. You said he [L aF ay ette San gs t er ] wo uld go into a r oom by himself, and he would–I believe y our words–a dminist er c orpora l punishment, but it was unintentional. S o , was it unintentional that y ou char acte rize–
A. It was unintentional abuse. Q. Oh , ok a y . B ut he [L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r] i nte nti on a lly hit thekid s; ri g ht?
A. He wasn’t try ing to hurt the children. He was try ing to administer corpor al punishment. He wa s– Q. So, y ou’re justify ing w hat he did?
A. At that time I

had justified it at that time. This portion of Diane Sang ster’s testimony not only corr oborate s t h e fa ct that L aF ay ette Sang ster abused the se childre n; it also provides proof that Dia ne Sang ster knew that he wa s beating the children–a

fac t that makes her

equally culpable unde r the statute a s discussed above

. I n h is brie f, L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r arg ue s that “ L .S. sh ow e d n o p hy sic a l si g ns of abu se .” Th is fa c t is un pe rs ua siv e un de r the statut e , w hic h c le arl y state s th a t th e g ro un d is me t w he n th e abu se is perpe trated upon “ the child who is the s ubject of the petition or ag ain st a ny sib ling or

hal f- sib ling of suc h c hild .” T.C.A. § 36-1- 113 (g )(4) . That re quirement is clea rly met in this case.
L aF ay ette Sang ster also c ontends that DCS failed to provide reasona ble s ervic es in this case. Ho we ve r, T. C.A . § 37 -1 -1 66 (g )( 4) (A ) ( 20 01 ) s ta te s:

(4 ) R e a so na

ble e ff orts o f the ty

pe de sc ri be d insu bd ivi sio n ( g )( 2) sh a ll not be re quired to be ma de with re spect to a pa rent of a child if a c ou rt of c omp e te nt j urisd ic tio n h a s d e te rm ine d th a t: (A) T he par ent has subjected t he child that is the s ubject of the petition or any sibling or half-sibling of the child who is the subject of the pe tit ion or a ny oth e r ch ild re sid ing te mpo ra ri ly or pe rm a ne ntl y in the ho me to a g g ra vate d cir c ums ta nc e s as d e fi ne d in§ 3 6- 1- 10 2; 3-10-

B a se d u po n th e tr ia l co urt ’s fi nd in g of se ve reabu se in i ts N ov e mbe r 1 4, 20 02 Or de r, DC S is statut orily abs olv e d f

ro m pr ov idi ng su c h e ff

orts t o th e Sa ng ste rs . Ba sed upon the for eg oing, there i s clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in this recor d to support the trial court’s finding that the Sang sters committed sever e child abuse upon the ha l f- s i blings of L .S. Th is g ro un d is , th e re fo re , me t.
Best Inter ests
Ha vin g fo un d th a t a ll o f the g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n li ste d inthe F ina l O rd e r a rewe ll supported by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in this recor d, we now turn to the question of wh e the r the e vid e nc e c le arl y a ndc on vin c ing ly

e vin c e s te rm inatio n to be in L .S. ’s be st i nte re st.
T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (i ) ( Sup p. 20 04 ) r e a ds , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: (i ) In d e te rm ini ng wh e the r t erm inatio n o f p are nta l or g ua rd ia ns hip rig hts is in the best interest of the child pursuant to this part, the court 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) Whether

the par ent or gua rdi an has ma de such an adjustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or c ondi t i o n s as t o make it safe and in the child' s best interest to be in the home of the par ent or g uardia n; (2) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has failed to effe ct a lasting ad j u stment after

rea sonable e fforts by

available social ser vices ag encie s for such dur ation of time th at l as t i ng adjustment does not rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a mea ningf

ul relationship has o th erw ise bee n established betwee n the par ent or g uardia n and the c hild; (5 ) T he e ff

e c t a c ha ng e of careta

ke rs a ndph y sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to h av e on the child' s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) W hether the parent or guar dian, or other pe rson re siding with the pare nt or g uardia n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional or ps y c ho log ic a l a

bu se , o r n e g le c t tow ard the c hil d, or a no the r c hil d or adult in the fa milyor household; (7 ) W h et h er t h e ph y s i ca l en v i ro n m en t o f th e pa re n t ' s o rg u ar d i an 's home is healthy

and saf e, whe ther ther e is criminal ac tivityin the home, or whe ther ther e is such use of alc ohol or controlled substanc es as may rende r the pa re n t or g uardia n consistently unable to ca

re f or the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ;-11- (8) Whether

the par ent' s or g uardia n' s mental and/or e motional status woul d b e d etrim ental to the child or pr event the pa rent or g uardia n from ef fec tively 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 consistent with the child support g uidel i n es promulg ated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5- 101.
I n th is c a se , th e tr ia l cou rt ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s in its Fin a l Ord e r co nc e rn ing be st i nte re sts :

12

. T h e Co u r t f

in d s th a t it is in th e b e s t in te r e s t o f [L

. S.] that the pare ntal rig hts of Respo n d en t s Di an e S an gs t eran d L aF ay et t e S an gster be terminated, bec ause:

a ) R e sp on de nts Di a ne Sa ng ste r a nd L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r ha ve faile d to make a n a dju stm e nt o f c ir c ums ta nc e , c on du c t, o r c on dit ion s a s to make it safe and in the child[’s] best i ntere sts to be in t h e h ome of Re sp on de nts

. DC S ma de c le ar to Re sp on de nts , in Au g us t 20 02 , th e ir int e nti on to s e e k a

se ve re abu se fi nd ing a ndno t re turn [L .S. ] to the m. Re sp on de nts pa

rt ic ipate d ina

pe rm a ne nc y plan s ta ff

ing a ndsig ne d in ag ree ment with the plan wher ein t he goals of the plan we re A doption a ndExit C us tod y

to L iv e wi th R e la tiv e . Pat K ing , th e ini tia l ho me county case manag er a ssigne d to [ L .S.] , was the D CS employ ee w ho participated in the staff

ing. Ms. King testified that s h e made clea r during the s taffing to the R espondents that beca use of the se verity

of the abuse DCS did not intend to return [ L .S.] to them and would not provide them services. Responde nts S an gs ter we re not prohibited from obtaining service s on their own. Responde nts are no strang ers to depende ncy

an d n eg lect/abuse issues, as set out here in above. Respondent Diane Sang ster’s thre e sons we re remove d from her custody by DCS in Hay wood County as t he re sult of Respondent L aF ay ette Sang ster’s infliction of p hy sical injury , and he w as inc ar c e r a te d

. Wh il e Re s p o n d e n ts o f f e r e d p r o o f o f a tt e mp ts at c ou ns e lin g wi th the ir pa sto r (w ho is no t a lic e ns e d th e ra

pis t) , th e y did not disclose to the pastor that this was a repe at instance of abuseand evince d minimal, if any , improvement or a djus t m en t as a r esult of s ai d co u n s el i n g. b) At the time of the phy sical abuse ag ainst R espondent Diane San g s te r ’ s c h il d r e n , Re s p o n d e n ts w e r e r e s id in g inth e s a me h o use. Pic tur e s o f the bo y s’ inj urie s de pic t bo th br uta lit y a nd ph y sic a l a

bu se by Re sp on de nt L a F a y e tte Sa ng ste r a g a inst [ L .S. ’s ] sib lin g s. B oth-12- Resp o n dents pled g uiltyto criminal cha rg es stemming f

rom the instant abuse.

c ) R e sp on de nts ha ve faile d to pay the ir c ou rt or de re d c hil d s up po rt

. L ike the tr ia l c ou rt , th is C ou rt is p art ic ula

rl y c on c e rn e d w iththe re pe a t natur e of the abu se ag ainst L .S.’s half-sibling s. There is no evidence in this record, othe r than their ow n testimonies and the f act that they

have c ompleted an ang er ma nag ement cour se, to support a finding that the Sa ng ste rs ha ve the skill s n e c e ssa ry to c on tr ol andpa

re nt the se c hil dr e n w ith ou t r e so rt ing to the ir pattern of violence. G iven the seve re and brutal nature of the a buse inflicted upon L .S.’s halfsib lin g s ( a s e vin c e d b y

the ph oto g ra

ph s a ndte sti mon y ), it w ou ld b e a c ha nc e too g re a t to ri sk

to place any child back into this home. Fr om the rec ord as a whole, we find that there is clear and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e to s up po rt the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that it is i n L .S. ’s be st i nte re sts to te rm inate the Sa ng ste rs ’ p are nta l r ig hts

. For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the Fina l Order

of the trial c ourt, terminating the pare ntal rig hts of Diane Sang ster and L afay ette Sang ster to L .S. Cost s of this appea l are assessed on e -h a lf to A pp e lla nt D ia ne Sa ng ste r andhe r s ur e ty a ndon e -h a lf

to A pp e llant L a F a y e tte S a n g s t e r a n d h i s s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK

CRA WF OR D, PRE SI DINGJUDG E, W.S.