IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 7, 2016

IN RE: A’LEAH M., ET AL.

 Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County

No. 127109 Tim Irwin, Judge

No. E2015-01234-COA-R3-PT-FILED-FEBRUARY 23, 2016

Tanisha M. (“Mother”) appeals the order of the Juvenile Court for Knox County 

(“Juvenile Court”) terminating her parental rights to the minor children A‟Leah M. (“the 

Older Child”) and Sh Myah M. (“the Younger Child” or collectively “the Children”) for 

abandonment by willful failure to pay child support pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-

113(g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), for failure to comply with a

permanency plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2), and for persistent 

conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3). We find and hold that the 

evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the Juvenile Court made by clear 

and convincing evidence that grounds were proven to terminate Mother‟s parental rights 

to the Children and that it was in the Children‟s best interest for Mother‟s parental rights 

to be terminated. We, therefore, affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed

Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W.

MCCLARTY and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ., joined.

Robin Gunn, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tanisha M.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Kathryn A. Baker, Assistant 

Attorney General for the appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Children‟s Services.
2

OPINION

Background

The Children were removed from Mother‟s custody for the second time in March 

of 2012 by order of the Juvenile Court and have been in foster care continuously since 

that time. The State of Tennessee Department of Children‟s Services (“DCS”) filed its 

petition seeking to terminate Mother‟s parental rights to the Children on January 22, 

2015. The case proceeded to trial in May of 2015.

Terrie Delp, the DCS case manager assigned to the Children‟s case, testified at 

trial. Ms. Delp has been the case manager on this case since May of 2012. Ms. Delp 

explained that the Children being removed from Mother‟s custody and placed in foster 

care in March of 2012 was the second time they had entered foster care. The first time 

the Children were placed in foster care was in September of 2011 due to allegations of 

physical abuse of one of the Children. Ms. Delp testified that the Children ran away from 

home and reported that Mother had hit one of the Children several times in the face and 

had kicked her. The Children reported that Mother had woken them up around one 

o‟clock in the morning because they had failed to clean their room and became upset 

because one of the Children had wet the bed. 

An initial permanency plan (“Permanency Plan”) for the Children was developed 

in October of 2011. Initially, the Children were placed with their maternal grandparents 

on a trial home placement. The grandparents, however, violated the court order and 

allowed Mother to have unsupervised contact with the Children. Ms. Delp testified that 

the Children also reported that grandmother and Mother were “whipping” them during 

that time period.

The Children were taken back into foster care in March of 2012. Another

Permanency Plan1 was developed in June of 2012. Ms. Delp testified that Mother‟s

responsibilities were substantially the same each time the Permanency Plan was revised. 

Ms. Delp also stated that Mother was present each time the Permanency Plan was 

reviewed in the court room. 

Under the Permanency Plan, Mother was required to address her mental health 

issues and substance abuse issues. Ms. Delp testified that Mother completed a mental 

health assessment in April of 2014. DCS paid for that assessment. The 

recommendations of Mother‟s mental health assessment were individual therapy, 

 

1

The evidence in the record on appeal shows that although the permanency plan was updated several 

times, Mother‟s responsibilities remained essentially the same with each revision. As such, we refer in 

this Opinion to the „Permanency Plan‟ in the singular for ease of reading.
3

medication management, and case management. Ms. Delp testified that the individual 

therapy was available to Mother because DCS paid for it. Mother began therapy in June 

of 2014, but did not complete the therapy. She attended one of three appointments 

scheduled in June, attended one in July, failed to attend any appointments in August, and 

was discharged in September for noncompliance.

Mother had an A&D assessment in 2012. During that assessment Mother reported 

substance abuse issues with marijuana. The assessment recommended individual 

therapy, medication management, and random drug screens. Mother did not comply with 

these recommendations and did not cease using marijuana. Mother had another 

assessment done in June of 2013 with similar results of marijuana dependence and

similar recommendations.

Ms. Delp testified that Mother had a clean drug screen in November of 2012. 

DCS started unsupervised visits at that time. Mother then failed a random drug screen in 

December. DCS requested the December drug screen because they had planned to give 

Mother a week of unsupervised visitation for Christmas. Mother had a clean drug screen 

in August of 2014, but Ms. Delp testified that “the drug screen was questionable because 

the urine was so clear that - - we couldn‟t get another drug screen after that.” DCS 

requested another drug screen approximately five days prior to trial. Mother could not 

give a urine screen, so an oral swab was done. Mother told Ms. Delp that she expected 

this test to be positive because Mother had smoked marijuana six weeks prior to the test.

Mother did complete a parenting class and had intercept services through Youth 

Villages from late 2012 until January of 2015. Mother also has had supervised visitation. 

Ms. Delp testified that Mother has not had unsupervised visitation since the fall of 2012 

because she has not had a clean drug screen and because DCS still has concerns with her 

parenting skills and the way she interacts with the Children. Ms. Delp was asked for 

examples, and she stated:

One of the examples is, there was a visit at the park this past summer, 

approximately around July 2014, where the worker had to intervene 

because mom was cussing and yelling at [the Younger Child]. We‟ve had 

visits where mom and the aunt have been very inappropriate, talking about 

the foster mom, at that visit referred to [the Older Child‟s] clothing as she 

looked like a slut. We‟ve also had visits where mom just doesn‟t interact

very much with [the Younger Child].

Ms. Delp testified that Mother treats the two Children “[v]ery different.” Ms. 

Delp stated:
4

For example, one visit at the Department, mom was late for the visit, we 

were standing in the lobby, I was actually present for that visit. [The 

Younger Child] was very excited to see mom, went through the double 

doors, held the door open for her. Mom walked right past her to [the Older 

Child], hugged [the Older Child], handed [the Older Child] the pizza and 

sat down.

We have witnessed that time and time again at the visits. She just 

doesn‟t engage [the Younger Child], where she very much engages [the

Older Child] to the point that sometimes [the Younger Child] is standing in 

the background waiting for a hug, and it never happens.

When asked how this type of behavior affects the Children, Ms. Delp stated:

The girls‟ behavior over the last several years have [sic] just spiraled out of 

control. Sometimes they are stable and sometimes they are just - - I don‟t 

know how to describe them. A lot of it revolves around, especially for [the 

Younger Child], when mom doesn‟t show for visits or when she doesn‟t 

show for CFTMs. We anticipate that the next week at school or in therapy 

or even in the foster home that we‟re going to have some form of acting 

out, some form of behaviors.

Ms. Delp testified that Mother visits the Children, but not consistently. Ms. Delp 

explained:

Since our last court date in February, just because of mom‟s reaction to the 

termination petition, we decided that as a team it would be best to have a 

set schedule for visitation and to move them back to the DCS office. Visits 

are also [every other week] for two hours. Since our last court date in 

February, mom‟s either cancelled or no-showed or rescheduled all of the 

visits. And what we have right now is she visited twice in February, she 

visited once in March, no visits in April, and she did contact me in April 

and asked me to change the visits to Saturday after she had cancelled a 

visit. And we did work diligently between myself and Youth Villages to 

make sure that we scheduled three visits in May on a Saturday. . . . She did 

make those visits.

Ms. Delp testified about the last visit in May stating: 

The last visit was a little concerning because mom informed both girls that 

the fathers‟ rights had been terminated and that they didn‟t care about them 
5

and they were no longer involved in their life and they never would be a 

part of their life. It was very upsetting for [the Younger Child].

Ms. Delp has had contact with both fathers, and she testified that Mother‟s 

statements were untrue. Both of the Children‟s biological fathers reside in North 

Carolina. Ms. Delp testified about what she did after Mother made the statements to the 

Children stating:

What I did is I informed the foster mom, I gave her [the Younger Child‟s] 

father‟s contact, and when we or she felt that it was best for [the Younger 

Child] to make that contact, we were going to allow that to happen, because 

when I made contact with him, he informed me that he wanted to have 

contact with her and he wanted to see her, he just wasn‟t in the place that he 

could care for her at this point in time.

The Younger Child‟s father has children in Africa, and he is in and out of the country.

Ms. Delp testified that Mother reported that she was working at JFG second shift. 

She also stated that Mother has worked in the past. Mother was making child support 

payments through May of 2014 on the Older Child and through August of 2013 on the 

Younger Child.

Ms. Delp testified that the Children were in a prospective adoptive home, where 

they have been for over two years. When asked about behavior problems exhibited by 

the Children, Ms. Delp stated: “Behaviors range from being physically aggressive, 

verbally aggressive, disruptive at school, aggressive with teachers at school, ran away 

one time but just to the neighbor‟s house, was able to locate them rather quickly. They 

are just - - they steal, they lie. There‟s a lot.” Ms. Delp testified that despite the behavior 

problems the foster mom still wants to keep the Children.

Ms. Delp testified that the behavior problems often appear in conjunction with 

something going on with Mother. Ms. Delp testified that at the most recent Child and 

Family Team meeting Mother failed to show, and the Younger Child “became very 

agitated, was . . . just angry that mom wasn‟t there, and her response was if she don‟t 

care, why should I care.” On one occasion when Mother did not participate in visitation 

the Younger Child “got in trouble at school, she tore the principal‟s office up, she had 

wrote some stuff on the desk, and the school had to call, not only her worker, but [also 

the foster mom], trying to get her to deescalate, and the worker finally had to come to the 

school to get her on that day.” 
6

Ms. Delp testified that the Older Child “seems to control her behaviors somewhat 

a little better now. But she was asked to leave Austin East High School, she was expelled 

there, and they put her in the Richard Yoakley night school program where she has also 

been asked to leave just because of the aggressive and disruptive behaviors.”

Ms. Delp testified that Mother claims she has not accomplished her goals because 

she lacks funding and insurance. Ms. Delp testified, however, that although DCS 

completed referrals for Mother for A&D and has paid for individual counseling, Mother 

has not followed through. With regard to why the Children are in foster care, Mother 

claims that the Children are not telling the truth about the situation, and she denies that it 

happened. Ms. Delp testified that Mother has continuously denied physically abusing the 

Children. 

Ms. Delp testified that the Younger Child would like to be reunited with Mother. 

The Older Child has not expressed the same wish. Ms. Delp testified that the Older Child 

has stated that she does not believe that Mother has changed and that she does not feel 

she would be safe in Mother‟s house. Ms. Delp testified:

I think as the case manager that‟s been on this case for a very long time, 

that these girls need stability and they need permanency. We see very 

much when mom is not involved how the behaviors are, and both the girls 

have said in the past through therapy, through Youth Villages, to myself 

that they just want to know - - they just want something permanent, they 

want something stable, they want to konw [sic] where they‟re going to lay

their head at every night.

With regard to Mother‟s responsibilities, Ms. Delp testified that Mother has not 

shown a valid driver‟s license, car insurance, or a legal source of transportation; that 

Mother needs to complete individual therapy; that Mother needs to demonstrate parenting 

skills learned in parenting class; and that Mother needs to have clean drug screens. 

Mother was drug screened on September 19, 2014 and the test was positive for THC. 

Mother failed to come in for a drug screen in December of 2014. Ms. Delp stated that 

Mother reports smoking marijuana because of the Children‟s behaviors. Mother 

completed parenting class, but has failed to demonstrate skills during visits. Ms. Delp 

testified that Mother does have housing. Ms. Delp testified: 

These girls have been through a lot of trauma and a lot of physical abuse, 

and to be in visits, for mom to make them cry during visits, make them cry 

before court because she‟s downgrading them and telling them they‟re not 

doing what they need to do to get home, is not a good situation for these 

girls.
7

Ms. Delp testified that the rights of the Older Child‟s biological father have been 

terminated, and that termination proceedings were pending against the Older Child‟s 

legal father. Termination proceedings also were pending against the Younger Child‟s 

father.

Ms. Delp testified that the Children are “pretty much stable in the [foster] home.” 

She stated that there was one occasion where the Older Child failed to come home one 

night for several hours and one occasion where the Younger Child ran away to a

neighbor‟s house, but Ms. Delp stated that the Children were “more stable now than they 

ever have been in the foster home.” Ms. Delp testified that the foster mom provides a lot 

of structure for the Children. Ms. Delp testified that she does not believe it would be safe 

for the Children to be returned to Mother‟s care at this time “[b]ecause we still have the 

behaviors with the girls that mom says that she smokes the marijuana for, to control the 

stress, because of the girls‟ behaviors.” 

Hannah Falls, who works with the Youth Villages Intercept Program doing child 

and family therapy in-home and working with transition cases to prepare parents for 

children to come home, testified at trial. Ms. Falls worked on this case from March of 

2014 through February of 2015. She supervised visits and met with Mother to prepare 

for the Children to come home and to help Mother satisfy her requirements under the 

Permanency Plan.

Ms. Falls testified that there were times when she was unable to reach Mother to 

schedule visitation. When asked how many visits Mother did not have, Ms. Falls stated: 

“There were six that were not scheduled due to me not being able to contact her, and then 

two were cancelled by her, two were cancelled by the kids and one was cancelled by the 

on-call counselor.” Ms. Falls testified that two visits were cancelled because the 

Children wouldn‟t come and that for several visits the Older Child refused to come. 

Ms. Falls testified that they worked on interaction and redirection when needed

during the visits. When asked if she had observed verbal interactions that were 

inappropriate Ms. Falls stated: 

Yes. The incident referred to earlier at the park where mom just - - I was 

concerned about the way that she addressed the behaviors and it just kind of 

- - she was addressing them appropriately, and then she just kind of 

snapped, I guess, and just started yelling and cursing at [the Younger 

Child]. 
8

Ms. Falls testified that Mother was “a lot more engaged with [the Older Child]. There 

were times when [the Younger Child] was doing things to try to get her attention, and it 

was sometimes ignored.” 

Ms. Falls testified that she has talked to Mother about her marijuana use and that

they made a relapse prevention plan, but Mother still is using. Mother tells Ms. Falls that 

she uses marijuana due to “[s]tress. When the kids were there, stress from the behaviors 

and just the stress from not having them once they were gone.” Ms. Falls talked with 

Mother about other ways of dealing with stress. When asked if Mother was cooperative 

Ms. Falls stated: 

Yes. When we were able to meet, she seemed very motivated to make the 

changes. We would make lists of the things that she needed to do. The 

breakdown would just usually come afterwards, with the follow-through or 

consistently meeting so we could check up on the follow through.

The Younger Child, who was twelve years old at that time, testified at trial. She

stated that she loves Mother, and she would want to live with her if she had the choice. If 

she cannot go home with Mother, the Younger Child is willing to stay with the foster 

mom. The Younger Child explained that the foster mom‟s household includes the foster 

mom‟s 14 year old son, 19 year old son, 12 year old niece, and 17 year old nephew plus 

herself and her sister, who is 14. The Younger Child testified that she shares a room with 

her sister, and they each have their own bed. When asked how the court would know that 

the abuse would not happen again if she went back to Mother the Younger Child stated: 

“She‟s trying a little bit.”

The Older Child, who was fourteen years old at the time of trial, testified that 

during one visit Mother and Mother‟s sister called her “a ho‟ and a slut.” The Older 

Child also testified about the night the Children came into custody, and stated that 

Mother hit the Younger Child in the mouth with a fist and that Mother hit the Older Child 

in the face with a fist. The Older Child was asked how she felt when Mother denied that 

this happened, and she stated: “It makes me feel angry because it feels like she‟s saying 

that she wants her kids back but she‟s still lying about some things that she could just 

apologize for it, would probably be better.” The Older Child testified that she wants to 

remain with the foster mom. When asked if she thought it would be dangerous to return 

to Mother‟s home, the Older Child stated: 

Yes, sometimes I think about it at times when she gets angry, like from the 

beginning I think it‟ll be fine because there‟s people around, but once the 

people are gone, I feel like she‟s going to get angry at the fact that we lied 

or I feel like she‟s going to get angry at the fact that [the Younger Child], 
9

she might still wet the bed now, so I feel like she‟ll probably get angry and 

stuff that makes Mom, because Mom has a bad temper at times.

When asked how Mother does at the visits, the Older Child stated: “Lately she‟s been 

doing pretty good, ‟cause my granny and my uncle have been there, but she‟s been doing 

pretty good, but . . . .”

Allison Anderson, a supervisor for foster care at Youth Villages, testified at trial. 

Ms. Anderson has worked on this case since November of 2014, and she supervises the 

counselor who works one-on-one with each of the Children. Ms. Anderson testified that 

she discusses this case weekly with the counselor and others. 

When asked what issues Youth Villages is working on with the Children, Ms. 

Anderson stated: “We are working on the physical and verbal aggression. [The Younger 

Child‟s] physical aggression, her most recent was at school, I believe it was last week, 

and she became physically aggressive with three of her teachers. It took three teachers to 

calm her down.” Ms. Anderson explained that they are trying to get the Younger Child 

an IEP certified for emotional disturbance, which is why she has not been expelled to 

date. The Younger Child attends Ridgedale, which is a special school for children with 

learning disabilities. Ms. Anderson testified that the Younger Child is smart and receives 

grades of A‟s and B‟s, but has behavior problems. She further explained:

The verbal aggression is a lot of name calling. It‟s a lot of racial slurs that 

she uses. She will call herself names, she will call her sister names, she 

will call, you know, peers and teachers names. Her last incident at school 

she said, My [sic] mom is going to come up here and beat you. And that 

was right after their visit.

With regard to the Older Child Ms. Anderson testified:

[W]e‟re working on her school behaviors, a lot of just her behaviors that 

got her thrown out of Austin East where she was skipping class, just a lot of 

defiance toward public figures, authority figures. She wasn‟t going to the 

right classes that she was supposed to go to, she was really just disrupting 

the classes. And a lot of it is trying to get attention.

Ms. Anderson testified that a time-line of behaviors in relation to visitations was 

created, and it has been determined that the behavior problems occur after cancelled visits 

or when Mother does not show, or if there are interactions with family members between 

visits. Ms. Anderson testified that there is stability during the time periods between 

visits. Ms. Anderson stated that “both [of the Children] seek attention, positive or neglect 
10

[sic], and they‟ve found that the negative attention - - or that negative behaviors get them 

attention, so that‟s their go-to behavior when they feel like they‟re not being heard or 

getting what they need.” These behaviors occur more at school than at home. 

Ms. Anderson testified that the Older Child “said that she wanted to be able to tell 

the Judge that she didn‟t want to move home, and she had also said that if she did move 

home, she was going to be devious.” Ms. Anderson testified that the Older Child actually 

had used the word „devious,‟ and that the child “said that she knew she couldn‟t be good 

there and she would try to get out of there as quickly as possible.” 

Ms. Anderson testified that Mother and Mother‟s twin sister attended a school 

meeting with regard to the Older Child and that both Mother and her sister “were both 

yelling. It was - - yes, very chaotic.” When asked what Mother said, Ms. Anderson 

testified: “It was just a lot of blaming, saying „you people‟. I don‟t remember specific 

remarks, but it was just a lot of hostility about DCS and Youth Villages, what wasn‟t 

being done for her.” Ms. Anderson stated that Mother‟s sister “looked at [the Older 

Child] and told her that she had demons in her, that she could see the demons, and she 

started praying, and then she started, you know, saying, well, I can see why you do this. 

It was still the blaming and yelling.” When asked, Ms. Anderson stated that she could 

distinguish what Mother said from what Mother‟s twin sister said. 

Steven Wilbert, the regional supervisor for Youth Villages Foster Care and 

Adoptions, testified. Mr. Wilbert oversees the supervisors and front-line staff to ensure 

that children are being taken care of properly. Youth Villages has been providing 

services in this case since April 2, 2012, and Mr. Wilbert has been on the case since May 

of 2013. Mr. Wilbert testified that he was a clinical supervisor on the case and that he 

“sat in group and consult, organized visitation for the girls, responded to some calls and 

residual behaviors in visitation and contact with mom.” Youth Villages provides 

individual therapy for the Children once a week and also facilitates medical 

appointments, provides on-call services, and makes sure the Children‟s needs are being 

met. Mr. Wilbert has not worked with Mother.

Youth Villages also responds to calls from the foster mom. Mr. Wilbert stated that 

a lot of the calls they get are due to behaviors at school. He stated that they also got a call 

when one of the children ran away one night. The calls have been consistent since April 

of 2012.

Mr. Wilbert testified that the foster mom has passed the training certified through 

Youth Villages and that she attends support groups and fifteen hours of training 

certification per year. Mr. Wilbert stated that the foster mom has “been trained for level 

three placements, and this entails safety planning, follow through with clinical 
11

interventions that my staff implement, deescalation [sic] plans, exit way plans, 

physiological responses to emotions, subscales, and then behavioral plans, those types of 

things.” Mr. Wilbert testified that the foster mom generally is able to handle the Children 

without assistance.

The Children were in two other foster homes prior to entering the current one. Mr. 

Wilbert testified that they exhibited the same types of behaviors in those foster homes 

that they exhibit in the current foster home. When asked if the Children‟s behaviors have 

improved, Mr. Wilbert stated:

Yes. . . . [Both Children] still struggle with the deescalation [sic] 

techniques. They have - - you know, I‟m not going to say they don‟t have 

issues in the home, but the way that they‟re implemented through - - their 

deescalation [sic] has improved tremendously in the home setting, they‟ve 

really bonded, they have found a bond with their treatment mother, I think 

that has spoken to the progress that they‟ve made. They are able to 

communicate more their needs, they‟re open in therapy, I think their trust 

has increased. So they have shown increased stability in the home setting. 

It‟s just wrapping that around with the school. . . . They‟re able to 

communicate when they‟re upset and frustrated, they‟re not resorting to 

physical aggression every time that they‟re escalated, which that‟s a small 

step, but it‟s a big step for them. I think the biggest thing that I‟ve seen the 

girls transpire over this case is just their ability to communicate in an 

effective way, so that‟s really increased for them.

Mother testified at trial and was asked why the Children were in foster care. She 

responded: “Allegations of abuse. . . . They alleged abuse. . . . My children said that I 

abused them. . . . They said that I hit them.” When asked what the Children were hit 

with Mother stated: “My fist, I guess. I‟ve heard a lot of different stories.” Mother 

admitted that the agency in North Carolina was concerned with Mother due to her 

marijuana use, and the agency here in Tennessee was involved with Mother for 

approximately a year prior to the removal of the Children. Mother stated: “I did spank 

[the Older Child] that morning, I spanked her and [the Younger Child] that morning. 

They were fighting each other and they was not listening to me, so I did spank them.” 

Mother was asked about bruises that the Older Child had on her eye, the left side of her 

face, and her left thigh, and she stated:

I do recall that. Just as I told my first counselor, and I‟ve had witnesses on 

that, she was outside fighting that evening, just like that day that that 

happened with them, she was fighting that evening a little girl that she went 

to the building around the corner where I had them going, Christenberry, 
12

where I stayed at. They went to school there - - well, not really school, but 

programs there when they were out of school during the summer. And 

that‟s when that occurred, and I was aware of that. I stopped her that 

evening for fighting, she was fighting a little girl and a little boy actually in 

the streets. Yes.

Mother denied being responsible for any of the Children‟s bruises and denied 

whipping the Older Child with a belt. Mother also denied responsibility for the Younger 

Child‟s busted lip and bruises on her head. Mother denied hitting or kicking the 

Children. Mother was asked about the bruises and injuries the Children had when they 

came into custody, and she stated the source was: “Them fighting each other. I did not 

do anything to my kids. I did admit I yelled, I screamed, I was upset but they were 

fighting already when I stopped them from fighting. I ran upstairs to stop them from 

fighting, they was slapping and beating on each other.” Mother denied ever striking the 

Children.

 

Mother was asked if she woke the Children in the middle of the night, and she 

stated:

I woke them up - - actually I woke my babies up because we had watched a 

movie that night, and I usually check to make sure that their room is 

cleaned. I didn‟t that night, I took them at their word. They had been 

fighting all day. We sat up a little bit, about close to midnight, and I sent 

them to bed. When I went to check, because I was still up, I went to check 

on them, I did wake my babies up and I asked them what did I ask them to 

do. They told me they were supposed to clean up. I told them - - they was 

getting out of the bed, I told them they don‟t have to do it right now, I will 

wake them up bright and early at six o‟clock in the morning, is what I told 

them, and they can clean the whole house. That‟s exactly what I told them. 

And I woke up that morning, they were gone.

When asked again about the night she woke the Children, Mother stated:

I woke them up. Like I said, I watched a movie with them and I didn‟t 

check to see if their room was clean, I just took them at their word. Later 

on that night when I decided to go to bed, I checked in and the room was 

dirty and I woke them up. And I told them that in the morning I was going 

to get them up at 6:00 o‟clock in morning and they were going to deep 

clean the whole house, top to bottom, and I was just going to sit there and 

watch them. I did say that. And I went back to bed.
13

When I got up it was like three something, they were up and I put 

them back to bed. They was trying to clean up and I told them to lay back 

down. I‟d get them up at - - I said get your ass up ‟cause I‟m getting you 

up in three hours for you to deep clean. And I woke up and they weren‟t 

there.

Mother insisted that the Children had lied when they alleged abuse. Mother 

stated:

I didn‟t know all of this was going to happen. That day they had been 

physically fist fighting all that day, all that night, and I tried to stop it the 

best I could. I asked them not to fight, I asked them to stop it. They 

wouldn‟t. I even had a witness at the house with me that broke up their 

fights, even told them when they took me downtown to the Justice Center, 

the person even told them that he was the one to intervene on the fight, that 

I did not. But nobody listens, nobody listened, and here I am today.

Mother testified that she has had problems with the Older Child since the Older 

Child was two years old. Mother stated that the Older Child “got kicked out of every 

school, very disruptive,” and that this started when the child was in kindergarten. She 

stated that the Older Child “has fabricated a lot of lies on me throughout the years, even 

before I got to Tennessee. I have even sent her to counseling to understand why. I‟ve 

never gotten an answer. They all told me she was normal.” Mother was asked what 

kinds of lies the Older Child told, and she stated that the Older Child told people that 

Mother did not feed her and that she was starving. Mother also stated that the Older 

Child would “cuss out teachers, tell the teachers that I said for her to do it.” Mother 

stated that she would 

have to constantly fuss and raise my voice with [the Older Child] for not 

going to school, doing right, for stealing iPhones, for stealing money, for 

stealing wallets, spitting in teachers‟ faces, cutting hair, just anything. And 

I guess it kind of rubbed off where when [the Younger Child] started going 

to school, doing the same things that I never thought that she would do 

because she was a straight A student.

Mother stated that the Younger Child only began acting out in 2010.

Mother was asked if the Children were in foster care because they told lies, and 

she stated:
14

Well, I agree with that. If I could take that day back, I would, but I can‟t. I 

did not - - I just wish I had paid better close attention to them, not let them 

fight each other, because I didn‟t put my hands on my children that day. I 

tell the same story I‟ve been telling for four years. My story has never 

changed, and it never will.

Mother was asked why the Children still were in foster care, and she stated:

That has a lot somewhat to do with me, and my ways, of my dependency, 

when I was on marijuana. But I don‟t completely fault all of that to myself 

either. I had a late start, like I said, with my case. My kids was in custody 

over a year before DCS even paid me any attention, even got me parenting 

classes, even got me anything that I needed.

I remember my first court case, the Judge ordered random drug tests 

every week. Never saw a case worker for a year. Like I said, I did 

complete the parenting classes. A year after they was in custody is when 

they sent me, I did complete that. A lot of the times, like when I went to 

therapy, I asked them if they would give me group therapy with my 

children. They did after a year and a half, they did.

And with that, my kids told the counselor that, you know, they felt 

bad for lying on me, and the counselor did look me in my face and said 

some ridiculous things to be a counselor towards me, and after that one day, 

I never even went back to counseling with my children or anything.

I do the best that I can, and to me every 14 days for two hours, how 

can you express what you have learned in counseling when you don‟t have 

the time? I do the best I can. I just want my children to learn not to lie so 

much; lies are costly. And it‟s been hard on me for four years, it really has, 

and I‟m sure just as much as it‟s been hard on them. I don‟t take them out 

of the equation. I know this has been hard on them. It‟s been hard on me 

as well.

Mother testified that the last time she used marijuana was “about six weeks” prior 

to trial. Mother admitted that over two years prior to trial, in February of 2013, the court 

found that she needed to stop using marijuana, complete the recommended treatment, 

pass drug screens, and develop an alternate method of coping with disappointment. 

Mother then stated that the court also “issued weekly drug tests that DCS never did.” 

Mother was told that the order from February of 2013 said nothing about weekly drug 

tests. Mother then stated: “It was, he ordered random drug tests. My very first court date 
15

he ordered random drug tests.” Mother then was reminded that her first court date was 

years prior to February of 2013, and she stated: 

I know. What I‟m saying is we all have a part in this. I accept my flaws. I 

have been clean at times, a lot of times, but I was never getting tested then. 

So I can‟t speak on that because that would be irrelevant. I have had my 

moments, like I say, a lot of the times when my children - - well, it was 

never both my kids, just one usually refused visits or I had family things 

going on.

My last incident from my counseling was because I had to go to 

North Carolina because my aunt died. She recently passed and we was up 

and down the road actually six months of that time. Now that everything is 

out of the way, I‟m okay, you know, I just want my counseling back, which 

I‟ve talked with Terrie, Solution Source does not offer medication, so could 

you change that. I will have go to back to Helen Ross McNabb because 

Solution Source does not offer medicine.

An order entered in February 2014 found that Mother continued to use marijuana, 

failed the drug screen at court, and had been missing visits which was upsetting to the 

Children. An order entered in January of 2015 found that Mother continued to use 

marijuana, had been discharged from treatment for noncompliance, and was visiting only 

sporadically. Mother was asked about the fact that she still was using marijuana, and she 

stated:

Because then I was using - - in the beginning I was using marijuana a lot. 

My marijuana use has slowed up. It just so happened that I might at the 

time have been, in the past, smoking, then two weeks later there comes a 

drug test. Well, I haven‟t done that for nine months, I don‟t hear or see 

neither one of you.

When asked why the Older Child did not want to visit with her, Mother stated:

Sometimes I‟ve noticed that when [the Older Child] does something wrong 

or she doesn‟t want to hear my mouth, she won‟t. I feel like when you give 

kids the right to do what they want at a young age, they‟re going to do that. 

If you tell a child, oh, you will have to go to this, what do think [sic] they‟re 

going to do? They‟re not going to do it.

So I feel like it‟s wrong to tell a child that it‟s okay to not visit 

because I can‟t get that time back. Four years is already gone, and it makes 
16

me feel worse everyday because what can I do? I try the best I can do. I 

don‟t know all the time about [the Older Child‟s] visits. Like I said, she 

hasn‟t always had one of those moments. I try, I try to reach out to her to 

see exactly where did I go wrong at. And, like I say, I hear different things 

every time.

You all tell me she don‟t want to come home. That‟s not what she 

was saying on Saturdays [sic] visits, so I can‟t - - like I say, if those ain‟t 

lies, I don‟t know what is. She tells you one thing. I can‟t prove she said it 

or didn‟t say, just like you can‟t prove if she said thing to me that she did or 

didn‟t say. She tells me she wants to come home, but she still would like to 

visit with [the foster mom]. But here in the courtroom you‟re telling me 

she says she don‟t want to come. So like I said, I don‟t know what to 

believe because when she sees me is one story, when she sees you all it‟s 

another.

Mother insisted that she never told her daughter that she was dressed like a slut or 

a whore. Mother stated that her twin sister did that and that Mother defended her child 

and the foster mom. Mother stated: 

I don‟t know what prompted her to talk to [the Older Child] like that but I 

did defend my child and [the foster mom]. I told my sister that I don‟t care 

what she might‟ve heard about [the foster mom], I had never heard 

anything bad about [the foster mom]. I liked her. I told her not to talk to 

my child. It actually became an argument between me and my sister after 

we left that visit. My sister hasn‟t visited any more since then. 

Mother admitted that she thinks the foster mom is “a God send,” and that she thinks the 

Children are being treated well by the foster mom.

Mother testified that she was employed at JFG working second shift and had been 

for approximately a month and a half. Mother testified that prior to that, Mother worked 

at McDonald‟s for over two years.

Mother insisted everything now was different. When asked what was different 

Mother stated:

What you have to realize is this, it was a whole big issue, you can‟t see that, 

you only see me when you come to court. It‟s a whole bigger issues than 

what it used to be in the beginning. I used to smoke all the time, all the 

time, all the time. I don‟t do that anymore. Yes, there are moments where 
17

marijuana is still in my system, but it‟s not like it was. I couldn‟t do 

nothing, I couldn‟t function unless I had some marijuana, and I can do that 

now, I guess a lot that I can do. It‟s just that I don‟t have the time to 

display it, I can‟t show you everything in two hours.

My home is loving, I care about my kids, I‟m a totally different 

person. I just want to be able to show my kids that I‟m a good person, I‟m 

a good mother. I felt like I was taken for granted because a lot of issues 

came from basically when I couldn‟t buy them what they wanted. They 

always want cell phones. I couldn‟t buy a cell phone, they‟d go out and 

steal one. I can‟t give you an extra $20 this week, they‟d go out and steal 

it. So, I mean, I‟m just hoping that some of those issues that they have had 

has subsided also.

When asked how things would be different now, Mother stated: “It would be a lot 

different. I have a lot of love to give.” Mother then was asked if that was different, and 

she stated:

Yes, a lot of – I‟ve learned how to cope during my process of through my 

hurt, through my rejection, I‟ve learned how to talk better with my children. 

I‟ve learned how to accept things, how to come to terms with things. I‟ve 

accepted and learned a lot during my therapy sessions and I feel like I 

would be a better mom. I was never a bad mom but there‟s a lot that I have 

learned through this work in process and that‟s a lot. And one thing that 

I‟ve overall learned was patience. . . . I was dealing with a lot with the 

kids. I had to learn patience on their understanding, their needs, just a lot 

of, you know, conversation, understanding where they were coming from. 

Some things that you might just push to the side, you know, you listen to 

them. It goes to pass, I‟ve learned how to savor every word, understand 

better because I had to be alone for four years. So I have learned a lot of 

patience.

Mother was asked if she saw a difference in the Children‟s behavior, and she stated that 

she had “noticed maturity in my children.” 

Mother was asked what she thought she still had to do, and she stated:

I still have to be strong when it comes down to temptation of marijuana at 

times. I feel I have to be stronger for my children, which I think I have. 

It‟s always, as long as your kids there [sic], there‟s always strength and to 
18

better yourself and I‟m willing to continue - - to continue to better myself. 

I don‟t want to give up and I‟m not going to.

Even when they come home, if and when they come home, I‟m still 

going to continue therapy, I‟m still going to keep trying to better myself, 

I‟m still going to keep bettering myself as a mother for them. I‟m not going 

to quit.

Mother testified that she believed she had “completed everything on what I was supposed 

to be doing except for that every now and then, marijuana use.” Mother admitted that the 

drug test done on May 15, 2015 was positive for marijuana. Mother was asked why the 

Children remained in foster care, and she stated it was because of her marijuana use. 

Mother was asked if that was the only reason, and she stated:

To me, yeah. I tried to do everything that I know to do. Like I said, I have 

services and they got stopped. All this has not just been my fault. I take 

my responsibility in the things that I have done. And I think that I have 

done a lot to prove to myself and to my kids, I have done right things 

regardless of what some downfalls may look like, I feel like I have done 

good.

The Children‟s foster mom (“Foster Mom”) testified that the Children have lived 

with her since November 5, 2012. Foster Mom‟s household consists of her, her son who 

is 14 years old, her nephew who is 17 years old, her niece who is 12 years old, and the 

Children. Foster Mom testified that her niece and nephew‟s mother died, so they live 

with her.

Foster Mom was asked if the Children‟s behavior has changed, and she stated: 

“Not much. But the fighting has gotten a little better, but other than the other behaviors, 

we‟re still working on that but it‟s still - - the behaviors are still there.” Foster Mom

testified that the Children told her they had lied about the night they came into custody,

and she made them tell the therapist. She stated that they told her that Mother “did bust 

[the Younger Child‟s] lip, but that everything else was a lie.” 

Foster Mom testified that the Older Child got kicked out of high school for failing 

to attend class and then got kicked out of alternative school for not following school 

rules. The school did not tell Foster Mom which rules the Older Child failed to follow. 

Foster Mom testified that the Younger Child has been put on an S-team, which means 

that the school is dealing with her rather than suspending her or sending her to alternative 

school. Foster Mom testified:
19

She just recently - - she told me that another student had spit in her face and 

so she was going to fight this student and it was three teachers who were 

trying to control her, you know, stop her from fighting, well, she fought all 

three teachers. She had blood on her shirt that she had drawn blood on the 

teacher where she was scratching them, fighting them, just do whatever to 

try to get to the little girl and, you know, basically they said they were just 

going to deal with it basically.

Foster Mom testified that the Children still fight at home. She stated that they 

would fight and the Older Child would pull out chunks of the Younger Child‟s hair 

leaving “like bald spots in her head,” and that she did this about a month prior to trial. 

Foster Mom stated, however, that “it used to be every day where I could intervene with a 

fight, now it‟s maybe twice a month.” Foster Mom testified that the Younger Child still 

wets the bed.

Foster Mom was asked if she wanted to adopt the Children, and she stated: “If 

they don‟t get to go home with Mom, then I will. But I feel like, you know, if Mom is 

willing to take her kids and if they want to go home, I want them to have that 

relationship.” Foster Mom testified that she and Mother have been working together to 

deal with some of the discipline issues. Foster Mom was asked if she would continue to

help if the Children were returned to Mother‟s custody, and she stated: “She can call me 

any time, and like if she need a break, she can say hey, can you watch these girls or can 

they stay overnight, and I‟d say I‟m on my way, so yeah, definitely.” 

After trial the Juvenile Court entered its detailed order on June 23, 2015 

terminating Mother‟s parental rights to the Children after finding and holding, inter alia:

From all of the above and the entire record, the Court finds the following 

by clear and convincing evidence.

I

1. [The Younger Child] was born out of wedlock to [Mother] . . . in . . . 

2003. [The Older Child] was born out of wedlock to [Mother] . . . in . . . 2000. . . 

. The temporary custody of these children was awarded to the State of 

Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, for the second time on May 29, 

2012, by order of the Juvenile Court of Knox County, Tennessee; they have 

been in foster care continuously since that date. The termination petition was 

filed against [Mother] on January 22, 2015.
20

II

1. The children were removed from [Mother‟s] custody due to physical 

abuse. [Mother] and the children had watched a movie together, after the 

girls had told their mother they had cleaned their room, and then the girls 

went to bed. [Mother] became angry when she checked on her children later 

and discovered that they had failed to clean their room and that [the Younger 

Child] (then 8) had not changed her sheets after wetting her bed the night 

before. [Mother] woke the children after midnight and a verbal altercation 

escalated into a physical assault, where [Mother] hit both of her children with 

her fists and “busted” [the Younger Child‟s] lip. The children ran from the 

home after this particular incident. They were located by law enforcement 

and refused to return. Injuries to [the Younger Child‟s] face were 

documented. The children also reported previous incidents of being whipped 

with a belt and the Department of Children‟s Services had previously 

investigated such reports, had observed marks on [the Older Child‟s] face and 

thighs, and had placed intervention services in the home, apparently without 

success. [The Older Child] reported that her mother had threatened her with a 

broom stick in the past, held the stick across her throat, and told her to „fight 

her like a grown woman‟. When interviewed by the Department of 

Children‟s Services, [Mother] admitted waking her children at 1:00 AM and 

talking to them about cleaning their room, behavior at school, and other issues 

from the past. She denied any discussion about wetting the bed, denied any 

physical assault, and denied touching the children or using a belt in the past 

year, saying she had been told that physical discipline was wrong. The belt 

was found draped over a kitchen chair; a relative in the home overhead [sic] the 

fight and confirmed the children‟s report of what was discussed. Although 

denying the children‟s specific allegations, [Mother] stated that she had been 

under a great deal of stress; that she had difficulty managing the children‟s 

behavior; and that she had started using marijuana again.

2. Upon their removal from [Mother‟s] custody, the children were 

placed immediately in kinship foster care with their maternal grandparents and 

full legal and physical custody was released to the grandparents by order of this 

Court on March 6, 2012. That placement lasted only a few more weeks. The 

grandparents allowed the girls to return to live with their mother before the ink 

was dry on the order despite the requirement that she have only supervised 

visitation. Grandmother admitted that she, too, had been whipping the 

children because they needed to learn how to respect their elders. She knew 

that her daughter was continuing to use marijuana and [Mother] admitted that 

she was still under stress and still using. [The Older Child] reported that her 
21

mother was not ready for them as she did not know how to talk without yelling 

and was lazy. The children returned to foster care.

3. The initial permanency plan was developed at a Child & Family Team 

Meeting on October 7, 2011, with [Mother‟s] presence and participation.

Among other things, the plan required that [Mother] (a) complete a mental 

health assessment, follow resulting recommendations, and take medication only 

as prescribed; (b) complete an alcohol and drug assessment, follow resulting 

recommendations, and pass random drug screens to demonstrate sobriety; (c)

and complete a series of age-appropriate parenting classes, learn appropriate 

discipline techniques, and demonstrate learned skills during visitation. She 

was also expected to visit regularly and to pay child support. Those 

responsibilities have remained essentially unchanged to the present despite 

periodic revisions of the plan.

4. [Mother] continues to deny that she ever abused her children. Her 

explanation for their removal into foster care was that they fabricated lies. She 

reported that she had experienced difficulty with [the Older Child] beginning 

when that child was 2 (when she was terrorizing other children in preschool) 

and had tried to get help for her, first in North Carolina and then in Tennessee, 

since that time. [The Younger Child] had not been problematic until 2010 but 

then started taking after [the Older Child]. From the time [the Older Child] was 

5 and [the Younger Child] was 3 the girls have been physical [sic] aggressive 

toward each other, fighting each other, slapping and beating on each other. She 

testified they had been fighting all day on the day of the incident leading to 

their removal. She admitted that she had awakened them to warn them that in 

the morning they would have to clean the whole house and then discovered at 

6:00 AM that they were gone. As to the documented injuries, she claimed that 

the girls had hurt each other.

5. [Mother] insists that there is no reason for her children to still be in 

foster care. If she had them today, she could clothe and feed them and get 

them to their appointments, she could meet their needs. She has had 

appropriate housing and a job. On the other hand, she has not made even a 

token child support payment since August 2014. She claims she has 

completed everything and has been ready for years. She could not, however, 

explain what would be different now. She stated that she loves her children 

and is lost without them but there is only so much she can do. She believes 

they need family therapy.

6. [Mother] has a lengthy history of reliance on marijuana and testified 

that she still has a strong temptation to use. She has completed several alcohol 

and drug assessments with recommendations that she participate in individual 

counseling and medication management to learn coping skills other than 

turning to marijuana. The most recent assessment was completed at The 
22

Solution Source in April 2014 with the same recommendations. Those services 

were available to her through The Solution Source. [Mother] began therapy 

there at the Department‟s expense in June 2014. She attended one 

appointment in June and one appointment in July; she was then discharged for 

non-compliance (failing to attend) in September 2014. Her drug screens have 

been consistently dirty for marijuana. Her most recent hair follicle test, 

collected on May 15, 2015, was again positive for marijuana as was the swab 

test conducted on May 22, 2015. She testified that she had used marijuana a 

lot in the beginning but had now “slowed down”. She explained that she had 

not completed counseling because her aunt was dying in North Carolina but is 

ready to begin again and has asked the children‟s case manager for a new 

referral.

7. [Mother] completed Common Sense Parenting classes at the 

Department‟s expense. She has not, however, demonstrated learned skills or 

a substantial change in her behavior during visits with her daughters. The 

Youth Villages supervisor has had to intervene due to [Mother] ignoring 

personal space and cursing her children. Her visits have not been consistent; 

she has missed about one-third of those visits. During visits she has clearly 

favored [the Older Child], ignoring [the Younger Child‟s] attempts to gain her 

attention. Several times the children have refused to see her. An attempt at 

family therapy was unsuccessful as it quickly deteriorated.

8. [The Younger Child] testified sitting on her mother‟s lap. She told 

this Court that she was “pretty mad” at her mother for not showing up at visits 

consistently and for not showing up at a recent Child & Family Team Meeting 

but still wants to go home. When asked how the Court could be sure “it won‟t 

happen again”, [the Younger Child] replied that “she‟s trying a little bit.” She 

did not recant the allegations of physical abuse despite wanting to go home.

9. [The Older Child], on the other hand, was clear that she does not 

want to return to her mother‟s care, does not want to visit, and wants to be 

adopted. When asked if it would be safe for [the Younger Child] to return 

home even if [the Older Child] does not, she replied that it would not be 

safe because [the Younger Child] still wets the bed. She acknowledged that 

her foster mother had encouraged her to give her mother a second chance 

and she had done so, but related an incident of name-calling by her mother 

(“called me a whore”) and expressed her feeling that her mother doesn‟t 

care.

10. The children continue to have serious behavior problems. They 

seek attention and negative behavior is their way to get it. Both children 

testified that they still have arguments but are doing better, learning not to 

fight. On the other hand, their foster mother‟s report was not encouraging. 

The girls continue to fight with each other, though not as much - perhaps 
23

twice a month instead of every day. They pulled each other‟s hair out a 

month ago. They get into fights at school. [The Older Child] just stopped 

going to class and was kicked out of Austin East. She was then kicked out 

of Richard Yoakely for not following the rules. Exactly what was at issue 

has not been determined. [The Younger Child] was described as “not good 

at all at school”. She recently got into a fight with another girl who had spit 

in her face. While trying to get at that girl she involved 3 teachers and drew 

blood.

11. Upon these facts, the Court finds that [Mother] has abandoned 

these children in that [Mother] has willfully failed to support or make 

reasonable payments toward the support of the children for four (4) 

consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the petition in this 

cause. She was working, she had the ability, she had a previous history of 

compliance. She just stopped.

12. The Court further finds that [Mother] has failed to comply in a 

substantial manner with those reasonable responsibilities set out in the 

permanency plan related to remedying the conditions which necessitate 

foster care placement. Her responsibilities have been essentially the same for 

more than three years. She has been offered a bevy of services but has not 

completed any. Instead of keeping her appointments, continuing on her 

medication, going to therapy, she‟s smoking marijuana. Her responsibilities 

were not difficult: go to therapy, quit smoking marijuana, pay child support. 

She didn‟t do it. She was discharged from therapy for non-compliance last 

September after attending only two appointments and has now asked for a new 

referral. She doesn‟t get unlimited chances.

13. These are still difficult children. The history shows that they have 

been difficult since they were small, too difficult for their mother to handle. 

She has not taken advantage of the services designed to assist her in 

developing the skills necessary to care for them. And she has not taken any 

responsibility for her behavior, for her role in their removal or for her failure to 

complete the permanency plan; everything is somebody else‟s fault. As a 

result of her noncompliance, the Court finds that the children have been 

removed by order of this Court for a period of six (6) months; the conditions 

which led to their removal still persist; other conditions persist which in all 

probability would cause the children to be subjected to further abuse and 

neglect and which, therefore, prevent the children‟s return to the care of 

[Mother]; there is little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an 

early date so that these children can be returned to [Mother] in the near future; 

the continuation of the legal parent and child relationship greatly diminishes 

the children‟s chances of early integration into a stable and permanent home.
24

III

1. [Mother] has not made such an adjustment of circumstance, 

conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the children‟s best interest to be 

in her home despite reasonable efforts by available social services agencies for 

such duration of time that lasting adjustment does not reasonably appear 

possible. She is not there yet, maybe not ever. According to her own 

testimony, she has been trying without success since [the Older Child] was 

two. [Mother] has missed about one-third of her recent visits. She brought 

her sister with her, creating an incident. She has been difficult to contact. 

And she did not appear to participate in the most recent Child & Family 

Team Meeting. The children do have a meaningful relationship with their 

mother. The Court does believe that that [sic] [Mother] has shown brutality 

and physical abuse neglect toward these children. The Court can see how 

she may have been pushed to “popping” one, but not with a fist and not in 

the face, that cannot be condoned. [Mother] continues to self-medicate 

with marijuana. That is a poor and illegal substitute for the medication she 

is supposed to be on. She is not mentally healthy enough herself to take 

care of troubled children. And she has not paid child support.

2. Termination proceedings are pending against the children‟s 

respective fathers.

3. The Department of Children‟s Services has made reasonable 

efforts toward achieving permanency for these children.

4. The children are entitled to a safe, secure and loving home. Their 

foster mother testified that she will adopt them if they can‟t go home. [The 

Older Child] wants to be adopted there. [The Younger Child] wants to go 

home but would be happy being adopted by her foster mother if home is not 

an option. Determining the best interest of children is a lot harder when 

they are not doing well in their placement. These children are not. The 

Court urges the Department of Children‟s Services to convene a Child & 

Family Team Meeting immediately to address the viability of this 

placement. Their mother loves these children but cannot meet their needs. 

Their current foster mother loves them as well but it is not clear to the 

Court that she is meeting their needs either.

5. It is, therefore, in the best interest of [the Children] and the public 

that all of [Mother‟s] parental rights to these children be terminated and the 

complete custody, control, and partial guardianship of the children be 

awarded to the State of Tennessee, Department of Children‟s Services, with 

the right to place them for adoption and to consent to such adoption in loco 

parentis.
25

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to the Children to this Court.

Discussion

Although not stated exactly as such, Mother raises four issues on appeal: 1) 

whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence was 

proven of grounds to terminate Mother‟s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 

36-1-113(g)(1) for abandonment by willful failure to pay child support; 2) whether the 

Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds 

to terminate Mother‟s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) for 

substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; 3) whether the Juvenile Court erred 

in finding that clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate 

Mother‟s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) for persistent 

conditions; and, 4) whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and convincing 

evidence was proven that it was in the Children‟s best interest for Mother‟s parental 

rights to be terminated.

Our Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard of review for cases involving 

termination of parental rights stating:

A parent‟s right to the care and custody of her child is among the 

oldest of the judicially recognized fundamental liberty interests protected 

by the Due Process Clauses of the federal and state constitutions.2 Troxel v. 

Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 

(1972); In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Tenn. 2010); In re Adoption 

of Female Child, 896 S.W.2d 546, 547-48 (Tenn. 1995); Hawk v. Hawk, 

855 S.W.2d 573, 578-79 (Tenn. 1993). But parental rights, although 

fundamental and constitutionally protected, are not absolute. In re Angela 

E., 303 S.W.3d at 250. “„[T]he [S]tate as parens patriae has a special duty 

to protect minors . . . .‟ Tennessee law, thus, upholds the [S]tate‟s authority 

as parens patriae when interference with parenting is necessary to prevent 

serious harm to a child.” Hawk, 855 S.W.2d at 580 (quoting In re 

Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)); see also Santosky 

v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747 (1982); In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250. 

“When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks 

 

2 U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1 (“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 

without due process of law . . . .”). Similarly, article 1, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution states 

“[t]hat no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or 

outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the 

judgment of his peers or the law of the land.”
26

not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it.” 

Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759. “Few consequences of judicial action are so 

grave as the severance of natural family ties.” Id. at 787; see also M.L.B. 

v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 119 (1996). The parental rights at stake are “far 

more precious than any property right.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 758-59. 

Termination of parental rights has the legal effect of reducing the parent to 

the role of a complete stranger and of “severing forever all legal rights and 

obligations of the parent or guardian of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-

1-113(l)(1); see also Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759 (recognizing that a decision 

terminating parental rights is “final and irrevocable”). In light of the 

interests and consequences at stake, parents are constitutionally entitled to 

“fundamentally fair procedures” in termination proceedings. Santosky, 455 

U.S. at 754; see also Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 

452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981) (discussing the due process right of parents to 

fundamentally fair procedures).

Among the constitutionally mandated “fundamentally fair 

procedures” is a heightened standard of proof – clear and convincing 

evidence. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 769. This standard minimizes the risk of 

unnecessary or erroneous governmental interference with fundamental 

parental rights. Id.; In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586, 596 (Tenn. 2010). 

“Clear and convincing evidence enables the fact-finder to form a firm belief 

or conviction regarding the truth of the facts, and eliminates any serious or 

substantial doubt about the correctness of these factual findings.” In re 

Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596 (citations omitted). The clear-andconvincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as 

highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not. In re 

Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); In re M.A.R., 183 

S.W.3d 652, 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Tennessee statutes governing parental termination proceedings 

incorporate this constitutionally mandated standard of proof. Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 36-1-113(c) provides:

Termination of parental or guardianship rights must be based 

upon:

(1) A finding by the court by clear and convincing evidence that 

the grounds for termination of parental or guardianship rights 

have been established; and
27

(2) That termination of the parent‟s or guardian‟s rights is in the 

best interests of the child.

This statute requires the State to establish by clear and convincing proof 

that at least one of the enumerated statutory grounds3for termination exists 

and that termination is in the child‟s best interests. In re Angela E., 303 

S.W.3d at 250; In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006); In re 

Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). “The best interests analysis is 

separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and 

convincing evidence of grounds for termination.” In re Angela E., 303 

S.W.3d at 254. Although several factors relevant to the best interests 

analysis are statutorily enumerated,4the list is illustrative, not exclusive. 

The parties are free to offer proof of other relevant factors. In re Audrey S., 

182 S.W.3d at 878. The trial court must then determine whether the 

combined weight of the facts “amount[s] to clear and convincing evidence 

that termination is in the child‟s best interest.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 

S.W.3d 533, 555 (Tenn. 2015). These requirements ensure that each parent 

receives the constitutionally required “individualized determination that a 

parent is either unfit or will cause substantial harm to his or her child before 

the fundamental right to the care and custody of the child can be taken 

away.” In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tenn. 1999).

Furthermore, other statutes impose certain requirements upon trial 

courts hearing termination petitions. A trial court must “ensure that the 

hearing on the petition takes place within six (6) months of the date that the 

petition is filed, unless the court determines an extension is in the best 

interests of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k). A trial court must 

“enter an order that makes specific findings of fact and conclusions of law 

within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing.” Id. This portion 

of the statute requires a trial court to make “findings of act and conclusions 

of law as to whether clear and convincing evidence establishes the 

existence of each of the grounds asserted for terminating [parental] rights.” 

In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 255. “Should the trial court conclude that 

clear and convincing evidence of ground(s) for termination does exist, then 

the trial court must also make a written finding whether clear and 

convincing evidence establishes that termination of [parental] rights is in 

the [child‟s] best interests.” Id. If the trial court‟s best interests analysis “is 

based on additional factual findings besides the ones made in conjunction 

 

3

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1)-(13).

4

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i).
28

with the grounds for termination, the trial court must also include these 

findings in the written order.” Id. Appellate courts “may not conduct de 

novo review of the termination decision in the absence of such findings.” 

Id. (citing Adoption Place, Inc. v. Doe, 273 S.W.3d 142, 151 & n.15 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2007)). 

B. Standards of Appellate Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court‟s findings of fact in 

termination proceedings using the standard of review in Tenn. R. App. P. 

13(d). In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596; In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 

246. Under Rule 13(d), appellate courts review factual findings de novo on 

the record and accord these findings a presumption of correctness unless 

the evidence preponderates otherwise. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 

596; In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387, 393 (Tenn. 2009); In re Adoption of 

A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 809 (Tenn. 2007). In light of the heightened 

burden of proof in termination proceedings, however, the reviewing court 

must make its own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by 

the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount 

to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate 

parental rights. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596-97. The trial court‟s 

ruling that the evidence sufficiently supports termination of parental rights 

is a conclusion of law, which appellate courts review de novo with no 

presumption of correctness. In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d at 393 (quoting In re 

Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d at 810). Additionally, all other questions 

of law in parental termination appeals, as in other appeals, are reviewed de 

novo with no presumption of correctness. In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 

246.

In re Carrington H., No. M2014-00453-SC-R11-PT, 2016 WL 363993, ___ S.W.3d ___ 

(Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016) (footnotes in original but renumbered). 

We first consider whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and 

convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate Mother‟s parental rights 

pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) for abandonment by willful failure to pay 

child support. As pertinent, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) provides:

(g) Initiation of termination of parental or guardianship rights may be based 

upon any of the grounds listed in this subsection (g). The following 

grounds are cumulative and non-exclusive, so that listing conditions, acts or 
29

omissions in one ground does not prevent them from coming within another 

ground:

(1) Abandonment by the parent or guardian, as defined in § 36-1-102, has 

occurred;

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) (2014). In pertinent part, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-

102 provides:

(1)(A) For purposes of terminating the parental or guardian rights of a 

parent or parents or a guardian or guardians of a child to that child in order 

to make that child available for adoption, “abandonment” means that:

(i) For a period of four (4) consecutive months immediately preceding the 

filing of a proceeding or pleading to terminate the parental rights of the a 

[sic] parent or parents or a guardian or guardians of the child who is the 

subject of the petition for termination of parental rights or adoption, that the 

a [sic] parent or parents or a guardian or guardians either have willfully 

failed to visit or have willfully failed to support or have willfully failed to 

make reasonable payments toward the support of the child;

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) (2014).

With regard to this issue the Juvenile Court specifically found, inter alia:

[Mother] insists that there is no reason for her children to still be in foster care. 

If she had them today, she could clothe and feed them and get them to their 

appointments, she could meet their needs. She has had appropriate housing 

and a job. On the other hand, she has not made even a token child support 

payment since August 2014. 

* * *

[T]he Court finds that [Mother] has abandoned these children in that 

[Mother] has willfully failed to support or make reasonable payments 

toward the support of the children for four (4) consecutive months 

immediately preceding the filing of the petition in this cause. She was 

working, she had the ability, she had a previous history of compliance. She 

just stopped.
30

The evidence in the record on appeal as discussed more fully above does not 

preponderate against these findings made by the Juvenile Court by clear and convincing 

evidence. We find no error in the Juvenile Court‟s determination that grounds were 

proven to terminate Mother‟s parental rights to the Children for willful failure to pay 

child support.

We next consider whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and 

convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate Mother‟s parental rights 

pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) for substantial noncompliance with the 

Permanency Plan. As pertinent, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) provides:

(2) There has been substantial noncompliance by the parent or guardian 

with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan pursuant to the 

provisions of title 37, chapter 2, part 4;

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) (2014).

With regard to this issue, the Juvenile Court specifically found, inter alia:

The Court further finds that [Mother] has failed to comply in a 

substantial manner with those reasonable responsibilities set out in the 

permanency plan related to remedying the conditions which necessitate 

foster care placement. Her responsibilities have been essentially the same for 

more than three years. She has been offered a bevy of services but has not 

completed any. Instead of keeping her appointments, continuing on her 

medication, going to therapy, she‟s smoking marijuana. Her responsibilities 

were not difficult: go to therapy, quit smoking marijuana, pay child support. 

She didn‟t do it. She was discharged from therapy for non-compliance last 

September after attending only two appointments and has now asked for a new 

referral. She doesn‟t get unlimited chances.

The evidence in the record on appeal, as discussed more fully above, shows that, 

among other things, Mother was discharged from therapy for noncompliance, that despite 

attending parenting classes Mother has failed to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills, 

that Mother continues to deny abusing the Children, and that Mother continues to use 

marijuana. The evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against the 

Juvenile Court‟s findings made by clear and convincing evidence that grounds were 

proven to terminate Mother‟s parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the 

Permanency Plan.
31

Next, we consider whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and 

convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate Mother‟s parental rights 

pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) for persistent conditions. As pertinent to 

this issue, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) provides:

(3) The child has been removed from the home of the parent or guardian by 

order of a court for a period of six (6) months and:

(A) The conditions that led to the child‟s removal or other conditions that in 

all reasonable probability would cause the child to be subjected to further 

abuse or neglect and that, therefore, prevent the child‟s safe return to the 

care of the a [sic] parent or parents or a guardian or guardians, still persist;

(B) There is little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an 

early date so that the child can be safely returned to the a [sic] parent or 

parents or a guardian or guardians in the near future; and

(C) The continuation of the parent or guardian and child relationship 

greatly diminishes the child‟s chances of early integration into a safe, stable 

and permanent home;

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) (2014).

With regard to this issue the Juvenile Court specifically found, inter alia;

These are still difficult children. The history shows that they have been 

difficult since they were small, too difficult for their mother to handle. She has 

not taken advantage of the services designed to assist her in developing the 

skills necessary to care for them. And she has not taken any responsibility for 

her behavior, for her role in their removal or for her failure to complete the 

permanency plan; everything is somebody else‟s fault. As a result of her noncompliance, the Court finds that the children have been removed by order of 

this Court for a period of six (6) months; the conditions which led to their 

removal still persist; other conditions persist which in all probability would 

cause the children to be subjected to further abuse and neglect and which, 

therefore, prevent the children‟s return to the care of [Mother]; there is little 

likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that these 

children can be returned to [Mother] in the near future; the continuation of the 

legal parent and child relationship greatly diminishes the children‟s chances of 

early integration into a stable and permanent home.

We need not reiterate the evidence in the record on appeal with regard to this issue 

as it is discussed fully above. The conditions that led to the Children‟s removal from 
32

Mother‟s custody still remain. Mother refuses to take responsibility for her own actions 

and she continues to use marijuana. The evidence in the record on appeal does not 

preponderate against the Juvenile Court‟s finding by clear and convincing evidence that 

grounds were proven to terminate Mother‟s parental rights for persistent conditions.

Finally, we consider whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that clear and 

convincing evidence was proven that it was in the Children‟s best interest for Mother‟s 

parental rights to be terminated. When making a best interest determination a trial court 

shall consider the non-exclusive list of factors contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-

113(i). With regard to this issue, the Juvenile Court specifically found:

[Mother] has not made such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or 

conditions as to make it safe and in the children‟s best interest to be in her 

home despite reasonable efforts by available social services agencies for such 

duration of time that lasting adjustment does not reasonably appear possible. 

She is not there yet, maybe not ever. According to her own testimony, she has 

been trying without success since [the Older Child] was two. [Mother] has 

missed about one-third of her recent visits. She brought her sister with her, 

creating an incident. She has been difficult to contact. And she did not 

appear to participate in the most recent Child & Family Team Meeting. 

The children do have a meaningful relationship with their mother. The 

Court does believe that that [sic] [Mother] has shown brutality and physical 

abuse neglect toward these children. The Court can see how she may have 

been pushed to “popping” one, but not with a fist and not in the face, that 

cannot be condoned. [Mother] continues to self-medicate with marijuana. 

That is a poor and illegal substitute for the medication she is supposed to be 

on. She is not mentally healthy enough herself to take care of troubled 

children. And she has not paid child support.

Our review of the record on appeal reveals that the Juvenile Court considered all 

of the relevant factors when making its determination regarding the best interest of the 

Children. The evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against the 

Juvenile Court‟s finding by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of 

Mother‟s parental rights is in the best interest of the Children. 

As grounds for terminating Mother‟s parental rights to the Children were proven 

by clear and convincing evidence, and it was proven by clear and convincing evidence 

that termination of Mother‟s parental rights is in the Children‟s best interest, we find no 

error in the Juvenile Court‟s June 23, 2015 order terminating Mother‟s parental rights to 

the Children.
33

Conclusion

The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the 

Juvenile Court for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against 

the appellant, Tanisha M.

_________________________________ 

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE