# FILED
Au gust 26, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESS EE

EAST ERN S ECTI ON

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) C/A NO. 03A01-9704-CV-00145 DEPART MENT OF HE ALTH/ ) CHILDREN ’S SERVICES, ) KN OX CIR CU IT ) Petitioner- Appellee, ) HON. BIL L SWANN, ) J UDGE v. ) ) JUL IE ROGOI SH, ) VACATED ) AND Res pon dent-A ppella nt. ) REMANDED

JOHN KNO X W ALK UP, AttorneyGeneral and Report er and DIANN E STAM EY D YCU S, Senior Counsel, Att orney General’s Office, Nashvi lle, for Peti tioner -Appellee
. TIMO THY L. BALD RIDGE , BALDR IDGE & WH EATL EY, P.C., Knoxvil le, for Res pon dent-A ppella nt.

O P I N I O N
Franks. J.

The genesis of

this disput e was an order entered by the Juveni le Court of Knox County decl aring def endant’s child to be dependent and ne glect ed, with the temporary

custodyof the chi ld to t he state. The Juvenil e Court order was entered on t

he 3rd day of May, 1996, and prov ided in pertine nt part:

1. That Jonathan Alexander Rogois h is a depende nt and negl ected child w ithin the mea ning of the law, is h ereby m ade a wa rd of this2 Court, a nd the te mporary custodyof the sai d child i s awarded to t he State o f Te nnes see, D epartm ent of He alth/C hildren ’s Serv ices, fo rmer ly Department of Human Servic es, eff ecti ve July13, 1996, wit h the authori ty to consent

to any necessary medic al, surgic al, hospit al or institutional c are. 2. That the Defendant , Jul ie Rogoish, shall have right of supervi sed visi tati on with sai d child upon he r ini tiat ion accor ding to t

he rules and regulations of the State of T ennessee , Departm ent of H ealth/Children’s Services. 3. The plan of care , attached, is appr oved. The Court notes that the goal is reunifi cati on and that the pri mary r esponsibi lit y that the mother has not fi nished i s to under go a psy chiatric and ps ychol ogical exam ination and f ollow all reco mm enda tions. T he m other w ill cooperate with all servi ce providers. The Department shall advise servi ce provide rs that the mother may not present accurat e information. Defe ndant timely perfec ted an app eal to the K nox C ounty Circuit Co urt pursuant to T.C.A. §37- 1-159. The Cir cuit Court set t he case for t

rialon July30, 1997, but on J anuary 31, 1997, t he Trial Court ente red an order dismis sing the appeal “without prejudic e” because t he Court found the Department had, in January 1997, file d a peti tion t o terminate the defendant’ s parent al ri ghts i n Juvenil e Court of Knox Co unty. Th e mo ther ha s app ealed to this C ourt.

T.C .A. §3 7-1-1 59(c ) prov ides: when an appeal has been pe rfect ed, the juveni le court shall cause the entire record i n the case , inc luding t he juveni le court ’s fi ndings and writt en report s from probation offi cers, professi onal court employe es or profession al consultants, to be tak en forthw ith to the Circuit Co urt wh ose d uty it is , eithe r in te rm o r in v aca tion , to set the case f or an early hearing. When an appeal is t aken from a juveni le court ’s deci sion that invo lves the remo val of a child or ch ildren f rom the cu stody of their natura l and/o r legal p arents or gu ardian . . . such h earing shall be held with in forty-fiv e (45 ) days of receip t of the findin gs an d rep orts. In its order, the ci rcuit

court s hall remand the case to the juve nile c ourt for enfo rcem ent of the jud gm ent ren dered by the circ uit cou rt. Ap peals from an order of t

he circ uit cour

t pursua nt to t

his subs ecti on may be carried to the cou rt of appea ls as provided by law. (Em phasis supp lied). The Circu it Cou rt’s action in setting this cas e mo re than a year af ter the d ecision in Sessions Court, i .e. , Jul y 30, 1997, constitutes an impermi ssibl e delay . Moreover, the Trial C ourt’s d ismissa l of the appe al dep rived b oth the mo ther an d child of the ir rights3

aff ord ed b y the S tatut e. W hile t he 4 5 da y time fram e is d irect ory, See K ite v. Kite , 1997 WL 259332 (Tenn.) 1997, the General Assembly clear ly intende d that c ases where a parent

is deprived of cust ody of a chi ld be give n preferenc e and process ed expeditiousl y. Such cases ar e to take precedence ove r other cases exce pt thos e which
are a lso s tatut orily m and ated to b e he ard wit hin a sp ecif ic tim e fra me .

T.C .A. §3 7-1-1 59 g ave th e plain tiff the r ight to a trial de novo before the Circuit Court if he r appeal was properl y perfected and s he was entitled to a n exp editi ous hea ring . Th e su mm ary dis mis sal o f the app eal h as n o ba sis in law
. Parti es who bring themselves wit hin the s tatutory provisi on providi ng for an appeal
are e ntitle d to the a ppe al as a m atter of r igh t. See Caldwell v. Hodsden’s H eirs , 69 Te nn. 3 05 ( Te nn. 1 978 ).

The action of

the Tri al Court i s vacate d and the caus e remanded. The Trial Court is directed to give precedence t o this case on it s docket over any ca ses that do not enjoy

a stat utorypreferenc e for an expedi ted hearing. The cost of the appeal i s asses sed to t he appell ee.

________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J. CONCUR:

___________________________ Don T. M cMu

rra y , J.

___________________________ William H. Inman, Sr.J.