1 Mr. Clayton appeared and advised the Trial Court that he did not

contest the petition. 

### FILED March 24, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S ) 03A01-9807-JV-00218 SERVICES ) ) Petitioner-Appellee ) ) v . ) HON. SUZANNE BAILEY, ) JUDGE JENNIFER KOBEL and ) THOMAS KYLE CLAYTON ) ) Respondents-Appellants ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

JOHN G. McDOUGAL OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLANT PAUL G. SUMMERS, Attorney General and Reporter, and DOUGLAS EARL DIMOND, Assistant Attorney General, NASHVILLE, FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

Goddard, P.J.

In this suit the State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Jennifer Kobel and Thomas Kyle Clayton, 1 parents of Seth Thomas Isaiah Kobel, who was born on January 30, 1996.2 In the judgment of termination the Trial Court finds the following facts:

That the petition filed by the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, is well taken and should be sustained and relief granted thereunder for the causes as therein stated in that the subject child has been in the custody of Petitioner for at least six (6) months; that the conditions which led to said child’s removal still persist; that there is little likelihood that said conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the child can be returned to either parent in the near future; that the continuation of the legal parent and child relationship greatly diminishes the child’s chances of early integration into a stable and permanent home; that the Defendants, Jennifer Kobel and Thomas Kyle Clayton, have failed to comply in a substantial manner on the reasonable responsibilities of the Foster Care Plan; that the Defendants, Jennifer and Thomas Kyle Clayton, have willfully abandoned the child for more than four (4) consecutive months next preceding the filing of the petition in this cause and it is, therefore, for the best interest of the said child and the public that all of the parental rights of the Defendants to the said child be forever terminated and that the complete custody, control and guardianship of the said child should now be awarded to the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services with the right to place said child for adoption and to consent to any adoption in loco parentis.

In the course of the Trial Judge’s extensive oral opinion, she made the following finding of fact regarding her evaluation of the evidence and witness credibility which is particularly significant as it relates to Ms. Kobel’s testimony attempting to excuse her conduct:

THE COURT: I tell just about every parent who sits in this seat that you are now occupying, Ms. Kobel, that I don’t think, despite the other cases that I hear from the standpoint of children abused by their parents, whether they’ve been raped, otherwise molested in some way, or the children3 who sit in this courtroom charged with murder. All these are very serious cases, but none more serious than that of a parent appearing before me with the State of Tennessee or other parties seeking to terminate their rights because it is a permanent situation. In the event that termination is decreed and an order entered declaring the parents’ rights terminated, it is a forever type situation. And that’s one reason why I sometimes hang pretty much on every word that’s spoken in here. I’ll look for not only the words of the parent when they testify, the words of other witnesses. I look at the expressions. I look at their demeanor. I look at their reactions to the testimony. It’s something that I feel everything that’s said in here has to be at least weighed and considered very, very carefully because of the serious nature of these proceedings.

Our review of the record and the briefs persuades us that this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary and collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Ms. Kobel.

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.4

CONCUR:

________________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

________________________________ William H. Inman, Sr.J.