### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON JU L Y 23, 200 9 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E, D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN ’S S ER V IC ES v. AM BER NIC OLE B ENN ETT

IN TH E MA TTER

OF : B. P
. B. d /o/ b 4/1 2/0 4 K. L. B. d /o/ b 4/1 2/0 4

Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. S-5281 Curtis Per son, Ju dge

No. W2008-02391-C OA-R3-P T - Filed October 8, 2009

This is an appea l from an or der te rminating a mother’ s pare ntal rig hts on the g round of substantial noncompliance with a perma nency plan, among others. The trial court f ound that termination was in t he c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. Th e mot he r a pp e a ls, and

we a ff ir m.

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

A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J.,W.S., delivered the opinion of t he court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., and J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., joined.

Shantell S. S uttle, Cordova, TN, for Appellant Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; Michael E. Moore , Solicitor Ge n e r a l; D o uglas Earl Dimond, Senior Counsel, Na shville, TN, for Appe lleeI t i s not cl ear w hy M ot her part i ci pat ed vi a t el epho ne. M s

. S aul s berr y t es t i f i ed t hat M ot her w as “i ncar cer at ed 1

o v e r th e w e e k e n d s” a n d “ in a n d o u t o f ja il” a ro u n d th e ti m e th a t t h e c h ild re n e n te re d D C S c u sto d y
.

M o th e r w a s e v ic te d fro m h e r re sid e n c e a fte r th e c h ild re n w e re re m o v e d . S h e w a s a lso u n e m p lo y e d

. 2

A l t h o u g h M s. S au l sb erry t esti fied at t rial t h at M o t h er's firs t v i si t o cc u rred o n D ec em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , sh e a l so 3

s t at ed t hat M ot her s i gn ed t he cr i t er i a f or t er m i nat i ng pare nt al r i gh t s du r i ng t hat vi s i t , and t he dat e bes i de t he s i gn at ures
o n th e d o c u m e n t re a d s D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6

. -2- OP IN ION

I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY
Amber B ennett (" Mother" ) g ave bir th to twi n d au gh t er s , B.P.B . and K.L .B., on A pril 12, 2004, at the age of t hirty -two. Mother wa s unmarrie d but resided with the c hildren' s father . On or about Aug ust 20, 2006, when the c hildren we re two y ear s old, t h e T en nessee Depa rtment of Children' s Services (" DCS") rec eived a ref err al alleg ing that the childre n wer e exposed to drug s and
e nv ir on me nta l ne g le c t. Wh ile a t Mo the r' s h ome re sp on din g to a c a ll, po lic e of fi c e rs ha d r e po rt e dly found the c hildren alone with a baby sitter who di d not know M other' s where abouts or any thing a bout the family . The baby sitter did not even know the children' s names. I t was also re ported that drug pa ra ph e rn a lia , in c lud ingun c a pp e d ne e dle s, we re dis c ov e re d in Mo the r' s h ome , a nd blo od y tow e ls and cat fec es littered the f loor. T he childre n wer e take n from the home by the police of

fice rs and place d in the temporar

y custody of DCS

. The c hildren we re subse quently place d in a foster

home. On September

11, 200 6 , DC S developed a perma nency plan for the children. Mother participated via telephone

. The stated g oal of the permanenc y plan was "r eunify with pare nt(s)" or 1

" e xit c us tod

y to l ive wi th r e la tiv e (s ). " Th e pla n set a targ e t dat e fo r ac c omp lis hin g thi s g oa l w ith in
on e y e ar. Mo the r wa s all ow e d s up e rv ise d v isi ta tio n w iththe c hil dr e n, and the pla n r e qu ir e d h e r t o make he rs e lf

a va ila ble fo r s uc h v isi ta tio n. I n a dd iti on , th e pla n p ro vid e d th a t Mo the r n e e de d to complete a

drug treatment prog ram, have a me ntal health asse ssment perfor med, obtain a

s ta b le p la ce of re sidence and st able employ ment, and develop a support sy stem. The juvenile c ourt approve d 2 the per manenc y plan on Octobe r 31, 2006.

On or a bout Dece mber 7, 2006, Mother had her first visit wit h the childre n since they enter ed DCS custody

on Aug ust 20. During the vi sit, the DCS case ma nag er, K andis Saulsberry , explained 3 the cr iteria a

nd proce dures for terminating pare ntal rig hts to Mother, and Mother sig ned a doc ument acknow ledg ing that she had re ceive d the explanation and a c opy of the c riteria.

On J anuar

y 12, 2007, the j uvenile court adjudicate d both children de pendent a nd neg lected. Mother did not a

ppear at the hear ing, but he r appointed attorney was pre sent. The c ourt' s order states that Mother had outstandingfelony char g es.
Acc ording to DCS records, Mother was a fug itive from Dec ember 2006 until J une 2007. Mother had a

n extensive c riminal rec ord, including char g es of felony theft, for g ery , possession ofThe chi l dr en' s f at her ' s pa r ent al r i ght s w er e al s o t er m i nat ed i n t hes e pr oce edi ngs , but he ha s not a ppea l ed. 4

-3- marijuana , possession o f co ca i ne with intent to sell, and ag g ravated burg lary . At some point, she
wa s ord e re d b y

a c ourt to e nte r a re ha bil itatio n p ro g ra

m and wa s p la c e d o n p ro batio n f or te n y e a rs

. M o t h er en t er eda o n e- y ea r dru g t re at m en t p ro gra m i n J u l y 2 0 0 7

. On Au gu s t1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e c h i l dre n 's fo ste r mot he r too k the m to the re ha

bil itatio n c e nte r t o v isi t Mo the r. Th is w a s Mo the r' s se c on d v isi t with the children since they enter ed DCS custody in Aug ust of 2006. Mother lef t the reha bilitation prog ram shortly

there afte r. On September

20, 2007, a revised permanenc y plan was developed, a s one y ear had ela psed since the f

irst plan was e ntere d. Mother did not participate in the deve lopment of this permane ncy pla n, and the pla n s ta te d th a t Mo the r w a s " on the ru n f ro m th e law a

nd if sh e is c a ptu re d s he wi ll
se rv e pr i s o n t i m e

. " T h e p e r m an e n c y g o a l f

o r t h e c h i l dr e n w a s c h an g e d t o " a d o p t i o n " or " e xit
c us tod y to l ive wi th r e la tiv e (s ), " and the targ et date f

or a c hie ve me nt o f t

his g oa l w a s se t a t si x mon ths . De sp ite the g oa l cha ng e , Moth e r wa s still re qu ir e d to main ta in co nta c t w ithDC S, s c he du le vis itatio n w iththe c hil dr e n, ob ta in s ta bl e ho us ingand

e mpl oy me nt, de ve lop a

su pp or t sy ste m, complete a

drug treatment prog ram, a nd submit t o random drugscre ening s.
Mother wa s incarc erated in October of 2007. The court approve d the revised pe rmane ncy plan on Octobe r 30, 2007, noting that the pre vious plan' s g oal of " ret u rn t o pare nt" wa s no longe r a pp ro pr ia te du e to Mothe r' s in c arc e ratio n. Th e c ourt a lso no te d th a t Mo the r h a d o nly vis ite d w ith the childre n twice dur ing the fourtee n months that they had bee n in DCS custody

. On Dec ember

21, 2007, DCS filed a p et i t i o n to terminate Mother ' s pare ntal rig hts on the g rounds of a

bandonment, fa ilure to substantially comply with the perma nency plans, and pe rsistence of conditio n s

. At t rial, on August 15, 2008, only three witnesses testified – the c hildren' s foster mother, Ms. Saulsberry

from DCS, and the c hildren' s father

. Mother did not prese nt any proof. The 4 court e ntere d an orde r on September 18, 2008, terminating Mother' s pare ntal rig hts on the g rounds of aba ndonment and substantial noncompliance with the p ermanency plans. The c ourt found insufficient e vidence to support the g round of pe rsistent conditions. Mother timely filed a notice of
a pp e a l.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED
Mo the r p re se nts the fo llo wi ngiss ue s o n a pp e a l:

1. Whe the r t

he re is c le ar a

nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e to s up po rt the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to terminate Mother ’s par ental rig hts based on substantial noncompliance with the perma nency plan. 2. Whether there is clear and con v i n ci n g evidenc e that Mother a bandoned he r childre n by wi llf ull y fa ili ngto v isi t. 3. Whe the r the re is c le ar and c on vin c inge vid e nc e that te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ig hts was in the be st interest of the c hildren.-4-

DCS presents the following additional issue:

4. Whether t he trial c ourt err ed in not finding that Mother had f ailed to re medy

the per sistent conditions in her life that pre vented he r childre n’s re turn to her at an ea rly date.

F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on

of the tr ia l c ourt

. III
. S T ANDARD S F OR R E VI E W I NG T E RM I NAT I ON C A SES "A biological pare nt's right to the care and custody of his or her c hild is among the oldest of the judicially rec ognized liberty interests protec ted by the Due Process Clauses of the f ed eral and state c on sti tut ion s. " In re J.C.D. , 25 4 S. W .3 d 4 32 , 4 37 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 7) ; In r e Audr e y S. , 182 S.W .3 d 8 38 , 8 60 (T e nn . Ct . A pp

. 20 05 ). Al tho ug h the pa re nt' s ri gh t is fu nd a me nta l a ndsu pe ri or to the claims of other persons and the governme nt, it is not absolute. Id. A par ent's right "continues wi tho ut i nte rr

up tio n o nly a s lo ng a s a

pa re nt h a s n ot r e lin qu ish e d it , a ba nd on e d it, o r e ng a ge d in
con du ct requ ir ing its lim ita tio n o r t e rm inatio n. " Id. ; se e als o In r e M. J. B. , 140 S.W.3d 643, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

In Tenne ssee, pr ocee dings to terminate a pa rent's par en t al rights are governe d by statute. "Parties who have standing to se ek the termination of a biological pare nt's pa renta l rights must prove tw o thin gs ." In r

e Audr e y S. , 1 82 S.W .3 d a t 86 0; see also In r e M. J. B. , 1 40 S.W .3 d a t 65 3. Fir st, they must prove the e xistence of at least on e o f the statutory grounds for termination, which a

re listed in Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g). Id. Se co n d , t hey must prove that terminating pare ntal rights is in t he child's best int ere st, considering, among other things, the fac tors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( i). Id. Because no civil ac tion carries grave r c on se qu e nc e s th a n a

pe tit ion to se ve r fa mil y tie s fo re ve r, bo th of the e le me nts fo r t e rm inatio n mu st be proven by clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e. Id. a t 86 0- 61

. In su m, " [t ]o te rm inate pa re nta l r igh ts, a trial c ourt must determine by c lear and convinc ing evidence not only the exist ence of at least one of the statut ory g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n b ut a lso that te rm inatio n is in the c hil d' s b e st i nte re st. " In
re F.R .R. , I

II , 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006) (citing In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002)). Clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e has be en def ined as evidence that "eliminates any ser ious or substantial doubt conce rning the cor rec tness of t he conclusion to be dra wn from the e vidence ." In re L. J. C. , 124 S.W.3d 609, 619 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) ( quoting In the Matter of: C.D.B., S.S.B ., & S.E.B. , 37 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)) . It produce s a firm belief or conviction in the f a c t- f in d e r ' s mi n d r e g ar d in g th e tr u th o f th e f

a c ts s o u g h t to b e e s ta

b li s h e d. In re Au drey S. , 182 S.W.3d at 861.

Be c a us e of

the he igh te ne d b ur de n of pr oo f in pare nta l ter min a tio n ca se s, on app e a l, w e mus t adapt our customary standa

rd of r eview a s set forth in Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Proc edure 13(d). In r e Audr e y S. , 182 S.W.3d at 861. Fi rst , we r eview e ach of the trial court's specific f actua l findi n g s d e n o v o in a c c o r d a n c e w ith Ru le 1 3 ( d ) , p r e s u mi n g th e f in d in g to b e c o rr e c t u nless the evidenc e pre ponderates aga inst it

. Id. Second, we must determine whe ther the facts (e ither as f ound by the tr ia l c ou rt

or a s su pp orted by th e pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e ) c le arl y a ndc on vin c ing ly establish the elements require d to terminate pa renta l rights. Id. Whethe r a statutory gr ound has bee n-5-

proven by the requisite standa rd of e vidence i s a q u es t ion of law to be r eviewe d de novo with no presumption of cor

rec tness. In r

e R.L.F. , 278 S.W.3d 305, 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing In re B. T. , No. M2007-01607-COA- R3-PT, 2008 WL 276012, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2008)).

IV. D I S CUS S I ON
A. Su bstant

ial Noncom

pliance

Severa l gr ounds for ter

mination are lis te d

in T e nnessee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g ), bu t th e e xiste nc e of

any on e of the ground s e nume ra

te d in the statut e wi ll s up po rt

a de c isi on to terminate pa

renta l rig hts, In r eS.R. C. , 156 S.W. 3d 26 , 28 (T e nn . Ct . App . 2 00 4) ; In r eJ. J. C. , 148 S.W .3d 919, 925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), pr ovided that termination is in the best interest of the child. In r eAudre

y S. , 182 S

. W

. 3 d at 8 6 2. One g round at issue in this case , listed in subsection (g )(2) , authorizes the termination of pa renta l r ights when "[t]here has bee n substantial noncompliance by the par ent or guardia

n with the statement of r espons i b i l i t i es in a per manenc y plan[.] " T he ter

m "substantial nonc ompliance" is not defined b y t h e t ermination statute, but the use of the word "sub st ant ial " requ ir es t hat th e p aren t's n on com pl ian ce be "[ o] f real wor th andim po rt ance. " In r e V ale ntine , 7 9 S

. W

. 3 d

at 5 4 7 (q u o t i n g Blac k 's La w D ic tio na ry 1428 (6th ed. 1990)). "T rivial, minor,
or te c hn ic a l de viatio ns fr om a pe rm ane nc y

pla n' s r e qu iremen ts wi ll not be de e me d to a mou

nt t o su bs tan ti al n on com pl ian ce." In re J.C.D. , 2 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 9 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g In re M.J .B. , 140 S.W .3d at 643). In addition, the trial court must find that the re quirements of the perma nency plan t hat t he parent alleg edly did not satisfy

wer e re asonable and re lated to re medying the conditi ons which necessitated foster ca re pla ceme nt. In r eR.L .F. , 278 S.W .3d at 312 (quoting In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 547). This may include conditions related both to the child' s removal and to family

reunific ation. In r eV

ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 547.

Mother ar g ues on appe al that " there is no clear and convinc ing e vidence that [she] had not substantially complied with the perma nency plan." Ag ain, the per manenc y plans requir ed Mother to visit the children, obtain stable housing and employ ment, develop a

support sy stem, complete a drug treatment prog ram , s u bmit to random drug scre ens, and ha ve a me ntal health asse ssment perf ormed. We note that Mother does not c ontend that her responsibilities under the pe rmane ncy plan wer e unre asonable . The trial c ourt found that Mother' s obligations and responsibilities outl ined in th e per man ency

pl ans were "reas on abl e andrel ate d t o t he re aso ns neces si tat in g fost er care. "

As evidenc e of he r complianc e with the permanenc y plans, Mother point s to the fac t that she participated in two months of inpatient drug treatment. Howeve r, consider ing the fac t th at the p ro gra m re qu i re d o n e y e a r o f t re at m en t , s h e c l ea rl y fa i l edt o co mp l y

wi t h t h e p er m an en cy

p l an 's requirement that she " complete a drug treatment prog ram." (empha sis added). Mother ' s attorney state d d ur ingc los ingargume nts th at Mothe r h a d c omp le te d a dr ugtr e a tme nt p ro g ra

m in ja il. Howeve r, no proof

was pre sented to substantiate he r statement. Statements made by attorney s are not evidence

. Houst

on v. Houst

on , No. W 2002-02022-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 22326970, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. May

29, 2003). Ms. Saulsberry testified at trial that DCS had no re cord of Mother completing any

drug or alc ohol treatment prog ram.-6-

Mother also c laims that DCS failed t o u s e rea sonable e ffor ts to assist her with visit ation beca use no one br oug ht her c hildren to the j ail to visit her a fter she was inca rce rate d in October

of 20 07

. Mo the r n ote s th a t sh e se nt a le tte r t o M s. Sa

uls be rr y a ft e r s he wa s in c arc e ra

te d, and that Ms

. Saulsberry

failed to re spond. At trial, Ms. Saulsberry acknow ledg ed that she r ece ived a letter fr om Mother in which Mother stated that she wa s incar cer ated a nd did not want her c hildren to be adopted. How ever , Ms. Saulsberry also testified that Mother did not ca ll or write to s et up visitation, and Mother pr esente d no proof to the contra ry

. Mother then notes that her ja il counselor conta cted Ms. Saulsberry

about inmate visitation. Ms. S aulsberr y testifi ed that a c ounselor did contac t her ap p ro x i m at el y

t h re e m o n t h s p ri o r t o t ri al re gar d i n g v i s i t at i o n , an d t h ats h e r et u rn edt h e c o u n s el o r's phone ca ll, but the counselor never responde d. Ms. Saulsbe rry testified that the DCS team did not fee l that visit ation at the jail was a ppropriate , but that visit ation could possibly have be en ar

rang ed if the counse lor would have responde d to her messa g e.
DCS has an af

firmative duty

to make " ' rea sonable e ffor ts' to pre serve , repa ir, or re store pare nt -chi ld rel ati on sh ip s when ever reas on abl y

po ss ib le. " In r eR.L .F. , 278 S.W .3d at 313 (quoting In re C.M.M

. , No. M2003-01122-COA- R3-PT, 2004 W L438326 , at * 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2004)). How ever , DCS "does not have the s ole obl iga tion to reme dy the conditi ons that require d the
rem ov al o f t he ch il dren fro m t hei r par ent s' cus to dy ." I n r e G i o r gia n n a H. , 2 0 5 S.W .3d 508, 518 (T e nn . Ct . App . 2 00 6) . Wh e n r e un if ic a tio n o f t

he fa mil y is a g oa l, the pa

re nts sh are re sp on sib ili ty for a ddressing the conditions that led to removal. Id. Reunification is a " two-wa y street," and the law does not r equire DCS to carry the entire burden of

this goa l. Sta te

De p't of Chil dr e n's S e rv s. v. S.M.D. , 200 S.W .3d 184, 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). I f par ents desire the re turn of their c hildren, they must also make " rea sonable a nd appropr iate ef

fo rt s t o reha

bilitate themselves and to re medy th e con di ti on s t hat requ ir ed t he D epar tm ent to rem ov e th eir chi ld ren f

rom t h e i r cus to dy ." In r e Gior gia nna H
. , 2 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d

at 5 1 9 (c i t i n g S t a te Dep't of Chil dren's Servs. v. B.B.M

. , No. E2004- 00 49 1- CO A- R3- PT, 20 04 WL26 07 76 9, a t *7 (T e nn . Ct . App . N ov . 1 7, 20 04 ); In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL43 83 26 , at *7 ; In re R.C.V. , No. M2001-02102-COA- R3-J V, 2002 WL 31730899, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2002)).

“ Re a so na ble e ff or ts” by DC S me ans “ the e xer c ise of re a so na ble c are and

dil ig e nc e

.. . to p ro v i d e services related to me eting the needs of the child and the family .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166( g )(1) (2005). In making such reasonable eff orts, “the child's health and saf ety shall be the para mount concer

n.” Id. What is “reasona

ble” de pends on the c ircumstance s of ea ch ca se, but the fac tors that courts use to de termine the r easona bleness of D CS's ef

forts include: (1 ) t h e r ea s o n s fo r s ep ar at i n g t h e p ar en tfr o m h i s o r h er ch i l dre n , (2 ) t h e p ar en t 's p h y s i ca l an d

m en t al ab i l i t i es , (3 ) t h e r es o u rc es av ai l ab l e t o t h e p ar en t , (4 ) t h e p ar en t 's eff orts to remedy

the conditions that require d the re moval of the c h i l d re n , (5 ) the
re s o u rc es a v ai l ab l e t o t h e D ep ar t m en t , (6 ) t h e du ra t i o nan d ex t en to f t h e p ar en t 's
reme dial eff

orts, and (7) the closene ss of the fit betwe en the c onditions t hat led to the in it ia l r e mo v a l o f th e c h il dr e n , th e r e qu ir e me n ts o f th e p e r ma n e n c y p la n , an d the De pa rtme nt' s e ff

or ts.D C S p ro v i d ed o t h er se rv i ce s t o t h e c h i l d ren , su ch as asse ssm en t s fo r d ev el o p m e n ta l d e la y s, an d i t also 5

o b t ain ed IC P C ev alu ati o n s fo r p o ssi b l e p l ac em en t o f t h e c h i l d ren w i t h M o t h er's relati v es in t w o o t h er states.
-7- In r eGior gia nna H
. , 2 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d at 5 1 9 (c i t i n g In reC.M .C. , No. E2005-00328- COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 18 27 85 5, a t *9 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . A ug . 3 , 2 00 5) ; State Dep't of Children' s Servs. v . B.B.M. , 2004 WL26 07 76 9, a t *6 ; In re C.M.M

. , 2 00 4 WL

43 83 26 , at * 7). We mus t de te rm ine wh e the r D CS pres e nte d " su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e re g ard ingits re un if ic a tio n e ff

or ts t o e na ble the tr ie r- of

-f a c t to conclude , without any

serious or substantial doubt, that the De partment' s remedia l effor ts were
reas on abl e un der a ll th e ci rcum st ances ." In the Ma tte r o f J .L .E. , No. M2004-02133-COA- R3-PT, 2 0 0 5 W L1 5 4 1 8 6 2 , at * 1 2 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g In re C.M.M. , 2004 WL 438326, at *8). Considering all the circ umstances o f t h is case, w e conc lude that DCS's e ffor ts were
rea sonable a

nd Mother' s were not. Ms. Saulsberry testified that DCS offere d Mother re fer rals for dr ug and a lc oh ol tr e a tme nt, pr ov ide d he r w ithinf or ma tio n r e g ard ingthe me nta l he a ltha sse ssm e nt, provided he r with housing inf ormation, and attempted to arra ng e visitation. Mother failed to show

5 up at one sc hedul ed v i s i t , and she c ance lled another visit. DCS supervised one visit at the drug reha bilitation center. Ms. Saulsberry explained that DCS was hindered in its attempts to further
a ssi st Mothe r d

ue to t he fa c t th a t he r w he re a

bo uts we re un kn ow n f

or mon ths a t a

tim e . M s. Saulsberry

testified that she attempted to contact Mothe r t h rough one of Mother' s friends on
nume ro us oc c a sio ns , bu t sh e wa s uns uc c e ssf ul. Whe n D CS f

ina lly le arn e d M oth e r’ s w he re a bo uts , she wa s incar cer ated. We ha ve previously rec og nized that DCS may be limit ed in the service s it can provide to a p ar en t when the pare nt is repeatedly incar cer ated. See, e .g. , In re Jeremi ah T. , No. E2008-02099-COA- R3-PT, 2009 WL 1162860, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009). Such is the
c a se he re . E ve n if

Mo the r e xpre sse d a

de sir e to vis it w ithhe r c hil dr e n a ft e r s he wa s in c arc e rate d in October 2007, she failed to substantially comply with the perma

nency plan' s visitation requirement duri ngthe y e ar p ri or

to h e r i nc arc e ratio n. B e tw e e n Au g us t 20 06 and Oc tob e r 20 07 , M oth e r h a d o nly two two-hour visits with the childr en

. I n addition, Mother fa iled to comply with ever

y other require ment of t h e per

manenc y plans. She did not obtain stable housing or employ ment, develop
a su pp or t sy ste m, c omp le te a

dr ugtr e a tme nt p ro g ra

m or me nta l he a lth a sse ssm e nt, or e ve n ma int a in contac t with DCS

.
F ro m ou r c are fu l r e vie w o f t

he re c or d, we c on c lud e that DC S us e d r e a so na ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st Mo the r, un de r t

he c ir c ums tanc e s, y e t sh e fa ile d to subs tanti a lly c omp ly wi th the pe rm ane nc y pla ns

. Thus, g rounds exist ed for the termination of he r par ental ri gh t s

. We need not addr ess the other g ro un ds a lle g e d b y

DC S.

B. B est I nte re st

" Th e ult imate g oa l of

e ve ry pr oc e e din g inv olv ingthe c are and c usto dy of a chi ld i s to
asce rt ain andpro mo te t he ch il d's b est in ter est s. " In re M arr , 194 S.W .3d 490, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App.-8-

2005). Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113(i) provides a list of some fac tors to consider in determining whether

termination of par ental rig hts is in t he best intere st of the child: (1) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n has made such an a djustment of circ u mstance, conduct, or

conditions as to make it safe and in the child' s best interest to be in the home of the pa

rent or guardia

n; (2) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after
rea sonable e ffor

ts by available social ser

vices a g encie s for such duration of time that lasting a djustment does not reasona bly appea r possible; (3) Whether the parent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a mea ningf ul relations h ip has otherwise been e stablished betwee n the pare nt or g uardia

n and the c hild; (5) The eff

ect a chang e of care taker s and phy sical environme nt is li kely to have on the child' s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n, or other pe rson re siding wit h t h e p ar ent or g uardia n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional or psy cholog ical abuse , or neg lect towar d the child, or a nother c hild or adult in the family or household; (7) Whether

the phy sical environme nt of the pare nt's or g uardia n' s home is healthy
and sa fe , w he the r t

he re is c ri min a l ac tiv ity in the ho me , or wh e the r t he re is s uc h u se of a lc oh ol o r c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e s a s ma

y re nd e r the pa

re nt o r gua

rd ian c on sis te ntl y unable to ca

re f or the c hild in a safe a

nd stable manne r; ( 8 ) Wh e th e r th e p ar e n t' s o r g u ar d ia n ' s me n ta l an d

/o r e mo ti o n a l s tatu s would be detrimental to the child or preve nt the pare nt or g uardia n from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and super vision for the child; or (9 ) Wh e the r the pa

re nt or g ua

rd ian ha s p a id c hil d s up po rt c on sis te nt w iththe c hil d support g uidelines promulg ated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5- 101.

We must determine the child's best interest fr om the child' s, rather than the par ent' s, perspe ctive. In
re Ma rr , 194 S.W .3d at 499.

Ha vin g re vie we d th e a fo re me nti on e d f a c tor s and

the e nti re reco rd

in t his c a se , w e re a dil y c on c lud e that te rm inatio n o f M o the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts is i n th e c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. Mo the r c le a rl y ha s n ot a dju ste d he r c ir c ums tanc e s o r c on du c t a s to make it s a fe and in t he c hil dr e n' s b e st i nte re st to reside with her . Mother is curr ently incar cer ated. Althoug h Mother' s attorney repor ted that she would be elig ible for parole soon, even if Mother is pa roled, she has not maintained sta ble housing or employ

ment in severa l y ear s. I n addition, there w as evide nce that t h e childre n suffe red f rom neg lect while in Mo t h er 's car e. Ms. Saulsberr y and the c hildren' s foster mother testified that the
c hil dr e n w e re c ov e re d in fl e a bit e s and he a d l ice wh e n th e y

e nte re d D CS c us tod

y and that th e ir condition require d treatment for over a month. The c hildren' s father admitte d that he and Mothe r wer e using coca ine and sy ring es in the home, and that he was also selling dr ug s. The foster

mother t es t i fi edt h at wh en t h e c h i l dre nca m e t o l i v e wi t h h er , t h ey we re u n ab l e t o t al k , h adp ro b l em s ea t i n g, and did not know what shoes wer e. She also testified that the c hildren we re " scar ed to death" whe n-9-

left in a room a lone. She testified that the children wer e doing well at t he time of trial, a nd that they had lea rned the alphabe t and some numbers. Howeve r, she sa id the children still had some issues about b e in g a lo n e

. M s

. Sa

u ls b e r r y s a id th e c h il dr e nh a d

" b lo s s o me d " in

th e c ar e o f

th e ir f o ster mother.

Mo the r h a d f

a ile d to main ta in vis itatio n or co nta c t with the c hil dr e n s inc e the y e nte re d D CS custody in 2006. Mother did not financ ially support the children or send letters, with the exception of a c ard on the ir fourth birthday , afte r t he termination petition was filed. She had vis ited with the children f or only four hour s over the two-y ear period, and Ms. Saulsbe rry and the childre n' s foster mot he r b oth te sti fi e d th a t th e c hil dr e n d id n ot r e c og nize Mo the r dur ing the ir tw o v isi ts w ithhe r. Ms. Saulsberry explained that w hen Mother approa ched the children and tried to pic k them u p , the children be g an cr

y ing and moved awa

y from her. Ms. Saulsbe rry and the f oster mother both testified that the children had no bond with Mothe r and ref err ed to the ir foster mother as "M o m m y
. " T he foster mother

wished to adopt t he children, and Ms. Saulsberry stated her opinion that removing the children f rom the foster

home would have a detr imental eff ect on them.

I n sum, we find cle ar a

nd convincing ev idence to support the trial court' s conclusion that te rm inatio n o f M oth e r' s p are nta l r ig hts is i n th e c hil dr e n' s b e st i nte re st.

V. C ONCL US I ON
For the af oreme ntioned rea sons, we af firm t he decision of t he trial court. Cos ts of this appeal
are assessed a g ainst Amber B ennett, for which execution may

issue if nec essar

y
.

___________________________________ AL AN E. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.