In re Isaiah R.
| Decision Date | 07 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. E2015-00026-COA-R3-JV,E2015-00026-COA-R3-JV |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE: ISAIAH R. |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cocke County
This appeal arises from a dispute over the placement of the minor child Isaiah R. ("the Child"). The Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") removed the Child from his parents' custody and placed the Child in a foster home. Certain of the Child's paternal relatives ("Respondents," collectively) intervened in an effort to obtain custody of the Child and take him to California. The Circuit Court for Cocke County ("the Trial Court") adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected, dismissed DCS from the action, and awarded legal and physical custody of the Child to the Child's paternal great uncle. DCS appealed to this Court. We hold that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children ("the Compact") applies in this case, that no exemptions to the Compact apply, and that the Trial Court erred in transferring custody of the Child to his great uncle in California without California's approval. We further find that transferring the Child to California is not a proper disposition for the Child given certain troubling facts in the record. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W. MCCLARTY and FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JJ., joined.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General, Alexander S. Rieger, Assistant Attorney General, and, Paul Jordan Scott, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellant, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services.
Charlotte Ann Leibrock, Candice K. Mendez, William M. Leibrock & James R. Scroggins, and, Carter S. Moore, Guardian ad Litem, for the appellees, Daniel R., Gary R., and Bradley R.1
OPINIONThe Child was born drug-exposed in November 2011. The Child's father, Bradley R. ("Father"), is incarcerated on a six-year sentence. The Child entered state custody and came to live with Lisa H. ("Foster Mother") after leaving the hospital. In October 2012, DCS placed the Child with his great uncle, Daniel R. ("Great Uncle") and his wife Rebecca ("Great Aunt") in California pursuant to the Compact. Because Great Aunt previously had incurred a criminal conviction for DUI, approval for placement in California with Great Uncle and Great Aunt required a waiver. Under the terms of the approval, California authorities would monitor the home for at least six months. The Great Uncle and Great Aunt were required to report any changes, such as further criminal charges. When Great Uncle worked, Great Aunt provided for the Child's day to day care.
Certain troubling facts about the Great Uncle's and Great Aunt's home environment in California came to light causing California to withdraw its approval of the Child's placement with Great Uncle and Great Aunt. Following the initial approval by California of the placement, Great Aunt incurred a second DUI conviction. Great Aunt later completed alcohol treatment and, by her account, stopped drinking. Great Uncle and Great Aunt did not disclose this second DUI conviction to the California officials. In addition, Great Aunt smokes marijuana, albeit allegedly by prescription. Great Aunt would leave the Child in the care of other adults in the home, go for a walk, and smoke the marijuana. Finally, there was an incident involving the authorities when Great Aunt called 9-1-1 concerning a claimed domestic violence episode involving her adult son. Great Uncle and Great Aunt, again, did not disclose this incident. Great Aunt also admitted that she told authorities that her son, who had moved into the home, was becoming more violent. When the family moved, a new home study was conducted by California. California officials discovered Great Aunt's second DUI conviction and the domestic violence incident resulting in Great Aunt's call to 9-1-1. California subsequently withdrew approval for the Child's placement in the home.
After approximately six months in California, DCS brought the Child back to Tennessee after California withdrew its approval for the Child's placement with Great Uncle and Great Aunt. The Child was returned to Foster Mother's care. Foster Mother isa registered nurse who has made sure that the Child receives various types of care, including speech therapy, behavioral therapy, and physical therapy as needed. As of December 2014, the Child had lived with Foster Mother for 31 out of 37 months since his birth.
Father stipulated to the Child's dependency and neglect, but urged that the Trial Court grant custody of the Child to Great Uncle in California a second time. DCS opposed this, arguing that to transfer custody back to Great Uncle in California without California's authorization would violate the Compact. After a hearing, the Trial Court ruled that the Compact did not apply, that DCS was dismissed from the case, and that the Child's best interest would be served by awarding custody to Great Uncle. In its oral remarks from the bench, the Trial Court based its decision primarily on the blood relationship between the Child and his paternal extended family and a desire to foster that relationship. DCS appealed to this Court.2
Although not stated exactly as such, DCS raises the following two issues on appeal: 1) whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that the Compact does not apply in this case; and, 2) whether the Trial Court erred in placing the Child with Great Uncle in California even if the placement did not violate the Compact.
Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).
We first address whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that the Compact does not apply in this case. The Compact is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-4-201 et seq, with its purposes stated as followed:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-4-201 (2014).
The Compact defines placement as follows:
[T]he arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution but does not include any institution caring for the mentally ill, mentally defective or epileptic or any institution primarily educational in character, and any hospital or other medical facility . . . .
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-4-201 (2014). Article VIII of the Compact provides that it shall not apply to:
(a) The sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by the child's parent, stepparent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or the child's guardian and leaving the child with any such relative or non-agency guardian in the receiving state.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-4-201 (2014).
A "family free" home has been described as "a home where the child lives without charge and receives the care which children usually receive from their parents aspart of the process of upbringing." J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732, 740 (Ariz. 1995) (quotations omitted).
In this case, the Trial Court sent the Child to live with relatives in California. According to Respondents, this constituted a custody decision involving relatives rather than a placement, and the Compact is not applicable. Alternative...
To continue reading
Request your trial