In re Nation F.
| Docket Number | W2023-00510-COA-R3-PT |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Parties | IN RE NATION F. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Session November 28, 2023
Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Carroll County No. 20JV8452 John W. Whitworth, Judge
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse, and on its finding that termination was in the child's best interest. The trial court also terminated Father's rights on the additional ground that he was sentenced to incarceration for more than ten years when the child was under eight years of age. Mother and Father appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed and Remanded
Jasmine McMackins Hatcher, McKenzie, Tennessee, for the appellant Brittany F. [1]
Samuel W. Hinson, Lexington, Tennessee, for the appellant Zachary F. [2]
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, and Carrie A. Perras, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services.
KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., joined.
Brittany F. ("Mother") and Zachary F. ("Father," and together with Mother, "Appellants," or "Parents") are the biological Parents of Nation F. (the "Child"), who was born in February 2016. In August 2019, Nation, who was three years old at the time, was found playing outdoors unsupervised.[3] Mother was found asleep, was difficult to arouse, and tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and buprenorphine. She was arrested and charged with child endangerment and possession of a controlled substance. Additionally, two handguns and a rifle were found in the home, and Father, a convicted felon, was arrested and charged with three counts of possession of a weapon and possession of a stolen weapon. Further, Father admitted to taking Mother's prescription for suboxone. Nation, who tested positive for methamphetamines, was removed to Appellee Department of Children's Services' ("DCS") custody. In October 2021, Father was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 12-years incarceration.[4]
In December 2019, the Juvenile Court for Carroll County ("trial court") adjudicated Nation dependent and neglected and the victim of severe child abuse.[5] On July 7, 2020, DCS filed a petition to terminate Appellants' parental rights. As grounds, DCS averred failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse. On February 8, 2022, DCS filed an amended petition to add an additional ground for termination of Father's parental rights based on the fact that he had been sentenced to incarceration for a period of ten or more years. DCS also averred that termination of Parents' rights was in the Child's best interest.
The trial court conducted a hearing on February 10 and 14, 2023. At the beginning of trial, DCS announced that it would proceed on only two grounds: severe child abuse with respect to both Parents, and incarceration for ten or more years with respect to Father. On March 28, 2023, the trial court entered its final order, wherein it terminated both Parents' rights on the ground of severe child abuse. The trial court also terminated Father's parental rights on the additional ground that he was sentenced to incarceration for ten or more years. The trial court also determined that termination of Parents' rights was in Nation's best interest. Parents appeal.
Mother presents the following issues for review, as stated in her brief:
1. Whether the trial court used the incorrect best interest factors in the analysis to terminate the Mother's parental rights.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding best interest to terminate the parental rights of the Mother . . . who was free of substance abuse, maintaining visitation and a relationship with the child, employed, and with suitable housing at the time of the hearing?
Father raises the following issue in his brief:
Whether the trial court erred in finding that it was in the best interest of the minor [Child] to terminate [Father's] parental rights?
Although neither Mother nor Father raises a specific issue concerning the grounds for termination of their respective parental rights, this Court is obligated to review the grounds pursuant to the directive of the Tennessee Supreme Court as set out in In re Carrington H., which states that "the Court of Appeals must review the trial court's findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child's best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal." In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 525-26 (Tenn. 2016) (emphasis added).
It is well-settled that:
A parent's right to the care and custody of [his or] her child is among the oldest of the judicially recognized fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the federal and state constitutions. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); S1tanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972); In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Tenn. 2010); In re Adoption of Female Child, 896 S.W.2d 546, 547-48 (Tenn. 1995); Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 578-79 (Tenn. 1993). But parental rights, although fundamental and constitutionally protected, are not absolute. In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d at 580 (quoting In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)); see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250.
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 522-23 (Tenn. 2016) (footnote omitted).
Termination of parental rights proceedings are governed by statute in Tennessee, In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 541 (Tenn. 2015), and the statutes identify "those situations in which the state's interest in the welfare of a child justifies interference with a parent's constitutional rights by setting forth grounds on which termination proceedings can be brought." In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 568 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting In re W.B., Nos. M2004-00999-COA-R3-PT, M2004-01572-COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1021618, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2005) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g))) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113 governs the termination of parental rights. It provides, in pertinent part:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c). Therefore, every termination of parental rights case requires the trial court "to determine whether the parent has engaged in a course of action or inaction that constitutes one of the statutory grounds for termination[,]" and whether termination of the parent's rights is in the child's best interest. In re Donna E.W., No. M2013-02856-COA-R3-PT, 2014 WL 2918107, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2014). "Because the stakes are so profoundly high[ ]" in a termination of parental rights case, the statute "requires persons seeking to terminate a . . . parent's parental rights to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence." In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). This Court has observed that "[t]his heightened burden of proof minimizes the risk of erroneous decisions." Id. (citations omitted).
If the trial court determines that clear and convincing evidence supports grounds for termination in light of its factual findings, the court "should then consider the combined weight of those facts to determine whether they amount to clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest." In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d at 555. The party petitioning for the termination of parental rights bears the burden of demonstrating that termination is in the best interest of the child by clear and convincing evidence. In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Tenn. 2010).
We review the trial court's findings of fact de novo on the record with a presumption of correctness. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 524 (citations omitted). However, "[i]n light of the heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings [we] must make [our] own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate parental rights." Id. (citation omitted). A trial court's conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports termination of parental rights is a conclusion of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citation omitted). "This standard of review is consistent with the standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact." In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d at 112-13 (citing Starr v. Hill, 353 S.W.3d 478, 481-82 (Tenn. 2011)) ("Although a presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's findings of fact, we are not bound by the trial court's determination of the legal effect of...
To continue reading
Request your trial