W e no t e t hat M r. W i l l i am s has been rep res ent ed by di f f erent co urt

- ap p o i nt ed at t o rney s i n bo t h t he t ri al and 1 appeal of

t hi s ca s e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Ma y 19, 200 9 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE DEPARTME NT OF CHI LDREN’S SE RVICES v.

MA RLO W WILLIAM S, ET A L 

### .
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-06-0248- 2 Arnold B. Goldin , Chancellor

No. W2008-02001-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Jul y 28, 2009

This is a termination of pare ntal rig hts c ase. Father/Appe llant a ppeals the termination of his pare ntal ri g hts to the min or c hil d a t iss ue in thi s c a se

. F ind ing that the g ro un ds of ab and onme nt, unwillingness to assume custody , and failure to e stablish paternity are not established by clea r and
c on vin c inge vid e nc e in t

he re c or d, we re ve rs e in p art , a ff ir m in pa rt and dis mis s.

Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Re verse d in P art, Aff irm ed in Par t and Dis m issed

J. S TEVE N S T A FF O RD , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., filed a dissenting opinion.

W. L e wi s Jen kin s, Jr., Dy e rs burg , T N, fo r t he Ap pe lla

nt, Ma rl owWilli a ms.
Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter , Amy T. McConnell, Assistant At t o rney Ge ne ra l, N a sh vil le , T N, fo r t he Ap pe lle e , T e nn e sse e De pa rtme nt o f C hil dr e n' s Se rv ic e s.
OP IN ION

On Fe bruar

y 7, 2006, the State of Te nnessee Depa rtment of Children’s Ser

vices (“ DCS”) filed a pe tition i n Shelby

County Chance ry

Court t o t er m i n at e the parenta l rig hts of Auntwinean L akesha Smit h, Melvin Dewa ine Sander s, Marlow Willi ams, and unknown f ather s of four c hildren born to Ms. Smi th. This appeal is limited to the termination o f t h e par ental rig hts of Marlow Wil liams to the minor child M.L .E.S. (dob 7-13-98)

. 1-2-

Th e re c or d in dic a te s th a t th e c hil dr e n w e re ini tial ly re mov e d f

ro m Ms . Sm ith ’s c us tod

y in 1999 by the J uvenile C ourt of S t. Paul, Minnesota. Whil e residing in Minnesota, M s. Smi th was char g ed with two counts of malicious punishment of a child. By 2 0 0 2 , h o wever, Ms. Smit h had
re l o ca t ed t o Memphis, despite the fa ct that an a ctive wa rra nt was out for he r ar

rest on the a

bove char g es. On F ebrua

ry 21, 2002, Allen Will iams, father of Mar low Wil liams, petitioned the Shelby County J uvenile Court for c ustody of M.L .E.S. On the same da y , t h e j u v enil e cour

t issued a protec tive custody

order , placingtemporar

y custody of M.L .E.S. with Allen W illiams. On April 12, 2002, temporar

y custody and g uardia

nship of the minor children w as g iven to Ang ela Goodlow, a
non-re lative (pre sumably this chang e wa s made in an e ff o rt t o k eep the children tog ether as Mr. Allen Will iams only

wished to take c ustody o f M

. L

. E

. S

. ). B y order of May 17, 2002, Allen Wil liams was g iven visitation privilege s with M.L .E.S. pending further order s of t he court. By order of August 23, 2002, custody and g uardia

nship of the childre n was plac ed with Ms. Goodlow.

On Marc h 2 2, 20 06 , M arl owWilli a ms f ile d a le tte r w iththe juv e nil e c ourt e xpre ssi nghis

“ c on se nt t o b e ingthe bio log ic a l f a ther of [ M.L .E .S. ].” Mr . Wil liams e xpla ine d th a t hi s n a me did not appea r on the birth ce rtificate beca use he w as inca

rce rate d at the time of the c hild’s birth. He also indicated that he wished to re serve his rights a s the child’s biolog ical father. I n a sec ond letter date d Apr il 1 , 2 00 6, Mr . Wil liams e xpre sse d h is d e sir e to p ro ve pater ni ty so that hi s f a the r c ou ld pursue c ustody

. He also explained that he was pr esently incar cer ated in B oston, Massachuse tts. On April 10, 2006, Allen Wil liams pe titioned the court to modify its custody

order to gr ant custody

and g uardia nship of M.L .E.S. to him . By order of Ap ri l 2 0 , 2006, the juvenile cour t ordere d Marlow Wil liams to submi t to DNA testing and gra nted Allen Willi ams visitation with M .L .E.S. The DNA test results indicate that Ma rlow Will iams is the biologica l f ather of M.L .E.S.; however, w e find no adjudication of paternity

in the rec ord. B y

order of June 21, 2007, the juve nile court dismiss ed Allen Wil liams’s petition to modify its pre vious or der, and the children wer e orde red to re main in foster
car e. Althoug h these juvenile court order s are fac tually rele vant to this case , our inquiry is lim ited to the actions take n by

the cha ncer y court in the ter

mination procee dings.

I n its Februa

ry 7, 2006 petition to terminate pare ntal rig hts, D CS alleg es, in r eleva nt pa rt, that Marlow Wil liams ha s abandone d the child by failing to e ither visit or support the child for the f our month period immediately prec eding the filing of the petition. The petition f urther alleg es that Mr. Wil liams failed to file a

petition to establish pater nity of the child within thirty day s after

notice of alleg ed pate rnity

by the mother. DCS initially conducte d service by publication. On J uly 27, 2006, DCS filed a motion fo r d ef au l t j udg ment ag ainst Mr. Wil liams. I n response , the cha ncer y court appointed a guardia

n ad litem. A sec ond motion for defa ult judgment wa s filed on or a bout October 2, 2006. Whil e this sec ond motion wa s pending , a foster car e revie w hear ing was conducte d by the juvenile cour

t. Marlow Willi ams appe are d at this hearing , stating that h e wi s h ed to contest the termination of his pare ntal rig hts. The g uardia n ad litem then m oved the court to appoint an attorne y for Mr. Williams, and the court g rante d the motion. On March 20, 2007, the tri al court e ntere d defa ult judgments ag ains t Ms. Sm ith, Mr. Sanders, and unknow n fathe r, but not ag ainst Mr. Willi a ms. On

or a bo ut A pr il 1 6, 20 07 , M r. Willi a ms f ile d a n a ns wer to the pe tit ion

to t e rm inate pare ntal rig hts, in which he denies the mate rial alleg ations contained the rein. On the same da y , Mr.-3-

Willi a ms a ls o f

il e d an a f f id a v it a c kn o w le d g in g p a te r n it y o f M

. L

. E

. S. T h e te s t c o n f ir ming Mr. Willi a ms’ s p a te rn ity

wa s a lso fi le d in

the c ha nc e ry c ourt

.
I n Marc h 2008, Allen Will iams, filed a motion to i n t er v en e in the cha ncer y court proce eding s and a pe tition requesting cus tody of M.L .E.S. The cour

t hear d both the motion and petition on May

2, 2008. By order of May 15, 2008, the trial cour t denied Allen Williams’s petiti on, finding that he had no standing to pe tition for custody or rig ht to intervene in the t ermination proce eding

. I n this order , the court also notes that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( 9)(A) , Marlow Williams “has failed to e stablish pater nity of t he child, though he knew as early as F ebrua ry 21, 2002, and possibly

from the time the mother was preg nant, that he wa s the fathe r of [M.L .E.S.] .”

The termination petition was hea rd by the trial cour

t on two day s: Febr

uary 27, 2008 and May 19, 2008. The re cord, how ever , indicates that Marlow Wil liams was only prese nt for the se cond day of the pr oc e e din g s. On

June 3, 20 08 , the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d an o rd e r t e rm inatin g the pa re nta l r ig hts of Ma rl owWilli a ms t o M .L .E .S. Th e or de r r e a ds , in re le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s:
21. Pursuant t o T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(1) , and as de fined in T.C.A. §3 6- 1- 10 2( 1) (A ).

.. Marl owWilli a ms.

.. [ha s] a ba nd on e d th e c hil d[] in that, f or a pe ri od of fo ur (4 ) c on se c uti ve mon ths imm edi ately pr e c e din g the fi lin g of

the Pe tit i o n f

or Te rm inatio n o f P are nta l Rig hts , [he] failed to make any

contribution whatsoeve r towar d the support of the c hild[ ], despite being a bl e- b o d i ed and c apable of being employ ed....

22. Purs u an t to T.C.A. §36-1-113(9) (A) e t seq. ... Marlow Wil liams...[ has] fail ed to file a pe tition t o establish pater nity of the children w ithin thirty (30) day s afte r notice of alleg ed pater nity by the children’ s mother. Daphne J ason testified that a ccor ding to Ma rlow Wil liams’ letter dated Marc h 22, 2006, he knew as ea rly as whe n the
c hil d, [M.L .E .S. ], wa s bor n th a t he wa s h e r f

a the r. Ma rl owWilli a ms confirme d this fact d u ring his testimony on May

19, 2008. Fur thermore , Mr. Will iams also testified that in the months that he was not inca

rce rate d he neve r filed a

petition to establish paternity of the child....

* * *

24. Pursuant to and as de fin ed in T.C.A. §36-1-113( 9)(A) (iv)... Marl owWilli a ms.

.. [ha s] fa ile d to manif e st a n a bil ity and wi lli ng ne ss to assume leg al and phy sical custody of the minor child[] . Awar ding le g a l and ph y sical c us tod

y of the c hil dr e n to [Mr . Wil liams] w ou ld pose a r isk o f substantial harm to the phy sical or psy cholog ical welfa re of the childre n.M r

. W i l l i ams r ai s es t wo i s s ues wi t h re s pect t o hi s f at her , wh o i s not a par t y on appeal

. Fi r s t , he ch al l eng es 2 the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to e x c lud e his fa the r a s a w itne ss. S e c o n d , he a sse rts th a t the tria l c o u rt e rr e d in d e n ying his f at h er ’ s mot i on t o i n t er v en e. B ec au s e we u l t i mat el y dec i de t h i s ca s e i n M r

. W i l l i am’ s f av or on ot h er g r ou n ds , w e do n ot addr es s t h e f

i r s t ev i den t i ar y i s s u e. Li k ew i s e, we do n ot addr es s t h e i n t er v en t i on i s s u e, a s M r

. W i l l i ams ’ s f at h er i s n ot
a p a rty o n a p p e a l.
-4-

25. Pursuant to T.C.A. §36-1-113(i)( 1)-( 7), termination of par ental rig hts is in t he best intere st of said child[] in that Respondents have failed to make such an a djustment of circumstanc es, c o n d u ct, or
c on dit ion s a s to mak e it sa fe and in the c hil d[’ s] be st i nte re st t o b e in their homes, despite reasonable ef forts by available social ser

vice ag encie s fo r s uch duration of time that lasting adjustment does not
a p p e ar r e a s o n a b l y p o s s ib le ; a

me an in g f u l r e lati o n s h ip w it

h th e c h il d [] and Respondent[] [ has] not otherwise been established; a chang e of
c are take rs and

ph y sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s li ke ly to have a tr a uma tic eff ect on the c hild[ ’s] emotional and phy sical cond ition; Re s p o n d e n t[ ] [h a s ] f

a il e d to s u p p o rt th e c h il dr e n

. . . . th e Re s p o n d e n t[ ] [has] abandone d the child[] for more that four ( 4 consec utive months pr e c e din g the fi lin g of the Pe tit ion ; Mar low Willi a ms.

.. [ha s] f a ile d to
e sta bli shpate rn ity

of the c hil d[] and

manif e st an a bil ity or wi lli ng ne ss to assume l eg al and phy sical custody of the c hild[ ]; and the phy sical
env i ro n m en t s o f R es p o n d en t [ ’s ] h o m e[ ] [ i s ] u n kn o wn t o P et i t i oner....

I n ter min a tin g Mr . Willia

ms’ s par e nta l rig hts to M.L .E .S. , the c ourt sp e c if ic a lly notes in its order that it does not find aba ndonment by

willful failure to visit under Te nn. Code Ann. §36-1-113. Mr. Williams appeals the ter mination of his parenta l rig hts, and raise s sever al related issues in his brief: specific ally , whether the re cord suppor ts, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the 2 trial court’ s finding that gr ounds for ter mination of Mr. Wil liams’s pare ntal rig hts to M.L .E.S. were met, and, if so, whe ther ter mination of those rig hts is in t he best intere st of M.L .E.S.

We first note that Mr. Wil liams was incar cer ated whe n the termination petition was filed a nd throug hout the proce eding s in the trial court. Although Mr. Wil liams was pre sent for the second da y of the he aring , the trial cour t did not rehea

r the issues and e vidence considere d in his absence . Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( f) se ts f or th t he ri g hts of inc arc e ra

te d pare nts to n oti c e and

pa rt ic ipatio n in te rm inatio n p ro c e e din g s:

(f ) Befor e te rm inatin g the ri g hts of any pa re nt o r gua

rd ian w ho is incar cer ated or

who was inc arc erated at the time of an a ction or proce eding i s i n i tiated, it must be affirmatively shown to the court that such inca

rce rate d pare nt or g uardia n rec eived actua l notice of the fo l l o wi n g:-5- (1 ) T h e t i m e an d

p l a c e o f t h e h e ar i n g t o t e r

min a te pa re nta l r ig hts ; (2 ) T hat th e he ari ng wi ll de te rm ine wh e the r t he ri g hts of th e i ncar cer ated pa

rent or guardia

n should be terminated; (3) That the i ncar cer ated pa rent or guardia

n has the rig h t to p arti c ip a te in th e h e ar in g an d c o n te s t the alleg ation that the rig hts of the inca rce rate d pare nt or g uardia n should be terminated, a nd, at the discre tion of the c ourt, such par

ticipation may

be ach ieved throug h persona l app e a r a n c e , te leconf ere nce, te le c o mm u n ic a ti o n o r o th e r me an s d e e me d b y the
c ourt to b e a pp ro pr ia te un de r t

he c ir c ums tanc e s; (4) That if the i ncar cer ated pa rent or guardia

n wishes to participate in the hear ing a nd contest the a lleg ation, such par ent or guardia

n: (A ) I f i nd ig e nt, wi ll b e pr ov ide d with a court-appointed attorney to assist the pare nt or g uardia

n in contesting the alleg ation; and (B ) S ha ll have th e ri g ht t o p e rp e tuate such person' s testimony

or that of a

ny witness by

means of de positions or interrog atories a s provi ded by the Tenne ssee Rules of Civi l Procedure ; and (5) I f, by

means of a sig ned wa iver, the c ourt deter mines that the incar cer ated pare nt or g uardia n h as vol untarily

waived the rig ht to participate in the hear ing a nd contest the alleg ation, or if such pa rent or g uardia n takes no a ction afte r rec eiving notice of such rig hts, the court may proce ed with such a ction without the par ent' s or g uardia

n' s participation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(f )(1) -(5)

. As noted above , Mr. W i l l i am s wa s not present f or the fir st day

of the he aringin this case. At that time, his attorney informed the court that she had been unable to locate Mr. Williams in t he prison sy stem beca

use he ha d been tr ansfe rre d. She further informed the c ourt t h at s h e co u ld not proper ly repr esent Mr. Williams at t he hearing beca use she had not communicated with him. The trial court, howe ver, de nied a c ontinuance a nd the hea

ring proce eded. B eca

use the proc ed u ral-6-

require ments set forth in Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( f) we re not followe d, we f ind that the trial court e rre d by

proce eding in Mr. Wil liams’s absenc e.
I n its brief, DCS acknowle dg es this error and re quests that this case be rema nded for
re hear in g. I n h is b ri e f, Mr . Wil liams a sk s th a t w e re mand the c a se fo r r e he ari ngon ly a ft e r f ir st revie wing the re cord f

or substantive er

rors. We note t hat t he procedura l err or in this case r esulted from DCS opposing and the trial court denying the reque sted continuance when it bec ame e vident that Mr . Wil liams c ou ld n ot b e pr od uc e d f or the tr ia l. D CS w a s allo we d to pr e se nt i ts e nti re c a se in t he tr ia l c ourt

and wa s n ot p re

jud ic e d b y

Mr . Wil liams’ s a

bs e nc e . Are mand

wo uld on ly se rv e to
re wa rd DC S f or the e rr or by pr ov idi ngit a

se c on d o pp or

tun ity to pr e se nt its e vid e nc e . T his wo uld be both unfa ir to Mr. W illiams and wasteful of judicial resour ces. A s expl ained in deta il below, we h a v e f o u n d t h a t D C S f

a i l e d t o e s t a

b l i s h a g r o un d f

o r t e r m i n a t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u rt

. C o n s e qu e n t l y, rema nding this matter f

or a se cond hea

ring is neither appr opriate nor nece ssary

. Term ination of Pare ntal Rights A par ent has a fundamenta l rig ht to the car e, custody , and contr ol of his or her c hild. Stan ley
v . I lli noi s , 4 05 U. S. 6 45 , 6 51 (1 97 2) ; Na sh- Put nam v. Mc Clo ud , 921 S.W

. 2 d 170, 174 (Tenn.1996)

. Thus , th e state may

int e rf e re wi th p are nta l r ig hts on ly if th ere is a co mpe lli ngstate int e re st. Nash-Putn am , 9 2 1 S

. W

. 2 d at 1 7 4 -7 5 (c i t i n g Sa nt

o s k y v . Kram er , 455 U.S. 745 (1982)). O ur te rm inatio n s ta tut e s id e nti fy “ tho se sit

uatio ns in w hic h th e state ' s in te re st i n th e we lf are of a c hil d justifies int er fe re n ce with a par ent' s constitutional rights by setting f orth g rounds on which termination proce eding s can be broug ht.” In r eW. B. , No s

. M2004-00999-COA- R3-PT, M2004-01572-COA- R3-PT, 2005 W L1021618, at *7 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2005) (c iting Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )). A pe rson see king to ter minate par ental rig hts must prove both the
e xiste nc e of on e of the statut or y g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n a nd that te rm inatio n is in t

he c hil d' s b e st interest. Te nn.Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(c) ; In r e D. L. B. , 1 18 S.W. 3d 36 0, 36 7 ( Te nn .2 00 3) ; In r e V ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn.2002)

. Be cause of the funda

mental nature of the pa

rent' s rig hts and the g rave conseque nces of the termination of those rig hts, courts must require a higher standard of proof in dec iding ter

mination
case s. Santosky , 4 55 U. S

. at 769. Con se qu e ntl y , b oth the g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n a nd the be st interest inquiry

must be es t ab l ished by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Te nn.Code Ann. § 36 -3 -1 13 (c )( 1) ; In re

V ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 546. Clear a nd convincingevidenc e “e stablishes that the truth of the f

acts a sserted is hig hly

probable

... and eliminates a ny serious or substantial doubt about corr ectne ss of the conclusions dra wn from the e vidence .” In r eM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 653 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004). Such e vidence “p roduce s in a fac t-finder ' s mind a firm belief or conviction reg ardingthe truth of the f acts soug ht to be established.” Id . at 653.

I n li g ht o f t

he he ig htened st and ard

of pr oo f i n te rm inatio n c a se s, a re vie wi ngc ourt

mus t
m o d i fy t h e c u s t o m ary

s t an d ar d o f r ev i ew s et fo rt h i n

T en n

. R

. Ap p

. P

. 1 3 (d ). As t o t h e t ri al co u rt 's fi nding s o f f

a c t, o ur re vie w i s de novo w it

h a p r e s u mp ti o no f

c o r r e c tn e s s u n le s s th e e v idence preponde rate s otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)

. W e m ust then determine w hether the fa cts, as-7-

found by the trial cour

t or as supported by

the pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, cle arly

and convincing ly establish the eleme nts nece ssary to terminate pa

renta l rig hts. Id ; Jo ne

s v . G arre tt , 92 S.W .3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002)

. The trial c ourt terminated Mr . Wil liams’s pare ntal rig hts to M.L .E.S. on three of the statutory g rounds: abandonme nt under Te nn.Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g )(1) ; failure to manif est an a bility and willingness to assume le g al and phy sical custody of the c hild under Tenn

. C o d e An n . § 36-1-113( 9)(A) (iv); and f ail u re to establish paternity of the c hild under Tenn.Code Ann. § 36 -1 -1 13 (9 )( A) (v i) . We wi ll r e vie w the re c or d to de te rm ine if DC S e sta bli sh e d at le a st one of

the se g rounds for te rmination by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e.
Aba ndonm e nt Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(1) states that termination may be based on “aba

ndonment by the pa re nt o r gua

rd ian, a s d e fi ne d in

§ 3 6- 1- 10 2.

.. .” Se c tio n 3 6- 1- 10 2 s ta te s, in p e rt ine nt p art : (1)( A) F or purpose s of terminating the pare ntal or g uardia n rig hts of pare nt(s) or g uardia

n(s) of a child to that child in order to make that
c hil d ava ila

ble fo r a do pti on , “ a

ba nd on me nt” me ans tha

t: (i)F or a period of four (4) consecutive months immediately prec eding the fi lin g of

a pr oc e e din g or

ple a din g to t e rm inate the pa re nta l r ig hts of the pa rent(s) or g uardia

n(s) of the child who is the subject of the p e ti ti o n f o r te r mi n a ti o n o f p ar e n ta l r ig h ts o r a d o p ti o n , tha t the pare nt(s) or guardia

n(s) e ither have wi l lfully failed to visit or have wi llf ull y fa ile d to supp or

t or h a ve wi llf

ull y fa ile d to make re a so na

ble pay ments toward the suppor

t of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 1-102(1) (A)( i).

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102( 1)(A) (i), the c ourt may only consider the pare nt’s
c on du c t in

the fo ur mon ths imm e diate ly

pr e c e din gthe filin g of

the pe tit ion

the n b e fo re the c ourt

. In re D.L .B. , 1 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 3 )

. H e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u rtf o u n d t h a tM r

. W i lli a ms willfully failed to support the child “despite being able- bodied and capa ble of being employ ed.” Mr

. Wil liams, how ever , was incar cer ated throug hout the four months pre ceding the filing of t he te rm inatio n p e tit ion . D e sp ite his inc arc e ratio n, Mr . Wil liams t e sti fi e d th a t he wo uld se nd mon e y to his father whene ver his father informed Mr. Wil liams that M.L .E.S. ne eded something. Moreove r, M r. W i l l i am s t es t i fi ed t h at , wh en ev er M s

. Go o d l o w t o l d

h i m t h at M

. L

. E

. S

. n ee d edcl o t h i n g o r t h i n gs o f t h i s n a tu r e , h e w o u l d

m a k e ar r an g e m e n t s t o g e tt h e m o n e y t o M s

. G o o d l o w t h r o u g h h i s f a m i l y. Th e fa c t th a t Mr . Wil liams w a s una ble to pr od uce re c e ipt s f

or the se e xpe nd iture s d oe s n ot n e g a te his te stimony

. Fr om our revie w of the rec ord, DCS ha s not c lear ly and convincing ly rebutted Mr

. Wil liams’s testimony

that he did provide f

or M.L .E.S. as he w as able . Fr om the totality of the-8-

circ umstances, we conclude that the g round of a bandonment by

willful failure to support is not supported by

the evidenc e in the re cord.

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 10 2( 1) (A )( iv) de fi ne s “ a ba nd on me nt” a s f

oll ow s: A par ent or guardia

n is incarc erated at the time of the instit ution of an action or pr ocee ding to de clar e a c hi l d to be an a bandoned c hild, or the par ent or guardia

n has bee n incar cer ated dur ing a ll or part of the four ( 4) months immediate ly prec eding the institut ion of such ac tion
or pr oc e e din g , and e ith e r ha s wi llf ull y fa ile d to v isi t or

ha s w ill fu lly fa ile d to su

pp or t or ha s w ill fu lly

fa ile d to make re a so na

ble pa y me nts toward the support of the c hild for four ( 4) conse cu tive months immediately

prec eding such par ent' s or g uardi an 's incarc eration, or the pare nt or g uardia

n has eng ag ed in conduc t prior to incar cer ation that exhibi ts a wanton disre g ard f or the we lfare of the c hild[ .]

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 10 2( 1) (A )( iv) . T his de fi nit ion , whi ch app lie s to inc arc e rate d p a re nts , encompa sses two distinct tests for abandonme nt. In r eAudre y S. , 182 S.W. 3d 83 8, 86 5 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 2005). Unde r the fir st test, the court must look to the tim e p er i o d fo ur months prior to the pare nt’s incar cer ation. Id

. at 865. I n the prese nt c ase, howeve r, the trial court only considere d Mr. Wil liams’s behavior in the f our months prec eding the filing of the ter mination pe tition. Tenn. Code A n n

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i v ) c o n t a i n s a s e c o n d t e s t w h i c h a s k s w h e t h e r “ t h e p ar e n t h a s e ng a g e d in conduct pr i o r t o i n ca rceration that exhibits a wa nton disreg ard f

or the we lfare of the c hild.” Id

. Unlike the first test, this question “is not ex pressly limit ed to any

four month per iod. Audre y S. , 182 S.W .3d at 8 6 5

. DCS, however, f ailed to offe r proof

showing that Mr. Will iams had exhibit ed a
wa nto n d isr e g ard

fo r M .L .E .S. ’s we lf

are . Co ns e qu e ntl y , th e tr ia l court ’s fi nd ingof “ a ba nd on me nt” under Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)( A)(iv) was in er ror.
Willin gness to Assum e Legal and Physical Custody

Te nn .Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( 9) (A ) p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art : (9)( A) The pare ntal rig hts of any person who, at the time of t he filing of a pe tition t o terminate the pare ntal rig hts of such per son o r, i f no
su c h p e tit ion

is f ile d, a t th e tim e of the fi lin g of a pe tit ion to a do pt a
c hil d, is n ot t

he le g a l pa

re nt o r gu ard ian o f s uc h c hil d o r w ho is descr ibed in § 36-1-117( b) or (c) may also be ter minated base d upon
any on e (1 ) o r m or e of

the fo llo wi nga dd iti on a l g ro un ds : * * *T hi s ground f o r t erm i nat i o n of p arent al ri ght s i s ap p l i cab l e t o t ho se who have no t be en ad judicat ed t o be t he 3 l ega l par ent or gu ar di an of t he chi l d. D es pi t e gen et i c t es t i ng provi ng hi s pat er ni t y , we f i nd not hi ng i n t he r ecor d whi ch

a d ju d ic a te s M r. W ill ia m s to b e M .L .E .S .’s l e g a l p a re n t. T h e re fo re , w e c o n c lud e tha t t h is sta tute d o e s a p p ly.
-9- (i v) Th e person h a s f

a ile d to manif

e st a n a bil ity and wi lli ng ne ss t o assume leg al and phy sical custody of the c hild; 3

Be cause of his inc arc eration, Mr. Wil liams did not have the ability at the time of the he aring to assume leg al and phy sical custody of the child. This fac t, howeve r, does not prove a lack of desire or willingne ss to do so. Here, the testimony indicates that, throug hout his inc arc eration, Mr. Wil liams has called a

nd wr i t t en to M.L .E.S. when he ha s had the opportunity . Moreove r, as discussed above , Mr. Will iams has provided suppor t to the c hild by

the means a

vailable to him (i.e., his family). In short, the re cord doe s not clear ly and co n v incing ly

support a finding that Mr. Wil liams has not expressed, throug h his w ords and ac tions, a willingness to par ent this child. From the entire rec ord, we conclude there fore that, despite Mr. Willi ams’s lac k of ability to support the child, he ha s e xpre sse d a wi lli ng ne ss a

nd de sir e to p are nt. Con se qu e ntl y , w e fi nd tha t th is D CS failed to e stablish this g round for termination of his pare ntal rig hts by clea r and convinc ing e vidence

.
F ailure to Establish P ater nity

Te nn .Co de Ann. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( 9) (A ) a lso pr ov ide s th a t th e pa re nta l r ig hts of

a pe rs on wh o is
no t th e legal or

c us tod ia l pa

re nt m ay be te rm inate d if

that pe rs on

“ ha s f a ile d to fi le a

pe tit ion to
es t ab l i s h p at ern i t y

o f t h e c h i l d

wi t h i nt h i rt y

(3 0 ) d ay s af

t er n o t i ce o f a l l ege d

p at ern i t y b y t h e c h i l d 's mother, or a s require d in § 36-2-318(j), or afte r making a cla im of paternity p u rs u an t to § 36-1-117( c)( 3).” Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(9)( A)(vi) . As noted above, on or about Ma rch 22, 20 06 , M r. Willi a ms w ro te to t he c ourt a s f oll ow s:
I , Marlow L . Wil liams, Sr., do he reby consent to beingthe biologic al fathe r of [M.L .E.S.] .... Iwant my rig hts to be rese rve d as her biologica l Fathe r. I am willing to take any test, or whate ver steps
nece ssary to prove the f

act....
Th is l e tte r w a s f

oll ow e d b y

an a ff ida vit of Ap ri l 16 , 2 00 7, wh ic h in dic a te s th a t Mr . Wil liams acknow ledg es M.L .E.S. to be his biological c hild. By Mr. Wil liams’s testimony , it appear s that the g enetic te st that is contained in this recor d was a ctually instigate d by

Mr. Will iams or his father , and not by DCS. Despite Mr. Will iams’s letter indicating that he wis h es t o es tablish paternity of M.L .E.S., f

rom the rec ord, we conclude that DCS did not fac ilitate this proce ss by informing Mr. Wil liams about the p ater nity proce ss. This conclusion is supported by the testimony

of Da phne J ason, the DCS Family Service Worker who testified t hat DC S had not had much c ontact with Mr. Willi a ms. Mr . Wil liams’ s te sti mony a lso su pp or ts a fi nd ingthat DC S wa s no t a c tiv e ly inv olv e d in p u r s u i n g p a t e r

n i t y:-10- Q [t o M r

. Wi ll ia

ms ]: O k ay
. N o w , le t’ s ta lk a b o u t p a te r

n it y for a min ute . We re y ou

e ve r a sk e d to pa

rt ic ipate in a

DN A t e st?

A. Wel l, I

a sk e d to have on e take n. B e c a us e they [ DC S ] to ld me beca use I had never proven my self to be [M.L .E.S.’s] father that, y ou know, they

was [sic] m ore or

less just going off a

name. So I wanted to g o ahea d and g o throug h the p roce ss of
re g ist e ri nga s h e r f

a the r, le g iti mizin g he r a s my c hil d, y ou

kn ow , me as the biolog ical father. You know, prior to a ll this, Ihad no–I had no kn ow le dg e of

it.
Q. Yo u d idn ’t

kn owit w a s a

pr oc e ss?

A. No

. Id i dn ’t kn o w i twa s a p ro ce d u re t h at y o u h adt o go t h ro u gh to prove that the c hild was y ours. I thought that it wa s just proven by the fa c t th a t, you

kn ow , D NApr ov e d th a t. Q. So y ou wer e re questing to have a DNA test done ?

A. Rig ht. Q. Who did y ou make these reque sts to?

A. To the Re g istry . I

fi le d a Re g istry fo rm

. * * * Q. Okay . Did y ou ever have any conver sations with the Depar tment of Children’s Servic es about he lping you g et the DNAtest done?

A. I t w a s mo re or les s– I re a lly ne ve r t a lke d to any on e pe rs on a lly other than Ms. Da

phne about that....

B ut, y ou kn ow , th e y

wa s [si c ] mor e or

le ss t e lli ngme that I had to have it done, or that I had to g o throug h the proc edure to have the State or County , wher ever Iwas at the time, to have it done.
Q. Di d [ DC S ] ev er

i n d i ca t e to y o u t h at t h ey wo u l d h el p y o ut h ro u gh tho se pr oc e dure s?

A. No.
Q. Di d y ou

e ve r a sk fo r h e lp t hr ou g h th os e pr oc e dure s?-11- A. I was try ing to g et it done...

Iwas a sking w hoever

I co u l d . My

fathe r, he put for

th the
e ff or t to have it d on e . I

be lie ve he ha d on e do ne wh e re he pa id f or it himself.

I n a re cent de cision, In re S.T.T. , No. M 2007-01609-COA- R3-PT, 2008 WL 162538 (Tenn. Ct. App. J an. 17, 2008), the Court found that DCS ha s some responsibility to the biologica l father in e stablishing pater

nity pursuant to T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(9) (A)( vi). I n S.T.T. , DCS “led [the fathe r] t o b e lie ve tha t it was no t nec e ssa

ry [fo r h im t o e sta

bli shpate rn ity ] by

ide nti fy inghis relationship wit h the child as the ‘L eg al Father’ in the Per manenc y Plan.” Id . at *8. I n the pre sent
case , Mr. Will iams consente d to a DNA test, had the test pe rfor med, and notified the court in writing that he wished to pursue his rights a s the bi ologic al father of the child. I t appea rs, howeve r, that not enoug h was done on DCS’s part to aid Mr. Willi ams in this endeavor

. L i k e t h e C o u rt in In r e S.T.T. , we find, under the unique facts of t his case , that the record doe s not support the trial court’s finding that Mr. Will iams failed to esta blish paternity

of t his child pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( g )(9) (A)( vi).

Ha vin g c on c lud e d tha t none of the g ro un ds fo r te rm inatio n of Mr . Williams’ s par e nta l r ig hts to M.L .E.S. are me t by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e in the re cord, w e do not addr ess whethe r termination of his rig hts is in t he best intere st of the child.

For the foreg oing r easons, we reve rse the or der of the trial cour

t insofar a s it terminates the pare ntal rig hts of Marlow Williams, t o the m inor child M.L .E.S. The order is affirmed in all other respe cts. Costs of this appe al ar e asse ssed ag ainst the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee De partment of C h i l dr e n ’ s S e r

v i c e s , f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ J. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D , J.