IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2017

IN RE LENA G.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Washington County

No. J10171 Robert G. Lincoln, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2016-00798-COA-R3-PT

___________________________________

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the child, Lena G. (“the Child”), 

who was fifteen years of age at the conclusion of trial. On October 8, 2013, the 

Washington County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) granted temporary legal custody of the 

Child to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The Child was 

immediately placed in foster care, where she has remained since that date. Following a

hearing, the trial court entered an order on June 11, 2014, adjudicating the Child 

dependent and neglected in the care of the parents. On November 19, 2014, DCS filed a 

petition to terminate the parental rights of the Child’s mother, Sherry G. (“Mother”), and 

her father, Teddy G. (“Father”). The trial court admitted Mother’s hospital records as an 

exhibit during trial over her objection. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated 

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child after determining by clear and 

convincing evidence that (1) the parents failed to provide a suitable home for the Child, 

(2) the parents failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency 

plans, (3) the conditions that led to the removal of the Child from the parents’ custody 

still persisted, and (4) Mother was mentally incompetent to adequately care for the Child. 

The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of 

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Both Mother 

and Father have appealed. Having determined that the Child had not been removed from 

the parents’ home for six months by court order when the petition to terminate parental 

rights was filed, we reverse the trial court’s ruling regarding the statutory ground of 

persistence of conditions as to both parents. We conclude that the trial court erred in 

admitting Mother’s hospital records but determine this error to be harmless. We affirm 

the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother’s and 

Father’s parental rights to the Child. 

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

Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part; Case Remanded

05/26/2017
- 2 -

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which RICHARD H.

DINKINS, J., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., joined.

Joseph O. McAfee, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Teddy G.

Robert Black, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sherry G.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, and Brian A. Pierce, Assistant 

Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

Rachel Ratliff, Johnson City, Tennessee, Guardian Ad Litem.

Michelle Caggiano, Johnson City, Tennessee, Attorney Ad Litem.

OPINION

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The Child was previously removed from the parents’ custody in January 2011 

after DCS filed a petition alleging that the Child was dependent and neglected. In the 

prior DCS case, Mother underwent a psychological assessment in May 2011 with Dr. 

Willard Sims; the results of which were admitted as an exhibit at trial. That assessment, 

inter alia, provided:

[Mother] has a closed case at Watauga Behavioral Health Services. Her 

last diagnoses include Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of 

Emotions and Conduct, Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and 

[Intellectual Disability].[

1

] She was seen by Richard Kirk, LCSW of the 

Mobile Crisis Response Team on 05/30/96 and was referred for outpatient 

treatment. She was seen by Kathy Henley, M.Ed. of the Mobile Crisis 

Response Team on 04/26/03 due to an assault by her husband. She was 

diagnosed with Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and PartnerRelational Problem. She was referred for outpatient therapy. She was seen 

by James Sapp, M.Ed. of the Mobile Crisis Response Team on 11/24/03 

due to an anxiety attack and having made scratches to the back of her left 

wrist. She was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified 

and Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. A safety plan was able 

 

1 We note that our Supreme Court has urged the use of “intellectual disability” whenever possible to 

avoid negative stereotypes and potentially hurtful terminology. See Keen v. State, 398 S.W.3d 594, 600 

n.6 (Tenn. 2012) (citing the Tennessee General Assembly’s 2010 amendment to Tennessee Code 

Annotated § 39-13-203); In re Christopher S., No. E2012-02349-COA-R3-PT, 2013 WL 5436673, at *3

n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013).
- 3 -

to be developed and she was referred for outpatient treatment. She denied 

any history of inpatient mental health treatment or any family history of 

mental illness.

* * * 

CLINICAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 

[Mother] is a 46-year-old Caucasian separated female from Johnson City, 

Tennessee who was referred for a psychological evaluation by Melissa 

Brown of the Department of Children’s Services. She displayed an anxious 

mood and affect with sufficient levels of concentration and attention. She 

appeared to be a credible historian and results of this assessment appear to 

be valid. On the WAIS-IV, [Mother] obtained a Full Scale IQ of 55 which 

falls within the Extremely Low Range of intellectual functioning. She has 

a diagnostic history of Mild [Intellectual Disability] and has experienced 

difficulties with communication skills and functional academic skills. 

Attempts to administer the Personality Assessment Inventory to [Mother] 

were unsuccessful. [Mother] reported symptoms of anxiety. She is 

currently in a custody dispute related to her daughter. 

Based on the information obtained in this evaluation, the following 

recommendations are being made: 

1. [Mother] would benefit from individual therapy to focus on 

symptoms of anxiety. If these symptoms persist or intensify, she 

would benefit from a psychiatric consultation. 

2. In case of consideration of family reunification, [Mother] would 

benefit from intensive family therapy to focus on co-parenting 

issues, family rules and consequences, family communication 

processes, and on age-appropriate parenting techniques. 

3. In case of consideration of family reunification, [Mother] would 

benefit from successful completion of a DCS-approved parenting 

course to focus on age-appropriate parenting skills. 

4. In case of consideration of family reunification, [Mother] would 

benefit from some type of in-home service to monitor her behavior 

and her home environment, to insure compliance with 

recommendations, and to reinforce therapeutic interventions.
- 4 -

(Emphasis in original.) The trial court ultimately returned custody of the Child to Father 

upon finding that DCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the Child was 

dependent and neglected in Father’s care. The trial court also ordered that Mother was to 

have supervised visitation with the Child and that the paternal grandfather would have no 

contact with the Child. 

The trial court again removed the Child from Father’s custody in April 2012 but 

did not find clear and convincing evidence that the Child was dependent and neglected in 

its subsequent order. The court subsequently returned the Child to the legal and physical 

custody of Father. The court ordered that Father could supervise Mother’s visitation with 

the Child and that alcoholic beverages should not be on the premises where the Child 

resided.

On October 8, 2013, the trial court entered an emergency order removing the 

Child from the parents’ home where both Mother and Father were living with the Child. 

In the removal order, the trial court found that “it was reasonable to make no effort to 

maintain the child in the home due to the circumstances of the family and the child.” 

Following an adjudicatory hearing conducted on May 29, 2014, the trial court entered an 

order finding the Child to be dependent and neglected on June 11, 2014. The trial court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that the Child was dependent and neglected due 

to concerns resulting from Mother’s ongoing mental health issues; Father’s substance 

abuse issues; the parents’ failure to acknowledge and protect the Child from the 

grandfather, whom the Child alleged sexually abused her; and the parents’ failure to meet 

the Child’s needs. Although it is undisputed that both parents were residing in the home, 

the Child was in the legal custody of Father at the time of removal. 

DCS filed a petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights to the Child on 

November 19, 2014. The trial court conducted a bench trial spanning the course of four

days on October 12, 2015; November 6, 2015; January 25, 2016; and March 4, 2016. 

Jacki McCartt, the DCS Family Services Worker, testified regarding the efforts DCS 

made to assist Mother and Father in providing a suitable home for the Child from 

October 8, 2013, through February 8, 2014. According to Ms. McCartt, DCS held an 

initial Child and Family Team Meeting (“CFTM”) to determine whether there would be 

an appropriate family placement for the Child, but no suitable family placement could be 

located. Ms. McCartt explained that DCS representatives discussed with the parents at 

that CFTM several concerns, including physical abuse, domestic violence, substance 

abuse, and the family’s history with DCS. Subsequently, DCS placed the Child into a 

level-three foster home, where she received weekly counseling therapy sessions and case 

management with Omni Visions no less than three times per week. According to Ms. 

McCartt, a permanency plan was developed in November 2013; however, this plan was 

never ratified by the trial court.2 

 

2 The November 2013 permanency plan is not contained within the record before us; therefore, it will not
- 5 -

Mother and Father resided together throughout the pendency of this case. 

According to Ms. McCartt, during the four months following the Child’s removal from 

the parents’ home, although DCS attempted to place services in the home to assist the 

parents with completing their required assessments, Father refused such in-home 

services. While services were also offered to Mother during that period separate from 

those offered to Father, Mother did not utilize the services. Father, however, did 

cooperate with the Child’s therapy during that time period. Ms. McCartt related that the 

issues leading to removal were still ongoing during the four months following the Child’s 

removal from the home and that she was unable to recommend unsupervised visitation 

for the parents during that time. On several occasions during the pendency of the case,

Father indicated to Ms. McCartt that Mother was hospitalized at Woodridge Psychiatric 

Hospital (“Woodridge”). According to Ms. McCartt, Mother continued to experience

ongoing mental health problems and had been hospitalized in Woodridge in April and 

August prior to trial.

DCS developed a permanency plan for the family on June 12, 2014, with dual 

goals of “Return to Parent” and “Adoption” and a target date for those goals of December 

31, 2014. The permanency plan required the parents to complete a parenting assessment 

and follow all recommendations from such assessment; cooperate with in-home services 

and all recommendations they may provide; ensure the Child had no contact with the 

paternal grandfather; participate “actively, openly, and honestly” in family therapy and 

the Child’s therapy upon the request of the therapist; develop communication skills 

during family therapy; and engage in visitations with the Child. Additionally, Father was 

to complete an alcohol and drug assessment, follow all recommendations from such 

assessment, complete a psychological assessment, and follow all recommendations from 

that assessment. The trial court ratified this permanency plan on June 30, 2014, entering

an order reflecting the ratification on July 11, 2014. In its order, the court found that “the 

tasks in the Permanency Plan are reasonable and related to achieving permanency for this 

child and towards remedying the reasons that the child requires foster care.” As part of 

the June 2014 permanency plan, Mother was also to complete a psychological assessment 

and follow the recommendations therefrom; however, Mother objected to this 

requirement in court. The trial court ordered that the requirement for Mother to 

participate in a psychological assessment and follow all recommendations be stricken 

from the plan, but Mother was ordered to continue in case management with Frontier 

Health. 

 

be considered by this Court when addressing the ground of substantial noncompliance with the 

permanency plans. See In re T.N.L.W., No. E2006-01623-COA-R3-PT, 2007 WL 906751, at *4 (Tenn.

Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007) (“We have previously held that when DCS is relying on substantial 

noncompliance with the permanency plan as a ground for termination of parental rights, it is essential that 

the plan be admitted into evidence.”).
- 6 -

Following ratification of the June 2014 permanency plan, Mother underwent a 

parenting assessment, while Father underwent a parenting assessment, alcohol and drug 

assessment, and psychological assessment. Father’s alcohol and drug assessment 

conducted by Robert C. Perry, MMHC, with Families Free provided, inter alia: 

[Father] presents with a very defiant attitude and is easily offended. He 

appears to be very uncomfortable around strangers and has a difficult time 

expressing and/or defining his emotions. According to [Father], his 

drinking at one time was significant and it is this tester[’]s belief that 

episodes of binge drinking today is very likely significant though he did not 

score as alcohol dependent at this time. It is this tester’s opinion that it will 

be very difficult for [Father] to accept any type of traditional A&D 

counseling and since his cognitive function is unknown to this tester, I can 

only presume that his ability to comprehend A&D psycho-education 

materials would be limited. Peer counseling and AA is likely to be the best 

fit for [Father].

Father’s psychological assessment recommendations included:

Based on the information obtained in this evaluation, the following 

recommendations are being made: 

1. [Father] would benefit from individual therapy and alcohol and drug 

treatment. He would benefit from therapy which addresses any 

symptoms of anxiety. If these symptoms persist or intensify, he 

would benefit from a psychiatric consultation. He would benefit 

from therapy which addresses his pattern of substance use and 

relapse prevention. He would benefit from the administration of 

random urine drug screens. 

2. [Father] would benefit from family therapy together with all 

princip[als] involved to focus on co-parenting issues as well as on 

the impact of alcohol and drug use in the home. 

3. [Father] would benefit from successful completion of a DCS 

approved parent education course to focus on age-appropriate 

parenting techniques. 

4. In case of consideration of family reunification, [Father] would 

benefit from some type of in-home service to monitor his behavior in 

his home environment, to insure compliance with recommendations, 

and to reinforce therapeutic interventions.
- 7 -

The report of the parenting assessment for both Mother and Father stated in relevant part 

as follows:

 Both [Father] and [Mother] appear to be challenged to meet the 

parenting demands of their daughter. It should be noted that testing 

revealed cognitive limitations and challenges in their ability to 

process both auditory and visual information. This reality will need 

to be considered as those who work with [Father] and [Mother] plan 

and help them to parent their child. INFORMATION AND 

GUIDANCE will need to be presented in brief, incremental 

components with modeled examples of appropriate parenting, along 

with opportunities for each parent to demonstrate understanding and 

competence. 

 INTENSIVE PARENTING EDUCATION which includes 

appropriate developmental expectations, the importance of providing 

a nurturing and supportive environment for [their] child, and being 

emotionally available for [the Child], is recommended. Alternatives 

to corporal punishment as disciplinary practice may be included, 

with strategies specific to the needs and motivation of a teen. 

 FAMILY COUNSELING, to help guide these parents to establish a 

parental role with their daughter and to support both parents and 

child to create a respectful and supportive relationship within the 

family dynamic, is advised. 

As to Father, his parenting assessment also stated: 

[Father] has established himself as hostile toward interventions. Such 

perspective in concert with cognitive limitations suggests a high likelihood 

that he may lack the ability to gain motivation and investment in the wellbeing of his child.

Additionally, Mother’s parenting assessment explained:

If [the Child] is experiencing school issues similar to those her mother 

could not resolve herself, the likelihood, after thirteen DCS referrals, of 

[Mother] being able to parent and provide support for [the Child] to be 

successful in school attendance, is questionable. [Families Free services] to 

address the issues that led to custody, as well as wrap around services and 

educational support that will support the child to be capable/willing to selfmonitor to attend school, are recommended.
- 8 -

On January 6, 2015, DCS developed an updated permanency plan for the parents, 

which included essentially the same tasks for the parents to complete as the previous 

plan. The new plan, however, incorporated the recommendations from the parents’ 

completed assessments and provided a target date of June 30, 2015. As recommended by 

the parenting assessments, the permanency plan required the parents to participate in 

intensive parenting education, cooperate with in-home services, and participate in family 

therapy “to establish a parental role with [the Child]” and launch a “respectful and

supportive relationship within the family dynamic.” Regarding the intensive parenting 

education, the parents were to “demonstrate participation and understanding of concepts,”

“cooperate with the service provider and program requirements until successfully 

completed,” and demonstrate during visits their “ability to utilize parenting skills 

learned.”

The updated permanency plan also required Mother and Father to allow DCS and 

the guardian ad litem to visit the home during the pendency of the case in order to 

monitor “safety issues” and the “appropriateness of the environment.” Additionally, 

Father was to participate in individual therapy as recommended by his psychological 

assessment and to attend weekly Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings as 

recommended by his alcohol and drug assessment. The trial court ratified this 

permanency plan on January 12, 2015, and entered an order reflecting the ratification on 

January 27, 2015. In its order, the court found that “the tasks in the Permanency Plan are 

reasonable and related to achieving permanency for this child and towards remedying the 

reasons that the child requires foster care.” 

Amanda Shipley was the Child’s case manager with Omni Visions from January 

2014 to December 2014. Ms. Shipley testified that as case manager, she saw the Child 

weekly and facilitated visits between the Child and the parents. Most visits occurred in 

the family home. Ms. Shipley also attended the Child’s therapy appointments. The 

parents agreed to attend the Child’s therapy sessions twice a month; however, according 

to Ms. Shipley, “that only happened a few times.” Following a court hearing in February 

2014, Father informed Ms. Shipley that he would not attend therapy again. Thereafter, 

the parents stopped attending family therapy for approximately six or seven months. 

After that period, according to Ms. Shipley, they attended “just a few more” while she 

was assigned to the case. During one visit, Ms. Shipley overheard Father instructing the 

Child not to talk or cooperate with DCS. Ms. Shipley explained that there were 

numerous times when Mother could not attend visits because she was hospitalized. She 

also indicated that Mother hardly spoke or interacted with the Child during the visits 

Mother did attend. 

Ms. Shipley testified regarding two occasions when she had to cancel the visits 

between the Child and the parents. In April 2014, a cancellation occurred upon Ms. 

Shipley’s and the Child’s arrival because Father appeared intoxicated. When Ms. Shipley
- 9 -

ended the visit, Father began cursing and was gesturing rudely to her and the Child as

they drove away. Father subsequently left voice mail messages for Ms. Shipley wherein 

he admitted that he had been “drinking a little bit today.” According to Ms. Shipley, the 

Child cried during the entire forty-five-minute drive back to Bristol following that visit. 

Additionally, Ms. Shipley had to cancel a visit in May 2014 due to Father’s “aggressive”

behavior. Father appeared to be angry with the Child, and when Father questioned the 

Child about a statement she had made in court the previous day, he yelled at her and said, 

“[f]ine then, you can just stay in foster care.” Father also was using curse words and 

“flipped [them] off.”

At the time of trial, Kerri Rogers was the Child’s case manager with Omni 

Visions. She had replaced Ms. Shipley as the Child’s case manager in December 2014. 

At trial, Ms. Rogers explained having knowledge of at least five or more instances when 

Mother was hospitalized at Woodridge. Ms. Rogers reported that there were visits with 

the Child at the parents’ home when Mother slept in the recliner during the entire visit. 

Even when Mother was awake, she was not interactive with the Child. Ms. Rogers

reportedly observed Mother on multiple occasions speaking to people in the home or 

under the porch who were not present. 

Ms. Rogers further testified that Father became angry on one occasion, throwing a 

basketball in her direction. On another occasion, she observed Father instructing the 

Child not to take her court-ordered medication. During a more recent visit in September 

2015, Father had appeared as though he were intoxicated. Ms. Rogers described Father

as sweating, slurring his words, and talking loudly. Mother informed Ms. Rogers that 

Father had been drinking. Ms. Rogers indicated that she had never felt comfortable 

recommending to DCS that the parents have unsupervised visitation with the Child.

Dr. Helen Lane testified as an expert in the field of child development and 

parenting assessments. She performed Mother’s and Father’s respective parenting 

assessments. During Father’s assessment, he described himself as “[h]ot tempered 

sometimes when people keeps on messing with me.” Father also reported a history of 

driving under the influence charges, but stated that he had not confronted as many legal 

issues since the Child’s birth. In her parenting assessment, Dr. Lane concluded that 

Father was “at high risk to engage in inappropriate parenting practices” and that there is a 

“high likelihood that he may lack the ability to gain motivation and investment in the 

wellbeing of his child.” Dr. Lane explained that Father’s results from testing placed him

within the “moderately mentally challenged range.” Furthermore, Father tended to 

minimize the circumstances and stressors surrounding his family’s circumstances, listing

family strengths that Dr. Lane, as assessor, did not observe. 

As to Mother, Dr. Lane expressed concern that she appeared not to be invested in 

the Child. According to Dr. Lane, Mother did not display a warmth or nurturing behavior 

toward the Child and seemed disconnected during the visit. Mother’s results from testing 
- 10 -

during her parenting assessment placed her in the “moderately mentally challenged range

of cognitive functioning.” Mother informed Dr. Lane that she had admitted herself to 

Woodridge about two or three times that year. Dr. Lane also took note that Mother was 

very self-focused despite the Child’s absence from the home, opining that Mother might

be unable to adequately parent the Child due to her lack of concern for the Child. 

Dr. Lane articulated additional concern regarding the lack of behavioral guidelines

provided by the parents and her observation that the Child “seemed to be more in control 

than anyone in that home.” According to Dr. Lane, if the Child were left in the 

environment of the parents’ home, it was unlikely that Mother would be able to bring the 

Child into “independent and sustaining adulthood.” Dr. Lane maintained that the parents’ 

home would not provide a “good, healthy situation” for the Child, and if the parents did 

not complete the recommendations from the parenting assessments, the home would be 

unsafe for the Child. 

Lisa Tipton, the executive director and custodian of records for Families Free, 

testified that the agency provided intensive parenting education to the parents. Certain 

Families Free records were admitted as an exhibit at trial. Those records reflect the visits 

to the family home and telephone conversations between the case manager and the 

parents. On January 14, 2015, the case manager visited Mother at Woodridge, when

Mother reported that she was seeing and hearing “bad men” again. Families Free 

attempted to schedule a session on January 14, 2015, but Father did not answer. 

According to Ms. Tipton, a session scheduled for January 20, 2015 was cancelled by 

Father. On January 21, 2015, the Families Free case manager travelled to the parents’ 

home for a scheduled session, but no one was home. Subsequently, Father called and 

cancelled the session scheduled for January 26, 2015. 

Families Free records further established that during a case manager’s visit with

Mother at Woodridge on January 28, 2015, Mother reported that she had begun hearing 

and seeing people again and that Father had stopped providing medication to her because 

it was not helping. On the same day, when a Families Free case manager made a visit to 

the home, Father was present. Father became angry when the case manager arrived. 

According to Ms. Tipton, Father had been served with the petition to terminate parental 

rights earlier that day. Father made statements to the Families Free case manager

declaring that he would blow up the DCS building, kill the DCS family services worker, 

blow up the entire courthouse, and kill the judge. According to Ms. Tipton, the records 

reflected that as of January 28, 2015, “due to [Father’s] constant angry outbursts, 

[Families Free had] never been able to get into any of the parenting education 

curriculum.” Thereafter, Families Free services ended and were not reauthorized to begin 

again until July 2015.

A Families Free case manager met with Father on June 21, 2015, for an initial 

appointment after services were reauthorized. While completing paperwork, Father 
- 11 -

reported that Mother was in Woodridge. Father also indicated that he had a drinking 

problem and was attending AA meetings once a week. On July 27, 2015, Father 

contacted the case manager to cancel a scheduled parenting education session; the visit 

was rescheduled for July 31, 2015. Father, however, called and again cancelled the 

scheduled parenting education session indicating he “needed to pay his light bill” and 

would not be home. On August 24, 2015, the case manager visited the parents’ home and 

attempted to develop a service plan with the parents. Father appeared “resistant to 

agreeing with any service plan goals” at that time. During that visit, the case manager 

noted that Mother’s “verbal communication and acknowledgment of the situation was 

very limited.” On August 31, 2015, the case manager again visited the parents’ home, 

observing Mother’s agitation demonstrated by her talking, yelling, and apparent 

responses to someone the case manager did not see. Mother subsequently began hitting

the couch. Father indicated to the case manager that Mother “gets like this for a few 

days” before needing to be committed to Woodridge. Subsequently, the case manager 

met with Father at the family home regarding the first parenting education curriculum 

session. The case manager reported that Father was “friendly and open” during that 

session. 

Father cancelled a subsequent parenting education session scheduled for October 

8, 2015, explaining that “he was heading to the hospital to see [Mother]” and would not 

be home. Father did meet with the case manager on October 22, 2015. According to 

agency records, “Father indicated that [Mother] had gotten a prescription the previous 

week for a nebulizer, however, he had been unable to obtain the nebulizer for her, which 

resulted in her being hospitalized again.” The case manager’s notes further state:

[Father] was engaged with [case manager], but remains hostile against DCS 

and “the state” and feels like he is being targeted. He has very little selfawareness of the impact his actions, including his alcoholism and 

[Mother’s] deteriorating mental and physical health[,] have on [the Child]. 

His hostile attitude and resistance to change, in addition to his limited 

cognitive functioning, present difficulties in [Father’s] learning and 

implementing new parenting techniques and approaches.

On October 27, 2015, Father again cancelled a parenting education session and 

indicated that Mother was hospitalized. The parenting education session was rescheduled 

for the next day, which Father later cancelled by voicemail. The case manager noted that 

Father’s speech was “slurred on the voice mail.” Father subsequently cancelled a session 

for October 29, 2015, by reason of his claimed “strep throat.” The case manager again 

noted that Father’s speech appeared to be slurred. Father informed her he had not been 

drinking and blamed the slurred speech on his throat condition. The records also 

demonstrate that Father notified the case manager that he would not meet on October 30, 

2015, “because he had to pay his bills.”
- 12 -

Ms. Tipton, also testifying at trial as an expert in the field of social work,

explained that the majority of Families Free’s efforts with Father and Mother were 

expended by attempting to schedule parenting education sessions and explaining to the 

parents reasons for the services and why DCS had secured individuals to enter their home 

for the services. Although Mother and Father were offered thirty-two sessions for 

parenting education, twenty-one of those sessions were cancelled. The records also 

indicate that Mother was hospitalized during several of those offered sessions. 

Explaining that the parents were not able to demonstrate the skills that Families Free 

hoped to develop, Ms. Tipton held concerns should the Child be returned to the custody 

of the parents. Her concerns were primarily due to the financial instability in the home, 

the parents’ inability to properly parent the Child, and the safety of the family members. 

According to Ms. Tipton, the parents would be unable to safely parent the Child in the 

foreseeable future because of mental health issues, relational challenges, and lack of 

commitment to services offered to them. 

As explained by Ms. McCartt, the parents had not completed the requirements of 

their permanency plans to an extent that would permit her to recommend that the parents

have unsupervised visitation with the Child or to allow the Child to return to their

custody. Although Father had completed his mental health intake with Frontier Health, 

he did not continue to work with Frontier Health after his intake appointments. Father

had failed to accept or work with in-home services, and although he allowed services to 

enter his home, he did not cooperate with those services. Father attended an AA meeting

at least once a month but not once a week as recommended by his assessment. Ms. 

McCartt related several instances of Father’s poor conduct. Specifically, he had yelled at 

her, made threats of physical harm, and left voice mails cursing her. Moreover, Father 

had called the DCS attorney inappropriate names and sounded inebriated during various

voice mail messages. 

Ms. McCartt elucidated her apprehension that the parents had not acknowledged a 

concern for the Child while in the company of the paternal grandfather, who had been 

accused of sexually molesting the Child. Although the parents had complied with the nocontact order regarding the grandfather, it was undisputed that he lived on the same street 

as the parents and served as their primary source of transportation.

As indicated by Ms. McCartt, while the Child had been residing and doing well in 

her current foster home for more than a year, improvements in her behavior had been 

observed. Meanwhile, visitation with Mother had ceased, and visitation with Father had

been restricted to a therapeutic setting. A motion to suspend Mother’s visitation, filed by 

the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem on behalf of the Child, was pending at the 

time of the termination hearing. An interim order had been entered prohibiting contact 

between Mother and the Child pending a hearing on the merits.
- 13 -

As the Child’s therapist in both individual and family therapy, Theresa Fletcher 

described the Child to be in a “condition of suffering” when she was removed from the 

parents’ home. The Child struggled with self-care, could not verbalize her emotions, 

perceived herself as an adult, maintained poor social skills, had suffered the trauma of 

alleged sexual abuse, and was depressed. Her symptoms were consistent with Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder. Throughout the course of her treatment, the Child met with 

Ms. Fletcher weekly and, as of November 2015, had met with Ms. Fletcher seventy-six 

times since she had been in DCS custody. Ms. Fletcher discussed the improvements she 

had observed while the Child attended therapy. These included the Child’s ability to

better process and verbalize her thoughts and feelings, becoming more confident, and

improving her social skills. 

Although Ms. Fletcher recognized that the Child loved her parents, she expressed 

concern regarding whether the Child’s needs were being met due to the dysfunction of 

the family. The home environment was described as a “clear role reversal” between the 

Child and the parents. Specifically, when Mother was present, the Child was the 

caregiver. Although a bond existed between the Child and Mother, Ms. Fletcher opined 

that Mother did not appear to have the ability to properly parent the Child. Ms. Fletcher

also reasoned that Mother’s capacity to parent was unlikely to be improved due to 

Mother’s significant deterioration over the year prior to trial, including Mother’s 

observed speaking to persons and seeing things not present. 

Ms. Fletcher further opined that the resolution of issues between the Child and her 

parents was limited by Father’s lack of sobriety, Mother’s mental health, the parents’ 

inability to resolve conflicts effectively, and Father’s lack of anger management. Ms. 

Fletcher would not support the Child’s return to the parents’ home at that time, indicating

that placing the Child back into the parents’ environment would cause the Child to 

“erode.” Although having concerns about severing the contact between the parents and 

the Child, Ms. Fletcher believed the Child’s welfare would be enhanced by her remaining 

in foster care.

At trial, Father submitted photographs of himself and the Child to demonstrate 

their mutual bond. The photographs also depicted the Child’s bedroom and food existing

in his home. Regarding the therapeutic visits with the Child and Ms. Fletcher, Father

stated that he enjoyed the visits, believing the Child enjoyed them as well. 

Admitting that a visit with the Child was cancelled by reason of his alcohol 

consumption, Father also acknowledged that he had consumed alcohol and was upset 

when he left a voice mail message for his case manager. Father claimed that he was in 

such condition because he was “tired of being harassed by The State.” According to 

Father, he had addressed the situation in an effort to seek the Child’s return. With 

reference to his demeanor, Father further testified that although he had thrown a
- 14 -

basketball out of frustration during one visit, he in fact was aiming at the house and not 

Ms. Rogers. 

By Father’s account, the AA meetings he had been attending for approximately

three months were beneficial. Although he had attempted to attend AA meetings every 

week, he was not always successful. Father submitted three documents reflecting the AA

meetings he did attend. Despite recognizing that AA was a twelve-step program, Father

was unable to identify the first step of the program. Furthermore, although he had not 

obtained a sponsor in the program, he insisted that he had not consumed alcohol in six 

months.

According to Father, Mother and he intended to continue to reside together. While 

Father observed Mother speaking to nonexistent people, he blamed Mother’s medication 

for this behavior. Father conceded that Mother would be unable to care for the Child by 

herself if he was not present. Additionally, although Father had not allowed the paternal 

grandfather to have contact with the Child, he did not believe the grandfather had

sexually assaulted her.

The Child’s testimony during trial focused on various issues. She suggested that 

her relationship with Father was strong and that the therapy sessions were going well. 

Indicating her love for Mother and a desire to continue seeing her, the Child expressed 

worry concerning her parents and their well-being. According to the Child, although her 

grades were “decent” when she resided with her parents, her current performance in 

school was excellent. The Child described her foster parents as “good to [her].”

As additional evidence, DCS subpoenaed for trial Mother’s hospital records from 

Woodridge. Mother objected to their admission into evidence. The trial court ultimately 

admitted Mother’s hospital records as a trial exhibit.3

Independent of the Woodridge hospital records, Mother’s and Father’s respective 

medical records from Frontier Health also were admitted into evidence. Neither parent 

objected to the admission of the Frontier Health records. As a recommendation of his 

psychological assessment, Father was to participate in individual therapy. Father’s 

Frontier Health records reflect that he appeared for an intake and initial therapy session 

on March 10 and 12, 2015, and appeared to be frustrated. Reporting to a representative 

of Frontier Health that he was only required to attend the initial intake appointment, 

Father declined further treatment.

Mother’s Frontier Health records evince a medical history since 2003. Mother

was reported as “no show” for her aftercare appointments with Watauga Behavioral 

 

3 The contents of the Woodridge Psychiatric Hospital records have not been included in the Factual and 

Procedural Background section of this Opinion. 
- 15 -

Health Services (“WBHS”), a division of Frontier Health, on November 26, 2013; 

January 7, 2014; and April 1, 2014. On October 8, 2014, Mother was seen by the 

Frontier Health Mobile Crisis Response Team. Mother stated at the time that she was 

depressed and held thoughts about killing her husband. Mother also reported not having 

taken some of her medication in approximately two months. Consequently, she was 

referred to the respective Crisis Stabilization Unit (“CSU”). While in the CSU, Mother 

expressed her willingness to participate in case management services. 

On October 9, 2014, Mother participated in a group discussion session. The group 

facilitator’s notes provided that Mother “will continue to work on her goals regarding 

reduction of symptoms of auditory hallucinations, adjustment difficulties, and mild 

[intellectual disability], with medication stabilization and compliance, therapy to help 

increase healthy coping skills, and utilization of healthy coping skills more often to 

improve the moment, and overall quality of life.” On October 10, 2014, Mother attended 

the treatment group and was alert and engaged during the session. On October 11, 2014, 

Mother participated in a group therapy session and was discharged from the CSU, with 

planned aftercare to attend scheduled follow-up appointments at WBHS. On October 21, 

2014, Mother failed to appear for her appointment with WBHS. 

On October 27, 2014, the case manager with WBHS met with Mother at 

Woodridge. Mother reported an admission to Woodridge after experiencing increased 

anxiety and depression. She agreed to participate in case management services at that 

time. WBHS was to be contacted by Woodridge staff for an appointment upon Mother’s 

discharge. On November 11, 2014, Mother failed to appear for her appointment with 

WBHS. Subsequently on November 26, 2014, the WBHS case manager again met with 

Mother at Woodridge. Mother reported having been admitted to the hospital after 

experiencing suicidal ideations and increasing depression. At that time, Mother agreed to 

participate in case management services with WBHS. Woodridge staff was to contact the 

case manager for an appointment upon Mother’s discharge. On December 9, 2014, 

Mother again failed to appear for her WBHS appointment. During a December 23, 2014

meeting with the WBHS case manager at Woodridge, Mother reported having entered

Woodridge after experiencing hallucinations of animals and people. Mother again agreed 

to participate in case management services with WBHS. Woodridge staff were to

schedule aftercare appointments upon Mother’s discharge, but on December 23, 2014, 

and January 6, 2015, Mother missed her appointments with WBHS.

When the WBHS case manager again met with Mother at Woodridge on January 

12, 2015, Mother reported a Woodridge admission after experiencing both auditory and 

visual hallucinations. Mother informed the case manager that “she was seeing lots of 

people, who all were talking, but she could not make out anything they were saying.” 

Mother agreed to participate in case management services at WBHS. The case manager’s 

note indicated that WBHS would be contacted by Woodridge staff for appointments upon 
- 16 -

Mother’s discharge from Woodridge. On January 27, 2015, Mother again missed her 

appointment at WBHS. 

On February 2, 2015, when the WBHS case manager met with Mother at 

Woodridge, Mother stated that her hospitalization was due to the “same reason that [she 

was] always admitted to Woodridge for.” The case manager observed Mother to be 

extremely agitated, with Mother complaining of both auditory and visual hallucinations. 

Mother again reported a willingness to participate in case management services with 

WBHS. The case manager’s note indicated that Woodridge staff would contact WBHS 

to schedule appointments upon Mother’s discharge. Nonetheless, on February, 10 and 

17, 2015, and March 17, 2015, Mother was reported as a “no show” for her appointments. 

During a July 22, 2015 meeting with the WBHS case manager at Woodridge, Mother 

reported an admission to Woodridge following a fight with her husband concerning 

cigarettes. Mother again indicated a willingness to participate in case management 

services at WBHS.

Following the trial, the court entered a final order on March 22, 2016, terminating 

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child. The court found by clear and 

convincing evidence that (1) Mother and Father had failed to provide a suitable home, (2) 

Mother and Father had failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the 

permanency plans, (3) Mother was mentally incompetent and unable to care for the 

Child, and (4) the conditions leading to the Child’s removal from the home still persisted

as to Mother and Father. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence 

that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the 

Child. Mother and Father timely appealed.

II. Issues Presented

On appeal, Mother presents six issues, which we have restated as follows:

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Mother’s hospital records 

into evidence at trial.

2. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that Mother abandoned the Child by failing to establish a 

suitable home.

3. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that Mother had substantially failed to comply with the 

statements of responsibilities in the permanency plans.
- 17 -

4. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that the conditions leading to the Child’s removal into 

protective custody persisted.

5. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that Mother was mentally incapable of caring for the Child.

6. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that it was in the Child’s best interest to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights.

Father presents four issues, which we have likewise restated as follows:

7. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that Father abandoned the Child by failing to establish a 

suitable home.

8. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that Father had substantially failed to comply with the 

statements of responsibilities in the permanency plans.

9. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that the conditions leading to the Child’s removal into 

protective custody persisted.

10. Whether the trial court erred by finding clear and convincing 

evidence that it was in the Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s 

parental rights.

III. Standard of Review

In a termination of parental rights case, this Court has a duty to determine 

“whether the trial court’s findings, made under a clear and convincing standard, are 

supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 

(Tenn. 2006). The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo upon the record, 

accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates against 

those findings. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); see In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 524 

(Tenn. 2016); In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d at 530. Questions of law, however, are 

reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. See In re Carrington H., 483 

S.W.3d at 524 (citing In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2009)). The trial court’s 

determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and 
- 18 -

shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Jones v. 

Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002).

“Parents have a fundamental constitutional interest in the care and custody of their 

children under both the United States and Tennessee constitutions.” Keisling v. Keisling, 

92 S.W.3d 374, 378 (Tenn. 2002). It is well established, however, that “this right is not 

absolute and parental rights may be terminated if there is clear and convincing evidence 

justifying such termination under the applicable statute.” In re Drinnon, 776 S.W.2d 96, 

97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 

L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). As our Supreme Court has recently explained:

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 decison 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).

* * *

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 
- 19 -

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.

In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 522-24. “[P]ersons seeking to terminate [parental] 

rights must prove all the elements of their case by clear and convincing evidence,” 

including statutory grounds and the best interest of the child. See In re Bernard T., 319 

S.W.3d 586, 596 (Tenn. 2010).

IV. Mother’s Woodridge Hospital Records

As a threshold issue, Mother contends that because her Woodridge hospital 

records were improperly admitted into evidence during trial, the termination of her 

parental rights should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Mother objected to the 

admission of her hospital records on the basis of Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-

404(a) (2013). Although we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting Mother’s 

hospital records, we determine that error to be harmless because the remaining proof

supports by clear and convincing evidence the termination of Mother’s parental rights. 

Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-404 is contained within Part 4 “Hospital 

Records as Evidence,” of Chapter 11, “Health Facilities and Resources,” of Title 68, 

“Health, Safety and Environmental Protection,” of the Tennessee Code. The Tennessee 

Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that 

[t]he main purpose of T.C.A. §§ 68-11-401 et seq. is to provide a procedure 

for a hospital, where it has no interest in the case, to respond to a subpoena 

duces tecum for hospital records by filing copies of the records 

authenticated by affidavit instead of by sending a witness to the hearing 

with the originals.

State v. Hutchinson, C.C.A. No. 887, 1990 WL 99386, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 

1990). Few appellate decisions have addressed the applicability of this statutory scheme 

to specific situations; however, certain sections of Part 4 have been applied by this Court 

in termination of parental rights proceedings. See e.g. In re C.I.J., M2006-02192-COAR3-PT, 2007 WL 2091228, at *4-8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2007) (examining the 

procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 68-11-402, 403, 405). 

The hospital records at issue were subpoenaed by DCS, thereby triggering 

application of Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-401, et seq. When hospital records are

subpoenaed to court, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 68-11-402 and -405 allow for the 

custodian of records to deliver a copy of the records requested directly to the court with 

an accompanying affidavit authenticating the records, in lieu of the custodian of records 

appearing personally at trial. The subpoenaed hospital records should be sealed upon 
- 20 -

their arrival to the court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-403 (2013). With reference to 

sealed envelopes or wrappers, Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-403 provides in 

pertinent part:

The copy of the records shall be separately enclosed in an inner envelope or 

wrapper, sealed, with the title and number of the action, name of witness 

and date of subpoena clearly inscribed on the envelope or wrapper. The 

sealed envelope or wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or 

wrapper, sealed and directed as follows:

(1) If the subpoena directs attendance in court, to the clerk of such 

court or to the judge thereof[.]

Opening the sealed records is controlled by Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-404(a), 

which provides in relevant part:

(a)(1) Unless the sealed envelope or wrapper is returned to a witness who is 

to appear personally, the copy of records shall remain sealed and shall be 

opened only at the time of trial, deposition or other hearing, upon the 

direction of the judge, court, officer, body or tribunal conducting the 

proceeding, in the presence of all parties who have appeared in person or by 

counsel at such trial, deposition or hearing. Before directing that such inner 

envelope or wrapper be opened, the judge, court, officer, body or tribunal 

shall first ascertain that either:

(A) The records have been subpoenaed at the instance of the patient 

involved or such patient’s counsel of record;

(B) The patient involved or someone authorized in such patient’s 

behalf to do so for such patient has consented thereto and waived 

any privilege of confidentiality involved; or

(C) The records have been subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding.

DCS, in seeking to admit Mother’s hospital records, also relied on Tennessee Rule of 

Juvenile Procedure 39(e)(5) (2014), which provides:

All findings of fact shall be based on clear and convincing evidence. 

Neither the husband-wife, physician-patient, psychologist-patient, or
- 21 -

clergy-penitent privilege shall be grounds for excluding any evidence in 

termination of parental rights proceedings.4

We note at the outset that “admissibility or exclusion of evidence rests within the 

sound discretion of the trial court which should be reversed only for abuse of that 

discretion.” See Austin v. City of Memphis, 684 S.W.2d 624, 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); 

see also In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A] 

trial court will be found to have ‘abused its discretion’ only when it applies an incorrect 

legal standard, reaches a decision that is illogical, bases its decision on a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to 

the complaining party.”) (internal citations omitted). 

In its written order, the trial court found that “the records from Woodridge 

Psychiatric Hospital were properly entered into evidence in this cause.” In its oral ruling, 

the trial court ultimately determined that Tennessee Rule of Juvenile Procedure 39(e)(5)

dictated the admission of Mother’s hospital records and overcame the psychologistpatient privilege. The trial court correctly noted that Rule 39(e)(5), as it existed at the 

time of trial, provided that the psychologist-patient privilege would not have prevented

evidence from being entered in termination proceedings. However, Tennessee Code 

Annotated § 68-11-404(a) is not predicated on the psychologist-patient privilege 

addressed by Rule 39(e)(5); instead, Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-404(a) instructs 

trial courts relative to procedure allowing for the admission of a patient’s hospital records 

into evidence. As such, Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-404(a) would apply 

regardless of whether an issue of privilege existed. Inasmuch as the trial court’s basis for

admitting the hospital records was erroneous, we determine that Mother’s hospital 

records were not properly admitted into evidence. However, relative to the issues

presented on appeal, we further determine that the trial court’s error in admitting 

Mother’s hospital records into evidence is harmless because the remaining clear and 

convincing evidence supports the termination of Mother’s parental rights. 

V. Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113 (Supp. 2016) lists the statutory grounds for 

termination of parental rights, providing in relevant part as follows:

(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 

 

4 Although the Tennessee Rules of Juvenile Procedure were restructured in 2016, this rule was in effect at 

both the time of the petition’s filing and the trial itself.
- 22 -

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.

The trial court ultimately determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly 

supported a finding of four statutory grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights: (1) 

abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, (2) substantial noncompliance with 

the permanency plans, (3) mental incompetence to adequately care for the Child, and (4) 

persistence of conditions leading to removal of the Child. The trial court also determined 

that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported a finding of three statutory grounds 

to terminate Father’s parental rights: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable 

home, (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and (3) persistence of 

conditions leading to removal of the Child. We will address each statutory ground in 

turn.

A. Abandonment by Failure to Provide a Suitable Home

The trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the statutory 

ground that they abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home. Tennessee 

Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(1) provides, as a statutory ground for termination:

(1) Abandonment by the parent or guardian, as defined in § 36-1-102, has 

occurred[.]

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A) (Supp. 2016) defines abandonment, in 

relevant part, as:

(ii) The child has been removed from the home of the parent or parents or 

the guardian or guardians as the result of a petition filed in the juvenile 

court in which the child was found to be a dependent and neglected child, 

as defined in § 37-1-102, and the child was placed in the custody of the 

department or a licensed child-placing agency, that the juvenile court 

found, or the court where the termination of parental rights petition is filed 
- 23 -

finds, that the department or a licensed child-placing agency made 

reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the child or that the circumstances 

of the child’s situation prevented reasonable efforts from being made prior 

to the child’s removal; and for a period of four (4) months following the 

removal, the department or agency has made reasonable efforts to assist the 

parent or parents or the guardian or guardians to establish a suitable home 

for the child, but that the parent or parents or the guardian or guardians 

have made no reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and have 

demonstrated a lack of concern for the child to such a degree that it appears 

unlikely that they will be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an 

early date. The efforts of the department or agency to assist a parent or 

guardian in establishing a suitable home for the child may be found to be 

reasonable if such efforts exceed the efforts of the parent or guardian 

toward the same goal, when the parent or guardian is aware that the child is 

in the custody of the department[.]

As this Court has previously explained:

A “suitable home” means more than adequate “physical space.” In re 

A.D.A., 84 S.W.3d 592, 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “[A] home may be 

rendered unsafe and unsuitable by the conduct of its occupants.” In re 

Joshua S., No. E2010-01331-COA-R3-PT, 2011 WL 2464720, at *18 

(Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2011). 

In re Kayla B., No. E2016-01192-COA-R3-PT, 2017 WL 438622, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Feb. 1, 2017).

In its final judgment, the trial court enunciated specific findings of fact regarding 

this statutory ground as follows:

3) The Court finds that the child was previously removed from the home of 

the Respondents by Order of this Honorable Court and placed into the 

protective custody of the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s 

Services. 

4) The child was removed from the home of the Respondents and into DCS 

custody on October 8, 2013. The four (4) months immediately following 

the removal of the child from the home were from October 8, 2013 to 

February 8, 2014. 

5) The Court finds that, during the four (4) months immediately following 

the removal from the home, and thereafter, DCS made reasonable efforts to 

assist the family in providing a suitable home for the child, to wit: 
- 24 -

a. The Court finds that, shortly after the removal of the child from 

the home of the Respondents, a Child and Family Team Meeting 

was held. The purpose of this meeting was to see if there were any 

viable relative resources who could serve as placement for the child. 

However, no relative resources could be located. At this meeting, 

the Department discussed with the parents the reasons that the child 

was removed into foster care, including physical abuse, mental 

health concerns, domestic violence, and substance abuse. 

b. The Court finds that there have been several case managers that 

worked with this family. The Department’s case manager was Ms. 

Jacki McCartt. Ms. McCartt prepared a permanency plan for review 

and ratification by the Court. 

c. During the four (4) months following removal, Ms. McCartt 

requested a parenting assessment of the parents. However, this 

assessment was not completed due to the father’s refusal to 

cooperate with services. [Father] was not receptive to any of the

services that DCS attempted to offer him during the first four (4) 

months following removal. This prohibited the parenting assessment 

from being completed. 

d. During the four (4) months following removal, Ms. McCartt 

attempted to help [Father] complete a psychological assessment and 

an alcohol and drug assessment. DCS also attempted to put in-home 

services into the parents’ home. 

e. During the four (4) months following removal, DCS encouraged 

the parents to participate in the child’s mental health counseling. 

DCS also met with the parents and set up meetings with them. 

Additionally, Ms. McCartt notified the parents of court hearings and 

meetings during the first four (4) months that the child was in DCS 

custody for foster care. 

f. DCS ensured that the child attended weekly case management 

appointments. DCS also facilitated visitations between the parents 

and the child. These visitations often took place at the Respondents’

home. During these visits, DCS attempted to assist the Respondents 

in developing appropriate parenting techniques. The Respondents 

agreed to participate in the child’s case management appointments 

twice a month. The Court notes that these case management 

appointments were weekly, but that the parents agreed to attend two 
- 25 -

(2) times per month. The Court finds that the Respondents did 

attend the first few case management sessions. However, thereafter, 

in February of 2014, [Father] stated that he would not attend any 

further family therapy. The Court further finds that, in fact, [Father]

did not resume attending these therapy sessions until six (6) or seven 

(7) months later. Despite the Respondents’ refusal to attend these 

sessions, DCS continued to keep the parents apprised of the dates, 

times, and locations, of the child’s therapy sessions. 

The Court finds that all of the efforts by the Department were reasonable 

and related to remedying the conditions that brought about removal so that 

the matter would not progress to a termination of the parents’ parental 

rights. The Court further finds that the Department was reasonable in its 

efforts to encourage the parents to participate in the services that were 

being offered to them. 

6) The Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the 

parents made no efforts to provide a suitable home for the minor child 

during the four months following removal, to wit: 

a. During the four (4) months following removal, [Father] refused to 

allow services to come into the home. 

b. As to [Mother], she was living in the home with [Father] during 

the four (4) months following removal. [Mother] could have allowed 

services to come into the home, and those services were made 

available to her. The Court finds that [Mother] could have been 

given assistance by DCS and other service providers. However, 

[Mother] never expressed a desire or willingness to accept these 

services. Rather than availing herself of the services that were being 

offered to her, she acquiesced to allowing no services to come into 

the home. The Court also finds that DCS was even willing to offer 

her services separate and apart from those being offered to [Father]. 

She could have completed the parenting assessment and parenting 

education, but she did not. 

c. Due to concerns in the home, during the four (4) months

following removal, the child’s visitation remained supervised. The 

Court notes that, to date, the child’s visitations with her parents have 

yet to progress to unsupervised contact. The Court finds that the 

child has been in DCS custody for over two (2) years without any 

progress towards moving towards unsupervised visitation. 
- 26 -

d. The Court finds that [Father] made no changes in his life during 

the four (4) months following removal. He continued to have 

unaddressed substance abuse and alcohol dependency issues. There 

were ongoing concerns with his parenting. These issues led to the 

removal of the child from the home and, by [Father’s] refusal to 

allow services in the home, they still continued during the four (4) 

months following removal. 

e. As to [Mother], she continued to have ongoing mental health 

issues during the four (4) months following removal. 

7) The Court finds that the [Mother’s and Father’s] failure to make even 

minimal efforts to improve their home and personal condition demonstrates

a lack of concern for the child to such a degree that it appears unlikely that 

they will be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an early date. 

8) DCS has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the ground of 

abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home against [Mother] and 

[Father].

Upon careful and thorough review, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence 

supports the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father 

had abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home for the Child. We now

address Mother’s and Father’s respective issues regarding this statutory ground.

1. Mother

Mother contends that the trial court erred by finding that DCS made reasonable 

efforts to reunite her with the Child within the four months following the Child’s removal 

from the home. She also contends that the court erred in finding that she had not made 

reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home within the four months following removal. 

Mother concedes that DCS established by clear and convincing evidence that the Child 

was removed by reason of DCS’s petition upon which the trial court adjudicated the 

Child to be dependent and neglected. Moreover, she further concedes that the trial court 

found that the circumstances of the Child’s situation prevented DCS from making 

reasonable efforts prior to the Child’s removal from the home. Mother also does not 

dispute that she was residing with Father and the Child at the time of the Child’s removal.

In her principal brief, Mother faults DCS in failing to address her mental health 

issues and for the case managers’ failures to request a clinical parenting assessment,

which would have included a mental health component administered by a mental health 

professional. However, the record reflects that DCS included in Mother’s permanency 

plan the requirement that Mother complete a psychological assessment and follow all 
- 27 -

recommendations, in addition to the parenting assessment completed. Ms. Tipton

testified that DCS will often request a general parenting assessment in combination with 

a psychological assessment instead of a clinical parenting assessment and that the results 

of the psychological assessment can substitute for that otherwise provided in the clinical 

parenting assessment. During the ratification hearing for the June 2014 permanency plan, 

Mother objected to the action step on the permanency plan requiring her to complete the

psychological evaluation. Although the trial court directed the requirement of the 

psychological assessment be stricken from the plan, Mother was required to continue in 

her case management with Frontier Health. Mother’s objection to the requirement of a 

psychological assessment in the trial court during ratification of the permanency plan 

with the later associated argument that DCS failed to request a parenting assessment with 

a psychological component is unavailing. Furthermore, Frontier Health records reflect 

that Mother was not compliant with her outpatient case management at WBHS. 

Therefore, we determine this contention by Mother to be without merit. 

Ms. McCartt testified concerning the efforts DCS made with the family during the 

initial four months after the Child was removed from the parents’ home. DCS convened 

an initial CFTM, during which DCS staff attempted to locate an appropriate family 

placement. During that meeting, the specific reasons for the Child’s removal were 

discussed with the parents. DCS requested a parenting assessment in November 2013, 

which Mother did not complete until June 2014. Mother never completed the 

recommendations from that assessment during the pendency of the case. DCS provided 

the Child with mental health counseling, which the parents were encouraged to attend. 

Ms. Shipley testified that the parents did attend two or three sessions before Father 

informed her in February 2014 that he would not be attending therapy again. According 

to Ms. Shipley, Mother also did not attend therapy after Father stopped attending. Ms. 

Shipley testified that although Mother did attend visits with the child, she was not 

engaged with the Child during those visits. As explained by Ms. McCartt, DCS offered 

Mother services to assist in remedying the reasons the Child was removed from the 

home, but Mother did not accept those services. Mother further asserts that she was 

compliant with her mental health services; however, her records from WBHS reflect 

otherwise. 

Mother further argues that she was living with Father during the four months after 

the removal and that there were no environmental concerns with the parents’ home. 

However, a suitable home requires more than just an adequate physical place for the 

Child to reside. See In re A.D.A., 84 S.W.3d at 599. Despite efforts by DCS, Mother and 

Father had failed to address the reasons that the Child was removed from the home. Dr. 

Lane testified that the reasons for removal had not been addressed by the parents and still 

remained at the time of trial. Upon a thorough review of the record before this Court, 

excluding Mother’s Woodridge hospital records, we conclude that the evidence 

preponderates in favor of the trial court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

Mother abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home.
- 28 -

2. Father

Father argues that the trial court erred by determining that he had not made 

reasonable efforts to reunite with the Child in the four months following removal of the 

Child from the home. Having determined that the trial court did not err in finding that 

DCS made reasonable efforts as to Mother, we take note here of those efforts, described 

in the preceding section of this Opinion, that included Father. Additionally, DCS 

requested a parenting assessment in November 2013, which Father did not complete until 

June 2014. DCS also requested a psychological assessment and alcohol and drug 

assessment for Father. Ms. Shipley articulated that Father did attend two or three 

sessions before informing her in February 2014 that he would not be attending therapy 

again. Father did not attend therapy until several months later. Father did, however,

participate in visits with the Child during this time. 

According to Ms. McCartt, Father was offered services to assist him in remedying 

the reasons the Child was removed from the home; however, Father declined these 

services. According to Ms. Tipton, because Father refused to participate with service 

providers, he could not adequately parent the Child in the foreseeable future. Upon a 

thorough review of the record before this Court, we conclude that the evidence does not 

preponderate against the trial court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

Father abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home.

B. Substantial Noncompliance with Permanency Plans

The trial court also terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the 

statutory ground that they had failed to substantially comply with the reasonable 

responsibilities set out in their permanency plans. Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-

113(g)(2) provides as an additional ground for termination of parental rights:

(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[.]

In its final judgment, the trial court included specific findings of fact regarding this 

statutory ground as follows:

10) The Court finds that the parents have been substantially noncompliant 

with the tasks and responsibilities set out for them in the permanency plans. 

11) The minor child’s first permanency plan contained a goal target date of 

December 31, 2014. This permanency plan contained the following tasks 

for the parents: 
- 29 -

a. Complete a parenting assessment and follow all 

recommendations stemming therefrom; 

b. Cooperate with in-home service providers and any 

recommendations they may have; 

c. Not allow the minor child around her grandfather, Robert G[.]; 

d. Participate in the minor child’s therapy and family therapy upon 

request of the therapists; 

e. Be open and honest during therapy sessions with the child; 

f. Work on communications skills during family therapy; 

g. Engage in visitations with the minor child; 

h. As to [Father], complete an alcohol and drug assessment and 

follow all recommendations stemming therefrom; and 

i. As to [Father], complete a psychological assessment and follow 

any recommendations stemming therefrom. 

12) The Court finds that the parents have consistently demonstrated that 

they can complete certain assessments, but then do not follow the 

recommendations from the assessments. 

13) In addition to preparing the permanency plan, DCS also went over the 

tasks contained in the plan with the parents. 

14) At the ratification hearing for the initial permanency plan, counsel for 

the mother objected to the requirement that she complete a psychological 

assessment in that she was engaged in mental health services through 

Frontier Health. Based upon the mother’s objection, this task was removed 

from the permanency plan as a task for the mother. However, she was 

ordered to continue with her case management through Frontier Health. 

15) A second permanency plan was prepared by DCS and ratified by the 

Court on January 12, 2015. This second plan contained the same tasks that 

were contained in the first permanency plan, but incorporated the

recommendations of the parents’ assessments. 
- 30 -

16) The Court finds that the parents have been substantially noncompliant 

with the permanency plan, to wit: 

BOTH PARENTS COMPLETED A PARENTING ASSESSMENT, BUT 

DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

STEMMED FROM IT. 

17) As to [Father], from the outset of the case, he was not cooperative with 

the parenting assessment process. During the narrative interview, he was 

not cooperative with the parenting assessor. He was resistant to 

questioning. He stated he had been involved with DCS thirteen (13) 

different times. When asked to describe[] his personality, he stated that he 

was “hot tempered sometimes when people keeps on messing with me.” 

The father’s parenting assessment noted that he did not follow through on 

directives to the child. The assessor also observed that there was minimal 

interaction between the father and the child and no observed nurturing 

behavior. The parenting assessment further noted that the father was at 

high risk for inappropriate parenting. Additionally, he constantly 

minimized the situation and stressors that led to the family’s circumstances. 

[Father] also scored very low on the Slosson Intelligence Test, placing him 

in the moderately mentally challenged range. 

18) Based upon the parenting assessment, the following recommendations 

were made for [Father]: (1) Intensive parenting education and (2) family 

counseling. 

19) The Court finds that [Mother] was more cooperative with the parenting 

assessment than was her husband. The parenting assessment noted that 

[Mother] had been to Woodridge Psychiatric Hospital “two (2) or three (3) 

different times” in 2014. She was never engaged and was observed to be 

extremely passive in her parenting of the child. She was distant, exhibited 

no nurturing behavior and demonstrated minimal interaction or interest in 

the visit with the child. The mother did not display any warmth or 

nurturing behavior. She basically seemed to be disconnected during the 

visitations with the child. She scored at a high risk to engage in 

inappropriate parenting. She was observed to be very self-focused and was 

more focused on herself than on the child. The mother also scored very 

low on the Slosson Intelligence Scale, placing her in the moderately 

mentally challenged range of intelligence. 

20) The mother’s parenting assessment contained the following 

recommendations: (1) intensive parenting education; (2) family 
- 31 -

counseling; and (3) family support services (if the child were to return 

home). 

21) The Court finds that both parents were noncompliant with the 

recommendations set out for them in the parenting assessment. 

22) The parents were to cooperate with in-home services to address the 

concerns noted in the parenting assessment. They did not, and would not, 

cooperate with these services. The parents were also to cooperate with 

parenting education. They did not, and would not, cooperate with these 

services either. 

23) The Court finds that Families Free provided parenting education to the 

family at different points in the progression of the case. The Court finds 

that the Respondents would cancel many of these therapy sessions, to the 

point that, out of thirty-four (34) possible appointments, they cancelled 

twenty-one (21) of them. 

24) The Court finds that, after Families Free was contacted to work with 

the family, the father was very upset that Families Free had been assigned 

to the case. In November of 2014, [Father] reported that he had already 

done everything he was told to do before and that he did not understand 

why he had to “do all this s*** again.” On another home visit by Families 

Free, [Father] stated that it was not a good idea for Families Free to come to 

the family home on that date in that [Mother] had “started talking out of her 

head again.”

25) In December of 2014, Families Free again went to the [parents’] home 

to work on parenting education, to no avail. 

26) In January of 2015, Families Free again attempted to meet with the 

family to work on parenting education. However, time and time again, the 

parents continued to cancel these appointments. 

27) On January 28, 2015, Families Free met with [Father]. When the 

Families Free worker arrived at the home, the father began to scream, “You 

f****** people. Do whatever the h*** you want to do.” The father began

yelling loudly about the child’s case manager, Jacki McCartt, who was 

trying to assist him by providing services. He proceeded to curse and 

threaten Ms. McCartt, DCS, the Court, and the entire legal proceeding. He 

stated, “I’m going to go up there and blow up that g****** DCS building

and kill that little b , Jacki.”[] He also exclaimed, “F** * yeah and that 

g****** Judge, too.” The Court finds that these were the situations that 
- 32 -

DCS and in-home providers had to deal with when attempting to help the 

parents. The Court finds that this was the same situation from which the 

child was removed, and that she was in a condition of want and suffering at 

the time of removal by this Honorable Court. 

28) By the end of January 2015, it was difficult to identify any strengths 

for the family. They continued to have outbursts of anger. They continued 

to refuse to accept any services into the home. Due to his refusal to accept 

services, Families Free was unable to engage [Father] in the parenting 

education curriculum. As to [Mother], Families Free was also unable to 

provide her with parenting education because of her significant mental 

health issues. The Court finds that the mother acquiesced to all that was 

going on in the home and did nothing to remove herself from that situation. 

29) From February 2015 to July 2015, Families Free services were not 

offered because the parents were not willing to accept them into their home. 

The Court finds that [Father] continued to refuse any services into the home 

during that time. However, despite these issues, DCS continued to attempt 

to provide help and services to the family, but was unable to engage the 

family during that time. 

30) The Court is concerned with the family situation, in that, when most 

people come into the type of situation that leads to a child’s removal from 

their home, they can normally make progress in addressing issues of 

concern in four (4) to six (6) months. The Court also finds that Ms. Tipton 

testified that this case is atypical from other cases, in that, in her 

experience, most parents are able to successfully complete a parenting 

education curriculum in four (4) to six (6) months. Here, as of the date of 

the filing of the petition, Families Free and DCS had worked a total of 

fourteen (14) months with this family to assist them in remedying the issues 

that led to removal. Yet, despite these efforts, the parents have not made 

any substantial progress in completing any of the tasks set out for them in 

the permanency plan. The Court finds that Families Free attempted to 

provide the services that could have helped the parents in addressing the 

issues of concern in their lives so that the child could return home. Yet, 

despite these efforts, the parents cancelled twenty-one (21) of the possible 

thirty-four (34) appointments that were offered to them by Families Free. 

THE PARENTS WERE UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT 

LED TO THE CHILD’S REMOVAL IN FAMILY THERAPY. 
- 33 -

31) Both parents were ordered to attend the minor child’s therapy 

appointments. While they attended some of the family counseling sessions, 

they did not complete this therapy regimen. 

32) The Court finds that the goals of family therapy were to address (1) the 

family’s beliefs around the alleged sexual abuse and any safety issues 

associated therewith; (2) emotional management; and (3) the child’s role in 

the family. 

33) At the time of removal, the child’s role in the family had become 

“parentified,” such that she was responsible for the care of her parents and, 

in particular, her mother. 

34) Due to some erosion of the mother’s own mental health needs, the 

child’s therapist requested that the mother discontinue participation in 

family therapy. After the mother was asked to leave therapy, the father 

continued to participate “intermittently” with family therapy. However, 

this therapy was of limited benefit due to [Father’s] own choices and 

inaction. 

35) The Court finds that both parents have been unable to contribute to the 

child’s wellbeing. The Court does note that, a year later, there has been a 

slight improvement in the father’s interactions and communication with the 

child. However, the Court also finds that, despite this slight improvement, 

mental health providers and other professionals are unable to recommend 

that the child return home or begin unsupervised visitations with her 

parents. 

36) [Father] himself testified that there were many things that he had not 

learned about in therapy with the child, including emotional management 

and the child’s role in the family. 

WHILE THE PARENTS DID PARTICIPATE IN VISITATION WITH 

THE CHILD, THESE VISITS WERE OFTEN PROBLEMATIC AND 

PLAGUED WITH DYSFUNCTION. 

37) The Court finds that visitation was ordered between the parents and the 

minor child. The Court finds that there were many problems during these 

visitations. 

38) The Court finds that, at times, the visitations between the parents and 

the child went well. However, at other times, issues of dysfunction arose. 

Specifically, the Court finds that, on several instances, [Father] appeared at 
- 34 -

visitations visibly intoxicated. Specifically, when workers and the child 

would arrive at the home, [Father] would become upset and began cursing.

He would yell and use a vulgar hand gesture towards the minor child and 

the workers who were present at that time. The Court finds that these 

occurrences were traumatic for the child, in that she had to see her father in 

this condition. 

39) The Court finds that, during a visitation with the child in May of 2014, 

[Father] appeared angry, loud, and aggressive. He began screaming at the 

child and exclaimed, “Fine then, you can just stay in foster care.” He also 

began using inappropriate language, profanity, and used inappropriate hand 

gestures towards the visitation supervisor, Ms. Shipley, and the minor child. 

40) During her parenting time with the child, [Mother] was not an active 

participant in visitations. She barely spoke to the child during the 

visitations and hardly interacted with the child at all. Further, she often was 

not present at visitations due to her being hospitalized at Woodridge 

Psychiatric Hospital. 

41) The Court finds that, at times, the visitations between the parents and 

the minor child were a detriment to the child. 

42) The Court finds that [Father] discussed inappropriate topics with the 

child during visitations. Specifically, the Court finds that, case workers 

testified that they overheard the father tell the child not to cooperate with 

“the State” and not to take her prescribed psychotropic medications. All of 

these issues arose when [Father] was supposed to be having appropriate 

visitation and interaction with the child. The Court finds that this is 

indicative of how [Father] acts and how the home situation continues to 

deteriorate. 

43) The Court finds that, as to [Mother], during the visitations, she would 

often sleep through much of the visit. When she was awake, she did not 

interact with the child at all. The Court also notes that Ms. Shipley testified 

that she never observed the mother interact with, or try to parent, the minor 

child during visitations. 

44) The Court finds that [Father] continued to have anger issues that were 

not addressed or remedied. These anger issues culminated in a visitation at 

which he threw a basketball at the child’s in-home worker. 

45) The Court finds that, on September 16, 2015, [Father] brought 

[Mother] to a visitation at the park and appeared to be impaired. His 
- 35 -

speech was slurred. He was sweating. His face was red and he was very 

loud. 

46) The Court finds that all of these issues complicated the situation and 

made visitation unsuccessful between the child and her parents. 

THE FATHER COMPLETED AN ALCOHOL AND DRUG 

ASSESSMENT BUT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE 

RECOMMENDATIONS STEMMING THEREFROM. 

47) The Court finds that [Father] testified that he had completed an alcohol 

and drug assessment. However, he did not comply with the 

recommendations from this assessment. Specifically, the Court finds that 

[Father] testified that he had completed a few Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) 

meetings, and that he attended these meetings approximately once per 

month. However, the Court finds that, per the recommendations of the 

assessment, [Father] should have been attending these meetings four (4) 

times per month. Further, the Court finds that [Father] testified he did not 

know the first step of the twelve (12) step program. He also does not have 

an AA sponsor. 

48) The Court finds that, with the exception of attending some AA 

meetings, [Father] did not complete any of the recommendations of his 

alcohol and drug assessment. The Court finds that this again demonstrates 

his substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. 

THE MOTHER WAS NONCOMPLIANT WITH CASE 

MANAGEMENT. 

49) The Court finds that the mother was ordered to comply with her case 

management through Frontier Health. . . . 

THE PARENTS HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY NONCOMPLIANT 

WITH THE TASKS SET OUT FOR THEM IN THE PERMANENCY 

PLANS. 

50) The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that, as a result of 

the actions by the Respondents, they have never been able to move beyond 

the completion of their initial assessments to address the underlying issues 

of dependency and neglect that exist in their lives as to this child. In fact, 

since the child’s removal over two years ago, they have never been able to 

progress to unsupervised visitation with her. 
- 36 -

51) DCS has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the ground of 

substantial noncompliance against [Father] and [Mother].

(Emphasis in original.) Upon careful review, we determine that a preponderance of the 

evidence supports the trial court’s findings that Mother and Father failed to substantially 

comply with the reasonable responsibilities of their permanency plans. We will

separately address Mother’s and Father’s respective issues regarding this statutory 

ground.

1. Mother

Mother contends that the trial court failed to specifically find that the permanency 

plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions necessitating

foster care. However, following the June 2014 permanency plan ratification, the trial 

court entered an order finding that “the tasks in the Permanency Plan are reasonable and 

related to achieving permanency for this child and towards remedying the reasons that the 

child requires foster care.” After the January 2015 permanency plan ratification, the trial 

court subsequently entered an order on January 27, 2015, finding that “the tasks in the 

Permanency Plan are reasonable and related to achieving permanency for this child and 

towards remedying the reasons that the child requires foster care.” As the trial court 

clearly did make findings that the permanency plans were reasonable and related to 

remedying the reasons why the Child requires foster care, we determine Mother’s 

argument to be without merit. 

Alternatively, Mother argues that she “completed enough of the tasks required of 

her in the permanency plan” so as to preclude a finding that she was substantially 

noncompliant with the permanency plans. Mother was required to complete a parenting 

assessment and follow all recommendations, cooperate with in-home services, allow no 

contact between the Child and the paternal grandfather, participate in the Child’s therapy 

sessions, be open and honest during therapy sessions, develop communications skills 

during therapy sessions, and engage in visits with the Child.

Mother did complete her parenting assessment; however, she failed to follow 

through with the recommendations from the assessment. The parenting assessment 

recommended that Mother complete intensive parenting education. Ms. Tipton related 

that out of approximately thirty-two parenting education sessions offered, the parents had 

cancelled twenty-one of them. Ms. Rogers’s testimony established that Mother was not 

engaged during the visits with the Child but would instead sleep through many of the 

visits. Mother attended two or three of the Child’s therapy sessions, but stopped 

attending those sessions in February 2014. Mother failed to attend the sessions until 

several months had passed. Upon our careful review of the record, excluding Mother’s 

Woodridge hospital records, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against 
- 37 -

the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to 

substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans. 

2. Father

Father similarly contends that the trial court failed to make a finding that the 

requirements in the permanency plans were reasonable and related to remedying the 

conditions that necessitated foster care. Having previously determined that the trial court 

explicitly found the permanency plans to be reasonable and related to remedying the 

reasons why the Child required foster care, we determine Father’s argument in this regard 

to be without merit. 

Alternatively, Father argues that he “completed enough of the tasks required of 

him in the permanency plan” so as to preclude a finding that he was substantially 

noncompliant. Father was required to complete a parenting assessment and follow all 

recommendations, cooperate with in-home services, allow no contact between the Child 

and the paternal grandfather, participate in the Child’s therapy sessions, be open and 

honest during therapy sessions, develop communications skills during therapy sessions, 

engage in visits with the Child, complete an alcohol and drug assessment and follow all 

recommendations, and complete a psychological assessment and follow all 

recommendations.

The record establishes that Father was engaged in visits with the Child. Father did 

complete his parenting assessment; however, he failed to follow through with the 

assessment recommendations. The assessor recommended that Father complete intensive 

parenting education. As previously noted, the parents cancelled twenty-one out of 

approximately thirty-two parenting education sessions offered. Father attended two or 

three of the Child’s therapy sessions but stopped attending in February 2014. Following

a court hearing in February 2014, Father informed Ms. Shipley that he would not attend 

any more therapy sessions for the Child. As indicated, Father did not begin attending 

those sessions again until several months had passed. Although Father completed his 

psychological assessment, he did not complete the recommendations from that 

assessment. Father attended an intake and initial therapy session with Frontier Health but 

declined any further treatment. Father did complete his alcohol and drug assessment, but 

did not complete the recommendations of that assessment. Father attended AA meetings 

approximately twice per month but did not attend weekly as recommended. The trial 

court found and the evidence supports that Father also did not fully participate in the 

program. Significantly, Father did not have a sponsor and, when questioned, was unable 

to describe the first step of the AA twelve-step program. Upon our careful review of the 

record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s 

finding by clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to substantially comply with 

the requirements of the permanency plans. 
- 38 -

C. Persistence of Conditions

The trial court also terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the 

statutory ground that the conditions leading to the Child’s removal from the parents’ 

home still persisted. On appeal, Father and Mother each respectively argue that the trial 

court erred by determining that the conditions that led to removal of the Child from the 

home still existed. Father also argues that “the trial court erred by finding that the 

Child’s chances of being integrated into a permanent home were diminished by [Father’s] 

conduct and not the lack of a permanent placement on the part of DCS.” 

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(3) provides as an additional ground for 

termination of parental rights:

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 

parent or parents or the 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 parent or parents or the 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[.]

Although neither party raises the issue of whether the Child had been removed from the 

parents’ home by court order for a period of at least six months, due to the fundamental 

constitutional interest involved, we shall address this issue. See In re Carrington H., 483 

S.W.3d at 522-24.

In the case of In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), this 

Court determined that a temporary custody order resulting from a preliminary hearing 

was not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the child had been removed from the 

home of the parent by order of a court for six months. The Audrey S. Court determined: 
- 39 -

The March 28, 1996 temporary custody order resulted from a 

preliminary hearing, not an adjudicatory hearing, and the restraining order 

was designed merely to preserve the status quo in advance of the 

preliminary hearing. The temporary custody order contains an implicit 

judicial finding of probable cause that Audrey S. was dependent, neglected, 

or abused. It does not contain a finding, either explicit or implicit, that 

Audrey S. was in fact dependent, neglected, or abused. The juvenile court 

never held an adjudicatory hearing on [the grandmother’s] petition for 

temporary custody of Audrey S., and there is no other court order in the 

record prior to the filing of the joint termination petition that reflects a 

finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse with respect to Audrey S.

Accordingly, the juvenile court erred in relying on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-

1-113(g)(3) as a ground for terminating [the mother’s] parental rights to 

Audrey S.

Id. 

In the case at bar, the Child was removed from the home of the parents on October 

8, 2013, by operation of an “Ex Parte Protective Custody Order.” In the ex parte order, 

the trial court stated: “There is probable cause to believe that [the Child] is dependent 

and neglected pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102(b)(12).” A preliminary hearing 

was scheduled for October 10, 2013, but was continued until October 28, 2013, to allow 

the parents to be appointed counsel. Upon conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing on 

May 29, 2014, the trial court found the Child to be dependent and neglected in the care of 

her parents. An order reflecting this finding was entered by the trial court on June 11, 

2014. Following the October 8, 2013 removal order but prior to the adjudicatory hearing 

order entered on June 11, 2014, no court order appears of record evincing a finding by the 

trial court of dependency, neglect, or abuse with respect to the Child. DCS filed a 

petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents on November 19, 2014. Because 

six months had not elapsed between the date of the adjudicatory hearing order and the 

filing of the termination petition, we must reverse the trial court’s determination 

regarding the statutory ground of persistence of conditions.

D. Mental Incompetence

The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights on the statutory ground 

that she was mentally incompetent to adequately provide for the further care of the Child. 

Mother contends that the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights based upon 

this statutory ground. Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(8) provides regarding 

this additional ground for termination: 

(8)(A) The chancery and circuit courts shall have jurisdiction in an 

adoption proceeding, and the chancery, circuit, and juvenile courts shall 
- 40 -

have jurisdiction in a separate, independent proceeding conducted prior to 

an adoption proceeding to determine if the parent or guardian is mentally 

incompetent to provide for the further care and supervision of the child, and 

to terminate that parent’s or guardian’s rights to the child;

(B) The court may terminate the parental or guardianship rights of that 

person if it determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that:

(i) The parent or guardian of the child is incompetent to adequately 

provide for the further care and supervision of the child because the 

parent’s or guardian’s mental condition is presently so impaired and 

is so likely to remain so that it is unlikely that the parent or guardian 

will be able to assume or resume the care of and responsibility for 

the child in the near future; and

(ii) That termination of parental or guardian rights is in the best 

interest of the child;

(C) In the circumstances described under subdivisions (8)(A) and (B), no 

willfulness in the failure of the parent or guardian to establish the parent’s 

or guardian’s ability to care for the child need be shown to establish that the 

parental or guardianship rights should be terminated[.]

The General Assembly’s exclusion of willfulness from this statutory ground “serves to 

protect children from harm caused by a parent who is incapable of safely caring for 

them.” See In re D.A.P., No. E2007-02567-COA-R3-PT, 2008 WL 2687569, at *5 

(Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2008). If willfulness were required in order to terminate parental 

rights for mental incompetence, “an obvious result . . . is to condemn a child, whose 

parents are unfit to properly care for the child because of mental illness, to a life in serial 

foster homes without any possibility of a stable, permanent home.” See State, Dep’t of 

Human Servs. v. Smith, 785 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tenn. 1990). 

This Court has rejected the argument that the ground of mental incompetence is 

reserved only for parents who have “a condition for which ‘no amount of intervention can 

assist’” and instead has affirmed the termination of parental rights for mental disorders 

such as bipolar disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, 

dependent personality disorder, and schizophrenia disorder. See id. at 337-39 (affirming 

the termination of parental rights of a parent diagnosed with schizophrenic disorder on 

the basis of mental incompetence, although the acts of the mentally disabled parent were 

not willful); In re S.M.R., No. M2008-01221-COA-R3-PT, 2008 WL 4949236, at *6

(Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2008) (affirming a termination of parental rights on the 

statutory ground of mental incompetence when the parent was diagnosed with bipolar 

disorder and personality disorder, not otherwise specified); Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. 
- 41 -

M.R.N., No. M2006-01705-COA-R3-PT, 2007 WL 120038, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 

17, 2007) (affirming a termination of parental rights on the statutory ground of mental 

incompetence based on a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed 

mood, as well as dependent personality disorder). The parent’s mental condition,

however, must impair the parent to an extent that he or she cannot adequately provide for 

the care and supervision of the child. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B)(i). 

In its final judgment, the trial court stated specific findings of fact regarding this 

statutory ground as follows in relevant part:

65) The Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that 

[Mother] is incompetent to provide adequately for the further care and 

supervision of the child because her mental health is impaired and is so 

likely to remain impaired to a level that she will probably not be able to 

resume the care and responsibility in the near future. 

66) The Court finds that Ms. Rogers testified that, on multiple occasions, 

she has observed the mother speaking to individuals who were not in the 

room. She has observed the mother talking to spaces in the home and 

under the porch of the family home. [Mother] told Ms. Rogers that she sees 

people and talks to people that Ms. Rogers was not seeing. 

67) Dr. Lane testified that the mother’s parenting assessment noted that it 

was questionable whether [Mother] would be able to parent the child. 

68) The Court finds that the mother’s parenting style is passive, 

disconnected, and disengaged, at best. 

69) The Court finds that, during visitation, the mother was very 

disconnected and appeared to lack any warmth or nurturing towards the 

child. 

70) The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother’s 

mental health has not improved. Specifically, the Court finds that Ms. 

Tipton testified that, in her expert opinion, [Mother] is not going to be able 

to parent the child in the future. The Court also finds that the mother is 

unlikely to be able to parent this child in the future. 

71) During the child’s family therapy sessions, the mother was observed . . 

. in a state of active psychosis. She was hearing voices and was having 

conversations with people who were not in the room. While in therapy, she 

was picking, and eating, bugs that were on the couch. The minor child was 

present when these episodes occurred. 
- 42 -

72) The Court finds that, when the minor child is with her mother, the 

minor child is the caregiver. 

73) Ms. Fletcher testified that, in her opinion, the mother does not seem to 

have the ability to parent the child. 

74) Ms. Fletcher testified that, in her opinion, the mother cannot parent the 

child. 

75) The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother’s 

current condition presently impairs the mother to the point that it is unlikely 

that she will be able to resume being a parent or have the capability to 

parent the child. 

* * *

89) The Court finds that the mother’s lack of compliance was an ongoing 

issue in this matter. The Court finds that this lack of compliance with the 

directives of medical professionals has resulted in thirteen (13) 

hospitalizations in a psychiatric facility. 

90) DCS has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the ground of 

mental incompetence against Respondent [Mother].

Having determined that the trial court erred by admitting the Woodridge hospital records 

into evidence at trial, we have omitted the court’s findings as to those records here and 

cannot consider them in reviewing the court’s conclusions. We determine, however, that 

the trial court’s error in admitting Mother’s hospital records into evidence was harmless 

because the remaining evidence supports by a clear and convincing standard the trial 

court’s finding that Mother is mentally incompetent to adequately provide for the further 

care of the Child. 

Numerous witnesses observed Mother appearing to speak to people who were not 

present. Ms. Rogers observed Mother on multiple occasions speaking to nonexistent 

persons in the home or under the porch. Frontier Health records establish that Mother 

reported to the WBHS case manager multiple times that she was committed to 

Woodridge hospital after observing people and hearing voices that were not actually 

present. On one occasion, Mother described to the Families Free case manager seeing 

and hearing “bad men.” Although Father blamed the effects of Mother’s medicine, he 

also testified that he had observed Mother speaking to people who were not present. In 

family therapy, Ms. Fletcher observed Mother speak to individuals who were not in the 

room and interact with nonexistent objects. 
- 43 -

Additionally, Frontier Health records reflect that at times Mother had reported 

experiencing homicidal ideations toward her husband, suicidal ideations, increased 

depression, and both visual and auditory hallucinations. Mother’s Frontier Health 

records also show that Mother failed to comply with her mental health appointments at 

WBHS. The records indicate multiple admissions to Woodridge, which resulted in 

Woodridge scheduling mental health appointments for Mother with WBHS following her 

discharge. Each time, although Mother would agree to participate in case management 

after her release from the hospital, she failed to appear for her mental health 

appointments with WBHS. 

Ms. Fletcher explained that a role reversal between Mother and the Child occurred 

such that when Mother was present, the Child was the caregiver for Mother. This created 

an unhealthy situation for the Child. Although Ms. Fletcher recognized a bond between 

the Child and Mother, she opined that Mother did not appear to have the ability to parent 

the Child. Ms. Tipton also indicated her concerns that Mother would be unable to safely 

parent the Child in the foreseeable future, due in large part to her mental health issues.

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Mother’s parenting style was 

“passive, disconnected, and disengaged, at best.” Ms. Rogers testified that Mother did 

not engage with the Child and would sometimes sleep during the visits. Additionally, Dr. 

Lane indicated that Mother did not appear to be invested in the Child or her well-being. 

According to Dr. Lane, Mother did not display a warmth or nurturing behavior toward the 

Child and seemed disconnected from the visit. The relationship concerned Dr. Lane 

because Mother was vastly focused on herself despite the Child’s absence from the

parents’ home. According to Dr. Lane, Mother might not be able to adequately parent the 

Child.

Following a thorough review of the record and excluding Mother’s Woodridge 

hospital records, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial 

court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was mentally incompetent 

to adequately provide for the care and supervision of the Child. Mother’s mental 

condition is presently and is likely to remain so impaired that it is unlikely Mother will be 

able to assume care of and responsibility for the Child in the near future. Therefore, we 

affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights based on the statutory ground of mental 

incompetence.

VI. Best Interest of the Child

When a parent has been found to be unfit by establishment of at least one statutory 

ground for termination of parental rights, as here, the interests of parent and child 

diverge, and the focus shifts to what is in the child’s best interest. See In re Audrey S., 

182 S.W.3d 838, 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); see also In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 
- 44 -

507, 523 (Tenn. 2016) (“‘The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to 

the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for 

termination.’”) (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 254 (Tenn. 2010)). Tennessee 

Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i) (Supp. 2016) provides a list of factors the trial court is to 

consider when determining if termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interest. 

This list is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require the court to find the existence 

of every factor before concluding that termination is in a child’s best interest. See In re 

Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523; In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (“The relevancy 

and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.”). 

Furthermore, the best interest of a child must be determined from the child’s perspective 

and not the parent’s. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i) lists the following factors for 

consideration:

(1) Whether the parent or guardian has made such an adjustment of 

circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the 

child’s best interest to be in the home of the parent or guardian; 

(2) Whether the parent or guardian has failed to effect a lasting 

adjustment after reasonable efforts by available social services 

agencies for such duration of time that lasting adjustment does not 

reasonably appear possible;

(3) Whether the parent or guardian has maintained regular visitation or 

other contact with the child; 

(4) Whether a meaningful relationship has otherwise been established 

between the parent or guardian and the child; 

(5) The effect a change of caretakers and physical environment is likely 

to have on the child’s emotional, psychological and medical 

condition;

(6) Whether the parent or guardian, or other person residing with the 

parent or guardian, has shown brutality, physical, sexual, emotional 

or psychological abuse, or neglect toward the child, or another child 

or adult in the family or household; 

(7) Whether the physical environment of the parent’s or guardian’s 

home is healthy and safe, whether there is criminal activity in the 

home, or whether there is such use of alcohol, controlled substances 

or controlled substance analogues as may render the parent or 
- 45 -

guardian consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable 

manner; 

(8) Whether the parent’s or guardian’s mental and/or emotional status 

would be detrimental to the child or prevent the parent or guardian 

from effectively providing safe and stable care and supervision for 

the child; or 

(9) Whether the parent or guardian has paid child support consistent 

with the child support guidelines promulgated by the department 

pursuant to § 36-5-101. 

As this Court has explained:

Ascertaining a child’s best interests does not call for a rote examination of 

each of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)’s nine factors and then a 

determination of whether the sum of the factors tips in favor of or against 

the parent. The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on 

the unique facts of each case. Thus, depending upon the circumstances of a 

particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may 

very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.

In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 878 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citations omitted). 

The trial court analyzed the best interest factors, specifying in its final judgment 

the following findings of fact in relevant part:

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(1) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

92) It is in the best interest of the minor child for termination to be granted 

as to [Mother and Father] because they have not made changes in their 

conduct or circumstances that would make it safe for the child to go home. 

Ms. McCartt testified that the parents had made no changes such that the 

child could go home. These conditions have continued throughout the 

proceedings and continue to be an issue in the home at this time. The Court 

finds that neither parent has remedied their condition to such an extent that 

the child can return home to live with them. 

93) Dr. Lane testified that, in her expert opinion, the parents’ investment in 

this child and their ability to connect with her and build a meaningful 

relationship should have happened by the time she was thirteen (13) years 

of age. This did not happen. 
- 46 -

94) Ms. Tipton testified that, in her expert opinion, and due to the ongoing 

mental health issues, relational challenges, and lack of commitment to the 

services that are being offered to them, the parents will likely be unable to 

safely and effective[ly] parent this child in the foreseeable future. As to 

[Father], Ms. Tipton also testified that the father has been uncooperative 

with Families Free services. The mother was also unwilling and/or unable 

to work with services. 

95) The Court finds that Ms. Fletcher testified that, due to concerns for the 

child’s safety and wellbeing, she is unable to support even unsupervised 

visitations between the parents and the child at this time. In fact, Ms. 

Fletcher testified that the child’s progress would erode if she were placed 

back in the family home. 

96) In sum, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of termination 

against the parents. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(2) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

97) It is in the child’s best interests for termination to be granted as to

[Mother and Father], because they have not made lasting changes in their 

lifestyle or conduct after reasonable efforts by the state to help, so that 

lasting change does not appear possible. The Court finds that, despite all of 

the State’s efforts to help them, the parents have not made any lasting 

change in their lives or conduct. 

98) The Court finds that DCS has made reasonable efforts to assist 

[Mother and Father] in addressing the issues that led to removal. The Court 

specifically finds that DCS funded a parenting assessment for [Mother and 

Father], at no cost to themselves. After these assessments were completed, 

DCS attempted to assist the [Mother and Father] in complying with the 

recommendations set out therein. Further, DCS placed in-home services 

into the parents’ home to assist them with parenting education. DCS 

selected in-home parenting education for the parents through Families Free 

because the parents indicated that transportation was an issue for them. All 

of these efforts were to no avail. 

99) In sum, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of termination 

and against the parents. 
- 47 -

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

100) The Court finds that the issue of whether the parents have participated 

in regular visitation with the child does not weigh in favor of, or against, 

termination. Specifically, the Court finds that, as to the mother, she has 

been ordered to have no visitation with the child. As to the father, 

sometimes his visitations with the child go well. At other times, the visits 

are terrible and horrendous. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(4) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

101) It is in the child’s best interests for termination to be granted as to the 

Respondents, because there is no meaningful parent/child relationship 

between themselves and the child. 

102) The Court finds that the minor child often acts as the parent in this 

case. There is not a great deal of interaction between [Mother] and the 

child during visitation. 

103) The Court finds that the parents have not demonstrated an interest in 

the welfare of the child. The parents have demonstrated a complete lack of 

empathy for the child. 

104) Ms. Fletcher testified that the interactions between the child and her 

father have recently improved. However, Ms. Fletcher also noted that 

therapy is an isolated setting and that she is not sure that this change would 

[be] maintained in the home setting. Ms. Fletcher also noted that the 

mother’s absence from therapy has helped [the Child’s] relationship with 

her father to some extent. 

105) The Court finds that the parents are still married and that, when they 

are together, they make the home situation and environment worse. When 

the parents are apart, and when the father is in a therapeutic setting, the 

situation is improved. 

106) The Court finds that there is some form of attachment between the 

parents and the minor child. However, Ms. Fletcher noted that, the family 

roles and system in the [Mother’s and Father’s] home has made it an 

unhealthy situation for the child. The Court finds that, while there is an 

emotional connection between the child and the parents, this does not mean 

that it is an appropriate parenting situation. 
- 48 -

107) In sum, the Court finds that there is no meaningful relationship 

between the child and her parents. Thus, the Court finds that this factor 

weighs in favor of termination and against the parents. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(5) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

108) It is in the child’s best interests for termination to be granted as to 

[Mother and Father], because changing caregivers at this stage of the 

child’s life would have a detrimental effect on her. 

109) Ms. McCartt testified that, based upon the minor child’s therapeutic 

needs, she was concerned that changing her caregivers would negatively 

impact the child. 

110) Ms. McCartt testified that the child is doing very well in her current 

foster home. She has been in this foster home for at least one (1) year. 

111) At the time of removal, the child had some significant behavioral 

problems. Ms. McCartt testified that these behaviors have improved since 

she came into DCS custody. 

112) Ms. Rogers testified that the minor child is doing well in her current 

foster home. She is doing well in school. 

113) Ms. Fletcher testified that she began seeing the minor child once a 

week for therapy in December 2013. She has met with the child 

approximately seventy-six (76) times since she entered DCS custody. 

Since the child entered therapy, she is more able to verbalize her thoughts 

and feelings. She can process stressful situations much better than she 

could when she entered therapy. She has improved social skills. She has 

improved self-esteem. She is involved in ROTC. She is more confident. 

114) In sum, the Court finds that this fa[ctor] weighs in favor of 

termination and against the parents. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(6) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

115) It is in the child’s best interests for termination to be granted as to 

[Mother and Father], because they have abused and neglected the minor 

child at issue in this cause. 
- 49 -

116) The Court finds that, on May 29, 2014, the child was found to be a 

dependent and neglected child. At this hearing, the Court found that the 

child was in a condition of suffering in the care of her parents. At that time, 

she suffered from the trauma of sexual abuse. She was a very depressed 

and fragile child. She also struggled with self-care. 

117) At the adjudicatory hearing, Ms. Fletcher testified that the child’s 

behaviors were symptoms and coping mechanisms of broader issues of 

abuse and neglect that she had suffered in the parents’ home. 

118) Ms. Fletcher testified that, at the time of removal, the child presented 

with symptoms that were consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. 

119) In sum, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of termination 

and against the parents. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(7) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 

120) It is in the child’s best interest for termination to be granted as to 

[Father] because he abuses alcohol, rendering him consistently unable to 

care for the child in a safe and stable manner. 

121) The Court finds that alcohol has been a big problem in this case. The 

Court finds that the father’s issues of substance abuse are ongoing. He 

continues to abuse alcohol which negatively impacts his parenting of the 

child. Further, he continues to abuse alcohol even when the child is 

present, such that it is unsafe for her to be around him. This compromises 

the safety and overall propriety of the home environment. 

122) Ms. McCartt testified that she has concerns that [Father] continues to 

abuse alcohol. Further, there have been several times when the father 

spoke with Families Free workers at which he sounded impaired on the 

telephone. 

123) In sum, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of termination 

and against the parents in this cause. 

THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS CONTAINED IN T.C.A. § 36-1-

113(i)(8) ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS MATTER. 
- 50 -

124) It is in the child’s best interests for termination to be granted as to 

[Mother and Father], because their mental and emotional state would be 

detrimental to the child and would prevent them from effectively parenting 

the child. 

* * * 

126) As to [Father], he continues to have unaddressed anger management 

issues, as evidenced by his numerous threats to DCS staff, service 

providers, and the Court. There are also many concerns about marital 

conflict in the family home as reflected in numerous records that have been 

admitted in this cause. 

127) The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of termination and 

against the parents. 

The trial court therefore concluded that it was in the Child’s best interest to 

terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. Having determined that the trial court 

erred by admitting the Woodridge hospital records into evidence at trial, we have omitted 

the court’s findings as to those records here and cannot consider them in reviewing the 

court’s conclusions. Upon careful review, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that 

it is in the best interest of the Child for Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to be 

terminated. We will address the best interest analysis regarding each parent in turn.

A. Mother

Mother contends that termination of her parental rights is not in the best interest of 

the Child. When analyzing best interest, the trial court considered each factor contained 

within Tennessee Code Annotated §36-1-113(i) before determining that it was in the best 

interest of the Child that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. The trial court found, 

and the evidence supports, that DCS made reasonable efforts to assist Mother in 

addressing the reasons why the Child was removed from the parents’ home. Despite

those efforts, Mother continued to struggle with her mental health issues as evinced by 

testimony of several individuals who witnessed her behavior. The trial court found that 

Mother’s mental and emotional state would be detrimental to the Child. Mother’s 

medical records from Frontier Health also demonstrate that Mother consistently failed to 

appear for scheduled mental health appointments. Additionally, Mother did not 

cooperate with services offered to her.

Dr. Lane, testifying as an expert in child development and parenting assessments, 

indicated that she was concerned because Mother did not appear to be invested in the 

Child. Mother’s visitation was eventually ceased by the trial court in September 2015. 

However, even when Mother attended visits with the Child, as Ms. Rogers explained,
- 51 -

Mother did not engage with the Child and would sometimes sleep during the visits. The 

trial court found that, while there existed some degree of attachment, there was not a 

meaningful relationship between Mother and the Child. 

Ms. Fletcher, an expert in child and family therapy, explained that a role reversal 

between Mother and the Child existed such that when Mother was present, the Child 

became the caregiver. According to Ms. Fletcher, this role reversal created an unhealthy 

situation for the Child. Ms. Tipton, an expert in social work, also indicated her concerns 

that the parents would be unable to safely parent the Child in the foreseeable future due to

mental health issues, relational challenges, and lack of commitment to services offered. 

Significantly, the parents cancelled twenty-one of approximately thirty-two parenting 

education sessions offered to them. Furthermore, Mother was unable to demonstrate the 

parenting skills that Families Free was attempting to develop. 

The evidence preponderates in favor of a determination that the Child was doing 

very well in her foster home placement. The Child expressed her approval of her foster 

home, explaining that her foster parents were “good to [her].” The Child further related

that she was doing excellent work in school at the time of trial. According to Ms. 

Fletcher, the Child was in a “condition of suffering” when she first began attending 

therapy. She opined that returning the Child to her parents could cause the Child to 

“erode,” and the Child would be benefited by remaining in foster care. From a thorough 

examination of the record before us, excluding Mother’s Woodridge hospital records, we 

conclude that clear and convincing evidence exists that termination of Mother’s parental 

rights was in the Child’s best interest.

B. Father

Father likewise contends that termination of his parental rights is not in the best 

interest of the Child. We have noted that the trial court considered each factor contained 

within Tennessee Code Annotated §36-1-113(i) before determining that it was in the best 

interest of the Child that Father’s parental rights be terminated. The trial court found and 

a preponderance of the evidence supports that DCS made reasonable efforts to assist 

Father in addressing the reasons for the Child’s removal from the parents’ home. Despite 

those efforts, the trial court found that Father failed to make lasting changes in his 

lifestyle so that such change does not appear possible. 

Father did not cooperate with several services offered to him. Although Father 

completed his initial assessments, Father did not complete the recommendations of his 

parenting assessment, alcohol and drug assessment, or his psychological assessment. 
- 52 -

Father has unaddressed anger management issues and his mental and emotional state is

detrimental to the Child. Father was recommended to attend individual therapy from his 

psychological assessment but declined treatment after the intake and initial therapy 

appointment. Ms. Tipton indicated her concerns that the parents would be unable to 

safely parent the Child in the foreseeable future due to mental health issues, relational 

challenges, and lack of commitment to services offered to them. Twenty-one of 

approximately thirty-two parenting education sessions offered to them were cancelled. 

According to Ms. Tipton, Father was unable to demonstrate the parenting skills that 

Families Free was attempting to develop. 

As the trial court found, alcohol was a “big problem in this case,” and Father’s 

alcohol abuse was ongoing. Father did not comply with recommendations of his alcohol 

and drug assessment that he attend weekly AA meetings. Although he did attend some 

meetings, Father did not obtain a sponsor and was unable to identify the first step of the 

AA twelve-step program. 

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that no meaningful relationship 

existed between Father and the Child. As previously noted, the Child demonstrated 

marked improvement while residing in her foster home and appeared to be thriving. 

Upon a careful and thorough review of the record, we conclude that clear and convincing 

evidence demonstrates that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best 

interest.

VII. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court’s determination 

regarding the admission of Mother’s hospital records into evidence was harmless error. 

We reverse the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence of the statutory 

ground of persistence of conditions. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other 

respects, including the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child. 

Costs on appeal are assessed equally to the appellants, Sherry G. and Teddy G, and the 

appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. This case is remanded to the 

trial court, pursuant to applicable law, for enforcement of the trial court’s judgment 

terminating parental rights and collection of costs assessed below.

_________________________________

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JUDGE