1 T.S.C. was born on 9/27/91 . T.K.C. and T .J.C. were born on 6/05/95. C.B.W . was born on 5/15/98. M r.

Barry W illi ams and M r. Rudolph Coo per are believed to be the fathers of C.B.W . and T.S.W . respectivel y. Neither Mr. W illiams nor M r. Co ope r mad e an ap pea rance in thi s matt er and both wer e found t o have abandoned thei r chil dren under T.C. A. §§ 36-1-113 (g)(1) and 36-1-102 (1)(A). M r. Hugh Crawford is the father of T.J.C., T.S.C. and T.K .C.. At t he ti me of th e heari ng, Mr. Crawf ord was in carcerat ed for aggr avated as sault . Prior to th e heari ng, he h ad ne ith er had con tact with no r pro vided supp ort for h is childre n.



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON On-Brie fs Octobe

r 31, 2002 STATE OF TENN ESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD REN'S SERVICES , IN THE MATTER OF : T.K.C., T .J.C., C. B.W., T.S.W. ,and T.S.C., Children Under 18 years of age A Direct Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County No. J6524 The Honorable Harold Horne, Special Judge

No. W2001-03017-COA-R3-JV - Filed Dece mber 30, 2002

This is a termination of

parental rights case. The mother, Tonza Williams, appeals the orde r of the juven

ile cour t termina ting par ental rig hts to her fiv e children. For the reasons here inafter stated, we affirm the juvenile court order. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which A LAN E. H IGHERS , J. and D AVID R. F ARMER , J., joined. Joree G. Brownlow, Cordova, For Appellant, Tonza Williams Crawford Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral, Elizabeth C. Driver, Assistant Attorney G eneral, For

Appellee, State of Tennessee, Department of Children' s Services OPINION This is a termination of parental rights case. On May 22, 199 8, Tonza W illiams’ ( “Ms. Williams,” or “Appellant”) four children, T.S.C., T.K.C., T.J.C., and C.B.W., 1 were removed from her custody based up on alleg ations tha t she had u sed an exte

nsion cor d to spank one of the children. At that time, custody

was given to Ms. Williams’ brother and theDepartment of Childrens’ Services (“DCS,” or “Appellee”) was ordered to supervise the case. On the petition of Ms. Williams and the2 Although the chi ldren wer e removed fr om M s. Will iams’ home in March of 2000, an order was not entere d

unt il April14, 2000.

3 Only one of

the re vised Pla ns, dat ed January 18, 2001 was ente red int o the rec ord. That i s the Plan of T .J.C.. Counsel f

or both si des st ipulat

ed that the Plan s for t

he other chil dren were i dentic al t o that admitt ed int o evidence. 4 On o r abo ut July 6, 2 001 , the Pla ns were revis ed aga in and a dual goal of adoption and r eunif icat ion was li ste d. Th e cou rt, howe ver, d id no t ratify these Plans be cause of the d ual go al. Acc ord ing to M s. M iller’s testimo ny, the dual goal was e stabli shed be caus e of DCS’ be li ef

th at Ms. Wil li ams “ had ma de s o much prog res s” a nd bec aus e DCS wished to “co ntinue w orkin g with the m other to see if she would pro gress [fu rther].”

5 Acc ord ing to M s. M iller’s testimo ny, DC S filed this p eti t ion for conti nuance i n order to “ give t he mother add itional time [in ord er for h er to] g et her a ct toge ther.” -2- recommendationof DCS, the children were returned to Ms. Williams’ custody on May 21, 1999, but remained under DCS’ protective supervision. The report filed with

the cour t by DCS provided

that, as of May 21, 1999, Ms. Williams had completed a pare nting class and that her parenting skills had improved to the point that the children could be r eturned to her cust ody . On May

31, 1999, M s. Williams gave b irth

to her fif th child, T.S.W.. All five of the children were returned to DCS custody on March 1, 2000 after p olic e responded to a call and found two-y ear-old C.BW. with two black eyes, and a

hemorrhage in the right ey e. On March 22, 2000, DCS created a permanency plan (“Plans”) for each child. The Plans for eachchild were identical in terms of Ms. Williams’ responsibilities under t hem. Ms. Wi lliams’ responsibilities were to: (1) contact DCS and request phone contact and visits; (2 ) obtain a psychologic al evaluation and follow all recommendations; (3) gain insight in to approp riate dis ciple for children; (4) acquire

positive a

nger ma nageme nt, self- control, and coping skills; (5) par ticipate in an intens ive prog

ram of dr ug and a lcohol classes ; and (6) submit to random drug screens. The Plans were signed by

Ms. Williams on April 18, 2000. Ms. Williams began visitation with her children after they were ordered

in to St at e c us to dy. 2 However, from June 28, 2000 until December 21, 2000, she made no effort to contact DCS or her children. On December 22, 2000, Ms. Williams contacted DCS to arrange a visit with her children. She was allowed that visit on January 11, 2001. Additionally, the Plans were re vised and signed by Ms. Williams on January 18, 2001 but the responsibilities of Ms. W illiams remained unchanged except that the r equirem ent for p syc

hologic al evalu ation wasomitted in t he revis ed Plans. 3 The goal of both the March 2000 Plans and the January 2001 Plans was adoption. 4 On Februa

ry 22, 2001, a

Petition fo

r Termin ation of Pa

rental Ri ghts (the “Peti ti on”) was filed. The Petition named To nza (William s) Crawford, Hugh Crawford, B arry Cox, and Rudolph Cooper a s Responde

nts. An Order for Continuance was entered on Ma y 2, 2001 5 and an Or der of P ublication was subseque ntly filed in order to notify the puta tive fathers. A guardian a d litem wa s appointed to-3-

represent the children on May

9, 2001. The guardian ad litem filed her Answer on July 10, 2001. The Answ er of the

Guardia n Ad L item rea ds in pert inent par t as follow s: 1. All of the children are thriving in foster car e. Althou gh [T.S.C , T.J.C., and T.K.C.] have suffered from so me discipl

inary problems which may

have re sulted fr

om living with their

mother, th

ey are all recoveringand , for the most part, well adjusted to their present homes. 2. The o nly

child who

exhibited c oncern a

bout having the fa

mi l y reunitedwas [T.S.C.], who cried when she spoke to your Guar

dian ad litem and stated that she wanted her family back together... 3. [ The re is some indication] that the children’s behavior worsens after ex po su re to th ei r m ot he r. Ap pa re nt ly, her influenceis disruptive to their r ecove ry. [T.J.C. and T.K.C.’s] grades suffer and they have behavioral problems; [T.S.C.] has similar reactions... * * * 5. There is no one in the mother’s family who is ab le to provide a home for the children. * * * 7. ...[Ms. Williams] stated that she wanted her children with her, and that she is attending rehab sessions every day. She states that she has been drug free for seven months and that her past drug problems and abuseof her children are related to depre ssion. She did not de n y abuse and stated that depressionwas no excuse for abusing children. She do es no t c ur re nt ly have a job, althoug h she stat ed that sh e did apply at Won der Br

ead. He r past job

experience has be

en in cashiering and war ehous ing. She is presently living with her mother. She appears to lov e her children and really be sorry f

or what has happened to he r f am il y. She admitted that the stress of trying to care for five children may

have contributed

to her substance abuse and loss of patience which resulted in violence to her childre n. [Ms. Williams] has no support system of friends other than those at the rehab center. She does not appear to have aware ness of ho w to care for child

ren and d id not interact

with her children in the manner one would expe ct for a

mother who had not seen her chil dren in months...6 Roset ta Watki ns i s t he si ste r of Hugh Craw ford.

-4- The Findings and Recommendation of Referee were filed on July 31, 2001 and the r ecommendation was for the children to remain in foster care. O n Oct ober5, 2001, the childr en’s pat ernal a unt, Rosetta Watkins 6 file d a Pe

titio n to Mo dify

Orde r, se ekin g cu stody

and g uard iansh ip of [ T

. S.C., T.J.C., and T.K.C.]. On October 9, 2001, the guardian ad litem filed a Supplementa l Answer, which stated tha t: ...Ms. Watkins lives in a three bedroom home and advises that she is unable to care for

the children without the help of state funds. Your Guardiandoes not believe that full disclosure of the children’s behavioral problems has been made to Ms. Watkins and that granting custody to her without additional investigation would be premature... * * * [Ms. Williams] is now employed at SaintFrances [sic] Hospital and will be mo v ing into a new two bedroom apartment with her mother and want s custody of [C.B.W. and T.S.W.]. Your Guardian notes that [Ms. Williams] r

efused t o go into the prog ram at Mor

iah House because she did not want to give up her fre edom...

This case wa s s et for hearing on October 11, 2001. On tha t date, the Court allowed an Amended Petition for Termination of ParentalR ights (the “Amended Petition”) to be filed. The Amended Petition ad

ded the f ollowing ground for term ination of Ms. Williams’ parenta

l rights: 18. Pursuant t

o T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) the mother has committed severe child abuse as defined in T.C.A. § 37-1-102, whether by prior order of the court or to

be f ound by this Court when hearing the petition for term

ination of parenta l rights. Said abuse

was committed agains ta child who is subject of this pe tition and/

or aga inst a sibling or half-sibling of such child. This matter was heard by

the Juvenile Court, Shelby County , between October 16, 2001 and October 17, 2001. Concerning requests for visitation, Ms. Senetra Miller, the DCS case manage r assig ned to this matter, testified that Ms. Williams partially complied with the requirem ents of the Plans. Beginningin March of

2000 and continuing thr

ough July 2000, Ms. Williams made severa l visits to DCS and was also

in contact with them by phone. Ac cording to Ms. Miller’s testimony, the da tes of these visits were April 18, 2000, May 15, 2000, May 31, 2000, June 14, 2000 and June 28, 2000. Ms. Williams failed to attend scheduled visits on July 1 8, 2000 an d July 25, 2000. F

rom that po int,7 Ms. Will iams was i ncarc erat ed af ter bein g arr est ed for

cont empt of

cour t for failing to appear for her court hearing on charges of publi c int oxicat ion and posse ssi on of drug par aphernal ia. She was rel eased aft er being given a senten ce of tim e serve d. T he da te of the a rrest is no t in reco rd. -5- Ms. Williams made no further contact with DCS or the children until December 22, 2000. A visit wa s arranged for January 11, 2001. From January 11, 2001, Ms. Williams visited on February 8, 2001, March 21, 2001, and April 28, 2001. Ms. Williams cancelled May 24, 2001 and May 30, 2001 visits beca use of co nflicts with her work schedule. After working out a schedule compliant withher wor

k hours, Ms . Williams resumed visitation on June 14, 2001. A visit scheduled for June 21, 2001 was c ancelle d becau se Ms. Willia ms was incarcerated. 7 On July 6, 2001, July 12, 2001, and Jul y 17 , 2001 vis its occurred. Ms. Williams visited once in August on the 31 st and also on September

7, 14, and

28 2001. Ms . Williams ca ncelle d a vis it scheduled for September 28, 2001 and th e recor d refl ects n o more visi ts pri or to t he Oct ober h earing. Turning to the requirement that Ms. Williams obtain a psycholog ical evaluation and adhere to any rec ommendations made during the c ourse of that eva luation, th

e recor d indicat es that Ms. Williams was referred by

DCS to LeBonheur

Center for Children and Parents (“CCP”). On June 21, 2000, Ms. Williams met

with a case worker at CCP, at which time a phy sical examination of all of th e children was conducted. Ms. Williams was scheduled for a second mee ting with CCP, which was t o include a psycholog ical evaluation. Ms. Williams failed to keep this second appo intment

. Ms. Williams also failed to keep a rescheduled appointment. On July 26, 2000, the CCP case worker and child psy

cholog ist assig ned to Ms. Williams’ sent their findings to D CS. In p ertinen t part, thi s report r eads as f ollows: During the initial interview [June 2 1, 2000] Ms. Williams initially denied that she had injured[C.B.W.], maintaining that he fell down some ste ps, thus injuring both eyes. This re port conflicted with the reportsof her ol der three childr en, who a ll report ed their mother had c aused t he injurie s to [C.B.W.]. T hroughout the inte

rview, Ms

. Williams minimized a nd rationalized her a busive behavior toward her children, Ms. Williams blaming her drug use, her de pression, andher children’s behavior for her abuse.... * * * [Ms. William s has ] little knowledge of the emotional needs of her children and [uses] a

busive me

thods for punishmen

t. Ms. William s obviously has very poor

anger manageme

nt skills. Despite

her past involvement

in a drug trea

tme nt program, and despite her acknowledgingthat

her a lcohol and crack use present a signif icant problem, she continues to use both. While Ms. Williams maintained, during the I

nitial I n terview, that she would do whatever was necessary to rega in custody

of her children, she did not complete this8 Ms. W illi ams contacted CCP to cancel the October 5, 2001 bec ause she had a confl ict with her work s chedule.

Ms. Will iams als o cance ll ed a re sche duled appoint ment on October

10, 2001. -6- evaluation, M s. Wi lliams missing two appointments for her psychologic al evaluation. After Ms. Williams instigated contact with DCS on December 22, 2000, Ms. Williams was re-referred

to CCP for completion of her psycholog

ical evaluation. This re-referra l was made on or about July 30, 200 1. On September 28, Ms. Williams met with a case worker at CCP and the following report w as sent to

DCS that sa

me day . In p ertinen

t part, the report r eads as f ollows: Summary and I mpression s: Ms. Williams appears to be genui ne in he r intentions to maintain a sober, drug-free lifesty

le. Howeve

r, she ha s ye

t to establ ish a stab le homein which she can re ar her ch ildren and a stable source of income, de sp it e h er re po rt ed te n m on th s o f s ob ri et y. She does appear to be taking steps toward those goals, but her two y ounger chi ldre n have a lre ady spent the majority of their lives in foster care. Throug ho utthis interview, Ms. Williams expressed concerns about her ability to have the patienc e nee ded to par ent five children. She also spoke of her tendency to “snap” at times. While she seems t o have the desir

e to be a b etter mot

her, sh e see ms to be expressing reservations about her ability to manag e the str ess of caring for her children. A further

co ncern isthat ther

e is still a d

egree of role re ve rsal in Ms. Williams’ view of her children. She speaks of how her children meet her needs and the e ffect their removal had on her, rather than of how she can meet their needs an d the impact of her abuse on them. The sever ity o f the abu se she inf licted in t he past remains another reason for conce rn. A major factor that still needs to be considered is the degree of attachment

e ach of the c hildren has to their mother. At the time of the previousevaluat

io n, i n Ju ne 2000, only [T.S.C.] expressed any strong attachment to Ms. Williams or any desire to even tually be returned to [the] mother’s custody.... Ms. Miller testifies that

the Septe mber 28, 2 001 meeting with CC P resulted in a “social history ” and that Ms. Williams was required to go back for a second appointment to complete the psychological evaluation. Ms. Miller

testifie d that Ms. Williams fai led to re turn to CCP f

or th at s econd appointment

on October 5, 2001, which resulted in her noncompliance with this requireme nt of the Plans. 8 However, as noted above, only the or iginal Plans of March 2000 contained a require ment9 The attendanc e for ms f or Fre edom Road in dicate th at Ms. Willi ams di d not a tt end meet ing s on Ja nuar y 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 26 of 2001. When asked why th ere are no s ignat ures f or thes e dates, Marie Williams stat ed that M s. Williams som etimes forgot her form s. -7- for psychologic al evaluation. That requirement was dropped from the January 18, 2001 Plans, which were in p lace at

the time Ms . Williams mis sed her a ppointmen

ts with CCP. Under the Plans, Ms. Williams was also required to gain insight into proper discipline for her children. Ms. Williams was also scheduled to attend classes at the Exchange Club from March 28 until May 16, 2001. A

ccording to a re

port f rom the Exchan

ge Club, dated Ap

ril 27, 200 1, Ms. Williams had “attended 5 out of 8 classes and should complete on 5/16/01 if she continues to have good attendance and passes the final exam. Ms. Williams has been actively participating in her classes so far.” According to Ms. Miller’s testimony, M s. William s never participated in any educational workshop s concer

ning an ger ma

nageme nt, self- control, or coping skills. The record

reflec ts that, when Ms. Williams made contact with DCS in December 2000, she had begun a

n alcohol recove ry progra m of her o wn volition . Specif ica lly, Ms. Williams was atte nding Fr eedom Roa

d, a ty pe of AA p

rogra m. Ms. William s’ sponsor at Freedom Road, M arie Williams (no

relation ) testified in pertin ent part as follow s: A: ...when I [Marie Williams] first met [Tonza Williams] upon her first main day s, it was r

equired that she a ttend 90 meetings in 90 day s. I thin k Tonza att

ended pr obably 180 within t

he first 9 0 day s. 9 Q: She [Tonza

Williams] wasserious? * * * Q: Do you believe tha

t Tonza’s recovery

is the most important thing in he r l ife t od ay? A: Ex ac tl y.

On March 8, 2001, Ms. Williams was enrolled, by r eferr al from D CS, in the Me

mphis Alcohol and Drug Council Program. At that time, Ms. Williams signed a Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council form, which outlined the rules for atte ndance and Ms. Willi ams’ rig

hts as a clie

nt of the p

rogra m. Th e form also indicated that Ms. Williams could be discharged for noncompliance f or thre e absence s. Attache d to this formwas a Michigan A lcoholism Sc

reening Test, whi ch Ms. Willia

ms10 Bo th tests consist of a series of yes or no que stions. Ms. W illi ams score was 33 on the Mich igan Alcoh olism

Scre ening T est and 13 o n the D rug Sc reenin g T est.

11 M s. W illiams’ ind ividua l sign-in sheet for 2001 shows that she a ttende d me etings o n M arch 1 4, 21 , 28, A pril 4, 11, 18. On April

25, she h ad an un excus ed abse nce. She r esumed att endanc e on May 2, 9, 16, 23 and had a second unexcused absence on May 30. She at tended on June 6 and 13 then failed to attend on June 20, 27 and July 4. The sign in shee t not es that Ms. Will iams had a wor k sch edule conf

li ct on June 20 and 27 (alt hough the se absences are li sted as unexc used) and was excus ed for the July 4 holida y. On July 11, Ms. Williams also had anunexcuse d absence, w hich was l ist ed as awork c onfl ict . Ms. Wil li ams at tende d on Jul y 24. -8- completedand a Drug Abuse Screening Test, which was also completed. 10 On June 25, 2001, Ms. Miller receiv ed a prog

ress lett e r fr om the Memp

his Alcoho l and Dru g Counci l, which st ated in pertine nt part tha

t: [Ms. Williams] has attended twelve of her thi rteen g roups and

is scheduledfor her final drug scree n and completion o n Wed ne sd ay, June 27 th . She is ac ti ve ly particip ating in group a ctivitiesand is sho wing insight into resolving her conflicts as they present without the benefit of alcohol and/or other drugs. She has share d her experiences with using her conflict/resolution tools and i s effectively using her “9 Second Timeout” technique to allow he r self time to process before taking action. Ms. Williams’ record indicates that she was fairly steady in her at tendanc e at the M emphis Alcohol and Drug Council mee

tings. 11 On Augu st 1, 2001, Ms. Williams r eceive d a Ce rt ificate of Comp letion from th e Me mp hi s Al coh ol and Dru g Co unc il for Low In ten si ve O ut pat ien t Lev el II participation. When asked at

the hearing whether she

was cont inuing to attend AA

meeting s, Ms. Willia

ms testifie d as follo ws:

Q: Let’ s talk

about since you started with St. Francis. How many AA meetings do you g o to a week? A: The last meeting that I we nt [to] was last Friday, n oon. P rior to that I had been at wor

k? Q: So you haven’t bee

n to an AA Meeting since you started–you have only been to on

e since y ou’ve sta rted wor king at St . Franc is? A: Last F riday I went t o a noo n meet ing. Q: That wa s it?-9- A: Uh-huh, because I

have been working. I

can’t work and make meetings at the same time. Q: Ok ay. A: Because the

first meeting is at 8:00 in the morning, then noon, and then 7:00 at night and I’m at wor k. THE COURT: At 8:00 in the morning you’r e at work? THE WITNE SS: No, but ju st as soon as I c an get m

y, b alance mys elf out, I will start back picking up g oing to my meeting s, becau se I don’t want t o let my meetings g o, you know. My meetings are very important to me. Q: [by Ms. Hardaway

] But it’s your testimony

that you don’t fee

l you can do bo th at the sa

me time; is t

hat right? A: Yes, I did say that.

Accord ing to the record , Ms. Williams received four drug screens fr om Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council. No drug screens were requested prior to January 23, 2001. The first drug screen was on Ja nuary 23, 2001. T wo of the screens were in June 2001 and the third was on Aug ust 7, 2001. All four screens were neg ative. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Williams was residing with her mother, Ter esa Williams. Ms. Williams is on

the leas e with her mother at Cleaborn Homes, a public hou sing com

plex. Their apartment at Cleaborn Homes is only one bedroom; however, Ms. Williams testified that they ar e scheduledto move to F

oote Home s, into a tw o-bedro om apart ment. Ms. Williams wasunable to testify as to when the move to F oote Homes would occur. The DCS case worker, Ms. Miller, testified that this was not a stable home environment for the children. Ms. Miller’s conclusion was based upon problems that had allegedly arisen between Teresa Williams and her grandchild, T.S.C., when T.S.C. was placed with Te resa Williams for an extended visit beginning in March 2000. Although Ms. Miller does not cite specific facts to support her conclusion, she states generally that “[t]he grandmother

and [T.S.C.] did not have a great bond witheach other. [The grandmother] was not a g oo d influence on [T.S.C.] as being a placement source for [T.S.C.].” Ms. Williams tes tified tha t her mothe

r is a mani c depressive and that s he [Tere sa Williams] suffers from asthma and bronchitis. She further testified that DCS has not provided any a ssistance-10-

to her in terms of housing. When asked when she would be in a position to

bring her children home, Ms. Williams responded that she would be ready “when I have my

own apartment.” In terms of a support

group, Ms. Williams t

estified that she d oes not ha ve much c ontact wi

th her extended f

amil y but t hat she does have support through Freedom Road. She also maintains contact with her s ister-in -law, Ros etta Watkins. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Williams was employ ed at St. Francis Hospital. Prior to that time, she had been working through tempora ry ag encies. Ms. Williams de scrib ed her job as “hospita lity attenda nt.” At the

time of the

hearing , her hou

rs were from 12:3 0 p.m. until

8:00 p.m. Ms. Williams d

id indica te that the re was a possibility

that she c ould obtain another shift. Ms. Williams has no vehicle and relies on public transportation to get to and from her job. According to her testimony , it takes an hour and a half by bus to get to work. When aske d on direct examinati on whethe r she had ever hur t C.B.W. by

hitting h im, Ms. Williams responded “Yes, I probably did, because I wa s very dis–I was irritable and

discontent and up under [sic] the influence of drugs and alcohol.” On cr oss-examination, the following testimony occurred: Q: Af

ter you completed those 1998 parenting classes, you s til l resorted to beating y our children when you were frustrated. Isn’t that true. A: [by Ms. Williams ] I

don’t reca ll bea ting them. I d id whi p [T.S. C.], if you’re r

eferring about [sic] the scar on [T.S.C.’s] ey e, you know. THE COURT: Well, the testimony you gave in court at that time was that [C.B. W.] fell dow n some sta irs and [wa s] hurt. Rig

ht? THE WITNE SS: [C.B.W.] did fall. [C.B.W.] did f

all that day befor

e. Yes, [C.B.W.] did. THE COURT : And that w as the ca use of the head inju ries. THE WI TNESS: I don’t know

any thing ab out any

head inju ries. THE COURT: The testimony of the children to the case workers was that you kicked

[C.B.W.] in the

head with

you r feet. THE WITNESS: Say

what now? THE COURT: That you kicked y our child in the head.-11- THE WITNESS: Say s who? THE COURT : Say s the kids th at watch ed y ou do it. THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t do that, y our Honor. THE COURT : How did [C.B .W.] get tw o black e ye s? THE WI TNESS: With my hand. I did hit them , becau se th a t particular morning I was, had

just come

down off of using drugs and alcohol and I

was very irritable and discontent and I wa s so frustrated trying to get th

em r ea dy for school that morning, rushing and everythi ng. And my bathroo m is like in the hall, and I was g etting [C.B.W.] re ad y an d [ C. B. W. ] w as la yi n g [sic] on the floor, which made me–I was standing ove r [C.B.W.], rightat

the bathroom. I was changing [C.B.W.’s] diaper. But no, I did not kick [C.B.W.] THE COURT: So if the k ids’ m emor y i s that yo u kic ked [C .B.W. ], the kids are lying

or mistaken? THE WITNESS: Mistaken. THE COURT: And putting a pillow over one of the children’s heads and say ing I ’m going

to suffoc ate you, y ou didn’t d o that? THE WI TNESS: Which

one of the

childre n? Which one of

them? THE COURT: I don’t remember whic h one. THE WITNESS: I don’t re member doing nothing [sic] like that, Your Honor. THE COURT: The spoon incident where y ou shoved the spoon down the throa t, there ’s nothing

to that? THE WITNESS: No. THE CO UR T: Ok ay. What else was there that one of the kids said? MS. HARDAWAY: holding the child under water, Your Honor. T HE COURT: Putting the child, holding [the child’s] head unde r water.12 The November 13, 2001 Order wa s su bsequ entl y correct ed on Apri l 18, 2002 to di smis s t he pet it ion of

Roset ta Watki ns f

il ed October

5, 2001. -12- THE WITNESS: I recall [C.B.W.] and [ T.K.C . and T .J.C .] ta king a bath together, and I reca

ll [T.K.C. and T.J.C.] was putting [sic] their headup under

[sic ] the wa ter and stuff, y ou know, playing , but no actually try

ing to put [C.B.W.’s] head up under [sic] water, no. * * * Q: [b y Ms . H ar da wa y] Well, y ou [Ms. William s] gave [e ither T.K .C. or T.J.C.] a black eye before we [DCS] took [C.B.W.]; isn’t that correct. A: No, I didn’t. No , I did

n’t. An Order T erminating Pare ntal Righ ts was entered

on Novemb er 13, 20 01, which reads in pertinent part as follows 12 : FIN DIN GS OF FA CT On May 22, 199 8 the above children, excluding [T.S.W.] who was unborn, were fo

und to be depe

ndent and neglected in

that the mother was a substance abuser (marijuana, cra ck coc ain e and alcohol), and the oldest child, [T.S.C.], had been p hys icall y abused and w as sporadic in her school attendanc e. U pon recommendation of the department

of children’s services custody was awarded to a

maternal uncle, Mr. James Eangelo Williams. By June 4, 1998, Mr. Williams indicatedthat he was unable to care f or the ch ildren a nd they came in to St at e c us to dy. On May 21, 1999 the

mother petitioned for a

return of custody

in that she had compl ete d parenting classes and a drug rehabilitation progra m. Upon recommendation of the Department of Children’s Service s, the ch ildren w ere re turned to her cust ody under the

ir protective supervision. On March 1, 2000 the Department of Children’s Services petitioned to remove all five children from the mother’s car e based upo n new allegations of physical abuse . [C.B.W.] had two b lack eye s, and a hemo rrh age in the right ey e and the other children stated that the mother hadstrang led and hi t him beca

use he would not get dressed. The chil dren w ere ordered back into the state’s custody April 14,-13- 2000. Not stated it the order of that date was a finding that the mother wa s again

using dr ugs. During this entire period of time the father of [T.J.C. and T.K.C.] and [T.S.C.] w a s incarcerated. On September 29, 1993 he wa s found guilt y of Aggravated Assault, Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39- 13-102 and sentenced

to the workhouse for 6 years. At some point he was released on probation and his probation was revoked Apr il 28, 1998 having been convicted of a new c harge of aggravated assa

ult for which he received a newsentenc e of 8 y ears. A t this time he

is still incarcerated. Mr. Crawfor

d testifie d by

telephone with all p arties present. He testified that he a

nd Ms. Willia

ms (the mother

of the above children; also known as Tonza Crawford) were married sometime in 1993. He testified that he andMs. Williams lived together off and on and that for the 7 or 8 monthspreced

ing his la test jailing, roughly

February 3, 1998, they lived apar

t. He never knew Ms. Williams to use any illegal drugs (despite her testimony that she used $100 a

day on crack cocaine, a daily nickel ba g of marijuana, an d a quart of beer) and believedher to be a good mother. He had no knowledge o f Ms. Williams’ receipt of

food stamps or a

ny w elfare

benefit s. While separated his fa mily support was limited to bringing he r pampers from time to time, and “whatever she needed.” Initi ally he forg ot his oldest child and testified only as to his know ledge o f the twin s. Moreover, during h

is incarc eration he has not communicated with any of the children, or

Ms. W illi ams, a ltho ugh he stay s in touch with his sister. He did sta

te that he ha

d written letters t o Ms. Williams which were not returned to him by the mail but Ms. Williams does not confirm receipt of any

communication. Responde nts, Mr. Bar

ry Williams, Mr. Rudolph Cooper, and any unknown fathers of said children, after being duly notified, failed to appear t o make a defense to the petition to terminate their parental rights within the time required by law . A motion for defau lt judgment against these respondents was made

. Resp ondents, Barry

Williams and Rudolph Cooper, and a ny unknow n fathers of sa

id childr en, have for a period of four (4) consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of this Petition, abandoned said childre n in that they

have willfully failed to visit the children a nd have made no reasonable effort to provide a suitable home and have demonstrateda lack of concern for the children to such a degree that-14- it ap pe ar s u nl ik el y th at th ey w ill be a ble to pro vide a suitable hom e for the children at an early date. Respondent s, Barry Willi ams and Rudolph Cooper, and any unknown fathers of said children, failed, without good cause or excuse, to pay a reasonable share of prenata l, natal and postnatal expenses and support, failed to

s eek reasonable visitation, failed to manifest an ability and willin gness to

assume le gal and ph ysical custody of the children and furthermore failed to file a petition to le gitimate the ch il dr en , w it hi n t hi rt y da ys a ft er no ti ce of al le ge d p at er ni ty. Placing t he children in Respondents, Barry Williams and Rudolph Cooper, and any unknown f athers of said children, legal and phy sical custody would pose a risk of substan tial ha rm to the physical or psychologic al welfare of the children. Ms. Williams testified that for 22 years she used $100 pe r day for he

r cocaine habit; tha

t for 16 y

ears she daily used a nic

kel bag of marijuana; and that for 11 ye ars she daily consumed a quart of beer. She admits that fromJune 28, 2000 to December 21, 2000 she made no effort t o communic ate with o

r visit her children. She requested a visit December 22, 2000 which was accomplished January 11, 2001. Thereafter

she requested

the following visits which were arrang ed by Departm ent of Chil dren Ser

vices fo r 2 hour pe

riods. Date Result January 11, 2001 Ok February 8, 2001 Ok, but moth er an hou r late February 22, 2001 Cancelled by De partment Of Children’s Services March 21, 2001 Ok April, 2001 Ok May 24, 2001 Cancelled by the mother May 30, 2001 Cancelled by the mother June 14, 2001 Ok June 21, 2001 Missed due to mother’s Incarce ration July 6, 2001 Ok July 12, 2001 Ok July 17, 2001 Ok August 31, 2001 Ok September 7, 2001 Ok-15- September 14, 2001 Ok September 28, 2001 Cancelled by the mother She acknow ledges th at her children were abused in her c are, but states that the a

busewas cau se d solely by her abuse of drugs. She denies the repo

rts of the childre n that sh e put [C. B.W.] under the water to try to kill him, th at she held a pillow ov er [T.S.C.’ s] face to smother her, that she tried to choke a child by putting a spoon down his throa t, and tha t she used to lock [T.K .C.] in a clo set. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Hugh Crawford is the fat herof [T.K.C. and T.J.C.] and [T. S.C.]. She believes that the father of [C.B.W.] is Mr. Rudolph Cooper and that the father of [T.S.W .] i s Mr. Barry Cox, but that, due to her use of drugs, she is not positive who may be their father s. Ms. Williams states that she and Mr. Crawford were married in 1993 and that they were

never separated, his testimony to the contrary notwithstanding, and that they lived tog ether every day until he was incarcerated

in 1998. She has no recollection of his co nvictions in 1993 or earlier problems in 1 984 and has not heard from him since 1998. Sometime

in Dece mber 2000 , Ms. Williamsdecided to get drugs out of her life and

enrolled in a Memphis Alcohol and DrugCouncil, Inc., “90 meeting s in 90 day s” program, beginning December 25, 2000, t

o become drug free. She tendered pr oof of he r compliance with the drug progra

m which sho ws that, he r testi mo ny to the contrary notwi thst andin g, she failed to attend meetings on January 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14 , 1 7, 21 , a nd 26 , 2 00 1. Ad di ti on al ly, she missed attendancein December

and February

and March. She s t ates that she went to the Midtown M ental Health Center August 2001, for an eva luation and that she has failed to follow any of t heir reco mmendations. Her mental he alth eva

luation re ports stat es: “34-y ear-ol d Afric an-Amer

ic an female with signs and sym ptoms of a majo

r depre ssive diso

rder, r ecurre nt, moderat e who requires medications to alleviate her sym ptoms. She also requires counseling. I will also recommend

alcohol and drug counsel in g but I think she will decline it. Axis 1: major depressive disorder, recurr ent, moderate. Pol ysu

bstance depende nce in subjective remission eight months.”-16- Recommendedwere dr

ugs for the depr ession (w hich she r efuses t o take) psychothera

py (which she h as n ot undertaken despite y ears of urging by the Depa

rtmen t of Children’s Services) and alcohol and drug counseling (which she has not accepte d other than the voluntary AA program). Ms. Williams repor ts that she obtained a full time job beginning October 13, 2001 and that she interviewed for the job September 21, 2001. She was unable to attend a visitation in May du e to employment

which did

not contin

ue. At no time has she held a job for more than a short period of time. The Department of Children’s Services Perman ency Plan of March 22, 2000 which was expla in ed to and acknowledged by the mother, set as goals that the mother would p art icipate in and complete an evaluation at the Le Bon

h eur Childr

en’s Med ical Cent er, submit to random Drug sc reens and participat e in recommended counseling. To date Ms. Willaims has f

ailed to su

bmit to any

of these goals. From June 28, 2000 to January, 2001 the children did not see or hear from their mother. [T.S.W.] an d [C.B .W.] have no bond with th

eir mother. The foster paren t repor ts that when she first received [C.B.W.] he was afraid to be touched by anyone. [T.K.C. and

T.J.C.] suffer from ADHD and after visits with their birth mot he r [T.K.C.] has acted out sexually with males and fe male s and has a

cted out in the classroom and at home throwing temper tantrums. Both chldre n continue to require regular counse ling and medication. It appears that dur

ing visitsthe moth er makes ina ppropria te statemen ts to the children which causes themto become disruptive

in their f oste r placements and that contact with the mother causes the children emotional problems. The fo ster mother of [T.J.C. and T.K.C.] reports that the children know “two of our fathers a re in jail.” Further, she found

[T.K.C.], who is afra

id of the d ark, hidin g i n the back of her c loset one

day . She aske d why

he was there and

his brother responded

that their mother us ed to lock

him up in the

closet. The testimony before the Co urt is that the chldren, other than [T.S.C .], have thrived in the care of and have bonded with the foster parentseach of whom state a desire to adopt the childre n in their care. [T.S.C .], on the other hand, has disrupted every foster care placement and appear s to be in need of intensive psy chological counselingfrom a Ph.D. or MD

level pr ofession al. The D epartm ent of Children’s-17- Services has been

aware of her needs but ha s f

ai led to provide the required le ve l of services for “financial” re asons. [T.S.C.] has been the direct r

ecipient of abuse at the hands of her mother and has witnessed her siblings being abused. None the less, she is reporte d to have a strong desire to live with her mother.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Th e Court having listened to the testimony pre sented on th e witness stand, and by phone, a nd having ex ami ned the witnesses manner and demeanor, listed to what they said and how they said it, finds by clear a nd convincing ev

idence a s follows: 1. This Court h as jurisdi ction ove r this proc eeding

pursuant to TCA §§36-1-113(a) and 37-1-104. 2. Respondents, Mr. Barry Williams, Mr. Rudolph Cooper, and any unknown fathers of said children, have abandone d the childre n a s defined in TCA §§36-1-113(g)(1) and 36- 1-102(1)(A). 3. Responde

nts failedto manife st a willing ness and a bility to assume responsi bility for said c hildren in accordance with TCA § 36-1- 113(g)(8)(A). 4. In accorda

nce with TCA § 36-1-113(c)(2), the termination of the Respondents’ parental rights is in the best interest of said children. 5. In accordanc e with TCA § 36-1-113(c)(1), there is clear and convincing evidence to support the terminationof the Respo ndents’ parental rights regar

ding said children. 6. Any finding of fact which shouldbe deemed a conclusion of law is hereby a

dopted as such. 7. That Mr. Hugh Crawford effectively abandoned his children for the seven mo n ths immediately prior to his present incar ceration. He providedat best only token support and had no meaningful contact or relation ship with any of the childre n exercising, at best , only token visitation, within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-1-102 (1)(A)(iv). Further, Mr. Crawf ord engag ed in

conduct prior to his incarc eration

which exhib ited a wa

nton disre gard f

or th e welfare of his children.-18- 8. That Mr. Hugh Crawford’s entire c ourse of conduct of ne glect , fai lure to support his family and repea ted acts of violencean d criminal conduct support a finding of abandonment in tha t h is criminal behavior was reasonably calculated to result in incarceration, violation of the te

rms of his probation, and loss of his ability to parent any of the a

bove children. 9. That as of December 21, 2000, Ms. To n za Williams, e ffectiv ely abandoned

her children within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii) and (ii) [sic]. The Department of Children’s Services, on the other hand, delayed f

iling a petition for termination until February 22, 2001 by which time Ms. Williams had exercised2 visits; one on January 11, 2001 for two hours and one on February 8, 2001 fo

r a littl e mo re than one hour. It thus ca nnot be said that she “fai led to v isit” in the “four mo nths immedi ately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights.” Given the cour

t’s inabil ity t o find the lapse of 60 day s as falling within the term “immediately preceding” the court cannot sustain a finding of abandonment as set forth in section (a)(A)(I) of the code. 10. T hat pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-1-102 (1)(A) (ii) the c ourt does find that the children have been removed fr om the home

of the mother as the result of a petition filed in the juvenile court in which the children were found to be depende ntand neglected children, as defined in § 37-1-102, and the children we re placed in the custody of t

he Depart ment of Children’s Services and that the juvenile court fin ds that the departm ent made reasona ble effortsto preve

nt remova

l of the children a

nd for a p erio d of seventeen(17) months following the removal, the department has made reasona

ble effor ts to assist

the pare nt to estab lish a suita

ble homefor the child, but that the mother has made no reasona ble eff orts to provide a suitable home and has demonstrated a lack of concern

for the child ren to such a degree that it appear s unlikely that she will be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an early date. 11. That, pur suant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113 (g ) the court finds that there has been substantial noncompliance by the mother with the statement of respo nsibilities in a permanency plan; and that the children have been removed from the home of the pa

rents by order of a cour t for a pe riod of mo

re than s ix (6) months and; that the conditions whi ch le d to the ch ildren’sremoval

in all rea sonable probabil ity would ca use the childre

n to be subj ected to

further abuse or neglect and which, theref ore, pre vent the c hildren’ s safe r

eturn to-19- the care of

the mothe

r still per sist. Fur

th er , there is little likelihood th at these c onditions will be remedied at an early date so that the children can be sa

fely returne d to the moth

er or fa th er in the near future. Additionally, the Court find s that the continuation of the parent and child relationship great l y diminishes the children’s chance s of ear

ly in tegra tion intoa safe, stable and permanent home. 12. More specifically , the Court finds that the m other ha s failed to complete a psycholog ical eva

luation a s requir

ed in th e plan of care. She has goneto her o wn mental health pr ofession al and fa

iled to follow the advice of that professional . Sh e has failed to obtain and maintain steady employ

ment and fails to understand the n eeds a nd interest s of her children. She has failed to e ffect any lasting adjustmentdespite repeated efforts by

the Department of Children’s Service s. She has fai led to maintain anything othe r than token visitation. The r e exists no meaningful relationship between the children and their p are nts. Continu ed conta ct with the

parentsis detrimental to the phy sical, emotional and psychological health of the children. The mental status of the mother, together with her years of drug abuse and refusal to accept professional help, and her depression prevent her from effectively

prov idin g a safe and stable home, care and supervision for these 5 children. 13. That pursuant to Tennessee Code Ann ota ted, Section 37-1-102 (b)(21)(B), the cour

t finds t hat the mother knowingly exposed [C.B.W.] to severe abuse in that he had two black ey es and a he mor rhage in the right ey e. Further, testimony revealed that [C.B.W.] was held under the water by h is mother a

nd he now h as a recurring fear of

water. 14. T hat ter mination of parental rights in this case is clearly in the best interest of each and all the children. 15. Responde

nt, Mr. Hugh Crawford, has abandoned the children as defined in TCA § § 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36- 1-102(1)(A)(iv). Hugh Crawford filed notice of appeal on November 26, 2001. By Motion, Mr. Crawf ord’s counsel was allowed to withdraw effective Marc h 22, 2002. Mr. Crawford then filed a motion for extension of time to

filea stateme

nt of evid ence, w hich motion

was subsequently

granted on April 15, 20 02. On May

13, 2002, M

r. Crawf ord filed a Decla ration of the I ssues App ellant I

ntends to Present on Appeal; however, Mr. Crawford has not filed a brief nor made an appeara nce before

this Court. Tonza Williams filed a Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2001 and, as stated in her bri e f, presents the following issues for our review:-20- Issue 1 Did the trial court violate due process by allowing the amendment of the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights to include “severe chi ld abuse” the morning of the hearing and then finding “seve

r e child abuse” by c lear and convincing evidence A. Did the Trial Court err in allowing the Petition for the termination of parental rights to be amended the morning of

the hearing to include an allegation of “severe c hild abuse? B. Did the trial court err in f inding se vere child abuse at the termination hearing

when the

issue wasadjudic at ed in an earlier hearing as dependency

and neg lect? C. Did the tr

ial cour t corre ctly

apply the statu tory def inition of “severe child abuse? Issue 2 Did the Court

err when it ruled

that non disclosed documents in the State’s control w ere not releva nt or wer e privile ged alt

hough these ma teria ls w er e a pa rt o f th e c as e m an ag er ’s [fi le

?] A. Is the requirement for discovery of doc

uments in the possession of DC S rele

vanc y [ sic]? B. Is every

thing a DCS attorney

says in DCS meetings (e ven when attendedby t

hird par ties) and record ed by the case worker in the ca se file privileged by

the attorney c lient privilege?

Issue 3 Did the Court base its findings on clear and convincing e vidence? A. Did the tr ial court err in not considering any of the mother’s prog r ess and the actions taken by the mother after the date of the filing of the original petition for termination in this case? B. Did the Mot

her subst antially meet the requirements of the various permane ncy plans pre sented to

her by DCS?-21- C. Are the f

indings b y th

e court based on cl ear and convincing evidence with eachand every necessary element proved by

the state? D. Was a proper

best interest of

the child ren dete rmination made in this case? Since this case was tried

by a trial cour

t sitting without a jury, we re view the case de novo upon the rec ord with

a presumption of correctness of the findings of f act by the trial cou rt. Unles s the evidenc e preponderate s again st the find ings, we must affi rm, absent error of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). We will firs t add ress Issue 2. On September 7, 2001, c ounsel for Ms. Williams filed a request for discovery

that was approved by

the trial court. Although the case manag er’s records were made availab le to Ms. Willi ams’ counsel, certain portions were redacted and other items were not produced. On the morning of the October 11, 2001 hearing , Judge Horne made an in camer a inspection of the doc

uments tha

t were r edacte d and/or not produc ed. Follo wing hisinspection, the following transpired:

THE COURT: I went over eac h of the documents that was attached that supposedly are w

hat hadn’t been provided, and they wer e all communications provided by Ms. Har daway dire

cting staff what to do to prepare for the trial, and they were a ll docume nts within the

past, I guess, about two months. They woul d clearly f

all within the category of attorney/c lient privilege. In addition to

that, the y w ould be ir

releva nt, because the issuehere is the terminat

ion as of F

ebruar y, i f I understand it, and it’s not what has ha pp en ed si nc e F eb ru ar y, i t’ s w ha t’ s h ap pe ne d p ri or to Fe br ua ry. The trial court

is afforded wide discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence, and the trial court’saction wi ll be rev ersed on appeal o nly

when the re is a sh owing of

an abuse of discretion. See Otis v. Cambri

dge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 850 S.W.2d 4 39 (Tenn . 1992); Davis v. Hall , 920 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tenn. Ct. A pp. 1995). From our review of the recor d, and in light of the wide latitude giventhe trial courts determination to admit or exclude evidence, Ms. Williams has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the tria

l court. Theref

ore, we find no re

versible error b y the trial c ourt in its eviden tiary ruling o n these do cuments. We now turn our discussion to Issue 3 and, beca use we find that there is clear and convincing ev idence to termina

te Ms. Willia

ms’ pare ntal rig hts on gr ounds othe

r than severe ch

ild abuse , w e pretermit discussion of Issue 1. The February

22, 2001 Petition for Termination of Parental Rights reads in pertinent part as follows:13 In our review of the recor d, we do not find Exh ibit No . 4 attach ed to the Pe tition. W e note , howe ver, that,

since the Plan s were r evised as of Ja nuary 18, 2001, thi s is the s et of Pl ans th at we will as sume Petitioners are ref erring to an d not t

hose Pl ans i nit

ial ly est abli shed i n March of 2000. -22- 14.A. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and as defined in T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102 (1)(A)(i)(ii)(Supp. 1994) and 36-1-102 (1)(B)(ii)(Supp. 1994), Petitioners further assert that Respondents have for a per iod of four (4) consecutive months immediately preceding the filing

of this Petition, a

bandone d the chil dren in th at they have willfully

failed to visit the children and willfully fa iled to pay support for

said children.

B. The childrenhave been removed from the home of Res pondent, Tonza [Williams] Crawford, as a result of a petition filed in th is Court in which the children were found to be depende nt and neglected children as defined in T.C.A. § 37-1-102... for a period of four (4) months following the removal, the State of Tennessee Department

of Children’s Services madereasona ble eff orts to assist Responde nt, T onza [Williams] Crawford, to establish a suitable hom e for the children , b ut Respondent, Tonza [Williams] Crawford, has m ade no reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and ha s demonstrateda lack of concern for the children to such a degree that it appears unlikely

that she will be able

to provide a suitable home for the children at an early

date. 15. Petitioners assert that pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(2) and 37 -2-403, Responde

nt, Tonza [Will

iams] Craw ford, ha s substant ially failedto comply

with the st

atement o f respon sibilit

ies cont ained in the Permanency

Plans of the minor children, said docum ents bei ng attached hereto as Exhibit No. 4. 13 16. Petitioners assert pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) , that the minor children have been removed from the cust ody of Responde nt, Tonza Crawford, by

the court for at least six (6) months and: A. The condi tions which led to the children’s removal or the conditions which in all probability would caus e t he children to be subjectedto further abuse or neglect and which, therefore, prevent the children’s return to

the car e of Resp ondent, T onza Craw ford still persist;-23- B. There islittle likelihood tha t these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the children can be returned to Responde nt , Tonza Crawford; and C. The cont

inuation o f the par

ent and child rela

tionship g

reatly diminishes the children’s chances of ea rl y integr

ation into a

stable and permanent home. * * * 18.A. In accorda

nce with T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(d)(3)(C) and 37-1 -147 , Pe titioners further assert that termination of Respondents’ pare nta l rights is in the best interest of the minor children... We further note that clear and convincing evidence of an y one of t he above ground s is sufficient to termina

te Ms. Mille

rs’ parental rights. See T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g). Having re viewed the entire record

in this matte

r, we not e that Ms. Williams’ ha s taken so me substa ntial strides since January 2001 to get the help sheneeds in order to overcome her addiction to drug s and alcohol and to comply with the Plans. However , we must look at the totality of the circumstance s in this matter and that requires us to also consider Ms. Williams’ compliance with th e Plans fr om March

2000 until December

2000. The rec ord clea

rly reflects the fact that Ms. Williams failed in her initial attempt to comply with the Plans. The efforts made from January 2001 until the October 2001 hearing were honorable; however, we view these efforts with some deg ree of sceptic ism based

upon Ms. Williams’ propensity for recidivism. Ms. Williams’ children were initially removed to State custody on May 22, 1998. Despite t he fact that she r egained custody

on May 21, 1999, M s. Williams failed to apply any

parenting or anger

management skills she may have procured while attending par enting classes during the period that thechildren were out of her custody. Consequently , the children were again removed to State cu stody

on March

1, 2000. Whi le the record reflects th at Ms. Willia ms began vi sitation wi th her ch

ildren under the M arch 22, 2000 Plans , from July of 2000 un

til December

22, 2000, s he made n o effor ts to conta

ct her children o

r to take the stepsnecessa

ry to regain custody. The fa

ct that Ms. Williams has had these setbacks means that substantial compliance withthe P lans, at thi s poi nt, wo uld re quire more t han ju st goi ng thro ugh th e class es and couns eling. Based upon her propensity f

or recidivism, substantial compliance would require proof thatshe is now able to apply those par enting ski lls in th e stressful context of day-to- day life with five a ctive children. It would require proof that she is able to maintain sobriety for a substantial period of time. When questioned about her ability to maintain a job, housi ng, and her s obriety without re sorting

to old behav ior patte rns of abuse, Ms. Will

iams testif

ied as fo llows: Q: Did y ou [Ms. William s] hear [the testimony

] this morning about the entire picture, that y ou needed to have a job, you needed to have a home, in addition to just being clean as far a s drug screens were concerned

in order to have some succ ess at making it this time staying sobe

r?-24- A: Uh-huh. Q: Not abusing your

children again? A: Uh-huh. * * * Q: But you would

agree that y

ou have hopped jobs several times since these children have been in care? I mean they have only bee

n in care since March 2000 and y ou are on at least y our third job now. A: Well, the pu

rpose of me leaving Hers hey ’s, it was n’t stable and it wasn’t dependable. You know where I am at now, it’s m

ore stab le and dependable. Q: But you re

fused? When they called y ou back, you then r

efused? A: Yes, I did, and I explained why

I refused. You

know, they–I

kept going in for about a week and they kept, you know , turn ing me around and I wasn’ t making any money... * * * Q: And y ou are a ttending AA meetings; is tha

t corre ct? A: Yes. Q: Now, how many AA

meetings do you g o to in a week? A: All day, y

ou know, when I wasn’t wor king. When I wa sn ’t wo rk in g, I wa s a t m ee ti ng s a ll da y. * * * THE COURT: What are you g oing to do when y ou have five children added to t hat? THE WITNESS: Huh? THE COURT: Whatare you g oing to do when y ou have five children added to t hat?-25- THE WITNESS: I will have to make time. THE COURT : For the

childre n or for t he meetings? THE WITNESS: For the

meetings and for

the children because they can come to the meetings with me. THE COURT: So the children are to attend the A A meeti ngs with you? THE WI TNESS: Yes

. * * * Q: (By Ms. Hardaway ) You [Ms. Williams] missed your last two vis its wit h the c hil dren

be ca use y ou h ad to w or k; r ig ht? A: Yes. Q: So right now the str

ess es are just too much for you to bala nce more than one thing at a time. Would y ou agree? A: No, it can be worked out. Things can be wor ked out to balance. Q: And it’s st

ill y our testim

ony that i t wo uld just be three months from where y ou are r ight now until you could get y our children and we could be a ssured th at y ou would keep them and

we wouldn’t have to come back and get them ag ain? A: Right. Alth ough Ms. Williams has good intentions, it is her testimony that she is currently unable

to balance all of the demands of her life. And while she may have good

intentions to make time for every thing and to strike a balance

among her obligations, there is simply no clear a

nd convincing ev

idence in the record that she would be able to do so. Addi ti on al ly, Ms. Williams has been unable to procure adequate housing for he r childre n . At the time of the hearing, Ms. Williams was living in a one-bedroom apartment with her

mother. The mother was suffering from manic- depression and other phy sical mal adies. When asked about her plans for obtaining adequate housing for herself and five children, Ms. W illiams testified as follows:-26- Q: ...And you’re

[Ms. Williams] planning to get a two bedroom apartme nt; correct? A: Yes, ma ’am. Q: And do you

imagine –will there be any

problem–I honestly

don’t know. Will there be a ny problem with the landlord with five childre n? Do yo u plan to g et y our own pl ace or w hat? A: Yes. Q: You plan to get y our own place? A: Ye s, I do pl an on ge tt in g m y o wn pla ce. I f my childre n should come into my custody

right now, by me

being on the lease

they will give me an apartment because we [Ms. Williams and her mother] are in pu blic h ousi ng. Q: So public

housing will give you an apar tment? A: Ye s. Yo u k no w, if

I–i f m y ch il dr en co me ba ck to my c us to dy, by me being already

on the lea se, quite naturally they will give me a bigge r apart ment. Again, there are good intentions on the part of Ms. Williams; however, there is nothing else in the record to indica te that pu blic housing

is availa ble or that Ms. Williams, by herself, has qualified for a two-be droom unit

. For the fore going

reasons , and pur suant toT.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), we find that these children have been removed from the home of the parents for a period of

more tha

n six (6) mont

hs. Furthermore, the conditions which led to the children’s removal still persists and, therefore, prevent these children’s safe return to their mother’s car e. There isalso little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the childrencan be safely returned to the mother in the near future. Consequently, we find that the c ontinu ation of th e paren t and chil d relatio nship gr eatly diminishes the children’s chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permane nt home. There is clear and convi ncing e vidence that term

ination of parenta l rights i s in the be st interest of each of these children. We, therefore, affirm the Order of the juvenile court, terminating the parental rights of Ms. Tonza (Crawford) Williams, Mr . Barr y Will iams, Mr. Rudolph Cooper, Mr. Hugh Cr

awford , and any

other unk

nown fat hers. Cos ts of this a

ppeal are a ssessed to the Ap pe ll an t, Ms . T on za Wi ll ia ms , a nd he r s ur et y.-27- __________________________________________ W. FRANK CRA

WFORD, PRESIDING JUD GE, W.S

.