# FILED

May 29, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE MAT TER OF: ) ) CHRISTOPHER STANF ILL ) ANGEL REYNOLDS ) MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994 ) 07-49-29 CHILDREN UNDER THE AG E OF ) 9519-21993 18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995 ) DEPARTMENT OF C

HILDREN’S, ) SERVICES, ) ) Appeal No. Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616 ) VS. ) ) LORETTA STANFILL, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM

THE JUVENILE COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE ANDREW S HOOKHOFF, 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, MIDDL E SECTION

CONCUR: WILLIA M C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE WILLIA M B. CAIN, JUDGE-2-

IN THE MAT TER OF: ) ) CHRISTOPHER STANF ILL ) ANGEL REYNOLDS ) MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994 ) 07-49-29 CHILDREN UNDER THE AG E OF ) 9519-21993 18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995 ) DEPARTMENT OF C

HILDREN’S, ) SERVICES, ) ) Appeal No. Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616 ) VS. ) ) LORETTA STANFILL, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )



## O P I N I O N

The captioned respo

ndent, Lorett

a Stanfill , has appealed from the judgment of the
Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights to her four children. Appellan t pres ents the following issues for review:

I. Whe ther

the Trial Court erred in finding that t he De partment of Children’s Services proved by clear and convincing evidence the persistence of conditions which led to removal o f L oretta Stanfill’s children or whic

h would subject her children to further

neglect with little likelihoodof 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 a nd convincing evidence of a violation of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) or of a willful abandonment of her ch ildren , 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, Depa

rtment of Chil

dren ’s Services, presents the issues in the following
form:-3- I. Whe ther

clear and convincing evidence shows th at cond itions dangerou s to the children pe

rsisted in Ms. Stanfill’s life and were unlikely to be soon remedied.
II. Wh ether

clear and convincing evidence show s that Ms. Stanfill abandoned her ch i ldren by willfully failing to pay child s

upport.
III. Whether

termination of Ms. St

anfil l’s p arental rights was in the c

hildren’s best inte

rest.

T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113

and 37-1-147 prov

ide in pertinent part as follows: 36-1-113. Termination of parental rights

. - (a) The chancery and circuit courts

shall have concurrent jurisdiction withthe juvenile court to te rminate parenta

l or guardiansh

ip rights to a child in a separa te 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 parentalor guardianshi p rights must be based upon: (1) A finding by the

court by clear

and convincing evidence that the gr ounds 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 t o a chi ld 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 De fe ndant’s, Loretta Lynn Re ynolds Stanfill, parental right

s to t he said children, Angel Lynn Reynolds, Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray Stanfill, and Saman

tha Nichole

Stanfill, be and the

sameare hereby forever terminated and the Defe ndant’s, Tony Willis Stanfill , paren tal rights to the said child, Christopher Lee Stanfill, be and the same a re hereby forever termina

ted, his rights to the remaining

children having

been previously terminatedin O kla hom a, an d th e com ple te c ust ody, control, and guardianship of

the said children is hereby awarded to the Stateof Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, with the right to

place the childr

en for adoption a

nd to consent to such adoption in loco parentis

.-4- Pertinent findings of the Juvenile Court are:

Th a tthe said children , Angel Ly

nn Reynolds, Christopher

Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray Stanfill and Samantha Nichole

Stanfill were pla

ced in the custody of the State of Tennessee, Dep

artment of Childre

n’s Services, Davidson Cou nty O ffice, by this Court, on November 28, 1995 as a result of said De partment filing an Emergency Neglected

and De pe ndent Abuse Petition. .... Further, that said children have bee n i n foster care continuously since November

28, 1995. The ch ildr en were previou sly in state custody in O klahoma from November, 1 991 to 1994. Mrs. Stanfill returned to Nash

ville in 1992 following her husband Tony Stanfill, leaving the children in Oklahoma. The children were extreme

ly agg ressive and disturbed. They atta cked any one that tried to get close to them. The mother had custody of the children from 19 94 until they c

ame into custody in Davidson County, Tennessee.

- - - - That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-102(1)(A) (I) and (iv) th e Defendants,

Loretta L ynn Rey nolds Stanfill and To

ny Willis Stanfill have willfully abandoned the children for more than four consecutive m onths next precedin g the filing of t

his petition in that the sa

id Def endants have will

fully faile d to support or make reasonabl e pay ments toward the support of the children fo r four (4) conse cutive months immedi

ately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate, d espi te h aving been under a court order to pay fifty ($50.00) eac h month.
That

pursuant to

T .C.A. Section 37-1-113(g)(4), the Department

herein nonsuited the ground of severe child abu

se as to the mother ba

sed on the finding

on the appeal.
That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1- 113 (g)(3)(A), th e said children hav e been removed from the defendant parents, for more than six (6) mont hs and the conditions whic h led to removal or other condition s which in all reaso nable 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 theDefendants still persist; that there is littlelikelihoo d that t

hese conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the children can be returned to t h e Defendants

in the near futur e; an d the continuation of the legal parent and child r

elatio nship greatly diminishes the ch ildren’s chances of early integration into a stabl e an d permanent

home. Th e conditions leading to removal included the injury to the

minor child, the continued drug usage of the parents, and the findings of the Refer ee whic h brought the children into care . The Court finds that, based on the ununrebuttedtestim ony 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 Servic

es office, on the

ir telephone, arranging for the purchase of drugs, wh i ch s ays something about the strength of addiction in this case. Based-5- on the unrebutted testimony of the therapist for Ms. S

tanfill, the Court finds by clear

and convincing evidence that based on Ms. Stanfill’s own a dmis sion, s he continued to use alcohol, cocaine and marijuana thi s 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 Defe n dant, Loretta

Stanfill has complie

d with some of the tasks of

the Plan of Care but her

compliance has notresulted in c hang ed circumstances and she has not addressed the problems that n

eeded to be addressed, however, the Court does not specifical ly find substantial noncompliance with the Plan of Car

e as to Lorett

a Stanfill.

- - - - That it is in the best interest of the said children and the public that all of th

e parental rig

hts of the Defend

ant, Loretta Lynn Reynolds Stanfill to th e said children, Angel Lynn Reynolds, Chr

istopher Lee

Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray Stanfill, and Samantha Nich ole Stanfil

l and the Defenda

nt, Tony Will is Sta nfill, parental rights to the minor child, Christopher

Lee Stanfill, be forever terminated and that the complete custody, control, and

guardianship of the sa id 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 ent

ered in conformi

ty with the fo

regoing findi

ngs.

In respo nse to the a ppellant’s three issues, this Court has reviewed the record which
contains clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which caused the subject childr

en to
be removedfrom the custody of appellant in November, 1995, have persisted to the date of the
order of the Juvenile Court

; that said condition

s would subje

c t said children to c

ontinued neglec

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

ly
abandoned

said children; and that the termination of app ellant’s parenta

l rights in respect to said
children is in the best interest of said children.-6- The judgment of t

he Juvenile

Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the appellant. Th

e cause is reman

ded to the Juvenile Co

urt for necessa

ry procee dings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

_________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING JUDGE, M IDDLE SECT IO N

CONCUR:

_____________________________ WILLIA M C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

_____________________________ WILLIA M B. CAIN, JUDGE