### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON

Ja nuary 12, 200 5 S es sio n
IN TH E M A TT ER

OF D
. B. ( d. o. b. 6/2 /01 )
S TA TE OF TE N N ES SE E D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN 'S S ER V IC ES v.

RA MON A B OKA N A ND AIR E THOM AS DA ILEY
An Appeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Benton Coun ty No. 3253 Clyde Watson, Judge

No. W2004-01915-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Jun e 13, 2005

This case is about termination of par ental rig hts. The fathe r wa s incarc erated, and the mother lived in a m o b i l e h o m e in aby smal conditions, with no telephone and no tra nsportation. The c hild was born on the floor

of the mobile home a nd hosp i t al i z ed s h ortly there afte r. Due to the poor living conditions, the State took cu stody of the c hild. Over the ne x t three y ear s, the mother and f ather worke d with the Depa

rtment of Children’s Ser vices in an attempt t o remedy the conditions that pr e ve nte d th e c hil d’ s r e turn. Th e se c on dit io ns inc lud e d a lc oh ol anddr ug abu se a nddo me sti c violence. The j uvenile court found t hat t he parties continued to eng ag e in phy sical abuse , and that the mother ne verthe less continued to live with the father, creating unsafe livi ng conditions for the child. The juvenile c ourt terminated the pare ntal rig hts of both pare nts, finding that the c onditions that pr ecl ud ed th e child’ s sa fe re turn to the ho me sti ll p e rs ist e d a ft e r thr e e y e ars a ndwo uldlik e ly continue. The mother appea led. We aff irm, finding that the evidenc e supports the juvenile c ourt’s fi nd ing of pe rs ist e nt c on dit ion s. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P. J., W.S

. and D AVI D R. F ARMER , joined.

Ronald E. Dar

by , Camden for

the re spondent/appellant Ramona B okan

S h ar o n G. Hutchins, Off ice of the Attorney

Gene ral for

petitioner/appe llee State of Te nnessee Depa rtment of Children' s ServicesB o th o f M o the r’s o the r d a u g h te rs ha d re a c h e d m a jo rity b y the ti m e o f t ria l. T h e o ld e r o f t h e two ha d li v e d in 1
M i s s ou r i w i t h t h e mat er n al g r an dmot h er for ov er t en y ea r s , a n d h ad met Fa t h er on ce du r i n g t h at t i me. T h e y ou n g er of t h e t wo, t h e s u bj ec t of

t h e ch ar g e, h ad l i v ed wi t h t h e mat er n al g r an dmot h er s i n ce s h e wa s t h i r t ee n y ea r s ol d.



### -2

- OP IN ION

On th e d a y th e c h il d in th is c a s e w a s b o r n , Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 1 , h e r mo th e r RamonaBoka n (“ M o t h er ”) l i v ed i n a mo b i l e h o m e w i t h n o ru n n i n g wa t er , n o s ep t i c s y s t em , an d n o ai r c o n d i t i o n i n g. The mobile home had elec trical wires hang ing from the ceiling and dog fec es on t h e f l o o r; asphy x iating se wag e fume s emanated from the nonf unctioning ba

thr o o m, b lo c k e d

o n ly b y a door that Mother had r emoved f

rom its h i n ges and plac ed in the hallway . The c hild’s father , Aire Thoma s Dailey (“F ather ”), lived w ith Mother but they wer e not married. Father ha d an extensive criminal his tory , in c lud ing c ha

rg e s f or the ra pe of a c hil d, inv olv ing on e of Mo the r’ s othe r two daug hte rs

. 1 On the day

the child was born, Father wa s incarc erated.

The c hild, D.B., wa s born on the floor of that mobi l e home. B eca use Mother ha d no te le ph on e a ndno tr a ns po rt a tio n, a ft e r s he g a ve birth t o D .B ., Mo the r wa lke d to a ne ig hb or ’s ho us e for he lp. From ther e, an ambulance tr ansported D .B. to the hospital, whe re s h e wa s p l aced on a ventilator.

Whil e D.B . was in the hospital, Mother c ame to the hospital for an overnight stay

with her. When Mother ar

rived, she ha d been drinking , and the nur ses re quired he r to sober up be fore seeing D.B. Dur in g the n ight , M ot her h ad t o b e awak ened byth e nu rse s t o car e forD.B. Mother initially

told the DCS i nvestig ator, Cindy Curtis (“Curtis”), that she inten d e d to move in w ith D

. B

. ’ s p ate r n a l g r a n d mo th e r , G la d y s D a il y ( “ G r a n d mo th e r ” )

. H o w e v e r , w h e n D.B . was rea dy for r elea se fr om the hospital, Curtis vi sited Grandmother ’s home. Curtis noted that no baby items or nece ssities had been moved into Gr andmother’ s home and saw no indication that Mother i n t e n d e d t o m o v e i n w i t h G r a n d m o t h e r

. C u r t i s t h e n s o u g h te m e r g e n c y c u s t o d y.
On July 13 , 2 00 1, wh e n D .B . w a s a lit tle ov e r a mon th old , the State of Te nn e sse e , o n b e ha lf of the De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ DC S” ) p e tit ion e d th e Juve nil e Cou rt of B e nto n Co un ty for tempor ary

protec tive custody

of her

. T h e p eti tion asserted that D.B. w as a de pendent a nd neg lected c hild as defined unde r Tennessee law and that Mother was a n improper g uardia n for he r. By order enter ed on Jul y

13, 2001, the B enton Count y J u v en i l e Court (“Juvenile Court”) place d D.B . in protective c ustody with DCS. After a preliminary hearing on Aug ust 14, 2001, the J uvenile Court adjudicated D.B . depend en t and neg lected and found that re moval from Mother’ s ho me wa s th e le a st dra sti c a lte rn a tiv e a va ila ble . In li g ht of D.B.’s he a lth pr ob le ms, the Juve nil e Cou rt or de re d Moth e r to co mpl e te CPR an d Apn e a Mo nit or tr a ini ng . M oth e r w a s a lso re qu ir e d to
a tte ndvo c a tio na l r e ha

bil itatio n c ou ns e lin g , h a ve a ne ur olo g ic a l ps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio n, c omp le te alcohol and dr

ug assessment, and f

ollow the rec ommendations of the counse lor s

. T h eJu v enile CourtT h e a p p e llate re c o rd re fer e n c e s se v e ra l fa c ts re la te d to M o the r’s d o m e stic as sa u lt c h a rg e , b u t d o e s n o t co n ta in 2

t he o rder revoking M o t her’ s vi si t at i o n. 

### -3

- ruled that, if c ustody

of D.B . wer e re turned to M o t h er , s h e could not return to he r mobile home. Further, the Juvenile Court ordere d visitation for Mother.
On Aug ust 7, 2001, Mother and Father signe d an ini tial perma nency plan (“Plan”). The Plan noted that Mother a nd Father ha d had phy sical alter cations in the past and r equired Mother and F a the r t o atte ndc ou ns e lin g to r e so lve re la tio ns hip c on fl ic ts. Th e Pla n r e qu ir e d th a t Mo the r c omp le te
a lc oh ol anddr

ug a sse ssm e nt, re c e ive ind ivi du a l c ou ns e lin g , a ndre c e ive vo c a tio na l co un seling to
e na ble he r t o f

inanc ia lly su pp ort D .B . T he Pla n re qu ir e d that F a the r c omp ly wi th pr ob a tio n a ft e r h is
re lease fr om pri so n, com pl ete alc oh ol and dru g asse ss men t, su bm it to rand om dru g scre e ns , c omp le te pare nting c lasses, and c omplete CPR and Apnea monitoring classes. Additionally , the Plan require d Mother and F ather

to maintain a safe and sanitary home and noted that the home would be subjec ted to random home visits by DCS. DCS made provisions for supervised vi sitation between Mother and D.B . for at least four hour s per month.

I n Feb ruar y

20 02 , M ot her p eti ti on ed J uv eni le C ou rtforov e r n i ght v is it ati on wi th D.B. Mother asse rted that she ha d completed the require ments set out by the court, including pare nting
c la sse s, dr

ug a nd a lc oh ol tr e a tme nt, a nd c ou ns e lin g se ssi on s. I n its Ma rc h 20 02 or de r, the Juve nil e Court ordere d that Mother be allowed overnig ht visitation with D.B

. upon completion of a 28- day in-patient alc ohol treatment prog ram. The Marc h 2002 order denied visitation to Fathe r.
After a hea ring on Marc h 19, 2 0 0 1 , the J uvenile Court g rante d overnig ht visit ation to Mother. Father wa s g rante d visitation, but the court require d Mother or Grandmother to supervise F ather ’s visits. The order state d that if visitation were suc cessf ul, custody

would be re stored to Mother.

I n April 2002, Mother wa s char g ed with domestic assault involvi ng Father. Mother spent 2 eig hty day s in jail for this offense

.
I n Dec ember

2002, DCS filed a petition to va cate the J une 2002 orde r, base d on Mother’s domestic violence char g e. The petition stated t hat t he Juvenile Court had order ed that Mother ha ve no contac t with Father , and that Mother ha d violated that order

. The petition noted that Fathe r had admitted to sex ually

touching Mother’s oldest daug hter a nd that Father wa s char g ed with, but not
con vi cte d o f, t wo c ou nt s o f rap e of achi ld . Bas ed o n Fat her’ s a d m i s s i o n , D C S ass ert ed, D.B. should not be returned to a home in which Father re sides. The pe tition requested a he aring reg arding vis itatio n w ith re vis e d c on dit ion s a nd lim itatio ns or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , pa rt ic ipatio n by bo th p are nts in intensive counseling to addre ss the substantial risk of sexual abuse.

Af te r a he ari ng on De c e mbe r 10, 20 02 , the Juve nil e Cou rt de nie d DCS’ s pet iti on to v a c a te the June 20 02 or de r. Th e Juve nil e Cou rt state d th a t it wa s impr e sse d w ith the pr og re ss o f b oth Mother and F ather . The Juvenile Court then increa sed vi s itation with D.B., but requir ed that theFor r eas ons t hat ar e n ot appare nt i n t he r ecor d, t hi s order s t at es t hat “ t he P et i t i on aga i ns t [ Fat her ] i s di s mi s s ed 3
and .

. . [ Fat her ] s hal l ha ve vi s i t at i on wi t h t he chi l d u po n hi s maki ng ar r ang ement s wi t h [ D C S]. ” T he pet i t i on t o whi ch i t r ef er s i s n ot s pec i f

i ed. 

### -4

- vis itatio n be su perv ise d b y Gr a nd mothe r. Th e c ou rt ind ic a te d th a t, i f t

he vis itatio n w e nt w e ll, it would consider r eturning custody of D.B . to Mother.
Subsequently , Mother wa s arr ested for assaulting Gra ndmother, in an incide nt in which she broke G randmother ’s hand. I n Fe bruary 2003, the J uvenile C ourt ag ain revoked Mother’ s visitation beca use of the c riminal char g es ag ainst Mother stemming f rom this assault. On J an uary 1, 2003, Father wa s incarc erated for r easons not stat ed i n t he re cord. A month later, the c ourt reinstate d visitation between Mother and D.B . in D.B.’ s foster home. 3
Also in March 2003, D CS found a new home for Mothe r, sepa rate from F ather , and paid the first month’s rent and utility deposit. Shortlyaf

t er m o v i ng into the new home, Mother contac ted Father a nd ended up moving back into Gr andmother’ s house with Father.

I n April 2003, Mother a nd Father sig ned a r evised pe rmane ncy plan (“ revised pla n”). (Exhibi t 18) The r evised plan c hang ed the g oal t o adoption. The revised plan stated that the g oal had chang ed bec ause of

the leng th of time that the ca se had be en p en d i n g, and the fact that Mother continued to be in and out of jail, continued to be involved in domestic violence situations, and had no stable housing and no financ ial means for caring for D.B

. Additionally , the re vised plan included objectives for

Mother and Father, the ac hievement of which could ha ve re sulted in their reg aining custody of D.B . The ob

j ectives for Mother inc luded obtaining and maintaining a stable home for D.B ., working with a vocational counselor in orde r to provide f inancially for D.B ., and continuing
a lc oh ol anddr

ug tr e a tme nt. Th e ob

je c tiv e s ide nti fi e d for F a the r we re to stay ou t of jai l, s ub mit to random drug scre ens, attend Alcoholics Anony mous meeting s, and re main drug fre e. Mother and Father we re advised to have no more phy sical alter cations that re sulted in injury or police inv olv e me nt. Finally , in September 2003, DCS filed a pe tition to terminate Mother and F ather ’s par ental rig hts. As gr ounds for termination, DCS alleg ed per sistent unrem ed i ed conditions that prevente d D.B .’s safe return to their custody , substantial noncompliance w ith the permane ncy plan, willful abandonme nt by

Father for failure to visit or enga g e in more than token visitation for four months imm e diate ly

pr e c e din g the fi lin g of the pe tit ion , a nd wi llf ul aba nd on me nt by Mo the r f or failu re to pay c hil d s up po rt

. Th e Juve nil e Cou rt

he a ri ng on the te rm ina

tio n pe tit ion wa s hel d on April 27, 20 04 a ndAp ri l 29, 2004. Both Mother and Father testified, as well as the DCS caseworke r, Ter ri Prater (“Prater” ). I n her te stimony , Prater a cknowledg ed that Mother had made prog ress on some requir ements in the perma nency

plan; Mother had r ece ived, but had not completed, tr eatment f or alc ohol and drug abuse, ha d r e c e ive d tr a ini ng on Ap ne a mon ito ri ng , a ndhad comple te d p are nti ng c la sse s. Pr a te r a lso acknow ledg ed that F ather had complete d a 90-day drug reha bilitation prog ram. Prater ma intained,At t h e h ea r i n g i n Apr i l 2004, Fa t h er t es t i f i ed t h at h e h ad n ot s ee n D

. B

. s i n ce h er l as t bi r t h day on J u n e 2, 2003. 4


### -5

- howeve r, t h at M o t her and Father’s home had re mained an unsa fe e nvironment for D .B. f or three y e ars , d e sp ite the se rv ic e s D CS pr ov ide d, and th at the c on dit ion s th a t le d to D. B .’ s r e mov a l st ill exis ted. Prater

noted that both pare nts stil l had alcohol a nd drug problems an d t h at when Mothe r and F ather

eng ag e in phy sical alter cations, Mother w as for ced to lea ve F ather ’s house a nd had no place for he r and D .B. to li ve. Prate r testified that, in lig ht of the fa ct that Mother ha d been a rre sted
sever al times for domestic disputes with Fath er , DCS casewor kers ha d advised Mother that her chanc es of r eg aining custody of D.B . wer e much be tter if she se parated from F ather

. Despit e the phy sical abuse from F ather , Prater said, Mother def ended him, noting that he wa s D.B.’ s father and
s a yi n g t h a ts h e w a n t e d t h e mt o b e a f a m i l y.

F a the r t e sti fi ed th at he andMo the r h a d b e e n to g e the r o ff a ndon fo r a

bo ut e le ve n y e ars

. Father maintaine d that he and Mother were ge tting along better t han ever, though he c oncede d that the police ha d been c alled to their house a pproxi mat el y t h re e we eks bef ore the hearing. F ather acknow ledg ed that, in the past five y ear s, he had bee n arr ested four to six times as a re sult of domestic violence . Father a sserted that the rea son he had not visited D.B

. over the last ten months 4 was tha t h e h a d n o tr a n s p o r tati o n to th e s c h e d u le d v is it a ti o n s

. F a th e r c o u ld n o t d r iv e d u e to poor vision and relied on Gr andmother f or transportation. I n De cembe r 2003, howe ver, G randmother die d. She die d in te state , s ur viv e d by Fath er and his six si bli ng s. F a the r c on tin ue d to liv e in Gra ndmother’s house. F ather testified that Grandmother’s e state had ne ver be en probated, and that he c on tin ue d to pay

the mortg a g e . H e c la ime d th at hi s bro the r andsis te rs we re no t in te re ste d in Gra ndmother’s house.
During her testimony , Mother ac knowledg ed that her two older daug hters, now g rown, ha d both left her home in their early teens to live with their m aternal g randmother . She admitted that the y oung er of

the two had a ccuse d Father of se x ual abuse . Mother, howe ver, claimed t hat her daug hter had later told her that the a ccusation was a lie, a nd that the daug hter had gone to live with the materna l gr andmother be cause Mother and F ather “wouldn’t let he r g et away with every thing.”

Mo the r a dmi tte d th a t, i n M a y 19 98 , s he was con vict e d o f dri vin g wh ile imp a ir e d a nd , in Aug ust 2003, she was c onvicted of public intoxi cation. Mother acknowle dg ed that in J anuary 2003 she had pled guilty to assaulting Gra ndmother and ha d been unde r a r estraining order as a r esult of the ass au l t charg e. In April 2003, Mother c oncede d, she wa s convicted of assault ag ainst Father. Mother allowe d that Father still drank alcohol. Mother admitted that she had a ccuse d Father of assaulting her, but said that she had lied about the alleg ed assault because she wa s ang ry at Father. Whil e a c kn ow le dg ing that he r r e la tio ns hip wi th F a the r w a s th e caus e of many of he r p ro ble ms, Mo the r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e didno t in te ndto l e a ve him

. After the testimony , the trial court judge issued an ora l ruling. H e found that, althoug h Father
s t at ed t h ath e l o v ed D. B. , h e ch o s e to b u y b ee r ra t h er t h an a ph o n e car d t o ca l l h i s ch i l d

. T h e j u d ge noted that at the time of t he trial in April 2004, Father had not seen D.B. since J une 2003. The trial court found that, if Father ha d rea lly wanted to visit D.B., he c ould have f ound a way

to do so. TheS ec t i o n 3 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 (1 )(A )(i) st ates that, fo r t he p urp o se of t erm i na t i ng p are ntal ri gh t s, “ab an d o nm en t ” m ea ns: 5

For a pe r i od of

fou r ( 4) co nsecut i v e mon t h s i mmedi at el y pr ec edi n g t h e f i l i n g of a pr oce edi n g or pl eadi ng t o t er mi nat e t he pare nt al r i gh t s of t he pare nt ( s ) or gu ar di an( s ) of t he chi l d who i s t he s ubj ect of t he pet i t i on for t er mi nat i on of par ent al r i gh t s or adop t i on, t hat t he pare nt ( s ) or gu ar di an( s ) ei t her have wi l l f

ul l y f ai l ed t o vi si t o r have wi l l f ul l y f ai l ed t o s up p o rt or m ake reasonab l e p ayments t o ward t h e s u ppor t of

t h e ch i l d.

T

. C

. A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 (1)(A )( i ) ( 2 0 0 1 ).

T he releva nt st atute st ates that t erm i na t i o n m ay b e b ase d o n the fo l l o w i ng gro un d s: 6
T h e c h ild ha s b e e n re m o v e d fro m the ho m e o f t h e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n b y o rd e r o f t h e c o u rt fo r a p e rio d o f six (6 ) m o n ths a n d : (i) T h e c o n d iti o n s w h ic h le d t o t h e c h ild ’s re m o v a l o r o the r c o n d iti o n s w h ic h in a ll

r eas onabl e pr ob abi l i t y woul d cau s e t he chi l d t o be s ubj ect ed t o f ur t her abus e or ne gl ect an d whi ch, t her efore, p re v e n t t h e c h ild ’s sa fe r e tur n to the c a re o f t h e p a re n t(s) o r g u a rd ia n (s ), still p e rs ist; ( ii ) T h e re is l itt le like liho o d tha t t h e se c o n d iti o n s w ill b e re m e d ie d a t a n e a rly d a te so tha t t h e c h ild c a n b e sa fely re tur n e d to the p a re n t(s) o r g u a rd ia n (s ) in the n e a r futu re ; a n d ( iii ) T h e c o n tinu a tio n o f th e p a re n t o r g u a rd ia n a n d c h ild

r el at i ons hi p gr eat l y di mi ni s hes t he chi l d’ s ch anc es of ea r l y i nt egr at i on i nt o a s af e, s t abl e a nd per manen t home. T .C .A . § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g )( 3 )( A ) (2 0 0 1 ).


### -6

- judge t h en cited T ennesse e Code Annotated § 36-1-102, w hich def ines aba ndonment as a w illful failure to visit a child for

a period of four months pre ceding the filing of a petition to terminate the pare ntal rig hts. The judge found that Father’s actions clea rly fell within the statutory definition of 5 abandonme nt, which was g rounds for te rmination of par ental rig hts.
As to Mother, the trial judg e first found that Mother “lies whe never it suit s her pur

pose.” The trial judg e ac knowledg ed that M o ther ha d attended the counseling sessions require d by DCS, had visited D.B. a nd sent her letters, and had tried to be with D .B. whene ver she could. How ever , the trial judg e stated that, based o n M other a nd Father’s history and the domestic violenc e that had
occur red only a fe w wee ks befor e the trial, he had no doubt that the domestic abuse w ould continue.

The trial c o u rt found t hat the g rounds for te rmination exi sted pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 36 -1 -1 1 3 (g) (3 )(A), noting that D.B. ha d been r emoved f rom the home for

a period g reater than six months and found that the conditions that led to her r emoval still persisted and we re u n l i k el y t o ch an ge a n d p re v en t ed h ers af e r et u rn t o t h e c ar e o f M o t h er an d Fa t h er

. T h e t ri al j u d ge fo un d th a t th e c on tin uatio n o f the pa re nta l r e la tio ns hip g re a tly dim ini sh e d D .B .’ s c ha nc e of e arl y integ ration into a stable pe rmane nt home. Thus, the j u d ge fo u nd g rounds for te rmination of 6 Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

. Af te r f ind ing g ro un ds , th e tr ia l c ou rt determ inedthat te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts wa s in D.B .’s best interest. The trial judge cited Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 36- 1-113(i)( 1), which state s that the court should consider “[w]hether the pa rent or g uardia n has made such an a djustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or c onditions as to make it sa fe and in the child’s be st interest to be in the home of the pa

rent or g uardia n.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( i)(1). The trial court found that “the pa re nts sti ll d ri nk , th a t alc oh ol i s u se d inthe ho me ; th a t th e pa rt ie s st ill arg ue ; th a t pa

rt ie s st ill c a ll the sh e ri ff ’s de pa

rt me nt c on c e rn ing do me sti c abu se , a ndthe y c e rt a inl y - - t hat ’s no t in the be stT h e no tice o f ap p e a l i n this c a se w a s fil e d b y M o the r o n ly; F a the r is n o t a p a rty to this a p p e a l. 7

G round s fo r t erm i nat i o n of p arent al ri ght s are s et fo rt h i n T enness ee C o d e A nno t at ed § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (g)

. 8


### -7

- int e re st o f the c hil d. ” Pur su a nt t o T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 36 -1 -1 13 (i )( 2) , th e tr ia l c ou rt a lso fo un d th a t th e pa

re nts ha d f

a ile d to e ff

e c t a la sti ng a dju stm e nt a ft e r r e a so na ble e ff orts b y a va ila ble
so c ia l se rv ic e s a g e nc ie s a ndthat la sti ng a dju stm e nt d id n ot a pp e ar p os sib le , n oti ng that de sp ite DC S, Mother had failed to secure suitable housing a part fr om Fathe r. The trial court observed that F ather
a ndMo the r w e re liv ing in G rand mothe r’ s hou se , with no le g a l title , an d th a t F a the r’ s si bli ng s c ou ld forc e them out at any

time. The trial judg e noted that Mother had ma intained contac t with D.B. a nd had esta blished a mea ningf

ul relationship with her, but F ather had not. Emphasizing the f act that Mother had no intent to live apa rt from F ather , the trial court said:

There is no hope for these two parties living toge ther. To put a thr ee- y ear -old bac k in that condition, that would be the wors[t] thing I could possibly

do. . . . * * * I

. . . f indthat [Mo ther] c on tin ue s to liv e in the ho me , c on tin ue s to ha ve do me sti c problems with [Father], r efuse s to le ave the home.

. . . She has stated that she loves [Father]; I

believe that. I

believe that she loves [Fat h er ] m o re t han she love s the child. She’d much rather be with [Father], in the court’s opinion than she ha d to be
w i t h t h e c h i l d

. S o I’ mg i v i n g h e r t h a to p p o r t u n i t y.

B a se d o n th is ana ly sis , t he ju dg e te rm inate d th e pa re nta l r ig hts of

Mo the r andF a the r. F ro m th is jud g me nt, Mo the r n ow app e a ls. 7

On app e a l, M oth e r a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt did no t ha ve c le ar a nd c on vin c ing e vid e nc e to terminate he r par ental rig hts and that DCS did not ma ke rea sonable eff

orts to enable D .B. to re turn home.

The standa

rd of revie w of a trial court’s de cision to terminate par ental rig hts is de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of the c orre ctness of the finding s of fa ct, unless the pre ponderance of the evidenc e is otherwise

. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The trial court’ s conclusions of law a re g iven no such pre sumption of corre ctness. Cam pbel l v. F l

o r ida Steel Corp. , 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996).

Termination of pare ntal rig hts are g overne d by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 36-1- 113(c) (1), which require s the court to f irst f ind g rounds for termination by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e and then determine by

clea r and convincing evidenc e that termination is i n the best intere st of the child. 8 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(c )(1) (2001). In O’Daniel v. Me ssier , 905 S.W .2d 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 95 ), thi s Co urt st a te d th a t
[t]he “ c le ar an d co nv inc ing e vid e nc e ” stand ard de fi e s pre c ise de fi nit ion . Wh ile it i s more exacting than the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standa rd, it does not require

### -8

-

such ce rtainty as the bey ond a re asonable doubt standard. Clea r and c onvincing evidenc e e l i m i n at es an y

s er i o u s o r s u b s t an t i al d o u b tco n ce rn i n g t h e c o rr ec t n es s of the conclusions to be dra wn from t h e ev idence . I t should produce in the f act- finder’ s min d a fi rm be lie f o r c on vic tio n w ith re g ardto the truthof the a lle g a tio ns so ug ht t o be esta blished.

O’Daniel v. Me ssier , 905 S.W .2d 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), superce ded by statute on other grou nd s.

M o t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s n o t p r o v e n i t s c a s e b y c l e ar a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

. In this case, the trial court judg e terminated Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts based on the g rounds of persistent
con di ti on s, pu rsu antto Ten nes see C od e An no tat ed § 36 -1- 11 3 (g)(3 )(A) . M ot her a rgues th at D .B.
was re moved from he r home due to the filthy co n d i tions of the home into which D.B . was born. Mo the r n ot es th at she l e ft thi s h ome a ndmov e d in wi th G rand mothe r a s d ir e c te d b y DC S, s o th is g round is not applicable. T he statute, howeve r, states that g rounds for termination are established not only if the original conditions which led to re moval still exis t, but also if “other c onditions which in all rea sonabl e p ro b ab i l ity would cause the child to be subjec ted to further abuse or neg lect and which, ther efore, pre vent the child’s sa fe r eturn to the c are of the pa rent(s) . . . still persist. . . .” Th e re is ampl e e vid e nc e to s up po rt the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion that Mo the r h a d faile d to e sta bli sh
a home and financ ial stability apart f rom Father, a nd that so long a s Mother and F ather wer e re siding toge ther ther e would be drinking a nd domestic problems in the home. Clearly this precludes the safe return of D.B . to their ca

re.
Mother a s s erts that she c ompleted the permanenc y plan. Clearly

Mother made signific ant eff orts and in fa ct completed portions of the pl an’s requireme nts. Howeve r, t he trial court noted that Mo the r f a ile d to com pl ete sig nif ic a nt p ortio ns of

the pe rm a ne nc y

plan, mos t no ta

bly tho se a dd re ssi ng the do me sti c abu se iss ue . T he e vid e nc e c le arl y su pp orts the fi nd ing that do me sti c abu se sti ll c on tin ue s thr e e y e ars a ft e r D. B . wa s tak e n into state c us tod y

. As su c h, we fi ndno e rr or on thi s issue.

Mother asse rts the DCS did not make re asonable eff orts to return the c hild to the home, as require d by

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 37-1- 166. Specifica lly , Mother ar g ues that DCS did not make a rea sonable e ffort to relocate her . The re cord shows that DCS relocated Mothe r to her ow n ho me a ndpa id r e nt f

or on e mon th andthe uti lit y de po sit s. Aft er th is , Mothe r r e turne d to Gra ndmother’s house to live with F ather . DCS then sugg ested that Mother move to Missouri and live with he r mother. Mother claimed that there was not enoug h room for he r in Missouri. Howeve r, the trial court judge did not believe Mother’ s assertion, fi n d i ng that she “lies whe never the opportunity

should present itself.” The trial court’s c redibility determination and its factual f inding
are well supported by the evidence. Under all of t hese circumstanc es, we must conclude that the trial court did not e rr in f

inding by clea

r and convincing evidenc e that g rounds for te rminating Mother’s pare ntal rig hts ex isted and that such termination was in D.B.’ s best interest.

### -9

-

Th e de c isi on of

the tr ia l c ou rt

is a ff ir me d. Cos ts o f this a

pp e a l are ta xedto A pp e lla nt, R a m o n a B o k a n , f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e , i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE