T en n. C t

. A p p
. R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o d i f y t he
ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a fo rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and
s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 14, 200 5
IN TH E MATTE R OF: A.S., Q.S., AND J.S
. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 2119-61600; 2119- 61601; 2119-61602 Bet ty Adam s Gr een, Judge

No. M2005- 00748-COA-R 3-P T - F iled Novem ber 10, 2005

T h i s i s a m o ther’s a

ppeal of the termination of he r par ental rig hts to her three children. Mother suffe rs from a

cocaine addiction. S he has ha d numerous opportunities for r ehabilitation but failed to stay drug -fr ee. At the t ime of t rial, t he children had been i n foster care for two y ear s during which tim e Mo the r o nly

e xer c ise d to ke n v isi ta tio n. Th e juv e nil e c ou rt te rm inate d M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ig hts on g rounds of a

bandonment, per sistence of conditions, and substan t i al n o n -complianc e with the pe rm a ne nc y

plan. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinio n o f the c ourt, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN , and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined.
J ohn C. Ford, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, the mother.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; a ndAm y T. Ma ste r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, fo r the app e lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.
Jea nah P. Mc Clu re , G ua

rd ia n a d li te m.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
Th e dif fi c ult ie s f a c e d by Mo the r’ s th re e c hil dr e n A .S. , Q .S. , a ndJ.S be g a n p ri or to the ir birth beca use their mother

tested positive for cocaine at t he birth of all t hreechildren. They oung est child, J .S., was born substanceaff ecte d.T he juveni l e co urt fo und f i ve d i f ferent vi si t s. M o t her co nt end s t here was a si xt h vi si t , b ut even i f t hat i s t he 2

cas e, s i x v i s i t s as opp ose d t o f i ve i s not enoug h t o prepondera t e a gai ns t t he j udge’ s f i ndi ng t hat t hes e we r e mer el y t oken vi si t s, esp e c ia lly i n l i ght of t he f act t hat f rom O ct o b er 23 , 20 0 2 , t hrough M ay 2 , 20 0 3 , M o t her had no vi si t s wi t h t he chi l d ren. -2- All three c hildren came into the custody of the De partment of Ch i l d re n ’s S ervic es in May of 2001. Prior to D CS obtaining custody , DCS had instit uted an a rra ng ement with Mother whe reby she would re tain custody of t h e ch i ldren on the c ondition that she complete a dr ug and alc ohol assessment and f

ollow all subsequent re commendations. Although Mothe r complete d the assessment prog ram a nd enter ed a reha bilitation prog ram, she f

ailed to complete the reha bilitation prog ram. More over, on May 2, 2001, she tested positive for cocaine, and DCS subsequently took c us tod y of thec hil dr e n. DC S fi rst pla c e d th e c hil dr e n w iththe ir g rand mothe r, bu t w he n th e ir g randmother

tested positive for marijuana, the c hildren we re pla ced in f oster ca re. Mother subseque ntly

attended a perma nency plan staff ing w ith her attorne y . The g oal was to return the c hildren to Mother. She enter ed int o a permanenc y plan on May

17, 2001. The plan re qu ir e d th a t sh e ma int a in re g ula r c on ta c t wi th the c hil dr e n, pay c hil d s up po rt , atte nddr

ug tr e a tme nt, have no positive drug s cr ee n s , m ai ntain a stable living environment for at least six m onths, and obtain and maintain employment for at least six months. Mother compl et ed t h e d rug treatment prog ram, a nd the childre n wer e re turned to their mother in J une of 2001 on a

trial basis.
Mother’s suc cess wa s short lived. Whil e the c hildren we re w ith Mother in J une 2001, she failed to re port for a

court a ppear ance and it wa s soon discovere d that she had rela psed into drug use. As a conseque nce, the children wer e ag ain place d in foster c are in September of 2001. T wo months later, Mother

was a rre sted on drug char g es.
Th e re a ft e r, Mo the r en te re d into a se c on d pe rm a ne nc y plan, wh ic h ha d simil ar r e qu ir e me nts to the first plan. On M ay 10, 2002, less than t wo weeks afte r entering into the new permanenc y plan, Mother atte n d ed a pe rmane ncy hearing during w hich she wa s reque sted to take a drug test. She declin e d e xp lain in g s h e w o u ldte s t p o s it iv e f o r c o c a in e
. I n Ju n e o f

2 0 0 2 , M o th e r

e n te r e d a d rug tr e a tme nt p ro g ram, w hic h s he c omp le te d, a ndthe n b e g a n a fo ur we e k o ut- pati e n t

f o l l o w
- u p pr og ram. She had a neg ative drug scree n in Aug ust of 2002, but tested positive for coc aine on Septembe r 26, 2002. DCS continued to perform or attempt to perf orm drug test s o v er se vera l months; howeve r, Mother ref

used a drug scre en reque sted October 21, 2002, failed to a ppear for an April 2 4 , 2 0 03, drug scre en, and on April 29, 2003, Mother ag ain re fused to be te sted, admitting at the time of the test th a t s h e h a d b e e n d r in k in g a lc o h o l. T h e r e a f te r , in M a y o f 2 0 0 3 , s h e in v a li d a te d a test by dr op pin g it i n th e toi le t.
Fr om J une 6, 2002, throug h September 18, 2002, Mother vi s i t ed her

children on only

five or six oc c a sio ns . M os t of

the se vis its la ste d o nly

a n h ou r, a ndon on e oc c a sio n, Mo the r w a s f orty minutes late. Mother wa s offe red the opportunity to attend A.S.’s birthday party and to s ee he r 2 children f o r th e Ch r is tm a s h o li d a y s , b u t s h e f a il e d to ap p e ar

a t e ith e r o c c a s io n
. O n o n e o c c a s io n, Mother ar

rived at the children’ s foster home at 9:30 p.m. int ox icated. Moth er fa i l ed to vi sit theT h e ju v e n ile co u rt a lso te rm ina te d the p a re n ta l righ ts o f ea c h c h ild ’s f a the r. N o n e o f t h e fath e rs a p p e a le d this 3 d e c isio n
. -3- children the rea fter until May 2, 2003. A third permanency plan staff ing took plac e on May

12, 2003, the g oal of whic h was c hang ed to adoption. By September of 2003, Mother had violated t he terms of her probation fr om the November 2001 drug arr est. She turned he rself in to the police , and at the time this trial took place reg arding the termination of he r par ental rig hts, Mother was inca rce rate d. The c hildren had lived in a foster c ar e h o m e s i n c e S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 1

. T h e f o s t e r m o t h e r t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l t h a ti f

g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y, she would adopt the c hildren.
On Febr u ar y

16, 2005, the juvenile court entere d a F inal Dec ree terminating Mother’s pare ntal rig hts on “g rounds of a bandonment, per sistence of conditions, and substan t i al non- 3 compliance with the perma nency plan.” The court also found by clea r and convincing evidenc e that te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ig hts wa s in the c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st.
G ROUND S F OR T E RM I NAT I ON
The De partment o f C hildren’s Servic es filed the Petition to terminate pa renta l rig hts on September 25, 2002. For much of the y ear prior to that, Mother ha d only exercised token visitation with the children. Therec ord re veals that Mother was oc casiona lly

employ ed , t houg h her employ ment was not stable, and she failed to pay child support. I t also reve als her life sty le was a nythi ng bu t dr

ug -f re e . Sh e faile d n ume ro us dr ug te sts , f a ile d to c omp le te thea ft e rc arepr og rams, lapsed ba ck into drug use, and at the time of trial, was inc arc erated for violation of he r par ole.
She c on te nd s h e r l a c k of

vis itatio n w a s d ue to s c he du lin g re stric tio ns pla c e d o n h e r b y DC S as a result of her arre st in November of 2001. Mother’s arg ument, howeve r, does not explain why sh e faile d to e ve n atte mpt to s c he du le vis its thr ou g h DCS for a sig nif ic a nt p e ri oda ndwh y

he r o nly vis its we re abb re viate d a ndinf re qu e nt. The juvenile c ourt found Mother f ailed to comply with the perma nency plans by not pay ing child support, not maintaining a stable living e nvironment, no t co m p l eting the alcohol and drug prog ram a nd af

t ercare , and not re maining dr ug fre e. The evidenc e in the re cord c lear ly and convincing ly

supports these finding s. Moreove r, they clea rly establish that Mother failed to remedy the conditions that led to the remova l of her thr ee c hildren.
B EST I N TERESTS OF THE C HILDR EN
Th e juv e nil e c ou rt

fo un d th a t te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l rig hts wa s in the be st i nte re st of the c hildren, primarily beca use she had not a djusted her conduct or conditions to make it in the children’ s best interest to re turn home. The c ourt also found that she failed to establish a meaningf ul-4-

relationship wit h her c hildren, and taking the ch i l d re n away from their f

oster home would ha ve a ne g a tiv e e mot ion a l a ndps y c ho log ic a l impa c t onthe m.
The c hildren’s be st interests m ust be viewed from the children’s perspe ctive, rather than the pare nt’s perspe ctive. W

hite v. Moody , 1 7 1 S.W .3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) ( citations omitted). The re cord c lear ly establishes that re turning the children to their m other is not an option beca use doing so would pose a sig nificant thre at of ha rm to the children. It also establishes that the children a re in a safe and loving environment with the foste r familythey have r esid ed wi th since 2001, and taking them away from that environment would neg atively impact t he children. Further, a s r e turnin g the c hil dr e n to Mo the r is no t a n op tio n, no t te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s rig hts wo uldre su lt i n t h e c h i l d re n re m ai n i n g i n l i mb o , i n t em p o ra ry fo s t er ca re i n s t ea d o f at t ai n i n g a s t ab l e fu t u re t h ro u gh adoption. Acc ording ly , the rec ord clea rly and convincing ly establishes that termination of Mother’ s pa re nta l r ig hts is i n th e c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re sts

. I N C ONCL US I ON The judg ment of the juvenile c ourt is affirmed, and this matter is remanded with costs of app e a l a sse sse d a g a ins t A pp e lle e , St a te of Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE