In re Angelleigh R., M2020-00504-COA-R3-JV
| Decision Date | 19 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. M2020-00504-COA-R3-JV,M2020-00504-COA-R3-JV |
| Parties | IN RE ANGELLEIGH R. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County
This appeal stems from the circuit court's finding that a child was dependent and neglected. In particular, Mother appeals the trial court's finding that the child was a victim of severe abuse and educational neglect. We reverse the trial court as to both determinations.
William D. Cartwright, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Amanda D.B.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Stephanie Reevers, Deputy Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services.
OPINIONRespondent/Appellant Amanda D.B. is the parent of the child at issue, born in February 2012. In August 2018, Petitioner/Appellee the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") became involved with the child due to concerns that the child had fleas in her hair.1 That case was eventually closed. In October 2018, however, anotherissue arose that led to the DCS involvement at issue here. Specifically, on October 17, 2018, an incident occurred at the child's school that led DCS to begin an investigation into whether the child had been sexually abused. According to the referral from the child's school, the previous day the child had her hands down the front of her pants at school. When asked why she was doing that, the child stated that she was "hurting," that it was "red down there" and that Mother's boyfriend, James M. ("Boyfriend"), "was messing with her down there." When questioned, the child made a similar disclosure to a second teacher and a DCS investigator that Boyfriend had poured hand sanitizer "down there." The child also informed a teacher and the DCS investigator that Boyfriend threatened to "put hot sauce in my eyes, he don't like me anymore and he told me to go away." The investigator attempted to interview Mother the same day, but Mother did not return the investigator's request for a phone call left at Mother's address on file with the school.
Two things happened on October 19, 2018, the order of which is not clear from the record. One, Mother removed the child from public school in favor of home-schooling. Mother later claimed that the removal was not at all related to the DCS referral, as she did not know about the investigation at the time of the removal. Mother testified that due to the child's Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") diagnosis and developmental delays, the school wanted the child to attend only half-days. Mother testified that she did not believe that this arrangement was in the best interest of the child, so she instead chose to home-school the child.
Two, the DCS investigator was able to interview Mother. Mother informed the investigator that the child had resided with her father in California for the bulk of the summer of 2018. Around August 2018, the father told Mother that the child had informed him that someone named "Joker" had touched her inappropriately. Mother testified that she did not know anyone called "Joker" and that she took the child to the doctor on August 21, 2018, following the disclosure. According to Mother, she asked the doctor if there were any signs that the child had been sexually abused and was informed there were no signs to confirm that any abuse occurred.2 Records from that visit, however, do not indicate that sexual abuse was in any way discussed during the visit.
During the October 19 interview, Mother agreed to bring the child for a forensic interview the following Monday. Mother also agreed to stay with maternal grandmother and keep the child away from Boyfriend over the weekend. Later, however, Mother refused to schedule the forensic interview, and an ex parte court order was entered mandating it on October 22, 2018.3 Mother later testified that she simply wanted additional time to obtaina lawyer. The investigator and police also attempted to interview Boyfriend, but he declined to be interviewed.
A videotaped forensic interview with the child occurred on or about October 22, 2018. The child is somewhat difficult to understand in the video. It is clear, however, that the child repeatedly informed the interviewer that Boyfriend had put hand sanitizer on her private area. The child's gestures made clear that she was not referring to her toe, as she pointed specifically to her groin area and indicated that Boyfriend pulled down her pants to do so. The child stated that she told Boyfriend no, but that he performed the act anyway, while wearing gloves. The child further stated that Boyfriend also poured hot sauce on that area. The child initially said that the hand sanitizer incident happened once, but then goes on to mention the hand sanitizer and hot sauce incidents as if they perhaps happened together, variously describing them as having happened on "Friday, Saturday, and 100 days," "Friday, Saturday, and Sunday," and "100 times." Upon being asked multiple times by the forensic interviewer only about the hand sanitizer incident (not the hot sauce), the child explained that it occurred during the night while Mother was sleeping. The child later stated, however, that Mother woke up and she informed Mother of the incident. The child responded variously that Mother did not care and that Mother "ground" Boyfriend and put hot sauce in his eyes. The child discussed the hot sauce allegations at times while literally standing on her head. The child also stated that the police said that someone touched her, but she stated that no one touched her.
The child's allegations against Boyfriend, however, were not limited to this possibly single incident. The child also stated that Boyfriend had stomped on her stomach during an incident in which she had vomited popcorn.4 Moreover, the child claimed that Boyfriend killed eighteen cats, as well as a "human." According to the child, she had seen this deceased "human" buried in the ground of her neighbor's home with no head, no feet, no hands, "no body, only the body." The child claimed that she had called police on Boyfriend for this murder and that he had been arrested. The child also stated that her teachers were going to jail because they were not pretty and they kicked her.
Based on what DCS deemed the consistency of the allegations from the child, DCS substantiated the allegations of sexual abuse. On October 24, 2018, DCS filed a petition for an ex parte restraining order and injunction prohibiting contact between the child and Boyfriend in the Marshall County Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court"). This petition also specifically asked that the child be declared dependent and neglected and the victim of severe abuse.5 The juvenile court entered an ex parte restraining order on the same day;Mother retained custody, but was ordered not to permit contact between Boyfriend and the child. On October 25, 2018, the juvenile court entered an order appointing a guardian ad litem for the child.
After Mother waived the preliminary hearing, on October 29, 2018, the juvenile court entered an order finding probable cause of dependency and neglect. The order further provided that Mother was to obtain trauma counseling for the child. Mother and the child were to reside with maternal grandmother, and Boyfriend was again prohibited from having contact with the child.
By February 15, 2019, Mother had also not signed necessary releases to allow DCS to obtain records from the child's therapy, nor had Mother enrolled the child in trauma therapy. Mother claimed that the child was already in therapy and that there was a delay from the trauma therapy provider in getting the child an appointment. DCS therefore filed an amended petition for dependency and neglect on February 28, 2019, alleging that Mother was not properly providing the child with medical care.
Following a home visit, on March 13, 2019, DCS filed a petition for an ex parte restraining order to remove the child from Mother and place her in DCS custody. The petition alleged that Mother was no longer residing with maternal grandmother, but had moved back in with Boyfriend. The petition further alleged that the child, however, remained at maternal grandmother's home and was suffering from environmental neglect. Additionally, the petition alleged (1) educational neglect because Mother was not properly home-schooling the child; (2) physical abuse due to alleged discipline imposed by step-grandfather; and (3) medical neglect as Mother had still not enrolled the child in the proper trauma therapy. The juvenile court entered a protective custody order on March 14, 2019, placing the child in DCS custody and awarding Mother supervised visitation.
A second preliminary hearing was held on March 15, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the juvenile court again found probable cause that the child was dependent, abused, or neglected. The juvenile court further ruled that custody would remain with DCS, as Mother admitted she left the child with maternal grandmother without a power of attorney to allow the child to be placed in school. The juvenile court further found that Mother was absent from the child's life for a period of weeks due to the birth of a new baby, and that there was environmental and educational neglect, as well as physical abuse, as alleged in the petition. A permanency plan was created in April 2019 that allowed Mother no less than four hours of therapeutic supervised visitation per month. The goal of this permanency plan was "return to parent."
To continue reading
Request your trial