FILED

May 29, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

CHRISTOPHER STANFILL )

ANGEL REYNOLDS )

MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile

SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994

) 07-49-29

CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF ) 9519-21993

18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S, )

SERVICES, )

) Appeal No.

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616

)

VS. )

)

LORETTA STANFILL, )

)

Defendant/Appellant. )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

HONORABLE ANDREW SHOOKHOFF, JUDGE

John Knox Walkup

Attorney General and Reporter

Douglas Earl Dimond

General Civil Division

425 Fifth Avenue North

Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0499

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Kathleen G. Morris, #16223

P.O. Box 128091

Nashville, Tennessee 37212

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION

CONCUR:

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
-2-

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

CHRISTOPHER STANFILL )

ANGEL REYNOLDS )

MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile

SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994

) 07-49-29

CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF ) 9519-21993

18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S, )

SERVICES, )

) Appeal No.

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616

)

VS. )

)

LORETTA STANFILL, )

)

Defendant/Appellant. )

O P I N I O N

The captioned respondent, Loretta Stanfill, has appealed from the judgment of the

Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights to her four children. Appellant presents the

following issues for review:

I. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that

the Department of Children’s Services proved by clear and

convincing evidence the persistence of conditions which led

to removal of Loretta Stanfill’s children or which would

subject her children to further neglect with little likelihood of

early remediation.

II. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding clear

and convincing evidence that the mother willfully abandoned

her children.

III. Assuming, arguendo, that the Trial Court

properly found clear and convincing evidence of a violation

of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) or of a willful abandonment of her

children, whether the Trial Court erred in finding clear and

convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interest for

Loretta Stanfill’s parental rights to be terminated.

The appellee, Department of Children’s Services, presents the issues in the following

form:
-3-

I. Whether clear and convincing evidence shows

that conditions dangerous to the children persisted in Ms.

Stanfill’s life and were unlikely to be soon remedied.

II. Whether clear and convincing evidence shows

that Ms. Stanfill abandoned her children by willfully failing

to pay child support.

III. Whether termination of Ms. Stanfill’s parental

rights was in the children’s best interest.

 T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113 and 37-1-147 provide in pertinent part as

follows:

36-1-113. Termination of parental rights. - (a) The

chancery and circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction

with the juvenile court to terminate parental or guardianship

rights to a child in a separate proceeding, or as a part of the

adoption proceeding by utilizing any grounds for termination

of parental or guardianship rights permitted in this part or in

title 37, chapter 1, part 1 and title 37, chapter 2, part 4.

- - - -

(c ) 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

(2) That termination of the parent’s or guardian’s

rights is in the best interests of the child.

37-1-147. Termination of parental rights. - (a) The

juvenile court shall be authorized to terminate the rights of a

parent or guardian to a child upon the grounds and pursuant

to the procedures set forth in title 36, chapter 1, part 1.

The Juvenile Court ordered:

That all of the Defendant’s, Loretta Lynn Reynolds

Stanfill, parental rights to the said children, Angel Lynn

Reynolds, Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray

Stanfill, and Samantha Nichole Stanfill, be and the same are

hereby forever terminated and the Defendant’s, Tony Willis

Stanfill, parental rights to the said child, Christopher Lee

Stanfill, be and the same are hereby forever terminated, his

rights to the remaining children having been previously

terminated in Oklahoma, and the complete custody, control,

and guardianship of the said children is hereby awarded to the

State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, with

the right to place the children for adoption and to consent to

such adoption in loco parentis.
-4-

Pertinent findings of the Juvenile Court are:

That the said children, Angel Lynn Reynolds,

Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray Stanfill and

Samantha Nichole Stanfill were placed in the custody of the

State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services,

Davidson County Office, by this Court, on November 28,

1995 as a result of said Department filing an Emergency

Neglected and Dependent Abuse Petition. .... Further, that

said children have been in foster care continuously since

November 28, 1995. The children were previously in state

custody in Oklahoma from November, 1991 to 1994. Mrs.

Stanfill returned to Nashville in 1992 following her husband

Tony Stanfill, leaving the children in Oklahoma. The

children were extremely aggressive and disturbed. They

attacked anyone that tried to get close to them. The mother

had custody of the children from 1994 until they came into

custody in Davidson County, Tennessee.

- - - -

That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-102(1)(A)(I) and (iv)the

Defendants, Loretta Lynn Reynolds Stanfill and Tony Willis

Stanfill have willfully abandoned the children for more than

four consecutive months next preceding the filing of this

petition in that the said Defendants have 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 to terminate, despite

having been under a court order to pay fifty ($50.00) each

month.

That pursuant to T.C.A. Section 37-1-113(g)(4), the

Department herein nonsuited the ground of severe child abuse

as to the mother based on the finding on the appeal.

That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-113(g)(3)(A), the said

children have been removed from the defendant parents, for

more than six (6) months and the conditions which led to

removal or other conditions which in all reasonable

probability would cause the children to be subjected to further

abuse or neglect and which, therefore, prevent the children’s

return to the care of the Defendants still persist; that there is

little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an

early date so that the children can be returned to the

Defendants in the near future; and the continuation of the

legal parent and child relationship greatly diminishes the

children’s chances of early integration into a stable and

permanent home. The conditions leading to removal included

the injury to the minor child, the continued drug usage of the

parents, and the findings of the Referee which brought the

children into care. The Court finds that, based on the ununrebutted testimony of Anita Bilbrew with the Department

of Children’s Services, approximately one (1) month after the

filing of the Petition to Terminate, Mr. and Mrs. Stanfill were

at the Department of Children’s Services office, on their

telephone, arranging for the purchase of drugs, which says

something about the strength of addiction in this case. Based
-5-

on the unrebutted testimony of the therapist for Ms. Stanfill,

the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that based

on Ms. Stanfill’s own admission, she continued to use

alcohol, cocaine and marijuana this summer and it is obvious

that Ms. Stanfill failed to acknowledge or address her drug

problems, refused inpatient treatment and stopped treatment

at the end of August, 1997.

- - - -

The Defendant, Loretta Stanfill has complied with

some of the tasks of the Plan of Care but her compliance has

not resulted in changed circumstances and she has not

addressed the problems that needed to be addressed, however,

theCourt does notspecifically find substantial noncompliance

with the Plan of Care as to Loretta Stanfill.

- - - -

That it is in the best interest of the said children and

the public that all of the parental rights of the Defendant,

Loretta Lynn Reynolds Stanfill to the said children, Angel

Lynn Reynolds, Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray

Stanfill, and Samantha Nichole Stanfill and the Defendant,

Tony Willis Stanfill, parental rights to the minor child,

Christopher Lee Stanfill, be forever terminated and that the

complete custody, control, and guardianship of the said

children be awarded to the State of Tennessee, Department of

Children’s Services, with the right to place the said children

for adoption and to consent to such adoption in loco parentis.

An order was entered in conformity with the foregoing findings.

In response to the appellant’s three issues, this Court has reviewed the record which

contains clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which caused the subject children to

be removed from the custody of appellant in November, 1995, have persisted to the date of the

order of the Juvenile Court; that said conditions would subject said children to continued neglect;

that there is little likelihood of early remediation of such conditions; that the appellant willingly

abandoned said children; and that the termination of appellant’s parental rights in respect to said

children is in the best interest of said children.
-6-

The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against

the appellant. The cause is remanded to the Juvenile Court for necessary proceedings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

_________________________________

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDINGJUDGE,MIDDLESECTION

CONCUR:

_____________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

_____________________________

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE