NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

There is a reasonable basis for the legislature's disparate treatment of children involved in adoption proceedings and those who are the subject of guardianship or foster care proceedings. In re M.J.S., 44 S.W.3d 41, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2. Construction.

The adoption statutes are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed. Delamotte v. Stout, 207 Tenn. 406, 340 S.W.2d 894, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 472 (1960); In re Adoption of Taylor, 678 S.W.2d 69, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2978 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Term “child” in the statutory section regarding incarceration for 10 years also includes a child in utero; a construction to include the period of pregnancy serves the legislative goals of providing permanency and protecting the day-to-day needs of children. In re Adrianna S., 520 S.W.3d 548, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

3. Considerations.

In deciding case of the custody of children, the interests of the child are considered as of greater importance than those of the competing parents or competing parties. State ex rel. “A” v. A Licensed or Chartered Child-Placing Agency, 194 Tenn. 400, 250 S.W.2d 776, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (1952).

In adoption cases the courts will consider the welfare of the child and the rights of the adult parties will be subordinated to the best interest of the child. In re Petition of Clements, 201 Tenn. 98, 296 S.W.2d 875, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (1956); Ex parte Wolfenden, 49 Tenn. App. 1, 349 S.W.2d 713, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959), superseded by statute as stated in, Fykes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , superseded by statute as stated in, Tennessee Baptist Children's Home v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 1998), superseded by statute as stated in, Baker v. He (In re A.M.H.), — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2005).

Fact that child might be better off in home other than that of natural parents is not ground for adoption over protest of parents. Ex parte Wolfenden, 48 Tenn. App. 433, 348 S.W.2d 751, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

The paramount consideration in adoption cases is the welfare of the child. Baughman v. Department of Public Welfare, 211 Tenn. 101, 362 S.W.2d 785, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 345 (1962).

4. Rights of Natural Parents.

As a general proposition, the natural parents have the primary and superior right to custody of their children above that of all others, but where these parents are unfit or the mother, in the case of an illegitimate child, has consented and agreed according to former § 36-1-111 [repealed], for the child to be placed with a child-placing agency for adoption and there was no fraud or duress in the procurement of such consent, then there is no alternative but to sustain the adoption applied for if the best interests of the child call for such adoption. State ex rel. “A” v. A Licensed or Chartered Child-Placing Agency, 194 Tenn. 400, 250 S.W.2d 776, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (1952).

The fact that the parties petitioning for adoption were the natural parents, even though they had legally waived their rights to the child, could be considered as a matter of fact along with other things in considering what was for the welfare of the child. State ex rel. “A” v. A Licensed or Chartered Child-Placing Agency, 194 Tenn. 400, 250 S.W.2d 776, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (1952).

The parent as such has no vested right in his child that requires the protection of the courts that is accorded property rights. State ex rel. “A” v. A Licensed or Chartered Child-Placing Agency, 194 Tenn. 400, 250 S.W.2d 776, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (1952).

The interest of a father in his child is of profound importance, deserving protection. This state has a strong interest in sustaining the father-child relationship and protecting the family unit. In re Riggs, 612 S.W.2d 461, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, Riggs v. Terrazas, 450 U.S. 921, 101 S. Ct. 1370, 67 L. Ed. 2d 349, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 876 (1981).

There can be no valid adoption without a valid termination of parental rights. In re Riggs, 612 S.W.2d 461, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, Riggs v. Terrazas, 450 U.S. 921, 101 S. Ct. 1370, 67 L. Ed. 2d 349, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 876 (1981).

5. Right of Adoption.

The right of adoption is not a natural one and was unknown to the common law. Clements v. Morgan, 201 Tenn. 94, 296 S.W.2d 874, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (1956); Petition of Van Huss, 207 Tenn. 168, 338 S.W.2d 588, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1960); Delamotte v. Stout, 207 Tenn. 406, 340 S.W.2d 894, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 472 (1960); Adoption of Edman, 48 Tenn. App. 375, 348 S.W.2d 345, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

6. Method of Adoption.

The adoption of a child is governed by statute and to effect a legal adoption the statute must be strictly complied with. Clements v. Morgan, 201 Tenn. 94, 296 S.W.2d 874, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (1956); In re Petition of Clements, 201 Tenn. 98, 296 S.W.2d 875, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (1956); Petition of Van Huss, 207 Tenn. 168, 338 S.W.2d 588, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1960); Adoption of Edman, 48 Tenn. App. 375, 348 S.W.2d 345, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

An adoption can be accomplished only by court order after following the procedures set out by this part. In re Petition of Clements, 201 Tenn. 98, 296 S.W.2d 875, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (1956).

A final decree of adoption that affirmatively denies to the adoptive parents the same custody and control of the child possessed of natural parents and grants visitation rights to the natural parents is not only violative of the letter of the law embodied in the statutes heretofore mentioned, but is also violative of the primary purpose of this part as set forth in subsection (a). In re Adoption of Dearing, 572 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

7. Contract or Agreement to Adopt.

A contract to adopt should not be enforced in the courts of this state. In re Petition of Clements, 201 Tenn. 98, 296 S.W.2d 875, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (1956).

8. Estoppel as Creating Adoption.

Adoption by estoppel is not recognized in Tennessee. Bank of Maryville v. Topping, 216 Tenn. 597, 393 S.W.2d 280, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (1965).

9. Right to Inherit.

Before a child may inherit from one who is not his natural parent there must be substantial compliance with the adoption statutes or a contract of adoption and inheritance. Bank of Maryville v. Topping, 216 Tenn. 597, 393 S.W.2d 280, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (1965).

Right of inheritance may exist through valid contract of adoption and inheritance. Bank of Maryville v. Topping, 216 Tenn. 597, 393 S.W.2d 280, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (1965).

10. Best Interests of the Child.

Judgment finding that it was not in the children's best interest to terminate the mother's rights as a parent of the two children was reversed because the trial court focused on the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the children, as required by the statute and authorities. In re Taylor BW, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011), rev'd, In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

Pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(i) and 36-1-101(d), termination of parents'  rights was in their children's best interests, as the children had been removed from the home years earlier, had not had any visitation with their parents, and had a close and loving bond with the woman whom they were placed with and who hoped to adopt them; further, neither parent made any meaningful effort to be reunited with the children. In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dakota R., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Mar. 6, 2013).

Dismissal of maternal grandparents'  complaint was appropriate because, although the grandparents were allowed to intervene when a parent surrendered parental rights to the parent's minor child to adoptive parents, the grandparents failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest was served by taking the child away from the adoptive parents. In re R.S.M., 466 S.W.3d 766, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), appeal denied, In re Rebecca M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (Tenn. June 11, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights was in children's best interests because the parent struggled with drugs following the children's removal, had not completed the rehabilitation program in which the parent was participating, and had not maintained a suitable home for the children. The children need permanency in their lives and, although an adoptive placement had not been found, a search for an adoptive home had begun. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests was upheld where the child had had no contact with the father in two-and-one-half years, the child was only two years old at the time of removal, the child was attached to the foster mother who was also raising the child's siblings, the father was incarcerated and was not expected to be released until 2017, he testified that he had abused marijuana for his entire adult life, and the child and her siblings had suffered abuse and neglect at her father's hands. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interest because the child's guardian, who had provided a good home for the child for years after the child was approximately three months old, wished to adopt the child and the child was doing well in the guardian's home and was making good grades in school. There was evidence that the child was well-adjusted and had formed a bond with the guardian, while there was no indication that the child had any bond with the parent. In re B.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 964 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's rights to her child based on abandonment and in the child's best interest because the mother only visited the child twice in five years, neither of which was within the four months preceding the foster parents'  adoption petition, the mother's conduct was willful, there was no evidence that the foster parents significantly restrained and interfered with the mother's efforts to visit the child, the child had been in the foster parents'  home eight years, formed a close bond with the foster parents and their family and, was excelling in school, and removing her from the only home she had ever known would likely have a detrimental effect on her emotional and psychological condition. In re Makendra E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated due to his wanton disregard for the welfare of his children since the father was involved in criminal behavior, he almost immediately violated his probation, and he committed domestic violence against his pregnant wife; moreover, the father was in substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan because he did not provide proof of housing or a legal means of income, he did not arrange a psychological evaluation or set up a drug and alcohol assessment, and he did not visit his children. Termination was in the best interest of the children based on the father's history of drugs and violence and the fact that the children were doing well in foster care. In re Lilly C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interests as the child's parent and the child had no meaningful relationship due to the parent's incarceration for criminal activity and drug use, the child viewed the child's foster parents who wished to adopt the child as the child's family, and the parent, throughout the parent's time in prison, considered only the parent's interests, rather than the welfare of the child. In re Tristan B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in her son's best interests where it showed that she had used cocaine while pregnant, she did not maintain regular visitation, she did not make it safe for her son to be in her home, she had not paid child support, and no meaningful relationship had been established. In re Jayvien O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Evidence supported the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests where the mother stated that she was not ready for the children to return to her care, she failed to address her mental health issues, she failed to maintain stable housing or employment, she continued to abuse prescription medications, she attempted suicide on several occasions, and the children had flourished in their foster home. In re Rylee R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Juvenile court properly found that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father did not maintain regular visitation with the child or provide support of any kind prior to his incarceration, and the father did not show any interest in the child's well-being until after the filing of the petition for termination. In re Braxton R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because, although she had taken steps to overcome her drug addiction, the trial court was not convinced that those steps would lead to a lasting adjustment; her contact with the child had been minimal; she and the child lacked a meaningful relationship; her sporadic contact with the child had caused psychological, emotional, and behavioral problems for the child; and the trial court was not confident that the mother could provide a safe and stable environment for the child; in contrast, the child had done well in his father's and stepmother's home; they had a meaningful relationship with the child; and the child's psychological and behavioral problems had ceased. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children because they had been in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services for several years while the parents failed to meet the requirements of their plans and improve their circumstances; the record clearly reflected they were flourishing in their new home environment with their foster parents. In re Angel M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that a father of two children engaged in conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children. The trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children was also proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Addison E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence established that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because the mother did not obtain and maintain stable housing and questions remained concerning the mother's mental and/or emotional status as evidenced by the mother's failure to complete a required psychological assessment. Moreover, the child resided in a safe and stable home, which was willing and able to adopt the child, and removing the child would have negatively affected the child's emotional condition. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Termination of father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's child because, given the bond between the child and the foster parents and the child's special medical needs, removal from the foster home would likely have caused the child emotional, psychological, and/or physical detriment. There also was no evidence that the child knew the father or that there was any bond between them, and the father's recidivism and frequent returns to jail did not bode well for the father's ability to provide a long-term home for the child. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interests because the parents failed to make a lasting adjustment of their circumstances–including drug abuse–to make it safe for the child to be placed in their care, the parents did not maintain consistent visitation with the child and had no meaningful relationship with the child, the child was thriving in a loving, pre-adoptive home and had bonded to the foster family, and a change of caretakers and home would have had a highly negative effect on the child. In re Riley W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2018).

There was clear and convincing proof in the record to support the trial court's finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the child had a strong bond with his foster parents, and there was no substantial bond between him and the father; to remove the child from the only stable home he had ever known would be detrimental to his well-being. In re D.N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest becuase the mother had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and the child adjusted to her home with her great aunt and considered the great aunt to be her mother; because the mother's sobriety was unproven, and she lacked gainful employment, it did not appear that the mother would be able to care for the child at any early date. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because (1) the child was doing well in a foster home and had bonded with the foster parents; (2) the mother's ability to care for the child, while maintaining the mother's recovering sobriety, was untested; (3) a doctor opined that to put the child back in an environment where there was a significant risk the child might again be exposed to drugs was simply too great a risk to take; and (4) there did not appear to be a strong bond between the mother. In re Mason C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents'  rights was in the child's best interests because the physical environment of their home was unhealthy and unsafe, the child had improved physically and mentally ever since she was removed from the parents'  custody, and a change in caretakers and physical environment would have had a negative effect on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical conditions. In re Savannah M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstances necessary for the child's return or maintained regular visitation with him, she failed to maintain a meaningful relationship with him during her absence, she admitted that she did not wish to regain custody but only wanted to reestablish her relationship with the child, the mother failed to remit child support, and the child had been living with his grandparents for almost four years and a change in caretakers would be detrimental to his emotional condition. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

It was in a child's best interests for the parental rights of the child's mother to be terminated because no meaningful relationship existed between the child and the mother, the child would have suffered emotional and psychological harm if there was a change of caregivers at that point in time, and the child was thriving with and had become fully integrated in and formed a strong and positive bond with a relative's home and family with whom the child had been living for a few years and which wished to adopt the child. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

Sufficient evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because it showed that the no-contact order was quickly superseded by an order permitting the father to visit the child, there was no evidence that the father ever attempted to contact the child after his incarceration, the father's testimony supported the inference that he was out of contact with the child from June 2013 to December 2015, and the practical details of the father's return to society after his incarceration ended were uncertain. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father's unfortunate history with illegal drugs had been a serious issue in the case, and the record evidenced that the father made less than satisfactory progress; the child's foster mother testified that the child was doing well and that the child did not talk about the father, and there had been prolonged periods where the father had not seen the child. In re Jayda H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).

Juvenile court properly terminated a the father's parental rights as in the best interest of the children because he failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children and abandoned them by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare by engaging in a pattern of physical violence, domestic abuse, toward the mother and one of the children, as well as other illegal or unreasonable acts, the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the children, the children had no meaningful relationship with the father, and a change of caretaker and physical environment was likely to have a negative effect on the children's welfare. In re Nakayia, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because it showed that the father had been incarcerated since the child was three years old, the mother had stopped the video visits between them when the child began exhibiting anxiety behaviors after the visits, the child had no relationship with the father at the time of trial, and even after the father's release there would be restrictions on his being around other children due to his sex offender status. In re Jackson D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2020).

11. Material Change In Circumstances.

Trial court utilized the appropriate legal standard because the court recognized that significant changes to a father's work and/or school schedule such as graduating, going from a night shift to a day shift position, or starting a new career might constitute a material change in circumstances. The court correctly concluded, however, that the father's alleged changes in work or school schedule were not significant and, therefore, did not meet the statutory burden for a material change in circumstance. In re Caroline U., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019).

There could not have been a material change in circumstances when a father filed a petition to modify because the permanent parenting plan order had only become a final order that very same day. Because the facts used to establish a material change in circumstances sufficient to modify a residential parenting schedule had to occur after the entry of the plan to be modified, it was clear that no material change could have occurred between the time that the order became final and the time that the father filed the petition seeking modification. In re Caroline U., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019).

Father's change in work schedule, change in major, and decision to stop teaching jujitsu classes was insufficient to establish a material change in circumstances because without evidence as to the significance of the work schedule effecting the father's parenting, the prior school schedule with the current school schedule, and when the father stopped teaching classes, it was impossible for the appellate court to know when the alleged changes occurred and if they impacted the child. In re Caroline U., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019).

Father failed to establish that a material change in circumstance had occurred because the father was still working multiple jobs and nights and was still attending school, there was no change in relationship status for the father, there was no relocation or career change, and the mother was still keeping the child during the father's work and school hours. Furthermore, there was no proof that the parties had failed to abide by the previous permanent parenting plan or that the father's alleged change in circumstances had impacted the child. In re Caroline U., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019).

12. Standing.

Non-biological parent was not a biological parent, legal parent, or step parent, and she did not seek to adopt the child; thus, she did not fit within any of these statutory definitions of a parent, rendering her without standing to pursue a parentage action or visitation with the child. Pippin v. Pippin, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2020).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality of Definition.

The statutory definition of “willfully failed to support” and “willfully failed to make reasonable payments toward such child's support” is unconstitutional because it creates an irrebutable presumption that the failure to provide monetary support for the four months preceding the petition to terminate parental rights constitutes abandonment, irrespective of whether that failure was intentional. Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 2 S.W.3d 180, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. 1999).

The effect of the decision in Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. 1999) that T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(D) was unconstitutional was to restore the definition of abandonment as it existed before the 1995 amendment, with the element of intent intact. Menard v. Meeks (In re Menard), 29 S.W.3d 870, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2. Construction.

In the definition of abandonment, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) uses the phrase “a proceeding or pleading to terminate parental rights” in the same statutory subsection where the legislature also uses the phrase “the petition for termination of parental rights or adoption”; read as a whole, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) requires that the willful failure to visit, support, or make reasonable payments toward the support of the child must occur in the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition currently before the court. In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

Read in the context of the statutory scheme that governs the termination of parental rights, the word “any,” under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(F), is addressed only to petitions presently under the trial court's consideration; accordingly, only a parent's conduct in the four months immediately preceding the filing of a petition then before the trial court may be used as grounds to terminate parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

Biological father is not automatically the legal father of a child, but rather he is only the legal father if he is married to the mother at the probable time of conception or if he has been adjudicated to be the legal father. T.C.A. § 36-1-102(28); although the parentage statutes use the term father rather than legal father, the only logical reading of the parentage statute is that a man who has been adjudicated to be the father under the parentage law has also been adjudicated to be the legal father of the child; if that were not the case, a biological father could never be the legal father of his child unless he were married to the biological mother; such a reading would be both incorrect and unconstitutional. In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. 2006), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 891 (Tenn. Sept. 19, 2006).

Surrogacy statute, T.C.A. § 36-1-102, does not establish a public policy prohibiting traditional surrogacy agreements. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

T.C.A. § 36-1-102(48)(B) [now (50)(B)] operates as a statement of public policy that a woman who carries a fetus to term under the statutory definition of gestational surrogacy does not attain the status of a legal parent under Tennessee law and, therefore, the statutory procedures governing surrender and adoption do not apply. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

General Assembly did not intend for T.C.A. § 36-1-102(48)(B) [now (50)(B)] to operate as an independent procedure for the termination of the parental rights of a traditional surrogate. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

3. Applicability.

Mother's claim that her conduct did not exhibit a wanton disregard for a child's welfare was rejected as the mother's parental rights were terminated because she abandoned the child by willfully failing to support or visit during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition; T.C.A. § 36-1-102(l)(A)(iv) did not apply. In re A'mari B., 358 S.W.3d 204, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011), appeal denied, In re A'Mari B., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1067 (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2011).

Grounds of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions were inapplicable because the proof showed that the children were removed from the home of the father, who was living with the father's mother at the time. Furthermore, at the time of removal, the mother was incarcerated. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

4. Jurisdiction of Court.

Fact that juvenile court has adjudged a child a dependent and committed its custody to the department of human services (now department of children's services) and retained jurisdiction for such further orders as it might adjudge proper did not prevent the chancery or circuit court from taking jurisdiction of adoption proceeding or from determining the question of abandonment. In re Matthews, 204 Tenn. 155, 319 S.W.2d 69, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (1958).

Chancery and circuit courts may proceed with an adoption without considering the effects of a prior juvenile court order concerning custody. In re Adoption of Hart, 709 S.W.2d 582, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3000 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

5. Abandoned Child.

The definition of an abandoned child contained in subdivision (1) by its express provisions applies only to an action or proceeding to declare a child to be an abandoned child and has not been extended by amendment or construction to apply when the issue of abandonment is under consideration in adoption proceeding in the chancery or circuit court. Ex parte Wolfenden, 49 Tenn. App. 1, 349 S.W.2d 713, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959), superseded by statute as stated in, Fykes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , superseded by statute as stated in, Tennessee Baptist Children's Home v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 1998), superseded by statute as stated in, Baker v. He (In re A.M.H.), — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2005).

The ultimate question in an abandonment situation is whether there is clear and convincing evidence of an overall lack of any parental responsibility. A finding of a possible abandonment, or the lack of such a finding, on the part of one parent is not to be interpreted as conclusive to the other parent or the ultimate issue. Koivu v. Irwin, 721 S.W.2d 803, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

There is a distinction in the law between those cases where an abandonment is asked to be declared and those cases where not only is there an abandonment request, but also an adoption of the abandoned child. In the former situation, there is a statutory definition of abandonment, contained in T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A), while in the latter, case law sets out the definition. Koivu v. Irwin, 721 S.W.2d 803, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Abandonment, as it pertains to an adoption proceeding, is defined in this state as any conduct on the part of the parent that evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child. Koivu v. Irwin, 721 S.W.2d 803, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Evidence supported finding of abandonment. In re Adoption of Parsons, 766 S.W.2d 196, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 778 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Although it was undisputed that biological father did not pay any child support before maternal grandparents filed their petition for adoption, there was evidence that he would have been willing to pay such support if mother or grandparents agreed to accept it; therefore, the evidence failed to support the conclusion that biological father abandoned his child or that he willingly failed to support her. Menard v. Meeks (In re Menard), 29 S.W.3d 870, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Although there was not clear and convincing evidence that parent had abandoned child to support termination of parental rights because of lack of transportation and participation in a drug rehabilitation program, failure to overcome drug addiction and substantially comply with permanency plan supported termination. In re A.D.A, 84 S.W.3d 592, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

Mother's failure to visit her minor children for the four months immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition constituted abandonment. In re S.Y., 121 S.W.3d 358, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Court erred by finding that a mother had willfully abandoned her children where the mother was indigent, and the state did not present any proof to the trial court that showed that the mother was able to financially support her children in any way and did not do so. State v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), 124 S.W.3d 609, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, State Dep't of Child's Servs. v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1288 (Tenn. 2003).

Trial court properly dismissed a petition to terminate parental rights, because the evidence did not establish that either parent intended to abandon a minor child. The evidence showed that the father paid child support, but was unaware of the child's residence; and the mother was unable to pay child support due to a loss of employment, but she attempted to contact the child shortly before the petition was filed. Means v. Ashby, 130 S.W.3d 48, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2004).

Trial court did not err in refusing to terminate the biological father's parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102 because the trial court's finding that there was no convincing evidence of the father's willful abandonment of the child was presumed correct where the mother and her husband failed to provide an adequate record on appeal as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 24. In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re Adoption of M.L.D., — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 779 (Tenn. Sept. 12, 2005).

Record did not support the juvenile court's implicit finding that the mother “willfully” failed to visit or support her two children during the four months preceding the filing of the joint termination petition as provided under the statutory definition of abandonment in T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), because the mother was incarcerated during that four-month period and the fathers of the children refused to allow visitation at the prison. However, only one statutory ground was required to support termination of the mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) and there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the mother failed to support or visit her children in the four months before her incarceration, which constituted abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), and that the mother's conduct prior to her incarceration showed a wanton disregard for children's welfare, which also constituted abandonment under § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re A.M.S. v. Ferrell, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1020 (Tenn. 2005).

Court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment where the mother made child support payments in November of 2004, but made no payments during the months of December of 2004, January of 2005, and February of 2005. In addition, the mother was required to return to the child support court to have that court reassess her child support obligations, and the mother never did so. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., 200 S.W.3d 184, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 2006), appeal denied, In re D.J.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. 2006).

Juvenile court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights based on abandonment pursuant to, inter alia, T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); the mother and her new husband had not prevented the father from visiting his child and, except for one call on his fourth birthday, the father failed to visit or contact the child from the age of two onwards, and the child was five at the time the petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed. And, the court found that it would not have been in the child's best interest to go back and try to establish some sort of relationship with the father. In re F.R.R., 193 S.W.3d 528, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. 2006).

Evidence in this case did not support a finding that appellant parents intentionally abandoned their daughter; although the daughter had now been with appellees for more than seven years, six of the years elapsed after the parents'  first unsuccessful legal filing to regain custody. In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2007), rehearing denied, 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (Tenn. 2007), cert. denied, Baker v. Shao-Qiang He, — U.S.—, — S. Ct. —, — L. Ed. 2d —, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8357 (U.S. June 25, 2007).

Order terminating mother's parental rights was vacated because the record failed to contain clear and convincing evidence that the department of children's services made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the child or that the mother abandoned the child by failure to support pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); it was significant that none of the permanency plans required the mother to provide financial support to the child, yet the department wished to use her failure to support as a ground for termination. In re R.L.F., 278 S.W.3d 305, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 788 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2008).

Where father failed to support or make reasonable payments in support of his children for four months preceding filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, trial court did not err by terminating parental rights on the ground of abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); father was employed and received an inheritance during this time period, yet failed to make any efforts to provide support for his children. In re L.M.W., 275 S.W.3d 843, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2008).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support was proper pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 36-1-113(g)(1) because the mother's contacts with the child during the pertinent four-month period were of such an infrequent nature or of such short duration as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the child under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(C). Therefore, the mother engaged in merely token visitation during the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition. Stephen v. Christy C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010), appeal denied, In re Keri C., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Prior order suspending the father's visitation rights did not preclude a finding that the father willfully failed to visit the children, and a preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that the father willfully failed to visit his children between July 2003 and July 2005 since although the father filed a petition to reinstate his visitation rights, he took no action to advance the petition, and the father had no reasonable excuse for failing to pursue the petition to reinstate visitation during those two years; therefore, the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of the father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment based on willful failure to visit under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and T.C.A. § 36-1-102. Because the trial court did not reach the issue of whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, the court remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c). In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willful failure to visit because the father had visited the child, at most, two times, once in December 2010 and once in January 2011, prior to the filing of the termination petition in April 2012 and it was only after the petition was filed that the father attempted to see the child; the father's visitation after the petition was filed was, at best, token visitation. In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013), appeal denied, In re Jacobe J., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father engaged in criminal behavior, had continued incarcerations, had unresolved substance abuse issues, failed to meet the child's material needs, and demonstrated a general a lack of concern towards the child. In re Jocilyn M.P., 435 S.W.3d 773, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Mar. 11, 2014).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the father had an income of at least $ 2,867 during the relevant time, paid over $ 1,600 for pain management consultations and prescriptions, but paid no support despite being aware of his duty to support the child. In re Jocilyn M.P., 435 S.W.3d 773, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Mar. 11, 2014).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because the department of children's services (DCS) was required to make reasonable efforts to assist the father in reunification even when the ground alleged was abandonment by wanton disregard and the trial court made no findings regarding whether DCS exercised reasonable efforts to assist the father. In re Kaliyah S., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2014), rev'd, 455 S.W.3d 533, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2015).

Child was properly found to be abandoned based on the child's mother's failure to provide a suitable home; the presence of drug paraphernalia in the mother's home, along with the mother's ongoing substance abuse issues, rendered her home unsuitable for the child. In re Jonathan F., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children because the father had been absent for all but the first few months of the children's lives, and in the four months before his date of incarceration, he worked but paid nothing for the support of the children. In re S.C.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit because she did not visit her son during the four month period prior to the filing of the termination petition; she had not seen the child for approximately 21 months; the problem of being arrested was one of the mother's own making as she was aware of the order of protection; even after the order of protection was dismissed, the mother never contacted the father about setting up supervised visitation in accordance with the parenting plan; she did not contact the facility that could provide supervised visitation; and she never filed a petition or motion with the divorce court to enforce the visitation schedule or to modify it. In re Noah B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for failure to visit the mother's child because the mother (1) only maintained sporadic phone contact with the child, and (2) did not physically contact the child for five and one-half months. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment due to a failure to establish a suitable home for the mother's child because (1) efforts of the Department of Children's Services (DCS) to help the mother establish a home were frustrated by the mother's continued absence and failure to maintain communication with DCS, (2) the mother did not procure a birth certificate to obtain housing, and (3) the mother refused DCS'  offers of assistance. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

Evidence indicated safety hazards and environmental issues with the mother's home, and her pattern of inviting manipulative and abusive men into her home and life was at the heart of the problem, and more than a year after the child was removed, the mother was no closer to being able to provide the child with a suitable home; the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based on her failure to provide a suitable home. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights, as the evidence did not preponderate against the findings in support of its determination that the father abandoned the child by exhibiting a wanton disregard for her welfare; the father engaged in sexual conduct with the child for years. In re T.L.G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

During the relevant four-month period, the father visited the children only once, and one visit during a four-month period constitutes only token visitation, at best; the father had no excuse for failing to visit, his failure was willful, and the facts provided clear evidence that he abandoned his children. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

In this case, the petition was filed on February 7, 2014, and thus the relevant four-month period for abandonment purposes began on October 7, 2013 and ended on February 6, 2014. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Trial court erred in finding that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit him because the evidence was insufficient to support its finding that the father's visitation with the child during the statutorily determinative period was only token; the father visited the child on seven to eight occasions during the four-month determinative period. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Statutory ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home was inapplicable to the father because the child resided with the mother prior to her exit from the home and the filing of the emergency petition for temporary custody. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute the definition of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home is inapplicable to a private action that did not involve Department of Children's Services or a licensed child-placing agency. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Evidence that the mother continued to engage in criminal behavior resulting in her incarceration, failed to find and keep steady employment, and failed to demonstrate the desire to create a safe, suitable home for the child supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the child by failure to provide a suitable home. In re Mason M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Mother abandoned her child through her failure to abide by the law and thus avoid incarceration and her failure to pay support. In re Mason M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit because the mother had numerous opportunities to visit with the child but was a “no-show,” the mother did not visit or ask to visit the child for an appreciable time period, and on one occasion when the mother did visit the child, the mother appeared intoxicated and ended the visitation early. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

For almost all of his life, the child's relationship with his mother had been built during scheduled visits, many of which she failed to attend, and the mother's claim of interference was unfounded, such that the trial court's finding that she abandoned the child through a willful failure to visit was not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Evidence did not preponderate against the finding with respect to the suitable home issue; despite reasonable assistance, the mother failed to find housing for approximately two years after the state removed her children from her home, which showed a lack of concern for her children to such a degree that it was unlikely she would be able to maintain a suitable home, and termination was proper. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Clear evidence supported the finding of abandonment by willful failure to visit; the mother willfully failed to comply with an order of the trial court, and her efforts to comply with conditions to have visitation reinstated with the child were too little, too late. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Termination of a father's parental rights based upon abandonment was proper because the father did not visit or contact the child within the four months preceding his incarceration, and the record did not reflect that the father seriously attempted to visit the child or that he was prevented from doing so. Additionally, the father had a laundry list of criminal offenses in conjunction with his lengthy history of drug abuse. In re Thomas T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed that the father abandoned the child through his conduct prior to incarceration by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

During the determinative time period, the mother was unable to make reasonable efforts toward establishing a suitable home and department personnel were constrained in their efforts to assist her; the trial court's judgment regarding the abandonment ground was reversed. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Termination was proper under the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, given that the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and she demonstrated a lack of concern for the children to such a degree that it appeared unlikely that she would be able to provide a suitable home at an early date. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's rights to her child based on abandonment and in the child's best interest because the mother only visited the child twice in five years, neither of which was within the four months preceding the foster parents'  adoption petition, the mother's conduct was willful, there was no evidence that the foster parents significantly restrained and interfered with the mother's efforts to visit the child, the child had been in the foster parents'  home eight years, formed a close bond with the foster parents and their family and, was excelling in school, and removing her from the only home she had ever known would likely have a detrimental effect on her emotional and psychological condition. In re Makendra E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016).

Finding that the father abandoned the child due to his failure to provide a suitable home was supported by evidence that the father was unable to provide proof of stable housing and at times lived in an officer building owned by his parents, and, even prior to that period, the father's living situation was unsuitable due to his habitual drug usage and failed drug screenings. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Trial court's final judgment terminating a father's parental rights applied an incorrect time period in finding that the father abandoned the child by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. In re K.J.G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2016).

Trial court did not err when it concluded that the parents had abandoned their son by willfully failing to visit him during the relevant period where their visits were so infrequent and of such short duration that they represent token visitation. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights for abandonment by wanton disregard was affirmed; in part, the father's own testimony at trial reflected his lengthy history of drug abuse and criminal activity. In re Aniston M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2016).

Record supported the finding of abandonment based upon the father's conduct prior to incarceration, which demonstrated a wanton disregard for the children's welfare, as he engaged in domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children, and he failed to address his mental health and substance abuse issues. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

While the mother was commended for taking the first step toward rehabilitation by renouncing her substance abuse, her extensive criminal activity and substance abuse issues could not be ignored; she also disregarded the children's welfare by leaving them with the father, who assaulted her and others, and thus there was clear evidence to establish that the mother engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, and termination was proper. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Trial court's determination that the father, for abandonment purposes, exhibited a wanton disregard for the child was vacated; despite the abundance of evidence concerning the father's drug use, charges of selling drugs, fleeing, and assault, probation violations, and transient lifestyle, the trial court's order omitted reference to any factual findings that would support a finding of wanton disregard, in clear violation of the statute. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

For abandonment by willful failure to visit as to the father, despite the incorrect date as stated in the order, the ground was considered as the trial court's error of five days regarding the correct calculation of the four-month period was not determinative. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home for the children in continually maintaining contact with the mother, providing her with drug screens, and assisting her with coordinating drug and alcohol assessments; while the mother's home was neat and clean, she had been unable to stop her cocaine abuse, and thus while she established a proper physical living location, her home was not free of drugs, plus she was currently incarcerated and could not provide a home at all for the children. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Statute did not direct the court to review whether the father did what he could to maintain a relationship with the child while in prison; what was to be determined was whether, in the four-months preceding his incarceration, the father attempted to visit the child, and yet he made no attempt to present himself to the trial court in an effort to regain visitation, and thus he willfully failed to visit the child prior to his incarceration. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

For the termination ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, this ground is inapplicable when the child is not removed from the parent at issue's home before being placed with the child services department; in this case, the child could not have been removed from the father's home where he never provided one in the first instance, and thus this ground did not apply based on the dearth of evidence to establish whether the child was ever removed from the father's home. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Statute governing abandonment is clear that different time periods apply to different definitions. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Because of the grave consequences and high stakes in termination cases, trial courts should endeavor to be as specific as possible in their orders and treat each definition of abandonment as a separate ground for which specific findings are required In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Because the juvenile court did not mention the failure to provide a suitable home in its oral ruling, the fact that they were included in the order did not reflect the juvenile court's own deliberation and decision that termination would be granted on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Juvenile court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights because the finding that the mother failed to visit her child in the four months preceding the filing of the petition was supported by clear and convincing evidence; the mother gave no testimony upon which to conclude that her failure to visit the child during that period was not willful. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Abandonment by failure to secure a suitable home was not established, since an order adjudicating the children as dependent and neglected was not found. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned the child by failing to visit her, as he had no excuse for not visiting the child from the time she was less than two years old until the hearings and the father was free and able to make such visits. In re Tianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2016).

All evidence indicated that the parents failed to make necessary changes to ensure that their home was sanitary, and the findings that their parental rights could be terminated on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; photographs were admitted into evidence showing, in part, bugs throughout the house, animal feces and urine on the floors and beds, beer cans scattered throughout, and continuing clutter in the home. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper as the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit because, even giving the mother credit for the one visit in June, which was rescheduled, and accepting the mother's testimony that she visited in March, her visitation during the four month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights could not be viewed as regular visitation; and the mother gave no explanation as to why she did not, or could not, have visited more often during the relevant time period. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court did not err in finding that the mother had abandoned the child because the mother had been convicted of driving under the influence, reckless endangerment, sale of counterfeit controlled substance, delivery of Schedule III controlled substance, shoplifting, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and had pled guilty to two violations of probation, which constituted the kind of conduct that exhibited wanton disregard for the welfare of a child. In re Kendra P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Although the trial court found grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights based on abandonment and substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan, termination of the mother's parental rights to her 17-year-old child was improper as the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child's best interest to terminate her mother's parental rights because the child was 17 years old, was not a candidate for adoption, and intended to maintain a relationship with the mother when she turned 18; and termination of the mother's parental rights would accomplish nothing other than setting the child adrift with no adoptive family. In re Kendra P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because he was incarcerated during the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination, and he willfully failed to visit and support the child; the father had only seen the child once since the child was born, and despite being ordered to do so, the father never paid any child support until several months after the filing of the termination petition. In re Braxton R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, as the mother failed to stay in proper contact with the Department, did not seek out counseling, did not move from her mother's residence within the first four months of the children's removal, and later moved into an apartment with her longtime boyfriend with whom she had a history of domestic violence. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Father's failure to visit the child was willful, and thus termination of the father's rights was proper; the father was not incarcerated for the first year of the child's life, he claimed his addictions prevented him from visiting the child, and it appeared that the father's failure to visit was a conscious choice, not that he was prevented from doing so. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; the prior adjudication of dependency and neglect criterion was met in this case, the mother lacked a suitable home for the children, as it did not have sufficient bedrooms, and the mother's ability to set proper boundaries for the children, who had significant mental issues and had been abused in the past, was questionable. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Juvenile court erred in finding that a mother abandoned her children because although there was sufficient evidence that the mother willfully failed to visit her children, the time frame only accounted for two months of the relevant time period; there was sufficient evidence that the mother attempted to visit the children on two occasions, and there was not evidence that she was offered assistance or alternative transportation. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Terminating a father's parental rights for abandonment due to a willful failure to visit was proper because (1) the father's visitation was token, as, during the four months before the termination petition was filed, the father visited only twice, leaving after one hour of a two-hour visit, and the father's phone calls did not try to establish a healthy parental relationship, and (2) the failure to visit was willful, as, despite knowing more than token visitation was required and an ability to visit, the father did not attempt more visitation. In re Jose L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 814 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Ground of failure to provide a suitable home was proven by clear and convincing evidence where the mother's home could not be deemed suitable so long as she refused to cooperate fully regarding her abuse of prescription drugs. In re Dillon E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016).

Termination for abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home was reversed, given that the trial court impermissibly based its decision in part on facts outside of the applicable four-month period defined in the statute, which would have been four months following the removal of the children from the mother's home. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Record was devoid of any evidence that the department made any efforts related to housing during the relevant time period, and thus there was no clear evidence to establish that the mother abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home, and termination based on this ground was reversed. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Trial court's finding that the father had abandoned the children was affirmed where a decision to invest in his education rather than support the children was willful, and his failure to visit the children during the relevant four-month period was self-inflicted. In re Ian B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017).

Trial court erred in applying the definition of abandonment in T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and terminating the mother's rights to her son under that section, because the mother was incarcerated for part of the four months preceding the filing of the original petition to termination the mother's parental rights. In re Douglas H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 662 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on grounds of abandonment, given that she failed to provide a suitable home despite reasonable efforts by the Department of Children's Services. In re B.L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

Although the mother was unsuccessful in establishing a suitable home for the children, the department failed to show that it made reasonable efforts during the relevant four-month periods to assist her in obtaining suitable housing, which was required to prevail on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and the judgment was reversed in this regard. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Because a father failed to appeal the amount of child support within the thirty-day time period, the issue of whether an order required him to pay child support was waived; even if the issue was appealable and there was no valid court order on child support, that fact, alone, did not relieve the father of his obligation to support the child, and thus, the father was not entitled to credit against arrears for child support he paid. State ex rel. Townsend v. Williamson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Statute defining abandonment was amended and no longer includes the term willful in its definition of abandonment; because this change is substantive rather than procedural or remedial, however, the amended statute was not applied retroactively to this case. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and substantial noncompliance with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plan because the father raped the mother while the children were present in the home, he threatened the mother and the children with physical harm, and the children were aware of his behaviors; it did not appear that the father could provide the children with a safe home, free of domestic violence, and sexually deviant behavior; and the requirement that he address the psychological and emotional abuse issues was of paramount importance, but he did nothing toward that goal. In re R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home for the child was proper, given that the child was removed from the mother's custody when the child was found dependent and neglected, and the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother by, in part, developing permanency plans, providing visitation, and making referrals for the mother's alcohol and drug treatment, yet she had failed to address her mental health issues, maintain stable employment, and maintain stable housing. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

In ordering the child's removal from the mother's custody, the trial court found that the Department of Children's Services was not required to exert reasonable efforts to prevent the child's removal from the home at that time due to the emergency nature of the circumstances; however, in order to satisfy the abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home ground for termination, the department was required to make reasonable efforts to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

There was clear evidence that the father abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home; despite attempts by the department to help him, the father never provided proof of safe and stable housing, and his lack of cooperation with the department and failure to improve his own living situation demonstrated that he would not be able to provide a suitable home for the children at an early date. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

Four-month period prior to the filing of the guardian ad litem's petition was the relevant period for application of T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); there was no basis to apply a different four-month period than that measured by the guardian's petition. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Petitioners failed to prove that the mother abandoned the children for willfully failing to support and visit because the record contained no evidence regarding the mother's support or visitation during the fourth-month period immediately preceding her incarceration. In re Johnathan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Clear evidence established that the mother abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home; the children's services department tried to help the mother find suitable housing, but she still lacked that, and the mother had been given notice that failure to make reasonable efforts would lead to termination. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Mother had abandoned her children under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(a) where she allowed people visiting her to use marijuana in the home, despite knowing that her children were removed in part due to drug issues, and she had been evicted from her apartment, even if it had been an appropriate home. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Trial court did not err in applying the relation back doctrine of the rule regarding the amendment of pleadingd and ruled that the appropriate time period to consider in the foster parents'  termination of parental rights petition based on abandonment was the four months before the filing of the original petition to terminate parental rights because the amendment did not involve a new petition with new parties, but, rather, it involved the correction of an omission in the original petition. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Both the mother's and the father's criminal history prior to their incarceration evidenced their wanton disregard for the welfare of the child and the fact that the mother allowed methamphetamine to be manufactured in the home where the child resided showed a risk of substantial harm to the child's welfare and thus, the record contained clear and convincing evidence establishing abandonment by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard as a ground for termination of parental rights. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

6. —State of Mind.

Where the court of appeals held that the payments the father gave to the mother during the four months immediately preceding the child's birth were unreasonable, the court of appeals erred in terminating father's parental rights based upon T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii), because the court of appeals did not address the required element of willfulness. In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

Trial court, not the court of appeals, is the proper court to make a determination of willfulness, pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii). In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

In construing T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(D), an element of intent cannot be read into the definitions of “willfully failed to support” and willfully failed to make reasonable payments toward such child's support. In re S.Y., 121 S.W.3d 358, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Trial court properly found that the father's failure to support could not be considered willful because he made sincere efforts to provide support, yet his efforts were rebuffed by the mother; therefore, the mother failed to provide grounds to terminate the father's parental rights to the child. In re Neylan H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 997 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

7. —Incarceration.

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to the father's incarceration because, inter alia, the father had a lengthy history of criminal conduct, repeated episodes of incarceration throughout the child's life, and abused prescription and non-prescription drugs; the father traded food stamps for drugs even though there was often very little food for the child to eat. In re William B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 11, 2015).

Trial court's findings of a father's willful failure to visit and support the child were inclusive of the statutorily determinative period because the trial court found that the father had willfully failed to engage in more than token visitation during the entire time period that the child's custody was before it. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating an incarcerated father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father reasonably suspected that he might be the child's biological father when he committed the offenses that resulted in his probation being revoked, and the father was written up during his incarceration for fighting after he was on notice that he might be the child's biological father. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard prior to incarceration because the mother engaged in drug use and abuse, including during the pregnancy, engaged in criminal activity, and was periodically incarcerated; the mother refused to tend to the child's physical, emotional, and medical conditions. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Trial court's finding that a mother abandoned her child pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) (2014) was reversed where although her criminal history was varied and extensive, there was no evidence that she engaged in habitual criminal activity or violated her probation following the child's birth, and thus, it was not possible to conclude that the mother's decision to continue to engage in criminal behavior reflected a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Brittany D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2015).

Trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to incarceration was vacated where both the trial court and the father miscalculated the relevant four-month period and did not consider the four months immediately preceding the father's incarceration. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent through wanton disregard was met by clear and convincing evidence based on the father's criminal history, his admitted drug abuse, and his neglect of the child while in his custody. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Department made reasonable efforts to assist the father in obtaining a suitable home while he was able to make progress in that regard, but then he was incarcerated primarily due to his own choices, and he would not be eligible for parole until July 2016; the father was in no position at the time of trial to provide a suitable home for the child, and thus the father abandoned the child pursuant to the statutory ground of failure to provide a suitable home. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Given that the mother engaged in meaningful visitation in the four months preceding her incarceration, and the trial court failed to identify the four-month period that applied to the father, the application of this abandonment ground was reversed because there was no clear evidence that either parent willfully failed to visit during the requisite time period. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Termination of parental rights for abandonment was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence was presented that the parent demonstrated a wanton disregard for the children's welfare as the parent was incarcerated due to the parent's criminal behavior, probation violations, incarcerations, and substance abuse. In re Jayden L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Record revealed no clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that the mother was either incarcerated at the time the termination petition was filed or at any time in the preceding four months; her arrest, without more, did not constitute incarceration within the meaning of the termination statute. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Because the mother was not incarcerated at the time the termination petition was filed or shortly before, the termination ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent based on wanton disregard could not apply to her. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

From April 2013 until September 6, 2013 and again from January 14, 2014 through the April and May 2015 trial dates in this case, and was expected to be released in October 2015. Thus, it appears that, most recently, Father was not incarcerated for four consecutive months from September 14, 2013, through January 13, 2014. This period represents the relevant four month period with regard to Father's abandonment by willful failure to visit and support for an incarcerated parent. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Father was incarcerated at the time the department filed the petition to terminate his parental rights, and thus the trial court properly considered the abandonment by an incarcerated parent ground. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

In an appeal arising from the termination of a mother's parental rights, the appellate court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment within the meaning of T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). The child's paternal grandparents proved that the mother willfully failed to support the child during the four consecutive months immediately preceding the mother's incarceration. In re Trenton W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Juvenile court properly determined that the father had not abandoned the children by his incarceration or exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare, and the father was not incarcerated during the requisite time period. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

There was clear evidence that the mother abandoned her children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare, as she was incarcerated for the requisite time period, she had an extensive history of criminal behavior, she was addicted to opiates for years, and her probation had been revoked for multiple violations. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Trial court did not err in failing to terminate the father's rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was not included in the class of people to whom subsection (1)(A)(iv) applied; there was no evidence that the father was incarcerated at the time of the institution of the action or that he was incarcerated during all or part of the four months preceding the institution of the action. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment where it showed that he was incarcerated on December 31, 2011 and remained incarcerated when the petition to terminate his parental rights was filed, and he made only one child support payment in 2011. In re Jacqueline G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that a father abandoned his children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare prior to his incarceration because since the children were born, the father had been incarcerated three times; prior to incarceration the father exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children by exposing them to methamphetamine at such levels that it showed positive in the children's hair drug screen. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent for wanton disregard as the mother first became addicted to drugs and sold sex while she still had custody of the child; she repeatedly relapsed and engaged in criminal behavior; and that pattern continued even after the termination petition was filed. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to visit as the mother was incarcerated within the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition; she exercised visitation with the child only a single time in the four-month period preceding the petition; her visitation was merely token; and her failure to engage in more than token visitation was willful. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to support as the father and the stepmother failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the mother failed to pay support despite her capacity to do so because, although there was some evidence that the mother was employed as a prostitute at various times throughout the child's life, and the mother testified as to other jobs she held over the years, no proof was introduced as to the mother's actual or approximate income during the four-month period preceding her incarceration; and there was no evidence of the mother's expenses during the four-month period. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2016).

Abandonment by wanton disregard was not applicable to the mother, as the record was devoid of any testimony that reflected that the mother was incarcerated for the time periods required. In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother's few visits during the four-month period before the mother's incarceration were of such an infrequent nature that they represented mere token visitation and could not have been considered a reasonable effort to foster meaningful parent-child bonds. Moreover, the mother's failure to visit was willful as a drug screening requirement was not an unreasonable burden, the mother could communicate with the children, and transportation could have been arranged. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother's pre-incarceration conduct displayed a wanton disregard for the welfare of the mother's children as the mother was incarcerated a few times and the mother's probation was terminated for driving under the influence and reckless endangerment. There was also evidence that the children's welfare was potentially compromised by the mother's drug usage, while one of the children observed a lot of fighting between the parents and extensive drinking of alcohol. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to support before the mother was incarcerated was inappropriate because there was an absence of clear and convincing evidence that the mother willfully failed to support the mother's children in the four months preceding the mother's incarceration as the record was silent as to the mother's expenses during the relevant four-month period. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because, although the mother's visitation rights were suspended for a period of time before they were reinstated, the mother's few visits during the four-month period before the mother's incarceration were of such an infrequent nature that they represented mere token visitation, were marked by hostility, and could not have been considered a reasonable effort to foster meaningful parent-child bonds with the children. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Trial court erred in declining to terminate a father's parental rights because the evidence preponderated against its finding that the father did not engage in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children; the father's numerous drug charges and probation violations demonstrated that he had engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused him to be incarcerated. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for willful failure to visit by an incarcerated parent was supported by evidence that the father failed to engage in more than token visitation with the child and he made a conscious and willful decision to evade arrest and thereby forfeit supervised visits. In re Colton R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017).

Father had been incarcerated since September 18, 2015, and the proceedings to terminate his parental rights were instituted on January 12, 2016, putting his incarceration squarely within the definition of T.C.A. § 36-1-102; his conduct met the definition of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Father attended only two of eight visits available to him, he chose to ride his bicycle to visits, and there was testimony he did not ask for transportation help; his visitation prior to his incarceration was token at best and thus his failure to visit was willful, and termination of his rights for abandonment by willful failure to visit prior to incarceration pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Regarding abandonment by failure to visit prior to incarceration under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) and the relevant four-month time period, the mother argued that her brief incarceration on January 30, 2015 for a few hours meant that the relevant time period ran from September 28, 2014 to January 29, 2015; however, a parent spending a few hours in jail did not qualify for the protections of the statute, and the relevant time period was the four-month period prior to her incarceration. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Out of the nine visits set up for the mother during the relevant time period, she attended only three, and her visits constituted only token visitation; the evidence supported the conclusion that the failure to visit was willful, and termination for abandonment by willful failure to visit prior to the mother's incarceration, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113, was proper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(a)(iv) where she was incarcerated within the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, drugs had been her primary priority, she continued to use illicit drugs, and thus, her conduct evinced a wanton disregard for her children's welfare. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights due to abandonment by incarceration was not supported by the record, which did not contain any elaboration or factual findings in support of the trial court's conclusion. In re Brianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 805 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2017).

Trial court properly found that the father abandoned the child by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare prior to the father's incarceration where the testimony showed that he had physically assaulted the mother and half sibling, and there were several exhibits regarding the father's criminal charges. In re Brooke E., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the father abandoned the father's child as the father engaged in criminal behaviour and was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, and exhibited behavior that displayed a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to the father's incarceration. Neighbors testified that the child was not being fed regularly and that the father played dangerously with the child, while a case worker testified that the conditions in the home were unsafe for any child. In re Kandace D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment, by the father demonstrating a wanton disregard for the child's welfare, because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the father who was incarcerated knew of the child's existence when the father was engaging in the criminal behavior that demonstrated wanton disregard. In re Michael O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because he knew on or before the child's birth that he might have been the father, and his patterns of criminal behavior illegal drug use, and incarceration, along with his failure to take any voluntary actions to legitimate or support the child, amounted to a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because she had been in jail for all or part of the four months preceding the filing of the proceedings, and she had not been willing or able to stay drug-free or out of jail in a way that would allow her to perform basic parenting duties for her children. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for wanton disregard was appropriate because the father had spent the majority of the child's life in jail and the father's recidivism had resulted in an inability to provide a safe and stable environment for the child. The resultant problems were the direct result of the father's decision to intentionally engage in illegal activity, and they provided clear and convincing proof of the father's wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) was affirmed as her repeated incarceration, criminal behavior, substance abuse, and failure to support her children throughout the case exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her children. In re Veronica T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its finding that the father abandoned his child by willfully failing to visit her during the four month period preceding his incarceration. In re Haley S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated parents'  rights to their child because it found clear and convincing evidence of the parents'  abandonment of the child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare; the Department of Children's Services presented ample evidence of the parents'  repeated incidents of criminal behavior and probation violations, resulting in repeated incarcerations, and considerable evidence demonstrated their substance abuse. In re Authur R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2018)

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the mother engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the mother's child as the mother testified (telephonically from prison) concerning the mother's criminal behavior and involvement with illegal drugs, violation of probation, and choosing to become a fugitive and fleeing to Florida for over a year instead of complying with the terms of the mother's supervised release. In re Tegan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2018).

Father's relevant four-month period ran from June 5, 2015 to September 28, 2015, and resumed December 3, 2015 to December 10, 2015, due to his incarceration. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Mother's failure to provide an updated address to the mother's probation officer that resulted in the mother's probation violations, in combination with the mother's other conduct, did not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned the mother's child by exhibiting a wanton disregard for the child prior to the mother's incarceration. Furthermore, some of the mother's criminal convictions were a result of behavior occurring well before the child was conceived. In re Kyle F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent was proper as she testified as to the dates of her incarceration, her use of heroin during her pregnancy, the fact that she and the child tested positive for drugs at the child's birth, and her failure to complete drug and mental health treatment programs. In re Kendall M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2018).

Father exhibited wanton disregard for the father's children because the father, before and after the birth of the children, repeatedly committed felonies and misdemeanors, and used alcohol and drugs without regard for the children's welfare, which resulted in the father's incarceration and inability to take care of the children when they were removed from their mother's custody and placed in foster care. The pattern of the father's conduct prior to incarceration exhibited disregard for the children and the father's relationship with them. In re Arianna Y., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that grounds existed to terminate a father's parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father; through repeated incarcerations, criminal behavior, a probation violation, and substance abuse issues as shown in the father's criminal convictions showed a pattern of conduct that posed a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of the child. In re Ava H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Denial of a petition to terminate an incarcerated father's parental rights was appropriate because there was not clear and convincing evidence to establish that the father willfully failed to visit and to support during the relevant time period as the father was unaware of the mother's whereabouts during that time period due to the mother's moving and changing the mother's phone number and the failure of the mother's family to respond to the father's inquiries. Further, the evidence did not establish the father's ability to remit support. In re Ella P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Evidence clearly and convincingly established the ground of abandonment for termination of the mother's parental rights because the mother had a long criminal history and was incarcerated for the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination, and her conduct prior to incarceration exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother was serving a ten-year sentence and had other charges pending, and the child tested positive for illegal drugs at birth. In re Gabriel C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was incarcerated when the petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed and the father engaged in behavior during the relevant time period that violated the father's probation resulting in the father again being incarcerated. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by incarceration was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father violated the terms of the father's probation and was incarcerated for a portion of the relevant period before the institution of the proceeding, had not addressed the father's addiction to drugs, while the father's continued use of illegal substances was evidence that the father had abandoned the children by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Having determined that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) failed to clearly demonstrate the mother's relevant periods of incarceration to facilitate a determination of the statutorily determinative period, that the trial court erred in declining to attempt such a determination, and that DCS's proof regarding the mother's ability to pay during all possibly relevant periods failed to rise to the level of clear and convincing, the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the children by willfully failing to financially support them should be reversed. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Evidence did not establish that a father abandoned a child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare because, although the father violated probation, failed to remit child support, and expended minimal efforts on a permanency plan, the father attended visitation prior to incarceration and violated probation by failing to report the father's current address, conduct that was not particularly egregious or indicative of extensive criminal behavior. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to a minor child based upon a finding of abandonment related to the father's conduct prior to incarceration because the father, who was incarcerated for the entirety of the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, was advised of the obligation to remit support as evidenced by the parenting plans and the father's signing of the Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights, but did not remit support. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the father abandoned the child by displaying wanton disregard for his welfare because he had two parole violations, despite knowing that he was subject to re-incarceration if he committed additional criminal offenses. In re Jeffery D., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2019).

Record supported a finding of abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard, as the mother criminal activity started after the children were born and she had opportunities to change but fell back into the pattern of drug use and criminal activity. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, abandoned the children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare. The father's repeated incarcerations coupled with the evidence of physical abuse and the father's unresolved substance abuse issues indicated that the father was either unfit to parent or posed a risk of substantial harm to the children's welfare. In re Julian J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2019).

Because the evidence did not show that the mother was incarcerated at the time of the action or during the four preceding months, termination was not established under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

Termination of the father's parent rights was proper on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent because the father had a history of incessant criminal behavior and drug abuse evincing a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children and a pattern of conduct that rendered him unfit to parent as he had been in and out of jail since 2008. In re O.M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019).

Ground of abandonment by wanton disregard was established by clear and convincing evidence because the mother engaged in illegal drug use, exposed the children to drugs and domestic violence, failed to comply with requirements ordered by the juvenile court in order to regain custody of her children, continued her drug usage after removal of her children, and continued to engage in criminal activities, resulting in incarceration and continuous separation from her children. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent demonstrating a wanton disregard for the children's welfare was appropriate because the mother had been in and out of jail and had failed entirely to place the children's needs before the mother's own as the mother's incarcerations had severely compromised the mother's ability to perform parental duties. Despite numerous incarcerations, the mother failed to take steps to address the mother's drug use and to stop the mother's criminal activities. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard was proper because, after he was released from incarceration following the assault on his brother, he was placed on probation, but, rather than work on reunification with his child, the father engaged in activity that violated the terms of his probation and resulted in further incarceration; the decision to engage in such activities has resulted in the father not having stable employment or housing; he tested positive for methamphetamine on the day of the hearing to terminate his parental rights; and the father's engagement with people who used drugs not only showed poor judgment, but also put him at risk for further incarceration. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that the father had abandoned the children by wanton disregard as he was a career criminal who had not changed his behavior since the children were born. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

In a termination of parental rights action, due to the mother's 80-day incarceration, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) was not a proper ground for termination of her parental rights. Instead, § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) contained the applicable definition of abandonment but since this was not plead the juvenile court's finding of abandonment by the mother had to be reversed. In re A.V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 406 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2020).

8. —Suitable Home.

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to provide a suitable home despite reasonable efforts made by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services was appropriate because the home was unsafe while the father was there. The court found that the father, who was not married to the mother, was given towards anger and domestic violence, still lived with the mother at the time of trial despite the mother's denial, and would continue to live with the mother at times in the future. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Father abandoned the child by failure to provide a suitable home pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102, as he failed to take reasonable steps to make lasting changes in his lifestyle or conduct that would allow him to provide the child with a suitable home; the father was currently incarcerated and when he was released, he had to address legal issues in another state regarding his parole violation there, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) did not make reasonable efforts to assist the mother with housing during the relevant statutory period as DCS only provided the mother with a list of housing resources and discussing with her the options she could afford; and, despite knowing that the mother had mental health issues, DCS did not look into the nature of the mother's mental health issues or considered how her mental health issues might have contributed to her substance abuse or inability to secure stable housing. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home requires a final dependency and neglect order under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); there was no final dependency and neglect order regarding the father because his adjudication as dependent and neglected was combined with the termination of parental rights trial, the department conceded this termination ground with respect to the mother's and father's rights to the child, and this was reversed, for purposes of T.C.A. § 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii) requires the department to prove, with respect to the relevant four-month time period, three elements: (1) the parent has failed to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home, (2) the department has made reasonable efforts to assist the parent to establish a suitable home, and (3) the parent has 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. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's rights for abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother to find suitable housing, and she had been living in an acceptable home, had been drug-free for six months, and was employed, and thus the department failed to show that the mother demonstrated lack of concern to such a degree that it appeared unlikely she would be able to provide a suitable home. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly found that a mother failed to make reasonable efforts to establish a suitable home because the mother exhibited a lack of concern for the child to the degree that it was unlikely the child would be able to return to the mother's custody at an early date; the mother's relapse and decision to go “on the run” instead of correcting her drug addiction and legal problems demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for her child. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Mother and father had abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home where they had engaged in a transient lifestyle since the children were born, the mother continued her drug addiction, the father continued to enable her, and thus, the conditions that prevented them from obtaining and maintaining suitable housing persisted. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence to support the determination that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services proved abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home as to both a mother and a father because they exhibited such a lack of concern for the welfare of the children that it appeared unlikely they would be able to provide them with a suitable home at an early date; both both parents had continuing problems with drug use and criminal activity failed to cooperate with the Department. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Termination by failure to establish a suitable home was improper, because it required establishment that the child had been placed in the custody of the Department of Children's Services, which the child had not been. In re Brianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 805 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment as the father failed to provide the children with a suitable home because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) caseworker testified that the father never provided DCS with a permanent address during the four months following the children's removal, making it difficult to reach the father to provide help in establishing a suitable home; the father made little to no attempt to find a suitable home during that time period; the father continued to use drugs until he was incarcerated in March 2016; and it appeared unlikely that the father would be able to provide a suitable, drug-free home for the children at an early date. In re Aaralyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Circuit court properly terminated a mother's parental rights based on abandonment, failure to provide a suitable home, and in the child's best interests because she left the child at a homeless shelter with no appropriate supervision, cycled through periods of homelessness and incarceration, demonstrated a lack of concern for the child, failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities set out in the permanency plan, the child was neglected while in the mother's care, the mother never obtained a safe, stable home to which the child could return, a change of caretakers and physical environment would likely be detrimental for the child, and the child was thriving in her foster parents'  home. In re Amarria L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to provide a suitable home because his denial of ever using drugs, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, combined with his history of domestic violence and his failure to obtain stable housing, proved the ground by clear and convincing evidence. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the decision to terminate a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home because, during the four months immediately following removal of the children, the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and the mother's evasive, and sometimes deceitful, behavior demonstrated a lack of concern for the children. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was proper as the parents abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home at the time of the hearing because the child was removed, in part, due to the parents'  alleged drug usage; mother was less than willing to establish her sobriety through the recommended assessments and tests; and the father was still dependent upon methadone at the time of the hearing. In re Camdon H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the children were removed from the mother's home, placed into foster care, and found to be dependent and neglected; despite reasonable efforts, at the time of trial, the mother did not provide any documentation of a written lease for the residence where she was living; and the mother never attended counseling to address her own history as a domestic violence victim. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned her children by failing to establish a suitable home because it showed that she made no efforts toward doing so during the four months following their removal, but focused instead on resolving her criminal charges. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to establish a suitable home because although she secured housing shortly before the hearing, the Department of Children's Services had not been able to verify it and the mother continued to deny her substance abuse problem and failed to follow the necessary steps to ensure a drug-free home. In re Lesley A., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, by failure to establish a suitable home, because the mother, who had an intellectual disability, did not have a proper physical living location, could not provide a home free of drugs, was unlikely to establish a suitable home in the near future, and seemed incapable of giving the child appropriate care and attention. In re Frederick S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because the mother's children were removed from the mother's home and adjudicated dependent and neglected, there were issues concerning drug use, sexual abuse, and a lack of supervision of the children in the mother's home. Moreover, the mother had continued to engage in criminal activity throughout the pendency of the case and generally showed an unwillingness to parent the children. In re H. A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because it showed that although she had completed a psychological evaluation and an alcohol and drug assessment, she had not followed up on the resultant recommendations, and she continued using illicit drugs despite the services offered by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Kaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home was warranted; the department developed a permanency plan, referred her to the services providers, and facilitated visitation, but the mother took little or no action for six months. At trial, she was unable to provide a suitable home for the child, as she was living with various relatives, had only been drug free less than three months, and her support system was weak. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the case manager stated that, although the mother was not home and she could not go into the home, she was able to look in and observe no furniture in the home and just a pile of clothes in the middle of the floor; the mother's behavior in ignoring the case manager's requests for a home visit suggested a deeper problem; and the mother's failure to address her mental health issues rendered her unable to provide a safe and stable environment for the child and showed a lack of concern for the child and a lack of interest in regaining custody. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her daughter based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because at the time of the removal the daughter was residing in a hospital and the mother was not living at the hospital as evidenced by her failure to complete the mandatory rooming-in period. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her son based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because, even though the son was staying primarily with the mother's relatives at the time of removal, because the mother was also staying at the residence periodically prior to the removal. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the ground for termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home concerning the Tennessee Department of Children's Services'  efforts during the relevant four-month period. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because the mother's child was removed and placed in custody when the mother's trial home placement was revoked, the mother had substance abuse and employment issues, the mother did not have consistent stable housing, the mother did not comply with court orders, reasonable efforts were made to assist the mother, and the mother was not in a position to provide a suitable home. In re Madux F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for failing to provide a suitable home as the Department of Children's Services (DCS) was never permitted entry into the home the father lived in at the time of trial; and he visited the child twice over the nearly 27 months that she was in DCS's custody. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment because she did not verify that child support was being paid; and she failed to provide a suitable home as she failed drug screens and specifically avoided urine screens altogether, admittedly used marijuana pretty much every day to self-medicate for aggression, anger, and anxiety, and demonstrated noncompliance with mental health treatment. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home, despite reasonable efforts made by Tennessee Department of Children's Services to assist her in doing so. Moreover, it appeared unlikely that the mother could have established a suitable home for the child at an early date as, throughout the custodial period, the mother did not adequately address her unstable housing and substance abuse issues. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

9. —Support of Child.

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support was proper pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 36-1-113(g)(1) because the absence of a court order requiring the mother to pay support did not “excuse” her from her obligation to pay support for her child and the mother candidly acknowledged that she knew that she had an obligation to pay support but nevertheless failed to do so. Further, the mother had the ability to pay support during the determinative four-month period because she was employed for at least part of that time. Stephen v. Christy C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010), appeal denied, In re Keri C., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willful failure to support because other than nominal expenditures, there was no evidence the father provided any other support for the child despite having the means to pay some level of support; the maternal grandmother paid for the child's daycare expenses, clothing, food, and everything else the child needed. In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013), appeal denied, In re Jacobe J., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).

Evidence did not support a finding that the mother willfully or intentionally abandoned the child where the mother was actively pursuing litigation to regain custody of the child throughout the four-month period, and she was spending a substantial portion of her limited financial resources to do the things that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and the juvenile court instructed her to do. In re Alysia S., 460 S.W.3d 536, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights because the evidence did not preponderate against its finding that the father abandoned the children by failing to support them in the four months before he went to prison. In re S.C.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the father and stepmother did not show that the mother had the capacity to provide support as they did not submit sufficient evidence of the mother's employment status during the relevant four-month period prior to filing the petition to terminate, the number of hours she worked, the duration of her employment, her rate of pay, or whether she had assets other than regular income that might contribute to the support of the child; and the record contained no evidence regarding the mother's financial means, expenses, or obligations during the relevant four month period. In re Noah B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Father simply failed to remit any form of support for the children even when he was admittedly capable of working and actually employed at various times, and there was clear and convincing evidence to establish that he abandoned the children by willfully failing to remit child support before, during, and after the relevant time period and that a statutory ground existed for termination of the father's parental rights. In re Agustine R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for failure to pay child support because (1) the mother was advised of the duty to support and the consequences for not doing so, (2) the mother paid no support despite receiving income, and (3) the mother only inquired at the child support office after a termination petition was filed. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

It was error to find a mother willfully failed to support a child because (1) willfulness required an ability to support, (2) nothing showed the mother was able to support the child, and (3) the mother was unemployed, expecting another child, and had to support a third child. In re Alexis B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willfully failing to support the children in the four months immediately preceding her incarceration because, inter alia, the mother conceded that she paid “little support” since the parties'  divorced and was paid “under the table” for cleaning houses; the mother was capable of working and offered no justifiable excuse for failing to maintain employment and pay child support. In re D.H.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

Evidence supported a trial court's determination that a parent abandoned the parent's children by failing to visit them and willfully failing to support them financially in the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition. Although the parent argued that the failure to visit was not willful because the parent's visitation was suspended by the trial court, the suspension of visitation was the direct result of the parent's failure to produce negative drug screens. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

For purposes of establishing abandonment by failure to pay child support, the relevant four-month period is October 14, 2013 through February 13, 2014, this latter date being the day before the filing of the petition. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Mother was aware of her child support obligations and she made some payments, but she was over $ 4,000 in arrears and the brief period she unintentionally worked without pay did not excuse her failure to pay support during the entire four-month period at issue, plus she did not resume making payments until months after the petition was pending; the mother willfully failed to pay child support and the trial court did not err in terminating her rights on the ground of abandonment by willful non-support. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because she abandoned the child by willfully failing to support the child as she failed to pay child support; the fact that the mother provided food, clothing, and drinks during visits with her daughter constituted mere token support, which was not sufficient to preclude a finding of a willful failure to support; and she was aware of her duty to support the child, she had the ability to provide support, and she willfully failed to do so. In re Faith W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2015).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported a finding that the parents willfully abandoned their daughter by willfully failing to support her, as it showed that they never paid her primary residential parents any support despite having the capacity to do so. In re Makenzie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights based upon the statutory ground of willful failure to support the child because the father failed to make any reasonable payments toward support of the child even when he was employed; the father failed to offer any details that would support a finding that he sought other employment prior to his incarceration and failed to offer any justifiable excuse for his failure to provide at least some measure of financial support. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court properly found clear evidence of abandonment through willful failure to support, as the evidence was unclear whether one payment the father made was made within the determinative period, plus he was unable to show that he had paid any support during the relevant period other than one payment; one payment would, at most, have constituted mere token support. In re Destaney D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the juvenile court set an order of child support, which was signed by the mother's attorney, but the mother never paid child support despite having a job for a period of time. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Mother paid approximately 10 percent of the amount owed that year, but still her failure to make progress during the two years the child was in foster care was outside the scope of the abandonment determination; it was unclear whether or not the payments were insignificant given the mother's means, if the Department of Children's Services expects a finding of a willful failure to support, it must put on evidence that clearly shows willfulness, a trial court cannot be left to speculate about this, and the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the child through a willful failure to make payments was not supported. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

In the absence of appropriate findings and conclusions regarding the mother's payment of support, it could not be determined whether her failure to support the children was willful, and the decision to terminate her rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support was vacated. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Evidence preponderated against the trial court's conclusion that the mother's sister and her husband established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to support the child, as the father testified that he gave money to the mother for the child's care and the evidence did not show, as found by the trial court, that the father paid for the metal detector and motorcycle or spent money on drugs during the pertinent period. In re C.J.A.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 937 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).

Burden to prove abandonment by willful failure to support rests with the department; finding no clear evidence that the mother had the capacity to pay child support during the relevant four month period, the trial court's finding of abandonment for willful failure to support was vacated. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to pay child support, as the mother was only obligated to pay support for about one-fourth of the relevant time period and thus, such failure was insufficient to establish willful failure to make reasonable support payments for a four-month period. In re M.A.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment where it showed that despite her having appropriate housing and a job, she failed to make child support payments since August 2014. In re A'leah M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

Trial court's finding that the paternal grandparents had not proved that the mother had abandoned the child by willful failure to support, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(D) was affirmed where there was no clear and convincing evidence as to the mother's employment, income, other non-monetary assets, or expenses during the four-month period. In re Destiny H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2016).

Mother's failure to support the children was willful, and termination of her parental rights based upon this statutory ground was proper; she was able-bodied with job skills and alleged no impairment of the ability to work, yet she was content to make no or a minimal effort toward securing and maintaining employment. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Trial court properly found that the parents had abandoned their child by failing top provide a suitable home where the Department of Children's Services held child and family team meetings, arranged for an alcohol and drug assessment to take place in the parents'  home, arranged for the parents to have mental health assessments, and moved visitation to a more convenient location when the parents said that they were having difficulty with transportation, the father had failed his most recent drug screen, admitted to drug use, and had not completed the recommendations of his alcohol and drug assessment, and the mother did not maintain weekly contact with the Department or update her address and phone number when necessary as required in the permanency plans. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Although the showed that the mother and father failed to provide their son with financial support, the evidence adduced at trial did not show that the failure was willful where the evidence at trial was that the mother was unemployed because she quit her job, but there was no evidence presented about why she quit her job. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

For abandonment by willful failure to support as to the mother, the trial court's oral ruling included detailed factual findings, but none appeared or were incorporated into the written order; mere legal conclusions did not fulfill the trial court's obligations and were not sufficient to satisfy the directive of the statute, such that termination as to this ground was vacated. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Order contained insufficient findings as to whether the father willfully failed to support the child, and the order omitted any reference to his income or expenses; without such evidence, a finding of willfulness could not be sustained. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for abandonment based on failure to provide support was supported by evidence that the father, prior to being incarcerated, had two paying jobs but failed to pay child support or offer any assistance of the child. In re J.M.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence established that the parent abandoned their child by willfully failing to remit child support before, during, and after the relevant time period. Although the parent had limited education and difficulty in securing employment, the parent never paid child support, other than token support or small gifts, throughout the entirety of the child's lifetime even when the parent was admittedly capable of working and actually employed at various times. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Abandonment by failure to support as a ground for termination was not shown by clear and convincing evidence because there was no clear testimony as to when and where the mother was employed. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

There was testimony that the mother failed to follow through on referrals for employment, that she was receiving financial support from her father, and that she was able to secure sufficient funds to be released on bond after being arrested for failure to support; she had the capacity to work or otherwise acquire funds to pay support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition and she consciously did not do so, and this failure was willful. In re Quadavon H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2016).

Father had no source of income other than some unspecified odd job, and it was the department's burden to prove that the father's lack of full-time employment was voluntary, which the department failed to prove; the father's testimony was not clear, and the proof was insufficient to support the finding that the father was capable of working and paying child support during the period in question. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

While the father admitted he did not pay any child support though he was aware of his obligation to pay, failure to pay was not enough to establish willfulness, and whether he had the financial ability to pay support had to be determined. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper as the mother did not abandon the child by willfully failing to pay child support as the evidence failed to show that the mother had the ability to pay child support during the relevant four month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Trial court did not err in failing to terminate the father's rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay support because there was ample evidence to support the findings that there was legitimate confusion over the payments and that there was an absence of willfulness in the father's failure to pay. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support the children because, although the father failed to pay any support for the children during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the father's rights, there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the father had the ability to provide financial support for the children during the relevant time period; thus, there was not clear and convincing evidence that the father's failure to support the children was willful. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Grandmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned her son by willfully failing to support him where during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition the mother made seven child support payments and her support was more than token, given that she was released from jail three weeks before the beginning of the four-month period, she was pregnant, and she lacked a driver's license or transportation. In re Ryder R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was properly denied on the grounds of abandonment for failure to pay support as the record was devoid of evidence establishing the mother's willful failure to remit child support because the record reflected that the mother was ordered to remit payment through an automatic income wage assignment; and the mother testified that she advised the requisite authorities of her changes in employment and that she believed her income was withheld in accordance with the wage assignment. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights because the father willfully failed to support the child; the father conceded that he did not pay any child support during the relevant four-month period, despite admitting he was aware of his duty to pay child support, and the father was self-employed and admitted to buying cigarettes and illegal drugs. In re E.S.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Finding of abandonment by failure to support as supported by evidence that the father never paid child support, even when he was actually employed at times. In re Kenneth G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Evidence was insufficient to support a finding of abandonment by willful failure to support, as it showed the mother provided the children with gifts and clothing, and made some child support payments, which the Department failed to prove were merely token. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Abandonment by failure to support was proven against the mother by clear and convincing evidence, given that she owed over $ 6,000 in child support arrears, yet she earned between $ 200 - $ 450 each week cleaning houses after the children were removed from the home, and she was aware of her duty to provide support and yet made no attempt to pay more than token support and had no justifiable excuse for not providing support. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the Tennessee Department of Childrens Services proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned the father's children by willful failure to support them in that the father's failure to pay child support during the relevant four-month period before the filing of the petition for termination was willful, as the father was consistently employed during the period and did not argue inability to pay. Furthermore, termination was in the children's best interest. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the basis of abandonment by willful failure to support was supported by evidence that the mother was capable of being employe but willfully failed to make any contributions toward the support of the children, providing only token support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Testimony corroborated the father's testimony that he last paid child support at the end of 2012, and thus there was clear evidence to support the trial court's finding that the father had abandoned this child by willful failure to provide support during the four months immediately preceding the father's incarceration. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

Ground of abandonment by failure to support was proven; the only child support payments the mother ever made were when money was taken out of her paychecks and when her tax refund was intercepted by the State, and although this occurred in the four months preceding the filing of the petition, the intercept did not constitute a voluntary payment of support, plus she was employed by several different employers and she never testified she was unable to make any contribution towards her support obligations. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that a father had abandoned a child for willful failure to visit and failure to support where, despite knowing of the child, he made no effort to provide support, visit the child, or establish a relationship, and he had not initiated contact with the child after meeting with the state agency. In re M.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016), appeal denied, In re Miguel T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Mar. 3, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support was improper, as the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to prove that the father, who had been released on bond but ordered to remain at home with few exceptions, had the capacity to provide support or lacked a justifiable excuse for failing to do so. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination based on abandonment by failure to support was proven, given that the mother knew of her support obligations and the consequences of not meeting those obligations, and the trial court properly found that the mother had enough income to support herself, make her support payments, and still have some money left over each month. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper because the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to pay child support during the four months preceding his incarceration as the mother testified that she set up a bank account at the father's bank in order for him to deposit money to support the child the father only deposited $200 or $300 for child support; and the father testified that during the four months immediately preceding his incarceration, he made between $30,000 and $35,000, but he did not provide support for the child. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Trial court did not err in finding the ground of failure to support when terminating a father's parental rights because the record clearly showed that the father was capable of working, that he did work, and that he never paid any child support to the grandfather for his children. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Text messages purportedly showing that a mother engaged in illicit drug sales were not dispositive to the issue of the mother's alleged willful non-support because the text messages could be interpreted to show that the mother earned money selling drugs, which could in turn support a showing of willfulness in her failure to pay any child support, but they could perhaps better lend support to a conclusion that, if anything, the mother was a failed drug dealer. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Trial court's finding of willful non-support with respect to a mother was reversed because there was no clear and convincing evidence proving willfulness during the relevant four month period; the fact that the mother abused drugs and generally was irresponsible in her life could not alone impute willfulness as to her non-support, and the mother's drug abuse and general irresponsibility did not shift the burden of proof as to willfulness from Grandfather to her. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support was proper; the mother provided no financial support for the child, and her argument that there was no court order requiring her to pay support was not persuasive, as parents were presumed to know of their obligation to support their children. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that a father's parental rights were to be terminated on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay support because the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings that the father had the ability to provide support, but chose not to provide support, during the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights. In re Ja'miya T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).

Trial court properly denied grandparents'  petition to terminate parental rights because the grandparents failed to prove willful failure to support by clear and convincing evidence; the record contained no evidence regarding the father's income, work record, or expenses during the pivotal time frame, and the limited evidence did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had the capacity to provide support and lacked a justifiable excuse for failing to do so. In re Sophia P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. June 13, 2017).

When determining whether to terminate a father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to support the child, the absence of a court order to support the child did not show the father did not willfully fail to support the child because the father had a duty to support the child without such an order. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

It was error to terminate an incarcerated father's parental rights based on abandonment due to the father's willful failure to support the child because it was not found that the father had an ability to support the child during the four months before the father's incarceration. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

Based on the father's own factual admissions and his failure to cite any applicable law or argument on the issue, the finding that he willfully failed to support the child as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-1-102 was affirmed, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

In a parental rights termination proceeding, a trial court erred in finding that a father's failure to pay support for the child was not willful where there was no dispute that he had the ability to pay support, the father admitted that he was aware of his obligation to provide support, his petition to determine the child's parentage and set visitation did not include any effort to establish child support, and his lack of effort to pay child support after agreeing to do so evidenced that his failure to do so was the product of free will. In re Sydney B., 537 S.W.3d 452, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 469 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2017).

Mother's testimony that the mother was aware that it was the mother's job as a parent to provide for the child, that the mother was able to and did maintain employment, and that the mother had other sources of income was clear and convincing evidence that the mother willfully failed to support the child during the four consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition for termination. In re Colby L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on the ground of abandonment by willfully failing to make reasonable support payments because the record included a child support payment summary showing that the mother made child support payments for January through March 2016; thus, the mother did not fail to support the children during the four months prior to prior to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services filing its petition to terminate her parental rights. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Father had a job and was current on his child support payments, and thus the trial court properly denied termination of the father's rights for abandonment by failure to support prior to incarceration under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

While the department argued that the mother's decision to buy drugs rather than pay child support constituted a willful failure to support her children, the department had to prove by clear evidence that the mother had the capacity to pay support but made no attempt to do so and did not possess a justifiable excuse, which the department failed to do; termination of the mother's rights for abandonment by failure to support prior to incarceration under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113 was improper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father's drug habit and payment of court fines did not amount to sufficient evidence of a willful failure to support his children, and the department failed to present enough evidence to eliminate any serious doubt that the father had the ability to pay support and that his failure to support his children was willful; thus, the termination of the father's rights on the ground of willful failure to support, under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(D), 36-1-113, was reversed. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Department failed to prove the ground of abandonment by failure to support by clear and convincing evidence as to the mother and father, under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), 36-1-113, as they were incarcerated during the relevant time period. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for failure to remit child support because the father's claim that his failure to remit support was not willful when he was unaware of a duty to remit support was rejected as the record did not reflect that his mental capacity was so impaired that he did not understand that the child required food and other items for survival; he provided token support when the child visited his residence; the court credited the mother's testimony that he refused her request for support and advised her that it was not his responsibility to provide support; and he did not pay child support even when he was actually employed at various times. In re Bryson, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2017).

Trial court erred in finding that a mother abandoned her child by willfully failing to support the child because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) offered no proof as to the mother's income or assets to establish an ability to pay; the proof suggested that the mother did not have the ability to pay because she was incarcerated at the time DCS filed the petition, and she testified to not having a job during the relevant four-month period and relying on friends for her need. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment because it showed that they had not remitted support in the two years prior to the filing of the termination petition despite periods of employment and food and gifts provided were token support. In re Brennen T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay support pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(D), given that he made no payments toward child support when he had income and he was able to support his smoking habit; he had no justifiable excuse for failing to make child support payments. In re Miracle M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2017).

Petitioners failed to present enough evidence to eliminate any serious or substantial doubt that the mother had the ability to pay support and that her failure to support her daughter was therefore, willful. In re Douglas H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 662 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because the record clearly and convincingly established that her failure to pay support was willful; the mother was aware of her child support obligation, and she had the ability to pay because she was employed. In re Brantley B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

The evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's holding that a mother's support was token because items and gifts did not assist the father in providing for the child on a meaningful and continuous basis; the mother testified that the money she earned or obtained, which could have been used for the child's support, was used to support her addiction. In re Brantley B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

Trial court erred by concluding that clear and convincing evidence existed to show that a mother willfully failed to support her children during the relevant four-month time period because the mother had just completed drug rehabilitation and was attempting to care for her newborn baby; the mother was unemployed for approximately two of the relevant four months, and she lived with several different members of her husband's family. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Chancery court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights because the evidence was less than clear and convincing that the mother willfully failed to support her children; the child's father and stepmother presented no evidence of the mother's income or available resources during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, and thus, there was no basis to find that the mother's failure to pay child support was willful. In re Alivia F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights to the father's child on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support was inappropriate because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services did not meet its burden to show that the father had the ability to pay support so as to establish that the father's failure to do so was willful. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Father admitted that he had no justifiable excuse for his failure to pay child support while he was gainfully employed, and the $ 80 amount he paid the grandparents for support was clearly token, and therefore the grandparents showed that the father willfully failed to provide no more than token support, for termination purposes. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Grandparents failed to present sufficient evidence that the mother had the capacity to provide support or rebut her justifiable excuse for failing to do so, as there was no evidence of her hours worked, wage earned, or expenses; the mother's decision to purchase drugs indicated that she did have some funds for non-necessities, but the purchase of illegal drugs alone was insufficient to prove that her failure to provide support was willful, and thus abandonment by willful failure to support was not proven. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children because the record did not clearly and convincingly establish that her failure to pay support was willful; while there was some testimony with respect to the mother's income and expenses, the testimony did not establish what her income and expenses were during the period at issue, and as a consequence, there was not clear and convincing proof from which to conclude she had the capacity to pay support during that period. In re Emily J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2018).

Evidence found by the trial court to be credible amounted to clear and convincing evidence that a mother's parental rights had to terminated because the mother had abandoned the child by failing to support the child; after the mother was released from prison, she sent no gifts, clothing, or food for the child, and she was able-bodied and working. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Father was capable of and pursued employment, when it was available and he was able to arrange for transportation, he knew of his duty to support and he sought a modification of his support due to his inability to pay, and he was unable to pay for a period of time as a result of a criminal episode, and thus the evidence was not clear and convincing that he willfully failed to provide support within the meaning of the statute. In re Aden H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 2018).

Without evidence to establish that the mother had the ability to pay support for her children during the relevant time period, the department failed to show that she failed to support or make reasonable payments toward the support of her children to prove the ground of abandonment, and termination of her rights was reversed as to this ground. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Because the mother was in jail when the petition was filed, the relevant four-month period for the abandonment for nonsupport purposes was four months prior to the day she went to jail. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the father had the capacity to pay child support and willfully failed to do so; the burden was not on him to demonstrate an inability to work or pay and there was no proof to establish his employment, income, expenses, or resources during the critical four-month period, and without such evidence, a finding of willfulness could not be sustained. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a mother willfully failed to support the mother's children in the four months before a termination of parental rights petition was filed because the mother paid no support during that period despite being employed and receiving financial assistance from the mother's brother. In re Jarrett P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Despite the father's substantial business enterprises, his substantial monthly interest income and his significant annual income, he paid nothing for his son's support and only provided token gifts, and the father's testimony that he was not aware of his obligation to pay support did not excuse his failure to pay; therefore, termination of the father's rights based on his willful failure to support was proper. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to terminate the father's parental rights for abandonment based on nonsupport because while it showed that he was employment and paid $639 in child support in the relevant four month period, the father did not testify to his rent obligations or other living expenses. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Record did not contain clear evidence of the mother's abandonment by failure to support; while the mother knew of her support obligation, was able to work during a large portion of the relevant time period, and made some payments, the proof of her broken foot and childbirth did not convince the court that she had the capacity to work throughout the pertinent period of time. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support because she made no financial contribution to the support of the child, and the child's great aunt testified that the mother never provided any gifts or necessaries for the child during the relevant time period; the fact that the other was not under court order to provide support did not, ipso facto, relieve her of that obligation. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Although the record supported for the determination that the father knew of his duty to support the child and the consequences of his failure to do so, the evidence was insufficient to establish the father's ability to remit support during the relevant time period, and the termination of the father's rights on this ground was reversed. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support; although there was proof that the mother was not disabled or otherwise precluded from gainful employment, the Department of Children's Services did not show that she not only had the capacity to pay support but did not do so, and had no justification for not doing so. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Trial court's finding of abandonment was vacated and findings of fact concerning the willfulness of the alleged abandonment were required on remand; the trial court did not consider the mother's arguments that her failure to provide support was not willful because she was in a rehabilitation program, and her income was used to pay for the program. In re Abagail D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support because based on his testimony that he was gainfully employed during the all but two weeks of the pertinent period and that his paycheck was enough to cover his children's expenses, he had the ability to pay support. In re Jaylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Father abandoned the child by willfully failing to remit support, which supported the termination of his parental rights; although he claimed that his failure to prioritize his support payments was a result of his lack of understanding of a complex system, he was advised of his obligation to remit support by a child support order, parenting plans, and his signing of the Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights, plus every parent was presumed to know of his legal obligation to support his child. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to support was supported by the evidence; she knew of her duty to pay child support, she worked during part of the relevant time period, when she did not work during that time, she was not unable to work, and she admitted she failed to pay any support. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Because petitioners failed to present clear evidence that the mother's failure to support was willful, the court vacated the findings with respect to this ground for termination; she could not be blamed for using her monthly paycheck to pay rent at an rehabilitation facility, nor could she be blamed for using her tax refund to pay overdue bills, and that she bought cigarettes during the relevant four-month period was insufficient alone to produce a firm belief that her failure to pay support was willful. In re L.U.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights to her youngest child based on abandonment for failing to visit and support that child during the four months immediately preceding her re-incarceration because the relevant four-month time period was March 13 through July 12, 2011, but there was no proof showing that the mother willfully failed to support or to visit the child prior to May of 2011. In re S.D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was proper as the parents abandoned the child by failing to visit and to remit support because they last visited the child more than two years prior to the termination petition; their telephone calls and video chats were not a substitute for in-person visitation; although they were both employed, they failed to provide any financial support until after the termination petition was filed; and their care packages did not satisfy their support obligation. In re Camdon H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned her children by willful failure to support because it showed that she was incarcerated within the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition, she failed to make any payments toward the support of her children, and she admitted that the auto body and repair shop she owned with the stepfather generated income sufficient to support them and the children. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

There was clear evidence that the father abandoned the children by willfully failing to support them; he paid nothing until ordered to do so and he provided no nonmonetary support, such as clothing or food, yet he worked several jobs and his expenses were minimal, and thus he could have provided some financial support for his children but willfully chose not to do so. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

Trial court noted that the parenting plan did not require the mother to remit child support but the trial court did not issue any findings of fact concerning her willfulness in relation to the terms contained in the plan; thus, the finding of abandonment for failure to support was vacated.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

There was not clear and convincing proof from which to conclude that the mother had the capacity to pay support during the relevant period; while there was some testimony in the record that the mother worked while the children were in custody, the testimony did not establish what her income and expenses were during the period at issue. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the mother abandoned the child by failing to remit support because she admitted her physical ability to work during the relevant time period and that she later obtained employment after the relevant time period but still failed to provide any financial support. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence did not show a mother abandoned her child by failing to pay child support because no evidence of the mother's failure to support for the entire four-month period before the mother was incarcerated was presented. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence was shown of grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights to the child for abandonment by willful failure to support because the mother had the ability to pay child support, and the capability of earning money to pay her child support, but simply chose not to work and willfully chose not to pay child support. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

As there was no evidence about the mother's income, expenses, or living situation during the four-month period, and she testified that she was dependent on an abusive boyfriend for transportation and that he refused to allow her to work, willful failure to pay child support was not shown. In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

Although the mother did not provide cash to the child's guardians, she spent a portion of her disposable income that was not insignificant on the child during the relevant four-month period, thereby precluding the guardians from proving abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the mother had between $150 and $300 per month in disposable income that she could have used to pay child support. The evidence showed that the mother spent approximately $800 on the child over the relevant four-month period, which averaged out to about $200 per month. In re Anna G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 208 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because the record did not show that she had any capacity to pay support during the relevant period and the trial court's finding that she obtained employment well after the filing of the petition was insufficient. The evidence showed that the mother was incarcerated or in treatment for all but two weeks during the relevant time period and there was no dispute that she was not employed during this time. In re Kingston A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 405 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2019).

Mother testified that on average she worked three or four days per week and at best, she earned $ 840 during the four months before the petition was filed; she had monthly expenses of $ 120 and paid an additional $ 90 toward the support of the child's half-siblings, such that her payments toward the child's support were not insignificant given her means. The department did not meet its burden to prove that the mother's payments were token support. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Ground of willful failure to support was proven against a father by the standard of clear and convincing evidence because the father had the capacity to pay support, did not do so, and had no justification for not doing so; the father testified that, at all times during the relevant statutory period, he was working, and when pressed by the trial court as to whether he had money to pay child support the father admitted that he did. In re Channing M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support; although the mother failed to provide any support for the child during the relevant time period, there was no proof that the mother's failure to provide support was willful, as the record was devoid of any evidence to show her income, expenses, or employment history. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for to support because the mother testified that the father never provided financial assistance and did not provide supplies for the child, and her testimony was corroborated by the maternal grandfather's testimony. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on ground of abandonment was appropriate because the mother did not contend that the mother was incapable of paying support during the relevant four-month period, but refused to do so without some record. Moreover, to the extent that the mother did have discretionary income, the mother used it to buy illegal drugs, rather than support the children, and there was no evidence as to the actual amounts spent by the mother on gifts for the children during visitation in the four-month period or otherwise. In re Michael W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because the court had no evidence of his actual income during the four-month period, he had been doing odd jobs since he was injured and terminated by his employer, and he was barely able to keep his utilities turned on. In re Kelsea L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights under the ground of abandonment by failure to support; because she did not appear at trial and presented no evidence, the unrefuted proof was that she was working, yet never provided any type of financial support for the child. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Trial court properly determined that it was not in a child's best interest for the father's parental rights to be terminated because his failure to visit the child within the statutory four-month period was not willful where his efforts to visit the child were thwarted by the mother, and, while the father did not support or make reasonable payments towards the support of the child, the child was still young enough that the father should be able to establish a meaningful relationship with him. In re Archer R., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2020).

Foster parents'  petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother was improperly granted as the foster parents did not show abandonment by willful failure to support the child because the foster parents failed to establish that the mother was capable of working and paying child support during the relevant four-month period. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Trial court did not err in concluding that the child's great-aunt established the existence of abandonment by failure to support because the father testified that he was employed during the relevant four-month period and despite having the ability to pay some child support the father admitted that he failed make a single support payment or pay his portion of the child's $3,000 dental bill. In re Zaylee W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Evidence of the grounds for terminating a father's parental rights of abandonment by willful failure to support was less than clear and convincing and did not show that the father's failure to support was willful as the mother and stepfather failed to establish that the father had the capacity to pay child support during the relevant period. Furthermore, the father's responses to interrogatories showed only nominal income during the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition. In re Mattie L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Trial court's ruling that petitioners met their burden to prove the father's willful failure to support in the four months prior to incarceration was erroneous because, while the father was not employed during the relevant time period, he was required to pay a multitude of fines as a result of his criminal activity and there was no evidence presented of his expenses during the relevant period. In re London B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper for abandonment by failure to support; the mother had the capacity to work during the relevant time period and did work for much of it, which provided her the means to pay her expenses and provide discretionary funds for travel and entertainment, and yet she admitted she did not pay money to the grandparents for the support of the child. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support was proper because, although he testified that he had paid approximately $80 toward the child's support, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services produced documentation showing that he, in fact, paid $20 during the entire time the child was in foster care; and, when asked why the money he used to buy cigarettes was not tendered for support of his child, the father downplayed his habit. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support was proper because the case worker testified that the mother was aware of the permanency plan requirement that she pay $20 per month in child support; the case worker testified that she was unaware of any impediments to the mother's ability to work; and the mother had made no payments toward the child's support. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Upon the change in the statutory requirement eliminating the willfulness requirement, the trial court erred by requiring the grandparents to prove the mother's willfulness in her failure to provide support; however, the error was harmless because the mother testified that she would have sought employment but for a lack of child care for her newborn. Thus, she proved that her lack of support was not willful, and therefore there was a lack of evidence concerning abandonment for failure to support. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for willful failure to visit and to support because, although the father had relocated to Tennessee and lived with his parents, the mother knew his email address and his parent's physical address; and, when the mother had disposable income, and had the ability to pay support, she chose not to. In re Aiden M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020).

10. —Failure to visit.

Finding of abandonment by failure to visit was supported by evidence that, once the child returned to the custody of the Department of Children's Services, the father only engaged in token visitation on two occasions. In re Kenneth G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental right based on abandonment for failure to visit had to be reversed, because the father was incarcerated at the time of the filing and for the four months preceding the filing of the petition. In re Colton R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017).

Evidence was not clear and convincing as to the ground of a mother's willful failure to visit because the children's grandfather kept detailed logs on the mother's visits, and it was evidence from the logs that the mother visited 43 or 44 times; even if the mother visited 17 times in the relevant four-month period preceding the filing of the petition, as initially asserted, the court of appeals would be hard-pressed to deem that token visitation. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Evidence relevant to the trial court's findings on the issue of a father's alleged willful failure to visit did not rise to the level of clear and convincing because the children's grandfather testified that the father did visit many times. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit was proper; the last meaningful contact the mother had with the child was in 2014, and although she knew where appellees and the child lived, she made no attempt to see the child or communicate with him. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Trial court properly denied grandparents'  petition to terminate parental rights because the grandparents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a willful failure to visit; the parents visited their child numerous times despite the restrictions imposed by the grandparents, and regardless of whether the grandparents were well-intentioned, their actions had the effect of significantly interfering with the parents'  efforts to visit the child. In re Sophia P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. June 13, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights due to abandonment based on a willful failure to visit because (1) he only occasionally saw the child, (2) an order of protection did not prevent him from seeing the child, (3) he made no effort to secure or enforce visitation, and (4) his visitation occurred when he visited with the child's mother. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence that a mother abandoned the mother's child by failing to visit with the child in the four consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition for termination. Moreover, any attempt at visitation was only token visitation. In re Colby L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was improper on the ground of abandonment based on willful failure to visit because, while the father's alleged excuses did indeed appear poor, there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which to make a clear and convincing determination as to the father's intent not to visit; and not all of the possible reasons for the father's failure to visit rose to the level of a willful failure to visit. In re Kenya H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017).

Because the mother and father were incarcerated during the four months prior to the department's filing of the petition for termination, the ground of abandonment by failure to visit, for purposes of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113, was not established. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Although the father was incarcerated for significant periods of time, he was out of jail from August 2014 to August 2015, and thus the four-month period set forth in T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) was the appropriate statutory ground applicable to him. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father was allowed a total of 16 hours of visitation during the four-month period, but he used only two, plus his failure to participate in more than token visitation was willful; he said he had problems with transportation because he lost his license, and while he could ride with others, he had problems paying for gas, and thus the father abandoned the children by a willful failure to visit pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly found that a mother abandoned her child through willful failure to visit because during the relevant four month period, the mother made no attempt to visit with the child; the only excuse the mother could offer during trial for not visiting was being “on the run” after violating the terms of her probation, but evading arrest is not a justifiable excuse for failing to visit. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment because the record showed that the mother attended all but three or four visits during the entirety of the child's residency with his foster parents and the record was unclear as to the amount of visits the father missed. In re Brennen T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay visit pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A), given that he willfully abandoned the children by failing to visit them, his engagement at the children's doctor's appointments was sporadic and amounted to no more than token visitation, and he failed to make any effort to spend time with the children until after the petition to terminate his rights was filed. In re Miracle M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2017).

Trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that a father's failure to visit was willful because weekly phone calls with the children did not constitute token visits; a Tennessee Department of Children's Services representative testified that during the relevant four-month time period, the father talked with the children about once a week, and the father visited them several times before he moved to another state. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights to her daughter on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit during the four-month period prior to the filing of the original petition pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), as her visitation during the relevant time was token at best. In re Douglas H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 662 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

Ground of abandonment for failure to visit by an incarcerated parent, under the former version of the statute, was inapplicable because, from the time of removal until the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights, the father was never free for a consecutive four-month period. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because the mother did not have the capacity to visit the children during the relevant time period; the mother testified, without contradiction, that she did not own a vehicle during the relevant four months, and the trial court did not make a specific finding rejecting that testimony. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because evidence in the record did not provide clear and convincing proof that the mother's failure to visit the children was willful; an Alabama court order effectively prohibited the mother from visiting the children because she was not entitled to supervised visitation under that order, and she had an affirmative duty not to visit her children until she satisfied the conditions of the order. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Mother's visits were more than perfunctory and were frequent enough to establish more than minimum contact with the child, and thus the mother's visitation did not meet the definition of token visitation, and the grandparents therefore failed to prove that the mother willfully failed to visit her child for abandonment purposes; the visitation was sufficient to continue the bond with the child, and the mother consistently maintained that she had problems obtaining reliable transportation. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Ground for termination of the mother's parental rights of abandonment by failure to visit was not clearly and convincingly established because there was no evidence that the mother was unwilling to meet conditions in order to visit the child but that she was unable to do so. Upon leaving jail the mother's first call was to request permission to visit her child, petitioners, who had custody of the child, would not take the child to Georgia, the mother would not be permitted to take the child out of the home for overnight visitation, and petitioners advised the mother that she could not stay overnight with them. In re Emma S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit as the father and his current wife interfered with the mother's right to see her children or to communicate with them because the father did not have the right to unilaterally stop the mother's visitation, and he did not have the authority to convert the mother's unsupervised visitation to supervised visitation and then to use her failure to visit as a ground to terminate her parental rights; although the mother conceded that she abused alcohol during her marriage, she testified that she no longer drank and the children's testimony corroborated her statement; and the father blocked the mother from calling his cellular telephone. In re Justin P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2018).

Evidence found by the trial court amounted to clear and convincing evidence to terminate a mother's parental rights for willful abandonment by failure to visit because the mother was permitted to contact the child by mail and had not done so; the mother continually failed to attempt to contact and/or visit her child, despite being aware of her duty to do so. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Father willfully failed to visit the child during the relevant four-month period prior to his incarceration and thus grounds for termination existed based on abandonment by willful failure to visit; the father refused to provide his contact information to the department, failed to maintain contact with the department, never proactively attempted to establish paternity, and willingly forewent his opportunity to assume fatherly responsibilities. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a mother willfully failed to visit the mother's children in the four months before a termination of parental rights petition was filed because the mother visited the children only once, despite accommodations, and showed no justifiable reason for the failure to visit. In re Jarrett P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit because the father spent less than six hours with the child over a period of thirty-two months; the record clearly and convincingly establishes that the father's visits were no more than token in that they were of such an infrequent nature or of such short duration as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the child. In re D.N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for willful failure to visit because he admitted at trial that he had not seen the child for two years, he did not allege that he was prevented from seeing the child, and he admitted that he had not asked for visitation since 2014. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit because despite the fact that the mother was granted the opportunity for supervised visits, she did not seek visitation until after she was served with the petition to terminate her parental rights; there was no evidence that the mother was thwarted or otherwise precluded from seeking visitation. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper under the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit; the mother only attended two of seven scheduled visits, her lack of visitation was due to her refusal to submit to required drug screens, and her two visits were deemed mere token visitation. In re Romeo T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Despite the mother's admission that she understood that she was required to petition the trial court to lift the no contact order so she could visit the child, she did not do so; as she had no contact with the child since June 2016 and she had taken no overt steps to petition the trial court to set aside or modify the no contact order, there was clear evidence that she abandoned the child by willful failure to visit. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Trial court's finding of abandonment was vacated and findings of fact concerning the willfulness of the alleged abandonment were required on remand; the trial court did not consider the mother's arguments that her failure to visit was not willful because she was in a rehabilitation program, and her attempts to visit via Skype were denied. In re Abagail D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit because it established that he attempted to arrange rides to visit the child and had 10 telephone calls and an in-person visit with the child. In re Jaylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit was supported by the evidence; the mother's visitation was contingent upon her ability to pass three consecutive, random drug screens, yet she did not make herself available for the visits and was unable to pass the necessary drug screens. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding clear evidence to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit; her choice in refusing to cooperate with an order constituted a willful decision to discontinue visiting the child, and her filing a petition to restore visitation, then failing to appear at the hearing, did not show she was actively trying to maintain visitation. In re L.U.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).

Finding of abandonment for failure to visit was vacated and the case was remanded for consideration of the mother's willfulness in light of the father's denial of visitation and the parties'  course of dealing in scheduling visitation with minimal notice since the time of the divorce; the mother visited four times during the pertinent time period, but visitation was interrupted on one date and two additional requests for visitation were denied, and the mother's attempt to visit should still be considered in assessing the willfulness of her failure to visit.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

Mother's failure to visit her children was willful, as the evidence showed the same pattern of the mother's missing opportunities to visit with her children before and after the birth of her last child, and despite any asserted physical limitations, the mother was able to work during the four-month period. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment by willful failure to visit was proper because her visitation was merely token visitation; and it was in the child's best interest as the mother did not have a job, she had not regularly visited or spoken with the child, she did not provide any support for the child, she and the child did not have a meaningful relationship, and the child was well-cared for by the grandparents and was thriving in their custody. In re Jayla H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the father abandoned the child by failing to visit because the father had no contact with the child after July 2015, the mother's brother, with whom the child was living, testified that he did not receive a telephone call from the father regarding setting up visitation after July 2015, and while the father claimed he did not know where the brother and his wife lived, he drove the mother to their house on the day of his only visit with the child on July 4, 2015. In re Jeffery D., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2019).

Trial court's ordering terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit because the record showed that visitation was suspended pursuant to a court order in August 2016, precluding any visitation during the majority of the pertinent time period. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a mother abandoned the mother's child by failing to visit in the four months before the mother was incarcerated because the mother (1) did not seek relief from an order suspending the mother's visitation, (2) did not present herself to the court, as her counsel was instructed, and (3) was aware of her obligation to visit the child and that a failure to do so could lead to termination of parental rights. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence was shown of grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights to the child for abandonment by willful failure to visit because the mother waited for years before even attempting to set up visitation and the mother's attempts to set-up visitation after proceedings were commenced were minimal. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights for willful failure to visit because the evidence showed the mother had not visited the child at all during the four months preceding the filing of an amended termination petition. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

Chancery court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit because the father admitted that he had not visited the child for at least two years prior to the filing of the petition to terminate his parental rights, and, even if the mother refused all of the father's attempts at communication regarding his visitation rights, he never made any filing with the trial court seeking enforcement of his visitation rights. In re Maddox G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019).

Abandonment by failure to visit was sufficiently proven where, inter alia, the mother had not regularly visited and failed to maintain any contact with the child in the four months preceding the petition's filing. In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for willful failure to visit or to support her child because, during the four months leading up to the termination petition, the mother only visited with the child about five times; when the mother did visit, she was distracted and did not pay much attention to the child; the mother often missed her scheduled visits with the child; she only paid $18 in support; and she voluntarily quit both her jobs and did nothing to find a new job to pay child support. In re Laura F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019).

Evidence was less than clear and convincing that a mother abandoned the mother's child by willful failure to visit during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition because the mother did not engage in token visitation during the applicable time period. Considering the mother's visits, the mother's testimony concerning phone contact, and the circumstances surrounding a scheduled visit, the mother did not have merely minimal or insubstantial contact during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition. In re Raeshad B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2019).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit; the mother knew the child was with her grandmother, who did not keep the mother from contacting the child, and the mother had the capacity to visit the child, made no attempts to do so, and had no justifiable excuse for her failure to do so. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit because it was undisputed that the father did not visit the child during the relevant time period and the record established that the father had the ability but made no effort to visit the child and he provided no justification for not doing so. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Reversal of ground of abandonment by failure to visit was appropriate as there was too much ambiguity in the analysis of whether a mother failed to visit or exercise more than token visitation in the four month window before the filing of the petition. Although the record contained evidence that the mother failed to visit the children on several occasions in the four month window, given the lack of clarity as to which of the failures to visit the juvenile court held against the mother, the evidence fell short of clear and convincing evidence. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit because there was no evidence to suggest that the mother was incapacitated or otherwise unable to engage in visitation with the child; and the mother's lackadaisical attitude during visits, her failure to play with the child, and her shunning of the child's attempts to engage, resulted in a lack of even the most tenuous bond between the mother and child. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because he did not dispute that he only visited with the child four or five times for approximately two hours each time during the relevant period. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit because the father had no contact with the child during the four-month period, his last visit with the child occurred years before the petition was filed, and despite his knowledge of the court process for asserting his parental rights he took no action to do so. In re Kelsea L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by failure to visit, failure to substantially comply with permanency plans, and persistence of the conditions leading to removal of the children from the mother's home because her one or two visits with each of the children were of such an infrequent nature as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the children; she failed to pursue training in parenting her son due to his special needs; she presented no evidence of having obtained stable housing, income, or transportation; and she was unable to show that she could provide a home absent of the environmental neglect that initially caused the children to be removed from her custody. In re Serenity S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Foster parents'  petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother was improperly granted based on abandonment because the mother did not willfully fail to visit the child during the four months preceding the filing of the original termination petition as she attempted to maintain visitation with the child during her time at the drug treatment center, but had not been able to contact the foster parents. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on willfully failing to visit the child was proper; an affidavit of no visitation did not prohibit him from contacting the child by telephone or email, and while the no-visitation order was set aside after a final decree of divorce, the father still made no cognizable attempts to contact the child. The alleged order suspending the father's visitation did not preclude a finding of willfulness, nothing prevented him from finding where the child lived, but the father failed to do so. In re Bentley Q., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

Even though the trial court erred in calculating the four-month period for purposes of abandonment for failure to visit by analyzing two alternative time periods when the mother was incarcerated, the error was harmless because the trial court's findings concerning the ground included the correct four-month period. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Ground of abandonment by the mother's failure to visit the children was established by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed that she only had two token visits with the children, she was aware of her duty to visit the children, she had the capacity to visit, she did not make sufficient attempts to visit, and she had no justifiable excuse for not visiting. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Evidence was not clear and convincing that a father's abandonment by failure to visit was willful because, in addition to cutting off direct communication and not appearing for exchanges, the mother took other steps to limit the father's access to the child such as telling the child's school that the father was violent and dangerous. At trial, the mother admitted to withholding visitation because the mother was frustrated and fed up with all the father had put the mother through. In re Mattie L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Willful failure to visit in the four months prior to the father's incarceration provided an appropriate ground for termination of the fathers parental rights based on abandonment, where the mother's testimony clearly demonstrated that no restraint, significant or otherwise, was placed on the father's ability to visit, as he had the means of contacting the mother for visitation but chose not to make any effort toward visitation during the relevant time period. In re London B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper for abandonment by failure to visit; she was able to visit the child, yet only visited her five times during the relevant period, and during those visits, the mother was not fully present and engaged with the child, but instead spent much of their time together on her phone. The mother's behavior was willful and her visits amounted to token visitation. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for failure to visit in the four months preceding the mother's incarceration was appropriate as the mother clearly failed to engage in more than token visitation with the children-based on the mother's fear that another child would also be removed from the mother's custody due to the mother's continued use of illegal drugs while the child was in utero-and clearly failed to meet the mother's burden to show that the failure to do so was not willful. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit the child during the four months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, as the mother made one token visitation of the child during that period. The mother did not point to any acts by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) that thwarted or actually prevented the mother from visiting the child and failed to cooperate with DCS and never asked for assistance to be provided. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under the abandonment by failure to visit ground, as the mother failed to prove that she lacked willfulness in her failure to visit the child or that her failure to visit was due to circumstances outside her control; she admitted not seeking any visitation with the child and she did not provide any evidence showing how the birth of her younger child would have prevented her from visiting the child. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that the father abandoned the children by willful failure to visit where he made only a token visit in the four months prior to his incarceration date, he provided no financial support even though gainfully employed, and his failures were willful. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

11. Aggravating Circumstance.

As termination of parents'  rights over one child was based on numerous instances of severe child abuse, which constituted “aggravating circumstances,” termination of their rights over their other child was proper without efforts towards reunification pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 37-1-166 and 36-1-102. In re Keara J., 376 S.W.3d 86, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

12. Legal Parent.

Father does not fall within any of the various meanings of the statutory words legal parent; an intent to claim paternity filed with the Putative Father Registry is not the same as a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, and instead these are words of art, separate concepts with different meanings. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Termination grounds under the statute pertaining to persons not the legal parent or guardian of the child cannot be applied to legal parents; because there was no dispute that the mother in this case was the biological mother of the child, she was a legal parent for purposes of termination of her parental rights and this termination ground could not apply to her. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

Trial court properly found the father to be a putative father of the children because he did not file a paternity petition concerning either of the children and the trial court properly found that he was not a legal parent because he presented no evidence that he executed an unrevoked and sworn acknowledgement of paternity. He was recorded as the father on the children's birth certificates. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Although the juvenile court erred in taking judicial notice of a paternity test report previously entered as an exhibit in proceedings before a magistrate, the error was harmless because the mother's copy of the report was admissible; because the report showed a statistical probability of paternity of ninety-nine percent or greater, the putative father had an extremely high burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of paternity, but he failed to meet that burden. In re Michael J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2018).

Non-biological parent was not a biological parent, legal parent, or step parent, and she did not seek to adopt the child; thus, she did not fit within any of these statutory definitions of a parent, rendering her without standing to pursue a parentage action or visitation with the child. Pippin v. Pippin, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2020).

13. Surrender.

A legal surrender of parental rights denotes a termination thereof and is totally separate and distinct from the situation where a parent maintains his or her parental rights but has relinquished custody to another. In re Estate of Dobbins, 987 S.W.2d 30, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 616 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

14. Termination of Parental Rights.

Order of termination of the mother's parental rights to her son was vacated to the extent that it was based upon a finding of abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); the trial court's order failed to specify whether its decision was based upon a determination that the mother willfully failed to visit or support the child during the period immediately preceding her incarceration or, rather, upon a determination that the mother engaged in conduct prior to her incarceration that demonstrated a wanton disregard for her child's welfare. State v. C.H.K., 154 S.W.3d 586, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.W.P., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 937 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

Termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii) was improper because the parents were never notified that the Tennessee department of children's services was seeking to terminate their parental rights based on this ground, and the department explicitly disclaimed that it was seeking termination on any grounds other than persistence of conditions and severe child abuse. In re Giorgianna H., 205 S.W.3d 508, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Termination of parental rights under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(6) and (i) was affirmed because prior to the child's birth, the father began serving a ten-year prison sentence for felony possession of cocaine and possession with intent to sell, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. Fisher v. Young (In re K.B.H.), 206 S.W.3d 80, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re Adoption of K. B. H., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 638( Tenn. 2006).

Evidence clearly demonstrated a wanton disregard of the child where the evidence indicated that the mother used drugs in the later months of her pregnancy and she also admitted using drugs after the child's birth and while breast feeding the child; therefore, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). In re S.L.A., 223 S.W.3d 295, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 808 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State v. Smith (In re S.L.A.), — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Apr. 2, 2007).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated on ground of abandonment because she exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her child, had 19 prior incarcerations, admitted to drug addiction problem to psychological examiner, and admitted that her mother was essentially taking care of and raising her child. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. V.N., 279 S.W.3d 306, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal denied, State v. V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2009).

In a termination case, the state made reasonable efforts at reunification because the mother moved around often and failed to stay in contact with the state, the state made efforts to help the mother obtain subsidized housing, and the mother's repeated stints in jail were a continuing obstacle; trial court found that the state provided job counseling to the mother during the intervals in which she was not incarcerated. State v. Estes, 284 S.W.3d 790, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(B) and (D), evidence clearly and convincingly established that a father abandoned his children by willfully failing to make reasonable payments towards their support, as the amount of payments that he made for his three children during the relevant four-month period were insignificant given his means, including his substantial salary and the value of his unencumbered property. In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

There was clear and convincing evidence that a father abandoned his children by willfully failing to visit them for a period of four consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), despite the fact that there was an order in place that suspended the father's visitation rights; the father had no contact with the children for three years prior thereto, and he took no action to reinstate visitation or to maintain a relationship during that four-month period, such that his actions were deemed willful under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(F), a father's payments of child support after an original petition to terminate his parental rights was filed was not considered for purposes of an abandonment analysis under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g). In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Termination of parents'  rights based on persistence of conditions pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) required the Department of Children's Services to prove that it made reasonable efforts at reunification with respect to the father, as a determination that termination was warranted due to his severe child abuse had been reversed pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102 and 37-1-166(g)(4)(A); however, the record indicated that such efforts were satisfactorily made. In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dakota R., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Mar. 6, 2013).

Contractual provisions in this case circumventing the statutory procedures for the termination of parental rights were unenforceable; there was no cognizable basis for the termination of the surrogate's parental rights. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

T.C.A. § 36-1-102(48)(B) [now (50)(B)] serves to clarify that no termination of “any” parental rights of a gestational surrogate is necessary, but does not operate as an additional independent procedure for termination. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

There was clear and convincing evidence of wanton disregard, given that the mother was incarcerated within four months prior to the filing of the petition, and bringing the child into the home of a man who had been abusive in the past, in addition to the mother's maintaining a relationship with another person who was abusive and used drugs, showed wanton disregard for the child, as did the mother's failure to seek treatment for her psychological issues; termination of the mother's rights was affirmed. In re Shaneeque M., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2015).

Department was required to offer proof of an order in which the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected, but despite indications that there was such a judicial finding, no adjudicatory order appeared of record; the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and the persistence of conditions that led to the child's removal were not established by clear and convincing evidence because of the absence of the necessary order, and because no grounds other than these two were alleged, the order terminating father's parental rights could not stand. In re R.L.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to support his children where the trial court did not expressly find that his failure to pay was willful and it did not make any findings regarding the father's income or earning capacity. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to provide a suitable home where there was no real evidence as to the condition of the father's residence, as the children were not removed from his home. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Trial court erred by finding that the father's parental rights should not be terminated for willfully failing to support the child where there was no dispute that he paid no support to the child's mother, he was gainfully employed, and his substantial delay in failing to comply with a court order to provide insurance coverage for the child constituted token support. In re Brookelyn W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015).

Trial court erred by finding that the father's parental rights should not be terminated for willfully failing to visit the child where it was undisputed that he had no visitation with the child in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, there was no evidence that he was thwarted in any effort to visit the child by the mother, and he placed all the onus to schedule and facilitate visitation on the mother and the stepfather. In re Brookelyn W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights to a minor child was appropriate because the parent willfully failed to contact, visit, or support the child during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition in spite of the parent's assertion that the parent's right to visitation was restrained by a prospective adoptive parent and that the parent counter-petitioned to establish a parenting schedule. In re Jarett M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to terminate the mother's parental rights to her children based on abandonment where in addition to having no face-to-face visits the mother conceded she had not sent gifts or cards or otherwise attempted any contact with the children during the relevant four-month period or in the years since the children left Kentucky. In re E.G.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015), appeal denied, In re Elaina G. H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. June 19, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment for failure to visit because the visitations that occurred were token at best; and the mother brought additional parties to the visitations rather than spending that time with the children focusing on bonding and spending one-on-one time with them. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the children's welfare because the mother abused illegal substances prior to her incarceration; and she failed to make even minimal efforts to maintain contact with the children or the Tennessee Department of Children's Services in order to work towards reunification with the children. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that grounds existed to terminate parents'  parental rights to their child and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate the parents'  parental rights because (1) the parents'  repeated drug abuse and ongoing pattern of incurring criminal charges and incarceration, failure to support the child, and token visits with the child demonstrated their inability to parent the child; and (2) the child was in pre-adoptive foster care. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights to seven children on grounds of failure to provide a suitable home because the child services agency conceded the record did not contain evidence indicating whether the agency's efforts occurred within the first four months after the children's removal. In re Kalob S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

It was not necessary for the grandparents to prove that the child was in immediate risk of substantial harm due to mother's substance abuse in order to prevail on the statutory termination ground of wanton disregard for the child's welfare exhibited prior to incarceration; it was sufficient that the mother's conduct that resulted in her incarceration rendered her an unfit parent. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Mother willfully failed to visit the child from March 2013 through September 2013, prior to her incarceration, and thus she had willfully failed to visit the child during the determinative four-month period immediately preceding the mother's incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition and the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based upon this statutory ground. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to support her during the determinative period prior to the mother's incarceration; she presented no evidence indicating that she had any conditions other than her addiction problems that prevented her from working, and she was capable of employment when not hindered by substance abuse and criminal activity, and termination was proper. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights based on the ground of abandonment by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother's previous failure to address her substance abuse issues and her ongoing criminal behavior and probation violations prior to her most recent incarceration demonstrated a broad pattern of conduct that had rendered her unfit to care for the child. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Mother willfully failed to visit the child from March 2013 through September 2013, prior to her incarceration, and thus she had willfully failed to visit the child during the determinative four-month period immediately preceding the mother's incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition and the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based upon this statutory ground. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to support her during the determinative period prior to the mother's incarceration; she presented no evidence indicating that she had any conditions other than her addiction problems that prevented her from working, and she was capable of employment when not hindered by substance abuse and criminal activity, and termination was proper. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights based on the ground of abandonment by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother's previous failure to address her substance abuse issues and her ongoing criminal behavior and probation violations prior to her most recent incarceration demonstrated a broad pattern of conduct that had rendered her unfit to care for the child. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Trial court did not err by terminating the father's parental rights to his son for abandonment where the evidence showed that the father did not visit his son during the relevant four-month period and his failure to do so was willful, despite the fact that he was living in a sober living facility during those months, because he was able to arrange visits and contact with individuals outside the facility but did not make such arrangements for his son. In re Gavin G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Grounds for termination of parental rights existed because the evidence was clear and convincing that a parent's pre-incarceration conduct constituted wanton disregard for the welfare of the parent's children. The parent physically abused one child, exposed a second child to illicit drugs in utero, ignored the orders of the juvenile court, and twice continued to use drugs and end up back in jail. In re Kaedince M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2015).

Ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home was met by clear and convincing evidence where it showed that the child was found to be dependent and neglected and was placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, the father was incarcerated and his sentence would expire in 2017, and the caseworker testified that her attempts to gain information to establish a suitable home for the child was thwarted by her inability to keep in contact with the father and his mother. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Mother and step-father's petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of the father was properly denied because the evidence did not support the findings that the father's failure to visit the child or to pay child support were willful as he exercised regular visitation with the child for the first five years of her life, but the situation changed when the mother became engaged to the step-father as the mother took steps that made it much more difficult for the father to exercise visitation with the child, and she took unreasonable steps restricting his access to the child; she failed to provide the father with the mailing address where she and the child resided; and she interfered with the father's ability to pay child support. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Jan. 28, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights due to abandonment where the evidence provided by the child's mother, her new husband, and the father showed that he willfully failed to visit the child and he presented no proof he or his agent appeared at the meeting location in the four months preceding the filing of the termination of parental rights petition. In re Hope A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding that grounds existed to terminate the father's parental rights to the children for abandonment by wanton disregard; the father was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the termination petition, and prior to that, he attacked two of the children and was found to have committed severe abuse, plus he attacked the mother with a baseball bat and had pleaded guilty to the offenses, which amounted to wanton disregard for the children's welfare. In re Kyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for abandonment-willful failure to visit where it showed that she did not visit her child in person during the four-month period immediately preceding the date the petition to terminate was filed, she failed to submit to drug screens that were her only obstacle to visiting her child, and her telephone conversations with the four-year-old child were not a sufficient substitute for in-person visitation. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for abandonment-failure to provide a suitable home where the Tennessee Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist her in establishing a suitable home for the child and the mother made no effort to establish a suitable home. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Even though the trial court erred by terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment for willfully failing to pay child support, because the record showed that he was receiving Supplemental Security Income and then Social Security Disability Income benefits, the trial court did not err by terminating his rights for failure to provide a suitable home, because the record showed that none of the homes he lived in was suitable for the child. In re Benjamin A., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights under any of the grounds contained in this section because, based on the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in the Bernard case, the grounds contained in this section not apply where the defendant parent was a putative biological father, as the father was in the instant case. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights based on willful failure to visit where the evidence showed that he had substantial contact with the child within the four-month period, including that they were together, along with the mother, every day during July 2013 and they lived together the first week of August 2013. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights based on willful failure to support where the record contained some evidence that the father and his family were supporting the child during the early weeks of the four-month period and the record did not contain sufficient evidence regarding the father's expenses. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her son based on abandonment where her monthly visits for four months were so infrequent and of such short duration that they constituted token visitation. The mother admitted she spent the majority of her time during the visits with her daughter instead of her son and only a limited relationship had been established between them. In re Jayvien O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Termination of parental rights based upon abandonment, by a parent failing to provide a suitable home, was appropriate because the parent was unlikely to be able to provide a suitable home at an early date. The parent's then home was unlivable as a water pipe was broken, and the parent had only begun addressing the parent's mental health issues, had no plans to stop taking narcotic pain medication, and showed a lack of cooperation with Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment where it showed that he was sentenced to 130 months in prison on February 25, 2013 and since the child's birth the father engaged in violent behavior, abused drugs, and committed acts that resulted in a lengthy prison sentence. In re A.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit where the children's great-grandmother's actions did not prevent the mother visiting the children and the mother failed to visit the children for four months preceding her incarceration. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support where the job opportunity she turned down did not occur during or prior to the relevant four months such that it would affect her income during the determinative period. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the children where she was involved in criminal activity and used illegal drugs. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the grounds of abandonment for failure to visit because the record reflected that the mother signed a copy of the Criteria and Procedures for Termination of Parental Rights and that she was advised of the consequences of her failure to visit during the requisite time period; and the mother simply failed to schedule visitation as required. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard, given that the mother's conduct prior to her incarceration constituted wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother had been in and out of jail, abused drugs, and did not show any effort to provide the child with the stability he needed. In re Zachariah G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights because the father did not substantially comply with the father's reasonable responsibilities in a permanency plan. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Trial court was correct in failing to terminate a father's rights on putative father grounds because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the father failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of his child; the evidence did not demonstrate that the father was aware of the Putative Father Registry or had access to the internet to register as the child's putative father. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children because the evidence clearly and convincingly established that mother abandoned the children; the mother failed to maintain housing, missed appointments for drug and alcohol assessments, failed to maintain legal means of income, failed or refused drug screens, and missed psychological evaluations. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the mother willfully failed to visit her children because she failed to visit them during the relevant four-month period and the record showed that the Department of Children's Services tried to schedule drug screens in an effort to facilitate the mother's visitation but that she failed to communicate with them. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

Child's maternal grandparents did not establish an interest sufficient to permit intervention by right in a proceeding to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents. Despite having lived with the child, the grandparents were neither the guardian nor custodian of the child at the time the termination petition was filed. In re C.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

There was not clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for abandonment under because, although they did not pay child support during the relevant time period, there was no evidence of either parent's income or available resources during the four months immediately preceding their incarcerations. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for failing to provide a suitable home because it showed that their case manager showed them the hazards in the home that needed to be remedied, the parents made little or no attempt to provide their children with a suitable home, and both parents continued to struggle with substance abuse and ran afoul of the law. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's rights for the willful failure to provide support because there was no proof as to his income and expenses during the relevant four-month time period. In re Anna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment because it showed that he failed to engage in anything more than token visitation with the child for several months, while he was able to work and held numerous jobs, any money he made went to purchase drugs rather than to pay support for the child, and he engaged in criminal behavior to support his drug habit which led to his incarceration. In re Kira G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on her willful failure to visit the child because it showed that she attempted to set up visitation only once in the relevant four-month period, the father never refused visitation prior to the mother's theft charge, and the main reason the mother did not attempt to satisfy the conditions to regain visitation was because she could not pass the required drug screens. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on his willful failure to support the child because the trial court utilized an inappropriate four-month period, as it did not piece together the father's periods of non-incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment because it showed that he failed to establish a suitable home, he was incarcerated, and he engaged in illegal drug use. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to support because it showed that the father made no monetary contributions to the children's support during the determinative period, Christmas gifts he provided in 2014 constituted no more than token support, he did not claim to have legitimate, extraordinary expenses that would have prevented him from sending payments, and he acknowledged that he was capable of earning income when not incarcerated but instead chose to spend his discretionary income on drugs. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to visit because he did not dispute that he failed to visit the children or speak with them during the determinative period and admitted that his last visit with the children occurred in 2014. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Exceptional circumstances justified denying a parent relief from a void judgment terminating parental rights because the parent manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid for 18 months after receiving actual notice of the judgment and the parent never attempted to contact, visit, or provide any financial support to the child. Furthermore, granting relief would have impaired the substantial reliance interests of the child and the adoptive parents and the child had developed significant relationships with the adoptive parents. In re Brooklyn J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2017).

In order to provide a suitable home for the children, the father needed to provide more than a physically sound structure, he needed to ensure that he could protect the children in the home from sexual abuse; he failed to complete recommendations and thus failed to address this issue, and therefore the termination ground of failure to provide a suitable home, for purposes of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii), 36-1-113(g)(1), was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment through wanton disregard because his testimony established that he was aware of the child's existence when the committed aggravated burglary, he never attempted to contact, visit, or develop a relationship with the child, and he never financially supported the child. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment through willful failure to visit and support the child because he never appeared for any medical appointments despite the child's foster mother providing him with notice of all medical appointments, and he never provided financially for the child during the four months prior to his incarceration. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the parents'  rights for abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because it showed that the parents had continued to reside in an inappropriate home filled with lice, fleas, dog and cat feces, with insufficient food stores and they did not properly supervise the children. In re Mack E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on willful failure to support because, given the frequency of the mother's incarcerations, her periods of non-incarceration were not as often as it would take to get a job. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failing to establish a suitable home because she moved in and out of friends'  homes for a couple of years, she moved in with a boyfriend who was a registered sex offender, and her mental illness rendered her unable to provide a stable, safe home for her children. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment by failure to support because the mother was deemed to be aware of her obligation to support her children, the father was making child support payments for his other children, the parents were employed for the majority of the pertinent time period, and the children's foster parents testified that they received no support from the parents. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because it showed that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services provided her with a multitude of services in four months following the removal of the child, she made little to no effort to free herself from drugs, and she only sporadically attended counseling. The evidence showed that because the mother continued to associate with the father, despite the domestic violence he inflicted on her, it was unlikely that she would be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an early date. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support because there was no proof introduced of the mother's income, employment (or willful unemployment), or expenses during the relevant time period from which the court could conclude that she had the capacity to pay support. In re Ethan B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because the record did not contain clear and convincing proof that the mother's failure to visit was willful, as there was no proof as to the mother's capacity to visit or lack of an excuse for not visiting during the relevant period. In re Ethan B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2018).

Trial court erred by terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment because once DNA testing confirmed the father to be the child's biological father he maintained consistent visitation with her and although the father did not pay any child support, the DCS failed to establish that he had the ability to pay support, as there was no proof as to his income and expenses. In re Natascha B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to provide a suitable home because the record contained no order expressly adjudicating the children dependent and neglected. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because she admitted that she willfully chose not to pay child support, and there was no evidence that she had any justification or infirmity, other than her drug addiction, to preclude her from obtaining gainful employment. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because it showed that visitation was offered but the father refused the conditions because he felt uncomfortable, he only offered a day's  notice when requesting a suitable time to see the child, and while he saw the child out in the community, those visits were token in nature. In re Ruger N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for nonsupport because the father admitted at the hearing that he had a duty to remit support, he had the capacity to remit support, and that he failed to do so because the mother refused his request for visitation. In re Ruger N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the children because there was no evidence that the father had any knowledge of one child when he committed the robbery and the record contained no evidence of conduct by the father showing a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children other than the robbery. In re Lailonnii J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the mother took no action to establish a suitable home until mid-2018 and she lost that home due to failure to pay rent. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because it showed that prior to her incarceration the mother only visited the child once. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare because the father had an extensive list of criminal convictions and in several instances his pre-incarceration interactions with the mother were violent. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Even though the trial court err by applying two different four-month periods, as the grandparents'  amended petition did not set forth separate or distinct allegations, the error was harmless because the ground of failure to support was proven by clear and convincing evidence, as the mother conceded she never paid the grandparents any child support and her sporadic gifts were token in nature. In re Ava M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2020).

15. Determination of Abandonment.

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the mother refused to show concern for the eight-month-old child's physical health, specifically his nutritional health and weight, which demonstrated a broader pattern of conduct that rendered the mother unfit; the mother missed a recheck appointment after a pediatrician expressed concern about the child's low weight and poor growth rate. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father abused prescription pain and anxiety medications in the family home, had to “doctor shop” in order to obtain the medication, and nutritionally and medically neglected the eight-month-old child. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's and a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to provide suitable housing because, despite myriad services, in-home counseling, and ample opportunity, there was a general lack of progress in the areas of housekeeping and personal hygiene, and the parents continued to struggle with basic parenting skills; the children's clothes smelled of urine and the parents were hoarders. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment for failure to support where the testimony of the service worker did not show the mother's ability to prove support for her son during the applicable four month period. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's rights for failure to provide a suitable home where her whereabouts were unknown for several months even though she knew that her son was in the custody of Tennessee Department of Children's Services and she failed to visit him or advise the Department of her whereabouts. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

It was not error to find a mother's visitation with the mother's child during a relevant period was “token,” for purposes of termination of parental rights, because (1) the mother visited only twice, (2) the mother's claim of lack of transportation was unavailing, and (3) the mother did not address the finding on appeal. In re Alexis B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).

Although the petition to terminate a mother's parental rights failed to specifically allege the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, the ground was tried by the mother's implied consent because, inter alia, the father's attorney questioned mother and other witnesses regarding mother's contact with the children, her payment of support, and the time she spent in jail during the four month period of time preceding the filing of the termination petition. In re D.H.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

Evidence supported a trial court's ruling that a parent abandoned the parent's children by failing to establish a suitable home because, when the children were removed while the parent was incarcerated after testing positive for drugs, they were staying at a camper that lacked both space and food. Furthermore, the parent did not make any significant strides, notwithstanding efforts in assisting the parent, towards providing suitable housing following release. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Statutorily determinative period applicable to consideration of the mother's alleged failure to visit and support the child began four months immediately preceding her incarceration; this determinative period would apply even under the assumption, arguendo, that Mother's incarceration ended on December 17, 2013, because she was nonetheless incarcerated for part of the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition on January 28, 2014. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Four-month determinative period was not applicable to the ground of abandonment through wanton disregard for the child's welfare because consideration of this ground required consideration of the mother's conduct throughout the child's life prior to the mother's incarceration. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a failure to establish a suitable home and lack of concern, because, in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, the mother did not have a stable residence and did not visit the children, and the mother's failure to arrive on time for the termination hearing showed a continued lack of concern for the children. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Evidence was not clear and convincing that an unmarried parent abandoned the parent's children by willfully failing to visit them because the parent did visit the children during the four months preceding the parent's incarceration, including overnight on a weekend, and apparently sought to continue visitation following an altercation with the other parent. The parent's overnight visit constituted more than a token visit. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Evidence preponderated against the trial court's findings that an unmarried parent failed to support the parent's children in the four months preceding the parent's incarceration because the evidence was undisputed that the parent did provide monetary support for the children during the relevant time period. Specifically, the parent's payment of $1,300, from the parent's income tax return, to the other parent during the four months preceding incarceration was more than a token amount, given the parent's means. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights to a minor child, on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit, was appropriate because the parent failed to visit the child during the four month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the parent's rights and for adoption of the child. Although the parent filed a petition seeking visitation, when the parent alleged interference with visitation had occurred, the petition was dismissed for the parent's failure to advance the petition. In re B.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 964 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).

Trial court's finding that the paternal grandparents had not proven that the mother's failure to visit was willful for purposes of abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(E) was affirmed where there was no clear and convincing evidence as to the exact requirements the mother was required to meet, and there was evidence that the mother had completed an alcohol and drug treatment plan during the four-month period. In re Destiny H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2016).

Because there was no dispute that Mother was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the termination petition, either of two abandonment definitions contained in the statute could apply in this case; although the latter definition was not pleaded, as the parties discussed the mother's visitation at length and neither party objected to evidence in this regard, it was considered whether the mother willfully failed to visit in the four months prior to her incarceration. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

Trial court was not entitled to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent through wanton disregard because the termination petition did not sufficiently allege this ground, it was not referenced in the trial court's prior order, and it was not tried by implied consent. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

While the trial court did find that the mother did not visit the child, there was no finding that the mother's failure to do so was willful; because no other grounds were found by the trial court and sustained on appeal, the case was remanded for the trial court to address the willfulness issue. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

Trial court erred by terminating parental rights based on a parent having abandoned the parent's children, as the parent failed to provide any child support while the children were in foster care, because the evidence was less than clear and convincing that the parent willfully failed to support the children as the parent, during the applicable four month period, was unemployed, apparently lived with various friends and family members, did not have a high school education, and was out of the work force during marriage. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the mother (1) did not make use of the Department of Children's Services'  efforts to assist the mother, (2) had no stable home, and (3) continued to abuse drugs and alcohol. In re S.D.D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Although the trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard and for failure to support the children, termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by willfully failing to visit the children because the father did not visit the children during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the father's rights; and the father was released from prison in late 2014, but up until the time of the hearing on November 19, 2015, he had not visited with the children a single time. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Evidence did not support a finding that a father abandoned the father's children by failing to provide a suitable home because the father obtained sufficient housing during the relevant time period and maintained appropriate housing through trial. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence that the father's relationship with mother, who had a problem with the use of drugs, rendered the father's home unsuitable. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment because the father, even before the father's incarceration, both willfully failed to visit, as the father failed to fulfill the father's responsibilities under the permanency plan to prove to the court the father was ready to resume visitation once it was suspended, and engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Abandonment was a ground for terminating a father's parental rights because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father engaged in conduct prior to the father's incarceration that evidenced a wanton disregard for the welfare of the father's children as the father engaged in criminal conduct, substance abuse, reckless behavior, and was incarcerated at times. Because of this conduct and behavior, the father was unable to establish a stable father-child relationship with the father's children. In re Casyn B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii) was appropriate where the Department of Children's Services had made reasonable efforts to assist her in establishing a suitable home, and the mother continued to use drugs and made no corresponding efforts to remedy her living situation. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2017).

Grounds for termination of a father's parental rights existed because there was clear and convincing evidence that the father was willful in the father's failure to provide support and to visit the children during the relevant statutory period as neither the mother, nor circumstances outside the father's control prevented the father from visiting and providing support to the children. Accordingly, the trial court on remand was to determine whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. In re James D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2020).

16. Reasonable Efforts.

Department of children's services made reasonable efforts toward reunification where, upon receiving custody of the child, the Department met with the father to address his criminal issues and prescription drug abuse, and made reasonable efforts to find a family member to care for the child. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

Record preponderated in favor of the trial court's finding that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) satisfied its requirement to make reasonable efforts to assist the parents, given in part that DCS funded an in-home service provider to help the family, DCS conducted numerous home visits, kept the parents apprised of the children's doctor appointments, and when the children were removed, DCS made numerous foster home visits to ensure that the children's needs were being met. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Children's case worker testified that the department paid for homemaker services, clinical assessment, and pest control, plus, in part, provided gas cards and transportation to attend the children's appointments; there was clear proof that the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother, who failed to avail herself of these opportunities. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Reunification efforts by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) were reasonable because, given the services which the DCS provided, which included drug and alcohol counseling, psychological evaluations, and bus passes, and the fact that, for a long period of time, a father was not in communication with the DCS, the efforts by the DCS to assist the father exceeded the father's efforts in the case. In re Ja'miya T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).

Actions of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services to assist a mother in establishing a suitable home were reasonable because the Department submitted an affidavit of reasonable efforts by its representative, detailing the services provided during the four months after the children's removal from the home; the Department developed a permanency plan, and it provided the mother with money to pay pay overdue utility bills in order to help her obtain suitable housing. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Juvenile court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to meet its burden of proof on the question of reasonable efforts in that the appellate court was not able to determine from the testimony of a caseworker when the assistance was actually provided and whether the assistance was rendered within the four-month period following removal or some time thereafter. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

In connection with the termination ground of lack of a suitable home, the department's efforts were found to be reasonable given the circumstances of the case, and thus the termination judgment was not disturbed on the basis of an alleged lack of reasonable efforts by the department. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that a mother abandoned the mother's child by failing to provide a suitable home. Furthermore, the record did not support the mother's claim that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to assist the mother in securing suitable housing as the record showed that the mother simply failed to accept the assistance provided. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services'  (DCS) effort were reasonable where it attempted to assist the mother for well over a year before filing the petition to terminate her parental rights, DCS applied for funding and provided her with access to a parenting assessment, paid for an expensive bed for her disabled child, visited the mother monthly, made recommendations as how she could make her home suitable for the children, and invited her to all family meetings, foster care meetings, and permanency plan meetings. The mother's refusal to provide DCS with a release form so that it could obtain her medical records hindering DCS's attempts to offer her additional assistance. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

17. Wanton Disregard.

Logically, a person cannot disregard or display indifference about someone whom he does not know exists, and while the statutory reference to “the child” can mean a child in utero, the wanton disregard language must be construed to require that the father has knowledge of the child at the time his actions constituting wanton disregard are taken; a father cannot exercise wanton disregard for the welfare of a child if he does not know the child exists, and in this case, the guardian ad litem did not prove that the father had such knowledge, and the holding that he abandoned the child was reversed. In re Anthony R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 459 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated due to his wanton disregard for the welfare of his children since the father was involved in criminal behavior, he almost immediately violated his probation, and he committed domestic violence against his pregnant wife; moreover, the father was in substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan because he did not provide proof of housing or a legal means of income, he did not arrange a psychological evaluation or set up a drug and alcohol assessment, and he did not visit his children. Termination was in the best interest of the children based on the father's history of drugs and violence and the fact that the children were doing well in foster care. In re Lilly C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016).

No case law was found holding that a person acts with wanton disregard by conceiving the child, regardless of the criminal and social history of the individuals involved, and the trial court's reasoning to the contrary was rejected; the father's actions in committing crimes and failing to send the mother any money were actions that occurred after his incarceration, and wanton disregard considers a parent's conduct prior to incarceration, and his actions then were insufficient to establish that he acted with wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was released from incarceration in October 2014, and the petition to terminate was not filed until June 2015; and the father was not incarcerated at the time of the filing of the petition or during the four months immediately preceding the institution of the action. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Although the wanton disregard statute applies only when the parent has knowledge of the child in question, this is based on the statutory language that requires that the parent disregard the child; conversely, termination for incarceration for 10 years is not based on the parent's actions or knowledge, but is based on the parent's status, having received a prison sentence of ten or more years, and thus the father's knowledge of the child at the time of sentencing was irrelevant. In re Adrianna S., 520 S.W.3d 548, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

Trial court properly found that the father abandoned the child based on his engagement in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; since the child was approximately 21 months old, the father had engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, which has culminated in a prison sentence of approximately 15 years. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

State proved the grounds of wanton disregard against father, given that he had 19 judgments resulting from felonies, to which he pleaded guilty, he was incarcerated when the children were removed from the home, he violated his probation, and he continued to be charged with other crimes. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to wanton disregard for the welfare of the child was proper, as the evidence showed that the father pled guilty to two counts of attempted child rape, with one victim being the child at issue In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Mother's parental rights were terminated for abandonment because her actions prior to her incarceration exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children; the mother's criminal convictions, probation violations, incarceration, and substance abuse placed her children in danger, and her actions showed a failure to act in the interest of her children on a consistent basis. Termination was in the best interest of the children because the mother continued to use drugs, she was unable to care for the children in a safe and stable manner, and it was difficult for her to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children due to her criminal behavior. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017).

Given the father's multiple theft convictions, his decision to expose the child to criminal activity, and his decision to evade law enforcement, his conduct prior to incarceration exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child and supported termination of the father's rights. In re Colton R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017).

It was error to find an incarcerated father abandoned the father's child by wanton disregard of the child's welfare because (1) the father's criminal conduct occurred before the child was born, and (2) the father's prison discipline did not fall under the purview of the applicable statute. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

It was not error to find an incarcerated father abandoned the father's child by wanton disregard of the child's welfare because, after he learned of the child's mother's pregnancy, he was charged with a probation violation and otherwise engaged in criminal behavior, including aggravated domestic assault and resisting arrest, and he was convicted of the offense for which he was currently incarcerated before the child's birth. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

Record was indicative of the father's patterns of criminal behavior, drug abuse, incarceration, and refusal to financially support the child, which amounted to a wanton disregard for the child's welfare, and this ground for termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was improper on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and willful failure to visit, but proper on the ground of wanton disregard based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because the mother testified to the abuse perpetrated by the father upon her while she was pregnant with the child; and the abuse described by the mother was of an especially cruel nature and directly imperiled the child as the father pushed her down some steps and she landed directly on her stomach, beat her with extension cords, and held her hostage at the home without allowing her to seek medical attention for her injuries and medical attention to assist with the birth of the child. In re Kenya H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper; the mother's chronic drug abuse and inability to maintain sobriety, plus her criminal behavior and unstable housing exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her children. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Plain language of T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) does not require a dependency and neglect order to base a termination of parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

For termination based on abandonment by wanton disregard, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) requires that wanton disregard be based upon the parent's conduct prior to incarceration, and the trial court erred in focusing on actions that occurred subsequent to the department's removal of the child from the mother's custody. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper; while he exhibited the ability to provide support, his criminal behavior, probation violations, substance abuse, and incarcerations exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly found that a mother exhibited a wanton disregard for her child's welfare because the mother displayed a broad pattern of criminal behavior and drug abuse. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the parents engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for their children's welfare in that one child tested positive for opiates at birth, the mother did not begin to address the mother's drug addiction until one year after the child's birth, the mother engaged in criminal conduct that led to the mother's arrest almost on a continual basis, the father voluntarily left the children with the father's mother, and the father was convicted multiple times. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment based on behavior that demonstrated a wanton disregard for the welfare of his children because he was incarcerated beginning in March 2016, and was still incarcerated at the time of the termination proceeding in May 2017; the father's history of criminal behavior began well before the birth of the children but did not abate after their births; just one month after the children's removal, in September 2015, the father was charged with vandalism and, in March 2016, convicted of violating his probation; and he failed drug screenings after the children were removed, and admitted to consistent drug abuse until he was incarcerated in March 2016. In re Aaralyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Based on the father's string of criminal behavior, termination of his parental rights on the ground of wanton disregard for the child's welfare prior to his incarceration was proper because, during the relevant time period between the father learning of the mother's pregnancy and his incarceration, the father committed seven felony auto burglaries and one misdemeanor theft. In re Bentley D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the mother's conduct exhibited a wanton disregard for the children's welfare and termination proper; two of the children tested positive for drugs, another child was born with drugs in her system, the mother relapsed twice after treatment, and she was incarcerated at different times during the pendency of this action. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment through wanton disregard of the child's welfare because the father had been involved in criminal activity and been convicted of some offenses after the child's birth; he had not consistently financially supported the child; and he had not paid child support since April 2015. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Father's conduct evidenced wanton disregard for the well-being of the child and constituted grounds to terminate his parental rights; the father was aware of his duty to visit, yet he had willfully not visited the child in the four month period prior to his incarceration, plus he had been incarcerated within four months of the petition to terminate being filed, and thus he engaged in drug abuse and criminal activities rather than making progress towards reunifying with his child. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

There was clear evidence to support termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard; the mother's criminal record was prolific, particularly troubling was the manufacture of methamphetamine and endangerment charges because the child was in the house where the drugs were being made, and the mother admitted to taking drugs during her pregnancy despite the fact that she had lost custody of her first child by the same action. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Father abandoned the child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for her welfare; the child languished in custody while the father continued in his criminal behavior and continually failed to adequately address his substance abuse issues. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment through wanton disregard for the children's welfare because the mother never attended counseling to address her own history as a domestic violence victim; the mother repeatedly engaged in conduct that resulted in her incarceration and negatively affected the children; and the mother failed to make any monetary payments toward the financial support of the children. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Trial court's determination that petitioners proved abandonment by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child was supported by the mother's multiple arrests and incarcerations and multiple probation violations. In re Johnathan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Trial court correctly concluded that the mother abandoned her children by engaging in conduct that would exhibit a wanton disregard for the children, given that she continued to use drugs after the children's removal, she was incarcerated twice on different charges, and before her incarceration, she did not once visit the children, plus she willfully made no child support payments. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a mother's abandonment of her child by wanton disregard because the evidence showed she (1) was in and out of jail, (2) never provided stable housing or an appropriate environment for the child, (3) did not address being a domestic violence victim, and (4) did not obtain recommended treatment and continued to relapse. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the ground of wanton disregard for the children's welfare because she violated her probation, engaged in criminal behavior, abused drugs, and failed to properly care for the children as none of the children had ever been to a dentist, and they all had serious problems with their teeth; they were behind on their immunizations when they went with the mother to the shelter; and, the eldest, who was seven years old when the children were removed from the mother's care, had never been to school. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper on the ground of wanton disregard for the children's welfare because he was physically abusive to the mother in front of his daughter; at the time of trial, he had charges pending against him for manufacturing between 10 and 70 pounds of a controlled substance while the children were on their trial home visit; and evidence was presented that he was altering his urine drug tests. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment through wanton disregard because she was incarcerated during the entire four months preceding the termination petition; prior to her incarceration, she used drugs without a prescription, and she was arrested and convicted of theft, DUI, and aggravated assault; and she stayed with her boyfriend and agreed to the supervised visitation. In re Khloe B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the child because the mother was incarcerated at various points during the four months before the termination petition was filed; she admitted to using cocaine while pregnant; and she used drugs, violated her probation, and was unable to supervise the child. In re Jayda S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on his exhibiting a wanton disregard for the child's welfare because it was undisputed that he was arrested multiple times in Tennessee after the child's birth and he admitted that he violated the terms of his probation again after being released in 2014. These acts, when coupled with his history of criminal behavior before the child's birth, demonstrated a pattern of conduct that rendered the father unfit to parent the child. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Termination of parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard was appropriate because a father was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed or during all or part of the four months immediately preceding the institution of the action and the father engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, as the father failed to visit or support the children during the periods of non-incarceration and had pending criminal charges. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2020).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the father abandoned the child by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for her welfare because he was incarcerated, and he engaged in parole violations, substance abuse, and assaulted the child's mother. In re Isabella W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Tennessee law requires more to sustain the ground of wanton disregard than just incarceration; if a parent's actions resulting in incarceration always are sufficient to show wanton disregard, the Tennessee General Assembly would just need to say incarceration alone is a ground for termination of parental rights, but it has not done so. The court thus vacated termination based on the ground of wanton disregard. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because she was incarcerated from November 2018 through April 2019, which was during part of the four months preceding the filing of the petition; and she exhibited wanton disregard for the child's welfare as she admitted to drug use while pregnant with the child, and she engaged in criminal behavior while the child was in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, resulting in the violation of her probation and hindering her ability to complete the requirements of her permanency plan. In re Kash F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2020).

18. Prospective Adoptive Parent.

Grandmother lacked standing to petition to terminate the mother's parental rights; the extended family member had to be caring for a related child, but she was not, plus she could not be considered a prospective adoptive parent because to adopt the child, the grandmother would have to terminate the rights to her son and daughter, the mother, and the petition made clear that she had no such intention. In re Ava B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. July 1, 2016).

Because the foster parents had physical custody of the child at the time the petition was filed, the foster parents had standing to file and pursue their adoption petition. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

19. Child Abuse.

Child was severely abused as a result of manufacturing of methamphetamine in the home and testing positive for methamphetamine; because the father was found to have committed severe abuse as defined in T.C.A. § 36-1-102 under a prior court order, this ground for termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Mother tested positive for amphetamine and her child tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine when she was born; termination of the mother's rights on severe child abuse grounds was proper. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Because the mother did not appeal the trial court's earlier order regarding severe child abuse of the older three children, the issue of whether her parental rights could be terminated as to those child on the ground of severe child abuse was res judicata. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

20. Abandonment.

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's rights for abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother to find suitable housing, and she had been living in an acceptable home, had been drug-free for six months, and was employed, and thus the department failed to show that the mother demonstrated lack of concern to such a degree that it appeared unlikely she would be able to provide a suitable home. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because the record clearly and convincingly established that her failure to pay support was willful; the mother was aware of her child support obligation, and she had the ability to pay because she was employed. In re Brantley B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights based on abandonment because, while the father knew the whereabouts of his child, for most of the child's life, the father was content to allow others to care for him, the father had not written, visited, or sent money or gifts for five years and only called once, the child had enjoyed a stable, loving home environment with a foster parent for two years who wanted to adopt him, and it was unclear when, if ever, the father would be in a position to provide a safe and appropriate home for his child. In re Jonathan M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for willful failure to support because the mother's acknowledgment during her deposition that she had between $80 and $100 extra per month was not introduced into evidence and there was no competent evidence in the record showing that the mother had the ability to provide support. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

Trial court failed to make sufficient specific findings to support its termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for willful failure to visit because the trial court made no specific findings of fact regarding the frequency, duration, or quality of the mother's visits. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

21. Persistent Conditions.

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because the record contained no adjudication or any finding the child was dependent and neglected; given the high standard of proof applicable, the court of appeals could not assume that the requirement that there be a finding that the child was dependent, neglected, or abused had been met or that there was clear and convincing evidence that he was found to be dependent or abused. In re Brantley B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Preclusion and Effect of Judgments.

As prior divorce litigation between a mother and father which was resolved by a parenting plan giving the mother visitation rights was a different cause of action than the father and stepmother's petition to terminate the mother's parental rights, res judicata did not bar the termination action. In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Adoption of Adults.

An adult may be adopted. Coker v. Celebrezze, 241 F. Supp. 783, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6358 (E.D. Tenn. 1965).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Compensation to Surrogate Parent.

Consistent with the policies underlying T.C.A. §§ 36-1-108 and 36-1-109, the terms of a surrogacy contract pertaining to compensation will only be enforceable to the extent that they are not contingent upon the surrogate's surrender of the child or the termination of her parental rights, and to the extent that they reflect the reasonable costs of services, expenses, or injuries related to the pregnancy, the birth of the child, or other matters inherent to the surrogacy process. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Compensation to Surrogate Parent.

Consistent with the policies underlying T.C.A. §§ 36-1-108 and 36-1-109, the terms of a surrogacy contract pertaining to compensation will only be enforceable to the extent that they are not contingent upon the surrogate's surrender of the child or the termination of her parental rights, and to the extent that they reflect the reasonable costs of services, expenses, or injuries related to the pregnancy, the birth of the child, or other matters inherent to the surrogacy process. In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Failure to Comply With Statutory Requirements.

A final adoption decree was res judicata, notwithstanding failure to strictly comply with the requirements of this section. Brown v. Raines, 611 S.W.2d 594, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

2. Prior Orders.

Chancery and circuit courts may proceed with an adoption without considering the effects of a prior juvenile court order concerning custody. In re Adoption of Hart, 709 S.W.2d 582, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3000 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Compliance With Statutory Requirements.

Where the biological mother did not contend that the juvenile judge failed to ask the questions required by T.C.A. § 36-1-111(k)(1)(C)(i), and was knowledgeable about and comfortable with her decision at the time of the surrender, the proceedings substantially complied with the requirements contained in this section. In re Hatcher, 16 S.W.3d 792, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Where proceedings substantially complied with the requirements in this section for a valid surrender, biological mother no longer had standing to raise other unfulfilled requirements that undoubtedly lurk in the labyrinthine provisions of the adoption laws. In re Hatcher, 16 S.W.3d 792, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Notwithstanding the fact that the biological parent surrendered all parental rights to the child, the parent had the right to choose the child's adoptive parent, subject to the trial court's later determination that the proposed adoption was in the child's best interests. In re M.J.S., 44 S.W.3d 41, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Dismissal of maternal grandparents'  complaint was appropriate because, although the grandparents were allowed to intervene when a parent surrendered parental rights to the parent's minor child to adoptive parents, the grandparents failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest was served by taking the child away from the adoptive parents. In re R.S.M., 466 S.W.3d 766, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), appeal denied, In re Rebecca M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (Tenn. June 11, 2015).

2. Construction.

Adoption statutes repeatedly utilize the terms, physical custody and legal custody, as two distinct and separate concepts; the statutory sections intimate that the concept of physical custody is synonymous with having physical possession of the child inasmuch as they expressly provide for an order of custody to follow. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Term “legal custody” denotes a distinction from physical possession, which is demonstrated by the fact that the Department of Children's Services often exercises legal custody or guardianship over children who are in the possession of foster parents or relatives. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Guardianship order pursuant to the surrender statute cannot be entered when an adoption court has previously assumed exclusive jurisdiction and any guardianship actions were thereby suspended pursuant to the adoption statute; the court interprets the surrender statute as authorizing the entry of a guardianship order only in the absence of a suspension due to a pending adoption petition, and the surrender statute entitles Tennessee Department of Children's Services to obtain the entry of an order of guardianship only in the absence of any existing suspension of guardianship proceedings pursuant to the adoption statute. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

3. Guardianship Orders.

Chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the child due to the filing of the adoption petition in 2014, and pursuant to the adoption statute, any separate proceedings seeking guardianship of the child should have been suspended pending orders in the adoption proceeding and should not have been heard until final adjudication of the adoption; the chancery court was not authorized to enter the order awarding guardianship of child to the department in the context of the surrender proceeding. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

A final order of adoption is subject to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 that provide that fraud or undue influence are good grounds for vacating an adoption order; however, the physical and emotional welfare of all parties requires assurance of the finality of the adoption order. Therefore, after a final adoption order is entered, a natural parent who consented to the adoption must present clear and convincing evidence in order to set aside the adoption order. In re Bishop, 678 S.W.2d 471, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Adoption statutes repeatedly utilize the terms, physical custody and legal custody, as two distinct and separate concepts; the statutory sections intimate that the concept of physical custody is synonymous with having physical possession of the child inasmuch as they expressly provide for an order of custody to follow. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

This statute applies to surrenders, not to orders of guardianship, and thus the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the order of guardianship based on this statute. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

2. Proceedings After Thirty-Day Period.

Where mother of illegitimate child prior to marriage with father and legitimation of child surrendered and released child to child-placing agency the consent was irrevocable after 30-day period, and petition for writ of habeas corpus by parents after 30-day period was properly denied by chancellor, but petition could be amended at discretion of chancellor so as to pray for adoption of child at which time the chancellor could consider the best interest of the child in determining whether child should be placed with parents or placed with others. State ex rel. “A” v. A Licensed or Chartered Child-Placing Agency, 194 Tenn. 400, 250 S.W.2d 776, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (1952), (decision under prior law).

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements.

Proceedings substantially complied with statutory requirements for a valid surrender. In re Hatcher, 16 S.W.3d 792, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Neither T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(2) nor (g)(6) is blatantly unconstitutional. In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. 2001).

Incarcerated mother's constitutional rights were not violated when the trial court terminated her parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) for prior criminal convictions for actions against the child's sibling, and not for any action, neglect, or abuse directed against the child herself. In re C.A.F., 114 S.W.3d 524, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

A judicial finding of severe child abuse against any child creates an obvious presumption of parental unfitness and the incorporation of this presumption into statutory law is not obviously or blatantly unconstitutional. In re C.A.F., 114 S.W.3d 524, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(1), in every case in which parental rights are terminated, there must be a finding by the court by clear and convincing evidence that the grounds for termination of parental or guardianship rights have been established, and this finding must be contained in a written order entered by the trial court; therefore, as long as the juvenile court has correctly found that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists, the constitutional requirement of a showing of parental unfitness or a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of a child has been satisfied. Once a statutory ground for termination has been established, there is no constitutional requirement that the trial court make an additional finding of substantial harm. In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re A.M.S. v. Ferrell, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1020 (Tenn. 2005).

T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6) is constitutional and does not violate a parent's due process rights because trial court does not have to make a finding of unfitness or a risk of substantial harm after finding at least one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights. In re T.M.G., 283 S.W.3d 318, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 713 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2009).

2. Construction.

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

3. Applicability.

T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was inapplicable because the order that the Tennessee department of children's services alleged was superseded was not an order of guardianship, but rather, a pending custody petition; therefore, it was inapplicable under its own terms. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Owens, 129 S.W.3d 50, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. 2004).

Trial court terminated father's parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113 and not T.C.A. § 36-1-111; father consented to termination of his parental rights, and on appeal did not dispute that he agreed to terminate his parental rights before the trial court at the hearing on the amended petition for termination of parental rights and for adoption by a step-parent. In re Adoption of A.E., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 679 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2008), rev'd, In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2010).

Statute expressly provides that the termination language is not applicable to a legal parent of a child; rather, it is only applicable to a father who is described in the putative father statute. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Juvenile court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground that the father failed to assume legal and physical custody because that ground was inapplicable to putative biological fathers. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Trial court erred by applying an amended version of this section that was not yet in affect when the children's grandparents filed the action to terminate the father's parental rights. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Grounds of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions were inapplicable because the proof showed that the children were removed from the home of the father, who was living with the father's mother at the time. At the time of removal, the mother was incarcerated. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

4. Jurisdiction to Declare Child Abandoned.

The chancery or circuit court has jurisdiction to declare a child an “abandoned child” only in a case in which abandonment has been alleged in support of a petition to adopt. St. Peter's Orphan Asylum Asso. v. Riley, 43 Tenn. App. 683, 311 S.W.2d 336, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

Under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), Tennessee courts could adjudicate child custody issues, including termination of parental rights proceedings, even if one of the parents did not have minimum contacts with Tennessee. Graham v. Copeland (In re Copeland), 43 S.W.3d 483, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, In re Adoption of Copeland, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2001).

5. Jurisdiction for Adoption.

A decree of abandonment by the juvenile court does not deprive the chancery or circuit court of jurisdiction of adoption proceedings. In re Matthews, 204 Tenn. 155, 319 S.W.2d 69, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (1958).

Trial court erred in separating grandparents'  termination and adoption actions and transferring only the termination portion of the proceedings to the juvenile court because once the grandparents filed their adoption and termination petition, the trial court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the matter to the exclusion of all other courts, including the juvenile court. In re Tyler G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

6. Standing.

In a termination of parental rights case, a court properly denied grandparents' motion to intervene where the grandparental relationship did not alone support intervention, and intervention as of right was not appropriate, because there was a party in the underlying suit, the child's father, who could adequately represent the grandparents' interests. Gonzalez v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 136 S.W.3d 613, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 2004).

Jurisdiction to terminate parental or guardianship rights resides concurrently in the chancery, circuit, and juvenile courts under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(a); standing to intervene in a termination proceeding in juvenile court should be analyzed under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24. Gonzalez v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 136 S.W.3d 613, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 2004).

Child's great aunt and uncle did not have standing to file a petition to terminate a father's parental rights because they were not members of any of the groups to standing was granted; extended family members caring for related children were granted standing if they were prospective adoptive parents, and the great aunt and uncle were not. In re M.L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2008), aff'd, 281 S.W.3d 387, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 299 (Tenn. 2009).

Standing existed because original petition was filed jointly by one biological parent and a stepparent seeking termination of the other biological parent's parental rights and seeking adoption of the subject child. In re Jarett M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2015).

As an abuse and neglect proceeding in juvenile court, the rule applied to the guardian ad litem's original appointment, and notwithstanding the adjudicatory hearing order, which relieved all attorneys of further responsibility, the guardian ad litem had standing to petition for termination of parental rights, and the mother's argument effectively precluded the court from considering the standing issue. In re Destiny W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015).

Statute provided only a single circumstance under which a parent could petition to terminate the parental rights of another parent, where the respondent parent had been found to have committed severe child sexual abuse under any prior order of a criminal court; in this case, the father made no claim that the mother had been convicted of such an offense, and thus he lacked standing to petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. In re Ava B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. July 1, 2016).

Grandmother lacked standing to petition to terminate the mother's parental rights; the extended family member had to be caring for a related child, but she was not, plus she could not be considered a prospective adoptive parent because to adopt the child, the grandmother would have to terminate the rights to her son and daughter, the mother, and the petition made clear that she had no such intention. In re Ava B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. July 1, 2016).

Despite having lived with a child, the child's maternal grandparents lacked standing to file a termination petition under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(b)(1), as the grandparents had not filed a petition for termination or for adoption, nor had they filed a petition to intervene in an adoption proceeding. In re C.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights where, with the exception of a stepparent, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(11) unambiguously stated that the rights of both parents had to be terminated before a third party became eligible to adopt the child, the grandmother was not a stepparent under T.C.A. § 36-1-117(f), and under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(b)(1), the father and grandmother lacked standing to file an adoption petition without first terminating the rights of both parents. In re Lyric A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2017).

Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction of a stepmother's termination of parental rights petition because the stepmother sought to adopt the subject child. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

7. Defects in Petition.

Although the petition to terminate a mother's parental rights failed to specifically allege the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, the ground was tried by the mother's implied consent because, inter alia, the father's attorney questioned mother and other witnesses regarding mother's contact with the children, her payment of support, and the time she spent in jail during the four month period of time preceding the filing of the termination petition. In re D.H.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

8. Procedural Matters.

Although a biological parent, who married, had no standing to petition for the termination of the parental rights of the other biological parent, the biological parent who married was a necessary party to the stepparent's petition for adoption. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Any alleged deficiencies in the dependency and neglect proceedings were remedied by the protections afforded the father by the termination proceeding, and in any event, he was not disadvantaged by any alleged deficiencies. In re Aniston M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2016).

Lack of a transcript prevented the appellate court from determining whether sufficient evidence supported the termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment and denied the father proper appellate consideration of his claims. The statement of the evidence included only the most general summary of the testimony of each of the witnesses and fell far short of what was necessary to permit a proper review of the father's claims. In re Ian B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016).

While there were logistical difficulties for counsel in Tennessee to consult with the father, who was incarcerated in Florida, the record did not show any basis upon which to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of the second hearing, particularly because there was a hearing held on a third day and the father filed no motion or sought any relief or specific accommodation between the second and third hearing days; the father was not deprived of his right to due process of law. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Although the court can find no prohibition to conducting hearings on dependency and neglect and termination of parental rights consecutively, the hearings must be distinct, and one method of accomplishing that goal would be to separate the hearings by at least a day or more; furthermore, evidence admitted in a dependency and neglect hearing should not be relied upon for parental termination unless that evidence was also admitted in the hearing on parental termination. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Mother failed to timely object to the admission of the exhibits from the dependency and neglect hearing in the parental termination proceeding; counsel for the mother initially agreed that the exhibits from the dependency and neglect would be admitted in the termination hearing, and when counsel for the department announced its intention to put on no further proof regarding severe abuse but was still proceeding on the ground of severe abuse for terminating rights, counsel should have objected, but failed to do so, and the issue was thus waived. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Nothing in the definition of a dependent and neglected child requires that a ground for termination of parental rights has been established by appropriate proof, and the same is true of the definition of severe abuse; there are no cases in which Tennessee courts have held that a ground for termination or a best interest determination must be made in order to adjudicate a child dependent and neglected or the victim of severe abuse, and dependency and neglect proceeding and termination of parental rights proceeding are separate proceedings. In re Tamera W., 515 S.W.3d 860, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Feb. 8, 2017).

Nothing in either the definition of a dependent and neglected child or severe abuse requires that the trial court determine whether the parent has complied with an applicable permanency plan; whether the parent has made lasting adjustment after reasonable efforts by available social services agencies alone does not prevent the trial court from finding the children dependent and neglected or to be the victims of severe abuse. In re Tamera W., 515 S.W.3d 860, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Feb. 8, 2017).

Mother failed to appear at the hearing and never requested the appointment of counsel, and thus the court did not err in failing to appoint counsel for her. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Return of service provided that the summons and petition were delivered to the mother on March 26, 2016, and the process server was also identified by name and address on the return as required; thus, the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the mother in this termination case through service of process. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Trial court properly found the father to be a putative father of the children because he did not file a paternity petition concerning either of the children and the trial court properly found that he was not a legal parent because he presented no evidence that he executed an unrevoked and sworn acknowledgement of paternity. He was recorded as the father on the children's birth certificates. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Evidence supported the trial court's findings that a guardian was provided with enough information to qualify a father as a putative father because the mother specifically named the father in a previous court proceeding with the guardian present and gave the city and state where he lived; the guardian made no further attempt to diligently inquire into the father's whereabouts so as to provide him with service and include him in the adoption proceeding. In re Gabrielle W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2017), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 737 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2017).

Expedition of the hearing in a termination of parental rights case, not dismissal, was the appropriate remedy when more than six months had passed from the filing of the petition. In re Preston L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Trial court properly exercised its decision to deny a father's motion to stay and/or continue termination proceedings because it determined that even if the father's convictions were eventually overturned, it would take several years to do so, and the children at issue deserved resolution; by the time of the hearing on the termination petition, the father's convictions had been upheld by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

Trial court erred in relying upon the ground of persistence of conditions in terminating a mother's parental rights because, while a magistrate found probable cause to believe the mother's child was dependent and neglected by order which the magistrate entered, the record was devoid of evidence of an order actually finding the child as such until entry of the final order less than six months prior to the termination petition. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Trial court did not err by not compelling the Department of Children's Services (DCS) to join in the foster parents'  petition to terminate parental rights because the record supported the trial court's determination that DCS had a compelling reason not to pursue the petition, as the permanency plans submitted to the trial court adequately documented the parents'  compliance. In re Zayne P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Trial court did not err by terminating parental rights prior to ruling on a petition by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services to adjudicate dependency and neglect. In re J.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2018).

Consideration of whether grounds for the termination of a father's parental rights to his son existed and whether the termination of his rights was in the child's best interest was ripe for adjudication because the son's sexual abuse of his sibling was reported and addressed from that time up until the time of trial; the father was made aware of the son's issues as soon as the Department of Children's Services was notified of them, prior to the petition for termination being filed. In re Dakota M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mother's motion for a continuance of a termination of parental rights proceeding because, although the mother claimed to have been sexually assaulted before the hearing, the court properly followed its statutory obligation to expedite termination proceedings in a manner that was consistent with due process. Furthermore, the court, with the benefit of hearing the mother's testimony and observing the mother's demeanor, found the mother to be coherent and able to participate in the proceeding. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Applicable four-month window includes the four months preceding the day the petition to terminate parental rights is filed but excludes the day the petition is filed; the same holds true for the start date of the parent's incarceration. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Based on the trial court's delay concerning the entry of its order, the father contended that the order should be reversed, but this argument was rejected, as case law held that failure to comply with the statute did not require vacating the judgment, nor did a trial court lose jurisdiction over a case if it failed to enter a timely order. In re Mason C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2018).

It was not an abuse of discretion to deny a mother's request for a continuance of a hearing on termination of the mother's parental rights because (1) the matter was pending for 21 months, (2) a hearing was statutorily required within six months, and (3) the mother's documentation did not support the mother's stated reason for seeking a continuance. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

Adoption statute had no application in this case because although the end goal was adoption of the child, the only remedy sought by the department was the termination of the mother's rights, and the department could be afforded complete relief without the father's participation; his rights were terminated before this trial, he had no interest to protect, and the mother failed to show that the father had to be joined. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Father did not receive sufficient notice of the grounds for termination of his parental rights; despite the fact that the order did not cite abandonment by an incarcerated parent, by applying the time period prior to the father's incarceration, the trial court terminated his rights on this ground, which appellees did not plead, plus the ground was not tried by consent of the parties. In re Justine J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2019).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with termination of parental rights proceedings against a parent, despite the pendency of related criminal charges against the parent, so as to prevent the parent's children from languishing in foster care unnecessarily. In re Deishun M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019).

As the trial court only addressed two of the four grounds for termination raised in the petition, the trial court's judgment was not final and thus the case was remanded for further proceedings. In re A.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2020).

9. Right to Counsel.

Court erred in finding that the parents, in a complex, extended dependency and neglect case, were not indigent and finding their seven children dependent and neglected and that the parents had committed severe child abuse; that finding could have led to termination of parental rights and the parents clearly had a right to appointed counsel if they were indigent. The parents were entitled to a thorough hearing in compliance with T.C.A. § 40-14-202 to determine if they were indigent and thus, entitled to appointed counsel under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13(d)(2)(B). Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. David H., 247 S.W.3d 651, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2006).

Trial court properly denied a father's motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding because counsel gained no information in the prosecution of a criminal case against the father that would give her an advantage and make it unethical to represent the mother; Grounds for termination were established on the face of the father's convictions, and nothing in the record suggested counsel used any information not otherwise available to the public. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

10. Presence at Hearing.

Termination of father's parental rights violated his right to due process as his motion to continue was denied and the trial proceeded in his absence after the father's counselor refused to allow him to participate in the trial by telephone from a detention center as permitted by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(f)(3). In re A'mari B., 358 S.W.3d 204, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011), appeal denied, In re A'Mari B., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1067 (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2011).

In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court did not err in denying the father's motion to continue the trial because the transcript reflected that the proceedings were transmitted via telephone to the father, who was in prison; the court instructed the father to let the court know if for any reason he could not hear; the father participated and was able to respond to questions as they were asked; the father's counsel was present and participated fully in the proceeding; and the father was able to communicate with the court when he was unable to hear so that the witnesses or the attorneys could repeat what they had said, reposition the telephone, and/or speak more loudly. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Mother had notice of the trial and was present before it began, and upon learning she was absent from the courtroom, the trial court granted time to call out and permitted the attorneys to attempt to contact her, but when she failed to appear, the trial court conducted a full hearing, requiring the State to prove each element; as the mother had notice of the hearing, was present before it began, and was represented by counsel, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

11. Evidence.

In a termination of the mother's parental rights case, although the trial court did not make a specific finding that rule of sequestration was violated, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the child's paternal grandmother to testify only with respect to her desire to adopt the child, but did not permit her to testify with respect to any grounds supporting termination, or in regard to anything that was discussed outside of the courtroom between the grandmother and her daughter regarding the care given to the child by the daughter. In re Brayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2015).

In a termination of the mother's parental rights case, the mother's brief did not clearly articulate how the rule of sequestration might have been violated by the court's allowance of the paternal grandmother's testimony, and it did not provide the appropriate references to the record to establish how the testimony violated the rule of sequestration. In re Brayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2015).

Order of adjudication was erroneously introduced through the mother after she denied knowledge of the document; the order was also not self-authenticating because it failed to meet the rule requirements, plus the petition was inadmissible because it contained hearsay, but any error in the admission of the evidence was harmless when the facts in the documents were duplicative and unnecessary to support the grounds of termination or the best interest finding. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Facts supported the finding of severe abuse, and termination of the mother's rights was proper on this ground; the mother had tested positive for marijuana, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates, the child's drug screens were positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, and benzodiazepines, and shortly after he was born, he suffered from an enlarged heart and a flap of skin covering his airway, and he was likely to have lifelong respiratory issues and special needs. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Any objection to admission of the chancery court order raised for the first time on appeal could not be considered in the absence of plain error affecting substantial rights; any appeal from the order would have been time-barred, the mother failed to show that an appeal was pending, and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the order terminating the mother's rights to two of her other children. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Mother's objection based on chain of custody was misplaced; the witnesses identified the drug screen result forms entered into evidence, the mother signed both forms in the presence of each witness, and the witnesses recorded the results shown on the drug test cups, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug screen results in this termination case. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Personal appearance by the father, who was incarcerated out of state, was not feasible, nothing indicated that teleconferencing capabilities were available, and the court and parties made the best use of the available technology, and the father's right to participate in the hearing was not violated. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Identity of the children's father had no bearing on the grounds for terminating the mother's parental rights and was not considered in the trial court's best interest determination; thus, the admission of the DNA test establishing paternity of the children, if error, was harmless. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Documents from a prior juvenile court proceeding were relevant in the mother's termination case in explaining how and why the investigator took the steps she did when contacting the mother, and the documents as offered were not hearsay for that reason. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights to his son based upon his stipulation that the Department of Children's Services could prove that grounds to terminate existed because the father's stipulation that the evidence satisfied the statutory grounds for termination was a nullity; the court of appeals was obliged to consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established that grounds existed to terminate the father's rights. In re Dakota M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

12. Burden of Proof.

In a termination of parental rights proceeding, given the absence of information regarding steps taken to identify the father, an adoption agency did not carry its burden of demonstrating the diligent inquiry required by T.C.A. § 21-1-203(a) in order to use service by publication, as simply asking the birth mother if she knew the name of the father and then giving up was not sufficient; the location of the party, the name of the host of the party, the names of attendees of the party, and the type of vehicle in which the child was conceived were all obvious areas of inquiry. Adoption Place, Inc. v. Doe, 273 S.W.3d 142, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2007), appeal denied, The Adoption Place, Inc. v. Doe, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Feb. 4, 2008).

Termination of father’s parental rights was proper because clear and convincing evidence established that father was mentally incompe- tent and it was the in the children’s best interest. Department of Children's Servs. v. Mims, 285 S.W.3d 435, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2008), appeal denied, In re N.B., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009).

Termination of parents'  rights based on persistence of conditions pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) required the Department of Children's Services to prove that it made reasonable efforts at reunification with respect to the father, as a determination that termination was warranted due to his severe child abuse had been reversed pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102 and 37-1-166(g)(4)(A); however, the record indicated that such efforts were satisfactorily made. In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dakota R., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Mar. 6, 2013).

Father's parental rights were erroneously terminated based on a finding of severe child abuse pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 37-1-102 and 36-1-113(g)(4), as the father was apparently absent from the home when one child was injured, and there was a lack of proof that the children were abused prior to that time; there was conflicting evidence as to the existence of, cause of, and seriousness of, the children's other “marks” on their bodies. In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dakota R., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Mar. 6, 2013).

It was the burden of the Department of Children Services to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of at least one ground for termination. In re R.L.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).

Trial court found two grounds for termination had been established against both parents: the failure to provide a suitable home and the failure to remedy persistence of conditions; the children's services department must establish proof of these grounds against each individual parent, however, given the mother and father's living situation, as well as issues that caused the children's removal, the court disagreed that the mother and father generally had substantially different circumstances as it related to these two grounds. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Record contained clear and convincing evidence that a father was criminally convicted of the intentional and wrongful death of the children's mother and that termination of the father's parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(7) was in his children's best interest. The father had exhibited brutality, and physical, emotional, and psychological abuse toward the children's mother, and the father's incarceration prevented him from providing a home for his children or maintaining any meaningful relationship with them. In re Christopher J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 784 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that a father of two children engaged in conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children. The trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children was also proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Addison E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

There was not enough evidence to determine how a change of caretaker and environment would affect the children, as the only information in the record was that the children had been in the same foster home since being placed in Department of Children's Services'  custody and they were doing well in that placement; because the department bore the burden to show evidence of this factor, this factor weighed against termination. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

13. Findings of Fact.

While summation of the evidence may be necessary and helpful to the trial court in making its findings and conclusions, the court must go beyond mere summation by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re S.S.-G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Trial court stated only that the father had sexually abused the child, which constituted severe abuse, but the trial court's failure to include the specific statutory definitions that it relied upon prevented meaningful review; where the statute provides several possible definitions for a ground, the trial court must specify the exact definition that it relies upon in reaching its ultimate conclusion, and the termination of the father's rights on the ground of severe child abuse was vacated. In re S.S.-G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Although the trial court entered a conclusion of law as to certain termination grounds of abandonment, its order did not contain any findings of fact with respect to these grounds in contravention of the statute. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Trial court failed to make any other findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to the termination ground of substantial noncompliance, plus it appeared the trial court applied an incorrect standard; the appropriate standard is whether there has been substantial noncompliance, and in the absence of appropriate findings on this ground and the application of an incorrect standard, the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's rights on this ground was vacated. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Trial court's final judgment terminating a father's parental rights did not include or incorporate written findings of fact justifying its decision as required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k). The trial court's noncompliance with this rule fatally undermined the validity of the termination order. In re K.J.G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2016).

Trial court complied with the requirements of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k) in terminating the parent's rights where it deliberated and made its own decision, made oral findings that several of the grounds alleged in the petition had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest of the child, and then signed and entered a written order containing more specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Trial court satisfied the statutory requirements by making extensive written findings of fact and conclusions of law that supported the finding of severe abuse. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Trial court's order only provided a conclusory statement regarding the ground of mental incompetence and offered little explanation as to how the lower court arrived at its determination, as it failed to explain or identify the mother's diagnoses, the doctor's qualifications as an expert, the effect of the diagnoses on the child, and whether any amount of training, education, or counseling could bring the mother to a level where she could parent the child. In re B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).

Trial court said that the father “apparently” had a relapse; however, “apparently” was not a finding of a relapse by clear and convincing evidence. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Because a trial court failed to provide a rationale for its decision to terminate parental rights and the final order entered by the trial court was nearly a verbatim recitation of the termination petition, the order of the trial court was vacated,and the case was remanded for the entry of an order that reflected that it was the product of the trial court's individualized decision-making and independent judgment. In re Colton B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support because although the order contained a legal conclusion, the trial court failed to support its conclusion with any factual findings. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Despite the father's consent to trying the statutory ground for termination that he was incarcerated subject to at least a 10-year sentence, the trial court failed to make requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the establishment of that ground because, although the trial court considered the father's criminal sentence of at least 10 years in making its determination regarding the best interest of the child, no express determination was made regarding its basis as a statutory ground for termination of his parental rights; however, because the father was on notice of and consented to trying that ground for termination, the matter was remanded for entry of the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re Haley S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018).

Trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its finding that the father abandoned his child by willfully failing to visit her during the four month period preceding his incarceration. In re Haley S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018).

In a case in which a mother appealed a judgment of the trial court that terminated her parental rights, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k) to support its ruling that the Department of Children's Services had proven the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re K.O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 14, 2018).

Court of appeals was unable to conduct its review due to the lack of specific factual findings in the trial court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his son; the order did not comply with subsection (k) because the trial court did not discuss the grounds in its oral ruling at the conclusion of trial and did not allow the court of appeals to conclude that the order was the result of the trial court's own considered conclusions. In re Dakota M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

Even if the trial court, which denied a petition to terminate parental rights, held the authority to designate the children's stepfather as their permanent guardian, the trial court did not issue the requisite findings in support of its order of guardianship. In re Kira D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2018).

Order terminating the mother's parental rights did not satisfy the trial court's responsibility imposed by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k), as it was largely a verbatim recitation of the allegations in the petition and contained no discussion or elaboration beyond the allegations of the petition. In re Atrivium K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2018).

Differences between the trial court's oral ruling and the subsequent written order were significant and it could not be determined on appeal that the written order represented the trial court's own independent analysis and judgment; remand was required for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with the statute that reflected the trial court's independent deliberations and decision. In re Marneasha D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2018).

Trial court's written order contains a dearth of findings of fact to support its conclusion that the parents had abandoned the children and that termination was in their best interest; as the trial court failed to enter sufficient findings and conclusions, the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. In re Mason C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that a father failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of a child because based upon his course of conduct, he did not have the ability to provide a reliable source of financial support and a stable household for the child; the father was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed, he acknowledged his criminal history and past problems with alcohol, and he had not paid child support in the past. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Trial court made an independent determination that the evidence constituted clear and convincing evidence to satisfy each ground for termination of a father's parental rights and made the required findings of fact and conclusions of law because in its memorandum opinion and order, the trial court detailed the stipulated facts as well as the facts proven by exhibits submitted at trial and the facts proven through testimony. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Trial court failed to comply with subsection (k) because instead of making specific findings of fact to support its legal conclusions, the trial court's order simply made broad, conclusory statements regarding the grounds for termination and the child's best interests; because the trial court failed to comply, the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re M.N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2019).

Trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support its conclusion that guardianship should be placed with the paternal grandparents because it recognized that the maternal grandmother and the child loved each other, but it found that the child was more stable and performed better at school and home during times that the child was not exposed to the grandmother. The trial court also agreed with the recommendation that the child not visit the grandmother due to her maladaptive behaviors and the psychological harm that has occurred to the child during times of visitation. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

Appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that abandonment by wanton disregard was established because it failed to identify specific findings of fact upon which the conclusion was based. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

On remand, the trial court failed to remedy the deficiencies of its original order terminating the parents'  rights because it did not determine the relevant time period for abandonment and failed to make a determination on the willfulness criterion as it was silent regarding the parents'  ability to pay. The trial court also again failed to independently weigh the best interest factors, and rather than engaging in the required independent analysis it simply adopted appellee's filings and conclusions over the parents'  objections. In re Nathan C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2020).

Trial court did not identify specific factual findings and conclusions of law related to each ground for termination separately, but did elucidate factual findings that could apply to one or more of the grounds; despite the order's lack of clarity, taken as a whole, the order provided sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the decision to terminate the father's parental rights respecting two statutory grounds and remand was not required. In re Bentley Q., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

14. Adequate Record Required.

Although the trial court is required to find only one statutory ground for termination of parental rights, given the importance of establishing the permanent placement of a child who is the subject of a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court should include in its final order findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each ground presented, as if the trial court addressed each ground that is raised in a termination proceeding, so the child's permanent placement will not be unnecessarily delayed due to a remand for findings on alternate grounds. In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

Trial court's order of termination of the mother's parental rights to her son was vacated to the extent that it was based upon a finding of abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); it was remanded for preparation of findings of fact and conclusion of law as required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k). Where a trial court does not comply with T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k), the appellate court cannot simply review the record de novo and determine where the preponderance of the evidence is, as it would in other civil, non-jury cases. State v. C.H.K., 154 S.W.3d 586, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.W.P., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 937 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

Provisions of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k) are mandatory, and the failure to comply with the section may necessitate remand to prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, where a termination of parental rights case had been proceeding for seven years, a court proceeded to decide an appeal on the basis of the trial court's oral findings. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

Trial court did not err in refusing to terminate the biological father's parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113 because the trial court's finding that there was no convincing evidence of the father's willful abandonment of the child was presumed correct where the mother and her husband failed to provide an adequate record on appeal as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 24; the trial court had considered affidavits and presumably testimony regarding whether the mother had prevented the father from continuing his relationship with the child by refusing to allow him access to the child. In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re Adoption of M.L.D., — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 779 (Tenn. Sept. 12, 2005).

Remand was necessary in a termination of parental rights case for the juvenile court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law because the juvenile court's order failed to comply with the requirement that the court make specific factual findings, which precluded appellate review of grounds for termination and the best-interests determination. In re Nakayia S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 548 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

15. Timeliness of Final Order.

While a juvenile court did not comply with the statutory requirements in the timeliness of entering its order, there was no specified remedy such as remand required. The juvenile court already had made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to remand would have been pointless. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Even though the trial court failed to strictly comply with this section's 30-day timeline, as the order terminating the father's parental rights was entered approximately seven days after the expiration of the 30-day time period, reversal was not warranted where the father received notice of the ruling within the statutory timeframe and filed his notice of appeal before the entry of the final order. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Trial court's failure to enter its order, which contained detained and specific findings of fact, within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing on the petition to terminate the mother's parental rights was not fatal to the validity of the order. In re Maison W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2016).

Mother was denied relief due to the trial court's failure to enter a timely written order as T.C.A. § 36-1-113(k)' s 30-day time frame was not mandatory. In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

16. Grounds for Terminating Parental Rights, Generally.

It is beyond question that before a parent's rights can be terminated, there must be a showing that the parent is unfit or that substantial harm to the child will result if parental rights are not terminated. Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 2 S.W.3d 180, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. 1999).

The existence of any one of the statutory bases under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) will support a termination of parental rights. In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

There was clear and convincing evidence of wanton disregard, given that the mother was incarcerated within four months prior to the filing of the petition, and bringing the child into the home of a man who had been abusive in the past, in addition to the mother's maintaining a relationship with another person who was abusive and used drugs, showed wanton disregard for the child, as did the mother's failure to seek treatment for her psychological issues; termination of the mother's rights was affirmed. In re Shaneeque M., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2015).

Juvenile court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because no permanency plan was admitted into evidence upon which the court could find that the father failed to substantially comply, the father's standing as a putative biological father precluded the application of the statutory ground of failure to legitimate one of his children, and the juvenile court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction where the father was properly served with the termination petition, he and the children were domiciled in Tennessee, he made a voluntary general appearance in order to defend the suit on the merits, and he claimed at all times to be the children's biological father. In re Cloey R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2015).

Neither the trial court nor the court is permitted to proceed to termination absent clear and convincing proof of every necessary element of a ground for termination. In re R.L.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).

Because the mother did not present an argument that the juvenile court erred in finding statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights, any such issue was waived. In re Destiny W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015).

Record contained clear and convincing proof to support the trial court's findings regarding the mother's substantial noncompliance with her plan; she failed to comply substantially with the requirements, in part, that she submit to random drug screens, take her medication as prescribed by treating professionals, and continue with mental health services. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights under any of the grounds contained in this section because, based on the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in the Bernard case, the grounds contained in this section not apply where the defendant parent was a putative biological father, as the father was in the instant case. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Certain grounds for termination apply to any person who is not the legal parent of such child or who is described in the statute, as in this case; when the petition to terminate his rights was filed, father was not the child's legal parent, as he filed a petition to establish paternity after the child was the subject of an adoptive proceeding, and he had not established paternity at that time and he filed an intent to claim paternity a few weeks before the child's birth. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Father failed to manifest an ability to assume legal and physical custody of the child; he continued to be reliant on his mother and stepfather for housing and transportation, his employment could not be verified, and he had significant demands on his income due to child support, probation fees, and restitution fees. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Petitioners had a significant bond with the child, who knew no other family besides them, and father did not have a relationship with the child, and thus petitioners proved that removing the child from their custody and placing her with father would cause her substantial physical and psychological harm. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Children were placed with the maternal grandparents as an alternative to custody with the department when it was determined that neither parent could adequately care for the children, and they were then removed from the maternal grandparents and placed into department custody when the grandparents indicated that they could no longer provide adequate care; thus, the facts of this case supported the court's consideration of the abuse neglect statutory ground of termination. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Termination grounds under the statute pertaining to persons not the legal parent or guardian of the child cannot be applied to legal parents; because there was no dispute that the mother in this case was the biological mother of the child, she was a legal parent for purposes of termination of her parental rights and this termination ground could not apply to her. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

State proved the grounds of wanton disregard against father, given that he had 19 judgments resulting from felonies, to which he pleaded guilty, he was incarcerated when the children were removed from the home, he violated his probation, and he continued to be charged with other crimes. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Juvenile court made detailed findings to support termination of the father's parental rights on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and persistent conditions, finding that the father failed to maintain sobriety, failed to submit to drug screens, failed to address anger management issues, and failed to establish a suitable home for the children. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 998 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

It was no error to rely on T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6) to terminate a father's parental rights when the ground was not specifically pled because the father had adequate notice of this ground. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

Record was indicative of the father's patterns of criminal behavior, drug abuse, incarceration, and refusal to financially support the child, which amounted to a wanton disregard for the child's welfare, and this ground for termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Father abandoned the child by failure to provide a suitable home pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102, as he failed to take reasonable steps to make lasting changes in his lifestyle or conduct that would allow him to provide the child with a suitable home; the father was currently incarcerated and when he was released, he had to address legal issues in another state regarding his parole violation there, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on wanton disregard because despite knowing that the child's mother was pregnant and the child might be his, the father incurred a number of drug charges and a federal gun possession charge, the result being that he was incarcerated and unable to provide for the child's welfare, and he also violated probation for a previous charge. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on his failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal custody of the child because the trial court found that the father took no action once he suspected or knew the child was his. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on the failure to establish paternity of the child because the trial court found that the father took no action once he suspected or knew the child was his. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on risk of substantial harm to the child's physical or psychological welfare because the father was not in a position to assume physical custody due to his incarceration, he knew nothing of the child's heightened physical and psychological needs secondary to his in utero drug exposure. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights on the ground of prior conviction of sever child abuse with a sentence of greater than two years was supported by evidence of the mother's prior conviction for aggravated child neglect, resulting in a sentence of 15 years in prison. In re Jayden R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2017).

Evidence that the mother had been convicted of aggravated neglect, which by definition adversely impacted the welfare of the children, was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of wanton disregard. In re Jayden R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2017).

In order to provide a suitable home for the children, the father needed to provide more than a physically sound structure, he needed to ensure that he could protect the children in the home from sexual abuse; he failed to complete recommendations and thus failed to address this issue, and therefore the termination ground of failure to provide a suitable home, for purposes of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii), 36-1-113(g)(1), was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Only one statutory ground is required to support the termination of parental rights. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Circuit court properly terminated a mother's parental rights based on abandonment, failure to provide a suitable home, and in the child's best interests because she left the child at a homeless shelter with no appropriate supervision, cycled through periods of homelessness and incarceration, demonstrated a lack of concern for the child, failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities set out in the permanency plan, the child was neglected while in the mother's care, the mother never obtained a safe, stable home to which the child could return, a change of caretakers and physical environment would likely be detrimental for the child, and the child was thriving in her foster parents'  home. In re Amarria L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2018).

Termination ground under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) could not serve as a basis for terminating the parents'  rights, as they wanted to assume legal and physical custody of the children and were willing to assume financial responsibility for them; the court declined to adopt the department's suggestion that the word “and” in the statute be interpreted in the disjunctive so the department only had to prove an inability or unwillingness of the parents to assume custody of the children. In re Ayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) requires the party seeking termination to prove a negative: that the parent failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child. In re Ayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

First prong of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) requires that a petitioner prove that a parent has failed to meet the requirement of manifesting both a willingness and an ability to assume legal and physical custody of the child or has failed to meet the requirement of manifesting both a willingness and an ability to assume financial responsibility of the child. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on his inability and unwillingness to personally assume legal and physical custody of the child and financial responsibility for the child because he had incurred several criminal charges, had not maintained safe and stable housing, and had not visited with the child as he should have; he had failed to pay child support for the child since April 2015 and had no legal, verifiable income by which to support the child; placing the child in the father's legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child's physical and psychological welfare; and the child had been placed with the foster parents for four years and had developed a bond with them. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for failure to manifest an ability to assume custody or financial responsibility was proper; the mother continued to associate with abusive men, did not complete the domestic violence class, and struggled to maintain a stable home or job, plus she failed to fully address her drug addiction, mental illness, and domestic violence issues through therapy, all of which created a substantial hazard to the children's welfare. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or responsibility for the child was proper; the stability of the mother's home was relevant to the substantial harm analysis inasmuch as it demonstrated whether the child would be at risk of substantial harm if placed in that environment. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or responsibility for the child was proper; the child has remained out of the mother's custody since 2015, the mother had failed to provide a stable home to which the child could return, plus she had not maintained stable employment or addressed her mental health issues. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Father's ability to assume legal and physical custody of the child was extremely questionable, and termination of the father's rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) was proper; the father's drug habits, homeless situation, and incarceration made it near impossible for the child to be raised without a risk of substantial harm. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper under the failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody ground; despite the array of resources offered to her, the mother had been unable to personally assume custody of the children, and she exhibited a complete unwillingness to parent them, as she was suicidal and using methamphetamine on a daily basis. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Father failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child and her placement in the home would pose a risk of substantial harm to her welfare; his criminal behavior continued, he failed to address his substance abuse issues, and his home was also not yet suitable for the child as evidenced by the lack of sufficient utilities at the time of the hearing. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children was supported by evidence that the mother had no place to live or legal means to support herself or her children and was reliant on other for support. In re Karisah N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on the failure to manifest ability or willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the children was supported by evidence that the mother failed to show she was able to provide sufficient housing and indictees a lack of willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility due to her inaction and non-compliance with substance abuse treatment. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was appropriate due to his failure to show an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children; the father did not complete his responsibilities under the permanency plans, he did not manifest an ability and willingness to assume financial responsibility of the children, and he failed to establish safe and stable housing. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

Terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody was inappropriate because the mother had made positive changes and, while a relapse was possible, the Department of Children's Services failed to prove it was a reasonable probability. In re Serenity W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody because Tennessee was the child's home state on the date of the commencement of the juvenile court action; the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the father's parental rights because when the foster parents filed their termination petition, Tennessee remained the home state and exercised continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

termination ground of failure to establish a suitable home was proven by clear and convincing evidence, given that despite the department's reasonable efforts to assist the mother, she never made even minimal efforts to improve her home or personal condition, despite being advised of the threat to her parental rights should she not act. In re Charlie-Lynn P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by failure to visit, failure to substantially comply with permanency plans, and persistence of the conditions leading to removal of the children from the mother's home because her one or two visits with each of the children were of such an infrequent nature as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the children; she failed to pursue training in parenting her son due to his special needs; she presented no evidence of having obtained stable housing, income, or transportation; and she was unable to show that she could provide a home absent of the environmental neglect that initially caused the children to be removed from her custody. In re Serenity S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

17. Persistent Conditions.

Conditions that led to the removal of the child persisted, as the father remained unable to provide a suitable and stable home for the child and continued to engage in a pattern of wanton disregard. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for persistence of conditions where the children were not removed from his home. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's and a father's parental rights on grounds of persistence of conditions because the children were previously found to be dependent and neglected, the lack of proper hygiene in the parents'  home continued and the problems ran the proverbial gamut from spoiled food to insect infestation, and the parents had not gained sufficient parenting skills during the course of the proceedings nor learned to co-parent. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's rights for persistence of conditions where the child had been removed for lack of supervision and drug exposure and the mother continued to use drugs. She also made very few visits and eventually ceased visiting. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for persistence of the conditions leading to removal of the mother's child from the mother's custody because (1) the child was removed due to the mother's homelessness and drug addiction, and (2) the mother was still without a stable residence and had not received treatment for drug addiction. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the parent continued to struggle with drugs following the children's removal, and although the parent was participating in a rehabilitation program, the parent had not completed the program. Moreover, the parent had not maintained a suitable home for the children to live in as of the date of trial, and the evidence convincingly suggested that there was little likelihood that the parent would be able to provide one at an early date. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Mother's lack of progress in addressing her deficiencies showed that the conditions persisted, plus the mother offered no evidence that she had any means of support, and thus the preponderance of the evidence supported the holding that the conditions not only persisted but would not be remedied. In re Eve C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights to seven children on grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions because the father failed to allege that he substantially completed the permanency plan requirements or resolved the conditions that led to the children's removal; the father did not, inter alia, abide by the terms of his probation, refrain from incurring new legal charges, and remain drug free. In re Kalob S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Trial court found that the children had been removed from the parents' home for at least six months, the conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted and would prevent their safe return, given the fact that the mother did not fully complete alcohol treatment and the father had yet to address his anger issues, there was little likelihood they could remedy their issues in the near future, and the children deserved the opportunity to integrate into a safe and stable home; the trial court did not err in concluding that termination of parental rights was justified on the ground of persistence of conditions. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's and father's parental rights to two children on grounds of persistence of conditions because neither parent demonstrated the ability to parent the children for extremely short periods of time without continual prompting, placing the children with either parent would cause the children to be subjected to further neglect, and it was unlikely the parents would ever retain the information necessary to properly parent any child. In re Aisha R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions, was supported by the mother's long history of chronic emotional and behavioral instability, coupled with drug used and its related issues.In re M.P.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Evidence that the child was removed from the parents'  custody as a result of his mother leaving the rehabilitation program she was assigned to and the father, by his own testimony, being in circumstances which rendered him unable to care for the child, and that the father suffered from alcoholism and mental illness that he refused to treat, was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights due to the persistence of conditions. In re Steven C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 743 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 2015).

Persistence of conditions could not be considered as a potential ground for termination of the parents'  rights to their daughter because the February 2012 order naming her great-aunt and uncle as her primary residential parents did not adjudicate the daughter dependent or neglected. In re Makenzie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

Statutory ground of persistence of conditions was not applicable to the father because the record contained no court order removing the child from the father's home; when the trial court entered the emergency protective order placing the child in the temporary custody of the maternal aunt and her husband, the child had not been residing in the father's home. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Statutory termination ground of persistence of conditions was not applicable to the father as the record contained no court order removing the children from the father's home, and the finding on this ground was reversed. In re Destaney D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions where the mother was mentally incompetent to care for her children she was unable to ameliorate her current intellectual deficiencies to the point where it was safe for her to resume care of the children, and expert testimony established that despite her best efforts, she simply did not have the abstract capacity to develop into an adequate caretaker for her children. In re Domingo W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2015).

Child was removed by court order from the father's home as well as the mother's home and the department established the threshold consideration for the persistence of conditions statutory ground; prior to the child's physical removal from the mother's home, the child had been residing during alternating weeks with the father, and the child was removed from his home based on the father's failure to provide a stable home. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Child was removed from the father's home because he admittedly could not provide a stable home, had been using marijuana in the recent past, and refused a drug screen; continuation of the parent-child relationship would greatly diminish the child's chances of integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home, and the trial court properly terminated the father's parental rights on the persistence of conditions ground. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Mother failed to acknowledge responsibility for the situation giving rise to the child's removal from her care, and continuation of the parent-child relationship between the mother and the child would greatly diminish the child's chances of integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home, such that termination of the mother's rights on the persistence of conditions ground was proper. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for persistence of conditions because, (1) while the mother had six years to improve the mother's living conditions, the mother had not done so, as the mother was living temporarily with a person the mother met while incarcerated, awaiting repairs at two other locations, (2) the mother had no driver's license or job, (3) it appeared unlikely the mother would be able to provide suitable living conditions for the children in the near future, and (4) continuing the parent-child relationship would harm the children's chances of integrating into a stable home. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Mother had developed a pattern of drug and alcohol abuse, violent and threatening behavior, and criminal activity that had not been remedied sufficient enough to allow the children to return to the home at an early date, and the trial court's decision finding clear evidence to support the termination ground of persistent conditions was affirmed. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to support a finding that the conditions which led to the children's removal persisted because, inter alia, the mother denied the dangers her children faced and was unable to grasp the gravity of the abuse one child faced, the mother did not have a plan on how she could prevent the abuse in the future, and the children were placed in a relative foster home that wished to adopt the children. In re Nolan G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015).

Ground of persistent conditions was met by clear and convincing evidence where it showed that the child had been removed from the father's custody for incarceration and drug use and placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services for more than six months, the court was unable to discern if any improvements the father had made with his drug use would continue upon his release from prison, and he was likely to remain incarcerated until 2017. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

If the order outlining the conditions that led to the removal of the child is pending appeal, that order is not res judicata, and until that order has reached its final completion, the prior order cannot form the basis alone for termination on any ground that contemplates reliance on a previous finding or order; because the current posture of the father's appeal from the order on dependency and neglect, where the juvenile court found the child was a victim of sexual abuse, could be determined, the trial court erred in terminating his rights on the ground of persistence of conditions. In re S.S.-G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Persistence of conditions ground for termination of parental rights did not apply to the father because the permanent parenting plan was not an “order of the court” by which the child had been removed from the father's home. In re Hope A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Evidence supported the findings as to persistence of the conditions; the mother had not remedied conditions to the point that she could care for the child or would be able to care for the child in the foreseeable future, the mother's continuing struggle with substance abuse was closely linked to the actions that led to her incarceration and inability to care for the child, and the mother's progress was too tenuous to constitute a change in conditions. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Evidence supported the findings as to persistence of the conditions; the conditions leading to removal of the child into protective custody persisted, the father was incarcerated, and continuation of the parent-child relationship would greatly diminish the child's chances of integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Mother remained in a relationship plagued by domestic violence, she was in need of drug and mental health treatment, and she did not have suitable home; continuing the parent-child relationship greatly diminished the children's chances of early integration into a stable and permanent home, and termination on persistent conditions grounds was affirmed. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Record contained clear and convincing proof to support the trial court's findings of persistent conditions; the mother's behavioral problems stemming from her histrionic personality disorder were among the conditions that resulted in the child's removal, and the mother's behavioral problems had not improved and were unlikely to improve sufficiently in the near future to make it safe for the child to return to her care. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate, on the ground of persistent conditions, because clear and convincing evidence showed that the parent, despite improving the parent's education and obtaining employment, did not remedy the situation such as to correct the conditions that led to removal of the parent's children. The parent never comprehensively completed treatment for the parent's own mental health issues and acknowledged that the children were not ready to reside with the parent. In re Phillip I.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for persistent conditions where it showed that she refused to take responsibility for her own actions and she continued to use marijuana. In re A'leah M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

Trial court's finding of persistent conditions was affirmed where the father had continued to use drugs, although the mother had attempted to make some changes, she was still in constant contact with the father and her parents, with whom she purported to live, abused prescription medication. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Termination of a parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the parent had not remedied the persistent conditions of criminal activity and drug use which led to the child's removal in a sufficient manner to allow the child to return to the parent at an early date. Moreover, continuing the relationship between the parent and the child greatly diminished the child's chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re Tristan B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

Record did not contain evidence that the conditions that led to the child's removal persisted and thus, termination based on persistent conditions was erroneous. In re Jimmy B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016).

Juvenile court erred in finding the ground of persistent conditions, when the children had not been removed from the father's home for six months or more, and there was no basis for the court to look at the aggregate time over the four years of the case. In re Kaitlin W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2016).

Evidence does not preponderate against the finding that persistent conditions were established, that continuation of the parent-child relationship would greatly diminish the children's integration into a safe home, and this ground existed for termination of the father's rights; he did not claim to be able to care for the children. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Mother was commended for her success in addressing her substance abuse issues, but the fact remained that she was unable to provide stable housing or meet the children's basic needs and could not provide the trial court with a definitive answer as to when she might be able to support them; the department was in the process of securing the children's placement in a potential adoptive home, and the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that persistent conditions were established. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistent conditions was supported by evidence that the mother failed a drug screen, returned the company of know drug users, and lived with her brother who had a criminal record. In re Maison W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2016).

Trial court did not err in concluding that termination of parental rights was justified on the ground of persistence of conditions because each of the elements were established by clear and convincing evidence; the conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted and would prevent their safe return to the mother, and there was little likelihood that the mother could remedy her substance abuse and mental health issues. In re Malaya B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 10, 2016).

Ground of persistence of conditions was proved by clear and convincing evidence, as the mother had developed a pattern of drug abuse that had not been sufficiently remedied to allow the children to return to the home at an early date; the mother showed that it was uncertain if she would ever be able to stop abusing cocaine, and she had not made a lasting adjustment or change to her lifestyle involving drug abuse. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination of parental rights, based upon the alleged persistence of conditions that led to removal, was inapplicable to a parent at the time of the hearing to terminate parental rights when a final order had not yet been entered. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights to her children under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) where, after receiving three years of assistance from the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, she was unable to care for herself and the six children at the same time, and the children had adjusted to their placements and had bonded with their respective families. In re Christian P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2016).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the conditions that led to the child's removal persisted because the mother continued to use drugs while in treatment programs. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Termination of parental rights based on persistence of conditions, which prevented the safe return of the children to the parent in the near future, was appropriate because the children would have been subjected to further abuse or neglect. The parent had unreliable and insufficient income, could not live in the parent's own home, was relying on the generosity of friends and family to pay bills, had only attended one therapy session to address the parent's mental health issues, and was still taking narcotic pain medication. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

For persistent conditions purposes, the focus is not solely on the conditions which led to the removal of the children but includes the consideration of whether other conditions exist which would prevent the children's return, and the evidence in this case met that criteria; the trial court made findings regarding the mother's living situation, drug abuse treatment, employment, and efforts to receive counseling, and the findings were supported and established that the conditions that led to the children's removal persisted, along with other conditions preventing their safe return. In re Quadavon H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2016).

There was insufficient evidence to establish the statutory ground of persistence of conditions given the absence of a prior order removing the children from the parents'  home based on a judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Termination of the parents' rights under the persistence of conditions ground was proper, given that they stipulated to a finding of dependency and neglect based on environmental neglect, and they made no reasonable efforts to provide a clean home for the children, which demonstrated a lack of concern on the parents' part. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistent conditions was proper because the mother's lack of a suitable home and lack of a legal means of income existed, which would in all reasonable probability cause the child to be subjected to further abuse or neglect, as the mother's current housing situation was dependent upon her boyfriend and her boyfriend's parents, whom she had known for a very short period of time; and the mother had not had a job for months and had no legal means of income. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a persistence of conditions, authorizing a termination of a father's parental rights, because the father (1) did not address anger control issues, (2) minimized the father's participation in the child's abuse, (3) did not consistently visit the child, and (4) did not consistently participate in required treatment. In re Daymien T., 506 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2016).

Clear evidence did not support the trial court's reliance on persistent conditions as a ground for terminating the mother's parental rights; the mother's efforts to stop using pain medication were severely disrupted by her arm injury and the three surgeries that followed; while there was little evidence of the mother's efforts to overcome her addiction to pain medication, given the peculiar circumstances of this case, the record did not contain sufficient evidence that it still persisted at the time of the termination hearing. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

While the mother's failure to complete plan requirements was sufficient to support termination for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, it did not relieve the department of its burden to prove that the condition still persisted by clear and convincing evidence. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

Grandmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence persistence of conditions where the record lacked a prior order removing the son from the mother's home or custody based on a judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse. In re Ryder R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016).

Trial court erred by terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because the children were not removed from the mother's home and there was not an order adjudicating dependency and neglect. In re Rylee R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Where the child was adjudicated as dependent and neglected and placed with the grandmother as an alternative to Department of Children's Services (DCS) custody when it was determined that the mother could not adequately care for the child, and the child was then removed from the grandmother and placed into DCS custody based upon the grandmother's inability to provide a suitable home, the facts of the case supported the court's consideration of the statutory ground for termination regarding the persistence of conditions which led to removal. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the grounds of the persistence of conditions which led to removal because the mother was still unable to parent and provide a suitable home for the child; despite adequate time in which to address the conditions, the mother failed to progress or estimate when she might be able to provide suitable care; and the child resided in a pre-adoptive home and was bonded to her foster family. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Evidence did not support a finding of persistent conditions, as there was no countervailing evidence in the record to dispute the mother's testimony that she has not had contact with a former abusive boyfriend in a few years, and the mother was living in a two-bedroom apartment with two of her children and was currently employed, earning sufficient income to maintain her housing and to provide daycare for the two other children. In re Jaiden C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2016).

Trial court did not err by terminating the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions under § 36-1-113(g)(3) where the evidence showed that mother's mental condition had not improved at the time of trial such that she was capable of safely caring for her child and that it was unlikely to improve in the near future so as to allow the child to return to the mother's custody. In re Lillian D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on persistent conditions was supported by evidence he failed to provide a suitable home for the child, paid little support, and violated probation and returned to jail. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of the mother and the father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, the ground of termination of parental rights due to persistence of conditions was not shown by clear and convincing evidence. In re Savannah F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016).

Although the record shows that the children were removed from Mother's home for a period of more than six months on the basis of a court order, the other elements of persistence of conditions were not established by clear and convincing evidence, as, even in spite of the mother's admission that her mental health issues generally persisted and that she would never be through with therapy, the record did not clearly show the impact that the mother's mental health has on her ability to parent. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Statutory ground for termination of parental rights due to persistence of conditions was not applicable to the father because the record contained no court order removing the child from the father's home on grounds of dependency and neglect or otherwise, and the father was incarcerated at the time of the child's removal. In re Mickia J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2016).

Termination was proper for both the mother and father due to their failure to remedy persistent conditions, in part because the children had numerous medical and emotional issues that the parents did not tend to, the parents failed to provide a suitable home for the children, even though the department had made reasonable efforts to help the parties remedy those conditions, the mother was in a master-slave sexual relationship with another man, in addition to being married to someone else and living with the father, and the children were exposed to this lifestyle and the mother's business in the marketing of sex toys. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Evidence established the elements necessary to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions; the mother had failed to secure adequate employment, obtain dependable transportation, and be involved in the children's activities, the conditions would likely lead to further abuse and neglect of the children, plus the matter has been in litigation since 2013 and the court could not foresee any reasonable probability that the conditions would be remedied at an early date. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services met its burden of proving persistence of conditions because the conditions that prevented the children's return to the mother and father remained at the time of the hearing and would cause the children to be subjected to further abuse or neglect, and there was little likelihood the mother and father would remedy them; the children's foster family met all of the children's medical needs and ensured the children's success in school. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights on the grounds of persistent conditions was proper; the testimony was independent evidence that the conditions that led to the findings in the order finding severe abuse of one of the children had not changed and were unlikely to change, and thus the trial court was permitted to draw a negative inference about these facts from the mother's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and her refusal to testify made it impossible to determine that the child would be provided with a safe home, which the mother had to prove in this instance. In re Alfonzo E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2017).

Evidence did not support a finding that a father's parental rights were to be terminated based on persistence of conditions because, although the mother's abuse of drugs was a concern, the evidence did not conclusively show that the parents were still in a relationship as the father was attempting to share parenting responsibilities with the mother. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Persistent conditions are established if evidence shows the existence of conditions that led to the children's removal or other conditions that in all reasonable probability would lead to further abuse or neglect; the proof was clear that at the time of trial, the mother did not have stable housing or employment, she was financially unstable and had failed to provide ongoing support for the children, and she had been sporadic in maintaining contact with the children, plus she was in violation of her probation and at risk of continued incarceration. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Father was currently incarcerated and was not in a position to parent the children, no reliable evidence was introduced showing when he would be released, and thus the ground of persistent conditions was proven. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Evidence preponderated against the trial court's finding that termination was appropriate due to persistent conditions where a dependency and neglect order only removed the child from the mother's custody, not the father's custody. In re M.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016), appeal denied, In re Miguel T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Mar. 3, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on persistent conditions was improper, as there was no evidence of an appropriate order removing the child from the home based on a finding of dependency and neglect. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights on persistent conditions grounds was proper; nothing had substantially changed within a two-year time frame to allow for the children's safe return to the home, from which they had been removed based on neglect, the mother had relapsed into drugs, and she was still incarcerated for failing to support the children. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was appropriate because the mother's children were removed from the mother's care for over six months, and the evidence showed that a return of the children to the mother's care was inhibited by the father's continued presence. The father, who was not married to the mother, was given towards anger and domestic violence. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to a persistence of conditions because the mother did not take advantage of offered assistance to address conditions leading to removal of the mother's children, and the mother's circumstances were unlikely to change with additional time. In re Casey C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 966 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights based on persistence of conditions, was supported by evidence that she returned to the father's home despite the history of domestic violence, the mother's drug use and mental health issues remained a problem, and the mother lacked stable housing In re Linette B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016).

Ground of persistent conditions did not apply to the father, because the child who was the subject of the termination of parental rights action never lived with the father or was in the custody of the father. In re Heaven J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 979 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated due to persistence of conditions, as, despite initial progress toward establishing a safe and secure home, the parents had repeatedly shown they were unable to maintain a safe, stable, and appropriate environment for the children, with their being environmental neglect issues, lack of supervision issues, and inappropriate persons living in the family home with unrestricted access to the children. In re Renaldo M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1003 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2017).

Conditions that led to removal had not been remedied, namely the mother's failure to address her substance abuse issues, and despite services, she failed to progress; the trial court's termination decision based upon the persistence of conditions was proper. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children because the evidence clearly and convincingly established persistence of conditions as to the mother; the mother tested positive for medications not prescribed to her and showed up for visitation with track marks on her arms, she refused to attend drug and alcohol treatment, and she also incurred new legal charges. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Evidence preponderated against the trial court's finding that the ground of persistence of conditions existed to terminate the mother's parental rights because the children were living with their grandparents and not their mother at the time they were removed. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for persistence of conditions because neither parent had sufficiently addressed their substance abuse issues, both failed drug screens, and previously the children had spent almost two years in foster care because of the parents'  drug use. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Record contained only a temporary order from the juvenile court, and there was no indication that an adjudicatory hearing actually occurred; as temporary orders were not sufficient to support termination of parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions, this ground for termination of the mother's parental rights was reversed. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a father's parental rights because the conditions that led to removal of the father's child persisted, specifically, the father's insistence on remaining in the home with the mother despite the mother's untreated drug addiction and unaddressed mental health issues. The father's complacency in this regard indicated too high a risk that the child would be further exposed to neglect and abuse if placed in a household in which these issues persisted. In re Ja'miya T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).

In a termination of parental rights case, the juvenile court erred in finding the ground of persistent conditions because there was an outstanding appeal to circuit court of the juvenile court's dependency and neglect order; thus, the order was not res judicata. In re Lorenda B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017).

Statutory ground for termination of parental rights based on persistence of conditions was not applicable to the father under the facts presented, as the record contained no court order removing the child from the father's home (on grounds of dependency and neglect or otherwise), and there was no evidence to suggest that the child was residing in the father's home at the time of his removal. In re Damien G. M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on substantial non-compliance with permanency plans because it showed that he failed to follow the recommendations from the assessments, failed to establish a suitable home, and was incarcerated at the time of trial. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because of the father's incarceration and ongoing concerns regarding his ability to find a suitable home for the child and to refrain from engaging in further criminal activity or drug use. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate the father's parental rights based on persistent conditions under T.C.A. § 36-1-113; while the record was unclear regarding when the father's current incarceration would end, upon release he would have to return to Kentucky to resolve legal issues there, the child has been in foster care since 2013, the child was doing well in that foster home, and lingering in state custody any longer would be detrimental to the child. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of parental rights based on persistence of conditions was improper, as six months had not elapsed from the date of the adjudicatory hearing order and filing the termination petition. In re Lena G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under the persistence of conditions ground because the mother had not secured a safe and stable home for the children by the time of the trial; she was unsuccessful in completely removing drugs from her life; although the mother completed an alcohol and drug assessment and submitted to random drug screens, she admitted to using methamphetamine four to six months prior to trial; she continued to surround herself with other drug users; she failed to obtain sponsorship through Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous; and the foster mother testified that she and her husband would like to adopt the children if they became available for adoption. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of both parents rights for persistence of conditions was proper, as the mother obtained new criminal charges multiple times after the development of the plan and the father failed to complete an alcohol and drug assessment. In re C.J.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, In re Chaz B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2017).

Termination based on persistent conditions under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) was proper; the mother's improvements in the months preceding the hearing were too little too late in light of her long history of unstable housing, drug use, and incarcerations, and continuation of the mother's relationship with the children greatly diminished their chances of early integration into a safe and permanent home. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the ground that persistent conditions could subject the child to further neglect or abuse because the child would not be able to safely return to the mother's custody within a reasonable time since the mother was a drug addict; the child was in the care of a foster family that wished to adopt, and to delay the integration into a permanent home would be unfair to the child, who needed stability. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights on the ground of persistent conditions was supported by evidence that the conditions that led to removal still existed and had never been remedied In re Jayden R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2017).

Statutory ground of persistence of conditions under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) was not applicable to the father as there was no evidence to suggest that the children were residing in his home at the time of their removal. In re Miracle M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2017).

Mother's and father's parental rights were properly terminated under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) where clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother was still addicted to drugs, had not properly addressed her mental health issues, and had not established stable housing or employment, there was proof that the father was unable to acquire stable housing and employment, there was evidence suggesting that the father was unable to separate himself from the mother so as to provide the children with a stable and drug-free home, and given the pattern of behavior by and between the parents, there was little likelihood that the conditions that led to the children's removal would be remedied at an early date. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistent conditions because the mother continued to have criminal problems, and she was arrested on charges of theft and criminal trespass; the mother did not have stable housing at the time of trial, and she conceded that she was not ready to have the children return to her care. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services presented clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that necessitated removal of the children because housing instability, lack of cooperation with the Department, and outstanding criminal issues, prevented the safe return of the children. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that a mother's substance abuse problems persisted at the time of trial because the inference that the mother's failure to comply with drug screens and attend follow-up alcohol and drug treatment strongly suggested ongoing drug issues did not constitute clear and convincing evidence to support the persistence of conditions ground. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights based on persistent conditions was appropriate where his failure to provide an appropriate home for the children led to their removal, he had subsequently failed to secure housing that would have been safe and appropriate for the children, he failed to maintain contact with the Department of Children's Services (DCS), had been uncooperative with DCS throughout the case, failed to take responsibility for his actions leading to the removal of the children, and refused to acknowledge the harm that he had caused the children. In re L.M.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was inappropriate because the trial court's analysis improperly focused on the father's efforts rather than whether the conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted. The evidence was less than clear and convincing that the conditions which led to the children's removal or other conditions that in all reasonable probability would have caused the children to be subjected to further abuse or neglect still persisted. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Father was unable to grasp the importance that he had to protect the children from sexual abuse and he never addressed his mental health issues or received the specialized training he needed to parent the children, and thus the conditions that led to the children's removal still existed; as the father did not appear able or willing to rectify those conditions in the near future, the ground of persistent conditions was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on persistence of conditions was not proper, as the record contained no order related to the prior proceedings in which the child was allegedly adjudicated dependent and neglected. In re Brianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 805 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother's children were in foster care for over a year and there was little likelihood that the mother would remedy the mother's housing situation or end the mother's associations with individuals who had histories of violence and drug use at an early date in the near future. In re M.E.N.J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017).

There was clear evidence of persistence of conditions, given that the conditions that led to the removal of the children involved a lack of appropriate housing for the children, yet the mother continued to having housing issues, and it was unlikely the children could be safely returned to her in the near future. In re B.L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was inappropriate because the child had already been removed from the father's home by a neighbor with the biological parents'  consent at least a month before the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) became involved. The ground of persistence of conditions required both that the child be adjudicated to be dependent and neglected and that the child be removed from the parent's home by the DCS. In re Kandace D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on persistent conditions because the father had ongoing issues with maintaining a stable home, resolving his drug problems, and refraining from illegal activities that were not likely to be remedied in the near future; and those issues prevented the safe return of the children to the father's home at the time of trial and in the foreseeable future. In re Aaralyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's rights to the mother's child, based upon the persistence of the conditions that led to the removal of the child, because the child had resided in the same foster home for more than three years, the mother had issues with the mother's mental and emotional status and finances and housing, and there was little likelihood that the mother was able to remedy the mother's mental and financial instability at an early date. In re K.Y.H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Chancery court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights because the evidence was less than clear and convincing that 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 still persisted; there was no evidence that the mother continued to abuse illegal drugs or that her relationship with a man that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services had warned her against continued. In re Alivia F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Although the statutory ground of persistence of conditions refers to “conditions that led to the child's removal or other conditions, an apparent isolated incident of alcohol use is not indicative of a condition that might lead to further abuse or neglect of the child. In re Alivia F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because the record showed that the children were removed from the home of their grandmother and the mother did not live at the home. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Grounds for terminating a mother's parental rights to the mother's child for persistent conditions were proven by clear and convincing evidence as the child was removed from the parents'  home by court order for more than six months and was adjudicated dependent and neglected and the conditions that led to the child's removal–illegal drug use, a lack of safe and stable housing–still persisted, so that there was little likelihood that the conditions would be remedied at an early date for the safe return of the child in the near future. In re Riley W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on the statutory ground of persistence of conditions because the record contained no court order removing the children from the mother's custody based on a finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse. In re Haley S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018).

Trial court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to removal of the child from the mother's home persisted because the mother made no effort to improve her circumstances and failed to procure stable housing or employment; the child was in the mother's custody from the time of his birth until his removal, such that he was clearly removed from her “home,” and the fact that the mother was “homeless” and living in a motel did not alter the analysis. In re Authur R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2018).

Persistence of conditions could not be a ground for terminating a mother's parental rights because the children had not been removed from her home for a period of six months by court order based on a finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse. Accordingly, the juvenile court erred in relying on T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) as a ground for terminating the mother's parental rights. In re Maya R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because six months had passed since this children's removal, the mother's mental instability persisted, and the expert testified that the mother was presently unable to parent her children and would likely never be able to do so because of her mental illness and prognosis. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Persistence of conditions was not available as a ground to terminate the parents'  rights because at the time the children came into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children Services, they were in the custody of a neighbor, not in that of either parent. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Child's foster parents failed to prove persistence of conditions by clear and convincing evidence because the evidence showed that the parents had fully complied with the permanency plan and drug treatment and that they had provided a safe environment for the child. In re Zayne P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on on persistence of conditions because it showed that the mother continued to associate with the father and domestic violence was still a substantial risk as long as he was involved in the mother's life. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence of each element of subsection (g)(3) because the conditions that led to children's removal from a mother's home persisted from the time of the children were placed in the custody of their paternal aunt and uncle to the time of trial; the children were placed in the legal custody of the aunt and uncle in a proceeding that resulted in a finding that they were dependent and neglected, and the statute did not require that they be placed in foster care. In re Emily J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2018).

Because the record contained no final adjudicatory dependency-and-neglect order that removed the children from the parents'  home, the trial court erred in its determination that clear and convincing evidence supported the ground of persistence of conditions. In re J.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2018).

Evidence was less than clear that the conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted, and thus termination under the persistence of conditions ground was improper; the mother had not failed a drug test since 2013, no one could remember the last time the father failed a drug test, the evidence was insufficient to establish that their drug problems persisted, plus there was inadequate evidence as to whether the father committed domestic violence since he received services, and evidence of the mother's inadequate parenting skills was mixed. In re Ayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a father's parental rights, based on persistent conditions, because the father was either unable or unwilling to adjust the conditions that led to the child's removal and keep the child's mother away from the child until the mother stopped abusing drugs. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

Evidence that the children were removed for parents for more than six months, the conditions that led to their removal would likely subject the children to further abuse or neglect, and there was little liklihood that the conditions would be remedied in the near future to safely return the children to the parents'  custody supported termination based on persistence of conditions. In re Damon B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the ground of persistence of conditions because, although the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that the mother's substance abuse problems persisted at the time of trial, she still lacked stable housing, was unemployed, and did not have valid transportation; and there was little chance that those conditions would be remedied soon so that the children could be returned safely to the home. In re McKenzie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

Persistence of conditions termination ground was shown by clear and convincing evidence, as the child was dependent and neglected, having been initially removed because the parents were caught shoplifting to buy drugs and were subsequently jailed, the father never provided proof that he was legally employed, the conditions that led to the child's removal still persisted and would not remedied anytime soon, and the child's foster parents were interested in adopting him. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for persistence of conditions because the child was removed from the father's custody due to exposure to drugs and domestic violence and at the time of the hearing those conditions persisted. The father's ongoing domestic violence issues were shown by his admitted arrest record, he tested positive for cocaine on more than one occasion, and he continued to live in a “three-quarter house.” In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions was supported by evidence that the mother had now acknowledged her own abuse of the child, the mother had harassed and coerced the child into making disclosures she was being sexually abused by children at school, and the mother made no progress in seeking treatment. In re McKenzi W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for persistence of conditions was proper; the mother had no stable living situation, continued to involve herself in abusive relationships, and chose not to fully address her drug addiction and mental health issues, and the conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

Mother had not remedied the conditions that led to the child's removal and other conditions persisted that would cause the child to be subjected to further abuse and neglect, as the mother was still unable to provide a stable home for the child, and she had failed to address her mental health concerns; termination of the mother's rights for persistent conditions was affirmed. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Supplemental protective custody order found there was probable cause to believe that the children were dependent and neglected, but the order did not find by clear and convincing evidence that the children are dependent and neglected; such a temporary order was not sufficient to support termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions. In re Romeo T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Persistence of conditions ground for termination was proven, as the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected and remained in the Department of Children's Services'  custody for 14 months before the filing of the termination petition, plus the mother had no plan for housing, continued to test positive for cocaine and methamphetamine throughout the case, and attended mental health treatment on an irregular and inconsistent basis. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for persistent conditions because the  conditions that led to removal of the children still persisted as the father allowed the mother to move in to the father's home, despite a no-contact order between the mother and the children. Further, there was crime in the father's home and the father was incarcerated with no certain release date. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because, although the children were in foster care and an examination of the mother's home was not completed, the mother continued to display signs of substance abuse and it was unlikely that the mother's financial hardships were to remedied at an early date. If the children were returned to the mother, it also was likely they would have been living in a home where substance abuse and criminal activity was rampant. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was supported by the evidence; the children were removed from the mother's home due to concerns that she was abusing drugs, the conditions that led to removal still persist as to the mother, and there was little chance that mother would be able to rectify her conditions in the immediate future as mother has not consistently shown she could stay sober and even after a period of sobriety, she relapsed. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because the appellate record did not contain a court order removing the children from the mother's custody based on a finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights based on the persistence of conditions ground was proper because, given the mother's failure to address her possible substance abuse issues, and the father's continued dependency on methadone, there was little likelihood that the conditions which led to removal would be remedied at an early date so that the child could be safely returned in the near future; and the continuation of the relationship greatly diminished the child's chances of early integration into a safe, stable and permanent home. In re Camdon H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on a finding that the conditions that led to the children's removal persisted was supported by evidence that the mother had done little to combat her drug issues and had done little to remedy her admitted mental health issues. In re Karisah N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on persistence of conditions leading to removal of the children from her home because the children were removed from the mother's custody and found to be dependent and neglected; the mother's lack of stable housing was not the sole reason for the children's removal from her custody as, at the time of removal, the mother and her family were the subject of several referrals and an investigation focusing on allegations of inadequate supervision, lack of stable housing, child abuse, substance abuse, and domestic violence concerns; and continuation of the parent-child relationship would greatly diminish the children's chances of integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on the persistence of conditions was supported by evidence of the mother's ongoing drug abuse and overall noncompliance with attempts to assist her in improving her condition and regaining custody. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding of persistence of conditions because the mother still struggled with abusing illegal drugs, there was little likelihood that she could remedy her substance abuse and other issues in the near future so that the children could be safely returned to her, and she acknowledged that she at least seven and a half months of inpatient treatment to complete. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was proper; the department made efforts to provide help to improve the parenting abilities over a long period of time, and those efforts have proved ineffective, as the father had over two years to cooperate and make the necessary adjustments that would enable the children's safe return to his care, yet he failed to do so. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistent conditions because she failed to follow the recommendations designed to address her prescription drug dependency, and at the time of the hearing the Department of Children's Services had not determined whether her new residence was satisfactory. In re Lesley A., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on the persistence of conditions because one of the main reasons the children were removed from the father was a positive marijuana test and the father rectified that and no longer had a substance abuse issue, and the father no longer misunderstood the issues regarding his daughter's dental care. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018).

in light of other clear and convincing proof that the mother had not remedied the conditions that led to the children's placement with the child placement agency and the trial court's holding that the children were dependent and neglected, certain testimony did not establish, as the mother claimed, that there were no conditions preventing the children's return. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Trial court determined that the children were dependent and neglected as the mother was unable to care for them without the assistance of others, and the trial court approved an agreement that the children remain in child placement agency's custody; there was no basis for the mother's argument that the children were not removed because she voluntarily placed them with the agency, and the order satisfied the persistence of conditions requirement that the child be removed from the parent's home by order of the court. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Conditions leading to the removal of the children persisted and there was little chance that these conditions would be remedied soon; once the children were removed, the mother failed to complete random drug screening and an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program, she declined to maintain consistent visitation with the children, and she was incarcerated four times. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Evidence clearly and convincingly established the elements necessary to terminate the parents'  rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because they repeatedly showed that they were unable to maintain an appropriate home environment free from debris, clutter, animals, animal waste, and unsafe conditions, and they had shown an inability to keep persons not approved by the Department of Children's Service from entering their home as required by permanency plans and trial court orders. In re Savannah M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights based on a persistence of conditions because (1) the conditions leading to the removal of the mother's child persisted, (2) other conditions persisted that would, in all probability, cause the child to be subjected to further abuse and neglect, (3) there was little likelihood the mother would remedy the conditions at an early date to allow the child's return, and (4) continuation of the legal parent-child relationship would greatly diminish the child's chances of early integration into a stable and permanent home. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

The trial court's finding that appellants met their burden to show that the conditions that led to the children's removal persisted was supported by evidence that the mother had an admitted history of drug use and criminal activity and relapse and the children did not want to live with her because they did not think she would ever change. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because the mother's children were removed from the mother's home and adjudicated dependent and neglected, there were issues concerning drug use, sexual abuse, and a lack of supervision of the children in the mother's home. Moreover, the mother had continued to engage in criminal activity throughout the pendency of the case and generally showed an unwillingness to parent the children. In re H. A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

It was not appropriate to terminate a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions because such a ground was not alleged in the petition. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of a father's parental rights to both of the father's children was appropriate on the ground of persistent conditions because the children were removed from the father's custody when the father was arrested and the father's lenghty incarceration rendered the father unable to provide the children with a home until they attained adulthood. In re D.V., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019).

Termination was proper on the ground of persistence of conditions as the child was removed because of the father's involvement with child pornography and use of drugs, but the mother had returned to live with him for a time; the mother was still struggling to get back on her feet after leaving the father; the mother had no job and was living in a shelter for domestic violence victims; and continuation of the parent and child relationship greatly diminished the child's chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re Laura F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because the child was removed from the mother's custody due to her drug use, noncompliance with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) Family Support Services in obtaining drug treatment, and failure to ensure that the child received his medication. she had failed to complete the recommended intensive outpatient drug treatment or parenting classes. Throughout the time that the child was in DCS custody, the mother had continued using drugs and had failed to complete treatment to remedy her drug addiction. In re Kaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of persistence of conditions because she seemed to have substituted alcohol for drugs, and had not presented evidence showing that she had addressed her struggles with alcohol; there was a concern that the mother would reunite with the father despite past domestic violence; and the children's court appointed special advocate testified that she was concerned about returning the children to the mother because of her substance abuse issues and her difficulty controlling the children. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Ground of persistent conditions was proven by clear and convincing evidence; by trial, the mother had not fully addressed the issues that precipitated the children's removal, the main barriers to reunification was her mental health situation and domestic violence, the court only had the mother's word to go on that she resolved her mental health issues and proclivity toward violence, and the children were thriving in the foster mother's care. In re Charlie-Lynn P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2019).

Trial court properly concluded that the undisputed evidence in the record clearly and convincingly supported termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistent conditions because six months after the child's removal, the mother continued to use illegal drugs; given the mother's consistent drug use, failure to follow treatment recommendations, and other acts of noncompliance with the permanency plan, it was unlikely she would resolve her drug issues. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was proper; the child had been removed from the mother's custody for more than six months, the mother was homeless, and her recent relapse and lack of progress on other issues made reunification in the near future unlikely. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

In the absence of the necessary adjudicatory order on dependency and neglect, appellees failed to meet their burden to show that the conditions that led to the child's removal from the mother persisted, and the court reversed termination on this ground. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the conditions that led to the children's removal persisted as the father testified at the termination hearing that the father had been on drugs from when the father was twelve years old and the court stated that attempts at rehabilitation had been unsuccessful. The father's drug use occurred before the children were born, led to their removal, and continued uninterrupted thereafter. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's children on the ground of persistent conditions was appropriate because the trial court properly found persistence of conditions due to the mother's lack of suitable housing, failure to comply with her mental health treatment, and pending criminal charges, leading to the finding that there was little chance the existing conditions preventing the children's return to the mother would be remedied soon. In re Deishun M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019).

Termination of mother's parental rights on ground of persistent conditions was appropriate because the mother's living situation was precarious, the mother had only begun to truly address substance abuse problems and was defiant about treatment, and there was no proof that the mother could adequately provide for the children. In multiple respects, the mother's circumstances remained what they were at the time of removal, with no indication that they were likely to change fundamentally. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

Record clearly and convincingly established the persistence of conditions ground for termination because a father failed to take the situation seriously or make any significant improvement in his circumstances until after the filing of the petition to terminate his rights, and the conditions that led to removal of the child continued to persist as of the time of the filing of the petition; it was extremely doubtful that the father's circumstances would be remedied in the near future. In re Jayda H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper except on the ground of persistence of the conditions that led to the child's removal because, although the trial court entered an order finding that there was probable cause to believe the child was dependent and neglected, none of the subsequent orders from the trial court adjudicated dependency and neglect by clear and convincing evidence. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the conditions preventing the child's safe return persisted where the mother lacked an appropriate home and had not prioritized her drug or mental health treatment, those conditions were unlikely to be remedied in the near future, and continuation of the parental relationship diminished the child's chances of early integrations into a stable home. In re Emma S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on the ground of persistent conditions was supported by evidence that the children were removed from the home of parents, and the removal was predicated upon the domestic violence, the mother's drug use, the father's continued relationship with the mother despite her drug use and the father's failure to attend family counseling. In re Mahaley P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her daughter based on persistence of conditions because the daughter was not removed from the mother's home but rather was living at a hospital at the time of her removal. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her son based on persistence of conditions because at the time of trial, he had been removed from the mother's custody for a period of over four years pursuant to adjudication of dependency and neglect, the mother moved from one unsuitable home to another, never making any real progress, and there was a lack of safe, stable housing and a means of support. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Terminating parents'  parental rights for persistent conditions was proper because, (1) while a mother remedied a lack of housing causing the children's removal, the mother was consistently voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, took no parenting classes, provided no mental health recommendations, and smoked in the children's presence, while (2) the father refused alcohol treatment. In re C.L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence was presented that the mother's drug abuse issue that led to the removal of the children still persisted, that there was little likelihood that the condition was to be remedied in the near future, and the mother's inability to maintain sobriety deprived the children of a safe, stable, and permanent home so long as the mother was a part of their lives. In re Michael W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for persistence of conditions was proper, as she failed to comply with or complete any plan requirements, refused to have a home study completed, and failed to acknowledge the inappropriateness of her discipline techniques. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Whether the mother was admitted to a mental health institute had no bearing on her failure to remedy the conditions that led to removal when the statute did not require that the parent's failure be willful; therefore, exclusion of the evidence, even if admissible, was harmless. In re Benjamin P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020).

Conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted in the mother's case, for termination of parental rights purposes; one child was hospitalized as a result of the mother's nutritional neglect and she was homeless at the time of the hearing and without the ability to provide a stable and habitable residence in the near future. In re Benjamin P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020).

Trial court properly found that persistent conditions as a ground to terminate a mother's parental rights where the children had been removed six months prior due to the mother's drug issues and neglect of the children, following the removal, issues related to the mother's mental health, housing, and lack of reliable transportation surfaced, and at the time of trial, more than a year following the removal, these issues had not been remedied. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Ground of persistence of the conditions leading to the children's removal from the mother was established by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed that the children were removed from the mother's custody due to her drug use and a physical assault against one child by the mother's boyfriend, the mother's drug use had continued, she tested positive on a drug test for methamphetamine and amphetamines at trial, as of the date of trial she had failed to complete drug treatment to address her drug abuse issues, and she failed to address her mental health issues. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Sufficient evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because it showed that the child was removed from the mother's custody in large part because of her consistent drug use and the presence of drugs in her home, and her testimony made it clear that she continued to use methamphetamine, did not complete her required treatments, and saw her drug use as necessary for her to function. In re Caydan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

With respect to the ground of persistence of conditions, the was no evidence that the mother's manufacturing of methamphetamine persisted since she had been incarcerated and, due to her incarceration, no assessment could be made as to whether the conditions prior to her arrest persisted. Accordingly, the elements of the ground of persistence of conditions were not clearly and convincingly established as to the mother. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Trial court's reliance on the persistence of conditions ground for terminating a mother's parental rights was vacated because the trial court failed to make specific findings regarding each of the elements applicable to the persistence of conditions ground. In re Madux F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions was appropriate because the trial court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected and a victim of severe child abuse, the child was removed from the mother's custody and placed in foster care for two-and-a-half years, and the conditions that led to the child's removal still existed, preventing the child from returning safely as the mother put forth minimal effort to improve the conditions that led to the child's removal. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions was proper because, toward the end of the home visit period, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine; although Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) continued to work with the mother, she refused to submit to further drug screens; she stopped taking the case worker's phone calls and failed to appear in court; the mother refused to return the child when ordered; the child's condition on return was poor as he was dirty, with bruises and scratches on his arms and face; the mother was largely absent and refused to cooperate with DCS; and, on the day of the termination hearing, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on persistence of conditions was proper because, in addition to violating his probation and fraternizing with drug users, the father testified that he had been unable to secure appropriate housing or employment; he tested positive for methamphetamine on the day of the termination hearing; and it was not likely that the father would take steps to remedy those conditions. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because the month prior to trial the mother had moved to a long-term treatment facility, she had yet to address her issues with domestic violence, and she had barely begun to obtain a mental health assessment and drug and alcohol treatment. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Conditions that led to the child's removal from the mother's legal custody persisted, preventing the child's safe return to her care, and there was little likelihood that these conditions would be remedied at an early date; the mother had incurred criminal charges and was incarcerated for a period of time, the grandparents testified that the mother had struggled with drug addiction for years, and the residence where she lived was leased to the father, who also had a drug problem, and the mother had no independent source of support. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Child was removed from the mother's legal custody by court order dated January 30, 2017, following entry of a court order dated July 5, 2016 finding the child to be dependent and neglected; accordingly, the trial court erred in determining that this statutory ground was inapplicable. Because the child was removed from the mother's legal custody on January 30, 2017, the child had been removed for a period of more than six months by the time of the termination trial on May 14, 2019, in satisfaction of the statute's requirement. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the parents'  rights should be terminated on the ground of persistence of conditions; the children had been previously adjudicated dependent and neglected and victims of severe child abuse, and the parents never accepted responsibility for their behavior and refused to acknowledge the severe child abuse, which showed that conditions that led to the children's removal still persisted and there was little likelihood that the conditions would be remedied in the near future. In re Shyanne H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2020).

Conditions remained present that would likely cause the child to be subjected to further neglect and these conditions were likely to remain for the near future, making termination for persistence of conditions proper; whether the mother would be offered support from a rescue mission and whether she would be able to care for her son were precariously balanced on a slew of contingencies, plus she would need to maintain her sobriety. In re Raylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on persistence of conditions because the record showed that the mother was not equipped to deal with the child's health needs, as she had difficulty understanding those needs and taking directions from medical professionals. The mother was unable to answer basic questions about the child's medical needs and history. In re Katrina S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2020).

Termination based on persistent of ocnditions was proper because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the parents conditions would be remedied at an early date, as the mother continued to use drugs and saw no issue with sharing an apartment with other drug users, the mother had a pending DUI charge and $3,500 of unpaid fees on her driver's license, and the parents'  difficulties in maintaining employment were caused in large part by their drug and criminal issues. In re A.V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 406 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2020).

18. Abandonment.

Definition of abandoned child contained in § 36-1-102 by its express provisions applies only to an action or proceeding to declare a child to be an abandoned child and has not been extended to adoption proceeding. Ex parte Wolfenden, 49 Tenn. App. 1, 349 S.W.2d 713, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959), superseded by statute as stated in, Fykes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , superseded by statute as stated in, Tennessee Baptist Children's Home v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 1998), superseded by statute as stated in, Baker v. He (In re A.M.H.), — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2005).

Issue of whether natural father had abandoned child was of vital importance in adoption proceeding and was an issue of fact to be determined by trial court. Ex parte Wolfenden, 49 Tenn. App. 1, 349 S.W.2d 713, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959), superseded by statute as stated in, Fykes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , superseded by statute as stated in, Tennessee Baptist Children's Home v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 1998), superseded by statute as stated in, Baker v. He (In re A.M.H.), — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2005); Fancher v. Mann, 58 Tenn. App. 471, 432 S.W.2d 63, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (1968).

Abandonment to warrant a court in allowing an adoption over the protest of the natural parent must be unequivocal and the evidence clear and convincing. Ex parte Wolfenden, 49 Tenn. App. 1, 349 S.W.2d 713, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959), superseded by statute as stated in, Fykes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) , superseded by statute as stated in, Tennessee Baptist Children's Home v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 1998), superseded by statute as stated in, Baker v. He (In re A.M.H.), — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2005); Fancher v. Mann, 58 Tenn. App. 471, 432 S.W.2d 63, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (1968).

Abandonment imports any conduct on the part of the parent that evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child; however, it does not follow that the purpose may not be repented of and in proper cases all parental rights again acquired but when abandonment is shown to have existed it becomes a judicial question whether or not it has been terminated or can be consistently with the welfare of the child. Ex parte Wolfenden, 48 Tenn. App. 433, 348 S.W.2d 751, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961); Fancher v. Mann, 58 Tenn. App. 471, 432 S.W.2d 63, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (1968).

Abandonment by natural parents may be found only where, being given benefit of every controverted fact, such inference follows as a matter of law. Ex parte Wolfenden, 48 Tenn. App. 433, 348 S.W.2d 751, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961); Fancher v. Mann, 58 Tenn. App. 471, 432 S.W.2d 63, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (1968).

The ultimate question in an abandonment situation is whether there is clear and convincing evidence of an overall lack of any parental responsibility. A finding of a possible abandonment, or the lack of such a finding, on the part of one parent is not to be interpreted as conclusive on the other parent or the ultimate issue. Koivu v. Irwin, 721 S.W.2d 803, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

There is a distinction in the law between those cases where an abandonment is asked to be declared and those cases where not only is there an abandonment request, but also an adoption of the abandoned child. In the former situation, there is a statutory definition of abandonment, contained in § 36-1-102, while in the later, case law sets out the definition. Koivu v. Irwin, 721 S.W.2d 803, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3160 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Mother abandoned child when she left the very young child alone at home, voluntarily surrendered custody to child's father, made no contribution to child's support and exercised no visitation after child went to live with father. Webb v. Wilson (In re Gordon), 980 S.W.2d 372, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), appeal denied, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 1998).

The definition found in T.C.A. § 36-1-102 of “willfully failed to support” and “willfully failed to make reasonable payments toward such child's support” is unconstitutional because it creates an irrebutable presumption that the failure to provide monetary support for the four months preceding the petition to terminate parental rights constitutes abandonment, irrespective of whether that failure was intentional. Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. Swanson (In re Swanson), 2 S.W.3d 180, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. 1999).

The effect of the decision in Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. 1999), that T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(D) was unconstitutional was to restore the definition of abandonment as it existed before the 1995 amendment, with the element of intent intact. Menard v. Meeks (In re Menard), 29 S.W.3d 870, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Although the mother had made significant adjustments in her conduct and circumstances, the evidence supported the finding that termination of mother's rights was in the child's best interests because the mother was unemployed, unable to provide a home for the children or other support, and had not used any of the funds she received from a drug treatment program to provide her child with gifts or basic necessities. In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

In the definition of abandonment, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) uses the phrase “a proceeding or pleading to terminate parental rights” in the same statutory subsection where the legislature also uses the phrase “the petition for termination of parental rights or adoption”; read as a whole, T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) requires that the willful failure to visit, support, or make reasonable payments toward the support of the child must occur in the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition currently before the court. In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. 2003).

Mother's failure to visit her minor children for the four months immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition constituted abandonment. In re S.Y., 121 S.W.3d 358, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Court erred by finding that a mother had willfully abandoned her children where the mother was indigent, and the state did not present any proof to the trial court that showed that the mother was able to financially support her children in any way and did not do so. State v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), 124 S.W.3d 609, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, State Dep't of Child's Servs. v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1288 (Tenn. 2003).

Trial court properly dismissed a petition to terminate parental rights, because the evidence did not establish that either parent intended to abandon a minor child. The evidence showed that the father paid child support, but was unaware of the child's residence; and the mother was unable to pay child support due to a loss of employment, but she attempted to contact the child shortly before the petition was filed. Means v. Ashby, 130 S.W.3d 48, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2004).

Record included no evidence that the department of children's services explained to the father that he was obligated to pay support, lest he lose all parental rights to his children; the permanency plans not only failed to state the father was obligated to pay child support, they, in fact, implied that he was not required to do so unless there was a court order of support, such that the father's failure to pay could not have been considered willful, and the termination of his parental rights on the ground of abandonment had to be reversed. State v. Calabretta (In re J.J.C.), 148 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.J.C., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. May 10, 2004).

Record did not support the juvenile court's implicit finding that the mother “willfully” failed to visit or support her two children during the four months preceding the filing of the joint termination petition as provided under the statutory definition of abandonment in T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), because the mother was incarcerated during that four-month period and the fathers of the children refused to allow visitation at the prison. However, only one statutory ground was required to support termination of the mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) and there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the mother failed to support or visit her children in the four months before her incarceration, which constituted abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), and that the mother's conduct prior to her incarceration showed a wanton disregard for children's welfare, which also constituted abandonment under § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re A.M.S. v. Ferrell, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1020 (Tenn. 2005).

Court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment where the mother made child support payments in November of 2004, but made no payments during the months of December of 2004, January of 2005, and February of 2005. In addition, the mother was required to return to the child support court to have that court reassess her child support obligations, and the mother never did so. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., 200 S.W.3d 184, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 2006), appeal denied, In re D.J.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. 2006).

Juvenile court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights based on abandonment pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); the mother and her new husband had not prevented the father from visiting his child and, except for one call on his fourth birthday, the father failed to visit or contact the child from the age of two onwards, and the child was five at the time the petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed. And, the court found that it would not have been in the child's best interest to go back and try to establish some sort of relationship with the father. In re F.R.R., 193 S.W.3d 528, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. 2006).

Evidence in this case did not support a finding that appellant parents intentionally abandoned their daughter; although the daughter had now been with appellees for more than seven years, six of the years elapsed after the parents'  first unsuccessful legal filing to regain custody. In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2007), rehearing denied, 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (Tenn. 2007), cert. denied, Baker v. Shao-Qiang He, — U.S.—, — S. Ct. —, — L. Ed. 2d —, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8357 (U.S. June 25, 2007).

Court erred by failing to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because it was undisputed that the father did not visit or support the child during the four-month period leading up to the termination petition, and the father never sent financial support or gifts to the child. In re M.L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2008), aff'd, 281 S.W.3d 387, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 299 (Tenn. 2009).

Where father failed to support or make reasonable payments in support of his children for four months preceding filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, trial court did not err by terminating parental rights on the ground of abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-113; father was employed and received an inheritance during this time period, yet failed to make any efforts to provide support for his children. In re L.M.W., 275 S.W.3d 843, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2008).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated on ground of abandonment because she exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her child, had 19 prior incarcerations, admitted to drug addiction problem to psychological examiner, and admitted that her mother was essentially taking care of and raising her child. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. V.N., 279 S.W.3d 306, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal denied, State v. V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2009).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support was proper pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 36-1-113(g)(1) because the absence of a court order requiring the mother to pay support did not “excuse” her from her obligation to pay support for her child and the mother candidly acknowledged that she knew that she had an obligation to pay support but nevertheless failed to do so. Further, the mother had the ability to pay support during the determinative four-month period because she was employed for at least part of that time. Stephen v. Christy C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010), appeal denied, In re Keri C., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Termination of mother's parental rights was proper as: (1) the mother did not visit the child in the four months before the petition was filed; (2) the mother was not denied visitation by the child's foster mother; (3) the mother did not return to Tennessee where the child was living upon her release from prison; and (4) the mother did not pay the child support ordered by the court. In re A'mari B., 358 S.W.3d 204, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011), appeal denied, In re A'Mari B., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1067 (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2011).

Mother's claim that her conduct did not exhibit a wanton disregard for a child's welfare was rejected as the mother's parental rights were terminated because she abandoned the child by willfully failing to support or visit during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition; T.C.A. § 36-1-102(l)(A)(iv) did not apply. In re A'mari B., 358 S.W.3d 204, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011), appeal denied, In re A'Mari B., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1067 (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2011).

There was clear and convincing evidence that a father abandoned his children by willfully failing to visit them for a period of four consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), despite the fact that there was an order in place that suspended the father's visitation rights; the father had no contact with the children for three years prior thereto, and he took no action to reinstate visitation or to maintain a relationship during that four-month period, such that his actions were deemed willful under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Although an amended petition for termination of a father's parental rights did not mention abandonment by willful failure to support pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), but both parties discussed the issue and provided proof thereon as if it had been alleged in the petition, the court considered the petition amended to include that ground pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.02. In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(F), a father's payments of child support after an original petition to terminate his parental rights was filed was not considered for purposes of an abandonment analysis under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g). In re Angela T., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willful failure to visit because the father had visited the child, at most, two times, once in December 2010 and once in January 2011, prior to the filing of the termination petition in April 2012 and it was only after the petition was filed that the father attempted to see the child; the father's visitation after the petition was filed was, at best, token visitation. In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013), appeal denied, In re Jacobe J., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father, engaged in criminal behavior, had continued incarcerations, had unresolved substance abuse issues, failed to meet the child's material needs, and demonstrated a general a lack of concern towards the child. In re Jocilyn M.P., 435 S.W.3d 773, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Mar. 11, 2014).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the father had an income of at least $ 2,867 during the relevant time, paid over $ 1,600 for pain management consultations and prescriptions, but paid no support despite being aware of his duty to support the child. In re Jocilyn M.P., 435 S.W.3d 773, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Mar. 11, 2014).

Evidence did not support a finding that the mother willfully or intentionally abandoned the child where the mother was actively pursuing litigation to regain custody of the child throughout the four-month period, and she was spending a substantial portion of her limited financial resources to do the things that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and the juvenile court instructed her to do. In re Alysia S., 460 S.W.3d 536, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the mother refused to show concern for the eight-month-old child's physical health, specifically his nutritional health and weight, which demonstrated a broader pattern of conduct that rendered the mother unfit; the mother missed a recheck appointment after a pediatrician expressed concern about the child's low weight and poor growth rate. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father abused prescription pain and anxiety medications in the family home, had to “doctor shop” in order to obtain the medication, and nutritionally and medically neglected the eight-month-old child. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

Department was required to offer proof of an order in which the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected, but despite indications that there was such a judicial finding, no adjudicatory order appeared of record; the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and the persistence of conditions that led to the child's removal were not established by clear and convincing evidence because of the absence of the necessary order, and because no grounds other than these two were alleged, the order terminating father's parental rights could not stand. In re R.L.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).

Trial court's finding that the father abandoned the child by displaying wanton disregard was supported by evidence that the father was incarcerated for the four-month period prior to the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, remained incarcerated for the six months the petition was pending, and continued to engage in criminal activities. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

Termination based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home and lack of concern was supported by evidence that the father never maintained stable housing and displayed a lack of care of concern for the child, whom he never supported. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

Decision that a father abandoned his child by willful failure to visit was improper, as it is not at all clear from the record that the father failed to visit the child in the requisite time period; the record showed that the father, the mother, the father's girlfriend, and the child all lived together during the relevant time period. In re Jonathan F., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to support his children where the trial court did not expressly find that his failure to pay was willful and it did not make any findings regarding the father's income or earning capacity. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to provide a suitable home where there was no real evidence as to the condition of the father's residence, as the children were not removed from his home. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's and a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to provide suitable housing because, despite myriad services, in-home counseling, and ample opportunity, there was a general lack of progress in the areas of housekeeping and personal hygiene, and the parents continued to struggle with basic parenting skills; the children's clothes smelled of urine and the parents were hoarders. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit because she did not visit her son during the four month period prior to the filing of the termination petition; she had not seen the child for approximately 21 months; the problem of being arrested was one of the mother's own making as she was aware of the order of protection; even after the order of protection was dismissed, the mother never contacted the father about setting up supervised visitation in accordance with the parenting plan; she did not contact the facility that could provide supervised visitation; and she never filed a petition or motion with the divorce court to enforce the visitation schedule or to modify it. In re Noah B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the father and stepmother did not show that the mother had the capacity to provide support as they did not submit sufficient evidence of the mother's employment status during the relevant four-month period prior to filing the petition to terminate, the number of hours she worked, the duration of her employment, her rate of pay, or whether she had assets other than regular income that might contribute to the support of the child; and the record contained no evidence regarding the mother's financial means, expenses, or obligations during the relevant four month period. In re Noah B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Father simply failed to remit any form of support for the children even when he was admittedly capable of working and actually employed at various times, and there was clear and convincing evidence to establish that he abandoned the children by willfully failing to remit child support before, during, and after the relevant time period and that a statutory ground existed for termination of the father's parental rights. In re Agustine R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment for failure to support where the testimony of the service worker did not show the mother's ability to prove support for her son during the applicable four month period. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's rights for failure to provide a suitable home where her whereabouts were unknown for several months even though she knew that her son was in the custody of Tennessee Department of Children's Services and she failed to visit him or advise the Department of her whereabouts. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

Trial court erred by finding that the father's parental rights should not be terminated for willfully failing to support the child where there was no dispute that he paid no support to the child's mother, he was gainfully employed, and his substantial delay in failing to comply with a court order to provide insurance coverage for the child constituted token support. In re Brookelyn W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015).

Trial court erred by finding that the father's parental rights should not be terminated for willfully failing to visit the child where it was undisputed that he had no visitation with the child in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, there was no evidence that he was thwarted in any effort to visit the child by the mother, and he placed all the onus to schedule and facilitate visitation on the mother and the stepfather. In re Brookelyn W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to terminate the mother's parental rights to her children based on abandonment where in addition to having no face-to-face visits the mother conceded she had not sent gifts or cards or otherwise attempted any contact with the children during the relevant four-month period or in the years since the children left Kentucky. In re E.G.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015), appeal denied, In re Elaina G. H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. June 19, 2015).

It was not error to find a mother's visitation with the mother's child during a relevant period was “token,” for purposes of termination of parental rights, because (1) the mother visited only twice, (2) the mother's claim of lack of transportation was unavailing, and (3) the mother did not address the finding on appeal. In re Alexis B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willfully failing to support the children in the four months immediately preceding her incarceration because, inter alia, the mother conceded that she paid “little support” since the parties'  divorced and was paid “under the table” for cleaning houses; the mother was capable of working and offered no justifiable excuse for failing to maintain employment and pay child support. In re D.H.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment for failure to visit because the visitations that occurred were token at best; and the mother brought additional parties to the visitations rather than spending that time with the children focusing on bonding and spending one-on-one time with them. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the children's welfare because the mother abused illegal substances prior to her incarceration; and she failed to make even minimal efforts to maintain contact with the children or the Tennessee Department of Children's Services in order to work towards reunification with the children. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2015).

For purposes of establishing abandonment by failure to pay child support, the relevant four-month period is October 14, 2013 through February 13, 2014, this latter date being the day before the filing of the petition. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Mother was aware of her child support obligations and she made some payments, but she was over $ 4,000 in arrears and the brief period she unintentionally worked without pay did not excuse her failure to pay support during the entire four-month period at issue, plus she did not resume making payments until months after the petition was pending; the mother willfully failed to pay child support and the trial court did not err in terminating her rights on the ground of abandonment by willful non-support. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Evidence indicated safety hazards and environmental issues with the mother's home, and her pattern of inviting manipulative and abusive men into her home and life was at the heart of the problem, and more than a year after the child was removed, the mother was no closer to being able to provide the child with a suitable home; the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based on her failure to provide a suitable home. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because she abandoned the child by willfully failing to support the child as she failed to pay child support; the fact that the mother provided food, clothing, and drinks during visits with her daughter constituted mere token support, which was not sufficient to preclude a finding of a willful failure to support; and she was aware of her duty to support the child, she had the ability to provide support, and she willfully failed to do so. In re Faith W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights, as the evidence did not preponderate against the findings in support of its determination that the father abandoned the child by exhibiting a wanton disregard for her welfare; the father engaged in sexual conduct with the child for years. In re T.L.G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on willful abandonment was supported by evidence that the father's failure to visit was willful and of his own free will, as the father moved to Puerto Rico and made no effort to locate the children in order to visit them. In re Ariana S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Aug. 24, 2015).

Trial court erred in finding abandonment by failure to support, as the only proof in support of a finding that the father had the ability to pay was his testimony that he was employed six years earlier, which was not clear and convincing evidence of his ability to pay support in the four months proceeding his incarceration. In re Ariana S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Aug. 24, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to the father's incarceration because, inter alia, the father had a lengthy history of criminal conduct, repeated episodes of incarceration throughout the child's life, and abused prescription and non-prescription drugs; the father traded food stamps for drugs even though there was often very little food for the child to eat. In re William B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 11, 2015).

During the relevant four-month period, the father visited the children only once, and one visit during a four-month period constitutes only token visitation, at best; the father had no excuse for failing to visit, his failure was willful, and the facts provided clear evidence that he abandoned his children. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

In this case, the petition was filed on February 7, 2014, and thus the relevant four-month period for abandonment purposes began on October 7, 2013 and ended on February 6, 2014. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

During the relevant four-month period, the father visited the children only once, and one visit during a four-month period constitutes only token visitation, at best; the father had no excuse for failing to visit, his failure was willful, and the facts provided clear evidence that he abandoned his children. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

In this case, the petition was filed on February 7, 2014, and thus the relevant four-month period for abandonment purposes began on October 7, 2013 and ended on February 6, 2014. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported a finding that the parents willfully abandoned their daughter by willfully failing to support her, as it showed that they never paid her primary residential parents any support despite having the capacity to do so. In re Makenzie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

Mother willfully failed to visit the child from March 2013 through September 2013, prior to her incarceration, and thus she had willfully failed to visit the child during the determinative four-month period immediately preceding the mother's incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition and the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based upon this statutory ground. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to support her during the determinative period prior to the mother's incarceration; she presented no evidence indicating that she had any conditions other than her addiction problems that prevented her from working, and she was capable of employment when not hindered by substance abuse and criminal activity, and termination was proper. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Mother willfully failed to visit the child from March 2013 through September 2013, prior to her incarceration, and thus she had willfully failed to visit the child during the determinative four-month period immediately preceding the mother's incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition and the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based upon this statutory ground. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to support her during the determinative period prior to the mother's incarceration; she presented no evidence indicating that she had any conditions other than her addiction problems that prevented her from working, and she was capable of employment when not hindered by substance abuse and criminal activity, and termination was proper. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Statutory ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home was inapplicable to the father because the child resided with the mother prior to her exit from the home and the filing of the emergency petition for temporary custody. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court erred in finding that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit him because the evidence was insufficient to support its finding that the father's visitation with the child during the statutorily determinative period was only token; the father visited the child on seven to eight occasions during the four-month determinative period. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Statutory ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home was inapplicable to the father because the child resided with the mother prior to her exit from the home and the filing of the emergency petition for temporary custody. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court erred in finding that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit him because the evidence was insufficient to support its finding that the father's visitation with the child during the statutorily determinative period was only token; the father visited the child on seven to eight occasions during the four-month determinative period. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court properly found clear evidence of abandonment through willful failure to support, as the evidence was unclear whether one payment the father made was made within the determinative period, plus he was unable to show that he had paid any support during the relevant period other than one payment; one payment would, at most, have constituted mere token support. In re Destaney D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Trial court did not err by terminating the father's parental rights to his son for abandonment where the evidence showed that the father did not visit his son during the relevant four-month period and his failure to do so was willful, despite the fact that he was living in a sober living facility during those months, because he was able to arrange visits and contact with individuals outside the facility but did not make such arrangements for his son. In re Gavin G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit because the mother had numerous opportunities to visit with the child but was a “no-show,” the mother did not visit or ask to visit the child for an appreciable time period, and on one occasion when the mother did visit the child, the mother appeared intoxicated and ended the visitation early. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support because the juvenile court set an order of child support, which was signed by the mother's attorney, but the mother never paid child support despite having a job for a period of time. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the mother engaged in drug use and abuse, including during the pregnancy, engaged in criminal activity, and was periodically incarcerated; the mother refused to tend to the child's physical, emotional, and medical conditions. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard because the father reasonably suspected that he might be the child's biological father when he committed the offenses that resulted in his probation being revoked, and the father was written up during his incarceration for fighting after he was on notice that he might be the child's biological father. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Department elected not to defend the abandonment statutory ground for termination and had not presented an argument that the ground was tried by implied consent, and thus the finding regarding the ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home was reversed. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

For almost all of his life, the child's relationship with his mother had been built during scheduled visits, many of which she failed to attend, and the mother's claim of interference was unfounded, such that the trial court's finding that she abandoned the child through a willful failure to visit was not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Mother paid approximately 10 percent of the amount owed that year, but still her failure to make progress during the two years the child was in foster care was outside the scope of the abandonment determination; it was unclear whether or not the payments were insignificant given the mother's means, if the Department of Children's Services expects a finding of a willful failure to support, it must put on evidence that clearly shows willfulness, a trial court cannot be left to speculate about this, and the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the child through a willful failure to make payments was not supported. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a willful failure to visit, because the evidence showed the mother did not make use of multiple opportunities to visit the children, showing willfulness. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a failure to support, because the trial court's findings were insufficient. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a failure to establish a suitable home and lack of concern, because, in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, the mother did not have a stable residence and did not visit the children, and the mother's failure to arrive on time for the termination hearing showed a continued lack of concern for the children. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a willful failure to visit, because the evidence showed the mother did not make use of multiple opportunities to visit the children, showing willfulness. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a failure to support, because the trial court's findings were insufficient. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for abandonment, due to a failure to establish a suitable home and lack of concern, because, in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, the mother did not have a stable residence and did not visit the children, and the mother's failure to arrive on time for the termination hearing showed a continued lack of concern for the children. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Evidence preponderated against the trial court's findings that an unmarried parent failed to support the parent's children in the four months preceding the parent's incarceration because the evidence was undisputed that the parent did provide monetary support for the children during the relevant time period. Specifically, the parent's payment of $1,300, from the parent's income tax return, to the other parent during the four months preceding incarceration was more than a token amount, given the parent's means. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Parent engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the parent's children, which constituted a ground for terminating the parental rights of the parent, because the parent admitted to being a drug addict who was at times “high” in the presence of the children. Furthermore, the parent admitted to probation violations for driving on a revoked license and various criminal charges. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Evidence was not clear and convincing that an unmarried parent abandoned the parent's children by willfully failing to visit them because the parent did visit the children during the four months preceding the parent's incarceration, including overnight on a weekend, and apparently sought to continue visitation following an altercation with the other parent. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Clear evidence supported the finding of abandonment by willful failure to visit; the mother willfully failed to comply with an order of the trial court, and her efforts to comply with conditions to have visitation reinstated with the child were too little, too late. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Taking the department's assertion as true that clear evidence did not exist as to certain abandonment grounds, the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's rights based on these grounds was reversed. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Four-month period for purposes of establishing abandonment by failure to visit and support was September 11, 2014 until January 11, 2015, the day before the petition was filed. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

In the absence of appropriate findings and conclusions regarding the mother's payment of support, it could not be determined whether her failure to support the children was willful, and the decision to terminate her rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support was vacated. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's finding that a mother willfully abandoned her children by failing to support them because the mother was aware of her duty to pay support of $ 40 per week, there was no proof that the mother was unable to work or had a condition which necessitated her resignation, and providing diapers during visitation was a requirement of the permanency plan and did not satisfy the requirement to provide financial support. In re Nolan G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015).

Ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home was met by clear and convincing evidence where it showed that the child was found to be dependent and neglected and was placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, the father was incarcerated and his sentence would expire in 2017, and the caseworker testified that her attempts to gain information to establish a suitable home for the child was thwarted by her inability to keep in contact with the father and his mother. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to incarceration was vacated where both the trial court and the father miscalculated the relevant four-month period and did not consider the four months immediately preceding the father's incarceration. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent through wanton disregard was met by clear and convincing evidence based on the father's criminal history, his admitted drug abuse, and his neglect of the child while in his custody. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Mother and step-father's petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of the father was properly denied because the evidence did not support the findings that the father's failure to visit the child or to pay child support were willful as he exercised regular visitation with the child for the first five years of her life, but the situation changed when the mother became engaged to the step-father as the mother took steps that made it much more difficult for the father to exercise visitation with the child, and she took unreasonable steps restricting his access to the child; she failed to provide the father with the mailing address where she and the child resided; and she interfered with the father's ability to pay child support. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Jan. 28, 2016).

Termination of a father's parental rights based upon abandonment was proper because the father did not visit or contact the child within the four months preceding his incarceration, and the record did not reflect that the father seriously attempted to visit the child or that he was prevented from doing so. Additionally, the father had a laundry list of criminal offenses in conjunction with his lengthy history of drug abuse. In re Thomas T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights due to abandonment where the evidence provided by the child's mother, her new husband, and the father showed that he willfully failed to visit the child and he presented no proof he or his agent appeared at the meeting location in the four months preceding the filing of the termination of parental rights petition. In re Hope A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Trial court erred in not finding that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to support her where he never presented medical proof documenting a disability, he was unsuccessful in obtaining disability benefits and did not provide evidence of an inability to work during the relevant four-month period, and he spent the money he was given by his mother on pain medication and gave none to his child. In re Hope A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights to a minor child, on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit, was appropriate because the parent failed to visit the child during the four month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the parent's rights and for adoption of the child. Although the parent filed a petition seeking visitation, when the parent alleged interference with visitation had occurred, the petition was dismissed for the parent's failure to advance the petition. In re B.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 964 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding that grounds existed to terminate the father's parental rights to the children for abandonment by wanton disregard; the father was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the termination petition, and prior to that, he attacked two of the children and was found to have committed severe abuse, plus he attacked the mother with a baseball bat and had pleaded guilty to the offenses, which amounted to wanton disregard for the children's welfare. In re Kyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015).

During the determinative time period, the mother was unable to make reasonable efforts toward establishing a suitable home and department personnel were constrained in their efforts to assist her; the trial court's judgment regarding the abandonment ground was reversed. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence existed that the father abandoned the child through his conduct prior to incarceration by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Department made reasonable efforts to assist the father in obtaining a suitable home while he was able to make progress in that regard, but then he was incarcerated primarily due to his own choices, and he would not be eligible for parole until July 2016; the father was in no position at the time of trial to provide a suitable home for the child, and thus the father abandoned the child pursuant to the statutory ground of failure to provide a suitable home. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Burden to prove abandonment by willful failure to support rests with the department; finding no clear evidence that the mother had the capacity to pay child support during the relevant four month period, the trial court's finding of abandonment for willful failure to support was vacated. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Termination was proper under the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, given that the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and she demonstrated a lack of concern for the children to such a degree that it appeared unlikely that she would be able to provide a suitable home at an early date. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for abandonment due to failure to support was supported by evidence that he had the means to provide support for the child but did not. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for abandonment due to failure to visit was supported by evidence that he made no attempts to restore visitation for more than seven months after the child's mother died, supporting a finding his failure was willful. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment where it showed that despite her having appropriate housing and a job, she failed to make child support payments since August 2014. In re A'leah M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for abandonment-willful failure to visit where it showed that she did not visit her child in person during the four-month period immediately preceding the date the petition to terminate was filed, she failed to submit to drug screens that were her only obstacle to visiting her child, and her telephone conversations with the four-year-old child were not a sufficient substitute for in-person visitation. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for abandonment-failure to provide a suitable home where the Tennessee Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist her in establishing a suitable home for the child and the mother made no effort to establish a suitable home. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Even though the trial court erred by terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment for willfully failing to pay child support, because the record showed that he was receiving Supplemental Security Income and then Social Security Disability Income benefits, the trial court did not err by terminating his rights for failure to provide a suitable home, because the record showed that none of the homes he lived in was suitable for the child. In re Benjamin A., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights based on willful failure to visit where the evidence showed that he had substantial contact with the child within the four-month period, including that they were together, along with the mother, every day during July 2013 and they lived together the first week of August 2013. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights based on willful failure to support where the record contained some evidence that the father and his family were supporting the child during the early weeks of the four-month period and the record did not contain sufficient evidence regarding the father's expenses. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Termination of a parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's finding of abandonment by wanton disregard because the parent's pre-incarceration criminal activity and drug use constituted wanton disregard for the welfare of the parent's child. In re Tristan B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights for abandonment by wanton disregard was affirmed; in part, the father's own testimony at trial reflected his lengthy history of drug abuse and criminal activity. In re Aniston M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2016).

While the father did not pay child support during the relevant four-month period, the evidence was insufficient to support termination of his parental rights based on abandonment, because the Department of Children's Services failed to prove that the father had the capacity to support the child but did not do so. In re Jimmy B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016).

Juvenile court erred in finding the ground of wanton disregard to terminate the father's parental rights, when the father was incarcerated for less than 24 hours. In re Kaitlin W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2016).

Given that the mother engaged in meaningful visitation in the four months preceding her incarceration, and the trial court failed to identify the four-month period that applied to the father, the application of this abandonment ground was reversed because there was no clear evidence that either parent willfully failed to visit during the requisite time period. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Record supported the finding of abandonment based upon the father's conduct prior to incarceration, which demonstrated a wanton disregard for the children's welfare, as he engaged in domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children, and he failed to address his mental health and substance abuse issues. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

While the mother was commended for taking the first step toward rehabilitation by renouncing her substance abuse, her extensive criminal activity and substance abuse issues could not be ignored; she also disregarded the children's welfare by leaving them with the father, who assaulted her and others, and thus there was clear evidence to establish that the mother engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, and termination was proper. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that led to the children's removal from the home, and the mother met some requirements, but termination was based on her failure to not meet other requirements; the application of this statutory ground was reversed because the mother diligently completed the requirements to the best of her ability and there was no clear evidence of substantial noncompliance. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Because there was no dispute that Mother was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the termination petition, either of two abandonment definitions contained in the statute could apply in this case; although the latter definition was not pleaded, as the parties discussed the mother's visitation at length and neither party objected to evidence in this regard, it was considered whether the mother willfully failed to visit in the four months prior to her incarceration. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

Trial court was not entitled to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent through wanton disregard because the termination petition did not sufficiently allege this ground, it was not referenced in the trial court's prior order, and it was not tried by implied consent. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

While the trial court did find that the mother did not visit the child, there was no finding that the mother's failure to do so was willful; because no other grounds were found by the trial court and sustained on appeal, the case was remanded for the trial court to address the willfulness issue. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

Statute governing abandonment is clear that different time periods apply to different definitions. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

For the termination ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, this ground is inapplicable when the child is not removed from the parent at issue's home before being placed with the child services department; in this case, the child could not have been removed from the father's home where he never provided one in the first instance, and thus this ground did not apply based on the dearth of evidence to establish whether the child was ever removed from the father's home. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home for the children in continually maintaining contact with the mother, providing her with drug screens, and assisting her with coordinating drug and alcohol assessments; while the mother's home was neat and clean, she had been unable to stop her cocaine abuse, and thus while she established a proper physical living location, her home was not free of drugs, plus she was currently incarcerated and could not provide a home at all for the children. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Because of the grave consequences and high stakes in termination cases, trial courts should endeavor to be as specific as possible in their orders and treat each definition of abandonment as a separate ground for which specific findings are required In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

For abandonment by willful failure to support as to the mother, the trial court's oral ruling included detailed factual findings, but none appeared or were incorporated into the written order; mere legal conclusions did not fulfill the trial court's obligations and were not sufficient to satisfy the directive of the statute, such that termination as to this ground was vacated. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

For abandonment by willful failure to visit as to the father, despite the incorrect date as stated in the order, the ground was considered as the trial court's error of five days regarding the correct calculation of the four-month period was not determinative. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Trial court's determination that the father, for abandonment purposes, exhibited a wanton disregard for the child was vacated; despite the abundance of evidence concerning the father's drug use, charges of selling drugs, fleeing, and assault, probation violations, and transient lifestyle, the trial court's order omitted reference to any factual findings that would support a finding of wanton disregard, in clear violation of the statute. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Statute did not direct the court to review whether the father did what he could to maintain a relationship with the child while in prison; what was to be determined was whether, in the four-months preceding his incarceration, the father attempted to visit the child, and yet he made no attempt to present himself to the trial court in an effort to regain visitation, and thus he willfully failed to visit the child prior to his incarceration. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination of parental rights for failure to remedy persistent conditions was proper because there was clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to the children's removal a year earlier still persisted and prevented their safe return, there was little likelihood that these conditions would be remedied at an early date so that the children could be safely returned in the near future, and continuation of the parent-child relationship diminished the children's chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re Jayden L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence established that the parent abandoned their child by willfully failing to remit child support before, during, and after the relevant time period. Although the parent had limited education and difficulty in securing employment, the parent never paid child support, other than token support or small gifts, throughout the entirety of the child's lifetime even when the parent was admittedly capable of working and actually employed at various times. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her son based on abandonment where her monthly visits for four months were so infrequent and of such short duration that they constituted token visitation. The mother admitted she spent the majority of her time during the visits with her daughter instead of her son and only a limited relationship had been established between them. In re Jayvien O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Juvenile court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights because the finding that the mother failed to visit her child in the four months preceding the filing of the petition was supported by clear and convincing evidence; the mother gave no testimony upon which to conclude that her failure to visit the child during that period was not willful. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Abandonment by failure to support as a ground for termination was not shown by clear and convincing evidence because there was no clear testimony as to when and where the mother was employed. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Because the juvenile court did not mention the failure to provide a suitable home in its oral ruling, the fact that they were included in the order did not reflect the juvenile court's own deliberation and decision that termination would be granted on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Termination of parental rights based upon abandonment, by a parent failing to provide a suitable home, was appropriate because the parent was unlikely to be able to provide a suitable home at an early date. The parent's then home was unlivable as a water pipe was broken, and the parent had only begun addressing the parent's mental health issues, had no plans to stop taking narcotic pain medication, and showed a lack of cooperation with Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

Trial court erred by terminating parental rights based on a parent having abandoned the parent's children, as the parent failed to provide any child support while the children were in foster care, because the evidence was less than clear and convincing that the parent willfully failed to support the children as the parent, during the applicable four month period, was unemployed, apparently lived with various friends and family members, did not have a high school education, and was out of the work force during marriage. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

There was testimony that the mother failed to follow through on referrals for employment, that she was receiving financial support from her father, and that she was able to secure sufficient funds to be released on bond after being arrested for failure to support; she had the capacity to work or otherwise acquire funds to pay support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition and she consciously did not do so, and this failure was willful. In re Quadavon H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2016).

Abandonment by failure to secure a suitable home was not established, since an order adjudicating the children as dependent and neglected was not found. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

There was clear evidence that the mother abandoned her children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare, as she was incarcerated for the requisite time period, she had an extensive history of criminal behavior, she was addicted to opiates for years, and her probation had been revoked for multiple violations. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned the child by failing to visit her, as he had no excuse for not visiting the child from the time she was less than two years old until the hearings and the father was free and able to make such visits. In re Tianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2016).

All evidence indicated that the parents failed to make necessary changes to ensure that their home was sanitary, and the findings that their parental rights could be terminated on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; photographs were admitted into evidence showing, in part, bugs throughout the house, animal feces and urine on the floors and beds, beer cans scattered throughout, and continuing clutter in the home. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper as the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit because, even giving the mother credit for the one visit in June, which was rescheduled, and accepting the mother's testimony that she visited in March, her visitation during the four month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights could not be viewed as regular visitation; and the mother gave no explanation as to why she did not, or could not, have visited more often during the relevant time period. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper as the mother did not abandon the child by willfully failing to pay child support as the evidence failed to show that the mother had the ability to pay child support during the relevant four month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the mother (1) did not make use of the Department of Children's Services'  efforts to assist the mother, (2) had no stable home, and (3) continued to abuse drugs and alcohol. In re S.D.D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment where it showed that he was sentenced to 130 months in prison on February 25, 2013 and since the child's birth the father engaged in violent behavior, abused drugs, and committed acts that resulted in a lengthy prison sentence. In re A.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit where the children's great-grandmother's actions did not prevent the mother visiting the children and the mother failed to visit the children for four months preceding her incarceration. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support where the job opportunity she turned down did not occur during or prior to the relevant four months such that it would affect her income during the determinative period. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the children where she was involved in criminal activity and used illegal drugs. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court did not err in finding that the mother had abandoned the child because the mother had been convicted of driving under the influence, reckless endangerment, sale of counterfeit controlled substance, delivery of Schedule III controlled substance, shoplifting, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and had pled guilty to two violations of probation, which constituted the kind of conduct that exhibited wanton disregard for the welfare of a child. In re Kendra P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Although the trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard and for failure to support the children, termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by willfully failing to visit the children because the father did not visit the children during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the father's rights; and the father was released from prison in late 2014, but up until the time of the hearing on November 19, 2015, he had not visited with the children a single time. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was released from incarceration in October 2014, and the petition to terminate was not filed until June 2015; and the father was not incarcerated at the time of the filing of the petition or during the four months immediately preceding the institution of the action. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Grandmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned her son by willfully failing to support him where during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition the mother made seven child support payments and her support was more than token, given that she was released from jail three weeks before the beginning of the four-month period, she was pregnant, and she lacked a driver's license or transportation. In re Ryder R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016).

Evidence did not clearly and convincingly support a finding that the mother's failure to visit the child was willful, as required for a finding of abandonment, because the mother's supervised visits were “canceled” when the paternal grandmother's husband became ill, the day of visitation got changed, and the mother was unable to attend due to her work schedule. In re Jaiden C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2016).

Termination of parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home was supported by evidence that the father was incarcerated when the child was taken into custody and, thus, was not then providing a suitable home, failed to provide a suitable home once released, and the mother remained incarcerated and unable to provide a home for the child. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Termination of parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent was supported by evidence that the father violated probation and the mother continued to use drugs and alcohol, resulting in their incarceration. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because he was incarcerated during the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination, and he willfully failed to visit and support the child; the father had only seen the child once since the child was born, and despite being ordered to do so, the father never paid any child support until several months after the filing of the termination petition. In re Braxton R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard, given that the mother's conduct prior to her incarceration constituted wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother had been in and out of jail, abused drugs, and did not show any effort to provide the child with the stability he needed. In re Zachariah G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2016).

Abandonment by failure to support was proven against the mother by clear and convincing evidence, given that she owed over $ 6,000 in child support arrears, yet she earned between $ 200 - $ 450 each week cleaning houses after the children were removed from the home, and she was aware of her duty to provide support and yet made no attempt to pay more than token support and had no justifiable excuse for not providing support. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; the prior adjudication of dependency and neglect criterion was met in this case, the mother lacked a suitable home for the children, as it did not have sufficient bedrooms, and the mother's ability to set proper boundaries for the children, who had significant mental issues and had been abused in the past, was questionable. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Father's failure to visit the child was willful, and thus termination of the father's rights was proper; the father was not incarcerated for the first year of the child's life, he claimed his addictions prevented him from visiting the child, and it appeared that the father's failure to visit was a conscious choice, not that he was prevented from doing so. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Juvenile court erred in finding that a mother abandoned her children because although there was sufficient evidence that the mother willfully failed to visit her children, the time frame only accounted for two months of the relevant time period; there was sufficient evidence that the mother attempted to visit the children on two occasions, and there was not evidence that she was offered assistance or alternative transportation. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Terminating a father's parental rights for abandonment due to a willful failure to visit was proper because (1) the father's visitation was token, as, during the four months before the termination petition was filed, the father visited only twice, leaving after one hour of a two-hour visit, and the father's phone calls did not try to establish a healthy parental relationship, and (2) the failure to visit was willful, as, despite knowing more than token visitation was required and an ability to visit, the father did not attempt more visitation. In re Jose L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 814 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Evidence did not support a finding that a father abandoned the father's children by failing to provide a suitable home because the father obtained sufficient housing during the relevant time period and maintained appropriate housing through trial. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence that the father's relationship with mother, who had a problem with the use of drugs, rendered the father's home unsuitable. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the Tennessee Department of Childrens Services proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned the father's children by willful failure to support them in that the father's failure to pay child support during the relevant four-month period before the filing of the petition for termination was willful, as the father was consistently employed during the period and did not argue inability to pay. Furthermore, termination was in the children's best interest. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Trial court properly found that the father abandoned the child based on his engagement in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; since the child was approximately 21 months old, the father had engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, which has culminated in a prison sentence of approximately 15 years. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

Ground of failure to provide a suitable home was proven by clear and convincing evidence where the mother's home could not be deemed suitable so long as she refused to cooperate fully regarding her abuse of prescription drugs. In re Dillon E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment because the father, even before the father's incarceration, both willfully failed to visit, as the father failed to fulfill the father's responsibilities under the permanency plan to prove to the court the father was ready to resume visitation once it was suspended, and engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that a father had abandoned a child for willful failure to visit and failure to support where, despite knowing of the child, he made no effort to provide support, visit the child, or establish a relationship, and he had not initiated contact with the child after meeting with the state agency. In re M.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016), appeal denied, In re Miguel T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Mar. 3, 2017).

Termination for abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home was reversed, given that the trial court impermissibly based its decision in part on facts outside of the applicable four-month period defined in the statute, which would have been four months following the removal of the children from the mother's home. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to a failure to establish a suitable home and lack of concern because the mother did not engage in gainful employment, resulting in the mother continuing to reside with the person accused of abusing her child. In re Casey C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 966 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit was supported by evidence that the mother failed to visit the child during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition and that the mother's failure to willful, as her relapse into drug use did not incapacitate her or make her physically unable to keep up with responsibilities and she admitted she avoided contact with the Department of Children's Services because she feared the caseworker would learn of her continued drug use. In re Lynx C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 977 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support was not supported by evidence, as the record lacked any evidence related to the mother's wages, expenses, or other financial responsibilities. In re Lynx C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 977 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016).

Father's parental rights could not be terminated based on abandonment by willful failure to visit, as the evidence showed that the father attempted to visit the child but could not get visits arranged. In re Heaven J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 979 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016).

Father's parental rights could not be terminated based on abandonment by willful failure to support, as the record contained no evidence regarding his income, ability to work, or expenses during the relevant time period. In re Heaven J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 979 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment due to conduct amount to a wanton disregard for the children's welfare and nonsupport was supported by evidence the mother had been incarcerated on several occasions for using drugs and the mother had the ability to provide support but failed to due to her decision to use drugs and not seek employment as a result of the drug use. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 985 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2016).

Trial court properly found that the father's failure to support could not be considered willful because he made sincere efforts to provide support, yet his efforts were rebuffed by the mother; therefore, the mother failed to provide grounds to terminate the father's parental rights to the child. In re Neylan H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 997 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

Grounds to terminate the father's parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, as he was incarcerated at the time the termination petition was filed, and he engaged in conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child, which included kidnapping his girlfriend with the child in the car. In re Cheyanna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

Trial court erred in termination the mother's parental rights based on abandonment due to wanton disregard, because the evidence of the mother's pre-incarceration conduct, her show of care and concern for the children, effort to establish a meaningful relationship with them, and her completion of tasks on the permanency plan, did not support such a finding. In re Renaldo M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1003 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2017).

Record was devoid of any evidence that the department made any efforts related to housing during the relevant time period, and thus there was no clear evidence to establish that the mother abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home, and termination based on this ground was reversed. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children because the evidence clearly and convincingly established that mother abandoned the children; the mother failed to maintain housing, missed appointments for drug and alcohol assessments, failed to maintain legal means of income, failed or refused drug screens, and missed psychological evaluations. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the mother willfully failed to visit her children because she failed to visit them during the relevant four-month period and the record showed that the Department of Children's Services tried to schedule drug screens in an effort to facilitate the mother's visitation but that she failed to communicate with them. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for failing to provide a suitable home because it showed that their case manager showed them the hazards in the home that needed to be remedied, the parents made little or no attempt to provide their children with a suitable home, and both parents continued to struggle with substance abuse and ran afoul of the law. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

There was not clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for abandonment under because, although they did not pay child support during the relevant time period, there was no evidence of either parent's income or available resources during the four months immediately preceding their incarcerations. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's rights for the willful failure to visit because it was undisputed that the father had not seen the children for approximately six years and there was no indication in the record that he had made any attempt to seek visitation. In re Anna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Mother's extensive criminal record and involvement in a domestic altercation with a paramour who lived in her home and had previously been arrested for domestic assault supported termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re John J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Evidence that the mother knew she had to support her child but failed to do so because her alcohol and drug addiction, supported the termination of her parental rights based on abandonment by wilfully failing to support the child. In re John J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Evidence that the mother engaged in no more than token visitation within the meaning of T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(C), supported the termination of her parental rights based on abandonment by wilfully failing to visit. In re John J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Evidence was not clear and convincing as to the ground of a mother's willful failure to visit because the children's grandfather kept detailed logs on the mother's visits, and it was evidence from the logs that the mother visited 43 or 44 times; even if the mother visited 17 times in the relevant four-month period preceding the filing of the petition, as initially asserted, the court of appeals would be hard-pressed to deem that token visitation. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Evidence relevant to the trial court's findings on the issue of a father's alleged willful failure to visit did not rise to the level of clear and convincing because the children's grandfather testified that the father did visit many times. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights for failure to establish a suitable home was inappropriate where the evidence showed that the children lived in a different home from the father at the time they were placed in foster care. In re Promise A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2017).

Termination of parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and provide support was appropriate where his past visits and admission that he was not prevented from visiting showed that his failure to visit was willful, and he had not paid any child support despite the fact that he was working. In re Promise A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit was proper; the last meaningful contact the mother had with the child was in 2014, and although she knew where appellees and the child lived, she made no attempt to see the child or communicate with him. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that a father's parental rights were to be terminated on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay support because the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings that the father had the ability to provide support, but chose not to provide support, during the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights. In re Ja'miya T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).

Trial court properly denied grandparents'  petition to terminate parental rights because the grandparents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a willful failure to visit; the parents visited their child numerous times despite the restrictions imposed by the grandparents, and regardless of whether the grandparents were well-intentioned, their actions had the effect of significantly interfering with the parents'  efforts to visit the child. In re Sophia P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. June 13, 2017).

Trial court properly denied grandparents'  petition to terminate parental rights because the grandparents failed to prove willful failure to support by clear and convincing evidence; the record contained no evidence regarding the father's income, work record, or expenses during the pivotal time frame, and the limited evidence did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had the capacity to provide support and lacked a justifiable excuse for failing to do so. In re Sophia P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. June 13, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment because it showed that he failed to engage in anything more than token visitation with the child for several months, while he was able to work and held numerous jobs, any money he made went to purchase drugs rather than to pay support for the child, and he engaged in criminal behavior to support his drug habit which led to his incarceration. In re Kira G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2017).

In the absence of any proof as to the father's income and expenses during either the four-month time period before his alleged incarceration, or during the four-month time period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate his parental rights, the Department of Children's Services failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, that the father abandoned the child by willful failure to provide support. In re Damien G. M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

When determining whether to terminate a father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to support the child, the absence of a court order to support the child did not show the father did not willfully fail to support the child because the father had a duty to support the child without such an order. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

It was error to terminate an incarcerated father's parental rights based on abandonment due to the father's willful failure to support the child because it was not found that the father had an ability to support the child during the four months before the father's incarceration. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on her willful failure to visit the child because it showed that she attempted to set up visitation only once in the relevant four-month period, the father never refused visitation prior to the mother's theft charge, and the main reason the mother did not attempt to satisfy the conditions to regain visitation was because she could not pass the required drug screens. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment because it showed that he failed to establish a suitable home, he was incarcerated, and he engaged in illegal drug use. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on his willful failure to support the child because the trial court utilized an inappropriate four-month period, as it did not piece together the father's periods of non-incarceration prior to the filing of the termination petition. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

Father had been incarcerated since September 18, 2015, and the proceedings to terminate his parental rights were instituted on January 12, 2016, putting his incarceration squarely within the definition of T.C.A. § 36-1-102; his conduct met the definition of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's child on the grounds of abandonment was appropriate because the mother wilfully failed to visit and to support the child in the four consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition for termination. In re Colby L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2017).

Abandonment was a ground for terminating a father's parental rights because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father engaged in conduct prior to the father's incarceration that evidenced a wanton disregard for the welfare of the father's children as the father engaged in criminal conduct, substance abuse, reckless behavior, and was incarcerated at times. Because of this conduct and behavior, the father was unable to establish a stable father-child relationship with the father's children. In re Casyn B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment was supported by evidence that the parents failed to provide a suitable home, where the mother's mental health issues were addressed and the father participated in services to adequately parent the child. In re Lena G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on the ground of abandonment by willfully failing to make reasonable support payments because the record included a child support payment summary showing that the mother made child support payments for January through March 2016; thus, the mother did not fail to support the children during the four months prior to prior to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services filing its petition to terminate her parental rights. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) did not make reasonable efforts to assist the mother with housing during the relevant statutory period as DCS only provided the mother with a list of housing resources and discussing with her the options she could afford; and, despite knowing that the mother had mental health issues, DCS did not look into the nature of the mother's mental health issues or considered how her mental health issues might have contributed to her substance abuse or inability to secure stable housing. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services did not meet its burden to show that it exercised reasonable efforts to assist the mother in obtaining suitable housing. In re Rylan G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017).

Because the mother was not incarcerated during the applicable time period, there was not clear and convincing evidence to support termination of her rights due to abandonment by an incarcerated parent. In re C.J.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, In re Chaz B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was improper on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and willful failure to visit, but proper on the ground of wanton disregard based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because the mother testified to the abuse perpetrated by the father upon her while she was pregnant with the child; and the abuse described by the mother was of an especially cruel nature and directly imperiled the child as the father pushed her down some steps and she landed directly on her stomach, beat her with extension cords, and held her hostage at the home without allowing her to seek medical attention for her injuries and medical attention to assist with the birth of the child. In re Kenya H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was improper on the ground of abandonment based on willful failure to visit because, while the father's alleged excuses did indeed appear poor, there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which to make a clear and convincing determination as to the father's intent not to visit; and not all of the possible reasons for the father's failure to visit rose to the level of a willful failure to visit. In re Kenya H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to support because it showed that the father made no monetary contributions to the children's support during the determinative period, Christmas gifts he provided in 2014 constituted no more than token support, he did not claim to have legitimate, extraordinary expenses that would have prevented him from sending payments, and he acknowledged that he was capable of earning income when not incarcerated but instead chose to spend his discretionary income on drugs. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to visit because he did not dispute that he failed to visit the children or speak with them during the determinative period and admitted that his last visit with the children occurred in 2014. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard was improper where although she had many chances to become an appropriate parent, she repeatedly made poor decisions without regard for the child's safety. In re Zane W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper; while he exhibited the ability to provide support, his criminal behavior, probation violations, substance abuse, and incarcerations exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper; the mother's chronic drug abuse and inability to maintain sobriety, plus her criminal behavior and unstable housing exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her children. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father was allowed a total of 16 hours of visitation during the four-month period, but he used only two, plus his failure to participate in more than token visitation was willful; he said he had problems with transportation because he lost his license, and while he could ride with others, he had problems paying for gas, and thus the father abandoned the children by a willful failure to visit pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Because the mother and father were incarcerated during the four months prior to the department's filing of the petition for termination, the ground of abandonment by failure to visit, for purposes of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113, was not established. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home requires a final dependency and neglect order under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); there was no final dependency and neglect order regarding the father because his adjudication as dependent and neglected was combined with the termination of parental rights trial, the department conceded this termination ground with respect to the mother's and father's rights to the child, and this was reversed, for purposes of T.C.A. § 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court erred in finding that a mother abandoned her child by willfully failing to support the child because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) offered no proof as to the mother's income or assets to establish an ability to pay; the proof suggested that the mother did not have the ability to pay because she was incarcerated at the time DCS filed the petition, and she testified to not having a job during the relevant four-month period and relying on friends for her need. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit, as the father did not visit the child during the relevant four-month period, and, contrary to the father's contention, he did not appear to have made substantial efforts during the determinative period such that he was actively trying to maintain visitation with the child. In re Savanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2017).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay visit pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A), given that he willfully abandoned the children by failing to visit them, his engagement at the children's doctor's appointments was sporadic and amounted to no more than token visitation, and he failed to make any effort to spend time with the children until after the petition to terminate his rights was filed. In re Miracle M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2017).

Trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that a father's failure to visit was willful because weekly phone calls with the children did not constitute token visits; a Tennessee Department of Children's Services representative testified that during the relevant four-month time period, the father talked with the children about once a week, and the father visited them several times before he moved to another state. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence to support the determination that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services proved abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home as to both a mother and a father because they exhibited such a lack of concern for the welfare of the children that it appeared unlikely they would be able to provide them with a suitable home at an early date; both parents had continuing problems with drug use and criminal activity failed to cooperate with the Department. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Finding of abandonment based on willful failure to support was not supported by the record, as the mother and step-father failed to present evidence to establish that the father willfully failed to support the child during the relevant period. In re Preston L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Finding of abandonment based on wanton disregard was not supported by the record, because, despite the father's incarceration, there was no evidence of a broader pattern of conduct that rendered the father unfit or posed a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of the child. In re Preston L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment because it showed that they had not remitted support in the two years prior to the filing of the termination petition despite periods of employment and food and gifts provided were token support. In re Brennen T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment because the record showed that the mother attended all but three or four visits during the entirety of the child's residency with his foster parents and the record was unclear as to the amount of visits the father missed. In re Brennen T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on grounds of abandonment, given that she failed to provide a suitable home despite reasonable efforts by the Department of Children's Services. In re B.L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

Trial court erred by concluding that clear and convincing evidence existed to show that a mother willfully failed to support her children during the relevant four-month time period because the mother had just completed drug rehabilitation and was attempting to care for her newborn baby; the mother was unemployed for approximately two of the relevant four months, and she lived with several different members of her husband's family. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because evidence in the record did not provide clear and convincing proof that the mother's failure to visit the children was willful; an Alabama court order effectively prohibited the mother from visiting the children because she was not entitled to supervised visitation under that order, and she had an affirmative duty not to visit her children until she satisfied the conditions of the order. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment because the mother did not have the capacity to visit the children during the relevant time period; the mother testified, without contradiction, that she did not own a vehicle during the relevant four months, and the trial court did not make a specific finding rejecting that testimony. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the father abandoned the father's child as the father engaged in criminal behaviour and was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, and exhibited behavior that displayed a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to the father's incarceration. Neighbors testified that the child was not being fed regularly and that the father played dangerously with the child, while a case worker testified that the conditions in the home were unsafe for any child. In re Kandace D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) failed to carry its burden of establishing abandonment by willful failure to support, as DCS presented no evidence of the mother's income or available resources during the relevant time period. In re Nashay B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment, by the father demonstrating a wanton disregard for the child's welfare, because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the father who was incarcerated knew of the child's existence when the father was engaging in the criminal behavior that demonstrated wanton disregard. In re Michael O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2018).

Chancery court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights because the evidence was less than clear and convincing that the mother willfully failed to support her children; the child's father and stepmother presented no evidence of the mother's income or available resources during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, and thus, there was no basis to find that the mother's failure to pay child support was willful. In re Alivia F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment through willful failure to visit and support the child because he never appeared for any medical appointments despite the child's foster mother providing him with notice of all medical appointments, and he never provided financially for the child during the four months prior to his incarceration. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment through wanton disregard because his testimony established that he was aware of the child's existence when the committed aggravated burglary, he never attempted to contact, visit, or develop a relationship with the child, and he never financially supported the child. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence established that a mother abandoned a child by failing to provide a suitable home because the mother failed to maintain housing long enough for the Tennessee Department of Children's Services to confirm the mother's residency and its suitability and was without housing at the time of the hearing. The mother's failure to properly address the mother's living situation demonstrated a lack of concern for the child such that it appeared unlikely that the mother was able to provide a suitable home at an early date. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment because he last saw his child in January 2017 in what the court considered to be a token visit and he did not visit the child during the four-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for termination. In re Taya K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the parents'  rights for abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because it showed that the parents had continued to reside in an inappropriate home filled with lice, fleas, dog and cat feces, with insufficient food stores and they did not properly supervise the children. In re Mack E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights to the father's child on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support was inappropriate because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services did not meet its burden to show that the father had the ability to pay support so as to establish that the father's failure to do so was willful. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on willful failure to support because, given the frequency of the mother's incarcerations, her periods of non-incarceration were not as often as it would take to get a job. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights due to persistent conditions and abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home where the children had not been removed from her home as a result of a petition filed in the juvenile court, and there was no order removing the children from the home based on dependency, neglect, or abuse. In re Veronica T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failing to establish a suitable home because she moved in and out of friends'  homes for a couple of years, she moved in with a boyfriend who was a registered sex offender, and her mental illness rendered her unable to provide a stable, safe home for her children. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Mother's visits were more than perfunctory and were frequent enough to establish more than minimum contact with the child, and thus the mother's visitation did not meet the definition of token visitation, and the grandparents therefore failed to prove that the mother willfully failed to visit her child for abandonment purposes; the visitation was sufficient to continue the bond with the child, and the mother consistently maintained that she had problems obtaining reliable transportation. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Ground for termination of the mother's parental rights of abandonment by failure to visit was not clearly and convincingly established because there was no evidence that the mother was unwilling to meet conditions in order to visit the child but that she was unable to do so. Upon leaving jail the mother's first call was to request permission to visit her child, petitioners, who had custody of the child, would not take the child to Georgia, the mother would not be permitted to take the child out of the home for overnight visitation, and petitioners advised the mother that she could not stay overnight with them. In re Emma S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because it showed that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services provided her with a multitude of services in four months following the removal of the child, she made little to no effort to free herself from drugs, and she only sporadically attended counseling. The evidence showed that because the mother continued to associate with the father, despite the domestic violence he inflicted on her, it was unlikely that she would be able to provide a suitable home for the child at an early date. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children because the record did not clearly and convincingly establish that her failure to pay support was willful; while there was some testimony with respect to the mother's income and expenses, the testimony did not establish what her income and expenses were during the period at issue, and as a consequence, there was not clear and convincing proof from which to conclude she had the capacity to pay support during that period. In re Emily J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit as the father and his current wife interfered with the mother's right to see her children or to communicate with them because the father did not have the right to unilaterally stop the mother's visitation, and he did not have the authority to convert the mother's unsupervised visitation to supervised visitation and then to use her failure to visit as a ground to terminate her parental rights; although the mother conceded that she abused alcohol during her marriage, she testified that she no longer drank and the children's testimony corroborated her statement; and the father blocked the mother from calling his cellular telephone. In re Justin P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2018).

Evidence found by the trial court to be credible amounted to clear and convincing evidence that a mother's parental rights had to terminated because the mother had abandoned the child by failing to support the child; after the mother was released from prison, she sent no gifts, clothing, or food for the child, and she was able-bodied and working. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Evidence found by the trial court amounted to clear and convincing evidence to terminate a mother's parental rights for willful abandonment by failure to visit because the mother was permitted to contact the child by mail and had not done so; the mother continually failed to attempt to contact and/or visit her child, despite being aware of her duty to do so. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support because there was no proof introduced of the mother's income, employment (or willful unemployment), or expenses during the relevant time period from which the court could conclude that she had the capacity to pay support. In re Ethan B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because the record did not contain clear and convincing proof that the mother's failure to visit was willful, as there was no proof as to the mother's capacity to visit or lack of an excuse for not visiting during the relevant period. In re Ethan B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2018).

Although the mother was unsuccessful in establishing a suitable home for the children, the department failed to show that it made reasonable efforts during the relevant four-month periods to assist her in obtaining suitable housing, which was required to prevail on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and the judgment was reversed in this regard. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the mother's conduct exhibited a wanton disregard for the children's welfare and termination proper; two of the children tested positive for drugs, another child was born with drugs in her system, the mother relapsed twice after treatment, and she was incarcerated at different times during the pendency of this action. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment through wanton disregard of the child's welfare because the father had been involved in criminal activity and been convicted of some offenses after the child's birth; he had not consistently financially supported the child; and he had not paid child support since April 2015. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Evidence that parents domestic violence issues were ongoing and they had not been forthcoming with their drug use despite the reasonable efforts made by the Department of Children's Services, supported the termination of their parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home. In re Damon B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2018).

Because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services removed the children from the home of the mother's friends, not the mother's home, neither the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home nor persistence conditions applied. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Evidence was less than clear and convincing that a mother abandoned her children by willful failure to visit during the four months preceding the filing of the petition because there was no indication that the Tennessee Department of Children's services specifically offered to help with transportation to visit the children; in lieu of visits, the mother talked with her children on a daily basis. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support because both the permanency plan and the adjudicatory hearing order addressed the mother's obligation to pay child support; the mother and her attorney were present at the adjudicatory hearing, and after the hearing, the family service worker explained both her obligation to support her children and the consequences of failure to do so. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of willful failure to support was affirmed given the father's contradictory explanations, and the evidence that his reason for not sending money was an ever-present hostility toward the potential adoptive parents rather than a lack of means. In re Apex R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of willful failure to visit was affirmed given the unfavorable credibility determination of the father, and the communication problems with the potential adoptive parents were of the father's making. In re Apex R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a wanton disregard for the child's well-being given the mother's criminal convictions, probation violations, removal of other children due to domestic violence, and her remaining in a relationship with the abusive father In re Chase L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Trial court's determination that a mother willfully failed to visit her child during the relevant period was affirmed given the implicit finding that testimony that the foster parent had not significantly interfered with the mother's efforts to develop a relationship was more credible. In re Chase L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Father exhibited wanton disregard for the father's children because the father, before and after the birth of the children, repeatedly committed felonies and misdemeanors, and used alcohol and drugs without regard for the children's welfare, which resulted in the father's incarceration and inability to take care of the children when they were removed from their mother's custody and placed in foster care. The pattern of the father's conduct prior to incarceration exhibited disregard for the children and the father's relationship with them. In re Arianna Y., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit because the father spent less than six hours with the child over a period of thirty-two months; the record clearly and convincingly establishes that the father's visits were no more than token in that they were of such an infrequent nature or of such short duration as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the child. In re D.N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and substantial noncompliance with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plan because the father raped the mother while the children were present in the home, he threatened the mother and the children with physical harm, and the children were aware of his behaviors; it did not appear that the father could provide the children with a safe home, free of domestic violence, and sexually deviant behavior; and the requirement that he address the psychological and emotional abuse issues was of paramount importance, but he did nothing toward that goal. In re R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to terminate the father's parental rights for abandonment based on nonsupport because while it showed that he was employment and paid $639 in child support in the relevant four month period, the father did not testify to his rent obligations or other living expenses. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for failure to provide a suitable home because his denial of ever using drugs, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, combined with his history of domestic violence and his failure to obtain stable housing, proved the ground by clear and convincing evidence. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father's parental rights for willful failure to visit because he admitted at trial that he had not seen the child for two years, he did not allege that he was prevented from seeing the child, and he admitted that he had not asked for visitation since 2014. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home was proven with evidence of the mother's multiple, unfounded accusations of sexual abuse at school. In re McKenzi W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit was not improper, as the mother was provided a clearly defined pathway to obtain visitation, but refuse to obtain a psychological evaluation from a licensed clinical psychologist so that she could visit the child. In re McKenzi W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that grounds existed to terminate a father's parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father–through repeated incarcerations, criminal behavior, a probation violation, and substance abuse issues as shown in the father's criminal convictions–showed a pattern of conduct that posed a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of the child. In re Ava H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support because she made no financial contribution to the support of the child, and the child's great aunt testified that the mother never provided any gifts or necessaries for the child during the relevant time period; the fact that the other was not under court order to provide support did not, ipso facto, relieve her of that obligation. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit because despite the fact that the mother was granted the opportunity for supervised visits, she did not seek visitation until after she was served with the petition to terminate her parental rights; there was no evidence that the mother was thwarted or otherwise precluded from seeking visitation. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Father's conduct evidenced wanton disregard for the well-being of the child and constituted grounds to terminate his parental rights; the father was aware of his duty to visit, yet he had willfully not visited the child in the four month period prior to his incarceration, plus he had been incarcerated within four months of the petition to terminate being filed, and thus he engaged in drug abuse and criminal activities rather than making progress towards reunifying with his child. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home for the child was proper, given that the child was removed from the mother's custody when the child was found dependent and neglected, and the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother by, in part, developing permanency plans, providing visitation, and making referrals for the mother's alcohol and drug treatment, yet she had failed to address her mental health issues, maintain stable employment, and maintain stable housing. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Denial of a petition to terminate an incarcerated father's parental rights was appropriate because there was not clear and convincing evidence to establish that the father willfully failed to visit and to support during the relevant time period as the father was unaware of the mother's whereabouts during that time period due to the mother's moving and changing the mother's phone number and the failure of the mother's family to respond to the father's inquiries. Further, the evidence did not establish the father's ability to remit support. In re Ella P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Evidence clearly and convincingly established the ground of abandonment for termination of the mother's parental rights because the mother had a long criminal history and was incarcerated for the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination, and her conduct prior to incarceration exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother was serving a ten-year sentence and had other charges pending, and the child tested positive for illegal drugs at birth. In re Gabriel C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper under the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit; the mother only attended two of seven scheduled visits, her lack of visitation was due to her refusal to submit to required drug screens, and her two visits were deemed mere token visitation. In re Romeo T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

There was clear evidence to support termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard; the mother's criminal record was prolific, particularly troubling was the manufacture of methamphetamine and endangerment charges because the child was in the house where the drugs were being made, and the mother admitted to taking drugs during her pregnancy despite the fact that she had lost custody of her first child by the same action. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Despite the mother's admission that she understood that she was required to petition the trial court to lift the no contact order so she could visit the child, she did not do so; as she had no contact with the child since June 2016 and she had taken no overt steps to petition the trial court to set aside or modify the no contact order, there was clear evidence that she abandoned the child by willful failure to visit. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was incarcerated when the petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed and the father engaged in behavior during the relevant time period that violated the father's probation resulting in the father again being incarcerated. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Trial court's finding of abandonment was vacated and findings of fact concerning the willfulness of the alleged abandonment were required on remand; the trial court did not consider the mother's arguments that her failure to visit was not willful because she was in a rehabilitation program, and her attempts to visit via Skype were denied. In re Abagail D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the decision to terminate a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home because, during the four months immediately following removal of the children, the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home and the mother's evasive, and sometimes deceitful, behavior demonstrated a lack of concern for the children. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support because based on his testimony that he was gainfully employed during the all but two weeks of the pertinent period and that his paycheck was enough to cover his children's expenses, he had the ability to pay support. In re Jaylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit because it established that he attempted to arrange rides to visit the child and had 10 telephone calls and an in-person visit with the child. In re Jaylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Finding of abandonment for failure to visit was vacated and the case was remanded for consideration of the mother's willfulness in light of the father's denial of visitation and the parties'  course of dealing in scheduling visitation with minimal notice since the time of the divorce; the mother visited four times during the pertinent time period, but visitation was interrupted on one date and two additional requests for visitation were denied, and the mother's attempt to visit should still be considered in assessing the willfulness of her failure to visit.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

Father abandoned the child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for her welfare; the child languished in custody while the father continued in his criminal behavior and continually failed to adequately address his substance abuse issues. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by incarceration was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father violated the terms of the father's probation and was incarcerated for a portion of the relevant period before the institution of the proceeding, had not addressed the father's addiction to drugs, while the father's continued use of illegal substances was evidence that the father had abandoned the children by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit was supported by the evidence; the mother's visitation was contingent upon her ability to pass three consecutive, random drug screens, yet she did not make herself available for the visits and was unable to pass the necessary drug screens. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding clear evidence to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit; her choice in refusing to cooperate with an order constituted a willful decision to discontinue visiting the child, and her filing a petition to restore visitation, then failing to appear at the hearing, did not show she was actively trying to maintain visitation. In re L.U.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).

Trial court erred by terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment because once DNA testing confirmed the father to be the child's biological father he maintained consistent visitation with her and although the father did not pay any child support, the DCS failed to establish that he had the ability to pay support, as there was no proof as to his income and expenses. In re Natascha B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because she admitted that she willfully chose not to pay child support, and there was no evidence that she had any justification or infirmity, other than her drug addiction, to preclude her from obtaining gainful employment. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to provide a suitable home because the record contained no order expressly adjudicating the children dependent and neglected. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because it showed that visitation was offered but the father refused the conditions because he felt uncomfortable, he only offered a days'  notice when requesting a suitable time to see the child, and while he saw the child out in the community, those visits were token in nature. In re Ruger N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights to her youngest child based on abandonment for failing to visit and support that child during the four months immediately preceding her re-incarceration because the relevant four-month time period was March 13 through July 12, 2011, but there was no proof showing that the mother willfully failed to support or to visit the child prior to May of 2011. In re S.D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights due to abandonment through wanton disregard was supported by evidence of the mother's drug use during pregnancy, criminal activity, and failure to maintain contact with the child due to her incarceration. In re Savanna I., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2018).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment due to the mother's persistent failure to make an effort to address her drug and mental health issues, rendering her home unsafe. In re Karisah N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the children were removed from the mother's home, placed into foster care, and found to be dependent and neglected; despite reasonable efforts, at the time of trial, the mother did not provide any documentation of a written lease for the residence where she was living; and the mother never attended counseling to address her own history as a domestic violence victim. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Having determined that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) failed to clearly demonstrate the mother's relevant periods of incarceration to facilitate a determination of the statutorily determinative period, that the trial court erred in declining to attempt such a determination, and that DCS's proof regarding the mother's ability to pay during all possibly relevant periods failed to rise to the level of clear and convincing, the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the children by willfully failing to financially support them should be reversed. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment through wanton disregard for the children's welfare because the mother never attended counseling to address her own history as a domestic violence victim; the mother repeatedly engaged in conduct that resulted in her incarceration and negatively affected the children; and the mother failed to make any monetary payments toward the financial support of the children. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Evidence did not establish that a father abandoned a child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare because, although the father violated probation, failed to remit child support, and expended minimal efforts on a permanency plan, the father attended visitation prior to incarceration and violated probation by failing to report the father's current address, conduct that was not particularly egregious or indicative of extensive criminal behavior. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to a minor child based upon a finding of abandonment related to the father's conduct prior to incarceration because the father, who was incarcerated for the entirety of the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition, was advised of the obligation to remit support as evidenced by the parenting plans and the father's signing of the Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights, but did not remit support. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit was supported by evidence that the mother had not visited the children during the applicable time period and the mother's ongoing substance abuse was the primary basis for suspension of her visitation rights. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home was supported by evidence that the mother made no effort during the four-month statutory period to change the situation that precipitated the removal of the children or to establish a safe and stable environment to which they could return. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned her children by willful failure to support because it showed that she was incarcerated within the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition, she failed to make any payments toward the support of her children, and she admitted that the auto body and repair shop she owned with the stepfather generated income sufficient to support them and the children. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned her children by failing to establish a suitable home because it showed that she made no efforts toward doing so during the four months following their removal, but focused instead on resolving her criminal charges. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to establish a suitable home because although she secured housing shortly before the hearing, the Department of Children's Services had not been able to verify it and the mother continued to deny her substance abuse problem and failed to follow the necessary steps to ensure a drug-free home. In re Lesley A., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018).

There was clear evidence that the father abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home; despite attempts by the department to help him, the father never provided proof of safe and stable housing, and his lack of cooperation with the department and failure to improve his own living situation demonstrated that he would not be able to provide a suitable home for the children at an early date. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support was supported by evidence that the father offered no financial support during the relevant fourth month period, but admitted at trial that he could have paid support for the children. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wilful failure to visit was supported by evidence that, during the relevant four month period, the father on exercised his allotted visitation two out of eight times and offered no explanation for not exercising his right the other six times, and by evidence that the father failed to exercise all of his allotted phone visitation and that, when he did, such calls were often not appropriate with the father yelling at the daughter. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to failure to support was supported by evidence that the father knew of his duty to support, was capable of working and earning money, did not pay support during the relevant time period, and had no justifiable excuse for failing to pay support. In re Mikko B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment due to failure to visit was supported by evidence that the father did not attempt to engage counsel or otherwise seek to enforce the juvenile court order giving him visitation or alternative means to exercise visitation. In re Mikko B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, by failure to establish a suitable home, because the mother, who had an intellectual disability, did not have a proper physical living location, could not provide a home free of drugs, was unlikely to establish a suitable home in the near future, and seemed incapable of giving the child appropriate care and attention. In re Frederick S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, by mental incompetence, because the mother, who had an intellectual disability, did not have a proper physical living location, could not provide a home free of drugs, was unlikely to establish a suitable home in the near future, and seemed incapable of giving the child appropriate care and attention. In re Frederick S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2018).

Mother's failure to visit her children was willful, as the evidence showed the same pattern of the mother's missing opportunities to visit with her children before and after the birth of her last child, and despite any asserted physical limitations, the mother was able to work during the four-month period. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Trial court correctly concluded that the mother abandoned her children by engaging in conduct that would exhibit a wanton disregard for the children, given that she continued to use drugs after the children's removal, she was incarcerated twice on different charges, and before her incarceration, she did not once visit the children, plus she willfully made no child support payments. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Clear evidence established that the mother abandoned the children by failing to provide a suitable home; the children's services department tried to help the mother find suitable housing, but she still lacked that, and the mother had been given notice that failure to make reasonable efforts would lead to termination. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the father abandoned the child by failing to visit under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) because the father had no contact with the child after July 2015, the mother's brother, with whom the child was living, testified that he did not receive a telephone call from the father regarding setting up visitation after July 2015, and while the father claimed he did not know where the brother and his wife lived, he drove the mother to their house on the day of his only visit with the child on July 4, 2015. In re Jeffery D., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the father abandoned the child by displaying wanton disregard for his welfare because he had two parole violations, despite knowing that he was subject to re-incarceration if he committed additional criminal offenses. In re Jeffery D., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2019).

Trial court's ordering terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit because the record showed that visitation was suspended pursuant to a court order in August 2016, precluding any visitation during the majority of the pertinent time period. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence was shown of grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights to the child for abandonment by willful failure to support because the mother had the ability to pay child support, and the capability of earning money to pay her child support, but simply chose not to work and willfully chose not to pay child support. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence was shown of grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights to the child for abandonment by willful failure to visit because the mother waited for years before even attempting to set up visitation and the mother's attempts to set-up visitation after proceedings were commenced were minimal. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

Terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment was inappropriate because, by the time of trial, the mother had completed inpatient rehabilitation and participated in intensive outpatient drug treatment, had been drug free for several months, and was taking medication for her mental health issues and participating in individual therapy, and thus, there was not clear and convincing evidence that she lacked concern for the welfare of her child and would be unable to provide a suitable home at an early date. In re Serenity W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because the mother's children were removed from the mother's home and adjudicated dependent and neglected, there were issues concerning drug use, sexual abuse, and a lack of supervision of the children in the mother's home. Moreover, the mother had continued to engage in criminal activity throughout the pendency of the case and generally showed an unwillingness to parent the children. In re H. A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, abandoned the children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare. The father's repeated incarcerations coupled with the evidence of physical abuse and the father's unresolved substance abuse issues indicated that the father was either unfit to parent or posed a risk of substantial harm to the children's welfare. In re Julian J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground of failure to visit because the father stipulated and testified that he never requested a visit with the child. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) was upheld where her failure to support or visit the child, complete drug and alcohol classes, and other acts and omissions indicated that she was not willing or able to personally assume custody or financial responsibility for the child, and given the mother's instability and the fact that she had no relationship with the child, placing the child in the mother's custody would have poses a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

Termination of the father's parent rights was proper on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent because the father had a history of incessant criminal behavior and drug abuse evincing a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children and a pattern of conduct that rendered him unfit to parent as he had been in and out of jail since 2008. In re O.M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father's history was replete with drugs and crime; there were no indicia of a meaningful relationship between the children and father; removing the children from their current caretakers and physical environment would have a profoundly detrimental effect on their wellbeing; and the foster mother had provided a drug-free, safe home for the children. In re O.M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for willful failure to visit or to support her child because, during the four months leading up to the termination petition, the mother only visited with the child about five times; when the mother did visit, she was distracted and did not pay much attention to the child; the mother often missed her scheduled visits with the child; she only paid $18 in support; and she voluntarily quit both her jobs and did nothing to find a new job to pay child support. In re Laura F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because it showed that although she had completed a psychological evaluation and an alcohol and drug assessment, she had not followed up on the resultant recommendations, and she continued using illicit drugs despite the services offered by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Kaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

Evidence was less than clear and convincing that a mother abandoned the mother's child by willful failure to visit during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition because the mother did not engage in token visitation during the applicable time period. Considering the mother's visits, the mother's testimony concerning phone contact, and the circumstances surrounding a scheduled visit, the mother did not have merely minimal or insubstantial contact during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition. In re Raeshad B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the ground of wanton disregard for the children's welfare because she violated her probation, engaged in criminal behavior, abused drugs, and failed to properly care for the children as none of the children had ever been to a dentist, and they all had serious problems with their teeth; they were behind on their immunizations when they went with the mother to the shelter; and, the eldest, who was seven years old when the children were removed from the mother's care, had never been to school. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper on the ground of wanton disregard for the children's welfare because he was physically abusive to the mother in front of his daughter; at the time of trial, he had charges pending against him for manufacturing between 10 and 70 pounds of a controlled substance while the children were on their trial home visit; and evidence was presented that he was altering his urine drug tests. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating parents'  parental rights due to abandonment by a willful failure to visit the children because, during the four months preceding the filing of a termination petition, the parents took no steps to do what was required to visit the children by participating in therapy. In re Nicholas C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2019).

Undisputed evidence in the record clearly and convincingly supported termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to support because the mother failed to make a single child support payment; because the mother did not attend the termination hearing, she did not carry her burden of proof that the failure to support was not willful, and she waived all evidentiary objections. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Trial court properly ruled that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the child, and the mother missed multiple appointments, failed drug screens, failed to start therapy, and continued to live with the father despite a history of substance abuse and domestic violence. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by willfully failing to visit the child was supported by evidence that the father had only visited the child during the relevant four-month period and the fact that there was no evidence that the foster parents were unwilling to allow the father to visit the child. In re Keagan P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2019).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because the record did not show that she had any capacity to pay support during the relevant period and the trial court's finding that she obtained employment well after the filing of the petition was insufficient. The evidence showed that the mother was incarcerated or in treatment for all but two weeks during the relevant time period and there was no dispute that she was not employed during this time. In re Kingston A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 405 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment through wanton disregard because she was incarcerated during the entire four months preceding the termination petition; prior to her incarceration, she used drugs without a prescription, and she was arrested and convicted of theft, DUI, and aggravated assault; and she stayed with her boyfriend and agreed to the supervised visitation. In re Khloe B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the child because the mother was incarcerated at various points during the four months before the termination petition was filed; she admitted to using cocaine while pregnant; and she used drugs, violated her probation, and was unable to supervise the child. In re Jayda S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home was warranted; the department developed a permanency plan, referred her to the services providers, and facilitated visitation, but the mother took little or no action for six months. At trial, she was unable to provide a suitable home for the child, as she was living with various relatives, had only been drug free less than three months, and her support system was weak. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit; the mother knew the child was with her grandmother, who did not keep the mother from contacting the child, and the mother had the capacity to visit the child, made no attempts to do so, and had no justifiable excuse for her failure to do so. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Trial court failed to make sufficient specific findings to support its termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for willful failure to visit because the trial court made no specific findings of fact regarding the frequency, duration, or quality of the mother's visits. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit because it was undisputed that the father did not visit the child during the relevant time period and the record established that the father had the ability but made no effort to visit the child and he provided no justification for not doing so. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Reversal of ground of abandonment by failure to visit was appropriate as there was too much ambiguity in the analysis of whether a mother failed to visit or exercise more than token visitation in the four month window before the filing of the petition. Although the record contained evidence that the mother failed to visit the children on several occasions in the four month window, given the lack of clarity as to which of the failures to visit the juvenile court held against the mother, the evidence fell short of clear and convincing evidence. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the case manager stated that, although the mother was not home and she could not go into the home, she was able to look in and observe no furniture in the home and just a pile of clothes in the middle of the floor; the mother's behavior in ignoring the case manager's requests for a home visit suggested a deeper problem; and the mother's failure to address her mental health issues rendered her unable to provide a safe and stable environment for the child and showed a lack of concern for the child and a lack of interest in regaining custody. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit because there was no evidence to suggest that the mother was incapacitated or otherwise unable to engage in visitation with the child; and the mother's lackadaisical attitude during visits, her failure to play with the child, and her shunning of the child's attempts to engage, resulted in a lack of even the most tenuous bond between the mother and child. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights to his two children was proper on the ground of abandonment because he was incarcerated for the four months prior to the filing of the termination petition; and the trial court found that he had raped a young child, the children's half-sibling, and found clear and convincing evidence that the father's criminal behavior, conviction, and 35-year prison sentence showed a wanton disregard for the welfare of his children. In re O.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her daughter based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because at the time of the removal the daughter was residing in a hospital and the mother was not living at the hospital as evidenced by her failure to complete the mandatory rooming-in period. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights to her son based on abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because, even though the son was staying primarily with the mother's relatives at the time of removal, because the mother was also staying at the residence periodically prior to the removal. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for to support because the mother testified that the father never provided financial assistance and did not provide supplies for the child, and her testimony was corroborated by the maternal grandfather's testimony. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to visit because he did not dispute that he only visited with the child four or five times for approximately two hours each time during the relevant period. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on ground of abandonment was appropriate because the mother did not contend that the mother was incapable of paying support during the relevant four-month period, but refused to do so without some record. Moreover, to the extent that the mother did have discretionary income, the mother used it to buy illegal drugs, rather than support the children, and there was no evidence as to the actual amounts spent by the mother on gifts for the children during visitation in the four-month period or otherwise. In re Michael W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to support because the court had no evidence of his actual income during the four-month period, he had been doing odd jobs since he was injured and terminated by his employer, and he was barely able to keep his utilities turned on. In re Kelsea L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by willful failure to visit because the father had no contact with the child during the four-month period, his last visit with the child occurred years before the petition was filed, and despite his knowledge of the court process for asserting his parental rights he took no action to do so. In re Kelsea L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020).

Grounds for termination of a father's parental rights existed because there was clear and convincing evidence that the father was willful in the father's failure to provide support and to visit the children during the relevant statutory period as neither the mother, nor circumstances outside the father's control prevented the father from visiting and providing support to the children. Accordingly, the trial court on remand was to determine whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. In re James D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2020).

Mother had abandoned her children under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(a) where she allowed people visiting her to use marijuana in the home, despite knowing that her children were removed in part due to drug issues, and she had been evicted from her apartment, even if it had been an appropriate home. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Foster parents'  petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother was improperly granted based on abandonment because the mother did not willfully fail to visit the child during the four months preceding the filing of the original termination petition as she attempted to maintain visitation with the child during her time at the drug treatment center, but had not been able to contact the foster parents. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Foster parents' petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother was improperly granted as the foster parents did not show abandonment by willful failure to support the child because the foster parents failed to establish that the mother was capable of working and paying child support during the relevant four-month period. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on willfully failing to visit the child was proper; an affidavit of no visitation did not prohibit him from contacting the child by telephone or email, and while the no-visitation order was set aside after a final decree of divorce, the father still made no cognizable attempts to contact the child. The alleged order suspending the father's visitation did not preclude a finding of willfulness, nothing prevented him from finding where the child lived, but the father failed to do so. In re Bentley Q., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

Ground of abandonment by the mother's failure to visit the children was established by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed that she only had two token visits with the children, she was aware of her duty to visit the children, she had the capacity to visit, she did not make sufficient attempts to visit, and she had no justifiable excuse for not visiting. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Ground of abandonment by wanton disregard was established by clear and convincing evidence because the mother engaged in illegal drug use, exposed the children to drugs and domestic violence, failed to comply with requirements ordered by the juvenile court in order to regain custody of her children, continued her drug usage after removal of her children, and continued to engage in criminal activities, resulting in incarceration and continuous separation from her children. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the ground for termination of the mother's rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home concerning the Tennessee Department of Children's Services'  efforts during the relevant four-month period. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Termination of parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard was appropriate because a father was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed or during all or part of the four months immediately preceding the institution of the action and the father engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, as the father failed to visit or support the children during the periods of non-incarceration and had pending criminal charges. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2020).

Trial court did not err in concluding that the child's great-aunt established the existence of abandonment by failure to support because the father testified that he was employed during the relevant four-month period and despite having the ability to pay some child support the father admitted that he failed make a single support payment or pay his portion of the child's $3,000 dental bill. In re Zaylee W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Evidence was not clear and convincing that a father's abandonment by failure to visit was willful because, in addition to cutting off direct communication and not appearing for exchanges, the mother took other steps to limit the father's access to the child such as telling the child's school that the father was violent and dangerous. At trial, the mother admitted to withholding visitation because the mother was frustrated and fed up with all the father had put the mother through. In re Mattie L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Evidence of the grounds for terminating a father's parental rights of abandonment by willful failure to support was less than clear and convincing and did not show that the father's failure to support was willful as the mother and stepfather failed to establish that the father had the capacity to pay child support during the relevant period. Furthermore, the father's responses to interrogatories showed only nominal income during the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition. In re Mattie L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

Evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home because the mother's child was removed and placed in custody when the mother's trial home placement was revoked, the mother had substance abuse and employment issues, the mother did not have consistent stable housing, the mother did not comply with court orders, reasonable efforts were made to assist the mother, and the mother was not in a position to provide a suitable home. In re Madux F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper for abandonment by failure to visit; she was able to visit the child, yet only visited her five times during the relevant period, and during those visits, the mother was not fully present and engaged with the child, but instead spent much of their time together on her phone. The mother's behavior was willful and her visits amounted to token visitation. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for failing to provide a suitable home as the Department of Children's Services (DCS) was never permitted entry into the home the father lived in at the time of trial; and he visited the child twice over the nearly 27 months that she was in DCS's custody. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment because she did not verify that child support was being paid; and she failed to provide a suitable home as she failed drug screens and specifically avoided urine screens altogether, admittedly used marijuana pretty much every day to self-medicate for aggression, anger, and anxiety, and demonstrated noncompliance with mental health treatment. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent demonstrating a wanton disregard for the children's welfare was appropriate because the mother had been in and out of jail and had failed entirely to place the children's needs before the mother's own as the mother's incarcerations had severely compromised the mother's ability to perform parental duties. Despite numerous incarcerations, the mother failed to take steps to address the mother's drug use and to stop the mother's criminal activities. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for failure to visit in the four months preceding the mother's incarceration was appropriate as the mother clearly failed to engage in more than token visitation with the children—based on the mother's fear that another child would also be removed from the mother's custody due to the mother's continued use of illegal drugs while the child was in utero—and clearly failed to meet the mother's burden to show that the failure to do so was not willful. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home, despite reasonable efforts made by Tennessee Department of Children's Services to assist her in doing so. Moreover, it appeared unlikely that the mother could have established a suitable home for the child at an early date as, throughout the custodial period, the mother did not adequately address her unstable housing and substance abuse issues. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit the child during the four months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, as the mother made one token visitation of the child during that period. The mother did not point to any acts by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) that thwarted or actually prevented the mother from visiting the child and failed to cooperate with DCS and never asked for assistance to be provided. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare because the father had an extensive list of criminal convictions and in several instances his pre-incarceration interactions with the mother were violent. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because it showed that prior to her incarceration the mother only visited the child once. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home because the mother took no action to establish a suitable home until mid-2018 and she lost that home due to failure to pay rent. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the father abandoned the child by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for her welfare within the meaning of T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) because he was incarcerated, and he engaged in parole violations, substance abuse, and assaulted the child's mother. In re Isabella W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under the abandonment by failure to visit ground, as the mother failed to prove that she lacked willfulness in her failure to visit the child or that her failure to visit was due to circumstances outside her control; she admitted not seeking any visitation with the child and she did not provide any evidence showing how the birth of her younger child would have prevented her from visiting the child. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Trial court did not err in declining to find the ground of failure to visit because they were not so meaningless as to be token and the grandmother stopped the mother from visiting the children from May 2018 onward. In re Ava M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2020).

Evidence was in sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to visit because the trial court failed to make findings of fact identifying the relevant four-month period. In re Aryana S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that the father abandoned the children by willful failure to visit where he made only a token visit in the four months prior to his incarceration date, he provided no financial support even though gainfully employed, and his failures were willful. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that the father had abandoned the children by wanton disregard as he was a career criminal who had not changed his behavior since the children were born. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that the father had abandoned the child by failure to support where he offered no evidence to explain his drastic change in taxable income as compared to when he and the mother were together. In re Jaxon W.H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that a father had abandoned the child by failure to visit during the relevant time period where he allowed the conflict and confrontation with the mother to continue for several years, he had not visited the child for over three years and as a result, the child no longer knew the father. In re Jaxon W.H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for willful failure to visit and to support because, although the father had relocated to Tennessee and lived with his parents, the mother knew his email address and his parent's physical address; and, when the mother had disposable income, and had the ability to pay support, she chose not to. In re Aiden M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020).

Tennessee law requires more to sustain the ground of wanton disregard than just incarceration; if a parent's actions resulting in incarceration always are sufficient to show wanton disregard, the Tennessee General Assembly would just need to say incarceration alone is a ground for termination of parental rights, but it has not done so. The court thus vacated termination based on the ground of wanton disregard. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

19. Substantial Noncompliance.

Father's parental rights could not be terminated based on substantial noncompliance, as the father made efforts to legitimate the child, complied with drug testing requirements, remained drug free, and made efforts to visit, although he was ultimately not permitted to do so. In re Heaven J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 979 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan was not supported by the evidence, which showed that the father satisfied the majority of the requirements of the plan and, although he failed to submit to random drug screens, the most recent alcohol and drug assessment recommended no further treatment. In re Damien G. M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

Termination of parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was supported by evidence that the parents failed to follow through with recommendations from their parenting assessments, failed to address issue that led to the child's removal, did not participate in visitation with the child, and the father did not comply with recommendations stemming from a drug and alcohol assessment. In re Lena G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under the substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan ground because she admitted during cross-examination that she had used methamphetamine between four and six months prior to trial; she failed to comply with the requirements of providing the Tennessee Department of Children's Services with a copy of a lease agreement in her name and maintaining residential stability for six months; and she failed to comply with the requirements of obtaining sponsorship through Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous, attending couples counseling with her boyfriend, and following all recommendations. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

In a termination of the mother's parental rights case, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) was not required to prove it made reasonable efforts to assist the mother in complying with the requirements of the permanency plans for the trial court to terminate her parental rights based upon the ground of substantial noncompliance; however, the appellate court would weigh DCS's efforts to assist the mother in the best-interest analysis section. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2); he visited the child only three times, he lost his house and relapsed on drugs, he was incarcerated several times, and he did not provide evidence of completion of certain required classes or assessments. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2); he had ongoing criminal issues, no income, appropriate home or transportation, and while he did have an alcohol and drug assessment, did not complete the follow-up. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

One of the main reasons the children were removed from the mother's custody was drug exposure, but the trial court's vague statement that she apparently had not followed through on whatever recommendations were made did not constitute clear evidence that she failed to substantially comply with the plan recommendations; the department failed to prove the elements necessary to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2). In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court correctly found that the mother was in substantial noncompliance with her permanency plan because the mother violated her probation repeatedly, incurred additional aggravated assault charges, failed to submit to drug screening, and “went on the run” rather than maintaining contact with Tennessee Department of Children's Services and working toward the goals of her plan. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Trial court did not err in terminating parental rights because the parents failed to substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans; the trial court properly concluded that the parents had neglected to complete the reasonable requirements most closely related to the reason for their children's removal, substance abuse. In re Angel M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that parents did not substantially comply with the permanency plan because the parents never maintained suitable housing or maintained consistent visitation; both parents had unresolved criminal charges, they never completed parenting classes after being terminated for nonattendance, and they also failed to follow the recommendations of their mental health and alcohol and drug assessments. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Termination ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2) was established by clear and convincing evidence; the two most critical requirements under the permanency plans for the father were appropriate housing and addressing his mental health issues, which requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that led to the children's foster care placement; the father neglected to undertake the necessary actions and demonstrated a substantial lack of compliance. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Termination was proper based on the father's substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans because the requirements that the father not be around people who were using illegal substances and that he allow the mother only supervised visitation and not allow her overnight stays with the children were reasonably related to the mother's drug use and the overall lack of safety and stability afforded the children while living in the home. In re Alyssa W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother had failed to substantially comply with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan. In re M.E.N.J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans because the requirements of the plans were reasonably related to the conditions that necessitated removal of the children as the children were removed from the home due to the mother and the father's drug use, drug paraphernalia present in the home, and environmental neglect; the father did not provide or maintain suitable housing for children or refrain from illegal activity as evidenced from his incarceration at the time of the trial; and, despite the drug use that led to the children's removal, the father failed to participate in an A&D assessment, and failed to successfully complete a substance abuse program. In re Aaralyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that a mother failed to substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans because she lost her housing, became involved with a methamphetamine offender, failed to submit to drug screens, and had very little contact with the Department of Children's Services; although, the mother completed an inpatient drug treatment program, she never provided documentation showing she was in compliance with the recommendation. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because she failed to complete her alcohol and drug treatment or individual counseling, she routinely and repeatedly failed random drug screens, she failed to provide proof that she applied for employment and failed to provide proof of income, she failed to develop a transportation plan and did not obtain a valid driver's license, and the Department of Children's Services attempted on more than one occasion to verify the mother's housing situation but she was either not home or failed to show up for a scheduled visit. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the portions of his permanency plan with which he did not comply were created for him after his incarceration, at which time it was all but impossible for him to comply. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans because she did not have stable housing or proof of a stable income, her visits with the children had been suspended, she failed to cooperate with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, and her testimony showed that she did not comply with the alcohol and drug assessment. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated the rights of a mother and a father based upon clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the mother failed to complete alcohol and drug treatment, pass random drug screens, avoid incarceration, and maintain contact with the Department of Children's Services; there was no proof that the father had ever completed drug and alcohol treatment, and he failed to pass random drug screens and avoid incarceration. In re Authur R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because it showed that the father continued to use drugs, the parents continued to engage in incidents of domestic violence, they owed thousands of dollars in unpaid court costs, the mother had received two citations for driving on a suspended license, and they failed to address their parenting deficiencies since their release from custody. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was available as a ground for termination of the parents'  rights because the evidence and testimony showed that the foster parents were providing the children with child care, and coupled with the substantial involvement of the Tennessee Department of Children Services (DCS), as the children were very young and the foster parents had provided a home for them and for them to attend daycare and a headstart program. The care in which the children were placed qualified as foster care with the DCS or in the care of an agency. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of parental rights on the ground of substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan because, although the parents completed anger management, parenting, and domestic violence classes, they did not fully perform tasks relating to the maintenance and proof of sobriety. In addition to the parents'  failure to pass drug screens and to submit to pill counts, the parents substantially failed to attend and complete various drug treatment programs and substantially failed to attend mental health appointments and therapy sessions. In re J.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was proper as she testified that she understood that she was required to get drug treatment, have a mental health evaluation, pay child support, and visit the child regularly, but she did not comply with those requirements; and there was no evidence that she was not aware of her responsibilities or was unable to express any concern as to her responsibilities under either permanency plan. In re Kendall M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on his failure to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities set out in the permanency plans because he had been unable to provide a safe, stable home for the child; had not obtained his driver's license or vehicular insurance; had not provided proof of legal, verifiable income; and was inconsistent in his visitation with the child. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because she did not complete the recommendations of the alcohol and drug assessment and failed multiple drug screens; she had not obtained housing suitable for herself and the children; she was unemployed at the time of trial; and she did not have valid transportation or a plan for transportation. In re McKenzie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was proper because they failed to substantially comply with their permanency plans as they did not demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during visits with the child; they were unable to keep their home free and clean from animal waste; they did not provide the Department of Children Services (DCS) with proof of rent, mortgage, or payment of utilities; and they did not cooperate with DCS, including failing to allow DCS to conduct announced and unannounced visits. In re Charles R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance was proper, as the mother's actions did not reflect a serious effort to comply with the goals of the plans; she failed to complete or largely attempt the requirements of the plans, including maintaining stable housing, maintaining sobriety, submitting to random drug screens, and addressing her ongoing mental health issues, and the deviations were significant in light of the circumstances surrounding the children's removal. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Father failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan; although he completed several assessments and participated in sessions, he simply failed to address the most important aspects of the plan that would have resulted in his ability to care for the child, namely to resolve his legal issues and adequately address his drug abuse. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because it showed that the mother did not participate in homemaker services, she failed to pay any child support, she did not have a job or legal means of income, she failed to maintain sobriety and continued to test positive for illegal substances, and she did not successfully complete alcohol and drug assessment recommendations. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was proper because the mother failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan as she failed to complete new assessments and to adequately address concerns relating to her possible drug usage; however, termination of the father's parental rights on that ground was improper because he completed the secondary assessments as required, resolved his legal issues, obtained employment and transportation, was remitting child support, and showed great improvement in his effort to combat his drug addiction. In re Camdon H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was supported by evidence that the mother failed to address her drug and mental health issues and failed to follow the recommendations made after drug and alcohol assessments, continuing to test positive for illegal drugs. In re Karisah N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper as the mother failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities set out in the permanency plans because, although she completed an alcohol and drug assessment, she did not follow through on the assessment recommendation for outpatient treatment; she did not complete individual domestic violence counseling; she provided no proof of employment through pay stubs, work schedules, or any other documentation; and her argument regarding her efforts to obtain and maintain housing were unavailing. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was supported by evidence that the mother failed to follow through with alcohol and drug treatment, failed to appear for a psychological evaluation, failed to visit the children, and failed to participate in parenting education. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother failed to comply with the permanency plans because by the trial date, she had only partially complied with the requirement of submitting to drug screens, she started an inpatient treatment program only in the month prior to the trial, and she only partially complied with the requirement that she resolve all pending legal charges. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because she consistently denied having a substance abuse problem and resisted recommendations of individual counseling, a hair follicle test was positive for multiple opiates, she moved four times, and the Department of Children's Services had not yet been able to approve her residence at the time of the hearing. In re Lesley A., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements because, although the mother was required to follow all recommendations from her alcohol and drug assessment and pass all random drug screens and pill counts, she failed multiple drug screens, refused to take certain drug screens, failed to complete in-patient treatment, and openly admitted to going on methamphetamine binges. In re Mickeal Z., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans because she failed to attend all of the parenting classes, she continued to use drugs, she did not complete intensive outpatient treatment, and did not provide proof of a transportation plan. In re Kaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because he had not obtained housing for the children that was safe or stable, he was unemployed, he was not drug-free, and he failed to introduce evidence that he had resolved any of his legal issues; he had not seen his children for nine months, which showed that he was neither successfully parenting the children nor remaining involved in their lives; and he failed to complete the domestic violence classes he was directed to attend. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was proven by clear and convincing evidence; while the mother took certain initial steps to meet her responsibilities under the permanency plans, she failed to follow through in key areas, including taking her medication as prescribed. In re Charlie-Lynn P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating parents'  parental rights due to substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because (1) the permanency plan's requirements were reasonably related to the reasons for the parents'  children's removal, (2) other than the mother signing releases for providers and having money for child support deducted from her monthly Social Security benefits, the parents did nothing to comply with the plan, and, (3) after directing the Department of Children's Services (DCS) to only communicate with the parents through counsel, the parents did not maintain contact with counsel, preventing DCS from making reasonable efforts to assist the parents. In re Nicholas C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2019).

Trial court properly determined that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because the mother continued to test positive for illegal drugs throughout the pendency of the case; the mother's visitation with the child became progressively sporadic in the months leading to the filing of the termination petition, and the mother failed to pay any child support. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Termination of father's parental rights was appropriate because the father, when given the opportunity, failed to complete any steps laid out in the court's prior orders to increase visitation or seek a change of custody. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

The ground for termination of parental rights of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was proven by clear and convincing evidence because, although a mother completed multiple tasks on the permanency plans, these achievements occurred after the petition was filed. Furthermore, the mother offered no reason other than the mother's anger as to why the mother waited until after the petition was filed to get moving in earnest on the mother's permanency plan responsibilities. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan because the father's belated efforts, compounded by other incomplete areas of the permanency plan established substantial noncompliance with the plan; the father failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to achieve sobriety, and he had not completed the recommendations of his alcohol and drug assessment by the time of trial. In re Jayda H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan because the mother failed to engage in the substantive requirements of the permanency plans as she failed to address her mental health issues, parenting issues, and housing issues because, although the mother submitted to a mental health evaluation, she did not follow the recommendations; and, although the mother attended parenting classed, she failed to demonstrate good parenting skills in her visits with the child. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because it showed that she failed to make lasting effort to establish and maintain an appropriate home for the children, she failed to make consistent child support payments, she was not consistent with visitation, she could not maintain any employment for a significant length of time, and she had not made a significant effort to bond with the children. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was inappropriate because the mother had no stated responsibilities under a properly created permanency plan to the mother's children. Therefore, because the record on appeal contained no permanency plans that applied to the children, substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan could not serve as a ground for termination as to the children. In re Michael W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper for substantial noncompliance with her permanency plan; she failed to comply with or complete any of the plan requirements, including providing support of the child, visiting the child, and proving that she had stable housing. Even if she did suffer hardships that impeded her ability to satisfy plan requirements, such hardships did not excuse her failure to satisfy any of those requirements. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements was established by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed that the mother failed to visit the children consistently, she had not maintained stable housing, she had a legal income when she was not incarcerated but she had not financially supported the child, she continued to fail drug screens throughout the time her children were in DCS custody, she did not substantially comply with homemaker services or domestic violence counseling, and she consistently failed to comply with the rules of her probation. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Record supported termination based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and the father did not dispute that he failed to comply with all requirements of plan, and the record made clear that he mother had not completed many of the important conditions in the plan, including addressing the drug-related behaviors. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan was appropriate because the evidence was clear that the mother took virtually no steps in meaningfully addressing the permanency plan requirements prior to the filing of the petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. The mother's recent entry into rehab by the time of trial was too little, too late. In re Madux F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of both parents'  rights to the child was proper based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because, although the father attended a domestic violence class, paid child support, and submitted to a random drug screen one week before trial, he failed to complete any other requirements or engage in the case generally; and the mother did not financially support the child, was uncooperative with drug testing, did not make an effort to receive adequate mental health treatment, was dismissed from counseling for missing too many appointments, and did not cease using marijuana daily. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the parenting plan was appropriate because the mother's inability to remain sober and arrest free and failure to address employment and housing requirements was sufficient proof of the mother's failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan. Furthermore, the mother's drug use and accompanying criminal activity were of paramount concern to the safety and welfare of the children. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother was substantially noncompliant with the mother's responsibilities under the permanency plans as the mother completed very few of her responsibilities under the permanency plans, and, more significantly, the mother failed to comply with the responsibilities aimed at addressing the mother's substance abuse issue and unstable housing situation. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on the failure to substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans was proper because he had no stable housing or employment; he had violated his probation and served additional jail time; he had paid no more than token support for the child; he had been non-compliant with assessments, counseling, and treatment; he was likely using illegal drugs based on his positive test for methamphetamine; he had not maintained visitation with the child; and there was no indication that he had availed himself of any of the resources offered by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on the failure to substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans was proper because the case worker testified that the only requirement the mother completed was the parenting component of the clinical assessment; and she made no other progress on the permanency plans as she was not employed and had no housing, she had some new citations for possession of drugs, she declined the requests of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) for drug tests, she failed to submit to alcohol or drug assessment, she did not provide any support for the child, and she failed to maintain contact with DCS or her appointed counsel. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans ground for termination of parental rights was proven by clear and convincing evidence because the father failed to complete mental health and parenting assessments and he failed to maintain safe and stable housing. In re Isabella W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's minor children was appropriate because the ground for termination of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was proven by clear and convincing evidence as the mother did not complete a required mental health assessment and did not comply with and pass random drug screens. In re Johnathan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan was proper because she failed to remedy her legal issues and incurred new charges, lessening her ability to complete the requirements of the permanency plan; she failed to remit child support, pass random drug screens, and provide proof of income; she had not yet completed a new drug assessment following her incarceration; and she was arrested for theft days before the termination hearing. In re Kash F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2020).

20. Incarcerated Parent.

There was clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground to support the termination of the father's rights where at the time he was sentenced to 16 years in prison the record showed that his child was three months old. In re Matthew J., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2014).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper because the copies of the judgments from July 6, 2011, indicated that the father was convicted of 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of aggravated statutory rape and sentenced to an effective sentence of 16 years; and, at the time the father was sentenced, the record showed that the child was three months old. In re Matthew J., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2014).

Certified copies of the father's conviction indicated that he was convicted of two crimes and sentenced to 11 years in prison in May 2013, and while he might be paroled in less than 10 years, the possibility of early parole was not a sufficient basis to negate this statutorily-defined termination ground; the child was less than one year old at the time the father was sentenced, and thus the incarceration termination ground was proven by clear evidence. In re Jaceton B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

Mother was detained prior to her sentencing hearing, but she was immediately released to the supervision of the community corrections program and was never specifically ordered to serve any portion of her sentence in confinement, and thus the trial court's rejection of this statutory ground of termination was proper. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

From April 2013 until September 6, 2013 and again from January 14, 2014 through the April and May 2015 trial dates in this case, and was expected to be released in October 2015. Thus, it appears that, most recently, Father was not incarcerated for four consecutive months from September 14, 2013, through January 13, 2014. This period represents the relevant four month period with regard to Father's abandonment by willful failure to visit and support for an incarcerated parent. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Record revealed no clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that the mother was either incarcerated at the time the termination petition was filed or at any time in the preceding four months; her arrest, without more, did not constitute incarceration within the meaning of the termination statute. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Father was incarcerated at the time the department filed the petition to terminate his parental rights, and thus the trial court properly considered the abandonment by an incarcerated parent ground. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Because the mother was not incarcerated at the time the termination petition was filed or shortly before, the termination ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent based on wanton disregard could not apply to her. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination of parental rights for abandonment was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence was presented that the parent demonstrated a wanton disregard for the children's welfare as the parent was incarcerated due to the parent's criminal behavior, probation violations, incarcerations, and substance abuse. In re Jayden L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Juvenile court properly determined that the father had not abandoned the children by his incarceration or exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare, and the father was not incarcerated during the requisite time period. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights because the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated the father's wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the record reflected numerous criminal charges against the father, with multiple charges coming after the birth of the child, and for those charges, the father was incarcerated on multiple occasions, and he had a history of substance abuse. In re E.S.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that a father abandoned his children by exhibiting wanton disregard for their welfare prior to his incarceration because since the children were born, the father had been incarcerated three times; prior to incarceration the father exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children by exposing them to methamphetamine at such levels that it showed positive in the children's hair drug screen. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Father had been sentenced to more than 10 years of incarceration, and the sentence was imposed when the child was approximately three years old, and thus the evidence supported termination of the father's rights. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the parental rights of a mother on the ground of abandonment because the mother was incarcerated when the termination proceedings were initiated. In re G.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 993 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016).

Trial court erred in declining to terminate a father's parental rights because the evidence preponderated against its finding that the father did not engage in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children; the father's numerous drug charges and probation violations demonstrated that he had engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused him to be incarcerated. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper because the father was incarcerated for 25 years when the child was approximately two years and nine months old. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Out of the nine visits set up for the mother during the relevant time period, she attended only three, and her visits constituted only token visitation; the evidence supported the conclusion that the failure to visit was willful, and termination for abandonment by willful failure to visit prior to the mother's incarceration, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113, was proper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father attended only two of eight visits available to him, he chose to ride his bicycle to visits, and there was testimony he did not ask for transportation help; his visitation prior to his incarceration was token at best and thus his failure to visit was willful, and termination of his rights for abandonment by willful failure to visit prior to incarceration pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), 36-1-113 was proper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on his convictions for felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and false report surrounding the death of his daughter and the imposition of a sentence of more than two years'  imprisonment because the father was already serving a life sentence for his convictions; and undisputed evidence showed that the deceased child was the sibling of the children who were the subject of the parental termination case. In re Demarkus T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017).

Father did not dispute that his parental rights should be terminated as a result of his incarceration under a sentence of 10 or more years and the child being under eight, and the trial court properly concluded that termination of the father's rights was in the best interest of the child, as there was not a strong bond between the two, there was no regular visitation even before the father's incarceration, and the child was in a stable home. In re Preston L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the parents engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for their children's welfare in that one child tested positive for opiates at birth, the mother did not begin to address the mother's drug addiction until one year after the child's birth, the mother engaged in criminal conduct that led to the mother's arrest almost on a continual basis, the father voluntarily left the children with the father's mother, and the father was convicted multiple times. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Trial court properly found that the father abandoned the child by exhibiting wanton disregard for the child's welfare prior to the father's incarceration where the testimony showed that he had physically assaulted the mother and half sibling, and there were several exhibits regarding the father's criminal charges. In re Brooke E., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Ground of incarceration on a sentence of 10 or more years when the child was under the age of eight years old at the time of sentencing was proven by clear and convincing evidence where it was undisputed that the father had received two 15-year sentences for aggravated robbery. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the father was sentenced to a total of ten years of confinement in the Tennessee Department of Corrections after pleading guilty to multiple felonies and the father's child was approximately one-year old when the father was sentenced. In re Kandace D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment, by the father demonstrating a wanton disregard for the child's welfare, because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the father who was incarcerated knew of the child's existence when the father was engaging in the criminal behavior that demonstrated wanton disregard. In re Michael O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because he knew on or before the child's birth that he might have been the father, and his patterns of criminal behavior illegal drug use, and incarceration, along with his failure to take any voluntary actions to legitimate or support the child, amounted to a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent because she had been in jail for all or part of the four months preceding the filing of the proceedings, and she had not been willing or able to stay drug-free or out of jail in a way that would allow her to perform basic parenting duties for her children. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for wanton disregard was appropriate because the father had spent the majority of the child's life in jail and the father's recidivism had resulted in an inability to provide a safe and stable environment for the child. The resultant problems were the direct result of the father's decision to intentionally engage in illegal activity, and they provided clear and convincing proof of the father's wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) was affirmed as her repeated incarceration, criminal behavior, substance abuse, and failure to support her children throughout the case exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her children. In re Veronica T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated parents'  rights to their child because it found clear and convincing evidence of the parents'  abandonment of the child by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the child's welfare; the Department of Children's Services presented ample evidence of the parents'  repeated incidents of criminal behavior and probation violations, resulting in repeated incarcerations, and considerable evidence demonstrated their substance abuse In re Authur R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the mother engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the mother's child as the mother testified (telephonically from prison) concerning the mother's criminal behavior and involvement with illegal drugs, violation of probation, and choosing to become a fugitive and fleeing to Florida for over a year instead of complying with the terms of the mother's supervised release. In re Tegan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2018).

Mother's failure to provide an updated address to the mother's probation officer that resulted in the mother's probation violations, in combination with the mother's other conduct, did not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned the mother's child by exhibiting a wanton disregard for the child prior to the mother's incarceration. Furthermore, some of the mother's criminal convictions were a result of behavior occurring well before the child was conceived. In re Kyle F., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent was proper as she testified as to the dates of her incarceration, her use of heroin during her pregnancy, the fact that she and the child tested positive for drugs at the child's birth, and her failure to complete drug and mental health treatment programs. In re Kendall M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2018).

Father exhibited wanton disregard for the father's children because the father, before and after the birth of the children, repeatedly committed felonies and misdemeanors, and used alcohol and drugs without regard for the children's welfare, which resulted in the father's incarceration and inability to take care of the children when they were removed from their mother's custody and placed in foster care. The pattern of the father's conduct prior to incarceration exhibited disregard for the children and the father's relationship with them. In re Arianna Y., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that grounds existed to terminate a father's parental rights for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father–through repeated incarcerations, criminal behavior, a probation violation, and substance abuse issues as shown in the father's criminal convictions–showed a pattern of conduct that posed a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of the child. In re Ava H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Denial of a petition to terminate an incarcerated father's parental rights was appropriate because there was not clear and convincing evidence to establish that the father willfully failed to visit and to support during the relevant time period as the father was unaware of the mother's whereabouts during that time period due to the mother's moving and changing the mother's phone number and the failure of the mother's family to respond to the father's inquiries. Further, the evidence did not establish the father's ability to remit support. In re Ella P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Based on the mother's probation violation and subsequent incarceration under a sentence of 10 years while the child was under the age of eight, there was clear evidence to support termination of parental rights on the ground of incarceration under a sentence of 10 years or more imposed when the child was less than eight years old. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for abandonment by wanton disregard because the father was incarcerated when the petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed and the father engaged in behavior during the relevant time period that violated the father's probation resulting in the father again being incarcerated. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by incarceration was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father violated the terms of the father's probation and was incarcerated for a portion of the relevant period before the institution of the proceeding, had not addressed the father's addiction to drugs, while the father's continued use of illegal substances was evidence that the father had abandoned the children by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the children because there was no evidence that the father had any knowledge of one child when he committed the robbery and the record contained no evidence of conduct by the father showing a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children other than the robbery. In re Lailonnii J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the father's parental rights because the record included a certified copy of his judgment of conviction that expressly stated that he received a 10-year sentence for his robbery conviction and there was no dispute that both children were under the age of eight when the sentence was entered. In re Lailonnii J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019).

Evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to manifest a willingness to assume physical and legal custody or financial responsibility of the children because the caseworker did not provide the father any information regarding how to contact the Tennessee Department of Children's Services so he could send the children letters, cards, or pictures while he was incarcerated. In re Lailonnii J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of a father's parental rights to the father's younger child was appropriate because the father was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison when the child was less than eight years old. In re D.V., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019).

Termination of father's parental rights was appropriate because the father testified that, as a result of the severe abuse of one of the father's children, the father received a jail sentence of eight years. The father was to serve one year in either jail or rehab and the remainder on probation. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

Termination of father's parental rights was appropriate because, at the termination hearing, the father testified that the father was found guilty of possessing a firearm while committing a dangerous felony, and sentenced to serve fifteen years when the father's children were under eight years old. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard was proper because, after he was released from incarceration following the assault on his brother, he was placed on probation, but, rather than work on reunification with his child, the father engaged in activity that violated the terms of his probation and resulted in further incarceration; the decision to engage in such activities had resulted in the father not having stable employment or housing; he tested positive for methamphetamine on the day of the hearing to terminate his parental rights; and the father's engagement with people who used drugs not only showed poor judgment, but also put him at risk for further incarceration. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on his incarceration because the record established that he had been sentenced by the Georgia court to incarceration of more than 10 years and that the child was less than eight years old when the sentence was entered. In re Jackson D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2020).

21. Parent's Mental Condition.

Termination of father's parental rights based on mental incompetence was proper because: (1) Assistance needed to ensure that father's children received proper care would have to essentially be a substitute parent, with father acting only as a caring but incompetent bystander; and (2) Doctor testified clearly that father's mental retardation was a lifelong condition and that he functioned in such a low range that no amount of training, education, or counseling could bring him up to the level where he could parent the children; thus, a showing of reasonable efforts to return the children to their home was unnecessary. Department of Children's Servs. v. Mims, 285 S.W.3d 435, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2008), appeal denied, In re N.B., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009).

Ample evidence established that the mother suffered from mental incompetence, given in part that all of her children had been removed from her care, she suffered from a mental disability that rendered her incapable of caring for her children for years, and she refused to follow through with treatment recommendations, plus she showed a pattern of living with abusive men; termination of her rights was affirmed. In re Shaneeque M., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2015).

No expert testimony was provided in this case, but such testimony on the effect of a parent's mental illness on her ability to parent a child was not required. In re Shaneeque M., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2015).

Evidence preponderated in favor of the trial court's finding that the mother was incompetent to parent the child; a doctor concluded that the mother met the intellectual deficit criterion of mental retardation, other evidence corroborated the doctor's conclusions regarding the mother's intellectual abilities, and nothing showed that the mother was mentally capable of providing the appropriate care that the child required, such that termination was proper. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's and father's parental rights on grounds of mental incompetence because, inter alia, the mother, who had a general IQ of 35, would likely never gain the skills to competently care for the children without permanent assistance, the father, who had a general IQ of 66, lacked an adequate support system to aid him in the children's care, and neither parent was able retain the basic information necessary to properly parent the children. In re Aisha R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother was incompetent and unable to adequately care for and supervise two children because of her mental impairment, and that her mental impairment and incompetence was likely to remain and rendered her unable to adequately care for and supervise the children in the near future. In re Domingo W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2015).

Record contained clear and convincing proof to support the trial court's findings of the mother's mental incompetence; her mental condition had been impaired for more than six years and was not likely to improve in a short time, even with continued therapy and medication, she had been hospitalized on a number of occasions, and her impaired mental condition would prevent her from assuming the care and responsibility for the child in the near future. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Evidence supported the determination that the mother suffered from mental incompetence, and she was unable to adequately provide for the children's care given her mental condition, and termination of her rights was proper. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Trial court did not err by terminating the mother's parental rights based on mental incompetence where the record showed that the mother continued to have delusions concerning her identity during the trial and despite her efforts her condition was unlikely to be remedied in the near future. In re Lillian D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016).

Issue was not whether the father had impaired cognitive functioning, which he clearly did; the issue was whether this impairment adversely affected his ability to parent his children, and it could not be said clearly that it did, and thus the evidence was insufficient to show that the father's parental rights were to be terminated based upon mental incompetence. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Ground of parental mental incompetence was proven, as there was clear evidence that the mother was mentally incompetent to provide adequately for the future care and supervision of the children; the weight of the evidence showed that the mother's incompetence was not simply an intellectual deficiency, but rather an impairment to her understanding that her needs for socialization and intimacy could not take precedence over the children's safety. In re La'Trianna W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016), appeal denied, In re La'Trianna W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

In a best interest determination in a termination of parental rights case, the judgment was modified because the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that supported the trial court's finding that the father's mental and emotional status would prevent him from providing safe and stable care for the child. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with permanency plan and mental incompetence because the mother did not substantially comply with the permanency plans, particularly the need for her to address her mental health issues; she had alleged throughout the case that there was a satanic conspiracy against her and that the child was at risk of having her organs harvested for trafficking purposes; she refused steadfastly to take any medication for her mental health condition; her untreated paranoia prevented her from making well-founded decisions necessary to successfully parent the child; and she had shown no inclination toward remedying her mental health issues. In re Lorenda B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground that she was mentally incompetent was supported by evidence that she was observed speaking to individuals who were not in the room and was disconnected during visitation. In re Lena G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to a child on the ground of mental incompetence was appropriate because the testimony of a licensed clinical psychologist and of a family services worker provided clear and convincing evidence that the mother was mentally incompetent to care for the child, and that, due to the nature of the mother's impairment, it was unlikely that the mother could reach the necessary level of competence to resume the care of the child. In re Tanya G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on mental incompetence because it showed that she had been hospitalized and arrested due to her mental illnesses and aberrant behavior on several occasions, she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and an expert testified that her extremely variable and unpredictable functioning rendered her unable to provide the predictability and stability that the children needed from their caregiver. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights because the evidence amounted to clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental condition was so impaired and so likely to remain that way, it was improbable that she would be able to assume care and responsibility for the child; the mother suffered from borderline personality disorder and major depressive disorder, and she was prone to physically explosive tendencies with accompanying violent or aggressive behavior. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, by mental incompetence, because the mother, who had an intellectual disability, did not have a proper physical living location, could not provide a home free of drugs, was unlikely to establish a suitable home in the near future, and seemed incapable of giving the child appropriate care and attention. In re Frederick S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on mental incompetence to parent the child because the mother stipulated that the child was dependent and neglected in her custody because her intellectual disabilities rendered it difficult to provide the child with appropriate medical care, the mother testified that her sister maintained a conservatorship over her and managed her finances because she was unable to do so, and the mother admitted that she was often unable to understand what doctors and nurses told her and that she required another adult to attend doctor's appointments with her. In re Katrina S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2020).

22. Child Support.

Termination of parental rights also terminates that parent's prospective support obligation; if parental rights are reinstated, the support obligation resumes upon the date that rights are reinstated. In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. 2006), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 891 (Tenn. Sept. 19, 2006).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment for willful failure to support because other than nominal expenditures, there was no evidence the father provided any other support for the child despite having the means to pay some level of support; the maternal grandmother paid for the child's daycare expenses, clothing, food, and everything else the child needed. In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013), appeal denied, In re Jacobe J., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).

It was error to find a mother willfully failed to support a child because (1) willfulness required an ability to support, (2) nothing showed the mother was able to support the child, and (3) the mother was unemployed, expecting another child, and had to support a third child. In re Alexis B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights based upon the statutory ground of willful failure to support the child because the father failed to make any reasonable payments toward support of the child even when he was employed; the father failed to offer any details that would support a finding that he sought other employment prior to his incarceration and failed to offer any justifiable excuse for his failure to provide at least some measure of financial support. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to pay child support, as the mother was only obligated to pay support for about one-fourth of the relevant time period and thus, such failure was insufficient to establish willful failure to make reasonable support payments for a four-month period. In re M.A.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

Mother's failure to support the children was willful, and termination of her parental rights based upon this statutory ground was proper; she was able-bodied with job skills and alleged no impairment of the ability to work, yet she was content to make no or a minimal effort toward securing and maintaining employment. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Father failed to pay a reasonable share of prenatal, natal, and postnatal expenses, which supported termination; he was in good health and had no good cause for failing to pay a share of his expenses, he worked while in prison, but never sent any money to the support the child, and although the father contested the expenses as imaginary, the trial court found that certain expenses were normal and customary. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Order contained insufficient findings as to whether the father willfully failed to support the child, and the order omitted any reference to his income or expenses; without such evidence, a finding of willfulness could not be sustained. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence established that the parent abandoned their child by willfully failing to remit child support before, during, and after the relevant time period. Although the parent had limited education and difficulty in securing employment, the parent never paid child support, other than token support or small gifts, throughout the entirety of the child's lifetime even when the parent was admittedly capable of working and actually employed at various times. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

While the father admitted he did not pay any child support though he was aware of his obligation to pay, failure to pay was not enough to establish willfulness, and whether he had the financial ability to pay support had to be determined. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Father had no source of income other than some unspecified odd job, and it was the department's burden to prove that the father's lack of full-time employment was voluntary, which the department failed to prove; the father's testimony was not clear, and the proof was insufficient to support the finding that the father was capable of working and paying child support during the period in question. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support the children because, although the father failed to pay any support for the children during the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate the father's rights, there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the father had the ability to provide financial support for the children during the relevant time period; thus, there was not clear and convincing evidence that the father's failure to support the children was willful. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights because the father willfully failed to support the child; the father conceded that he did not pay any child support during the relevant four-month period, despite admitting he was aware of his duty to pay child support, and the father was self-employed and admitted to buying cigarettes and illegal drugs. In re E.S.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Father's failure to support the child was willful, and thus termination of the father's rights was proper; the father was working and making money but made the conscious decision to spend his earnings in ways other than contributing to the support of the child. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Testimony corroborated the father's testimony that he last paid child support at the end of 2012, and thus there was clear evidence to support the trial court's finding that the father had abandoned this child by willful failure to provide support during the four months immediately preceding the father's incarceration. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

Ground of willful failure to support was proven against the mother by clear and convincing evidence where an exhibit showed that she paid approximately $2,000 for prescription drugs during the relevant four-month period but made no additional support payments. In re Dillon E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016).

Ground of abandonment by failure to support was proven; the only child support payments the mother ever made were when money was taken out of her paychecks and when her tax refund was intercepted by the State, and although this occurred in the four months preceding the filing of the petition, the intercept did not constitute a voluntary payment of support, plus she was employed by several different employers and she never testified she was unable to make any contribution towards her support obligations. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Termination based on abandonment by failure to support was proven, given that the mother knew of her support obligations and the consequences of not meeting those obligations, and the trial court properly found that the mother had enough income to support herself, make her support payments, and still have some money left over each month. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for a willful failure to support because the mother provided only token support despite being able to obtain money for cigarettes and drugs. In re Casey C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 966 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father conceded that he had not supported the child and the record affirmed that the father had not paid support, other than a few hundred dollars, despite the facts that the mother opened a bank account at the father's bank to facilitate his deposit of funds; and because the father made substantial income in 2013 prior to his incarceration. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's rights for the willful failure to provide support because there was no proof as to his income and expenses during the relevant four-month time period. In re Anna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Text messages purportedly showing that a mother engaged in illicit drug sales were not dispositive to the issue of the mother's alleged willful non-support because the text messages could be interpreted to show that the mother earned money selling drugs, which could in turn support a showing of willfulness in her failure to pay any child support, but they could perhaps better lend support to a conclusion that, if anything, the mother was a failed drug dealer. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Trial court's finding of willful non-support with respect to a mother was reversed because there was no clear and convincing evidence proving willfulness during the relevant four month period; the fact that the mother abused drugs and generally was irresponsible in her life could not alone impute willfulness as to her non-support, and the mother's drug abuse and general irresponsibility did not shift the burden of proof as to willfulness from Grandfather to her. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Trial court did not err in finding the ground of failure to support when terminating a father's parental rights because the record clearly showed that the father was capable of working, that he did work, and that he never paid any child support to the grandfather for his children. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support was proper; the mother provided no financial support for the child, and her argument that there was no court order requiring her to pay support was not persuasive, as parents were presumed to know of their obligation to support their children. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

In a termination of parental rights case, the juvenile court erred in finding the ground of willful failure to support because the trial court failed to render findings of fact that the mother failed to remit the required support during the four-month period and the record did not clearly and convincingly prove as such regardless. In re Lorenda B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017).

Based on the father's own factual admissions and his failure to cite any applicable law or argument on the issue, the finding that he willfully failed to support the child as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-1-102 was affirmed, and termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was proper. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

In a parental rights termination proceeding, a trial court erred in finding that a father's failure to pay support for the child was not willful where there was no dispute that he had the ability to pay support, the father admitted that he was aware of his obligation to provide support, his petition to determine the child's parentage and set visitation did not include any effort to establish child support, and his lack of effort to pay child support after agreeing to do so evidenced that his failure to do so was the product of free will. In re Sydney B., 537 S.W.3d 452, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 469 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2017).

While the department argued that the mother's decision to buy drugs rather than pay child support constituted a willful failure to support her children, the department had to prove by clear evidence that the mother had the capacity to pay support but made no attempt to do so and did not possess a justifiable excuse, which the department failed to do; termination of the mother's rights for abandonment by failure to support prior to incarceration under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113 was improper. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father had a job and was current on his child support payments, and thus the trial court properly denied termination of the father's rights for abandonment by failure to support prior to incarceration under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102, 36-1-113. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father's drug habit and payment of court fines did not amount to sufficient evidence of a willful failure to support his children, and the department failed to present enough evidence to eliminate any serious doubt that the father had the ability to pay support and that his failure to support his children was willful; thus, the termination of the father's rights on the ground of willful failure to support, under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(D), 36-1-113, was reversed. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Department failed to prove the ground of abandonment by failure to support by clear and convincing evidence as to the mother and father, under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), 36-1-113, as they were incarcerated during the relevant time period. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper based on abandonment for failure to remit child support because the father's claim that his failure to remit support was not willful when he was unaware of a duty to remit support was rejected as the record did not reflect that his mental capacity was so impaired that he did not understand that the child required food and other items for survival; he provided token support when the child visited his residence; the court credited the mother's testimony that he refused her request for support and advised her that it was not his responsibility to provide support; and he did not pay child support even when he was actually employed at various times. In re Bryson, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on failure to pay child support because he admitted that he had never paid child support. In re Taya K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

Grandparents failed to present sufficient evidence that the mother had the capacity to provide support or rebut her justifiable excuse for failing to do so, as there was no evidence of her hours worked, wage earned, or expenses; the mother's decision to purchase drugs indicated that she did have some funds for non-necessities, but the purchase of illegal drugs alone was insufficient to prove that her failure to provide support was willful, and thus abandonment by willful failure to support was not proven. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Father admitted that he had no justifiable excuse for his failure to pay child support while he was gainfully employed, and the $ 80 amount he paid the grandparents for support was clearly token, and therefore the grandparents showed that the father willfully failed to provide no more than token support, for termination purposes. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Failure to provide prenatal support was not available as a ground to terminate the father's parental rights because the mother testified that he paid for out-of-pocket expenses, and the father testified that he paid for food, shelter, and a share of the cost of the mother's medicine expenses. The father also testified that after his arrest and incarceration he was unable to continue to pay for the mother's expenses due to a lack of income. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the parents'  rights based on abandonment by failure to support because the mother was deemed to be aware of her obligation to support her children, the father was making child support payments for his other children, the parents were employed for the majority of the pertinent time period, and the children's foster parents testified that they received no support from the parents. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Father was capable of and pursued employment, when it was available and he was able to arrange for transportation, he knew of his duty to support and he sought a modification of his support due to his inability to pay, and he was unable to pay for a period of time as a result of a criminal episode, and thus the evidence was not clear and convincing that he willfully failed to provide support within the meaning of the statute. In re Aden H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 2018).

Without evidence to establish that the mother had the ability to pay support for her children during the relevant time period, the department failed to show that she failed to support or make reasonable payments toward the support of her children to prove the ground of abandonment, and termination of her rights was reversed as to this ground. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Father willfully failed to visit the child during the relevant four-month period prior to his incarceration and thus grounds for termination existed based on abandonment by willful failure to visit; the father refused to provide his contact information to the department, failed to maintain contact with the department, never proactively attempted to establish paternity, and willingly forewent his opportunity to assume fatherly responsibilities. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the father had the capacity to pay child support and willfully failed to do so; the burden was not on him to demonstrate an inability to work or pay and there was no proof to establish his employment, income, expenses, or resources during the critical four-month period, and without such evidence, a finding of willfulness could not be sustained. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Despite the father's substantial business enterprises, his substantial monthly interest income and his significant annual income, he paid nothing for his son's support and only provided token gifts, and the father's testimony that he was not aware of his obligation to pay support did not excuse his failure to pay; therefore, termination of the father's rights based on his willful failure to support was proper. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Record did not contain clear evidence of the mother's abandonment by failure to support; while the mother knew of her support obligation, was able to work during a large portion of the relevant time period, and made some payments, the proof of her broken foot and childbirth did not convince the court that she had the capacity to work throughout the pertinent period of time. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

Although the record supported for the determination that the father knew of his duty to support the child and the consequences of his failure to do so, the evidence was insufficient to establish the father's ability to remit support during the relevant time period, and the termination of the father's rights on this ground was reversed. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support; although there was proof that the mother was not disabled or otherwise precluded from gainful employment, the Department of Children's Services did not show that she not only had the capacity to pay support but did not do so, and had no justification for not doing so. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Trial court's finding of abandonment was vacated and findings of fact concerning the willfulness of the alleged abandonment were required on remand; the trial court did not consider the mother's arguments that her failure to provide support was not willful because she was in a rehabilitation program, and her income was used to pay for the program. In re Abagail D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Trial court noted that the parenting plan did not require the mother to remit child support but the trial court did not issue any findings of fact concerning her willfulness in relation to the terms contained in the plan; thus, the finding of abandonment for failure to support was vacated.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

Father abandoned the child by willfully failing to remit support, which supported the termination of his parental rights; although he claimed that his failure to prioritize his support payments was a result of his lack of understanding of a complex system, he was advised of his obligation to remit support by a child support order, parenting plans, and his signing of the Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights, plus every parent was presumed to know of his legal obligation to support his child. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to support was supported by the evidence; she knew of her duty to pay child support, she worked during part of the relevant time period, when she did not work during that time, she was not unable to work, and she admitted she failed to pay any support. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Because petitioners failed to present clear evidence that the mother's failure to support was willful, the court vacated the findings with respect to this ground for termination; she could not be blamed for using her monthly paycheck to pay rent at an rehabilitation facility, nor could she be blamed for using her tax refund to pay overdue bills, and that she bought cigarettes during the relevant four-month period was insufficient alone to produce a firm belief that her failure to pay support was willful. In re L.U.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for nonsupport because the father admitted at the hearing that he had a duty to remit support, he had the capacity to remit support, and that he failed to do so because the mother refused his request for visitation. In re Ruger N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

There was clear evidence that the father abandoned the children by willfully failing to support them; he paid nothing until ordered to do so and he provided no nonmonetary support, such as clothing or food, yet he worked several jobs and his expenses were minimal, and thus he could have provided some financial support for his children but willfully chose not to do so. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

There was not clear and convincing proof from which to conclude that the mother had the capacity to pay support during the relevant period; while there was some testimony in the record that the mother worked while the children were in custody, the testimony did not establish what her income and expenses were during the period at issue. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the mother abandoned the child by failing to remit support because she admitted her physical ability to work during the relevant time period and that she later obtained employment after the relevant time period but still failed to provide any financial support. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support terminating a mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment based on a willful failure to support because there was little to no evidence of the mother's ability to pay support. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

Chancery court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support because his failure to pay support was not willful where there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he had the ability to pay child support, inasmuch as the mother and stepfather did not present any evidence regarding the father's financial means, expenses, or obligations during the relevant four-month period, and the record reflected that the father was actively seeking employment. In re Maddox G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019).

Although the mother did not provide cash to the child's guardians, she spent a portion of her disposable income that was not insignificant on the child during the relevant four-month period, thereby precluding the guardians from proving abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the mother had between $150 and $300 per month in disposable income that she could have used to pay child support. The evidence showed that the mother spent approximately $800 on the child over the relevant four-month period, which averaged out to about $200 per month. In re Anna G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 208 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019).

Evidence was less than clear and convincing that a mother's failure to support was willful because, although the mother worked during the relevant time period, the evidence of the mother's ability to pay support, including evidence as to the mother's income and expenses during the relevant four-month period before the petition to terminate parental rights was filed, was lacking. In re Raeshad B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2019).

Mother testified that on average she worked three or four days per week and at best, she earned $ 840 during the four months before the petition was filed; she had monthly expenses of $ 120 and paid an additional $ 90 toward the support of the child's half-siblings, such that her payments toward the child's support were not insignificant given her means. The department did not meet its burden to prove that the mother's payments were token support. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Ground of willful failure to support was proven against a father by the standard of clear and convincing evidence because the father had the capacity to pay support, did not do so, and had no justification for not doing so; the father testified that, at all times during the relevant statutory period, he was working, and when pressed by the trial court as to whether he had money to pay child support the father admitted that he did. In re Channing M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support; although the mother failed to provide any support for the child during the relevant time period, there was no proof that the mother's failure to provide support was willful, as the record was devoid of any evidence to show her income, expenses, or employment history. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for willful failure to support because the mother's acknowledgment during her deposition that she had between $80 and $100 extra per month was not introduced into evidence and there was no competent evidence in the record showing that the mother had the ability to provide support. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

Terminating parents'  parental rights for abandonment due to willful nonsupport erred because (1) a mother was entitled to credit for payments using borrowed funds, (2) no clear and convincing evidence showed the could pay more support, and (3) no such evidence showed a father's nonpayment of support was willful. In re C.L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights under the ground of abandonment by failure to support; because she did not appear at trial and presented no evidence, the unrefuted proof was that she was working, yet never provided any type of financial support for the child. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper for abandonment by failure to support; the mother had the capacity to work during the relevant time period and did work for much of it, which provided her the means to pay her expenses and provide discretionary funds for travel and entertainment, and yet she admitted she did not pay money to the grandparents for the support of the child. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support was proper because, although he testified that he had paid approximately $80 toward the child's support, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services produced documentation showing that he, in fact, paid $20 during the entire time the child was in foster care; and, when asked why the money he used to buy cigarettes was not tendered for support of his child, the father downplayed his habit. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support was proper because the case worker testified that the mother was aware of the permanency plan requirement that she pay $20 per month in child support; the case worker testified that she was unaware of any impediments to the mother's ability to work; and the mother had made no payments toward the child's support. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Upon the change in the statutory requirement eliminating the willfulness requirement, the trial court erred by requiring the grandparents to prove the mother's willfulness in her failure to provide support; however, the error was harmless because the mother testified that she would have sought employment but for a lack of child care for her newborn. Thus, she proved that her lack of support was not willful, and therefore there was a lack of evidence concerning abandonment for failure to support. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Even though the trial court err by applying two different four-month periods, as the grandparents'  amended petition did not set forth separate or distinct allegations, the error was harmless because the ground of failure to support was proven by clear and convincing evidence, as the mother conceded she never paid the grandparents any child support and her sporadic gifts were token in nature. In re Ava M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2020).

23. Child Abuse.

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because the trial court previously found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child was severely abused by the mother in that she knowingly allowed the child to be present within a structure where the act of creating methamphetamine was occurring; and the mother did not appeal the November 2013 adjudicatory order. In re J.R.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating parental rights based upon a prior finding of severe abuse because the record indicated that a trial court's order finding that a child was a victim of severe child abuse perpetrated by the parent was not appealed, and as such, the trial court's findings were res judicata. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights based on his sentence of more than two years for conduct against the child deemed severe child abuse. In re T.L.G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Trial court noted the father's convictions in Ohio for multiple rapes and an attempted rape of the child and found that the father's acts that led to his incarceration constituted severe child abuse, and the trial court properly considered the father's rape convictions for purposes of a parental termination proceeding; the trial court properly found that the father committed acts that fell within the definition of rape, and in addition, enumerated offenses relevant herein included aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child, and the trial court did not err in terminating the father's rights. In re T.L.G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

In proceedings to terminate a mother's parental rights, clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the ground of severe abuse because the mother and the father were again manufacturing methamphetamine in their home, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine at that time and admitted to methamphetamine use, and, shortly thereafter, the young child also tested positive for methamphetamine. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2015).

Trial court erred by refusing to allow witnesses to testify about abuse the parents'  son allegedly endured because it was relevant to the question of whether the parents'  rights to their daughter could be terminated for abuse. In re Makenzie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

Juvenile court properly terminated the parents'  parental rights pursuant based on severe abuse because their children made multiple disclosures of sexual abuse perpetrated on them by the parents to several individuals, the children were acting out sexually and with each other and had knowledge of sexual matters far beyond what was appropriate for children of their age, reunification was not realistic or in the best interests of the children, the absence of criminal charges relating to sexual abuse did not undermine the evidence, the suggestion of “coaching” was unsupported by the record, and the parents had made absolutely no genuine reckoning with the sexual abuse allegations. In re C.A.F., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for severe child abuse because (1) the mother did not appeal a prior finding that a child was dependent or neglected for this reason, making the finding binding, and (2) the finding applied to the abused child's sibling. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights to an adopted child based on severe child abuse was proper because, although the mother argued that her boyfriend had committed the abuse, the evidence in the record established that the mother also abused the child by both paddling her and binding her with cable ties; the parent facing termination of her parental rights did not have to have caused the abuse as the definition of severe child abuse included the knowing failure to protect a child from abuse or neglect that was likely to cause serious bodily injury; and the mother admitted in her interview that she knew that her boyfriend abused her children, including the adopted child, on an almost daily basis. In re Americus C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2015).

Grounds for termination of parental rights existed because a parent (1) whipped one child to the point that the child was bruised and the child's face was lacerated; and (2) continued to abuse illicit substances while pregnant with another child, despite the parent's knowledge of the potential dangers (including the risk of serious bodily injury or even death of the in utero child) of continued illicit substance abuse during the parent's pregnancy with the child. In re Kaedince M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding that grounds existed to terminate the father's parental rights to the children for severe abuse; the father struck the mother with a baseball bat stating that he knew he would be arrested, the children were present at the time, and the father had attacked two of the children and was incarcerated. In re Kyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015).

Termination of the mother's rights for severe abuse was proper, given in part that she moved often and left the children in the care of boyfriends who were abusive, the children were exposed to a pattern of neglect while in the mother's custody, and they had psychological issues because of that. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the father's rights based on a finding of severe child abuse, because the juvenile court's prior finding of severe child abuse was not subject to collateral attack. In re Jimmy B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights on the ground of severe child abuse was supported by evidence that the father injected drugs intravenously and let the children roam around a park for several hours unattended and left his car accessible to the children while littered with syringes and dangerous prescription medication. In re Kaitlin W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on a finding of sever child abuse was supported by the mother's concession to having been adjudicated as perpetuating sever abuse on the child. In re Maison W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a parent's parental rights to the parent's minor children, on the statutory ground of severe child abuse, because the parent admitted to driving while under the influence of prescription medication, for which medication the parent admitted that the parent did not have a prescription, with the children in the car. In re Addison E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2016).

Evidence supported the findings of termination of the parental rights of the mother and father based on severe child abuse, given the second-degree burn that the child sustained while in his mother's care and the father's failure to procure medical attention for the child; there was medical testimony that the injury was consistent with non-accidental trauma that caused the child substantial pain. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Severe abuse committed by the mother against her oldest child, which occurred prior to the birth of the subject children who were the child's sibling or half-sibling, was sufficient to find that severe abuse had been met as to the children at issue. In re I.E.A., 511 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on severe child abuse because, despite being aware of the risks, the mother persistently abused drugs while pregnant; she knowingly exposed the child to abuse that was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death; and that exposure caused the child to experience drug withdrawals after birth and necessitated the child's hospitalization for an extended period of time. In re Joshua C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's findings of severe child abuse by the mother; the finding of severe child abuse was based solely on the mother's arrest for driving under the influence and reckless endangerment, and while the mother's decision to operate a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants with her child unrestrained was abhorrent, the trial court's decision to make a finding of severe child abuse in the termination proceeding when it declined the opportunity to do so based on the same facts in the dependency and neglect proceedings appeared to be incongruous. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on severe child abuse because, prior to the termination hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the child dependent and neglected based upon a finding that the mother had committed severe child abuse by failing to protect the child from acts that met the statutory definitions of rape, aggravated sexual assault, rape of a child, and incest. In re C.D.,  S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 646 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2016).

Termination of parental rights on the ground of severe abuse was appropriate because the evidence supported the finding that non-accidental trauma at the hands of the father caused one of the children's serious skull fractures, given a doctor's testimony, the inconsistencies in the parents'  account of what happened, the history of abuse in the family, and the children's unsolicited statements as to how the father hurt the injured child. The mother committed severe child abuse by knowingly failing to protect the child from serious bodily harm. In re Savannah F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse because the father, along with the mother, perpetrated severe child abuse through the supply and use of illegal drugs and non-prescribed pain medication. In re Braxton R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2016).

In addition to concluding that the minor children were dependent and neglected, the juvenile court's order found that the mother had committed severe child abuse against one child consistent with the definition contained in T.C.A. § 37-1-102. Because that child was a subject of the termination petition and was a half-sibling of the other two minor children at issue, once the juvenile court's order became final, a sufficient ground to terminate the mother's rights existed. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Under the severe child abuse ground for termination of parental rights, a finding of severe abuse against one child can be the basis for terminating parental rights to a sibling, including a half-sibling; thus, a finding of severe abuse against one of the mother's children could be a ground for termination as to the other child. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Department presented scant evidence regarding the mother's ability to pay support during the relevant four-month time period, and thus the proof offered was insufficient to show that the mother's failure to support her children was willful. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Because the juvenile court's order of dependency and neglect was final and was not appealed, grounds for termination existed based on severe abuse; the juvenile court adjudicated the children to be dependent and neglected after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that all three children were victims of severe child abuse. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights on the grounds of severe child abuse was proper, given that a previously issued final order found that the mother had severely abused one child, and that finding was res judicata, plus it supported a finding that a half-sibling of the other children was the victim of severe child abuse. In re Alfonzo E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights on the basis of severe child abuse was supported by evidence that he failed to intervene when the mother duct taped the children's hands and mouths, required them to do excessive squats while waiting to be whipped, and whipped them, often with their clothes off. In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the basis of severe child abuse was supported by evidence that the mother duct taped the children's hands and mouths, required them to do excessive squats while waiting to be whipped, and whipped them, often with their clothes off. In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Mother's conduct in failing to feed her youngest child appropriately and failing to seek medical care for him constituted severe child abuse because an expert testified that the mother's actions of neglect toward the child resulting in severe nutritional malnourishment could produce severe developmental delay or intellectual disability in the child, and was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death; she admitted to hospital personnel that she noticed that the child was not growing approximately three months before he was admitted to the hospital; the mother was aware that it was not appropriate for the child to gain only eight ounces in six months; and, despite that knowledge, she did not seek medical treatment for the child. In re Chance D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Expert testimony establishing that the mother's actions of neglect toward the child resulting in severe malnutrition could reasonably be expected to produce severe developmental delay or intellectual disability in the child, supported termination of the mother's parental rights, based on a finding that she committed severe child abuse. In re Jude D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 909 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Mother's conduct in failing to feed her youngest child appropriately and failing to seek medical care for him constituted severe child abuse because an expert testified that the mother's actions of neglect toward the child resulting in severe nutritional malnourishment could produce severe developmental delay or intellectual disability in the child, and was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death; she admitted to hospital personnel that she noticed that the child was not growing approximately three months before he was admitted to the hospital; the mother was aware that it was not appropriate for the child to gain only eight ounces in six months; and, despite that knowledge, she did not seek medical treatment for the child. In re Gabriella D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on severe child abuse was supported by the trial court's finding that the father digitally penetrated the child. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on a finding of severe child abuse, was supported by evidence the mother admitted to using drugs while pregnant and the child tested positive for oxycodone at the time of his birth. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 985 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the parental rights of a mother because there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother committed severe child abuse; the mother took photographs of the child's genitals and sent them to a known sex offender, who had discussed with her his sexual interest in the child, and her actions constituted especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and severe child abuse. In re G.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 993 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016).

Mother abused drugs while pregnant with one child, and termination of her rights was proper. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for severe child abuse because in 2012 a juvenile court found that two of the children were the victims of severe child abuse due to the mother's prenatal drug use and the father's knowledge of that drug use and his failure to intervene. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights for sexual child abuse because it was undisputed that the father pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery under T.C.A. § 39-13-504. In re Anna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

There was sufficient evidence to support a termination of parental rights because an abuse issue had been fully litigated in the dependent and neglect action, a mother did not raise an argument relating to notice before the trial court, and the order entered on December 17, 2014 was final, res judicata, and could not have been relitigated in this proceeding. In re Delilah G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. June 19, 2017).

Child was severely abused as a result of manufacturing of methamphetamine in the home and testing positive for methamphetamine; because the father was found to have committed severe abuse as defined in T.C.A. § 36-1-102 under a prior court order, this ground for termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Mother was found to have committed severe child abuse as defined in T.C.A. § 37-1-102, which was a final judgment, and she was precluded from relitigating this issue; this finding established grounds for the termination of the mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) and relieved the Department of Children's Services from its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and the child, for purposes of T.C.A. § 37-1-166(g)(4)(A). In re Martese P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on child abuse was supported by evidence that the mother knew her paramour's children had been removed from his custody and he was only allowed supervised visitation and that he had abused her children. In re Rylan G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017).

Termination of the parents'  rights based on severe child abuse was not proper, as the evidence showed felony neglect, but that was not sufficient to show severe child abuse. In re C.J.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, In re Chaz B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2017).

T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) does not require a finding of severe abuse by a previous court; it specifically provides that the court hearing the petition to terminate parental rights may make a finding of severe child abuse. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Mother's rights were properly terminated under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) on the ground of severe child abuse, as defined in T.C.A. § 37-1-102, given that she used drugs during her pregnancies with her daughter and son, both children had narcotic abstinence syndrome, and they suffered from problems related to their exposure to drugs; the daughter was being treated at a sleep center, she exhibited developmental delays, and she had pica, and the son had a sensory issue with feeding and could not eat even baby food at almost two years old. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly refused to terminate the father's rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) on the ground of severe child abuse, as defined in T.C.A. § 37-1-102; the father attempted to help the mother to stay off of illegal drugs during her pregnancy, and this termination ground was not established as to by clear and convincing evidence. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on severe child abuse was proper because the severe abuse he committed against the deceased child resulted in her death; he was tried and convicted of aggravated child abuse and felony murder and was serving a life sentence for his actions; his convictions established severe child abuse that served as the basis for termination of his parental rights; and severe child abuse committed against one sibling resulted in severe child abuse against the other siblings. In re Demarkus T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017).

Although the mother contended that a lower standard was used to imply severe child abuse against her as she was only convicted of criminally negligent homicide, because the trial court made an additional finding that the mother committed severe abuse as she knew or should have known that the father abused the children in a way that could cause serious bodily injury or death, the mother's parental rights were properly terminated as she committed severe abuse by failing to protect the deceased child from the father's known abuse. In re Demarkus T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017).

Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights on the ground of severe sexual abuse because the father made no allegation that he was not found guilty of committing severe child sexual abuse within the meaning of subsection (g)(11); the father's continued assertions of innocence had no bearing on whether grounds for termination existed pursuant to the statute. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

There was no error in allowing the mother to amend her petition to include subsection (g)(11)(B) as the sole ground for termination of the father's parental rights because there was no prejudice to the father; after granted the motion to amend, the trial court asked the father's attorney whether he needed additional time to try the case, but counsel said he did not and that he was ready to move forward that day with the remainder of his proof. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on a finding of severe child abuse was supported by evidence that the mother exposed the son to methamphetamine manufacturing and used methamphetamine within a month or two of the daughter's birth. In re Douglas H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 662 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

Mother and stepfather proved by clear and convincing evidence that the force the father repeatedly used in smacking, popping, and throwing his girlfriend's two-year-old child would likely cause serious bodily injury to the child and thus, they proved the ground of sever child abuse. In re Lauren M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2017).

Termination was proper based on severe child abuse because the Child Protective Services Investigator testified that the oldest child had told the father about the mother's drug use; and the father knowingly disregarded the mother's drug use around the children and he instructed one of the mother's children by another man on how to dispose of needles. In re Alyssa W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2017).

In a termination of parental rights case, the hearsay testimony regarding the children's statements related to issues concerning severe child abuse were admissible because there was no competent evidence that their statements were not trustworthy; the children described the mother's drug use consistently at different times to the Child Protective Services Investigator and the foster mother, and the specifics of the matters about which the children reported placed them in danger of serious bodily harm by their exposure to illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia; and the father was aware of the threat to their safety inasmuch as they reported the mother's drug use to him. In re Alyssa W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2017).

Prior orders, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the child was the victim of “severe child abuse” as defined by T.C.A. § 37-1-102, constituted clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating the mother's parental rights In re Brianna T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Prior orders, finding by clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents caused injuries to the child and that the father either perpetrated the abuse or failed to protect the child from it, and finding that the child was the victim of “severe child abuse” as defined by T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b)(21)(A)(i), constituted clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating the father's parental rights In re Brianna T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Trial court properly found that the father had severely abused a half-sibling of the child subject to the termination proceeding where the half-sibling related that while alone in the home with the father, he made her watch a pornographic video, put a condom on him, and take off her clothing, she reported that the father's private parts touched her private parts, and she testified that when she expressed to the father that she did not wish to participate, he stated to her that it was normal, that that's what parents and kids did. In re Brooke E., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on severe abuse and imprisonment because he acknowledged that he pleaded guilty to three counts of corporal injury upon a child in California, as a result of the abuse the child suffered severe brain injuries, multiple broken bones, facial bruising, an inability to walk or sit up, and cognitive impairment, and the father was sentenced to six years in prison for his crimes. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Child's foster parents proved several child abuse by clear and convincing evidence because a juvenile court had found that the parents had committed severe child abuse by exposing the child to drugs prenatally and had entered an order, which was a final and non-appealable judgment. In re Zayne P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Evidence amounted to clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of a mother's parental rights based on severe child abuse for physical and psychological damage to the child's half-siblings because the mother slapped one half-sibling and choked her making it difficult for the child to breathe; the child's other half-sibling witnessed the event, and an expert clinical psychologist testified to the harm that would result from being a victim of the assault and having witnessed it. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Evidence found by the trial court amounted to clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of a mother's parental rights based on severe child abuse because the mother drove while intoxicated with the child's half-sibling in the vehicle; that kind of reckless conduct had the potential to cause serious bodily injury and death to the child. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Evidence amounted to clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of a mother's parental rights based on severe child abuse because the mother's prenatal drug use constituted severe child abuse; the mother was advised by medical professionals to discontinue her use for the duration of her pregnancy, but she refused, and the child showed signs of developmental delays. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Mother tested positive for amphetamine and her child tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine when she was born; termination of the mother's rights on severe child abuse grounds was proper. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Because the mother did not appeal the trial court's earlier order regarding severe child abuse of the older three children, the issue of whether her parental rights could be terminated as to those child on the ground of severe child abuse was res judicata. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Because the juvenile court's 2016 unappealed final order found that the father committed severe child abuse against the child, this ground for terminating the father's parental rights had been established. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for severe child abuse because the evidence showed the mother knew the mother's boyfriend physically and sexually abused the children. In re Jarrett P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was proper because they committed severe child abuse as the findings of the autism center and a doctor were compelling evidence of severe child abuse while in the parents'  custody as the child was essentially nonverbal, having to grunt or point to communicate, and his language delays severely impaired his ability to function in his environment and adversely affected his ability to learn, but there was evidence that the child improved immensely after his removal from the parents'  custody; and the center ruled out autism as the cause for the child's developmental delays. In re Charles R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse because a judgment in another proceeding found her guilty of severe child abuse of the child's half-sister; viewed in context, the mother's testimony in the other proceeding simply did not establish a basis upon which to hold that the child abuse adjudication was tainted by fraud or collusion, by constitutional infirmity, or in any other way not entitled to res judicata effect. In re Gabriel C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Because the order adjudicating the mother to have severely abused the child's sibling was a final judgment, the trial court found that she committed severe child abuse, and termination of her parental rights on this ground was proper. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse because the child was severely burned on two separate occasions within a one-week period, strongly suggesting that the mother recklessly disregarded the known dangers of a curling iron and a campfire, and she failed to alleviate the child's ongoing pain by seeking appropriate medical treatment. In re E.M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's child on the ground of severe child abuse because the child tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana in hair follicle drug screens during the time when the child was in the care and control of the mother. Furthermore, the mother testified to being aware that using methamphetamine could be harmful to the child, while a doctor testified that ingestion of the drugs could cause immediate and/or long term injury to the child. In re Mason C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to severe child abuse because (1) the mother admittedly used illegal drugs during pregnancy, and (2) the mother's argument that parental rights could not be terminated due to harm to a fetus was rejected, as the mother's actions resulted in significant harm to the child after the child was born. In re Colton B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights due to child abuse was supported by finding that the mother used illegal substances while pregnant, causing the child to be diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, Intrauterine Cocaine Exposure, and Maternal Substance Abuse. In re Savanna I., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2018).

Termination based on severe child abuse was supported by a previous order determining that sever child abuse had occurred. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to terminate a mother's parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse because the mother admitted on multiple occasions that she used illegal drugs during her pregnancy, even though she knew she was pregnant. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Prior adjudicatory order in which the father was found to have committed severe child abuse against all three children became a final order and was properly relied upon as a ground for termination of the father's parental rights. In re Janiyah J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2019).

Juvenile court entered a final order finding that the mother had committed severe child abuse against her daughter and the juvenile court adjudicated her son dependent and neglected, in part, based on the severe child abuse finding; this order was not appealed and thus grounds for termination existed based on severe abuse. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Termination was proper based upon the father's sentence of imprisonment for two years or more for severe child abuse; while the trial court erroneously found that the father committed severe child abuse against the child's half-sibling, this ground was still properly applied because the father was sentenced to a term of eight years for severe child abuse committed against a child he lived with temporarily. In re Brendan G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019).

Father did not appeal his conviction for severe child abuse; accordingly, the order became a final order and could be relied upon for purposes of the statute. In re Brendan G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019).

Termination of father's parental rights was appropriate because the father had previously tested positive on nail follicle drug test for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, and opiates, while, at the same time, one child tested positive for cocaine/metabolites on a hair follicle drug test. Accordingly, the father committed severe child abuse, because the father either knowingly exposed the child to cocaine, or, because of deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the child's safety, failed to protect the child from exposure to cocaine. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's children on the ground of severe child abuse was appropriate because the trial court properly found that a prior finding of severe child abuse by the mother in dependency and neglect proceedings—based on expert testimony, the home environment, the parents'  medical neglect of the children, the condition of the children's health, and the resulting developmental delays that were observed in one of the children—was res judicata in the case as to the child abuse. In re Deishun M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights to his two children was proper on the ground of severe child abuse, severe child sexual abuse, and receiving a sentence more than two years for conduct against a child and a sentence of 10 or more years when the children were eight years old because he was convicted of rape of a child, and was sentenced to serve 35 years in prison at 100%. In re O.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Definition of serious bodily injury under T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(34) was inapplicable for purposes of terminating a parent's rights on the ground of severe child abuse, and instead, T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b)(27) governed. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Based on the mother's guilty plea to felony child abuse and the evidence of the child's injuries, the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother committed severe child abuse within the meaning of the termination statute. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Termination of parental rights due to severe child abuse was appropriate because the mother confessed to having squeezed and shaken the child in a manner which a doctor testified was consistent with the child's injuries, while the father confessed to investigators to having witnessed the mother hit the child in the head. The parents'  conduct was knowing as the doctor testified that the mother should have known that serious harm would result, while the father should have recognized that severe child abuse would occur or had already occurred. In re Kyland F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Sufficient evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on severe child abuse because the trial court found that the child was the victim of severe child abuse in a dependency and neglect order based on his positive hair follicle test for methamphetamine, and the mother did not appeal the order. In re Caydan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

Evidence on the ground of severe child abuse for termination of parental rights came from the testimony of the mother and an investigator for the Department of Children Services, who both testified about the manufacture of methamphetamine that took place at the home where the child resided. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Ground of severe child abuse was proven by clear and convincing evidence because the child's brother was injured while in the mother's care and treated for skull fractures and subdural hematoma, for which the mother pleaded guilty to child abuse with serious injuries, unlawful wounding of a child, and cruelty to a child. In re C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on severe child abuse because during the adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile court proceedings, the mother stipulated to the facts in the dependency and neglect petition against her, which included her failed drug tests during her pregnancy, her drug use at the hospital while breastfeeding, the child's withdrawal symptoms following birth, and the child's diagnosis of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. In re Aryana S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2020).

Termination of the father's rights was proper based on his child abuse sentence; he pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect and received a suspended sentence of 10 years imprisonment, the incident underlying his conviction, where one child obtained a loaded and unsecured handgun and shot himself in the arm, was found by the juvenile court to constitute severe child abuse, and the fact that the father did not serve any jail time did not preclude termination of his rights on this ground. In re Shyanne H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2020).

Because the issue of whether the parents committed severe child abuse in the past was fully litigated, that issue was res judicata, plus the juvenile court also properly terminated the parents'  rights based upon new findings that they had committed severe child abuse; the children disclosed that the father hit, choked, and whipped them, and the mother held one child by the neck and hit her in the face with a frying pan. The abuse the children endured caused them severe psychological issues, as determined by a clinical psychologist. In re Shyanne H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2020).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because, while the father may have taken steps to stop the father's use of drugs and to remove the father's father from the father's life, clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the father had committed severe child abuse as the child was present during incidents of domestic violence at the home of the father's parents and the father had taken the child with the father to places where the father used or acquired drugs. In re Adalee H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

Mother and the department were parties to the dependency and neglect case and the issue of whether the mother committed severe abuse was litigated in that case; therefore, the issue of whether she committed severe abuse was res judicata, and the trial court properly found this a ground for termination. In re Raylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020).

In a March 2019 order, the juvenile court found that the father committed severe child abuse against two of the child's siblings for failure to protect them from their mother's drug exposure; as the father did not challenge the finality or validity of the order finding severe child abuse either in the proceedings below or on appeal, the ground of severe child abuse was proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

23.5 Failure to Manifest an Ability and Willingness to Assume Custody or Financial Responsibility.

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights due to failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility because (1) the mother's drug use and unstable housing and employment rendered the mother unable to assume custody, (2) the mother's failure to take steps to address these issues and general disinterest in custody showed an unwillingness to assume custody, and (3) placing the child with the mother would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child, as it was likely to result in additional drug exposure and instability. In re Colton B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights due to failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility was supported by evidence that the mother, who was incarcerated, was unable to assume physical or legal custody or financial responsibility for the child. In re Savanna I., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating parents'  parental rights due to a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the parents'  children because the evidence did not preponderate against findings that (1) the parents, collectively and separately, did nothing to have the children returned, (2) did not stay in contact with counsel after directing the Department of Children's Services to contact them through counsel, (3) did not obtain stable housing or meaningfully attempt to obtain the right to visit the children, (4) did not keep themselves informed of the children's welfare, and (5) that returning the children to the parents was unsafe. In re Nicholas C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2019).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported termination of mother's rights on the ground that she failed to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child because the mother continued to abuse illegal drugs, she failed to take meaningful steps to address the mental health issues that fueled her drug addiction, and her relationship with her abusive boyfriend was troubling; the mother failed to demonstrate her willingness to assume custody of the child. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Terminating the mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody was appropriate, as she did not exhibit an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility for the child; the mother had recently suffered another relapse, she was homeless with minimal income, and she remained unable to care for the child, and returning him to her custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to his welfare. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Even when faced by the possibility of having her parental rights forever terminated, the mother failed to make any real effort, which showed a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume parental responsibility, and there was clear evidence that returning the child to the mother's custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on his failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the child because he did not explain why he stayed in New Jersey from 2014 to 2016 during which the child was removed from the mother's care and placed with a maternal aunt, the father took no action whatsoever to assume custody of the child during that time, and the father provided no evidence of his ability to assume custody of the child following his release from prison. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Termination of mother's parental rights for failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume legal and physical custody of children was appropriate as the mother refused to participate in treatment recommended by a drug and alcohol assessment, had no home of the mother's own, relied upon a paramour with whom the mother had a tumultuous relationship, and produced no proof of income or ability to support the children. Returning the children posed a risk of substantial emotional harm from the mother's inability to provide for the children. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

There was no error in concluding that the failure to manifest an ability to parent ground for termination was properly established because returning the child to a father's custody would pose a risk of substantial psychological and/or physical harm to her; the child suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and night terrors resulting from the turmoil she had experienced in her young life, and the father had continued drug problems. In re Jayda H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child because she failed to provide a suitable home for the child, failed to engage in meaningful visitation with the child, and failed to follow the recommendations of her mental health assessment; and placing the child in the mother's custody would pose a substantial risk to the child's psychological welfare as, following visits with the mother, the child would be withdrawn, very quiet, and uncommunicative about the visits; and she exhibited negative behaviors, including lying, cursing, and stealing, after she visited the mother. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was affirmed except as to the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the children because the appellate court had significant doubt that the detailed findings contained in the trial court's written order as to that ground were the product of the trial court's independent judgment; and, in considering only those findings that were clearly made by the trial court, the appellate court concluded that insufficient findings of fact were made to support that ground for termination. In re O.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody was supported by evidence of the father's refusal to engage in the task of family counseling and learn how to act appropriately and civilly around his family. In re Mahaley P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility of the child; the mother failed to comply with or complete any of the permanency plan requirements, and any alleged hardships did not excuse her total lack of compliance with the plan, plus placing the child in the mother's custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because she failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the children, and placing the children in her legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the children's physical and psychological welfare as she had not demonstrated the ability and willingness to establish the stability needed to provide a safe home for the children, given her repeated changes of residence, and lack of documentation concerning her current income and living situation; she continued to test positive for illegal substances; and she failed to seek training to parent a child with her son's special needs. In re Serenity S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Considering the obstacles presented by their incarceration and the tasks which the parents accomplished in the short period following their release such as obtained employment, housing, and insurance to get services and signing up for classes and assessments, the evidence did not establish that the parents had failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child. In re Kyland F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to show that a mother lacked the willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility for her children where she admitted that she was still working on providing a home for the children, her lack of consistent transportation and inability to remember appointments prevented her from keeping her own appointments or the multiple appointments that the children had to attend, her employment following the removal was not consistent, and she failed to attend a multitude of visitations with the children, sometimes stating that she simply forgot to do what was necessary to ensure that the visitation occurred. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Foster parents'  petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother was improperly granted as the trial court did not make a finding that the mother failed to manifest both an ability and a willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. In re Neveah M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child was proper; the father took no affirmative steps to comply with his child support payments, he had not contacted the child since October 2015, and his lack of presence in the child's life posed a sufficient probable risk of substantial harm to the child's psychological welfare if the father were to suddenly obtain custody. In re Bentley Q., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

Ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children was established by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed that the mother had not consistently visited the children, she had not financially supported the children, and she had not addressed her mental health issues, complied with the terms of her probation, or taken advantage of the multiple services offered to her throughout the case. The mother had continued using illegal drugs throughout the case and tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines at the time of trial. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Termination of parental rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody was appropriate because a father's actions and omissions indicated that the father was not willing or able to personally assume custody or financial responsibility for the children. Due to the father's instability, continued drug use, unresolved criminal charges, and the lack of any meaningful relationship between the father and the children, putting the children in the father's custody would have posed a risk of substantial harm to the children. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2020).

Sufficient evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights based on her failure to manifest a willingness and ability to parent the child because in the months following the mother's loss of custody, she continued to use methamphetamine, failed to take prescribed medication for her mental health, and lied to leave substance abuse treatment before its completion. In re Caydan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

Evidence supported termination of the mothers'  and the father's parental rights based on failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody where both parents were incarcerated, the father testified that his sister was able to get the child, and the mother would not be in a position to care for the child for over six months after she was paroled. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody; she made one $ 40 payment to the grandparents since the child was placed in their custody and had made no serious attempts to regain custody of her child. The mother did not have a stable housing situation and her history of drug use and decision to live with someone who smoked marijuana on a daily basis posed a risk of substantial harm to the child. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody was appropriate because the mother manifested neither a willingness, nor an ability to assume custody and responsibility due to the mother's drug use, accompanying criminal activity and incarcerations, and employment and housing issues. Furthermore, placing the children in the mother's legal and physical custody would have posed a risk of substantial harm to the children. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child and placing the child in the mother's legal and physical custody would have posed a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child as the mother failed to address substance abuse and unstable housing issues. Furthermore, the child was doing well with the preadoptive foster family. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of both parents'  rights based on a failure to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child was proper because the parents failed to provide a suitable home for the child; they failed to engage in meaningful visitation with the child and failed to provide support; they had failed to engage in the process (as outlined in the parenting plans) that would allow them to resume custody; they continued to use illegal drugs and to engage in other behaviors that would pose a substantial risk to the child; and placing the child in their legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody because the mother had only had two visits with the child in the 15 months he was in foster care and her mental health assessment, drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence issues remained unaddressed. The mother remained unable to care for the child without significant assistance. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Department of Children's Services (DCS) failed to prove the failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody ground for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence because the record contained evidence of his willingness to assume custody, as, while on parole, the father contacted DCS to request a home visit to determine if his home was appropriate and a case worker testified that the father was cooperative with him and, but for his incarceration, wanted to get custody of the child. In re Isabella W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Mother lacked both the ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child, making termination proper; the mother continued to reside in a home with a known drug abuser and was unable to show she had sufficiently resolved her own drug issues, plus she had no source of income, no driver's license, and no method of transportation, and she continued to accrue criminal convictions. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Trial court did not err finding that the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody because the mother's petition for unsupervised visitation was filed only two months before the filing of the petition to terminate her rights, she never made a child support payment, and she had not parented the children in any substantial way. In re Ava M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2020).

Termination was appropriate under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) where the children's maternal aunt and uncle had exclusive physical custody of the Children since May 2015, the father had not attempted to become their custodian, he had not taken financial responsibility for the children, save a one-time payment made in January or February of 2017, and he a lengthy criminal history and has been incarcerated for most of the children's lives. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the conclusion the father failed to manifest and ability and willingness to assume custody, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14), where his testimony established that he unable to take care of the children, did not have housing or income, and had substance abuse issues that would take at least six months to resolve, and there was no evidence of any attempt by the father to overcome the obstacles that prevented him from assuming custody of the children. In re Justin D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support the conclusion the mother failed to manifest and ability and willingness to assume custody, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14), where she provided negative drug screens, secured employment and housing, and taken steps to have her license reinstated. Those steps demonstrated that she was willing to assume custody, as she had attempted to overcome the obstacles that would have prevented her from assuming custody. In re Justin D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2020).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because the father failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the child due to the father's positive drug test and admission that the father had been a long term user of drugs, the father had an anger management problem, the father was in arrears in child support, and returning the child to the father's custody would have posed a risk of substantial harm to the child's psychological welfare. In re Adalee H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

Juvenile court properly terminated a the father's parental rights as in the best interest of the children because he failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children and abandoned them by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare by engaging in a pattern of physical violence, domestic abuse, toward the mother and one of the children, as well as other illegal or unreasonable acts, the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the children, the children had no meaningful relationship with the father, and a change of caretaker and physical environment was likely to have a negative effect on the children's welfare. In re Nakayia, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper based on the failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility because only the mother's acts and omissions from when the law took effect to the time of the trial were material to that ground as it was not a ground for termination when the original petition was filed, and retroactively applying the amendment could deprive the mother of her vested rights as a parent; however, the facts preponderated against a finding that petitioners proved any of the essential elements to establish that ground even by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Aiden M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020).

Trial court erred terminating a father's parental rights and in finding that termination was in the child's best interests because, although the court addressed the first element by finding that the father's constant entanglement with the law and his apparent lack of preparedness or familiarity with the child negated any ability on his part to assume legal or physical custody, the court made no specific finding as to whether placing the child in the father's legal or physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child as statutorily required. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020).

Ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody was proven by clear and convincing evidence; the father had unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues, he was found to have committed severe child abuse against two of the child's siblings, and the child had no relationship with the father. To remove the child from a stable environment and return her to the father's custody posed a risk of substantial harm to the child. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

Father manifested neither an ability nor a willingness to assume custody of the child, and termination was proper, as the father did not show up for trial even though he was released from jail and had notice of the proceedings. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody because she stipulated that her intellectual disabilities rendered it difficult for her to provide appropriate care to the child and the record showed that the child was unable to maintain a sufficient weight when in the mother's custody. In re Katrina S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because, while she expressed a willingness to assume responsibility for the child, her failure to act prior to the filing of the termination petition did not support her claims or indicate any evidence of an ability to assume responsibility; she was incarcerated as a result of a probation violation while the child was in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and was arrested again days before the termination hearing; and placing the child with her would posed a risk of substantial harm to his physical or psychological welfare given her failure to adequately address her drug abuse and his current placement in an adoptive home, the only home he had ever known. In re Kash F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2020).

Termination of parental rights based on failure to manifest a willingness and ability to parent was supported by evidence that the mother continued to use drugs and reside in a home with two other drug users and the father continued to use alcohol and drugs and plead guilty to multiple crimes. In re A.V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 406 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2020).

24. Best Interests of Children.

It was in the best interests of an 11-year-old girl to terminate the parental rights of her father and allow her step-father to adopt her, where the step-father was the only father she had known and she had no connection with her natural father. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

While a finding of parental unfitness is a necessary prerequisite to terminate a parent's rights, a finding of unfitness does not necessarily require that the parent's rights be terminated. Because not all parental misconduct is irredeemable, Tennessee's termination of parental rights statutes recognize the possibility that terminating an unfit parent's parental rights is not always in the child's best interests. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

Court properly terminated parental rights as being in the children's best interests where the children had not formed a meaningful relationship with the parents, a change in caretakers would have a detrimental effect on the children's emotional and psychological condition, and since being placed with the foster parents, the children had begun to thrive and no longer suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2005).

Where the Tennessee department of children's services established that the mother failed to maintain stable housing and continued to abuse drugs, which rendered her unable to care for the children in a safe and stable manner, termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest. The children were doing very well with foster parents who wanted to adopt all four of them. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. A.M.H., 198 S.W.3d 757, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. June 5, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. 2006).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the parents'  rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) based on the best interest of the parents'  seven children; it was not disputed that the children had been educationally deprived, subjected to severe corporal punishment, and had been physically and psychologically abused by their parents; it was likewise undisputed that there had been a significant, positive transformation in the children since their removal from their parents'  custody. Despite over three years of intervention by the Tennessee department of children's services, the parents demonstrated little ability or inclination to modify their lifestyles or to improve their parenting skills. In re Giorgianna H., 205 S.W.3d 508, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests where the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstances or conditions such that it would be safe for the children to be returned to her. The state clearly made a reasonable effort to assist the mother, but the mother failed to make a lasting adjustment. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., 200 S.W.3d 184, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 2006), appeal denied, In re D.J.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. 2006).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-2-302 and T.C.A. § 24-7-112, the biological father was the legal father of the child, absent the termination of his rights, and a best-interests analysis was relevant if an only if termination was appropriate; the evidence did not support the arguments of the mother and her husband that the biological father willfully failed to visit or support the child, as the evidence showed that, inter alia: (1) The mother actively concealed the child's parentage; and (2) The mother declined the biological father's offer of support. In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. 2006), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 891 (Tenn. Sept. 19, 2006).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the best interest of the child where, to allow the child to return to the mother, which could not even be considered until she was released from prison, would delay the inevitable and cause more lasting harm to the child. In re S.L.A., 223 S.W.3d 295, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 808 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State v. Smith (In re S.L.A.), — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Apr. 2, 2007).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that it was in the children's best interests to terminate their mother's parental rights due to her continued relationship with the man who had sexually abused them because: (1) There was ample evidence that the children had improved upon leaving their mother's custody, were doing well in school, and that their foster mother had made arrangements to adopt them; (2) It was clear that the mother had not made, and was not willing to make, an adjustment of circumstances or conditions so as to make it safe for the children to return home; and (3) It would be harmful for the children to continue a relationship with their mother. R.M.S. v. Orange, 223 S.W.3d 240, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 823 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Orange (In re R.M.S.), — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. 2007).

Several factors warranted a finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of her children where the mother: continued to abuse drugs during the pendency of her permanency plans; tested positive for cocaine and was arrested for attempting to sell drugs; failed to avail herself of training that would have allowed her to properly care for her two youngest children; and failed to visit her children on a regular basis. In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 741 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007), appeal denied, In re J. C. D., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008).

Evidence clearly and convincingly established that it was in the child's best interest for the mother's parental rights to be terminated given the mother's failure to acknowledge the father's child abuse, the mother's inability to complete requirements necessary for reunification, and the child's bond with his foster parents. In re Adoption of D.P.E., 271 S.W.3d 670, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 385 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008).

Termination of father's parental rights was appropriate under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i) because it was in the child's best interest to do so; child had been in a loving and stable foster home since he was taken into custody over two years before and the father did not have a stable home and had refused to address his obvious need for counseling and therapy. In re R.L.F., 278 S.W.3d 305, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 788 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2008).

Where father of two children had not obtained stable employment, had been in and out of jail, and continued to use cocaine, trial court did not err by finding that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i); father did not have the ability to provide a healthy and safe home free of drug activity, and the children were doing well in foster care. In re L.M.W., 275 S.W.3d 843, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2008).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because the mother put little or no effort into improving her circumstances and in fact ended up in a worsened situation; by the time of trial, trial court observed that the mother had no home, job, income, transportation, or money, and that criminal charges against her were becoming more frequent and more serious. State v. Estes, 284 S.W.3d 790, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2009).

Termination of the putative father's rights was appropriate under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(2), (i) because he presented little evidence to rebut the evidence that terminating his parental rights was in the children's best interests. The children had been in the custody of the Department of Children's Services, off and on, for almost four years; during the relatively short periods of time when the children were in the putative father's custody, he was unable to care for them; he was unable to provide a safe and appropriate living environment, financial support, and appropriate parental oversight to the children; and the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that the putative father was unable to make such a lasting adjustment in his circumstances that it appeared reasonably possible that the children might be safely returned to him. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 683 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support was proper pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 36-1-113(g)(1) because it was in the child's best interest to do so. At the time of the trial, the mother still did not have stable, independent housing or stable employment; further, after the filing of the petition, she was arrested twice, once for possession of narcotics and marijuana and once for public intoxication. Stephen v. Christy C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010), appeal denied, In re Keri C., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Judgment finding that it was not in the children's best interest to terminate the mother's rights as a parent of the two children was reversed because the trial court focused on the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the children, as required by the statute and authorities. In re Taylor BW, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011), rev'd, In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i), despite significant strides made by the father prior to his incarceration and while in prison, because the child had lived with a foster family since he was one year old, the father had no contact with the child for more than a year, and the father's potential for early release from prison was unclear. In re Dominique L.H., 393 S.W.3d 710, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dominique H., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2013).

Pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(i) and 36-1-101(d), termination of parents'  rights was in their children's best interests, as the children had been removed from the home years earlier, had not had any visitation with their parents, and had a close and loving bond with the woman whom they were placed with and who hoped to adopt them; further, neither parent made any meaningful effort to be reunited with the children. In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012), appeal denied, In re Dakota R., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Mar. 6, 2013).

Court properly entered an amended order denying appellee father and stepmother's petition to terminate a mother's parental rights; though the mother had been sentenced to 12 years in prison when children were under eight, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6), the trial court did not err in finding that none of the nine factors of § 36-1-113(i) supported termination, and that the father failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the children. In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

Terminating a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the father continued to smoke despite the child's significant breathing issues, the child did not ask about the father or appear to be overly excited to see him, and the father admitted his relationship with the child was “slim.” In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013), appeal denied, In re Jacobe J., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the mother stopped going to counseling sessions, the mother failed to adjust her behavior, mental health, or personality issues in order to provide a stable home for the child, the mother failed to effect a lasting adjustment after receiving services, and there was no meaningful relationship between the mother and the child. In re Carrington H., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2014), aff'd, 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that termination of parental rights was in a child's best interest, as the father had not visited her since June of 2012, and she had a strong bond with her foster family. In re Alexus F., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the children where she was facing criminal aggravated child abuse charges, she had not paid any child support while the children were in foster care, her relationship with the children had eroded due to the children's long absence from her, the children were thriving in foster care, and the foster parents wanted to adopt them. In re Austin A., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the mother's home was not safe, she avoided undergoing a psychological exam, and it appeared that she continued to reside with a man she testified had physically and sexually abused her; furthermore, the child has bonded with her foster parents, and for four and a half months, the mother did not visit the child and had only seen her a total of 24 hours since her birth, and thus the mother did not maintain regular visitation or have a meaningful relationship with the child. In re Shaneeque M., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Feb. 20, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, given that the father murdered the child's mother while the child was present, and the court can think of nothing more indicative of a parent's unfitness to care for his child; the father had not had any contact with the child in seven years, and during that time, the child had been placed in a loving family environment and had adjusted very well, and it would not have been in the child's best interest to disrupt his current arrangement. In re Jacob B., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interests where there was no relationship between the father and the child as they had never met, the father had pleaded guilty to 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and aggravated statutory rape, and the father showed little interest in the child. In re Matthew J., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2014).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because there was no relationship between the father and the child as the father had been incarcerated for the entire time that the child was in the custody of the Department of Children's Services (DCS), and the father had never met his son; the father had pled guilty to 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of aggravated statutory rape, and had received an effective sentence of 16 years; he had shown little to no interest in the child; he did not visit the child before he was incarcerated; and he finally requested a visit with the child only after the child had been in the custody of the DCS for several months. In re Matthew J., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2014).

Termination of a mother's and a father's parental rights was in the best interest of an eight-month-old child because the parents: (1) refused to acknowledge their documented history of domestic violence, such that physical abuse remained a concern in the home; (2) were unable to maintain visitation with the child due to a No Contact Order; (3) abused or neglected the child; and (4) currently resided with someone who had been convicted of sodomy and carnal knowledge of a child. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that termination of the father's parental rights was in his children's best interests where, due to his incarceration, he was unable to provide a stable home, he had not visited the children, he had not maintained a meaningful relationship with them, and he had not paid child support. In addition, the children resided in a safe and stable foster home that expressed a desire to adopt them and the father had abused the mother before the children were born. In re Brian M, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brian M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Mar. 26, 2015).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper and in the children's best interests because the proof at trial gave no indication of a lasting adjustment or change of circumstances on the father's part with respect to his admitted drug abuse; inpatient treatment was not successful and the only proof that the father recently ended his drug use was his uncorroborated testimony; the father's failure to address his drug problem until the eleventh hour left him unable to provide any evidence that he could provide a safe, stable home for the children and an income to support the children's needs; and termination would free the children to find a permanent home. In re T.G.A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the father had no home and was in prison, continued to commit crimes, did not maintain regular visitation with the child, failed to support the child, and the child had a parent/child relationship with the foster parents, who wished to adopt the child. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

It was in a child's best interest for his mother's parental rights to be terminated, as the mother's inability to sever her ties with drugs posed an unacceptable risk to the welfare of the child, and the presence of drug paraphernalia in the mother's home seriously rendered her home unsuitable for the child. In re Jonathan F., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his children's best interests where by his own admissions the father continued to regularly smoke marijuana for two years after children's removal, declined to meet the requirements of his parenting plan, and failed to pay child support. The children were thriving in their foster care home and their foster family wanted to adopt them. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father's rights was in the best interest of the children because the children had been in their grandparents'  custody for four years, and every aspect of their young lives was guided by the grandparents; the father's criminal conduct and lengthy prison term left him unable to demonstrate whether he could achieve lasting change in his conduct and circumstances by exiting the drug scene and providing a proper home for the children. In re S.C.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's finding that termination of a mother's and a father's parental rights was in the best interests of three children because, inter alia, the conditions of the parents'  home continued to be problematic, the parents failed to work toward obtaining sufficient parenting skills, the parents refused to address their mental health issues, and the children had established a strong bond with the foster parents. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because she had not maintained regular visitation or other contact with the child as she had not had any type of contact with him in the past three years; no meaningful relationship had been established between the mother and the child; changing the child's caretaker and physical environment would likely have a negative impact on his emotional and psychological condition as he believed that the stepmother was his mother; the mother's unresolved mental health issues were concerning; and she had not financially supported the child over the years. In re Noah B.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Father had not made the adjustment of circumstances necessary to provide a stable home for the children, he failed to visit or even maintain a relationship with them, the children resided in a safe and stable foster home that expressed a desire to adopt them, and the department expended reasonable efforts in attempting to assist the father, who was extremely difficult to locate and never made a sufficient corresponding effort to remedy the conditions; termination was in the children's best interests. In re Agustine R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015).

Termination of a biological father's parental rights to his child was in the child's best interest, as evidence was introduced indicating that the father continued to display anger, aggression, and violent behavior, and he admitted to physical altercations with his wife in the month prior to trial. In re Anna D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests where she continued to struggle with substance abuse, she did not attend the termination hearing and failed to maintain contact with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, her whereabouts, living arrangements, and income were unknown, and the foster parents had bonded with the child and wished to adopt him. In re Malaki E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because (1) the mother made no adjustment of circumstances necessary to provide a stable home for the child as evidenced by a lack of housing and failure to address drug addition, (2) the mother failed to maintain regular visitation with the child, (3) the child lived in a safe and stable foster home with foster parents who desired to adopt the child and were capable of addressing the child's special needs and providing the stability the child needed, (4) questions remained as to whether the mother could provide a safe and stable home as evidenced by the mother's delay in securing housing and obtaining treatment for drug addiction, (5) the mother never paid child support, and (6) the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist the mother. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

Father's incarceration and the attendant delay in his ability to care for the child obviously affected the child's best interest, and thus it was proper to consider this factor along with other relevant factors in the context of the best interests determination. In re Jaceton B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

Evidence supported the finding that terminating the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests, given that the incarcerated father was a complete stranger to the child, plus even if the father was released in May 2016, the child would have doubled in age from the time of the termination hearing to the time of release, and the child's foster parents had treated him as a member of the family and wished to adopt him. In re Jaceton B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to show that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests where it showed that for years the mother was content to allow the petitioners to raise the children with no involvement from her until they decided to initiate adoption proceedings, but by then the children had been welcomed into a safe, stable home with loving care provided by the only parents the children had ever known. In re E.G.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015), appeal denied, In re Elaina G. H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. June 19, 2015).

It was not error to find termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because (1) the court analyzed the factors in T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i), finding the mother had no regular contact or meaningful relationship with the child, changing caretakers would harm the child, and she paid no child support, (2) the child's grandparents were the child's primary caregivers since birth, and (3) the child had not bonded with the mother. In re Alexis B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).

Termination of the putative father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the father had not made the adjustment of circumstances necessary to provide a safe and stable home for the child as he still lived with the mother who continued to abuse drugs; he failed to engage in more than token visitation or to otherwise maintain a relationship with the child; the child resided in a safe and stable foster home; his parental rights had been terminated relative to another child based upon an initial finding of dependency and neglect; he never remitted child support; and the child needed permanency and stability, which she could receive from the foster parents. In re Ayris R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because, inter alia, the mother had not demonstrated an ability to end her criminal activity and drug use in order to establish safe living conditions for the children, and the mother failed to support the children consistent with the child support guidelines; the children had a strong and meaningful relationship with their stepmother. In re D.H.B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the mother created the extremely dangerous living environment for the child by allowing methamphetamine to be manufactured in their home; and the mother admitted resumption of her use of methamphetamine and would not be able to provide appropriate care for the child on a consistent basis going forward. In re J.R.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights was in children's best interests because the parent struggled with drugs following the children's removal, had not completed the rehabilitation program in which the parent was participating, and had not maintained a suitable home for the children. The children need permanency in their lives and, although an adoptive placement had not been found, a search for an adoptive home had begun. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Trial court made extensive findings in holding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest, and the mother did not contest that holding on appeal; the trial court properly considered the statutory factors and the evidence cited clearly and convincingly established that termination was in the child's best interest and would allow her to receive the stability and attention to her medical condition that she needed. In re Eve C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was shown to be in the child's best interest; not every best interest factor had to apply in order to find termination in a child's best interest, as the mother argued, and she failed to establish a meaningful relationship with the child, who had spent all but a little over 10 weeks of her life with temporary guardians, and the mother showed little inclination or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the removal of the child. In re Destiny W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the children because, inter alia, the mother failed to take any steps to reunify with the children, to maintain or establish a relationship with the children, and to provide the children with a safe and stable home; and the children were currently in safe, stable, and loving pre-adoptive homes. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2015).

Evidence established that the child's interests were best served by permanently severing the mother's parental ties and allowing the child to achieve permanency in a safe and stable home; in part, the child had medical problems, the mother showed a failure to follow through with plan requirements and had not developed the ability to protect the child, and the best interest decision was affirmed. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because she did not pay child support consistently; she had shown little or no genuine interest in the welfare of the child; her continued use of controlled substances rendered her consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner; the physical environment of the mother's home was unhealthy and unsafe for the child due to the mother's drug use and the presence of criminal activity and drug paraphernalia in the home; the child was in a foster home that wished to adopt her; and the child had established a strong bond with the foster parents. In re Faith W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2015).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, given that the father sexually abused her and caused her to suffer great difficulties. In re T.L.G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support a finding that termination of a mother's and a father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because, inter alia: (1) there was no suggestion that the child would never be able to be returned to the care of either parent; (2) other than involvement with illegal drugs, nothing indicated the parents ever failed to meet the child's needs; and (3) the parents made significant efforts to remedy the conditions that led to the child's removal. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because, inter alia, the father ingested drugs, sold drugs, and purchased drugs while in the child's presence, committed acts of domestic violence in the home while the child was present, and another of the father's children had been adjudicated dependent and neglected. In re William B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 11, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that terminating a father's rights was in the best interests of seven children because despite outpatient treatment, in-home services, and counseling for drug and domestic violence issues, the father continued to use drugs while the children were in state custody, continued to engage in criminal behavior, and the children were afraid to return to the father, who had shown brutality, abuse, and/or neglect toward the children. In re Kalob S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given that the mother continued to struggle with alcoholism, parenting skills, and legal issues, and the father continued to struggle with substance abuse and anger management issues, and they were unable to consistently care for the children. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that termination of a mother's and father's parental rights was in the best interests of two children because, inter alia, the parents were inconsistent with their visitation and often missed visits without explanation, neither parent enjoyed a meaningful relationship with the children, each parent allowed questionable individuals in their home, and neither parent was able to care for the children for short periods of time without prompting. In re Aisha R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as, in the two years since the child was removed, the mother failed to demonstrate a level of stability to indicate that she was able to provide a safe and stable home and care for the child on a long-term basis. In re M.P.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

It was in the child's best interest to terminate the mother's parental rights, and the trial court properly considered the factor of any adjustment made by the mother in her circumstance, conduct, or conditions; the trial court's findings indicated that it weighed certain factors against preserving the mother's parental rights, plus the guardian ad litem recommended that termination was in the child's best interests, as the child had flourished in the grandparents'  care. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

It was in the child's best interest to terminate the mother's parental rights, and the trial court properly considered the factor of any adjustment made by the mother in her circumstance, conduct, or conditions; the trial court's findings indicated that it weighed certain factors against preserving the mother's parental rights, plus the guardian ad litem recommended that termination was in the child's best interests, as the child had flourished in the grandparents'  care. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Record sufficiently supports the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the trial court weighed several factors against preserving the father's parental rights; the remaining statutory factors applicable to the action did not weigh in favor of maintaining Father's parental rights. In re Jayden B.T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, In re Jayden T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding clear evidence that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children, given in part that he did not demonstrate that he had made it safe for the children to be in his home, and he had failed to address his substance abuse problem; the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist the father, but the evidence did not establish that the father exercised regular visitation with the children or whether there existed a meaningful relationship between them. In re Destaney D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

There was clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the father's parental rights was in the son's best interest considering the lack of a relationship between the father and his son, the father's consistent failure to visit and support his son, and the likelihood that the circumstances would not change. In re Gavin G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child because the mother failed to make adjustments in her employment situation, her conduct, or her living conditions to make it safe and in the child's best interest that he is returned to her custody. In re Mason M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that terminating the mother's rights was in the children's best interest where she relied upon several agencies for her own welfare, she was unable to obtain the kind of extensive support that she required simply for her own care, and there was no evidence that she could provide the children stable emotional and developmental support. In re Domingo W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother failed to support the child, used illegal drugs, had no permanent home, had a criminal history, and admitted that her lifestyle was not an appropriate one for the child; the foster mother and the child had bonded, the foster mother wanted to adopt the child, and it would have been detrimental to remove the child from the foster mother's care. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Father was not in a position at the time of trial to provide a safe and stable home for the child, he had cancelled or rescheduled visits often, he had been adjudicated neglectful toward the child, and he had been incarcerated and owed a child support arrearage to the extent that he was incarcerated; termination of his rights was in the child's best interests. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Mother was not prepared at the time of trial to provide a safe and stable home for the child, the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that the mother failed to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship, plus she had been adjudicated neglectful, and thus there was clear evidence that termination of her rights was in the child's best interest. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Mother's lack of follow through on efforts to manage her mental health raised doubts as to her ability to care for the child and his health needs, the evidence showed the mother would struggle to provide a home that was healthy and free of criminal activity and controlled substances, and her inability to provide more than token visitation and her inability to meet full support obligation also weighed against her; the best interest finding was not against the weight of the evidence. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Juvenile court properly terminated a father's parental rights to the children where the children had been in a foster home for two months by the time the trial had concluded, the father had continued to engage in criminal behavior while the children were in state custody, had paid no child support, and had not visited with the children for approximately 18 months, and thus, the evidence did not preponderate against a finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children's best interest for the father's parental rights to be terminated. In re Kelsey L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the mother had not made adjustments to her life sufficient to address the problems which led to the child coming into the custody of the Department of Children's Services (DCS) and that she was unable to care for him; and she testified that she did not have a job and had no source of income, that any money she got went toward the purchase of drugs, that she could not currently be a good and stable mother, and that she had been in rehab three times for her drug abuse since the child was taken into DCS custody and had completed only one program. In re Brayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed terminating a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because (1) the mother made no adjustment of circumstances so as to make the children's return safe and in the children's best interests, (2) the mother consistently did not make lasting life adjustments to ensure a stable and safe environment, (3) the mother did not visit the children, (4) the mother had no meaningful relationship with the children, (5) removing the children from current caretakers would be detrimental, and (6) the mother's abuse of the children had been found. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

In light of a parent's substance abuse, criminal history, and repeated incarcerations, the termination of the parent's rights was in the best interests of the parent's children. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the adopted child's best interest because the child suffered and continued to suffer greatly from the abuse she endured; the child's therapist, an expert on child welfare, and a Department of Children's Services social worker both testified that it would never be safe for the child to return to the mother; and any stigma associated with the child's stay in foster care would be far outweighed by the opportunity for her to heal in a healthy and safe home. In re Americus C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2015).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported the finding that termination of a parent's parental rights to a severely disabled child was in the best interest of the child because the parent had failed to undergo the training to care for the child or to provide necessary medication for the child. Furthermore, the foster parent received the necessary training before the child left the hospital to enter the foster home, and, from that time, the condition of the child, who was considered to have been in a hospice situation, had improved. In re Jatavious M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2015).

Rather than working toward the return of the children, it appeared the mother continued to engage in criminal behavior and other misconduct until shortly before the termination petition was filed, and it was questionable whether her current mental health issues would promote the children's well-being if returned to her; termination was in the children's best interests. In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to conclude that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother did not have a meaningful relationship with one child, there had been a presence of abuse, violence, and volatility in the mother's home over the years, the mother shifted blame and failed to apprehend the dangers posed to her children, and the mother willfully failed to support the children. In re Nolan G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015).

Parental rights were terminated because clear and convincing evidence established the grounds of wanton disregard and severe child abuse, the evidence was clear and convincing that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest, the evidence was clear and convincing that the children were thriving in foster care, and the parent's efforts to make a lasting adjustment in lifestyle came too late. In re Kaedince M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2015).

Determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests was upheld where the child had had no contact with the father in two-and-one-half years, the child was only two years old at the time of removal, the child was attached to the foster mother who was also raising the child's siblings, the father was incarcerated and was not expected to be released until 2017, he testified that he had abused marijuana for his entire adult life, and the child and her siblings had suffered abuse and neglect at her father's hands. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father did not make adjustments of circumstance, conduct, or conditions to make it safe to be in the home, the father did not maintain regular visitation, nor did he show the ability to provide a healthy and safe environment for the child, free of drugs and criminal activity. In re Thomas T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Trial court's order failed to specifically reference any of the statutory best interest factors, and it would aid appellate review if the trial court would reference the applicable statutory best interest factors and make more detailed findings on this question; the trial court's finding that termination was in the child's best interest was vacated. In re S.S.-G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest where he testified he had been addicted to drugs since 2006 but did not seek treatment, no meaningful relationship had been established between he and the child, he admitted to numerous criminal acts and arrests for domestic violence, and photographs and testimony depicted an uninhabitable home with no electricity or running water. In re Hope A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Juvenile court did not err in finding that termination of parent rights was in the child's best interest given the child's serious, debilitating health problems, and the father had not interacted with the child in several years. In re Analilia R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interest because the child's guardian, who had provided a good home for the child for years after the child was approximately three months old, wished to adopt the child and the child was doing well in the guardian's home and was making good grades in school. There was evidence that the child was well-adjusted and had formed a bond with the guardian, while there was no indication that the child had any bond with the parent. In re B.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 964 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).

It was in the children's best interests that the father's rights be terminated, given that the father had not made an adjustment to make it safe for the children to be in his home, he presented no evidence that he accomplished the tasks required for him to have the no-contact provisions of prior orders modified to allow contact, he had committed severe abuse toward two children and he had yet to provide them with a safe environment as he remained incarcerated. In re Kyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children, based on its determination that the father admitted to sexually abusing one of the children, the father was incarcerated and further charges were pending, the father had not made any adjustment of circumstances, conduct, or conditions, the father failed to regularly visit the children, and the children were well adjusted to their foster home, which met their needs. In re Martavious B., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1001 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2015).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests; the mother was not in a position to provide a safe and stable home for the child, the physical environment of the mother's home was not healthy and safe for the child due to the potential for the presence of controlled substances and the presence of a recent parolee, plus foster parents wanted to adopt the child, who received excellent care. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, despite evidence that he wrote the child letters during his incarceration and expressed love for the child. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Department extended reasonable efforts, including providing the mother with a list of available housing and writing a recommendation letter on the mother's behalf to a local housing authority, and the department tried to stay in touch with the mother; the trial court properly declined to weigh an alleged lack of reasonable efforts on the department's part in its analysis of the child's best interest. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

It was in the best interest of the children for the mother's parental rights to be terminated; she had not made such an adjustment in her circumstances so that it was safe for the children to return to her home, the mother failed to protect the children from physical abuse in the past, she had not shown that she was able to abstain from the use of drugs, and she failed to complete the recommended mental health and drug treatment. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's rights to her child based on abandonment and in the child's best interest because the mother only visited the child twice in five years, neither of which was within the four months preceding the foster parents'  adoption petition, the mother's conduct was willful, there was no evidence that the foster parents significantly restrained and interfered with the mother's efforts to visit the child, the child had been in the foster parents'  home eight years, formed a close bond with the foster parents and their family and, was excelling in school, and removing her from the only home she had ever known would likely have a detrimental effect on her emotional and psychological condition. In re Makendra E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests, as the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstances, she suffered from mental illness and behavioral disorders for many years, and these conditions had not improved, despite treatment, the mother had no meaningful relationship with the child and had no contact with him since 2012, and returning the child to the mother's care would have a detrimental effect on him. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was proper and was in the best interests of the child because the father had not made a lasting adjustment of circumstances; he had engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse and violence; he had not established a safe home environment; he had not paid child support during the time the child was in foster care; and the child, who was two years old at the time of trial, and had been in foster care since she was two months old, was a normal, very active two year old who had established a bond with the foster family, had been in speech therapy for several months, and had a foster family that wished to adopt her. In re Donna R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the father had no home to which the child could return, the father had not made any adjustment to his circumstances, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe for the child to be in the father's home, the father lacked contact with the child for an extended period of time, and the child had developed a strong parent-child relationship with her resource parents, were cared for her needs. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence established that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest as a parent had not reached a point where the parent could safely parent the children. The parent prioritized the parent's personal work and educational goals over cooperating with an administrative agency such that the parent could be reunited with the children and could not offer the kind of structured environment the children so strongly required. In re Phillip I.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in her children's best interests where it showed that she had not made an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions to make it safe for the children to be in her home, she missed one-third of her recent visits, she had been difficult to contact, she did not participate in the most recent team meeting, the children did not have a meaningful relationship with her, she had shown brutality and physical abuse neglect toward her children, she continued to self-medicate with marijuana, and she was not mentally healthy enough to take care of her children. In re A'leah M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision that termination of the mother's parental rights was in her child's best interests where despite the diligent efforts of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services workers to assist her the mother's circumstances at the time of trial were virtually identical to those that existed when the child was taken into custody, the mother's inability to obtain transportation for drug screens raised concerns that the child would not continue to get the therapy she needed if placed in the mother's care, and the child had a strong bond with her foster parents who wished to adopt her. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interest where it showed that he had not visited the four-and-a-half year old in two and one-half years, his foster parents were closely bonded to him and wished to adopt him, a change in caretakers and physical environment was likely to have a negative effect on the child, the father had been adjudicated neglectful, he was residing in a two-bedroom trailer with his mother, and he had made only one child support payment in over four years. In re Benjamin A., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given in part that the mother failed to demonstrate lasting change in her circumstances that negatively affected the children, she did not appreciate the serious nature of her shortcomings, the children were happy with their foster parents, and changing the children's caretakers at this point would have been detrimental to them. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Termination was in the best interest of the child; the father provided little proof that he substantially changed his circumstances, as he continued to rely on others for housing and transportation, the child has a strong relationship with petitioners, such that breaking the attachment bond would have a severe negative impact on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical condition, plus there was no indication in the record that father has ever provided any support for the child. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interests as the child's parent and the child had no meaningful relationship due to the parent's incarceration for criminal activity and drug use, the child viewed the child's foster parents who wished to adopt the child as the child's family, and the parent, throughout the parent's time in prison, considered only the parent's interests, rather than the welfare of the child. In re Tristan B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given that the father had a negligible role in their lives and spent most of his time in and out of prison, the children had struggled and endured setbacks in their journey to a permanent home placement, and they could not afford to wait for permanency, especially with their special needs. In re Aniston M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights was in the best interest of the child, as the father lacked stable housing and had a history of drug abuse and the child had a strong bond with his foster family. In re Jimmy B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interest, as the children had little stability in their lives due, in no small part, to the father's habitual drug abuse and the children were in caring, pre-adoptive homes. In re Kaitlin W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2016).

Although the father did not challenge the best interest finding on appeal, it was considered due to the gravity of the situation, and there was clear evidence to establish that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Mother did address her substance abuse and mental health issues and maintained visitation with the children, but she had not made the adjustment of circumstances necessary to make it safe and in the children's best interest to be in her home; the mother was unable to provide housing or meet the children's basic needs, and the children, who were in a potentially adoptive home, had languished in custody too long to wait any longer for the mother to achieve total rehabilitation, and thus termination was in the children's best interest. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Because the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded as to the single termination ground remaining, the best interests of the child was not considered. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother had not made such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the children's best interest to be in her home; the existence of a relationship between the mother and children did not outweigh the other factors favoring termination of the parent-child relationship. In re Malaya B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 10, 2016).

Termination was in the child's best interest, in part as the father's plans after being released from prison were uncertain, he had not seen the child for almost a year and a half, it was not in the child's best interests to wait any longer, and the child had done well in her pre-adoptive foster homes. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interest, in part as it was unclear whether the mother would be able to stop abusing drugs, she lacked the ability to prioritize the needs of the children over her own, and the children were doing well in their pre-adoptive foster homes. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of a mother's parental rights was in her child's best interest as required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(2). When asked by a guardian ad litem whether the child would suffer psychological harm if he were removed from his grandparents'  custody, the therapist testified the child would because he viewed the grandparents as his caretakers and was emotionally bonded to them. In re Trenton W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence established that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of a child because the parent was then unable to parent the child independently, and the foster parents, who wished to adopt the child, were familiar with the child's special needs and were able and willing to ensure that the child received the care necessary to experience continued improvement. The child had languished in custody for too long and was to be allowed to achieve permanency and stability through adoption with the foster family. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children because the parent, prior to incarceration, was not able to provide a suitable home for the children, as the children witnessed drug transactions and domestic violence in the parent's home, the parent repeatedly engaged in criminal activity and used crack cocaine as often as the parent could get it. Moreover, the children, who had been in foster care for 27 months and were making progress and doing well in school, needed a permanent and stable home. In re Jayden L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interest where the mother had not made the adjustment of circumstances to make it safe for the children to be in the home, Tennessee Department of Children's Services expended more than reasonable efforts in attempting to assist her but that she simply failed to make a lasting adjustment, and the younger children operated independently and did not show signs of attachment to the mother. In re Christian P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in her son's best interests where it showed that she had used cocaine while pregnant, she did not maintain regular visitation, she did not make it safe for her son to be in her home, she had not paid child support, and no meaningful relationship had been established. In re Jayvien O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Finding that termination of a mother's rights was in the child's best interest was supported by clear and convincing evidence because the record showed a pattern of drug use and abuse on the mother's part that led to instability, which, in turn, caused her to neglect the child; the mother had not made a lasting adjustment of circumstances, had not regularly visited the child or maintained contact with her, and had not established a meaningful relationship with her. In re Milli L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests because the children had been in foster care for two years, their parent had failed to make a sufficient adjustment that it would have been safe to return the children to the parent's care, the parent's progress in remedying multiple issues had been erratic, the parent lacked the income to support the children, the parent's ongoing mental health issues adversely affect the parent's ability to parent, and the children's grandparent wished to adopt them. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests; they had been in foster care most of their lives, the mother had no made an adjustment of the conditions to make it safe to return the children to her, she had no home, she had no meaningful relationship with the children, and she had shown neglect toward them. In re Quadavon H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2016).

Proof did not clearly establish that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the children, as there was little to no proof concerning the impact on the children, and it could not be found that the mother would be unable to make a lasting adjustment in the near future, as she took significant steps in the right direction while incarcerated. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Termination of a parent's parental rights was in the best interest of children because their parent had not shown an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions that would make it safe and in the children's best interest to return to the parent's home in the near future, as the parent was just recently released from a half-way house, and because of the repetitive nature of the parent's conduct and failure to sustain sobriety even while in a rehabilitation program. Moreover, the children were then in a safe and stable home. In re Addison E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the father admitted that he had not seen the child since she was two years old, did not suggest that anything prevent him from establishing a relationship with the child, and the child had no memory of the father and no desire to have him in her life. In re Tianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given in part that the parents' living conditions continued to be unsanitary and unsafe for the children, who had flourished in their foster home, and to remove them from their stable environment would have likely been detrimental to their well-being. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the mother had not made an adjustment of her circumstances, conduct or conditions as to make it safe for the child to be in her home, did not maintain regular visitation or other contact with the child, and had committed brutality, physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse or neglect toward other children in the family or household; a change of caretaker and physical environment was likely to have a negative effect on the child's emotional, psychological and/or medical condition; the child was placed in a foster home that wished to adopt him; and the child had established a strong bond with the foster parents. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Termination of mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, as the mother failed to maintain her sobriety and failed two hair follicle drug tests, the children had no meaningful relationship with the mother, despite the fact that the mother maintained regular visitation with the children, and changing caretakers would have a detrimental effect on the children. In re I.E.A., 511 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interests where he was set to remain in prison until 2020, when he had custody of the child he never had his own housing, the DCS made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, he had not maintained regular contact with nor paid support for the child, and the child had a strong bond with her foster mother and her son. In re A.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence did not show that termination of the father's parental rights was in his children's best interests where, based on the plain language of this section, the trial court did not err by considering the mother's alcohol addiction, maintaining the father's parental rights would not change custody of the children, and the evidence showed that the father was no longer using drugs or alcohol, he had started his own business, was paying his expenses, had remained involved in AA, and was pursuing the purchase of his own residence. In re Jacqueline G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because (1) the mother made no effort to address problems leading to the child's removal from the mother's custody, and (2) the child had lived with loving foster parents for over two years. In re S.D.D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests where the mother admitted to a previous substance abuse addiction, she was unable to resume custody of her children at the time of trial, three years after custody had been placed with her grandmother, and she did not visit the children for approximately one year prior to her eight-month incarceration. In re Selena L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed termination of a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest because (1) the father did not consistently visit the child, (2) the father was unable to acknowledge the wrongfulness of the father's participation in the child's abuse, (3) the father did not consistently participate in required treatment, and (4) the father's contact with the child led to a deterioration of the child's mental health. In re Daymien T., 506 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because she had not made changes in her conduct or circumstances that would make it safe for the child to go home; she did not have stable housing and did not have a verifiable legal income; her drug abuse persisted unabated rendering her consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner; changing caregivers at the current stage in the child's life would have a detrimental effect on the child as the child had lived continuously with his current foster family since leaving the hospital and had never resided with the mother; and the child was well taken care of and happy at his current foster home. In re Joshua C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Although the trial court found grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights based on abandonment and substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan, termination of the mother's parental rights to her 17-year-old child was improper as the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child's best interest to terminate her mother's parental rights because the child was 17 years old, was not a candidate for adoption, and intended to maintain a relationship with the mother when she turned 18; and termination of the mother's parental rights would accomplish nothing other than setting the child adrift with no adoptive family. In re Kendra P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father had not visited the children since he was incarcerated in 2012; since his release from prison, the father had been arrested for public intoxication; and the children had been living with a family friend for three years, the children referred to her as mother, and she was willing to adopt the children. In re Keith W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2016).

While the department's assistance to the mother was far from ideal, it did not outweigh the clear evidence that terminating the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest; her claim of having overcome her addiction and being drug-free was supported only by her own testimony, the child was doing very well in her foster home, and the family wanted to adopt her, and the mother's ability to meet the child's long-term needs was speculative at best. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

Evidence supported the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests where the mother stated that she was not ready for the children to return to her care, she failed to address her mental health issues, she failed to maintain stable housing or employment, she continued to abuse prescription medications, she attempted suicide on several occasions, and the children had flourished in their foster home. In re Rylee R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the mother had not made the adjustment of circumstances necessary to make it safe and in the child's best interest to be in her home; the Department of Children's Services expended more than reasonable efforts in attempting to assist the mother when she was uncooperative and unresponsive but she simply failed to make a lasting adjustment; the child resided in a safe and stable foster home, and removing her would negatively affect her emotional and psychological condition; and the child had simply languished in custody for far too long and should be allowed to achieve permanency and stability in her current placement. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest where the trial court found that the mother was mentally incompetent such that she was unable to safely care for the child, she suffered from delusions and was unwilling to accept her identity or her family at the conclusion of trial, and the child was bonded to her foster parents who wished to adopt her. In re Lillian D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016).

Termination of the mother's and father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as neither parent was able to provide a suitable home for or parent the child, the mother relapsed into using drugs, the father went months without visiting the child, and the child was in a preadoptive home and getting along well with the other children in the home. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests as the child was the victim of horrific and prolonged sexual abuse, which started at an extremely early age while she was in the custody of the mother in Haiti, but the child now resided in a nurturing home for over three years with prospective foster parents who loved and cared for her. In re C.D.,  S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 646 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2016).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the father admitted to smoking marijuana and drinking since his release from jail, he failed to maintain visitation with the child, the child's therapist testified about disclosures the child made to her about the father's violence towards the mother and the child's fear of the father, and the father failed to provide any support to the child. In re E.S.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest because one of the children suffered serious abuse in the family's home which the other child observed, neither parent ever took any responsibility for the injuries that the one child sustained, and there was little evidence that parents had made an adjustment in circumstances that would have allowed the children to safely return to the home. Moreover, termination provided the children with the best hope of being placed in a permanent, stable, and safe environment. In re Savannah F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016).

Juvenile court properly found that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father did not maintain regular visitation with the child or provide support of any kind prior to his incarceration, and the father did not show any interest in the child's well-being until after the filing of the petition for termination. In re Braxton R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2016).

Evidence was clear and convincing that it was in the child's best interest for the mother's parental rights to be terminated; the mother had been in and out of jail, abused drugs, and failed to demonstrate an effort to provide the child with the stability he needed. In re Zachariah G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the evidence showed that the father failed to adjust his circumstances to make it safe for the child to return home, the father lived with his parents and brother, who had a criminal history, and the child resided in a safe and stable foster home that addressed his medical needs and allowed him to maintain a sibling bond with his half-brother. In re Kenneth G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the minor children because, despite her history of mental health issues and recognized need for counseling, the mother's medical records evidenced a lack of participation in counseling for over a year after the children were removed, even after she belatedly sought counseling, she did not show up for a number of scheduled appointments, and significant concerns surrounded the mother's ability to care for her children. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, given in part that the father had an extensive criminal history and an inability to rehabilitate himself outside of a controlled environment, which rendered him unable to care for the child in a safe manner, plus the father had no relationship with the child and petitioners were the only parents the child had known. In re Elizabeth D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the parties'  parental rights was in the children's best interest, given in part that when the children were taken from the parties'  home, they had several health problems, the mother did not make an adjustment of circumstances, conduct, or conditions such that it would be safe or in the children's best interest to return them to her home, and to disrupt their healthy and stable lifestyle only to place them back in the custody of their parents would likely have a devastating effect on them. In re C.C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

There was clear evidence that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests, in part because the mother had a history of unstable housing and drug use, she committed severe abuse against one child by continuing to use marijuana during her pregnancy, she failed to maintain regular contact with the children, and the foster parents presented the best avenue for a permanent home for the children. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests; the mother failed to secure adequate housing for the children, who needed stability and an adequate environment in order to overcome the traumas they had experienced, and given that the children were thriving in their new environment, a change in custody would have been detrimental. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children, who had been removed from the parents'  care for 33 months, given that the parents had failed to provide a safe and adequate home to which the child could return, the parents failed to address their mental health issues, the mother failed to address her long-term methadone use, and both parents failed to comply with the recommendations of their psychological evaluations. In re Dustin L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, as the father failed to change his conduct or circumstances, his mental or emotional state prevented him from effectively parenting, changing caregivers would be detrimental to the children, and two of children had bonded with their foster parents, who wished to adopt them. In re Dakota H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2016).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services Termination proved that termination of the parental rights of both the mother and father was in the children's best interests because they made little progress and failed to make such an adjustment that it would be safe to return the children to their care; the children developed a strong bond with their foster family, and it would be detrimental to take them away from the structured environment where their physical and emotional needs were met. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests, given in part that the children no longer had a meaningful relationship with the mother, the children were thriving with their foster mother, and the finding that the mother was responsible for one child's injuries and the dependency and neglect of the other two children was highly significant part of the analysis in this case. In re Alfonzo E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2017).

Terminating a father's parental rights was in the father's children's best interests because (1) the father left the children with the children's abusive mother, (2) the father had little involvement in the children's lives, and (3) the children thrived with the children's foster parents, who intended to adopt the children. In re Jose L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 814 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's conclusion that terminating a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because (1) although the father maintained regular supervised visitation with the children, the father did not have a meaningful relationship with them; (2) the father demonstrated an inability to control the father's anger; (3) the father did not pay child support; (4) the foster parents, with whom the children had a strong bond, wished to adopt the children. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Termination of the parents'  rights was in the best interest of the children, because the parents failed to adjust their circumstances or conditions so as to make it safe for the children to return, the children had been out of the parents'  home for three years and all but one were in preadoptive homes, and reasonable efforts at reunification were made. In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, in part because the father failed to make such adjustment in his conduct as to make it safe for the child to be in his custody, there was no meaningful relationship between the father and the child, and a change in the child's circumstances would likely have a negative impact on the child's well-being. In re Maddox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

Evidence was clear and convincing that termination of the mother's parental rights to the child was in the child's best interests where the child was flourishing in foster care, the mother never successfully confronted her prescription drug problem, and fled by the time of trial ended after having refused a drug screen in her last appearance. In re Dillon E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016).

Terminating the parents'  rights was in the children's best interest, given in part that the father had been incarcerated for all by four of the 27 months the children had been in foster care, and he had been incarcerated for more than 16 years total, such that it was unlikely that he would change to be able to provide a safe environment for the children, and the mother had not made lasting changes after reasonable efforts were made to help her, plus she had not visited the children or called them since May 2015, and the children were doing well with their foster parents. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the father made little or no adjustment to the father's life after the child entered foster care and it appeared unlikely that the father would make such an adjustment in the near future based on the father's lack of progress and pending criminal charges. Moreover, the child had adjusted well in the foster home and formed a strong bond with the foster family which was eager to adopt the child. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interest where despite knowing of the child and of his duty to support, he failed to pay support at any time, the father did not attempt visitation until the day before trial, and the child had lived in the same foster home for nearly all of his life. In re M.E.T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016), appeal denied, In re Miguel T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Mar. 3, 2017).

Although the trial court properly found that the mother had committed severe child abuse against her youngest child, the foster parent's petition to terminate her parental rights was improperly denied as termination was in the child's best interests because the mother's 10-year history of abuse and neglect of her children had been extensive and damaging to the children, and showed that she was not a fit parent; she continued to deny any fault for the youngest child's failure to thrive and insisted that she fed him properly; and she had a long history of complying with requirements of child welfare agencies when necessary before returning to her abusive husband, her illicit drug use, and her patterns of abuse and neglect of her children. In re Chance D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Trial court erred in determining that termination of the mother's parental rights was not in the best interest of the child, as the mother had a history of repeatedly abusing or neglecting her children, of returning to her abusive husband, of relapsing following drug treatment, and failing to disclose her drug history to prescribing physicians and obtaining opiate prescriptions. In re Jude D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 909 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Although the trial court properly found that the mother had committed severe child abuse against her youngest child, the foster parent's petition to terminate her parental rights was improperly denied as termination was in the oldest child's best interests because the mother's 10-year history of abuse and neglect of her children had been extensive and damaging to them, and showed that she was not a fit parent; she continued to deny any fault for the youngest child's failure to thrive and insisted that she fed him properly; and she had a long history of complying with requirements of child welfare agencies when necessary before returning to her abusive husband, her illicit drug use, and her patterns of abuse and neglect of her children. In re Gabriella D., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the father failed to show any adjustment of circumstances, the father had no meaningful relationship with the child, the father was incarcerated for eight years for attempted child rape involving the child, and the child had been in a healthy preadoptive home for several months. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Termination was in the children's best interests; the mother had not been able to make lasting changes in her lifestyle or conduct despite reasonable efforts offered to her, illegal drug use and crime was a running theme in the home, and all four children have been placed together in the same pre-adoptive home since they were removed from the mother's home more than two years ago and they were doing well. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given that the mother displayed significant difficulty in retaining and implementing proper parenting skills, she failed to understand that her lifestyle, including the array of people living in her apartment, threatened the safety of the children, and the mother was unable to comprehend that, by putting her needs before the needs of the children, she endangered them. In re La'Trianna W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016), appeal denied, In re La'Trianna W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that terminating a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because one child had been in foster care for the majority of the child's life, and the other child expressed fear that the mother would be unable to care for the children if they were returned to the mother and did not want to return to the mother. The evidence suggested that the children were happy in their foster placement, and the foster parents testified that they desired to adopt the children. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the mother's children's best interest because the mother (1) did not utilize offered assistance to change the mother's circumstances, (2) provided only token support despite an ability to purchase drugs, and (3) had no meaningful relationship with the children. In re Casey C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 966 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interest, as the mother failed to maintain contact or a meaningful relationship with the child, the mother failed to keep appointments with the child's doctor, and removal from the foster parents would be detrimental to the child. In re Lynx C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 977 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest given the mother's continued issues with drug use and mental health, the mother's return to the father's home despite a history of domestic violence, the mother's failure to secure stable house, and the child's integration into her foster family. In re Linette B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, as the mother continuously struggled with substance abuse, had multiple criminal convictions relating to drug use, was unable to establish a stable home environment, and was wilfully unemployed and failed to pay child support, and the children were in a safe, stable foster home, from which their removal would be harmful. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 985 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother exposed the child to a known sex offender over a period of years; the child developed a relationship with her foster parents since being placed with them, and removing them from her foster parents'  care would have a negative effect on the child's emotional condition. In re G.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 993 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016).

Given that grounds for termination were not proven, the trial court properly refused to consider whether termination was in the child's best interests, and the denial of the mother's petition to terminate was affirmed. In re Neylan H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 997 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interest, as the father never successfully addressed his substance abuse issues, rendering him unable to care for the children, and the children were thriving in foster care. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 998 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, given that the father established a pattern of criminal behavior, and even committed crimes while the child was with him, the child was in residential treatment, the father physically abused the child in the past and the child feared him, plus the father never paid any support for the child. In re Cheyanna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

While it might be true that failing to terminate the father's parental rights at this time would not delay permanency for the child, who was in a residential treatment facility, the father missed the point, which was to consider the best interest of the child in light of all of the relevant factors. In re Cheyanna B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, as the mother has not make a lasting adjustment of the circumstances and the children had been in foster care for the last three years, had bonded with the resource parents, and were doing well. In re Renaldo M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1003 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests; the mother had not made the adjustment of circumstances necessary to make it safe for the children to return home, the department expended reasonable efforts in attempting to assist her with her substance abuse issues, but that she was unable to make a lasting adjustment, and the children were in a safe and stable foster home willing and able to adopt them, and removing them would negatively affect them. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children because through the course of his criminal history, the father demonstrated that he could not provide a safe home for the children; the children had been with a foster family for years, and removing them from that family and placing them with the father would likely have a negative effect emotionally and psychologically on the children. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother failed to make the adjustments that would make it safe for the children to return to her home; the mother continued to abuse drugs and failed to take steps to demonstrate her willingness to make the appropriate changes needed to render her home safe. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Mother's parental rights were terminated for abandonment because her actions prior to her incarceration exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children; the mother's criminal convictions, probation violations, incarceration, and substance abuse placed her children in danger, and her actions showed a failure to act in the interest of her children on a consistent basis. Termination was in the best interest of the children because the mother continued to use drugs, she was unable to care for the children in a safe and stable manner, and it was difficult for her to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children due to her criminal behavior. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's best interests because the mother had no relationship with children as she failed to visit them following their placement in foster care, she did not show that she had a safe and suitable household for them, and it would likely have a negative effect on the children for them to change caretakers and physical environment. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because there was no evidence that the father had made an adjustment of his circumstances such that it would be safe for the child to be in whatever home he might establish upon his release from prison. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the record did not support the father's argument that the mother limited or outright prevented the father from visiting the child; there was no proof that the father sought to secure court-ordered visitation; and there was no dispute that the father did not maintain regular visitation with the child during her lifetime or that the failure was due in substantial part to his poor choices and criminal conduct. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the mother testified that the father was mentally abusive, did not make good choices, and was manipulative; she also testified that, in early 2013, he threatened to kill her and her boyfriend; the father admitted that he did not provide more than a few hundred dollars in support for the child; and the mother testified that he did not provide diapers, medicine, or other necessities when all were living in the same city. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because a meaningful relationship had not been established between the father and the child as the father had not visited with the child in over three years; the father told the mother to tell the child that he had died; the father argued and fought with the mother rather than developed a relationship with the child; and he failed to provide diapers, formula, medicine, or other necessities for the child. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the child was well cared for, in pre-preschool, and enjoyed her entire family including her cousins; and the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's finding that the child was a happy, healthy child who was appropriately bonded with her mother, stepfather, and half-brother. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests as the father could not provide a safe and stable home for the child because the father testified that he planned to rent a room from a man who visited him in prison upon his release to home confinement. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interests because it showed that the parents continued to use drugs, they had failed to pay child support, the children had established a strong bond with the foster family that wished to adopt them, and three of the children did not receive proper care during the year they were in their parents'  custody. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his children's best interests because it showed that he had failed to visit his children for 6 years, he had not had any relationship with them for an extended period of time, they were well adjusted in their current home, and he had pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his stepdaughter. In re Anna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the father had been incarcerated or engaged in criminal conduct for a significant portion of the child's life, the father was incarcerated and his release date unknown, the father failed to forge a meaningful relationship with the child because he engaged in criminal activity and disappeared for nearly three months to avoid being apprehended, and the child expressed a desire to be adopted by his stepfather. In re Colton R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the child did not have a meaningful relationship with the mother, and the child had Oppositional Defiance Disorder and ADHD and needed the structured environment that his foster parents provided. In re John J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Termination was upheld where the evidence that the mother cited focused on her progress, rather than the best interest of the child; the child had been in foster care longer than she was with her parents due to severe abuse, she was medically fragile, she was thriving in the care of her foster parents, and neither the mother or father could have provided for the child's medical needs. In re Delilah G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. June 19, 2017).

Evidence was clear and convincing that termination of a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father had a very limited relationship with the children and was not truly self-sufficient so as to be able to raise them, and he had history of illegal drug use; the children were doing well with their grandfather, and the grandfather was a suitable caregiver. In re Karissa, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, In re Karissa V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. May 24, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights was in the children's best interest where the father was in the same situation he was in when the dependent and neglect proceeding began, he was provided services and failed to take advantage of them, he had no contact with the children, the children were doing well in a pre-adoptive foster home, his encounters with the foster parent showed a tendency to get easily agitated, and he had failed to pay any support for the children In re Promise A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests, given in part that the mother drove under the influence while the child was a passenger in the car, there was no proof that her sobriety was secure, she was unemployed, the child had lived five of his six years with appellees, and there was no indication that he had any bond with the mother. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence established that termination of a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist the father, but drug use and mental health issues in the home remained unaddressed. Moreover, the father had only sporadic visitation and contact with the child, there was no indication that the child had any meaningful relationship with the father, and the child had adjusted well in a foster home where the child's special needs were met. In re Ja'miya T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the child was doing well in her foster home; and, while there was evidence of a bond of love between the mother and the child, that fact was outweighed by the appropriateness of the child's current placement as opposed to the serious hazards implicit in a return to the mother's care given her ongoing and unresolved mental health issues. In re Lorenda B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interest because it showed that she was in a stable home environment with her mother and stepfather and the evidence the father adduced did not outweigh the factors the trial court considered determinative. In re Kira G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child because she had not made an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe to be in her home; although a meaningful relationship was established between the mother and her child, the child had a very strong bond with the foster parents, and a change in placement would adversely affect him; the mother's home environment was unhealthy and unsafe; she had neglected the child's educational needs, and failed to take responsibility for her role in his truancy; her mental health had rendered her consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner; and the mother had only provided token support. In re Marterrio H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2017).

It was in a child's best interest to terminate the child's father's parental rights because (1) evidence of the father's self-improvement efforts while in prison and his future plans was not clear and convincing evidence that he had made such an adjustment of his life circumstance as to make it in the child's best interest to be in the father's home, and (2) the father had not established a meaningful relationship with the child. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

It was in a child's best interest to terminate the child's father's parental rights because (1) evidence that he had been in prison for the entirety of the child's life and been charged with crimes and disciplinary infractions while in prison showed he had not made an adjustment of his circumstance since being incarcerated, and (2) he had no meaningful relationship with the child. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests where the child was in a stable home with two parents who had taken care of her since she was born, she had a history of relapsing with drugs, she married to an individual who was serving a sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess methamphetamine, and no meaningful relationship existed between the mother and the child. In re Addison P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interest because it showed that the child was well-adapted to his stable, pre-adoptive home, the father failed to remedy the conditions that led to the child's removal but instead chose to engage in criminal conduct, he was incarcerated at the time of trial, and no meaningful relationship existed between the father and the child. In re Travis H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. July 31, 2017).

It was in the best interest of the child under T.C.A. § 36-1-113 that the father's parental rights be terminated; he had not made an adjustment of circumstances to make it safe for the child to return to his home, as the father was currently incarcerated, he had not had visitation with the child since 2015 nor paid any child support, the child was doing well in his foster home, and continuing to be in a position of uncertainty about his placement was not beneficial for the child. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the father and the stepmother provided the child with a stable environment; the and the stepmother paid for the child's private school education and regularly participated in school and sporting activities with the child who was an Honor Roll student and had many friends at school, church, and in the neighborhood-and the child had an attachment to both the father and the stepmother. In re Colby L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2017).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i); removing the child from his foster home, where he had been for about three years, would have been detrimental, a meaningful relationship had not been established between the mother and the child, and the mother did not provide financial support to the child while he was in petitioners'  custody. In re Martese P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2017).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supported the conclusion that termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interests of the father's children because the father's life post-incarceration was punctuated with substance abuse and criminal conduct, and the father did not substantially comply with a permanency plan. Moreover, the father's children were thriving in a structured foster home wherein their significant mental, physical, and emotional needs were met. In re Casyn B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the parents'  rights to the child was in the child's best interest, as the mother continued to struggle with mental health issues, the father did not complete the recommendations of his parenting assessment or alcohol and drug assessment, the parties only participated in 21 of 32 parenting educations sessions offered, and the child was doing well in her foster home placement. In re Lena G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Trial court did not err by determining that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the evidence showed that the child did not know the father, the child had suffered terribly from drug exposure-related aliments and required special care, the father, who was incarcerated, was in no position to provide care, and the child had bonded well with his foster family. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because the mother had struggled to improve her circumstances so as to make it safe for the children to return to her custody as she failed to provide a suitable home for the children, and she failed to remove drugs from her life; the children had done well in their pre-adoptive foster home, and had bonded well with their foster parents; the foster mother stated that she and her husband wished to adopt the children if they became available for adoption; and the children should be allowed to continue to thrive in their pre-adoptive placement with the foster parents with whom the children had bonded and who would like to adopt the children. In re Skylar P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children given that the mother continued to make bad choices as to those she allowed to be around the children, the mother lacked safe and suitable housing, and the children were in a safe and stable pre-adoptive home. In re Rylan G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017).

Termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interest given the mother's continued criminal issues and the father's failure to address drug use. In re C.J.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, In re Chaz B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) was in the children's best interest where although the mother and the children had a close and loving bond, the mother consistently admitted to abusing drugs to combat her mental health issues, rather than seeking and completing mental health treatment, making it unclear that she would maintain the mental health treatment that both of the children's therapists testified was necessary to their continued progress, and the home in which the mother lived was not appropriate for the children to return. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights on the ground of wanton disregard based on abandonment by an incarcerated parent was in the child's best interests because the father's acts of violence and criminal behavior had already imperiled the child; the child was in a suitable placement; and returning the child to the father would be contrary to the child's best interest. In re Kenya H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his children's best interests because there was no evidence that the mother's supervised presence in the grandparents'  home posed a risk of harm to the children, the father had engaged in drug use and criminal activity while residing with the mother and one child, he presented no evidence regarding the specific details of where he would reside after being released from prison, he had had no contact with the children since a visit in 2014, and the children had bonded with their grandparents who wished to adopt them. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Termination was in the child's best interest where the evidence showed that the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions to make it safe for the child to be in her home, the child was happy and thriving in foster care, and the mother continued to use drugs. In re Zane W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to a child was in the child's best interest because (1) a licensed clinical psychologist testified that the mother was mentally incompetent to care for the child; (2) the foster mother testified that the child had extensive medical needs which were being met in the foster placement, which needs the psychologist testified that the mother could not meet; (3) the child was doing well in foster care; and (4) the foster parents intended to adopt the child. In re Tanya G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2017).

Termination of the parental rights of the mother and both fathers was in the children's best interests under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i); both fathers were currently in jail, the mother had been in jail and continued to struggle with substance abuse, the parents had not maintained regular visitation or contact with the children, and there was testimony that changing caretakers of the children was likely to have a negative impact. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Trial court properly found that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother did not made an adjustment of circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it safe for the child to be in her custody; the mother did not maintain regular visitation or other contact with the child or pay child support consistently. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children because they had been in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services for several years while the parents failed to meet the requirements of their plans and improve their circumstances; the record clearly reflected they were flourishing in their new home environment with their foster parents. In re Angel M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2017).

Termination of the father's and the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests as the parents had not visited the children for nearly four years, and had not established a meaningful relationship with the children; the children disclosed that they feared their parents; the parents had shown brutality, physical, emotional, and psychological abuse against the children and against their deceased sibling; the children had resided with the same foster family for three and a half years, they had bonded with them, and the foster parents intended to adopt them; and, even if the children could be returned to the parents'  custody soon, the inherent risk of further abuse or neglect persisted. In re Demarkus T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of the parents'  rights was in the child's best interests because the mother was living with another family and the father was hospitalized for suicidal ideation, a meaningful relationship was not established as evidenced by the contentious nature of the visitations, the child resided in a safe and stable home that was willing to adopt him, and both parents continued to use drugs. In re Brennen T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2017).

Termination of the father's rights was in the children's best interests under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(2), as he had no meaningful relationship with them, he had not shown he had the ability to properly care for them, the children had a strong bond with their foster mother who planned to adopt them, and changing caretakers would likely have a negative effect on the children. In re Miracle M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests where, inter alia, the father had made little effort to contact the children in the last several years, and a change in caretakers would have negatively impacted the children. In re Ian B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017).

Termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interests where they had been in state custody for three years, they had spent a significant portion of their lives in foster care while their parents had been unable to provide a stable and secure environment for them, the parents continued in their detrimental patterns, all of the children had some behavioral and/or physical issue, and the children's behaviors were improving with individual therapy and counseling and the support they received from their foster parents. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination that termination of a mother's and a father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children because the record contained affidavits of reasonable efforts detailing efforts to assist the mother; the mother did not begin inpatient treatment until after the filing of the termination petition, and the father's efforts to say in touch with th children was not determinative. In re Billy T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest where he had not made changes to his circumstances that would have made it safe for the children to be in his home, he had done very minimal work in addressing the concerns of the therapist and the concerns addressed in the permanency plan, and he failed to stay in contact with the Department of Children's Services or take advantage of the resources the agency offered. In re L.M.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

Proof was clear and convincing that it was in the best interest of the children that their father's parental rights be terminated because the children both testified that it would be best for them if the father's parental rights were terminated and that they had no interest in maintaining a relationship with him; the trial court properly weighed the statutory best interest factors when terminating the father's parental rights. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

Record on appeal did not contain clear and convincing evidence establishing that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests, as the mother obtained and held a job for more than two years, obtained safe and stable housing, the children had lived with the mother for two years were very attached to her, removing the children from the mother would have a detrimental impact on them, and the mother had not failed a drug test for over three years prior to trial. In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 573 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, as the mother failed to make such an adjustment of circumstances, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the children's best interest to be returned to the mother's home; the mother even admitted she needed more time because she needed more stability as to work and housing. In re Douglas H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 662 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest because of the parent's criminal conduct, failure to make a lasting adjustment in their lives, failure to maintain regular visitation with the children, and failure to make any child support payments. Furthermore, the children were happy, healthy, and adjusting well with the foster family, which desired to adopt them. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the trial court examined the relationship the mother and the stepmother had with the child and determined that the stepmother had a more meaningful relationship with the child, and the evidence did not preponderate against that finding. In re Brantley B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

It was in the children's best interest for the father's parental rights to be terminated; he was in no position to parent the children successfully, he failed to maintain a meaningful relationship with them, he lacked suitable housing, and he never comprehensively addressed his failure to protect the children, who were thriving in foster care. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because, while he loved his children, interacted properly with them during visitation, and paid support, he did not change his conduct or circumstances such that his home was a safe environment for the children as he maintained a volatile relationship with the mother; a change in caretakers would have a negative effect, as the children were settled with and bonded to the foster parents and their extended family, the foster parents wished to adopt the four children, and the children had expressed a desire to be adopted by the foster parents; the father was aware of the mother's drug use; and he failed to protect them from exposure to the mother's drug use. In re Alyssa W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2017).

Evidence presented fell far short of that required to show that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the Department of Children's Services failed to provide proof that the mother had not made the necessary adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions for it to be safe for the child to be returned to her and failed to show a change of caretakers would be detrimental to the child. In re Brianna T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Evidence presented fell far short of that required to show that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as there was insufficient proof that the father had not made the necessary adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions for it to be safe for the child to be returned to him or to show a change of caretakers would be detrimental to the child. In re Brianna T., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Trial court properly found that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest given the father's child abuse convictions against a half sibling, his incarceration, his continued denial of responsibility, and his failure to admit an anger problem. In re Brooke E., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's children because the mother had failed to locate or attempt to locate safe, clean housing, did not regularly attend mental health sessions, and associated with inappropriate individuals. The change of caretakers and physical environment would likely have had a detrimental impact the children's emotional, psychological, and medical condition, considering how long they had lived with their foster family and how successfully they had thrived in the foster home. In re M.E.N.J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017).

Termination was in the children's best interests, given that the mother failed to secure suitable housing or a stable job so that she could provide for the children, even with the reasonable efforts made by the department, and it would have been a detriment to the children to remove them from a home where they were receiving safe and stable care. In re B.L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

Juvenile court properly found that termination of a father's right's was in the child's best interest where it issued detailed findings, analyzing each statutory best interest factor, and the the child was in a stable, bonded family unit, and deserved permanence moving forward. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Clear-and-convincing evidence supported a trial court's conclusion that termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's child because the father's past actions--history of incarceration and lack of contact with and support for the child--provided little indication that the father would be capable of being a proper parent at any time in the near future. Furthermore, one of the prospective adoptive parents testified as to the child doing well with them, their love of the child, and their desire to adopt the child. In re Kandace D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, as the mother remained homeless three years after the children's removal, her medical issues remained untreated, she had not consistently visited the children, she had no meaningful relationship with the children, and changing caregivers from teh foster parents, with whom the children had bonded, would cause the children to regress. In re Nashay B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because he failed to maintain regular visitation with the children and had not seen them in over a year; prior to his incarceration, he continued to abuse drugs and was unable to maintain stable housing, even following the removal of the children; a change in caretakers was likely to have a significant effect on the children's emotional, psychological, and medical condition; the children had established a strong bond with the foster family and made great progress since being in the foster family's care; the foster family wished to adopt the children; and the children had no meaningful relationship with the father. In re Aaralyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2018).

Facts, as found by the trial court, were supported by the preponderance of the evidence and clearly and convincingly established that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the children bonded with their foster parents, who intended to adopt them; removing the children from a stable home and placing them with the mother, who failed to demonstrate long-term stability and sobriety, would likely cause the children emotional and possibly physical harm. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because the child had resided in a foster home for more than three years, the mother had issues with the mother's mental and emotional status, finances, and housing, and there was little likelihood that the mother was soon able to remedy the conditions. Moreover, the foster parents were interested in adopting the child and allowing the relationship to continue threatened the child's chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. In re K.Y.H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of the children that their parents'  rights be terminated because the mother had been gone from their lives for such a substantial period of time that the children had bonded with their foster family, the mother's behavior had made it unsafe and sometimes impossible for the children to be in her care. The father's child had virtually no relationship with him and it would be harmful for the child to ever be placed in the father's care due to his criminal activities and drug use. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence established that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because the mother did not obtain and maintain stable housing and questions remained concerning the mother's mental and/or emotional status as evidenced by the mother's failure to complete a required psychological assessment. Moreover, the child resided in a safe and stable home, which was willing and able to adopt the child, and removing the child would have negatively affected the child's emotional condition. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interests because it showed that the children had been in their foster parents'  home for nearly three years, the children were doing very well, and the parents failed to make an adjustment of circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it safe for the children to return to the parents'  home. Despite reasonable efforts, encouragement, and services the parents continued to live in filth and infestation. In re Mack E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Termination of father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's child because, given the bond between the child and the foster parents and the child's special medical needs, removal from the foster home would likely have caused the child emotional, psychological, and/or physical detriment. There also was no evidence that the child knew the father or that there was any bond between them, and the father's recidivism and frequent returns to jail did not bode well for the father's ability to provide a long-term home for the child. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because she did not contribute to the children's care, she did not show interest in their welfare, she had a history of drugs, she testified that she was incarcerated for past indictments, and the children were well-adjusted and bonded to their foster mother who wished to adopt them. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interests because the parents failed to make a lasting adjustment of their circumstances–including drug abuse–to make it safe for the child to be placed in their care, the parents did not maintain consistent visitation with the child and had no meaningful relationship with the child, the child was thriving in a loving, pre-adoptive home and had bonded to the foster family, and a change of caretakers and home would have had a highly negative effect on the child. In re Riley W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest where the children were doing remarkably well in their foster home, the foster parents wished to adopt all four children, and the mother, despite two years of assistance, had not adjusted her circumstances to provide a safe and stable home for the children. In re Veronica T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest as he had been out of jail for four months and had not filed any petition nor sought any judicial assistance in seeing or visiting with the child; he and the child did not have a meaningful relationship; and the stepfather was the only father figure the child had ever known. In re Bentley D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Best interest of the child mandated termination of the mother's and father's parental rights because the child's former therapist explained that the child struggled with trusting and bonding to others due to the trauma he had endured in the past; the Department of Children's Services family service worker testified that the child was doing well in his latest placement with a potential adoptive parent, which she described as a pre-adoptive home. In re Authur R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of her children. Among other things, a thorough examination of the record showed that the mother exposed the children to her abusive relationship with their father and that she repeatedly reunited with him, despite obtaining an order of protection against him. In re Maya R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother had no meaningful relationship with as the mother was incarcerated or otherwise absent for the majority of the child's life, the mother did exhibit an ability to change the mother's lifestyle in a way that would allow the mother to serve as an appropriate caregiver to the child, and the child was doing well in a foster home with foster parents who desired to adopt the child. In re Tegan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to show that termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because he had not seen them since he was arrested in April 2010 for severely abusing one child, and he had no relationship with the children because he had been incarcerated for the majority of their lives and had been forbidden from contacting them. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because nearly three years had passed since they were placed in foster care, she failed to take her medications as prescribed, she repeatedly attempted to mislead the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and the trial court, she lived with one boyfriend who allegedly became abusive, she lived with another boyfriend who was a registered sex offender and conceived a child with him, and her psychological state would be detrimental to the children. In re Roderick R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2018).

Grandparents failed to show that termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interest, as the father maintained visitation with the child, had a meaningful relationship with her, plus the guardian ad litem found that it would not be in the child's best interest to sever only the father's rights in this case. In re Addalyne S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interests because it showed that the father had not maintained regular visitation with the children, the foster father testified that the mother had resisted the effort to set up a regimented visitation schedule, the foster parents had provided the only safe, stable home the children had ever known, and the parents could not provide the children stability and permanency. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Child's foster parents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents'  rights was in the child's best interests, because all of the witnesses who had been inside the parents'  home attested to its safe condition, and while the parents'  continued use of a prescribed drug as a part of their drug treatment was a concern, they complied with drug treatment, counseling services, parenting classes, and narcotics anonymous, and they no longer used illegal substances, and both parents had gainful employment. In re Zayne P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the evidence showed that despite suffering physical violence in the home perpetrated by the father, the mother failed to terminate their relationship so that the child could be returned to her home. The child was in a safe and stable with a foster family who wished to adopt him. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the trial court's findings were fully supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record; the trial court examined each best interest factor, determining which were applicable, and made findings of fact with respect to the applicable factors. In re Emily J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2018).

Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the parent's children because the parents failed to effectuate a significant adjustment in circumstance, conduct, or conditions, especially pertaining to their drug usage, despite the efforts of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services to help them and failed to take meaningful steps to regain visitation with the children after their visitation rights were suspended. In addition, the children were in a preadoptive home, doing well, and were bonded with their foster family. In re J.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2018).

Evidence amounted to clear and convincing evidence that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother had not adjusted her lifestyle to make it safe and in the child's best interests to reside in her home; an expert testified that a change of caretakers was likely to have a detrimental effect on the child and that the mother demonstrated inability to provide an environment consistent and free from abuse or neglect. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interest because the mother exposed the child to drugs in utero, continued to incur criminal charges and use drugs, and failed to achieve sobriety or complete an alcohol and drug program to assist her; there was no bond or meaningful relationship between the mother and the child; the mother had not maintained regular, consistent visitation with the child; changing caretakers would have a detrimental effect on the child; and the child was in an pre-adoptive home and was thriving there. In re Kendall M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the father was either unable or unwilling to adjust the conditions that led to the child's removal and keep the child's mother away from the child until the mother stopped abusing drugs. Furthermore, the father did not appear to have a meaningful relationship with the child and the child appeared to have bonded with the child's foster parents with whom the child had lived for over two years. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

Termination of mother's rights was in the children's best interests; the mother had started using illegal drugs again and did not seek additional treatment, she exposed the children to drugs and was unable to provide them with a suitable home or financially take care of them, and the mother's aunt was willing to adopt the children if they became available for adoption. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because he had failed to make a lasting adjustment in his circumstances that would make it safe and in the child's best interest to be placed in his care despite reasonable efforts made by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services; he remained unemployed and relied on family members to support him; his visitation with the child had not been consistent; the child had developed a close bond with the foster family, who wished to adopt him; and the foster family was the only family the child had ever known, and removing the child from the foster family's home and changing his caretakers would have a highly negative effect on the child. In re Amynn K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Father had not demonstrated any propensity to care for the child, she called her foster parents “mom” and “dad” and was closely bonded to that family, and a change of caretakers at this point would likely have detrimental effects on this two-year-old girl. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Termination of the parental rights of the mother and the father was in the children's best interest, as the parents failed to make an adjustment of circumstances, failed to accept responsibility for the situation, did not take visitation as seriously as they should have, and continued to test positive for illegal drugs, and a change in caregivers and physical environment would be detrimental to the children. In re Damon B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because she failed to maintain regular visitation or contact with the children and no longer had a meaningful relationship with them, and returning the children to her care would likely have an adverse impact on their emotional conditions; the mother was incarcerated and tested positive for drugs, and her mental and emotional status would adversely impact her ability to provide safe and stable care for the children. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests where the father made no child support payments other than the $500.00 he made after he inherited that sum of money, the father, by his own actions, had no relationship with the child whatsoever, and that lack of relationship contrasted sharply with the potential adoptive parents'  deep familial relationship with the child. In re Apex R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Termination of a mother's rights was in the child's best interests where she had not made an adjustment in circumstances that would have made it safe for the child to return to her home, despite efforts by the Department of Children's Services to help her work toward reunification, she failed to maintain regular visitation with the child, she had been arrested for stabbing the father and a neighbor while the child was present, and a change in caretakers would have had a negative effect on the child. In re Chase L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed it was in a mother's children's best interest to terminate the mother's parental rights because (1) the mother failed to visit or maintain contact with the children, (2) return of the children to the mother would seriously harm the children, (3) the mother's history of domestic violence and drug abuse showed the mother was unable to care for the children in a safe, stable, manner, and (4) the mother did not regularly provide support for the children. In re Jarrett P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's children because the father was incarcerated and, although the children had behavioral problems when they came into the foster parent's home and one child was suffering from ADHD, after living in a stable home for one year and receiving weekly therapy their behavior and school work had improved and the child with ADHD was receiving treatment. In re Arianna Y., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2018).

There was clear and convincing proof in the record to support the trial court's finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the child had a strong bond with his foster parents, and there was no substantial bond between him and the father; to remove the child from the only stable home he had ever known would be detrimental to his well-being. In re D.N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because, despite the availability of services for more than four years, the mother failed to complete most of the permanency plan's requirements addressing the conditions that caused the children's removal; changing caregivers would have a detrimental effect on the children as they had not been in the mother's custody for more than five years, and they were doing well in foster care; the mother showed neglect toward the children by exposing them to brutality, physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse; and she failed to participate in individual therapy, motivational group therapy, and women's recovery to address her substance abuse problem. In re McKenzie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, in part because the father failed to make an adjustment of conditions to make it safe for the child to be in his home, he did not attend visits with the child for a period of time, there had not been a meaningful relationship between the father and child, the child had been removed from the father for almost two years and was thriving in his foster home with foster parents who wanted to adopted him, and a change of caretaker was likely to have a negative effect on the child. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because, despite the Tennessee Department of Children's Services'  efforts, he failed to address the underlying psychological issues that caused his violent actions, including his rape of the mother; there was no evidence to suggest that the children had a meaningful relationship with him; the evidence suggested that his presence at visits caused the children emotional upset; the record indicated that the children were doing well in foster care, that they had bonded with their foster parents, and were enjoying stability and love for perhaps the first time in their young lives; and it was clear that a change in caregivers would be detrimental to the children. In re R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the parents'  home still contained animal urine and feces four years after the child was removed from the home; they did not improve their parenting skills; they severely abused the child; they had displayed, through the over four years since removal of the child, a serious lack of mental and emotional stability; and the child was in an adoptive home and had bonded with the family, and with a child that had become his sibling. In re Charles R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interests because the evidence showed that he failed to maintain regular visitation or contact with the child for nearly three years, and the foster parents had provided the child a safe, stable home for five of the six years of the child's life, and changing caregivers and his physical environment would have had a detrimental effect on him. In re Leroy H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the mother had not made an adjustment to her circumstances by addressing her mental health issues, the lack of a psychological evaluation prevented the mother from visiting the child, and the child was well-adjusted in her pre-adoptive home. In re McKenzi W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests; the mother had not made a lasting adjustment in her circumstance, despite reasonable efforts of the department, and she had not completed the recommended inpatient drug therapy, mental health therapy, or domestic violence classes, and showed no clear pathway to consistent and lasting improvement. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

It was in a child's best interests for the father's parental rights to be terminated because the father's visitations with the child were terminated due to the father's aggressive conduct and the father engaged in conduct that resulted in the father being arrested and incarcerated. In re Ava H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest becuase the mother had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and the child adjusted to her home with her great aunt and considered the great aunt to be her mother; because the mother's sobriety was unproven, and she lacked gainful employment, it did not appear that the mother would be able to care for the child at any early date. In re Taylor C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2018).

Mother failed to make such an adjustment in her circumstances, conduct that would make it safe and in the child's best interest to be placed in her care, and during the 14 months prior to trial, the mother had not maintained a stable home to which the child could return, she had changed residences repeatedly, and overall, termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests, given that the father had not adjusted his circumstances to make it safe for the child to be in his home, the father had not visited or supported the child, he had not established a meaningful relationship with the child, and a change of caretakers would likely have a negative effect on the child. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Trial court properly determined that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because proof of the mother's efforts to address her longstanding drug and alcohol issues did not preponderate against the trial court's specific findings and its holding that termination of her rights was in the child's best interest. In re Gabriel C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests, as the mother's drug use continued, she failed to exercise more than token visitation, there was no indication that the children had any significant bond with her, she failed to provide even token support for the children, and they were thriving in their current foster placement. In re Romeo T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Termination was in the child's best interest, as drug use and criminal activity prevailed in the home, the mother's environment would pose substantial risk to the child, the mother failed to support and to visit the child, and he was thriving in his current placement. In re Hayden L, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interest, in part as the mother could not provide safe and stable care for the children, largely due to her substance abuse and lack of a permanent home, and she had shown neglect towards both children and abuse towards one; while the department's evidence regarding the children's current circumstances was woefully deficient, the mother's shortcomings were so severe that the best interest factors weighed against her as a result of her own actions. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven that it was in the children's best interests for an incarcerated father's parental rights to be terminated because the father had not made changes that would have made it safe for the children to go home. Further, the children had a strong bond with their foster parents, who wished to adopt them, and a counselor testified that one of the children expressed that the child was scared of the father and did not want to return to the father's home. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

While the mother failed to maintain a relationship with the child and had not visited the child or remitted child support, she testified concerning her completion of a rehabilitation program and the establishment of a home and continued stable employment; as the trial court failed to properly consider these factors in its best interest analysis, remand was necessary. In re Abagail D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's children because of the mother's failure to provide a suitable home and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, the mother's inconsistent visitation with the children, the mother's continued display of signs of substance abuse, and the mother's failure to pay the required amount of child support. Moreover, the children were doing well and experienced significant improvement in their foster placement. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because it showed that the father did not support any of his 14 children, he did not maintain regular visitation with the child, the father had a history of anger management issues, he did not appear to consider the child's diagnosed attention deficit disorder as a legitimate problem, the child was placed with his prospective adoptive parents when he was three days old and he was four and a half at the time of trial, the child was thriving in his current environment, and the record was clear and convincing that a change in caretakers would be detrimental to him. In re Jaylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Best interest finding was vacated, as one child desired to maintain her relationship with the mother, while the other child, who was near the age of majority, did not, and the mother had taken steps to improve her life and make room for the children and maintained regular visitation when permitted.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because as a result of her incarceration she had not seen the child in over a year, the child was doing well in his foster home, and the mother was guilty of severe child abuse as well as the child's malnutrition. In re E.M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the mother's child because (1) the child was doing well in a foster home and had bonded with the foster parents; (2) the mother's ability to care for the child, while maintaining the mother's recovering sobriety, was untested; (3) a doctor opined that to put the child back in an environment where there was a significant risk the child might again be exposed to drugs was simply too great a risk to take; and (4) there did not appear to be a strong bond between the mother. In re Mason C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2018).

Termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests; he failed to make adjustments necessary to make it safe for the child to return home, as he did not have utility services and he was still using drugs, questions remained concerning his ability to care for the child, and the child, for approximately 20 months, was in a safe and stable home willing and able to adopt her. In re Kaycee M., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father failed to address the father's addiction to drugs and failed to obtain and maintain safe and stable housing, income, and transportation. Furthermore, the children were being very well cared for in a loving home where the foster parents were ensuring that their physical, mental, and emotional needs, which had been neglected in the father's care, were being met. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Termination was in the children's best interests; while the mother made positive steps towards making a lasting adjustment in her conduct, she was not ready to care for her children, she had a drug relapse recently, she lived in a halfway house where children were not permitted to live, and she was not prepared to provide housing and other necessities for the children. In re Larry P., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests; the mother had still not complied with the requirements of a 2015 order, she had not seen the child since 2015, a change in caretakers would be devastating to the child, and there was no evidence of whether the mother's home was healthy and safe. In re L.U.S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because from November 2016 to March 2017 she tested positive on multiple drug screens for methamphetamines and benzodiazepines, she put minimal effort into improving her circumstances following the children's removal, and had not demonstrated that she had become any more capable of providing the children with a safe and stable home. In re Francis R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed terminating a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because (1) the mother was unlikely to adjust the mother's circumstances to enable the child's return as she had not tried to address issues leading to the child's removal, and (2) the child's return would harm the child due to the child's attachment to the child's foster mother. In re Colton B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the father had not maintained regular visitation, no meaningful relationship existed had been established between them, introducing him into the child's life would disrupt the child's placement and would be detrimental, and the father failed to remit child support. In re Ruger N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights to her two oldest children because they were under eight years old at the time she was incarcerated under a sentence of 10 years or more, and it was in their best interests because she was in no position to provide for the children's needs for a significant amount of time; she had not maintained any visitation or other contact relative to the children; a change of caretakers and physical environment would likely have a detrimental effect on the children's emotional, psychological and medical conditions; the acts for which the parents were convicted involved sexual abuse of a child, although the minor victim was not a family member; and the mother had not paid any child support. In re S.D., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because neither parent made an adjustment of circumstances necessary for the child's return or maintained regular visitation with him; the relationship between the parents and the child could not be classified as meaningful when contact was limited to phone calls and video chats; a change of caretakers would be detrimental to the child's emotional condition; and the child had bonded with his foster parents who wished to adopt him. In re Camdon H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the mother had been incarcerated for the entire time span the child had been in foster care, the mother had not maintained regular visitation due to her own conduct, the mother was incarcerated, the mother provided no healthy and safe place for the child to return to, and the child was thriving with the foster parents. In re Savanna I., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest,as the mother was unable to address her drug issues and did not have a meaningful relationship with the children, who were strongly bonded with the foster parents. In re Karisah N., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because a meaningful relationship no longer existed between them; the mother's failure to participate in domestic violence counseling and follow through with outpatient substance abuse treatment might impact her mental and emotional status and ability to provide safe and stable supervision for the children; and the Tennessee Department of Children's Services had exerted reasonable efforts to assist the mother, including rides for her to obtain services or address needs, transportation for children to and from visits, arranging visits to work around her schedule and needs, drug screens, and assistance in setting up classes to comply with the permanency plan. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's child because the incarcerated father had yet to establish an adjustment of circumstances necessary for the child's return, to establish a meaningful relationship with the child, and to remit child support. Furthermore, the child had been in a pre-adoptive home for more than three years and had bonded with the foster parents who wished to adopt the child. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the children because the mother had not made an adjustment of her circumstances that would have made it safe for the children to be placed in her care, the mother had no financial stability, she continued to use drugs, and the children were acclimated in the home of the foster parents. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because it showed that she had only been in treatment for her drug use for a month and a half, she did not dispute that there was no meaningful relationship between her and the children at the time of trial, the counselor opined that the children would regress if they were returned to the mother's care, the mother could not provide a home for the children because she was living at an inpatient rehabilitation center, and in the year leading up to trial she had incurred multiple criminal charges, was arrested, and violated her probation. In re Michayla T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests; the father did not make any adjustments of circumstances to make it safe for the children to be in his home, he failed to accept the services the department offered him, he failed to maintain regular contact with the children, he did not support them, and he lacked stable housing, plus a change of caretakers and physical environment would have a negative effect on the children's emotional, psychological, and medical conditions. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because it found that the mother's new residence was not a safe, stable home given the mother's abuse of controlled substance, and it found that the mother had competing interests, as she loved her daughter but did not want to give up the medicine that had severely affected her ability to parent. In re Lesley A., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children, as the father failed to maintain regular visitation with the children and to pay child support toward their care, he did not have a meaningful relationship with the children, a change in the children's caretaker would likely have a detrimental effect on their emotional, psychological, and medical conditions, and the foster parents were willing and able to care for the children and their extensive medical needs. In re Kiara S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the child needed stability, the child and the father had no meaningful relationship, the father had a history of domestic violence involving the mother, and the father had not provided support for the child. In re Mikko B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because the mother's mental challenges prevented the mother from being able to parent the child, the mother showed little to no interest in the child from the time when the child was born, the child was in a stable, loving home environment with a foster family who wanted to adopt the child, and the foster parents were also prepared to address the child's special needs. In re Frederick S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2018).

While it was not necessary that the trial court find that all nine factors weighed in favor of a finding that termination was in the children's best interest, it was important for the reviewing court to understand whether the trial court considered the other factors to be not applicable, neutral, or militating against a holding that termination was in the children's best interest; the best interest determination was vacated and remanded for the trial court to make additional findings as to the other factors. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was not in the best interest of the children given the mother's attempts to maintain a relationship with the children and petitioners'  interference with the mother's ability to contact the children. In re Johnathan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interest, as she had not made lasting adjustments necessary to make it safe for the children to be returned to her; she had not seen the children for more than a year, she never paid child support, and to remove the children from their foster home would be detrimental to them. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for abandonment by willful failure to visit was proper because her visitation was merely token visitation; and it was in the child's best interest as the mother did not have a job, she had not regularly visited or spoken with the child, she did not provide any support for the child, she and the child did not have a meaningful relationship, and the child was well-cared for by the grandparents and was thriving in their custody. In re Jayla H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights for failure to establish paternity was proper and in the child's best interest as he never filed anything to establish paternity, never paid any support for the child, never provided the child with any presents, cards, or letters, never exercised any meaningful visitation with the child, and had no relationship with the child; and the child was thriving in the care of the grandparents. In re Jayla H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2019).

Trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests was supported by sufficient evidence because it showed that the father failed to visit the child even once during the four months preceding his incarceration, giving up the opportunity to establish any real relationship with the child, the father was twice paroled after the child's birth and made poor decisions that resulted in his re-incarceration, and the mother had voluntarily surrendered her rights in order to allow the child's adoption by her brother and his wife. In re Jeffery D., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests as her failure to adequately combat her drug issues threatened the children's ability to be raised in a safe environment; and there was ample evidence to suggest that achieving any long-term sobriety was a speculative proposition. In re Mickeal Z., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents'  rights was in the child's best interests because the physical environment of their home was unhealthy and unsafe, the child had improved physically and mentally ever since she was removed from the parents'  custody, and a change in caretakers and physical environment would have had a negative effect on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical conditions. In re Savannah M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstances necessary for the child's return or maintained regular visitation with him, she failed to maintain a meaningful relationship with him during her absence, she admitted that she did not wish to regain custody but only wanted to reestablish her relationship with the child, the mother failed to remit child support, and the child had been living with his grandparents for almost four years and a change in caretakers would be detrimental to his emotional condition. In re Ethan M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed termination of a mother's parental rights was in her child's best interest because (1) the mother did not adjust her circumstances to allow the child's safe return, (2) she failed to effect a lasting adjustment to her circumstances after being provided with reasonable assistance such that a lasting change did not reasonably appear possible, (3) her home was unhealthy and unsafe due to criminal activity and drug use; (4) she was consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner due to her use of alcohol and controlled substances, (5) her mental and/or emotional status would be detrimental to the child, and (6) she paid little to no child support. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

It was in a child's best interests for the parental rights of the child's mother to be terminated because no meaningful relationship existed between the child and the mother, the child would have suffered emotional and psychological harm if there was a change of caregivers at that point in time, and the child was thriving with and had become fully integrated in and formed a strong and positive bond with a relative's home and family with whom the child had been living for a few years and which wished to adopt the child. In re Melinda N., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the children given the mother's continued use of drugs and involvement in criminal activity, the mother's belief that an individual she was going to live with was innocent of sexual abuse charges despite his conviction, and the stability the children had with appellants, who wished to adopt them. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Terminating the mother's parental rights was not in the child's best interest, because, at the time of trial, the mother was employed, drug free, living in a safe home, participating in drug treatment and mental health therapy, and the child had a relationship with the mother. In re Serenity W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother was not engaged in visitation and often allowed unsafe behavior to take place, there were issues of drug use in the mother's home, the children did not have a particularly meaningful relationship with the mother, the children were bonded with their foster parents who wished to adopt them, the children markedly improved following the suspension of contact with the mother due to allegations of sexual abuse, and the mother had not paid child support. In re H. A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence showed termination of a mother's parental rights was in a child's best interest because a preponderance of the evidence showed the mother had no bond with the child, due to the mother's persistent failure to have contact with the child. In re Paetyn M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019).

Trial court properly determined that termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father did not have a home outside of prison, he had been incarcerated for most of one child's life and the entirety of the other child's life, he was serving a 10-year sentence for robbery, he had not established a meaningful relationship with the children, he had a lengthy history of criminal activity and drug and alcohol use, and the children had lived with their foster parents, who wished to adopt them, for either the majority or the entirety of their lives. In re Lailonnii J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019).

Chancery court properly terminated a father's parental rights as in the best interest of the child because the testimony from both sides was that the child did not have any meaningful relationship with the father, the record showed that the mother and stepfather had raised the child, and had a very strong relationship with the child, and that the stepfather was basically the only father that the child had known. In re Maddox G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019).

Although a juvenile court may have given insufficient weight to a mother's relationship with the children, there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of both parents'  rights was in the children's best interest because of the parents'  lack of adjustment in circumstances over a two-year period, their inconsistent visitation, and the children's strong bond with the foster family. The parents had substance abuse issues, were repeatedly arrested, and did not show improvement in their parenting skills. In re Julian J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2019).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the father's children because the father's incarceration precluded the father's ability to properly care and provide for the children and substantially inhibited the father's ability to maintain regular visitation or other contact with the children. Moreover, allowing the children to remain with their foster family, with which they were doing well and which wanted to adopt them, provided the children with their best chance for future stability. In re D.V., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that termination of a father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child because there was no evidence the father made any change in his circumstances such as to make it safe or in the child's best interests to place the child in his home; there was no relationship at all between the child and the father, and it would be detrimental to the child's emotional, psychological and medical condition to change caretakers. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Termination was in the child's best interests because the mother failed to make an appreciable change in her lifestyle and living conditions; she did not visit the child regularly; she did not have a meaningful relationship with the child; returning the child to the mother would have an adverse impact on the child as the foster parent was the only parental figure that the child had known; the father had possessed child pornography and the mother had voluntarily maintained relationships with two abusive men; and the mother was unable to be a safe and stable caregiver. In re Laura F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests because it showed that despite assistance by DCS, the mother continued to use illegal drugs and had not demonstrated stability such that she could care for the child, the case worker expressed concerns respecting drug use by the grandmother, with whom the mother lived, and the child enjoyed a strong bond with the foster parents, who wished to adopt the child. In re Kaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because he continued to fail drug screens; he would not return the caseworker's phone calls; the last time he saw his children was nine months prior at a court hearing; it could not be said there was any type of meaningful relationship with the children as he had had literally no contact with them; there were many acts of serious domestic violence in the home between the parents and the children saw it; his drug use made it impossible to safely care for himself much less the children; his criminal conduct continued through the trial of the case; and the children were thriving in their foster home and were doing well in school. In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because she continued to struggle with substance abuse to the extent that it was unsafe for the children to be returned to her home; she had not had unsupervised visits or overnight visits since the trial home visit was revoked; it could not be said there was a meaningful relationship with the mother as the foster mother testified the children had asked to be adopted; there were many acts of serious domestic violence in the home between the parents and the children saw it; she had continued to incur criminal charges throughout the pendency of the case; and the children were thriving in their foster home and were doing well in school In re Trey S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2019).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the children's best interests; the children were removed from the mother's care after she was involuntarily hospitalized, the court only had the mother's word that she was adequately managing her mental health issues, and in light of her seeming nonchalance about those issues, there was troubling uncertainty about her prospects for safely parenting the children any time soon. Furthermore, the children were thriving in the foster mother's care. In re Charlie-Lynn P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2019).

Termination of parental rights was in children's best interests because the evidence did not preponderate against findings that (1) the parents'  circumstances had not changed since the children were removed, (2) the parents did not attempt to do anything on a permanency plan, (3) the parents did not visit the children, (4) the children had no relationship with the parents, (5) returning the children to the parents would harm the children, and (6) the parents prevented reasonable efforts to assist the parents by directing the Department of Children's Services to only contact the parents through counsel and then failing to maintain contact with counsel. In re Nicholas C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2019).

Each of the nine statutory best interest factors weighed in favor of a finding that termination of a mother's rights was in the best interest of the child because the mother continued to abuse illegal drugs, and she only visited the child after finding out that a petition to terminate her parental rights had ben filed; the child had not established a meaningful relationship with the mother, and the child had successfully bonded with his foster parents. In re K.S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because there was warrant out for the father's arrest, the Department of Children's Services has made efforts to help the father, it would be difficult to say the rather and the child had a meaningful relationship, and the child had bonded with and was doing well in the foster parents'  house. In re Keagan P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because the mother had failed two drug screens while she was incarcerated; the lack of a meaningful relationship between the children and the mother was the mother's fault; and the mother demonstrated that she was unable or unwilling to provide stable care for the children as she had a past practice of letting her mother care for the children, she discontinued her depression medication, and she rekindled a bad romantic relationship. In re Khloe B., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child because the mother failed to affect a lasting adjustment for a sufficient period of time to indicate that her lifestyle would change; she had no meaningful relationship with the child; a change in caretakers would cause a detrimental effect on the child as her foster family was the only one she had ever known; and the mother's history of drug abuse, both during and after her pregnancy, indicated an environment that could be abusive to the child and could create an unsafe and unstable home for her. In re Jayda S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019).

Despite the father's love and concern for the children, his steady employment history, and his willingness to provide for them, termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children given his failure to obtain suitable housing in the three years since removal, questions regarding whether he was capable of providing a suitable environment, and the fact that the children had bonded with the foster family and were thriving. In re Janiyah J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2019).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests; the mother was unable to provide a safe home, she had recently relapsed, whether she could effectively provide safe and stable care for the child was questionable, and the child was bonded to his foster family. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child, as the father was incarcerated for several more years, leaving him unable to care for the child for a significant period of time, the child had bonded with the stepfather and had only ever lived with the mother, and a change of caretakers at this point in the child's life would be detrimental to his emotional condition. In re Brendan G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because aside from a nine-month period, the mother and the child lived at home with her parents, and the father had no meaningful relationship with the child and had not seen the child since the mother's death. In re Channing M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Evidence clearly and convincingly supports the finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest; he had not lived with her and had not had consistent, quality time with her since he was six months old, the child testified that he liked living with his grandparents, and the mother's lifestyle was unstable, as she engaged in drug and other criminal activity. In re Dylan S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the father had failed to make a lasting adjustment to the father's circumstances. The father had a long history of drug use and had not successfully been rehabilitated, had engaged in criminal activity which resulted in a lengthy period of incarceration and rendered the father unable to consistently visit or provide support for the children, and had committed severe child abuse. In re B.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).

Sufficient evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because it showed that the no-contact order was quickly superseded by an order permitting the father to visit the child, there was no evidence that the father ever attempted to contact the child after his incarceration, the father's testimony supported the inference that he was out of contact with the child from June 2013 to December 2015, and the practical details of the father's return to society after his incarceration ended were uncertain. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights to the mother's children was in the best interest of the children because the mother had not made changes to the mother's conduct or circumstances—regarding the mother's inability to maintain stable housing and failure to address mental health needs—such that it was safe for the children to return to the mother's custody, no meaningful relationship existed between the children and the mother, and removing the children from the foster home would have been detrimental to their stability and progress. In re Deishun M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because, despite the mother's tardy completion of permanency plan tasks, the evidence proved that it was unlikely that the mother soon would have been able to parent the children. It was not at all evident that the mother had remedied the conditions which led to the mother being unable to care for the children—the mother's housing situation, drug abuse, and lack of income—while the children were happy and had bonded in the foster home. In re Malik G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father's unfortunate history with illegal drugs had been a serious issue in the case, and the record evidenced that the father made less than satisfactory progress; the child's foster mother testified that the child was doing well and that the child did not talk about the father, and there had been prolonged periods where the father had not seen the child. In re Jayda H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child because the mother failed to address her mental health issues; she had not demonstrated an ability or willingness to parent the child; the child had no bond with the mother; and the child had bonded with her foster parents, who wished to adopt her. In re Draven K., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2020).

Merely stating that it considered the statutory factors regarding best interest is insufficient for the trial court to discharge its obligation to engage in the necessary inquiry as to whether or not termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest. In re A.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the children's best interests because, inter alia, he was incarcerated on a lengthy sentence and could not provide a safe home for the children; he did not broadly participate in the recommendations of the permanency plan or act in a way that would make lasting adjustments appear possible; he had little to no meaningful relationship with the children; a change of caretakers and physical home would have a profoundly negative effect on the children, who were well-adjusted to their foster home; and the father had sexually abused at least one other child who lived in the same household as the children. In re O.W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Termination was in the child's best interests where the mother had not made a lasting change, maintained regular visitation, or given up her drug use. In re Emma S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Termination of the father's rights was in the best interest of the children since he continued to maintain a relationship with the mother despite her drug use, the continued incidents of domestic violence, and the father failed to complete family counseling. In re Mahaley P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because the mother had made no lasting progress in providing a safe and stable home life for the children in the nearly five years that they have been in DCS custody, she missed many visitations, she did not have a meaningful relationship with the children, she made no effort to learn how to take care of her daughter's medical needs, and the children were happy and healthy with their new family, where their emotional and medical needs are provided for. In re Ronon G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020).

Terminating parents'  parental rights was in children's best interest because (1) the parents refused treatment, (2) reasonable efforts had been made to assist the parents, and (3) the children improved while living with the children's current custodian. In re C.L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the father was still incarcerated at the time of the hearing and would not be released for at least another year, the child was bonded with her step-father, and a change of caretakers would be detrimental to her emotional condition when she had not visited with the father since her first birthday and did not know her step-father was not her biological parent. In re Aubrie W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020).

Termination of mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother had not been willing and able to make the choices needed to parent the children in the over four years from their removal and appeared unlikely to be willing to take the necessary steps in the near future as the mother lived in a camper, continued to use drugs, and associated with others that did so and the mother's visitation was supervised and minimal. Furthermore, the children were well-provided for in the care of the father and the father's wife. In re Michael W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the trial court found that the father knew the child's address but did not send her any gifts, cards, or letters, the trial court found that the relationship between them was destroyed by the three years of no contact between them, the trial court found, based on the child's in-court testimony, that there appeared to be no likelihood of the establishment of a meaningful relationship between the father and the child even if the father's parental rights are not terminated, and the trial court found that forcing the child to have a relationship with the father would be detrimental to her. In re Kelsea L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020).

Terminating the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests; the mother had pleaded guilty to child abuse, failed to comply with or complete any permanency plan requirements, failed to show that she could provide a safe physical environment for the child, failed to provide any financial support for the child, and changing caretakers and the child's physical environment would likely have a negative effect on the child. In re Imerald W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because she had not made an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions; she had not effected a lasting adjustment after reasonable efforts made by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services; she had not maintained regular visitation or other contact with the children, resulting in the deterioration in the meaningful bond between the mother and the children; she had shown neglect toward the children; changing caretakers would have a detrimental effect on the children; and all of the children had made positive progress while in protective custody. In re Serenity S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the best interests of the children; the mother had not made a lasting adjustment of circumstances in four years the children have been in department custody, despite being provided assistance, and questioned remained about her ability to provide a safe home. In re Benjamin P., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020).

Trial court properly determined that it was not in a child's best interest for the father's parental rights to be terminated because his failure to visit the child within the statutory four-month period was not willful where his efforts to visit the child were thwarted by the mother, and, while the father did not support or make reasonable payments towards the support of the child, the child was still young enough that the father should be able to establish a meaningful relationship with him. In re Archer R., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2020).

Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interest because neither parent was capable of providing a safe environment or safe and stable care for the child as the mother physically abused the child to the point of fracturing the child's ribs and causing hemorrhaging in the child's brain, while the father knew the child was being abused and failed to protect the child. Further, the child was thriving in foster care with parents who wished to adopt the child, while the parents had not provided financial support. In re Kyland F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest where despite a multitude of help from the Department of Children's Services, she was no closer to providing a safe and stable home for her children at the time of trial as she was at the removal, she had not maintained consistent visitation with the children. the children were currently in a stable home that provided for their needs, and the mother neglected the children and exposed them to drug use in her home. Despite her progress, she simply could not care for the children in any real fashion as she had no permanent home and no reliable method to transport herself and her children where they needed to go. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Termination was in the child's best interests; the father acknowledged that the child should remain with petitioners in part because the child did not recognize the father as his father, he failed to attempt to contact the child despite having access to reasonable means to do so, and a change in the child's caretakers and physical environment would likely have a harmful effect on the child's emotional and psychological conditions. In re Bentley Q., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

Evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because it showed that she failed to address mental health issues, her involvement with abusive males, or her continuing use of serious, illegal drugs, she failed to maintain regular visitation with one child despite considerable efforts by the service provider, and children fit in with the foster home, who wished to adopt them. In re Gracie H. Y., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020).

Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children because the father had not made changes in the father's circumstances that would have made it safe for the children to return home, as the father was using drugs, had not adequately addressed substance abuse or mental health needs, was in and out of incarceration, lacked stable housing, transportation, or income, and had completed none of the requirements of the permanency plan. The children also bonded with their foster family, and the foster parents desired to adopt them. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2020).

Sufficient evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother's continued methamphetamine use and inability to complete treatment indicated a failure to make a lasting adjustment of circumstances so as to allow a safe return of the child to the mother's custody, the mother had not seen the child since visitation was suspended nearly one year before the termination hearing and had not maintained a meaningful relationship with him since then, the trial court found that a change in caretakers would likely worsen the child's emotional, psychological, and mental conditions, and the child's health and behavior had improved while living in a pre-adoptive foster home. In re Caydan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child because it showed that a meaningful relationship had not been established between him and the child, he did not participate in the child's education, the trial court found that a change of caretakers and physical environment would likely have a negative effect on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical condition, the father's home was not safe for the child, and he failed to make a single child support payment and did not pay his half of the child's outstanding dental bill. In re Zaylee W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest, as the record showed that the mother's home was not a safe place given the criminal records of both parents and the mother's drug abuse and manufacture of methamphetamine, to which the child was exposed. In addition, both parents were incarcerated, which resulted in not developing a relationship with the child, a lack of visitation and failure to provide any sort of support for the child, who deserved the stability, permanence, and safe, loving home. In re Eli S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because, although the father had been released from incarceration and there was no evidence his home was unsafe, the father had not paid consistent child support, had not maintained consistent visitation, and did not have any relationship with the child. In re London B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

The best interests of a child were served by terminating the mother's parental rights because the mother was in no position to parent the child at that point given the mother's unresolved drug problem and failure to take any meaningful steps to address the problem until weeks before trial. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the child was very attached to the child's foster family, which was a preadoptive home. In re Madux F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interest; the testimony on which the mother relied on did not preponderate against the trial court's findings, and the evidence showed that the mother neglected the child in her early infancy, the mother failed to provide support for the child and also failed to maintain regular contact or establish a meaningful relationship with the child, and the presence of drugs in the home illustrated that it was not suitable for a child. In re Daisy A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020).

Termination of both parents'  rights was in the child's best interests as neither parent had made a lasting adjustment of circumstances in the years that the child had been in the Department of Children's Services'  custody; questions remained as to the mother's ability to provide a safe and stable home for the child; the foster parent stated that the child was getting along great; and the child should continue permanency and stability in the home of the foster parent. In re Neveah A., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests because the mother, despite the reasonable efforts of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, failed to support the children and to provide suitable housing and continued to use illegal drugs and to engage in criminal activity. Furthermore, the children were thriving in the care of their pre-adoptive foster family, and to remove the children from the only stable home which they had known would likely have caused them great distress. In re Tucker H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother failed to make any lasting adjustment that would allowed for reunification as the mother-who had substance abuse and unstable housing issues-failed to show the likelihood to have provided a healthy and safe physical environment for the child. Furthermore, the child was thriving with the preadoptive foster family and changing caretakers and the child's physical environment likely would have had a negative effect on the child's psychological well-being. In re Kelty F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Termination of both parents'  rights was in the child's best interests because neither made an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions so as to make it safe for the child to be in their custody; despite reasonable efforts on the part of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, the parents were unwilling to engage in the process so as to make the necessary changes at any early date; neither parent had addressed their drug use; neither parent had stable housing or employment; there was no evidence that the child had a bond with either parent; the child's foster mother testified that he had bonded with the foster family; all of the child's needs were met in his current environment; and the foster family wished to adopt him. In re Dustin M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the parents'  rights was in the child's best interest because neither parent had maintained regular visitation or other contact with the child, the trial court found that it would be detrimental to the child to move him from his foster home where he had lived for over a year, and the parents'  use of alcohol and controlled substances rendered them consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

There was no error in the trial court's best interest analysis because it carefully considered the best interest factors set forth in the termination statute and found that the mother did not have any meaningful relationship with the child; the child was removed from the mother's care and custody shortly after birth, the mother had remained incarcerated throughout the entirety of the child's life, and the child bonded with the grandparents and was thriving in their care. In re C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

There was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interest because the father had not parented the child since 2014 when he was placed under the no contact order, he has been in and out of incarceration since that time, during the times he was on parole he did not petition to have the no contact order lifted or visitation reinstated, and there was no evidence that he had established a meaningful relationship with her. The child had been placed in a stable home with a family who would like to adopt her should she become available. In re Isabella W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests; the mother incurred multiple criminal charges since the child had been in the grandparents'  custody and she had been incarcerated, plus she continued to reside with a known drug abuser and she had failed to sufficiently remedy her own addiction issues. The grandparents'  home was the only home the child had known, and the child was thriving and happy with them. In re Eli H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2020).

Trial court did not err in finding that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the children's best interest because her improvements came very late, by trial the children had spent five years in the grandparents'  custody. To potentially uproot the children from what, based on the record, was a stable environment and one to which they are attached and place them with the mother would be an enormous gamble with their well-being, notwithstanding the mother's improvements. In re Ava M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2020).

Trial court did not err by finding that it was not in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights because it found that the mother had admitted her past mistakes, completed drug treatment, obtained her C.N.A. certification, and obtained suitable employment, transportation, and housing. The trial court also found that the mother was no longer associating with inappropriate people, she had been sober since shortly after the child's birth, and petitioners did not present evidence that showed ongoing drug use by the mother after the child was removed. In re Aryana S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2020).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the children's best interest where he did not currently have a home, he was facing trial on charges that could have led to 10 years'  incarceration, he was mostly absent from the the children's lives because he spent a significant amount of time incarcerated or living in Texas, the children had been living in the are of their maternal aunt and uncle and were thriving, there was physical violence in the home when the children did live with the father, and the father had not paid child support. In re Jessica V., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2020).

Termination of the parents'  rights was in the children's best interests; limitations placed on the parents'  visitation were appropriate, their refusal to acknowledge their abuse and its harmful effects on the children prevented them from being afforded the opportunity to demonstrate their progress, their relationships with the children were marred by abuse, control, and manipulation, and a change of caretakers and physical environment would have a negative effect on the children's well-being. In re Shyanne H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's bests interest where the trial court considered all of the relevant statutory factors, including the factor that the father had not maintained a relationship with the chid and had not seen him for over three years at the time of trial. In re Jaxon W.H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2020).

Termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest where the evidence supported the findings that neither parent had made such an adjustment of circumstances that the children could be safely returned to the custody of either of them, maintained regular visitation, had established a meaningful relationship with the children, or consistently paid child support, and a change of caretakers and physical environment would have had a detrimental emotional and psychological effect on the children. In re Justin D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2020).

Termination of a father's parental rights was in the child's best interests because the father had drug use and anger management issues, the relationship between the father and the child had been damaged beyond repair, a counsel testified that it would have been detrimental to the child to continue with the father's visitation, there was evidence of physical and verbal altercations among the members of the father's family, and the father had a substantial child support arrearage. In re Adalee H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother showed no interest in being part of the child's life; she had no meaningful relationship with the child; and it would be detrimental to the child to move from the father and his wife's home as the child created healthy familial bonds with them and had become accustomed to the physical environment, community, and schedule. In re Aiden M., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest because it showed that the father had been incarcerated since the child was three years old, the mother had stopped the video visits between them when the child began exhibiting anxiety behaviors after the visits, the child had no relationship with the father at the time of trial, and even after the father's release there would be restrictions on his being around other children due to his sex offender status. In re Jackson D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests; the mother had not made an adjustment of circumstances that would make it safe for her child to return to her custody, a change in caretakers would be detrimental to the child, and the child was subjected to severe abuse. While the mother's relationship with the child was meaningful, the mother had been unable to parent the child in most of the last five years and her current progress was tempered by her failure to make lasting changes in the past. In re Raylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020).

Trial court's final order denying the petition for termination of the mother's parental rights was deficient because it failed to comply with this section, as it was unclear whether the trial court considered the best interests of both children, as there was no mention of one child in the best interest analysis, and there was no indication that the trial court considered the appropriate best interests factors as to the other child. In re Rukia B., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2020).

Termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest; he committed severe child abuse against two of the child's siblings, and that the underlying conduct occurred against the child's siblings did not mean the child somehow would not face comparable danger were she placed in the father's care, as he had not rectified his substance abuse or mental health issues. In re Trinity H., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2020).

Evidence supported the trial court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest because the mother's problems in caring for the child persisted even after intervention by DCS, during visits the mother was typically on her phone or otherwise not engaged with the child, and the effect a change in caretakers was likely to have on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical condition was substantial. The child would likely continue to need specialized care and attention, especially regarding her diet, and her needs were being met by her foster parents, who wished to adopt her. In re Katrina S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2020).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests as the mother had been arrested again in the days before the termination hearing; the child had bonded with those in his foster home and was thriving; a change of caretakers at this point in the child's life would be detrimental to his emotional condition when his adoptive home was the only home he had ever known; questions remained as to the mother's ability to provide a safe and stable home for the child as evidenced by her criminal activity and failure to seek mental health treatment; and she failed to remit child support as required. In re Kash F., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2020).

Termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest because the parents failed to make sufficient change to their conduct or circumstances, as the mother continued to use illegal drugs and associate herself with other drug users, the mother required assistance obtaining and paying for housing and other essential items, and the father faced similar issues. In re A.V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 406 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2020).

25. Permanency Plans.

Court erred in finding that the parents, in a complex, extended dependency and neglect case, were not indigent and finding their seven children dependent and neglected and that the parents had committed severe child abuse; that finding could have led to termination of parental rights and the parents clearly had a right to appointed counsel if they were indigent. The parents were entitled to a thorough hearing in compliance with T.C.A. § 40-14-202 to determine if they were indigent and thus, entitled to appointed counsel under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13(d)(2)(B). Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. David H., 247 S.W.3d 651, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2006).

Termination of a father's parental rights for failure to substantially comply with his responsibilities as set out in a permanency plan was proper, as the case worker assigned to his child's case testified that the father had not submitted to a psychological assessment, submitted to drug and alcohol assessment, provided proof of stable housing, or shown proof of employment or income. In re Alexus F., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2015).

Mother substantially complied with the responsibilities set forth in the plans, with little to no assistance from the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) where the mother become drug-free, took an alcohol and drug assessment and drug screens, maintained contact with DCS, obtained legal income, maintained stable housing, and called and visited the child. In re Alysia S., 460 S.W.3d 536, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015).

Father failed to comply with the permanency plan, as he did not attend anger management classes, never provided pills for a pill count, did not participate in alcohol and drug services, and never provided proof of a steady job, transportation, or child care plan. In re Robert C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's judgment terminating the father's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in his permanency plan where it showed that after a year had passed since his receipt of the plan he made no progress, he testified at an earlier hearing that he had no intention of the completing the plan's requirements, and he did not complete portions of the plan until after the petition to terminate had been filed. In re K.M.K., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights on grounds of substantial non-compliance with permanency plans because, inter alia, the mother never fully appreciated the ultimate goal of the plans, which was to ensure a clean, healthy environment, and to give the mother sufficient parenting skills so the children could be safe in her care, and the mother also failed to avail herself of all resources made available to her. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights on grounds of substantial non-compliance with permanency plans because the father, inter alia, failed to follow medical advice, disputed his diagnoses, insisted he did not need any assistance, failed to master the most basic parenting skills, showed no concern for the condition of the children's hygiene, and allowed the children to be unsupervised and exposed to dangerous conditions. In re Kim C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2015).

Permanency plans were not lengthy or hard to follow, but the father's attempts to comply were sporadic at best; he failed to provide current proof that his home was safe for the children, and the finding that he was in substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was supported by clear and convincing evidence, such that a statutory ground existed for termination of the father's parental rights. In re Agustine R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a mother's parental rights for failure to comply with the terms of a permanency plan because (1) the terms of the plan were reasonable and related to the cause of the mother's child's removal from the mother's custody, which was the mother's homelessness and drug addiction, and (2) the mother did not obtain housing, did not follow the recommendations of an alcohol and drug assessment, and failed a drug screen. In re Brittany M.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015), appeal denied, In re Brittany M C, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. June 17, 2015).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the evidence clearly and convincingly established that a parent was in substantial noncompliance with permanency plans due to the parent's failure to complete drug treatment within the time-frames outlined in the permanency plans and the parent's inability to maintain a safe and stable home. In re Roger T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Trial court found that the requirements under the mother's permanency plan were reasonable and related to remedying the underlying conditions that necessitated the need for the child's foster care, and the evidence showed that the mother understood the plan requirements and the consequences for failure to comply, yet she was not able to acquire and exhibit the skills to take care of the child; thus, the mother was in substantial non-compliance with plan requirements and the termination of her rights was affirmed. In re Eve C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2015).

There was nothing to suggest that the mother had obtained parenting skills that would enable her to provide appropriate care and supervision for the child and the evidence did not preponderate against the finding of the mother's substantial noncompliance with the terms of a permanency plan, such that the trial court did not err in terminating the mother's rights. In re K.G.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2015).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper because she did not contend that she substantially completed the permanency plan requirements or that she had resolved the conditions that led to the child's removal into foster care, nor could she successfully do so as the child was removed from the mother's custody due to drug exposure, and, at trial, the proof established that the mother continued to abuse drugs and associate with known drug abusers. In re Faith W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2015).

Trial court properly found that the parents' responsibilities under the permanency plans were reasonably related to remedying the conditions that necessitate foster care, and therefore substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans could serve as a basis for terminating parental rights. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Despite the parents' cooperation with some aspects of their plans, they failed to complete several requirements, including the mother refraining from drinking alcohol and the father showing the ability manage his anger appropriately; as they failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, the trial court properly concluded that substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was an appropriate ground for terminating their parental rights. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Trial court properly found that the parents' responsibilities under the permanency plans were reasonably related to remedying the conditions that necessitate foster care, and therefore substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans could serve as a basis for terminating parental rights. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Despite the parents' cooperation with some aspects of their plans, they failed to complete several requirements, including the mother refraining from drinking alcohol and the father showing the ability manage his anger appropriately; as they failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, the trial court properly concluded that substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was an appropriate ground for terminating their parental rights. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Trial court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, as the plan was not admitted at trial. In re M.P.H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Father failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities of his permanency plans; he failed to provide proof of verifiable income, his assertion that domestic violence had to involve actual hitting demonstrated a lack of the understanding the domestic violence course was meant to engender, and termination on this ground was proper. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

Mother failed to substantially comply with her permanency plan; she had not completed the domestic violence course at the time of trial, her insistent denial that she needed domestic violence education did not reflect favorably on her attention to this requirement, and termination on this ground was proper. In re Alleyanna C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).

It was error to terminate a mother's parental rights due to substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because the record did not contain a document that met the definition of a permanency plan, as an order containing conditions the mother had to satisfy for the children to be returned did not meet this definition, nor did the record otherwise contain a document meeting this requirement. In re A.C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to support a finding that a mother did not substantially comply with the terms of the permanency plans because, inter alia, the mother: (1) never provided proof of her attendance at mental health therapy; (2) was discharged more than once for failing to make an appointment with her therapist; (3) never notified the child services agency of changes in her residence; (4) did not provide proof of employment; and (5) failed to pay child support. In re Nolan G., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015).

Ground of abandonment by failing to comply with the permanency plan was not met by clear and convincing evidence where the father attended a parenting class while in Nebraska and provided proof of completion, he testified that he had taken part in several mental health and drug assessments, he obtained a job in prison and had endeavored to pay child support, and although he admitted to being arrested after the creation of the plan he testified that those charges were not pursued. In re Abbigail C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2015).

Juvenile court did not err in finding that clear and convincing evidence failed to establish substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan where the father was left entirely up to his own resources in securing any counseling or treatment available within the perimeters of his home country. In re Analilia R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2016).

Mother failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities of her permanency plans, and her rights were properly terminated on this ground; while she complied with the visitation and other requirements, she was unemployed, had not paid child support, had a suspended driver's license, and her living situation was too new to be considered stable. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Father failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities of his permanency plans, and his rights were properly terminated on this ground; he was afforded a real opportunity to comply upon the child's removal into protective custody and prior to committing the actions that led to his subsequent incarceration. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

Termination was proper for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, as the mother failed to complete various tasks of her plan, including obtaining mental health and drug treatment, stable housing, and financial stability. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for noncompliance was supported by evidence the mother failed to abide by court order to keep her children safe and away from a sex offender, failed to address mental health issues, and failed to obtain appropriate housing. In re M.A.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that a parent did not substantially comply with the permanency plan in that the parent displayed a high degree of indifference to the statement of responsibilities in the various permanency plans, the parent's parenting skills did not improve, and witnesses testified to the parent's anger and lack of cooperation with assistance providers. In re Phillip I.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan where it showed that she was discharged from therapy for noncompliance, she failed to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills, she continued to deny abusing her children, and she continued using marijuana. In re A'leah M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan where, although she completed some of the plan's requirements, she failed to obtain safe and stable housing despite the Tennessee Department of Children's Services'  (DCS) efforts to help her do so, she did not comply with the psychologist's recommendations, and she avoided DCS requests for drug screens on numerous occasions. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Trial court did not err by terminating the father's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans where the evidence showed that his responsibilities under the plans were reasonably related to remedying the conditions that necessitated the child's removal and he failed to substantially comply with his requirements. In re Benjamin A., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2016).

Trial court's finding that the parents were substantially noncompliant with the permanency plans was supported by substantial evidence where the requirements that they submit to and test negative on announced and unannounced drug screens, maintain weekly contact with the Department of Children's Services, update the Department when their phone numbers or addresses changed, and submit to announced and unannounced home visits were reasonable, and the father's noncompliance was substantial given that the son was removed from the parents'  care because of his exposure to drugs, the parents'  use of drugs, and the presence of two methamphetamine labs in the home. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Termination of parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was appropriate because the parent made no genuine effort to comply with relevant parenting plans by participating in alcohol and drug treatment programs, educational classes, and employment opportunities while incarcerated for criminal activity and drug use that would have satisfied the requirements of the permanency plans. In re Tristan B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

Evidence was speculative as a result of the father's failure to appear at trial, and the department's ability to assist him was hindered by his frequent disappearances; there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination based upon father's substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements. In re Charles K., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2016).

Trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights because clear and convincing evidence established that the mother did not substantially comply with the permanency plan; the proof showed that the mother made no real start to recovery from her addiction until well after she agreed to the permanency plan and that she made no efforts to address her acknowledged mental health issues until after the petition to terminate was filed. In re Malaya B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Aug. 10, 2016).

Tasks as outlined in the permanency plans were exceptionally difficult to be discerned, and due to the department's failure to limit the parent's responsibilities to concrete obligations that at least had the possibility of being accomplished by them, the order finding sufficient proof for termination for substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan was vacated. In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of parental rights based upon a parent's substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements because, although the parent asserted that the parent attempted to complete the requirements with little assistance from Tennessee Department of Children's Services, proof of reasonable efforts was not a precondition to termination of the parental rights of the parent. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the permanency plan was reasonable and the parent had well over a year to achieve substantial compliance with the permanency plan. The parent's lack of cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services evinced an unwillingness to make the necessary changes to resume caring for the parent's children, and, when viewed in the context of the amount of time and resources the parent had available, the parent's progress under the plan fell short of what was necessary. In re Bailey W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2016).

Many of the permanency plan requirements reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that led to the mother's children's removal, including requiring compliance with and passing of random drug screen, refraining from criminal activity, and maintaining appropriate housing; although the mother was credited for her efforts while incarcerated, there was clear evidence that she failed to comply with the reasonable responsibilities contained in the permanency plan, including refraining from criminal activity, obtaining housing an exhibiting appropriate parenting skills. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

As to the father, the proof did not rise to the level of clear evidence of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans; while he was slow in complying, by the time of the hearing, he had accomplished or begun work on the majority of the requirements, and no proof was presented that his drug use led to removal of the children. In re Aiden R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights under the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan was affirmed, given that the mother failed to demonstrate that she had changed her conditions so she could take full responsibility for raising her children in a healthy, safe, stable home; she remained unemployed, there were dangerous and unsanitary conditions throughout the residence, and her efforts fell far short of reaching the overall goal of the permanency plan. In re Derrick J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2016).

Because the requirements that the mother have stable housing and employment only appeared in the permanency plan that was ratified on June 8, 2015, the mother was not given sufficient time to comply with the requirements newly added to the permanency plan; thus, clear and convincing evidence did not show that the mother substantially failed to comply with the statement of responsibilities in the permanency plan, and the order terminating the mother's parental rights to the child for substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in the permanency plan was reversed. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a father's substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the plans'  reasonable requirements related to the reasons for the child's removal from the father's custody, who did not follow recommendations from a parenting assessment and inconsistently visited the child and participated in required treatment. In re Daymien T., 506 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2016).

In a termination of parental rights case, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services proved that the mother had not substantial complied with the permanency plan, even though the requirements of the permanency plan were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from her mother's custody, because the mother failed to obtain and maintain suitable housing, to seek employment, and to be able to provide a safe drug free environment for their children. In re Kendra P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2016).

Evidence supported the finding of substantial noncompliance with the mother's permanency plan, making termination proper; the plan requirements were reasonable and appropriate, as the children were placed in foster care due to the mother's lack of suitable housing and substance abuse, and given the degree of noncompliance and the weight assigned to the requirements, the mother's noncompliance was substantial, as a majority of the requirements she failed to complete were aimed at addressing her substance abuse issues. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan where it showed that the mother had failed to address her mental health concerns, she failed to provide proof residential stability, she continued to test positive for unprescribed medications, and she failed to follow through with the recommendations of her alcohol and drug assessment. In re Rylee R., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the responsibilities contained in a permanency plan because, although the mother submitted to random drug screens and refrained from incurring additional charges, she completed the parenting assessment with a bonding component only begrudgingly after the termination petition had been filed; and she refused to follow the majority of the recommendations from the assessment as required by the permanency plan. In re Gabriella M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was supported by evidence she continued to use drugs and alcohol after leaving a treatment facility, had no suitable housing or transportation and paid no child support. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was supported by evidence that the father failed to obtain stable housing, comply with his probation, and resolve his legal issues, and did very little to maintain a relationship with the child in that he failed to consistently provide support or visit. In re D.R.S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016).

Termination of the mother's rights was proper on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans; the plans were developed to address the primary concerns of the case, including environmental neglect, sexual abuse perpetrated on the children, and the ongoing inappropriate sexual conduct between them, yet the mother failed to complete therapy, failed to provide a suitable home for the children, and appeared to be unable to meet their basic needs. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Juvenile court properly found that a mother and father failed to comply with the reasonable responsibilities contained in the permanency plan because they did not obtain suitable housing or manage to consistently pass drug screens; the requirements of the permanency plan were reasonably related to reducing the risk of harm to the children so that the children could be safely returned to the parents'  care. In re Jason S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

Terminating a father's parental rights for substantial permanency plan noncompliance did not err because (1) reunification efforts were not required, (2) the father did not comply with the plan's reasonable requirements to submit a transportation plan or prove legal, verifiable, income, and (3) the father did not otherwise comply with the plan. In re Jose L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 814 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Evidence did not support a finding that a father's parental rights were to be terminated based on substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because, while the father was often uncooperative with the Tennessee Department of Childrens Services (DCS), the father accomplished the majority of the requirements by the time of the final hearing. Furthermore, prior to the final hearing, the father provided the DCS with a budget, sufficient proof of income, and a child care and transportation plan and completed a second anger management course. In re Jeramyah H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

While the evidence supported termination of the father's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements, it did not support termination of the mother's rights on that basis, as the mother attended parenting classes, received anger management counseling, and submitted to psychological evaluations. In re Tamera W., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Feb. 9, 2017).

Ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was proven by clear and convincing evidence where the mother failed to cease abusing prescription drugs. In re Dillon E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2016).

Trial court properly found that the mother's responsibilities, enumerated in the permanency plan, were reasonably related to remedying the conditions which necessitated the foster care placement; maintaining residential stability was necessary to show she was equipped to care for her children, and other requirements all related to staying within the law, which was a responsibility about which she did not complain. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Substantial noncompliance with permanence plans was proven; the father's incarceration prevented him from satisfying most of his responsibilities under the plans, but he could have stayed within the law, and he could have informed the service worker of changes in his location, including his incarceration status, which he has failed to do. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

With the exception of the trial court's reference to the mother's associations with known drug users in discussing her responsibilities under the plan, the record supported all of the findings; her noncompliance with the plan had been substantial, and termination was proper. In re Dustin T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights because the father did not substantially comply with the father's reasonable responsibilities in a permanency plan. In re Mac L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was improper, as the father engaged in numerous services, there was no indication that the father turned down any services, and the father had suitable housing, and was paying child support while in jail. In re Addison B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).

Mother's permanency plans were reasonably related to remedying the reasons the children were removed from the home, but the trial court improperly based its conclusion that the mother had not substantially complied with the plans on the fact that the outcome and goals were not reached, rather than on her efforts to comply; although she failed to comply with some requirements, her relapse did not “undo” all of her previous and subsequent attempts to substantially comply, and termination based on this ground was reversed. In re Eddie F., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan was inappropriate because, although there was some testimony indicating that the mother was not in strict compliance with all of the permanency plan requirements, a case manager testified at trial that the mother had completed all of the tasks on the mother's permanency plan. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, was supported by evidence that the mother was homeless, continued to reside with the father despite their history of domestic violence, and, despite some positive efforts, was refusing to comply with drug and alcohol recommendations at the time of the hearing. In re Linette B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan was supported by evidence the mother failed to complete substance abuse treatment and incurred new criminal charges and was incarcerated. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 985 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2016).

Mother completed the necessary assessments and maintained regular visitation, but she failed to complete the remainder of the requirements and also refused to follow the recommendations from the assessments as required by the permanency plan; termination for noncompliance was proper. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's factual findings with respect to a mother's substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the Department of Children's Services created three separate permanency plans, and the mother ailed to meet the requirements, all of which bore on her ability to provide a stable home for the children. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Trial court was correct in failing to terminate a father's parental rights to his children because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the father failed to substantially comply with permanency plans; the father made attempts to stay in contact with the children, but there were some barriers to communicating with them. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

Trial court did not err by finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate the mother's rights due to her substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the record showed that she failed to complete many of the tasks in the permanency plans. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the parents'  rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because the father only made token child support payments, he never remedied the hazards of his previous home, DCS was unable to verify that his new home was safe and appropriate, and he failed multiple drugs screens. The mother also failed a drug screen and she continued to live with the father. In re Kayla B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Evidence supported a finding that a father was in substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans where he was living with the people with whom he was living at the time the dependent and neglect proceeding was initiated and who had been rejected as a potential placement for the children, and he had not paid child support or attended scheduled visitations. In re Promise A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2017).

Chancery court properly terminated the father's rights for substantial noncompliance with his permanency plan under T.C.A. § 36-1-113; he refused to pay any child support, he took three out of the nine drug tests requested of him, he failed two out of those three drug tests, and he failed to avoid further legal problems or abide by the rules of his probation, and this constituted substantial non-compliance with his permanency plans. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. July 6, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights was appropriate because clear and convincing evidence showed that the father failed to substantially comply with the requirements of a permanency plan as the father used drugs, did not go to an alcohol and drug assessment, failed drug tests, lived in places that were not suitable for children, and violated the terms of the father's parole. Furthermore, the father failed to participate in all the weekly therapeutic visitation sessions that were set up with the father's youngest child. In re Casyn B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017).

Termination of the mother's parental rights for substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan was supported by evidence that the mother continued to make dangerous choices of men to be around her children and thus, failed to provide a permanent and safe home. In re Rylan G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017).

Termination of both parents rights for noncompliance with a permanency plan was proper, as the mother obtained new criminal charges multiple times after the development of the plan and the father failed to complete an alcohol and drug assessment. In re C.J.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, In re Chaz B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) was proper where the mother made little to no progress as to her mental health, drug addiction, or improving the home environment. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2017).

Termination based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was improper where finding was based on the desired outcome and goal of the mother remaining drug-free, rather than her efforts to reach that goal, there were no credibility findings as to her attendance at recovery meetings, and she extended some effort to get counseling. In re Zane W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2017).

For purposes T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2), the tasks included in the father's permanency plans were reasonably related to the conditions that led to the removal of the child and the father's reunification with him. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

For purposes T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2), the requirement that the mother resolve her legal issues was reasonably related to returning her children to her care, and thus this requirement was reasonably related to remedying the conditions that necessitated foster care. In re Quintin S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2017).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated for failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan where he continued to engage, with the mother, in a transient lifestyle, he had been unable to maintain stable housing or employment, and he had been unable to refrain from enabling the mother in her drug use or to maintain his efforts to remove himself and the children from her. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated for failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan where she admitted that she was not engaging in regular treatment for her mental health issues, despite her initial efforts, she did not complete outpatient treatment prior to the hearing on the petition to terminate her parental rights, she continued to incur further criminal charges, and she was unable to maintain employment for any significant length of time. In re Seth B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2017).

Termination of a father's parental rights based on a failure to comply with a permanency plan was appropriate where he had allowed the mother who suffered from substance abuse issues to be in the home with the children prior to their removal, he lived in a hotel that was deemed unsafe and inappropriate for the children, he did not take the recommendations from the mental health assessment seriously, and he refused to stay in contact with the Department of Children's Services. In re L.M.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

Termination of parental rights was appropriate because the parents failed to substantially comply with the permanency plans. Although the parents, after the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, began completing the tasks on the permanency plans–by obtaining housing, obtaining jobs, buying a car, and completing intensive outpatient programs and parenting classes–responsibilities remained unfinished such as counseling and a psychological assessment. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

Mother failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan, which supported termination; the responsibilities established in the permanency plan were reasonable and related to the conditions that led to the removal of the children, yet the mother moved from unsuitable home to unsuitable home, never attained safe housing for the children, and she continued to have employment struggles. In re B.L., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

Requirements that a mother address her substance abuse problems, obtain stable housing, and obtain stable income were reasonable and related to the basis for the removal of the children from her custody because the trial court specifically found that the children came into custody due to the parents'  intoxication and the instability in the home due to domestic violence. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence established that the mother failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan because the mother did not obtain stable housing, attend parenting classes as recommended, or complete a psychological assessment as recommended. The mother also did not appear for the child's assessments or attend meetings regarding the child's care. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the parents'  rights for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because it showed that they failed to maintain and establish a safe and clean home for their children and they failed to provide adequate supervision. At the time of removal, there were significant issues with lice, fleas, bug bites, festering scalp bites, roach infestation, and a significant lack of supervision. In re Mack E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the parents'  rights for persistence of conditions because it showed that after nearly three years and after promising to allow an inspection in the final child and family team meeting the parents failed to allow their home to be inspected by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In addition the parents continued to have a work schedule that necessitates being away from their children in the evenings until the early morning. In re Mack E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Grounds for terminating a mother's parental rights to the mother's child for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan were proven by clear and convincing evidence because the mother did not address the mother's illegal drug use, as the mother failed to follow through with the recommendations of the alcohol and drug assessment, consistently made excuses for the mother's positive drug screens, failed to obtain stable housing, and failed to provide proof of legal, verifiable income. In re Riley W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2018).

Termination for substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in the permanency plan was appropriate where the record amply supported the finding that the plan clearly communicated the mother's responsibilities. In re Veronica T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

Although a mother completed some of the requirements of the permanency plan by the time of trial, the proof showed that the mother made no real effort at compliance until after the petition to terminate her parental rights was filed. Therefore, there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother did not substantially comply with the permanency plan. In re Maya R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because she consistently attended visitation and paid child support, maintained employment, and completed every assessment requested. The mother's inability to achieve the outcome of the plans by either removing the father from her life or ensuring that he remedied his own issues, standing alone, was not fatal to her compliance. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

It was not proven by clear evidence that the father failed to substantially comply with the responsibilities of his permanency plan; although he failed to complete an inpatient rehabilitation program and he did not resume services with a counselor, which requirements might have been important to ensure he adequately addressed his substance abuse problems, he demonstrated sobriety, obtained a sponsor, and completed various classes, and there was no proof that he abused drugs or alcohol in the year leading up to trial. In re Ayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was improper on the ground of substantial noncompliance with her permanency plan, as she completed every requirement under the plan. In re Ayden S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

Termination of mother's rights based on her substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans was established by clear and convincing evidence; she had not substantially complied with her responsibilities under either of the permanency plans, as she had not sought any further drug and alcohol treatment as required, she worked only sporadically, her visitation with the children was not consistent, and her efforts were too little too late. In re Mc, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018).

Trial court's conclusion that the parental failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the parents, in almost two years, had made virtually no progress toward address their issues with domestic violence, mental health, and drug abuse. In re Damon B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements because the mother admitted that other than completing a drug-treatment program and obtaining a mental health evaluation, she made no effort to comply with her permanency plan responsibilities; the evidence was clear and convincing that the requirements of the permanency plan was reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that necessitated foster care. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Trial court properly found that a mother substantially failed to comply with the permanency plans where although the mother completed the functional parenting assessment, took and passed one drug screen, participated in some mental health treatment, and completed some sessions of domestic violence counseling, she failed to fully comply with the recommendations of the parenting assessment, maintain contact with the Separtment of Children's Services (DCS), submit proof of drug treatment other than passing one drug screen, release her mental health records to DCS, take her prescribed medications, refrain from criminal activity, or demonstrate a period of one year with no domestic disputes given her subsequent conviction for domestic violence. In re Chase L., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Termination of the father's rights for substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was proper; in addition to his missed visits, he failed to verify his employment or financial situation to show he was able to provide for the child, he did not seek required counseling for anger management and domestic abuse, and his refused on some months to be drug tested. In re Gabriel B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for noncompliance with the parenting plan was supported by evidence that the mother failed to complete a psychological evaluation. In re McKenzi W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights for substantial noncompliance with her permanency plan was proper; the requirements of the plans were reasonably related to remedying the conditions that caused the children to be removed, the mother continued to live and interact with abusive men and did not have stable housing, she failed to adequately address her mental health issues, and thus she had not been substantially compliant with the requirements of the permanency plan. In re Piper B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights due to substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was proper; it was important that the mother address her mental health needs given the domestic violence she suffered, she failed to maintain stable employment and a residence, and given that previous permanency plans were entered into evidence and evidence was presented regarding the mother's progress, her claim the trial court was unable to ascertain her progress without consideration of the fourth plan lacked merit. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

There was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the father failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan; he admittedly failed to comply with most of the plan's requirements, and while the department did attempt to assist him, the father failed to avail himself of the proffered assistance. In re Charles T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Termination of the mother's rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans was proper; because the conditions of drug use and lack of supervision were the primary problems addressed in the permanency plans, the requirements that the mother pass drug screens and show the ability to properly care for the children were of paramount importance, and she failed to substantially comply with the most necessary requirement of the permanency plan: to be drug free. In re Romeo T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan because the incarcerated father failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan requirements and failed to notify the oversight team of the father's contact with the mother. In addition, the father was incarcerated for a violation of probation and had alcohol related issues. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Termination of mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to substantially comply with a permanency plan was appropriate because, although the plan was reasonable and the mother had the ability to understand the requirements, the mother failed to submit to home visits and engaged in deception to present the appearance of stable housing, inconsistently attended mental health counseling, failed to attend most visits with the children, as well as their medical and dental appointments, and refused or was unavailable for many drug screenings. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services did not provide a father with a reasonable amount of time to comply with the permanency plan requirements. Moreover, the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence to terminate the father's rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan as it was unreasonable to expect the father to comply with the requirements before the final hearing that ratified the plan. In re Nakayia S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 548 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018).

Termination of father's parental rights for failure to comply with a parenting plan was appropriate because the requirements of the plan were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions which necessitated the children's placement in foster care. Further, the father failed to comply with all recommendations from a mental health evaluation and alcohol and drug assessment, incurred new criminal charges, failed to obtain and maintain safe and stable housing, income, and transportation, and failed to pay child support or visit the children. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Trial court erred by terminating the father's parental rights based on his substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan because he established paternity, participated in the plan, provided DCS with releases and reliable methods of contact, completed a parenting assessment, used in-home services, and permitted walkthroughs of his home. In re Natascha B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to a minor child based upon a finding of substantial noncompliance by the father with a permanency plan because, although the father attending various programs while incarcerated, the father failed to complete the most important aspects of the plan, namely following the recommendations from an assessment and establishing safe and stable housing. The father also had yet to remit child support. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Father was substantially noncompliant with his responsibilities under the permanency plans; two plans were developed before the department filed the termination petition, yet the father completed nothing under the plans, he had not visited the children for at least 17 months, and he did not provide the department with proof of legal income or suitable housing. In re Gaberiel S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

There was ample testimony from witnesses to support the specific findings, as well as the significance of the mother's failure to comply with the permanency plans, and the record contained evidence that clearly and convincingly established her substantial noncompliance with the plans. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Notwithstanding the failure of the trial court to make a specific finding of the reasonableness of the mother's responsibilities as part of the order of termination, the court reviewed the issue de novo and found that the requirements of the plan were reasonably related to remedying conditions that necessitated the child placement agency's involvement, particularly those responsibilities that addressed the mother's lack of income and the stability necessary to provide a home for herself and four children, all with special needs. In re Antonio J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

Mother failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan, which were reasonably related to remedying the conditions that warranted foster care for the children; although the mother did complete an alcohol and drug assessment, she failed to follow any of the recommendations, nor did she obtain appropriate housing, pay child support, or maintain visitation. In re Gabriella H., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).

Trial court's finding that the mother's post-petition efforts to comply with the permanency plan were late was supported by the evidence, which showed that the mother waited almost two years after the termination petition was filed to address the conditions that prevented reunification. In re Serenity W., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the parental rights of both parents on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan because the plan was reasonable and related to the substance abuse and legal issues that necessitated foster care. The mother did not continue the mother's outpatient therapy, while the father repeatedly violated the father's probation requirements, and neither parent made any progress in demonstrating appropriate parenting despite instruction or paid any child support. In re Julian J., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2019).

While the father had executed releases for background checks, termination of his parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan was based on his failure to complete the other requirements including maintaining housing, income, and transportation, obtaining a mental health assessment, and obtaining a parenting assessment. In re Keagan P., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2019).

Permanency plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that prevent reunification of the family, and the evidence showed that the mother failed to substantially comply with the plan requirements; she waited six months to start working on her responsibilities and made very little progress until August 2018, but she quickly relapsed, thus triggering the requirement to obtain another alcohol and drug assessment. She never completed a second assessment, withdrew from the drug treatment program, and remained homeless. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

Evidence was clear and convincing that the mother failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan requirements as she had not completed alcohol, drug, or mental health treatment, appropriate housing remained an issue, she lacked the ability to care for the child, and she failed to maintain regular visitation. In re Emma S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Mother had not substantially complied with permanency plans where the evidence showed, inter alia, that the mother missed a substantial number of visits and counseling sessions and continued to allow people into her home who actively used drugs even after the termination petition was filed. In re Jadarian C., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2020).

Substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan could not serve as a ground to terminate the father's parental rights because the child was never placed in the Department of Children's Services's (DCS) custody, the record contained no permanency plans created by the DCS, and the father had no stated responsibilities under a properly created permanency plan. In re Zaylee W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of the parents'  rights based on substantial noncompliance with permanency plans because the mother met very few of the plan requirements and only appeared to take the requirements seriously as the trial approached, and due to his repeated incarcerations, the father completed none of the requirements of the permanency plans. In re Boston G., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

26. Reasonable Efforts.

In a parental rights termination case, the mother failed to comply with the state's reasonable efforts where the mother continued to use illegal drugs, she refused to seek drug treatment, she stopped attending psychological counseling, and she moved frequently, sometimes remaining homeless for months at a time. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., 200 S.W.3d 184, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 2006), appeal denied, In re D.J.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. 2006).

Court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because the State failed to provide reasonable efforts at rehabilitation; the case manager conceded that no effort was made to communicate with the father in writing, and his third case manager admitted that she had only one face-to-face meeting with the father that occurred when he was incarcerated in the workhouse. On that occasion, the case manager admitted that she failed to provide the father with the written notice of the meeting that she had provided the mother earlier that same day and that she did not offer to make arrangements to provide him services at that time. In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. May 29, 2007).

Court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights because the state failed to provide reasonable efforts at rehabilitation; the case manager conceded that she never attempted to communicate with the mother in writing and that she never had any follow-up conversations with the mother about helping her obtain rehabilitative services. In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. May 29, 2007).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because the Department of Children's Services (DCS) was required to make reasonable efforts to assist the father in reunification even when the ground alleged was abandonment by wanton disregard and the trial court made no findings regarding whether DCS exercised reasonable efforts to assist the father. In re Kaliyah S., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2014), rev'd, 455 S.W.3d 533, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the Department of Children's Services (DCS) made reasonable efforts to reunite parents with their eight-month-old child because there was evidence specifically identifying the requirements of the permanency plans and DCS referrals, including potential employers, mental health services, anger management, marriage counseling, but, at the time of trial, the parents had not, with one exception completed any required classes. In re Jaden W., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Mar. 25, 2015).

Because the question of whether the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist the father remained only one of the factors considered by the trial court in its best-interest analysis, and the father did not challenge the determination that termination of his parental rights was in the child best interest, that issue was waived, and termination of his parental rights was proper. In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2015).

In a termination proceeding, the extent of the efforts made by the State to reunify the parent and child is weighed in the court's best-interest analysis, but the State need not prove that it made reasonable efforts as an essential component of its petition to terminate parental rights; In re C.M.M., 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160, and its progeny are overruled to the extent that those cases require the State to prove reasonable efforts as an essential component of the termination petition. In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2015).

Given case law, the reasonableness of the department's efforts was addressed in the best interest analysis. In re Agustine R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015).

Evidence supported the finding that the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to reunify a mother and a father with their two children because, inter alia: (1) case managers and service providers provided in-depth, hands-on instruction to the parents, both of whom had intellectual limitations; (2) the parents were simply unable to retain information; and (3) the parents often missed opportunities for further instructions by failing to consistently visit with the children. In re Aisha R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015).

Children's case worker testified that the department paid for homemaker services, clinical assessment, and pest control, plus, in part, provided gas cards and transportation to attend the children's appointments; there was clear proof that the department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother, who failed to avail herself of these opportunities. In re Jasmine B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights for abandonment was proper because the mother did not utilize assistance offered to correct conditions leading to a loss of the mother's children's custody. In re Casey C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 966 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2017).

In a termination of parental rights case, the judgment was modified to remove the reasonable efforts by available social services agencies as a factor supporting the best interest determination as there was no proof of involvement by any social service agency in the case. In re Lydia N.-S., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2) was appropriate where the mother had not completed any tasks set out in the permanency plan, including participation in drug treatment and in-home homemaking services. In re Michael B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2017).

Juvenile court erred in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to meet its burden of proof on the question of reasonable efforts in that the appellate court was not able to determine from the testimony of a caseworker when the assistance was actually provided and whether the assistance was rendered within the four-month period following removal or some time thereafter. In re Isabella G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017).

In connection with the termination ground of lack of a suitable home, the department's efforts were found to be reasonable given the circumstances of the case, and thus the termination judgment was not disturbed on the basis of an alleged lack of reasonable efforts by the department. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) made significant efforts to assist a mother because it provided or referred parenting classes, mental-health counseling for the parents, and A&D counseling; the mother failed to complete a drug screen or provide proof of her attendance at her inpatient treatment program or any follow-up care, and she simply did not avail herself of the help DCS provided her to reunify the family. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

Evidence amounted to clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of a mother's parental rights based on failing to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child because an expert psychologist testified that placing the child in the mother's legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

In ordering the child's removal from the mother's custody, the trial court found that the Department of Children's Services was not required to exert reasonable efforts to prevent the child's removal from the home at that time due to the emergency nature of the circumstances; however, in order to satisfy the abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home ground for termination, the department was required to make reasonable efforts to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home. In re Alexis C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).

Department of Children's Services put forth reasonable efforts to help the mother, by offering referrals for housing and drug treatment, including programs that would have allowed her to take her children with her, plus mental health treatment was also available to her, although her attendance was inconsistent; while the mother claimed she could not attend due to a lack of transportation, department employees testified that if asked, they would have taken the mother to at least some of her appointments. In re Briana H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018).

While the services offered by the Department of Children's Services (DCS) were not herculean, DCS make reasonable efforts to assist the parents with reunification, including providing funding for the mother's mental health, alcohol and drug, and parenting assessments, offering to drive the mother to treatment, finding a grant for the mother to obtain treatment, attempting to reach the father to help him despite his failure to engage with DCS, and scheduling a clinical mental health assessment, including a drug and alcohol component, for the father while he was incarcerated. In re Joshua S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2019).

27. Appellate Review.

Trial court considered affidavits and, the appellate court assumed, testimony regarding whether the mother had refused to allow the father access to their child, and whether she had refused to allow the father to know the child's whereabouts; the trial court determined the proof did not support a finding of willful abandonment, and in the absence of a trial transcript or statement of the evidence on the part of the mother, the appellate court conclusively presumed the findings of the trial court were correct. In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d 890, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re Adoption of M.L.D., — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 779 (Tenn. Sept. 12, 2005).

Statute of repose under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(q) did not deprive the instant court of jurisdiction to review a termination of parental rights; because the one-year limitation under § 36-1-113(q) did not begin to run until the entry of a final order, the language used in the statute did not indicate an intent to affect a parent's ability to timely pursue a direct appeal. In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2007), rehearing denied, 215 S.W.3d 793, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (Tenn. 2007), cert. denied, Baker v. Shao-Qiang He, — U.S.—, — S. Ct. —, — L. Ed. 2d —, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8357 (U.S. June 25, 2007).

In actions for the termination of parental rights, the appellate court reviews findings of fact by the trial court de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

Mother's motion to set aside an order terminating her parental rights was not barred by the doctrine of laches, despite the mother's absence from the lives of her children for more than 10 years, because the father failed to make diligent efforts to locate the mother before resorting to service by publication, and, as a result, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction prior to terminating the mother's parental rights. Turner v. Turner, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 473 S.W.3d 257, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 831 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2015).

Danger of unnecessary remand in termination cases is largely eliminated where the issue cannot be raised by the parties in any future appeal, but the danger of unnecessary remand cannot be completely eliminated because the Tennessee Supreme Court possesses the same discretion to consider issues not raised on appeal; in this termination case, the court exercised its discretion to review all statutory grounds for the termination of the father's parental rights. In re Bonnie L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

While the father did not raise challenges to certain termination grounds, due to the fundamental constitutional interest involved, these grounds were addressed on appeal. In re Aaliyah E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Apr. 22, 2016).

One ground for termination was vacated; however, because only one ground for termination must exist in order to terminate parental rights, the other grounds asserted were considered. In re Saliace P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).

In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, the Tennessee 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, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Tennessee Supreme Court's refusal to allow parents to repeatedly challenge orders terminating their rights through ineffectiveness claims does not at all negate the ethical obligations all lawyers have to provide competent representation to a client; these ethical obligations apply in all cases, including civil cases and other quasi-criminal cases. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Although two of the three statutory grounds relied on by the trial court in terminating the mother's parental rights were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, only one ground had to be proven and the court proceeded to the best interests analysis. In re Destiny S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2016).

Evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the mother paid no support during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, and the issue of whether the failure to support was willful was reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness. In re Envy J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 944 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2016).

No Tennessee Court has ever held that the appellate court must consider whether the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence of severe abuse in an appeal from a dependency and neglect proceeding in spite of the parents'  failure to properly brief the issue; the court does not interpret a termination of parental rights opinion as requiring review of the severe abuse finding at issue in this neglect case. In re Tamera W., 515 S.W.3d 860, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Feb. 8, 2017).

Although the trial court erred in relying on the persistent of conditions to terminate the mother's rights, because the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support and visit were proper, the termination ruling was affirmed. In re Charles A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2017).

Mother's appellate brief was deficient because it never mentioned which grounds for termination of parental rights were involved or the best interest factors the trial court relied upon, and the mother cited no caselaw and provided no citations to the record; the court of appeals was obligated to perform a de novo review, although the mother's disregard for the rules did not further the goal of concluding parental termination litigation as rapidly as possible consistent with fairness. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

Request for attorney fees was denied; although only one ground was necessary to support termination of parental rights and one was established, it could not be said that the father's argument regarding the best interest of the child was so utterly devoid of merit as to have been frivolous. In re Kylea K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2018).

Permanence of the child was not materially affected by the delay caused by the failure to file a timely notice of appeal and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 procedure, and thus the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mother's motion; in light of Tennessee's policy of expediting appeals of termination cases and the fact that the parties fully briefed the substantive merits of this appeal, the court considered the case as if the trial court had entered a new order. In re Raylan W., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020).

28. Termination Proper.

Clear and convincing evidence of severe abuse and the persistence of conditions existed for terminating parental rights where evidence overwhelmingly showed that one child was forced to eat his meals away from the rest of the family and had been dangled from a second story window, a day care worker observed mother beating the younger children with a stick while she cursed and screamed at them, younger children were severely developmentally delayed and parents refused to acknowledge children's problems or parents' shortcomings as parents. In re M.W.A., 980 S.W.2d 620, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

The requirements for termination of parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) were not met where, following initial placement of children in foster care, parent attended therapy on a consistent basis, attended parenting classes, learned coping abilities for stressful situations, became involved in a stable relationship, and demonstrated a strong bond with the children. Stokes v. Arnold, 27 S.W.3d 516, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and was in the best interests of the children who faced significant problems that were the result of deficiencies in the mother's ability to provide them with proper parenting. Removing the children from her care and custody presented the children with their best chance at healthy and productive lives. In re C.D.B., 37 S.W.3d 925, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), cert. denied, Bagwell v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 533 U.S. 921, 121 S. Ct. 2532, 150 L. Ed. 2d 703, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4616 (2001).

Termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's mental condition rendered the parent incompetent to adequately provide for children, and that condition was unlikely to be remedied at an early date, and termination was in the children's best interests because the parent made no lasting adjustment and had no meaningful relationship with the children. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Bates, 84 S.W.3d 186, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to all three of the statutory criteria found in T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), and further found that termination of mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interest, due to the mother's cocaine addiction and the child's disability. In re A.D.A, 84 S.W.3d 592, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

In a case where the mother refused to take the medicine prescribed to treat her mental illness, the taking of which was a condition of the mother's permanency plan, the best interests of the mother's two minor children would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights. In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Court's termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests based on the factors of the mother's unemployment, inadequate financial and residential resources, history of past neglect, and stipulated mental concerns. In re S.Y., 121 S.W.3d 358, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated where such other conditions existed so as to create a reasonable probability of continued neglect where the mother lived in a two bedroom home with several other children and the crowded conditions would have worsened if the children were returned to her care. In re S.Y., 121 S.W.3d 358, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Termination was in the best interest of the children and clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate parental rights where the children had been sexually abused by their father's male relatives, they had been in DCS custody at least three times, the conditions under which the children had been removed from their parents' custody still existed and were unlikely to be remedied, and the parents were unable to care for their children due to mental limitations. M.L.J. v. Johnson, 121 S.W.3d 378, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Termination of an imprisoned father's parental rights was proper and in the children's best interests where the children were born as a result of incest between the father and his stepdaughter, the father was going to remain in jail for another 20 months, and the father had a long history of violence against family members and drug and alcohol abuse. In re H.E.J., 124 S.W.3d 110, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Beard v. Ass'n for Guidance, Aid, Placement and Empathy, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1180 (Tenn. 2003).

Court properly terminated a mother's parental rights where she did not remedy persistent conditions because the children had been in the care of the state for more than six years, the mother had not terminated her relationship with her boyfriend, and the mother had moved 13 times since placing the children in state custody. These were all persistent conditions likely to continue and to put the children in danger of further abuse or neglect. State v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), 124 S.W.3d 609, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, State Dep't of Child's Servs. v. Stewart (In re L.J.C.), — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1288 (Tenn. 2003).

Juvenile court's decision to terminate the parental rights of an incarcerated father who maintained no visitation or phone contact with his minor child was supported by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Butler, 126 S.W.3d 522, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 618 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Butler, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1293 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2003).

Permanency plans did not address a drug use by the father, and there was nothing in the record indicating that the father was informed that his continued cohabitation with the mother, a cocaine addict, would result in the termination of his parental rights; it was unclear whether there was sufficient evidence to show that persistent conditions existed under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) with respect to the father. State v. Calabretta (In re J.J.C.), 148 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.J.C., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. May 10, 2004).

Provision regarding parent's incarceration under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g) manifested an intent that there had to be proof that the parent was incarcerated under a sentence of at least ten years before the mere fact of incarceration would constitute grounds for termination of parental rights; the order terminating her parental rights to the extent that it was based upon that authority was reversed. State v. C.H.K., 154 S.W.3d 586, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.W.P., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 937 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

There was overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination of the parental rights of a mother who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and was “polysubstance” dependant; because of persistent conditions, as she continued to abuse drugs, she remained mentally incompetent to provide care and supervision for the child, she made little effort to address her polysubstance abuse or mental illness, and she did not comply with any requirements of permanency plans. In re S.R.C., 156 S.W.3d 26, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1042 (Tenn. Nov. 22, 2004).

Court properly terminated parental rights on the ground of “persistent conditions” where the mother engaged in abusive behavior towards the children, and at the time of trial, the mother had not adequately remedied her anger management problems. In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2005).

Trial court did not err in terminating an incarcerated father's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6) because he lived in prison, he continued to use illegal drugs, he had amassed 14 disciplinary violations while incarcerated and decided to conceive a child at time when he knew he was facing almost certain conviction for a heinous crime and would therefore most likely be unavailable to support or care for the child for a large portion of the child's early life. In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, In re S.A.M., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. 2006).

Where children were in the custody of the Tennessee department of children's service well over the six months required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3), and the special judge concluded that the mother remained addicted to drugs, the trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights; there was clear and convincing evidence establishing that the conditions that caused the children to come into custody still persisted. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. A.M.H., 198 S.W.3d 757, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. June 5, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. 2006).

In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the mother failed to comply with her responsibilities under the permanency plan requiring her to complete an alcohol and drug assessment, maintain appropriate, drug-free housing, participate in a parenting assessment and attend parenting classes, and maintain financial stability by cooperating with public assistance programs and acquiring and maintaining employment for a minimum of six months. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. A.M.H., 198 S.W.3d 757, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. June 5, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. 2006).

Where the mother's children were in the custody of the Tennessee department of children's services well over the six months required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A), the special judge concluded that the mother remained addicted to drugs; thus, mother's parental rights were terminated under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) because clear and convincing evidence established that the conditions that caused the children to come into custody still persisted. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. A.M.H., 198 S.W.3d 757, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re A. B., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 543 (Tenn. June 5, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 537 (Tenn. 2006).

Record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of the parents'  rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) based on persistence of conditions; the record contained clear and convincing evidence of approximately seven years of abuse and neglect, and most of the same problems reported in 1998 still existed in October 2004: (1) The parents expected their older daughters to care for their younger siblings; (2) The parents continued to be angry with each other and engaged in violent arguments in their children's presence; (3) They continued to use inappropriately severe corporal punishment on their children; and (4) They continued to ignore their children's education. The record also contained the testimony of Tennessee department of children's services'  employees and other service providers demonstrating the department's almost continual efforts over three years to assist the parents in creating a home environment that would enable the safe reunification of the family. In re Giorgianna H., 205 S.W.3d 508, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of the parents'  rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) based on the parents'  sexual abuse of three of their daughters. This evidence included the testimony of a therapist, who recounted two children's statements describing the grossly inappropriate sexual activities in which both parents forced them and their sister to participate; the evidence was corroborated by the two children at trial. In re Giorgianna H., 205 S.W.3d 508, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Court erred in finding that the parents, in a complex, extended dependency and neglect case, were not indigent and finding their seven children dependent and neglected and that the parents had committed severe child abuse; that finding could have led to termination of parental rights and the parents clearly had a right to appointed counsel if they were indigent. The parents were entitled to a thorough hearing in compliance with T.C.A. § 40-14-202 to determine if they were indigent and thus, entitled to appointed counsel under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13(d)(2)(B). Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. David H., 247 S.W.3d 651, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2006).

Court properly terminated a mother's parental rights where the children had been removed from the mother for a period of well over six months, the conditions which led to the removal still persisted, there was little likelihood that those conditions would be remedied at an early date, and the continuation of the relationship between the mother and the children greatly diminished the children's chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home. The mother failed to maintain any stability in housing or employment, and she continued to use illegal drugs and refused to acknowledge that her drug use was a problem. Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., 200 S.W.3d 184, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. S.M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 2006), appeal denied, In re D.J.D., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. 2006).

Termination of parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6) and (i) was affirmed because prior to the child's birth, the father began serving a ten-year prison sentence for felony possession of cocaine and possession with intent to sell, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child; the statute was silent as to the possibility of parole, and the appellate court declined to read any intent on the part of the Tennessee legislature to account for a mere possibility of early discharge from prison. Fisher v. Young (In re K.B.H.), 206 S.W.3d 80, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, In re Adoption of K. B. H., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 638( Tenn. 2006).

State established by clear and convincing evidence that conditions persisted that prevented the children's safe return to their mother at an early date under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) because, inter alia: (1) It was undisputed that at the time of trial the mother was still living with her boyfriend, who had sexually abused the children, was financially dependent on him, and had no intention of severing her relationship with him; (2) Continuing the children's relationship with their mother would greatly diminish the children's chances of integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home; and (3) The mother refused to acknowledge and properly address her children's allegations of abuse. R.M.S. v. Orange, 223 S.W.3d 240, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 823 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Orange (In re R.M.S.), — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. 2007).

Termination of a father's parental rights was proper because the child was six years old when the father was sentenced, if he served his entire sentence she would be twenty-four when he was released, he had never been the child's caretaker, she did not know him, and there was no reason to believe that the father would be able to establish a meaningful relationship with his daughter during the remainder of his incarceration; therefore, termination was in the child's best interests. In re M.L.P., 228 S.W.3d 139, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2007), appeal denied, In re M.L.P. v. Ramone, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 441 (Tenn. Apr. 30, 2007).

Court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because the State failed to provide reasonable efforts at rehabilitation; the case manager conceded that no effort was made to communicate with the father in writing, and his third case manager admitted that she had only one face-to-face meeting with the father that occurred when he was incarcerated in the workhouse. On that occasion, the case manager admitted that she failed to provide the father with the written notice of the meeting that she had provided the mother earlier that same day and that she did not offer to make arrangements to provide him services at that time. In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. May 29, 2007).

Court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights because the state failed to provide reasonable efforts at rehabilitation; the case manager conceded that she never attempted to communicate with the mother in writing and that she never had any follow-up conversations with the mother about helping her obtain rehabilitative services. In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007), appeal denied, In re T. B., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. May 29, 2007).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) and (i), because the evidence did not preponderate against the findings that the conditions that led to the child's removal from the mother's home still persisted, and that other conditions persisted which in all probability would have caused the child to be subjected to further abuse and neglect; a home visit revealed a continuation of conditions that were unsanitary and unsafe for the child, the mother had taken an order of protection out against an ex-boyfriend, and the mother had received numerous services but failed to show that she changed. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. B.J.N., 242 S.W.3d 491, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2007).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated on the basis that she failed to substantially comply with her permanency plans because in addition to the mother's failure to lead a drug free lifestyle, she failed to participate in therapy sessions to prepare her to care for two children who both suffered from ongoing medical problems that required extraordinary attention; a case worker testified that it was arranged for the mother to participate in classes, but the service was discontinued because of the mother's noncompliance. In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 741 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007), appeal denied, In re J. C. D., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated on the basis that the children had been removed from the home for a period of six months, the conditions that led to the children's removal persisted, and there was little likelihood the conditions would be remedied at an early date given the mother's history of relapse. In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 741 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007), appeal denied, In re J. C. D., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008).

Termination of the father's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(5) was proper because he was convicted of aggravated sexual battery of one of his children for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In re R.L.F., 278 S.W.3d 305, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 788 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2008).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated on the ground of persistent conditions because at the time this child was removed, the grandmother, who was the custodian of the child at the time, was in jail; mother was in jail, and an aunt who had physical custody of the child but not legal custody was arrested for DUI. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. V.N., 279 S.W.3d 306, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal denied, State v. V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2009).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated for failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan because she failed to follow through with recommendations of the psychological assessment, failed to attend AA or NA meetings, failed to obtain a job, failed to exercise the majority of the visitations offered to her, failed to keep in touch with the state, and continued to engage in illegal activities. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. V.N., 279 S.W.3d 306, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal denied, State v. V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2009).

Termination of father's parental rights was proper under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(6) because: (1) He committed a crime and was confined to a correctional facility for 10 or more years and the child was under eight years old when the sentence was imposed; (2) It was unknown when father would be released from prison or when he would be able to care for the child; (3) Father did not maintain regular contact with the child; (4) Child was doing very well in the care of her great-grandmother, and a change of caretakers could have a negative impact on the child's life; (5) Great-grandmother's home was a healthy and safe home for the child; (6) Great-grandmother had a very active role in the child's life; and (7) It was in the child's best interests under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i). In re T.M.G., 283 S.W.3d 318, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 713 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2009).

Termination of the putative father's rights to a fifth child was appropriate under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(vi) because the Department of Children's Services (DCS) made reasonable efforts to assist him with regard to the responsibilities and goals in his permanency plans and the efforts on the part of the DCS passed muster with regard to the grounds for termination to four other children under § 36-1-113(g)(2)-(3). Likewise, the efforts of the DCS were thus sufficient for the purpose of § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(vi). In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 683 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

Termination of the putative father's rights to four children was appropriate under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(2)-(3) because the conditions that required the removal of the children continued without substantial change and there was little likelihood that they would be remedied at an early date; the Department of Children's Services had been providing services and support to the putative father for almost four years. The responsibilities and goals in the putative father's permanency plans were reasonable and he failed to comply substantially with many of those goals. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 683 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

Judgment terminating the parental rights of the parents was affirmed where: (1) the department of children's services made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in establishing a suitable home but the parents had not made reasonable efforts to establish the home; (2) the father refused to believe there was any abuse by the mother, despite her guilty plea, the marks and bruises on the children, and the children's testimony; and (3) it was in the children's best interest for termination. Kayla M.A. v. R.L.A. (In re Corey N.A.), — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2010).

Termination of the father's parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and (g)(6) was appropriate, in part because the grounds did not require reasonable efforts on the part of the Department of Children's Services or a previous finding of dependency and neglect. In re Arteria H., 326 S.W.3d 167, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2010).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) was appropriate because some of the conditions which led to the child's removal continued to persist. In part, the mother admitted that she had not been employed since 2007; she did not have stable housing and was essentially vagrant; efforts to help and assist the mother were ineffective; and testimony indicated that the mother was unable to meet the child's basic needs. In re Arteria H., 326 S.W.3d 167, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2010).

Termination of the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support was proper pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 36-1-113(g)(1) because the mother's contacts with the child during the pertinent four-month period were of such an infrequent nature or of such short duration as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact with the child under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(C). Therefore, the mother engaged in merely token visitation during the four-month period preceding the filing of the termination petition. Stephen v. Christy C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010), appeal denied, In re Keri C., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

There was no merit to a father's claim in a parental rights termination proceeding pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4) that it was error to grant the social service agency's petition because it was filed shortly after it entered into permanency plans that included the goal of reunification, as there was no prior order of abuse by the father, termination was based on multiple instances of abuse, and reliance on case precedents to the contrary was unavailing. In re Keara J., 376 S.W.3d 86, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of a mother's parental rights over her child based on abuse pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4), as she failed to disclose her HIV status to medical providers, which subjected the child to “severe abuse” under T.C.A. § 37-1-102. In re Keara J., 376 S.W.3d 86, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of a mother and father's parental rights over their child based on abuse pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(4), as they failed to meet her basic nutritional and physical needs, which resulted in her suffering damage; such conduct constituted “severe abuse” under T.C.A. § 37-1-102. In re Keara J., 376 S.W.3d 86, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Prior order suspending the father's visitation rights did not preclude a finding that the father willfully failed to visit the children, and a preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that the father willfully failed to visit his children between July 2003 and July 2005 since although the father filed a petition to reinstate his visitation rights, he took no action to advance the petition, and the father had no reasonable excuse for failing to pursue the petition to reinstate visitation during those two years; therefore, the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of the father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment based on willful failure to visit under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and T.C.A. § 36-1-102. Because the trial court did not reach the issue of whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, the court remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c). In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2013).

Mother's parental rights were properly terminated based on finding that the mother failed to make an adjustment of circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it safe and in the children's best interest to be in her home, the mother was likely to have a detrimental effect on the child's emotional, psychological, and medical condition, the mother had not paid child support or a reasonable portion of the children's substitute physical care and maintenance, and the child disclosed she was sexually abused by the mother. In re Kayla E., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2015).

Evidence clearly and convincingly proved the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support and persistence of conditions, and termination was in the children's best interest, and thus the termination order was affirmed. In re Olivia C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2015).

Trial court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights because the evidence did not preponderate against its finding that the father abandoned the children by failing to support them in the four months before he went to prison. In re S.C.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment by conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children because the father had been absent for all but the first few months of the children's lives, and in the four months before his date of incarceration, he worked but paid nothing for the support of the children. In re S.C.M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated a the mother's parental rights because, inter alia, she substantially failed to comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, abandoned the child by failing to visit and support her, the mother's unkept promises to the child caused her to regress and continue her cycle of self-harm, and the child was ready for adoption and needed a level of care that the mother could not provide. In re Miracle F. H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2015).

Termination of a parent's parental rights to a minor child was appropriate because the parent willfully failed to contact, visit, or support the child during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition in spite of the parent's assertion that the parent's right to visitation was restrained by a prospective adoptive parent and that the parent counter-petitioned to establish a parenting schedule. In re Jarett M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that grounds existed to terminate parents'  parental rights to their child and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate the parents'  parental rights because (1) the parents'  repeated drug abuse and ongoing pattern of incurring criminal charges and incarceration, failure to support the child, and token visits with the child demonstrated their inability to parent the child; and (2) the child was in pre-adoptive foster care. In re Autumn L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights based on the ground of abandonment by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother's previous failure to address her substance abuse issues and her ongoing criminal behavior and probation violations prior to her most recent incarceration demonstrated a broad pattern of conduct that had rendered her unfit to care for the child. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

It was not necessary for the grandparents to prove that the child was in immediate risk of substantial harm due to mother's substance abuse in order to prevail on the statutory termination ground of wanton disregard for the child's welfare exhibited prior to incarceration; it was sufficient that the mother's conduct that resulted in her incarceration rendered her an unfit parent. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Trial court properly terminated the mother's parental rights based on the ground of abandonment by engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child; the mother's previous failure to address her substance abuse issues and her ongoing criminal behavior and probation violations prior to her most recent incarceration demonstrated a broad pattern of conduct that had rendered her unfit to care for the child. In re Kayden H., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015).

Evidence that the mother continued to engage in criminal behavior resulting in her incarceration, failed to find and keep steady employment, and failed to demonstrate the desire to create a safe, suitable home for the child supported the trial court's finding that the mother abandoned the child by failure to provide a suitable home. In re Mason M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Mother abandoned her child through her failure to abide by the law and thus avoid incarceration and her failure to pay support. In re Mason M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported terminating an incarcerated father's parental rights on grounds of failure to manifest the ability and willingness to assume custody, risk of substantial harm, and failure to establish paternity because, inter alia, the father never wrote or called the child, never paid support, did not seek to establish paternity within 30 days after notice of his alleged paternity, and had no relationship with the child; termination was in the child's best interest. In re Serenity L., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).

Evidence did not preponderate against the finding with respect to the suitable home issue; despite reasonable assistance, the mother failed to find housing for approximately two years after the state removed her children from her home, which showed a lack of concern for her children to such a degree that it was unlikely she would be able to maintain a suitable home, and termination was proper. In re L.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the mother was an incompetent parent under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B)(i) (2014) given the testimony of a psychological examiner that the mother had adult antisocial behavior, a personality disorder, she was of borderline intellectual functioning with an IQ in the 70s, and she had a poor prognosis for treatment and changing her criminal behavior in the near future. In re Brittany D., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2015).

Termination of a father's parental rights based upon persistent conditions was proper because the condition that led to removal from custody was illegal drug abuse, the father was provided numerous opportunities to complete drug treatment programs and failed to do so, and the father admitted that his drug use escalated during the time his mother was diagnosed with cancer and before she died. In re Thomas T., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015).

Clear and convincing evidence existed to prove the ground of persistent conditions to terminate a father's parental rights to a child where the evidence showed that the father had a pattern of instability and criminal activity, and he failed to establish an ability to care for the child's serious medical condition. In re Analilia R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2016).

Finding of failure to provide a suitable home was supported by evidence that the mother had been living with the grandmother in a one-bedroom apartment that was too small, smelled of body odor and cat feces, and was infested with roaches, and the mother's signing a new lease the day of the trial court's decision was too late. In re M.A.P., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan was supported by evidence that he failed to resolve his drug abuse, failed to provide the Department of Children's Services with proof of legal income, did not provide proof of a stable home, and incurred new criminal charges and was incarcerated for extended periods during the case. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights for abandonment due to failure to visit was supported by evidence that he made no attempts to restore visitation for more than seven months after the child's mother died, supporting a finding his failure was willful. In re Riley C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2016).

Father's parental rights were properly terminated due to his wanton disregard for the welfare of his children since the father was involved in criminal behavior, he almost immediately violated his probation, and he committed domestic violence against his pregnant wife; moreover, the father was in substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan because he did not provide proof of housing or a legal means of income, he did not arrange a psychological evaluation or set up a drug and alcohol assessment, and he did not visit his children. Termination was in the best interest of the children based on the father's history of drugs and violence and the fact that the children were doing well in foster care. In re Lilly C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights for persistent conditions where the child had been removed for the mother's home due to environmental neglect and residential instability, the mother's inability to provide a safe and stable home for the child still persisted, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that it would be remedied in the near future. In re Candace J., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).

Termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest where he had been removed from the home due to the parents'  drug us and his exposure to drug labs in the home, he had spent most of his life in foster care, the parents had made only token visits, the father had not corrected his drug use, and the child was thriving in foster care. In re Matthew T., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2016).

Termination of father's parental rights was supported by evidence father failed to pay child support, failed to avoid criminal activity, was incarcerated, lacked a suitable home for the child, and lacked legal source of income, all of which also supported a finding that termination was in the child's best interest. In re J.M.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment where it showed that he was incarcerated on December 31, 2011 and remained incarcerated when the petition to terminate his parental rights was filed, and he made only one child support payment in 2011. In re Jacqueline G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the mother's parental rights to the child on the ground of severe abuse by prior order, given that the child was the half-sibling of a child found by prior order to have been severely abused by the mother, and that order was not appealed and was final. In re Zachariah G., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2016).

Termination of the parents'  rights on the ground of persistence of conditions and substantial noncompliance with permanency plans was supported by evidence that the work on the parents'  home which needed to be done before the children were returned was not completed and the parents had not completed the recommendations of their assessments or actively participated in services or therapy. In re Dustin L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions, was supported by evidence that he had over five years to understand the children's issues, avail himself of the services offered by the Department of Children's Services in order to obtain and maintain suitable housing, and demonstrate the ability to effectively parent all three children and prevent them from harming themselves or others, but failed to do so. In re Dakota H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2016).

Juvenile court did not err in terminating the father's parental rights after the father received a 12-year sentence one month before the child was born, and termination was found to be in the child's best interest given that the child was in a pre-adoptive foster home and doing well, had never met the father and had no relationship with the father whatsoever, and even if released early, the father would need time before he could possibly be in a position to assume custody of the child. In re Knox C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2016).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother abandoned the mother's children as the mother merely made token visits to the children in the four months before the mother's incarceration and engaged in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the children's welfare, failed to provide a suitable home, and failed to correct persistent conditions. Moreover, termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests as the foster parents wished to adopt the children. In re Jakob O., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Trial court did not err in terminating the parental rights of a mother because there was clear and convincing evidence of the mother's wanton disregard for the child's welfare prior to incarceration; by taking explicit photographs of the child and sending them to a known sex offender, the mother placed the child in danger. In re G.L., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 993 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper as she was not in substantial compliance with the permanency plans, she was mentally incompetent to properly care for the child, and the conditions which precipitated the child's removal still persisted because she failed to make a single payment on her utility bill since 2013, failed to obtain adequate housing, waited until a couple of weeks before trial to begin attending case management services, failed to maintain employment, and denied having mental health issues; and the child was removed from the mother's custody due to educational neglect as she refused to accept responsibility for not sending the child to school for over 100 days. In re Marterrio H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2017).

Termination of the father's parental rights based on the father's incarceration for over 10 years and the young age of the child was proper, because the father was serving an 11-year prison sentence that he received when the child was 20 months old and termination was in the child's best interest, as the child believed her aunt and uncle were her parents and had no memory of the father. In re Brianna B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 805 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2017).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was appropriate because the mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or responsibility of the mother's children and placing the children in the mother's care would have posed a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the children given the mother's housing situation and associations with individuals who had histories of violence and drug use. In re M.E.N.J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017).

Ground of failure to legitimate after 30 days'  notice was proven by clear and convincing evidence where his incarceration, although undeniably imposing hardships, did not excuse him from making at least some attempt to legitimate his child. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Ground of risk of substantial harm to the psychological welfare of the child should she be placed in the father's custody was proven by clear and convincing evidence where testimony in the record established the strong bond between the child and her foster family, and the father did not dispute this. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Juvenile court did not err in finding the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child where the father only occasionally gave the child minor gifts and engaged in highly limited visitation. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Juvenile court did not err in finding the ground of failure to seek reasonable visitation with the child where the father had not pursued the available lines of communication to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Evidence that the children had been in state custody for over three years, the mother had been living at a woman's shelter, the mother was not actively being treated for her mental health issues, and the mother had not sought treatment for the rheumatoid arthritis that kept her from working supported termination of her parental rights based on abandonment due to failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions. In re Nashay B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2018).

Department of Children's Services proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children because at the time of trial both were incarcerated and lacked the ability to assume custody of the children, and each parent had knowingly engaged in repeated criminal conduct that necessitated their re-incarceration and would but the children at physical and/or psychological risk if placed in their custody. In re Ke'Andre C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights because the mother's refusal to make any believable efforts to distance herself from the father and the very real threat of domestic violence posed by him was sufficient to show an inability and unwillingness to assume physical and legal custody of the child. In re Isaiah B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to assume custody or financial responsibility of the children because the mother refused to cooperate with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services; the mother was incarcerated and had completed virtually none of her permanency plan responsibilities, and she could not provide a safe and stable home for her children, had relapsed, and had failed to address her mental health issues. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the evidence did not preponderate against the juvenile court's findings that she failed to maintain regular visitation or contact with the children, and returning the children to her care would likely have an adverse impact on their emotional conditions; the mother's mental and emotional status would adversely impact her ability to provide safe and stable care for the children. In re Keilyn O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate a father's parental rights to the father's children for a failure to manifest an ability to parent because the father was incarcerated on a violation of probation which resulted from an assault on the mother, the father had alcohol related issues, and a counselor testified that one of the children had expressed that the child was scared of the father and did not want to return to the father's home. In re Sophie O., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018).

Termination of a father's parental rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody was appropriate because the father was unable to assume custody of the father's children in that the father had not addressed the problems inherent in the father's addiction to drugs, nor had the father resolved the father's need for stable housing or transportation. Furthermore, returning the children to the father's custody would have posed a risk of substantial harm to their physical and psychological welfare. In re Virgil W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018).

Termination of the mother's parental rights was proper based on her failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of or financial responsibility for the children because she failed to provide a suitable home for the children; her conduct, including substance abuse, led to multiple incarceration episodes; she failed to follow through on outpatient substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and domestic violence counseling; she only partially participated in a visitation schedule; she failed to document her employment; and placing the children in her custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical and psychological welfare of the children. In re Steven W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported a trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to a minor child based upon a finding of failure to assume custody or financial responsibility because the father failed to give the Tennessee Department of Children's Services a valid address at the time of the child's birth, admitted an unwillingness to admit paternity at first, and failed to evidence any intent of reunification prior to the father's incarceration. In re Jeromia W., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights based on failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child because she (1) admitted using drugs, (2) did not obtain or cooperate with treatment, (3) did not support the child, (4) did not maintain consistent contact with the child, and (5) placing the child into the mother's custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child's physical and psychological welfare. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of a mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody because the mother's children were removed from the mother's home and adjudicated dependent and neglected, there were issues concerning drug use, sexual abuse, and a lack of supervision of the children in the mother's home. Moreover, the mother had continued to engage in criminal activity throughout the pendency of the case and generally showed an unwillingness to parent the children. In re H. A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of failure to seek to establish paternity because despite having notice of his alleged paternity, the father failed to file a petition to establish paternity within thirty days. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's determination to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground that placing custody of the child in his custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child because the father had never met the child and had no relationship with the child; there was a significant bond between the child and his foster parents, and his removal from the foster parents would cause emotional trauma. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Termination of a mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest where visitation had not gone well in the past, continuing that situation for years into the future would not have been a good result for the child, and the mother incurred additional criminal charges, failed to comply with the terms of her probation, failed a drug screen, failed to complete a required drug and alcohol class, and had not maintained visitation or other contact with the child. In re Jaxx M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2019).

Termination of the father's parent rights was proper based on the failure to manifest an ability to parent as the father had failed to demonstrate any ability or willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children; and placing the children in his legal custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the children. In re O.M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019).

Termination of the parental rights of the mother and the father was supported by evidence that the mother and father continued to use illegal drugs, the father continued to engage in criminal activity, the father was accused of violence against the mother, and both parents failed to establish a safe and appropriate home for the child. In re Joshua S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2019).

Father's rights were properly terminated based on his failure to establish or exercise paternity; he admitted his failure to establish paternity of the child, plus he failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child, and placing the child in the father's care would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. In re Brendan G., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on his exhibiting a wanton disregard for the child's welfare because it was undisputed that he was arrested multiple times in Tennessee after the child's birth and he admitted that he violated the terms of his probation again after being released in 2014. These acts, when coupled with his history of criminal behavior before the child's birth, demonstrated a pattern of conduct that rendered the father unfit to parent the child. In re Travis R., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019).

Because a mother was sentenced to more than two years'  imprisonment for conduct against the child's sibling that met the definition of severe child abuse, the ground for termination set forth in subsection (g)(5) was sufficiently proven. In re C.S., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

Clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of a mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest because the mother had made very little progress to remedy her substance abuse issues, the children were doing well in their placements, and returning the children to the mother's custody with her continuing substance abuse would not have been in their best interest. In re Johnathan T., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2020).

29. Termination Improper.

There was not clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parent's parental rights on the ground of abandonment merely because the parent willfully murdered children's other parent; the intent to commit murder does not translate into an intent not to visit or support one's children. Graham v. Copeland (In re Copeland), 43 S.W.3d 483, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, In re Adoption of Copeland, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2001).

The requirements for termination of parental rights under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) were not met where, following initial placement of children in foster care, parent attended therapy on a consistent basis, attended parenting classes, learned coping abilities for stressful situations, became involved in a stable relationship, and demonstrated a strong bond with the children. Stokes v. Arnold, 27 S.W.3d 516, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Permanency plans did not address a drug use by the father, and there was nothing in the record indicating that the father was informed that his continued cohabitation with the mother, a cocaine addict, would result in the termination of his parental rights; it was unclear whether there was sufficient evidence to show that persistent conditions existed under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) with respect to the father. State v. Calabretta (In re J.J.C.), 148 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, In re J.J.C., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. May 10, 2004).

Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights to seven children on grounds of failure to provide a suitable home because the child services agency conceded the record did not contain evidence indicating whether the agency's efforts occurred within the first four months after the children's removal. In re Kalob S., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed the grandparents'  petition for termination of the mother's parental rights and adoption of her child because the mother's use of alcohol was not a condition that would probably cause the child to be subjected to further abuse or neglect, the allegations of the mother's failure to maintain a stable home were based on hearsay and speculation, there was no clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to the child's removal or other conditions that might prevent his safe return to the mother's care still persisted, and without a ground for termination, there was no reason to consider the grandparents'  argument regarding the child's best interest. In re Christopher M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2015).

No case law was found holding that a person acts with wanton disregard by conceiving the child, regardless of the criminal and social history of the individuals involved, and the trial court's reasoning to the contrary was rejected; the father's actions in committing crimes and failing to send the mother any money were actions that occurred after his incarceration, and wanton disregard considers a parent's conduct prior to incarceration, and his actions then were insufficient to establish that he acted with wanton disregard for the child's welfare. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Trial court was correct in failing to terminate a father's rights on putative father grounds because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the father failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of his child; the evidence did not demonstrate that the father was aware of the Putative Father Registry or had access to the internet to register as the child's putative father. In re A.B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

There was not clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the mother's rights due to a failure to establish a suitable home because the trial court's order did not address any efforts by the Department of Children's Services to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home. In re S.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2017).

Trial court did not err in separately analyzing the issue of “substantial harm” because it found that the alleged ground for termination had not been proven and that no substantial harm was demonstrated; therefore, the finding of substantial harm was unnecessary In re Sophia P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 394 (Tenn. June 13, 2017).

Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights for failing to establish parentage without determining his status as either a legal father or putative father. In re Haley S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018).

Trial court found that the mother never wanted custody, but the trial court failed to consider the fact that the father was designated the primary residential parent in the parenting plan and the mother was exempted from remitting support pursuant to their agreement; the trial court also failed to issue any findings or conclusions concerning whether placing the children in the mother's care would pose a risk of substantial harm to them, and the ground of termination under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(14) was vacated.  — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was improper based on the failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility of the children because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact with respect to that ground for termination as nowhere in its discussion did the trial court make findings that placing the children in their respective parents'  legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to their physical or psychological welfare, and establishing such a risk of substantial harm was required under the statute. In re Mickeal Z., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

Termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was improper based on the persistence of conditions ground because, although the trial court found that the mother's drug abuse persisted to the date of trial, it made no specific finding regarding the likelihood that such a concern could be remedied at an early date so that the children could be returned to the mother in the near future; and the trial court did not make specific findings regarding each of the elements applicable to the persistence of conditions ground. In re Mickeal Z., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

Termination of the father's parental rights was improper based on substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements because, although some conflict still existed between the parents after they had completed the anger management classes required of them, that did not justify a finding of substantial noncompliance considering its overall weight and the degree of the parents'  noncompliance and considering the importance of other requirements with which the trial court took no issue. In re Mickeal Z., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights based on a risk of substantial harm because it showed that it was the child's interactions with the grandmother that caused psychological stress. The mother's lie to law enforcement during a May 2018 incident, standing alone, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that placing the child in the mother's custody posed a risk of substantial harm. In re Alexis S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019).

30. Preclusion and Effect of Judgments.

As the determination of the best interests of the children in a parental termination proceeding required consideration of a different set of factors than those that were considered in a prior custody and grandparent visitation proceeding, the doctrine of collateral estoppel was inapplicable because the issues in the two cases were not identical. In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

As prior divorce litigation between a mother and father which was resolved by a parenting plan was a different cause of action than the father and stepmother's petition to terminate the mother's parental rights, res judicata did not bar the termination action. In re B. W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2013).

31. Due Process.

Given the existing procedural safeguards applicable to parental termination proceedings, the Tennessee Supreme Court declines to hold that securing the constitutional right of parents to fundamentally fair procedures requires adoption of an additional procedure, subsequent to or separate from an appeal as of right, by which parents may attack the judgment terminating parental rights based upon ineffective assistance of appointed counsel. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Due process unquestionably requires States to provide parents with fundamentally fair procedures, but it does not require States to ignore the other interests at stake in parental termination proceedings; by refusing to import criminal law post-conviction type remedies, the Tennessee Supreme Court does not at all disregard the well-established constitutional principle precluding the termination of parental rights except upon fundamentally fair procedures. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Because the new requirements were added to the permanency plan shortly before trial, and the evidence showed that the mother was not given sufficient time to complete those newly added requirements, although she did make an effort to complete some of them, terminating her parental rights for failure to complete those requirements would violate due process; thus, the order terminating the mother's parental rights to the child for substantial noncompliance with the statement of responsibilities in the permanency plan was reversed. In re Bryson C., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).

Termination of an incarcerated father's parental rights was inappropriate because the trial court's application of the missing witness rule and the doctrine of unclean hands-neither of which was applicable-undermined the protections to which the father was entitled under the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions by virtue of the liberty interest at stake. In re Mattie L., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

32. Assistance of Counsel.

Appointed counsel's representation did not deprive the mother of a fundamentally fair termination proceeding; counsel had a strategy, including on cross-examination, and by not filing an answer, which was not required, counsel avoided admitting or denying each allegation of the petition, which may actually have aided the mother. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016).

Although the father was entitled to appointed counsel in the termination of parental rights action, the father did not avail himself of that right because the father knew how to obtain counsel, the father made no appearance before the trial court after being properly served, the father did not show up at trial, and the father appeared and requested counsel only after the trial was complete. In re Yariel S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 998 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).

Court of appeals rejected a father's argument that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a parent had not right to effective assistance of appointed counsel; the court of appeals declined the father's invitation to ignore the basic principles of stare decisis. In re Hailey C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 895 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2017).

33. Placement With Relatives.

By the time a court considered whether to terminate parental rights, it was too late to bring a less drastic alternative before the court, and thus the trial court did not err in failing to place the children in this case with the grandmother. In re Alfonzo E., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2017).

34. Putative Father.

Father was a putative father for purposes of this section because the Tennessee Department of Children's Services stated in its brief that was the biological father of the child and he had acknowledged his paternity through DNA testing. In re Jase P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2017).

Putative father grounds applied where although he had completed DNA testing, he had not established paternity. In re Ken'Bria B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018).

Evidence was insufficient to support the termination of the father's parental rights based on the failure to establish paternity because the birth certificate afforded the father the status of a putative father, and the version of this statute in effect when the petition was filed could not be used to terminate a child's putative biological father's rights. In re Taya K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

Father was the putative father for purposes of termination of the father's parental rights because the father told the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and others that the father was a child's biological father. Furthermore, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the father's parental rights because the father, although the father had notice, failed to establish paternity or exercise paternity. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

This section was applicable to the father, as the putative biological father of the child, because he met the criteria set out at T.C.A. § 36-1-117(c)(2), as the parents testified that they were in a relationship and living together when the mother discovered that she was pregnant, they both acknowledged that the father was the child's biological father, and there was no evidence to the contrary of their acknowledgments. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights on the ground of failure to support because there was an absence of proof of a regular income for the father; the father stated that he was doing construction work with his brother. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

35. Evidence Sufficient.

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of the father's parental rights was in his child's best interests because it showed that he continued to engage in illegal activity, he testified he would not be able to pass a drug screen, he willfully failed to visit the child, he failed to fulfill the role of father for the child, he was in jail, and he had an obvious drug and alcohol addiction, and he failed to pay any child support. In re Taya K., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the mother's parental rights based on substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans because she did not have stable housing or proof of a stable income, her visits with the children had been suspended, she failed to cooperate with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, and her testimony showed that she did not comply with the alcohol and drug assessment. In re Homer, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence showed a mother's failure to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities set out in permanency plans because, (1) when she claimed the Department of Children's Services did not provide her reasonable assistance to reunify with her child, proof of such reasonable efforts was not a precondition to termination, (2) she did not substantially comply with her permanency plan or obtain treatment, (3) she continued using drugs, and (4) she did not pay reasonable support. In re J'Khari F., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

36. Recusal of Trial Judge.

In a termination of parental rights case, the trial judge's denial of the motion to recuse was affirmed as the facts did not demonstrate any bias, impropriety, or reliance upon extrajudicial facts by the judge because, although the judge was “friends” with the foster mother on a social media website, the trial judge denied that he had seen the foster mother's posts of pictures of the child on the website; the judge stated that he had between 3,500 and 4,000 “friends” on the website; his only interaction with the foster mother on the website was the two wishing each other a happy birthday; and the judge explained that in trying to maintain a presence in the community, he tried to tell every person on the website “happy birthday.” In re Charles R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2018).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Venue Proper.

Venue in a proceeding to terminate a mother's and a father's parental rights was proper in Weakley County because Weakley County was where the child resided at the time he first became subject to the care and control of the child-caring agency in April 2011. In re Wesley P., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2015).

2. Venue Improper.

trial court erred in separating grandparents'  termination and adoption actions and transferring only the termination portion of the proceedings to the juvenile court because the Lauderdale County Juvenile Court was an appropriate venue for the grandparents'  termination action, even had the petition been initially been filed in that court; Robertson County was the only available venue because the children over whom the grandparents had custody resided in Robertson County for a number of years. In re Tyler G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

The court must give this section a strict construction and determine what the language of the section means. In re Adoption of Mullins, 219 Tenn. 666, 412 S.W.2d 896, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 379, 33 A.L.R.3d 168 (1967).

Although grandparent petitioners were not required to comply with the physical custody requirement before filing an intervening petition for adoption, T.C.A. §§ 36-1-116(f)(1) and 36-1-120(a)(4) require that petitioners have physical custody or the right to receive custody of the child pursuant to a valid surrender; therefore, notwithstanding this section, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow grandparents to pursue their intervening petition for adoption where it was undisputed that grandparents had neither physical custody of the child nor the right to receive custody. In re M.J.S., 44 S.W.3d 41, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Where a child's father was incarcerated after having received a death sentence for killing his child's mother and two others and where the child's maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents filed competing adoption petitions, the paternal grandparents did not meet the statutory adoption requirements because they did not have physical custody of the child or the right to receive custody pursuant to a valid surrender, and the court held that their monthly visitation with the child did not amount to physical custody. Although the father had executed a surrender consenting to the adoption of the child by his parents, the surrender was invalid because, to be valid, the father must have had custody of the child when he executed the document and the child was in the custody of her maternal grandparents when the father executed the surrender. Jordan v. Roberson (in re S.E.J.), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2009), rev'd, In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Requirements of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-116(b)(5) and 36-1-120(a)(4) did not apply when an adoption petition was filed pursuant to the exception to the physical custody requirement for intervening petitioners in T.C.A. § 36-1-115(b); accordingly, parental grandparents'  intervening petition to adopt a child that was in the physical custody of the maternal grandparents could be considered. In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Former foster mother and her new husband were not entitled to intervene in an adoption proceeding because they did not meet the requirements for adoption under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-115, 36-1-116, 36-1-120 where they did not have physical custody of the children, no home study had been conducted of their home, and the children had not resided with the new husband at all and had not resided with the former foster mother for more than 12 months. In re Devon W., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2010), review denied and ordered not published, In re Devon P.K.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010), cert. denied, Martin-Matera v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 563 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 2464, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3760, 79 U.S.L.W. 3647 (U.S. 2011).

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

2. Jurisdiction of Court.

Fact that juvenile court has committed a child to custody of the department of human services (now department of children's services) does not deprive the chancery or circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain a petition for adoption even though such petition is filed by a person not authorized by the department. In re Matthews, 204 Tenn. 155, 319 S.W.2d 69, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (1958).

Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over foster parents'  petition to terminate a parent's parental rights and to adopt a child because the filing of an appeal in a previous case brought by a state agency to terminate the parent's parental rights that was pending in a different court had no bearing on the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. In re Rainee M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 994 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2016).

3. Regular Place of Abode.

By use of the language “regular place of abode” the legislature meant one's fixed place of residence for the time being; a place where a person dwells. In re Adoption of Mullins, 219 Tenn. 666, 412 S.W.2d 896, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 379, 33 A.L.R.3d 168 (1967).

4. Preference to Adopt.

Foster parents had the preference to adopt the children where under T.C.A. § 36-1-115(g)(1), there was no preference for adoption by relatives after the children had been in foster care for one year. It was not in the children's best interest to totally uproot them from the home and care that they had known for the first year of their lives. In re Adoption of A. K. S. R., 71 S.W.3d 715, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 766 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

5. Standing.

Stepparent of children was an actual resident of Tennessee when a petition for adoption of the children was filed in Tennessee and had standing to file the petition for adoption of the children in Tennessee because, even though the stepparent had some work obligations in Florida, the stepparent did not have a permanent residence in Florida, but always returned to a house trailer in Tennessee that the stepparent rented with the stepparent's family when the stepparent was working out of state. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Because the foster parents had physical possession and therefore physical custody of the children at the time of the petition's filing, they had standing to seek termination of the mother's parental rights. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

There is no statutory requirement that petitioners must also maintain physical custody throughout the entirety of the adoption proceeding; the foster parents had physical custody and standing at the time of filing of the adoption petition, and the department could not unilaterally defeat their standing to pursue their adoption petition simply by removing the child from their foster home. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

Because the foster parents had physical custody of the child at the time the petition was filed, the foster parents had standing to file and pursue their adoption petition. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

Because the current foster mother was not a party of record in the adoption proceeding, the trial court erred in granting her an adoption. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

Grandmother had standing to seek termination of a father's parental rights because (1) the grandmother received custody of the child through a court order, and (2) the child lived with her all of the child's life. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

6. Petition.

Although a biological parent, who married, had no standing to petition for the termination of the parental rights of the other biological parent, the biological parent who married was a necessary party to the stepparent's petition for adoption and had to sign the petition as a co-petitioner. In re Malina W., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

The trial court did not err in refusing to allow grandparents to pursue their intervening petition for adoption where it was undisputed that grandparents had neither physical custody of the child nor the right to receive custody. In re M.J.S., 44 S.W.3d 41, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

As T.C.A. § 36-1-116(f)(1) included an exception to the physical custody requirement when the petitioners filed an intervening adoption petition and the child sought to be adopted was in the physical custody of the original petitioners, a court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court should not have considered an intervening petition of paternal grandparents who did not have custody of the child sought to be adopted. In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Former foster mother and her new husband were not entitled to intervene in an adoption proceeding because they did not meet the requirements for adoption under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-115, 36-1-116, 36-1-120 where they did not have physical custody of the children, no home study had been conducted of their home, and the children had not resided with the new husband at all and had not resided with the former foster mother for more than 12 months. In re Devon W., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2010), review denied and ordered not published, In re Devon P.K.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010), cert. denied, Martin-Matera v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 563 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 2464, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3760, 79 U.S.L.W. 3647 (U.S. 2011).

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

There is no statutory requirement that petitioners must also maintain physical custody throughout the entirety of the adoption proceeding; the foster parents had physical custody and standing at the time of filing of the adoption petition, and the department could not unilaterally defeat their standing to pursue their adoption petition simply by removing the child from their foster home. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

2. Suspension of Custody Proceedings.

Under T.C.A. § 36-1-116(f)(2), a petition for adoption has priority over a pending custody petition filed by different parties regarding the same children, and the filing of the petition for adoption suspends the pending custody matter. In re K.A.Y., 80 S.W.3d 19, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

3. Particular Cases.

Where a child's father was incarcerated after having received a death sentence for killing his child's mother and two others and where the child's maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents filed competing adoption petitions, the paternal grandparents did not meet the statutory adoption requirements because they did not have physical custody of the child or the right to receive custody pursuant to a valid surrender, and the court held that their monthly visitation with the child did not amount to physical custody. Although the father had executed a surrender consenting to the adoption of the child by his parents, the surrender was invalid because, to be valid, the father must have had custody of the child when he executed the document and the child was in the custody of her maternal grandparents when the father executed the surrender. Jordan v. Roberson (in re S.E.J.), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2009), rev'd, In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Requirements of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-116(b)(5) and 36-1-120(a)(4) did not apply when an adoption petition was filed pursuant to the exception to the physical custody requirement for intervening petitioners in T.C.A. § 36-1-115(b); accordingly, parental grandparents'  intervening petition to adopt a child that was in the physical custody of the maternal grandparents could be considered. In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

4. Jurisdiction.

Trial court erred in ordering direct placement of the child in the legal custody of the Department of Children's Services, as nothing in the adoption statute, T.C.A. § 36-1-116(f), conferred any additional power on the chancery court to direct such placement. In re Neveah W., 470 S.W.3d 807, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015).

Pursuant to the statute, the chancery court obtained exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the child upon the filing of the foster parents'  adoption petition in 2014, and any proceedings seeking guardianship of the child were to be suspended pending the court's orders in the adoption proceeding. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

Chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the child due to the filing of the adoption petition in 2014, and pursuant to the adoption statute, any separate proceedings seeking guardianship of the child should have been suspended pending orders in the adoption proceeding and should not have been heard until final adjudication of the adoption; the chancery court was not authorized to enter the order awarding guardianship of child to the department in the context of the surrender proceeding. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

Trial court erred in separating grandparents'  termination and adoption actions and transferring only the termination portion of the proceedings to the juvenile court because once the grandparents filed their adoption and termination petition, the trial court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the matter to the exclusion of all other courts, including the juvenile court. In re Tyler G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

5. Guardianship Orders.

Guardianship order pursuant to the surrender statute cannot be entered when an adoption court has previously assumed exclusive jurisdiction and any guardianship actions were thereby suspended pursuant to the adoption statute; the court interprets the surrender statute as authorizing the entry of a guardianship order only in the absence of a suspension due to a pending adoption petition, and the surrender statute entitles Tennessee Department of Children's Services to obtain the entry of an order of guardianship only in the absence of any existing suspension of guardianship proceedings pursuant to the adoption statute. In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. May 9, 2017).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Even subjected to the strictest scrutiny, this section is valid because it furthers the state's compelling interest to care for minor children by removing the right to withhold consent to their adoption from parents incompetent to care for them when adoption is in the best interest of the child. State Dep't of Human Services v. Ogle, 617 S.W.2d 652, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The classifications drawn by this section as to who may consent to an adoption do not discriminate against persons with psychiatric illnesses, but are grounded upon competency to care for the child and the child's best interest. State Dep't of Human Services v. Ogle, 617 S.W.2d 652, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The requirements under this section of a showing that the parent is so incompetent and likely to so remain, as to be unable to assume the care and responsibility of their minor child and that the vesting of consensual authority in a guardian is in the best interest of the child satisfy procedural due process requirements. State Dep't of Human Services v. Ogle, 617 S.W.2d 652, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The standard that this section establishes for when a trial judge may vest in a guardian ad litem the authority to consent to an adoption is not unconstitutionally vague, but is as explicit as possible without making the determination rest solely upon some arbitrarily selected manifestations of competency or indications of what is in the best interest of the child; the scope of the judge's discretion is appropriate for achieving a just and proper result; no impermissible conduct is encouraged nor permissible conduct discouraged by the breadth of the trial judge's discretion; the standard is proper for carrying out the state's duty to protect minor children without unnecessarily infringing upon the rights of the parent. State Dep't of Human Services v. Ogle, 617 S.W.2d 652, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

2. Compliance.

Juvenile court erred in terminating a father's parental rights because no permanency plan was admitted into evidence upon which the court could find that the father failed to substantially comply, the father's standing as a putative biological father precluded the application of the statutory ground of failure to legitimate one of his children, and the juvenile court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction where the father was properly served with the termination petition, he and the children were domiciled in Tennessee, he made a voluntary general appearance in order to defend the suit on the merits, and he claimed at all times to be the children's biological father. In re Cloey R., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2015).

3. Consent.

As this section was amended in 1955, it is not necessary to file a consent with the petition when the parents or guardian is made a party of record to the proceedings. In re Matthews, 203 Tenn. 161, 310 S.W.2d 185, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 470, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 288 (1957).

Where guardian ad litem and general guardian of incompetent father withheld consent to adoption of child, court was without authority to permit adoption of child. Adoption of Edman, 48 Tenn. App. 375, 348 S.W.2d 345, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

Where a child's father was incarcerated after having received a death sentence for killing his child's mother and two others and where the child's maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents filed competing adoption petitions, the paternal grandparents did not meet the statutory adoption requirements because they did not have physical custody of the child or the right to receive custody pursuant to a valid surrender, and the court held that their monthly visitation with the child did not amount to physical custody. Although the father had executed a surrender consenting to the adoption of the child by his parents, the surrender was invalid because, to be valid, the father must have had custody of the child when he executed the document and the child was in the custody of her maternal grandparents when the father executed the surrender. Jordan v. Roberson (in re S.E.J.), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2009), rev'd, In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Mother effectively consented to termination of her parental rights and her child's adoption because she signed and executed a notarized acknowledgment showing her intent to have her parental rights terminated and waiving her right to notice for any additional proceedings. In re Jeremiah N., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. July 21, 2017).

4. Parties.

Where child becomes a ward of, and becomes subject to, the guardianship of the department of human services (now department of children's services), it is unnecessary to make the parents parties to the proceedings and the department is the only necessary respondent to the petition. In re Matthews, 203 Tenn. 161, 310 S.W.2d 185, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 470, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 288 (1957).

Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental rights where, with the exception of a stepparent, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(11) unambiguously stated that the rights of both parents had to be terminated before a third party became eligible to adopt the child, the grandmother was not a stepparent under T.C.A. § 36-1-117(f), and under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(b)(1), the father and grandmother lacked standing to file an adoption petition without first terminating the rights of both parents. In re Lyric A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2017).

5. Notice.

Natural grandparents are not entitled to notice of adoption. In re Adoption of Taylor, 678 S.W.2d 69, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2978 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Under T.C.A. § 36-1-117(a) and (d), the former foster parents of children who were the subjects of an adoption petition were not entitled to notice of that petition. In re K.A.Y., 80 S.W.3d 19, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

In a termination of parental rights proceeding, given the absence of information regarding steps taken to identify the father, an adoption agency did not carry its burden of demonstrating the diligent inquiry required by T.C.A. § 21-1-203(a) in order to use service by publication, as simply asking the birth mother if she knew the name of the father and then giving up was not sufficient; the location of the party, the name of the host of the party, the names of attendees of the party, and the type of vehicle in which the child was conceived were all obvious areas of inquiry. Adoption Place, Inc. v. Doe, 273 S.W.3d 142, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2007), appeal denied, The Adoption Place, Inc. v. Doe, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Feb. 4, 2008).

6. Intervention.

There is nothing in this section that provides for the intervention of grandparents as a matter of right; however, the court would not deny a grandparent, or even a stranger, the right to intervene in a proceeding if the welfare of the child required it. In re Adoption of Taylor, 678 S.W.2d 69, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2978 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Child's maternal grandparents did not establish an interest sufficient to permit intervention by right in a proceeding to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents. Despite having lived with the child, the grandparents were neither the guardian nor custodian of the child at the time the termination petition was filed. In re C.H., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).

7. Legal Father.

Trial court did not err in declining to terminate the father's parental rights under any of the grounds contained in this section because, based on the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in the Bernard case, the grounds contained in this section not apply where the defendant parent was a putative biological father, as the father was in the instant case. In re Ashton B., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. July 6, 2016).

Father does not fall within any of the various meanings of the statutory words legal parent; an intent to claim paternity filed with the Putative Father Registry is not the same as a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, and instead these are words of art, separate concepts with different meanings. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Certain grounds for termination apply to any person who is not the legal parent of such child or who is described in the statute, as in this case; when the petition to terminate his rights was filed, father was not the child's legal parent, as he filed a petition to establish paternity after the child was the subject of an adoptive proceeding, and he had not established paternity at that time and he filed an intent to claim paternity a few weeks before the child's birth, In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Statute expressly provides that the termination language is not applicable to a legal parent of a child; rather, it is only applicable to a father who is described in the putative father statute. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

Evidence supported the trial court's findings that a guardian was provided with enough information to qualify a father as a putative father because the mother specifically named the father in a previous court proceeding with the guardian present and gave the city and state where he lived; the guardian made no further attempt to diligently inquire into the father's whereabouts so as to provide him with service and include him in the adoption proceeding. In re Gabrielle W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2017), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 737 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2017).

8. Service by Publication.

Tennessee statutes authorize dispensing with personal service of process in a proceeding to terminate parental rights only if the defendant's residence is unknown and cannot be ascertained upon diligent inquiry, and the plaintiff has asked for an order authorizing constructive service by publication and has supported the request with an affidavit, and only when the residence of the defendant cannot be obtained through diligent inquiry may a party resort to constructive service by publication. Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 831 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2015).

Record contained neither a motion from the father requesting an order authorizing constructive service by publication nor an affidavit describing the diligent inquiries that were made to locate the mother's whereabouts or her residence, and there was no order from the trial court authorizing constructive service by publication; the father's failure to comply with the statutory requirements necessary for resorting to constructive service by publication deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the mother, and the judgment terminating the mother's parental rights was void. Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 831 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2015).

Because the Department of Children's Services initially represented that the putative father lived at a specific address, never indicated it attempted to serve him there, and it was found that he lived at that address, constructive service by publication was not permissible. In re Stormie M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2016).

Because a guardian failed to follow the statutory requirements of constructive service by publication, the guardian failed to properly serve a father and, therefore, deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the father. In re Gabrielle W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2017), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 737 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2017).

9. Construction.

Word “putative” is not defined anywhere in this statutory scheme; therefore, the court interprets it according to its plain and ordinary meaning: regarded as such: supposed, and assumed to exist or to have once existed. In re F.N.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).

10. Putative Father.

Trial court properly found the father to be a putative father of the children because he did not file a paternity petition concerning either of the children and the trial court properly found that he was not a legal parent because he presented no evidence that he executed an unrevoked and sworn acknowledgement of paternity. He was recorded as the father on the children's birth certificates. In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2017).

Putative father for purposes of termination of parental rights was established because the putative father told the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and others that the putative father was a child's biological father. In re Victoria H., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) was applicable to the father, as the putative biological father of the child, because he met the criteria set out at this section, as the parents testified that they were in a relationship and living together when the mother discovered that she was pregnant, they both acknowledged that the father was the child's biological father, and there was no evidence to the contrary of their acknowledgments. In re Kah'Nyia J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's termination of a father's parental rights on the ground of failure to seek to establish paternity because despite having notice of his alleged paternity, the father failed to file a petition to establish paternity within thirty days. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

Father fell under subsection (c)(2) because, as established by an exhibit introduced at trial, the mother completed a sworn declaration days after the child's birth identifying the father as the child's likely biological father. In re Rilyn S., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).

11. Applicability.

Adoption statute had no application in this case because although the end goal was adoption of the child, the only remedy sought by the department was the termination of the mother's rights, and the department could be afforded complete relief without the father's participation; his rights were terminated before this trial, he had no interest to protect, and the mother failed to show that the father had to be joined. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature and Construction of Statute.

This section must be complied with in order to effect a legal adoption. Clements v. Morgan, 201 Tenn. 94, 296 S.W.2d 874, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (1956).

The provision that no final decree shall be entered for six months after filing the petition for adoption does not apply to adoptions under subsection (c). In re Adoption of Jackson, 211 Tenn. 289, 364 S.W.2d 906, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 350 (1963).

A final order of adoption is subject to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 that provide that fraud or undue influence are good grounds for vacating an adoption order; however, the physical and emotional welfare of all parties requires assurance of the finality of the adoption order. Therefore, after a final adoption order is entered, a natural parent who consented to the adoption must present clear and convincing evidence in order to set aside the adoption order. In re Bishop, 678 S.W.2d 471, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

2. Failure to Enter Final Order Within Statutory Period.

Where final order of adoption was not entered within two years of the filing of the petition for adoption, adoption was properly denied and custody of child could be awarded to department of welfare (now department of children's services) on intervening petition. Clements v. Morgan, 201 Tenn. 94, 296 S.W.2d 874, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (1956).

Circuit court erred in dismissing a petition filed by a maternal aunt and uncle (petitioners) for adoption and termination of parental rights because although the adoption proceeding was not completed within one year of the filing of the petition, the petitioners showed good cause why the petition should not be dismissed inasmuch as they took steps to have the case set for trial within one year of the filing of the petition, the purported father insisted upon a setting of three consecutive days, which impacted the dates upon which trial could be set, and the trial was delayed two other times, again through no fault of the petitioners. In re Halley M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2017).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Former foster mother and her new husband were not entitled to intervene in an adoption proceeding because they did not meet the requirements for adoption under T.C.A. §§ 36-1-115, 36-1-116, 36-1-120 where they did not have physical custody of the children, no home study had been conducted of their home, and the children had not resided with the new husband at all and had not resided with the former foster mother for more than 12 months. In re Devon W., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2010), review denied and ordered not published, In re Devon P.K.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 738 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010), cert. denied, Martin-Matera v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 563 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 2464, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3760, 79 U.S.L.W. 3647 (U.S. 2011).

Statutory scheme requires that the final order of adoption state the date the petitioners acquired physical custody and from what person or agency or by which court order; the use of the disjunctive word “or” suggests that physical custody can occur by virtue of an order of the court but that a court order is not required. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

Construing the language of the adoption and termination statutory scheme, the term “physical custody” as utilized in the statutory sections would be synonymous with having physical possession of a child and would not require a court order or other judicial act; the statutory definition of custody contained in the juvenile court statutory scheme is inapplicable in the context of a termination or adoption proceeding, and physical custody means physical possession of a child, as granted by a parent, guardian, child-placing agency, or court, but physical custody as used in the statutory scheme does not include the unlawful taking of a child. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

2. Physical Custody.

Although grandparent petitioners were not required to comply with the physical custody requirement before filing an intervening petition for adoption, T.C.A. §§ 36-1-116(f)(1) and 36-1-120(a)(4) require that petitioners have physical custody or the right to receive custody of the child pursuant to a valid surrender; therefore, notwithstanding T.C.A. § 36-1-120, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow grandparents to pursue their intervening petition for adoption where it was undisputed that grandparents had neither physical custody of the child nor the right to receive custody. In re M.J.S., 44 S.W.3d 41, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Requirements of T.C.A. §§ 36-1-116(b)(5) and 36-1-120(a)(4) did not apply when an adoption petition was filed pursuant to the exception to the physical custody requirement for intervening petitioners in T.C.A. § 36-1-115(b); accordingly, parental grandparents'  intervening petition to adopt a child that was in the physical custody of the maternal grandparents could be considered. In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

3. Particular Cases.

Evidence did not preponderate against a trial court's findings that a child's paternal grandparents were fit, that they were capable of providing for the child financially, and that the child's best interests would be served by granting their petition to adopt her pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-120(a)(10), (11), (13); the best interests of the child were considered based on the statutory factors pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a). In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. May 10, 2010).

Dismissal of maternal grandparents'  complaint was appropriate because, although the grandparents were allowed to intervene when a parent surrendered parental rights to the parent's minor child to adoptive parents, the grandparents failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest was served by taking the child away from the adoptive parents. In re R.S.M., 466 S.W.3d 766, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), appeal denied, In re Rebecca M., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (Tenn. June 11, 2015).

Parties referenced no authority that reversible error existed relative to a trial court's entry of the order granting adoption concomitant with entry of the order terminating parental rights. In re Joseph F., 492 S.W.3d 690, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. May 10, 2016).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

The adoption statutes are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed. Delamotte v. Stout, 207 Tenn. 406, 340 S.W.2d 894, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 472 (1960); Black v. Washam, 57 Tenn. App. 601, 421 S.W.2d 647, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

A final decree of adoption that affirmatively denies to the adoptive parents the same custody and control of the child possessed of natural parents and grants visitation rights to the natural parents is not only violative of the letter of the law embodied in the statutes heretofore mentioned, but is also violative of the primary purpose of the chapter as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-1-101(a). In re Adoption of Dearing, 572 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

The result contemplated by statute is that when an adoption is granted, the natural parent is reduced to the role of a complete stranger and has no rights, parental, visitation or other insofar as the child is concerned. In re Adoption of Dearing, 572 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-6-306(d)(1), in spite of the adoption statute, T.C.A. § 36-1-121, if a relative or stepparent adopts the child, then the grandparent visitation statute, T.C.A. § 36-6-306, as opposed to the adoption statute, is the controlling statute. Lovlace v. Copley, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012), rev'd, 418 S.W.3d 1, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

Appellate court erred by reversing a judgment granting a set of grandparents visitation because they had standing to bring suit as they met the definition of a grandparent under T.C.A. § 36-6-306(e) and the adoption of the child did not extinguish their previously granted visitation rights. Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

2. Constitutional Rights.

Adoptive parents are entitled to the same constitutional protection of parenting decisions as natural parents. Simmons v. Simmons, 900 S.W.2d 682, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. 1995).

3. “Or the Like.”

The expression “bodily issue” is not included in the statutory words, “or the like” because “bodily issue” is not synonymous or “ejusdem generis” or “sui generis” with the words, “lawful heirs,” “issue,” “children” or “descendants” mentioned in the statute. Third Nat'l Bank v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

4. Conflicts of Law.

Child adopted under laws of Missouri could not inherit real and personal property in Tennessee from deceased sister of adopting parent even though Missouri statute so provided. Delamotte v. Stout, 207 Tenn. 406, 340 S.W.2d 894, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 472 (1960).

5. Rights Under Federal Employer's Liability Act.

Where divorce decree awarded weekly sum for care, support and maintenance of minor child, the subsequent adoption of such child by the second husband of the wife ended the force of such decree and therefore motion to have such child share in proceeds received under Federal Employer's Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, upon decease of first husband was overruled. Smelser v. Southern R. Co., 148 F. Supp. 891, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2359 (D. Tenn. 1956), aff'd, Meadors v. Smelser, 244 F.2d 719, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146 (6th Cir. Tenn. Mar. 22, 1957).

6. Inheritance by Adopted Child.

Where member of a class took a vested interest in land upon death of testator under T.C.A. § 32-3-104 but died during lifetime of life tenant, adopted son of such member took father's share from father even though not himself a member of class. Walker v. Applebury, 218 Tenn. 91, 400 S.W.2d 865, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 510, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 551 (1965), overruled in part, Rutherford County v. Wilson, 121 S.W.3d 591, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1023 (Tenn. 2003).

The act of adoption does not make the person adopted the “next of kin or heir” to relatives of the adopting parents. Black v. Washam, 57 Tenn. App. 601, 421 S.W.2d 647, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

In the absence of an intent to the contrary, the word “issue” does not include a child adopted after the death of the testator. Banovic v. Davis, 642 S.W.2d 153, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982), superseded by statute as stated in, Calhoun v. Campbell, 763 S.W.2d 744, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 270 (Tenn. 1988).

As the testator intended that his will should be construed under the law prevailing at the time of his death in 1939, the terms of his testamentary trust did not include, as “lineal descendants,” adopted children of collateral relatives of the testator who were the primary beneficiaries. Calhoun v. Campbell, 763 S.W.2d 744, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 270 (Tenn. 1988).

Absent an adoption statute to the contrary in effect at the time of a deed, adopted children are not included in the words, “bodily heirs.” Third Nat'l Bank v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

The use by testator of the words “bodily issue” so clearly excluded adopted children that the “contrary intent” against inclusion of adopted children clearly appeared by the terms of the instrument. Third Nat'l Bank v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Court of appeals rejected representatives attempt to disparage a daughter on the ground that she was adopted and not born to the decedent because any attempt to question the daughter's ability to inherit from the decedent as a result of her adoption was misplaced and in derogation of established law in the State. In re Estate of Aslinger, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2018).

7. Inheritance from Adoptive Child.

Collateral heirs of an adoptive parent could not inherit from adoptive child who died without surviving wife, child or blood kin. Black v. Washam, 57 Tenn. App. 601, 421 S.W.2d 647, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

8. Statutes Governing Inheritance.

Adoption statutes in force at time of death of intestate and not those in force at time of the adoption governed relative to the question of descent and distribution. Black v. Washam, 57 Tenn. App. 601, 421 S.W.2d 647, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

9. Wrongful Death Actions.

The adoptive mother of a minor, whose adoptive father predeceased him, is a legal beneficiary of such minor in an action for his wrongful death. Harmon v. Wolfe, 253 F. Supp. 577, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6906 (E.D. Tenn. 1965).

10. Effect of Adoption on Other Proceedings.

Maternal grandmother's appeal of an order denying her petition for custody of three minor children was dismissed where although she had parented the children for a significant period of time, she never possessed any constitutional rights to the children, the children had since been adopted, and thus, any issues related to the petition for custody were rendered moot. In re Michael B.M., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purposes of Section.

The policy behind this provision is clearly expressed in § 36-1-101. Brown v. Raines, 611 S.W.2d 594, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

2. Validity of Decree.

A final decree of adoption that affirmatively denies to the adoptive parents the same custody and control of the child possessed of natural parents and grants visitation rights to the natural parents is not only violative of the letter of the law embodied in the statutes heretofore mentioned, but is also violative of the primary purpose of the part as set forth in § 36-1-101(a). In re Adoption of Dearing, 572 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

3. Right of Natural Parent.

The result contemplated by statute is that when an adoption is granted, the natural parent is reduced to the role of a complete stranger and has no rights, parental, visitation or other insofar as the child is concerned. In re Adoption of Dearing, 572 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

4. Compliance with Statutory Requirements.

The supreme court has established the requirement of strict compliance with the adoption statutes in the context of the appellate review of the action of the lower courts. This requirement does not apply, however, when a final decree of adoption, no longer subject to appeal, is attacked either collaterally or by an independent action in equity for relief from a judgment. Brown v. Raines, 611 S.W.2d 594, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

5. —Effect of Failure to Comply.

A final adoption decree is res judicata, notwithstanding failure to strictly comply with the requirements of this section. Brown v. Raines, 611 S.W.2d 594, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

6. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

T.C.A. § 36-1-122(b)(1) does not bar an attack on an adoption order entered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction. In re Hatcher, 16 S.W.3d 792, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Under T.C.A. § 36-1-122(b)(2), if the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the order may be attacked even beyond the one year period; this result is more consistent with the traditional view that a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction may be attacked at any time. In re Hatcher, 16 S.W.3d 792, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Delay in Preparation of Record.

In a termination of parental rights case, juvenile court did not abuse discretion when it denied mother a continuance because appellate court was unable to review the record on appeal regarding mother's motion for continuance to determine what specific grounds were raised in the motion, and mother admitted in her brief that her current counsel had 45 business days prior to trial to prepare. State Dep't of Children's Servs. v. V.N., 279 S.W.3d 306, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal denied, State v. V.N., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2009).

2. Denial of Continuance Appropriate.

Termination of the mother's parental rights was appropriate because, given no specifics as to what the mother had expected or had even hoped to achieve by further delaying the termination hearing, the evidence did not preponderate against the denial of the mother's motion to continue the hearing below. In re Ashley M., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2009).

In proceedings to terminate a mother's parental rights, a juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the mother's motion for a continuance because although the mother left a message telling her attorney that she was in a hospital emergency room when the trial commenced, the mother's attorney and the juvenile court were unable to verify the mother's excuse for her failure to appear, and the mother failed to provide any proof in support of her claimed excuse. In re Zacharias T. M., 403 S.W.3d 212, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2012), appeal denied, In re Zacharias M., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Mar. 12, 2013).

In light of the Tennessee Legislature's specific instruction to expedite termination proceedings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a parent's attempts to continue the proceeding. In re Hailey S., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a mother's motion for a second continuance because the legislature's clear directive was to expedite contested parental termination proceedings, and the trial court granted the mother an initial continuance for nearly eight months; the record indicated nothing that would have prevented the mother from attending trial. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mother's motion for a continuance of a termination of parental rights proceeding because, although the mother claimed to have been sexually assaulted before the hearing, the court properly followed its statutory obligation to expedite termination proceedings in a manner that was consistent with due process. Furthermore, the court, with the benefit of hearing the mother's testimony and observing the mother's demeanor, found the mother to be coherent and able to participate in the proceeding. In re T.R., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2018).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with termination of parental rights proceedings against a parent, despite the pendency of related criminal charges against the parent, so as to prevent the parent's children from languishing in foster care unnecessarily. In re Deishun M., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019).

3. Judicial Notice.

On appeal in an action involving the termination of parental rights, over the Department of Children's objective, the supreme court decided to take judicial notice of the juvenile court's November 9, 1998 order involving the putative father's parentage for three reasons. First, consideration of the order aided the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction and the discharge of the supreme court's obligation under T.C.A. § 36-1-124 (b), (c) to expedite the final resolution of cases involving the termination of parental rights; second, the order was entered by the same court in which the termination of parental rights proceeding was pending; third, there was no question regarding the genuineness of the copy of the order appended to the putative father's brief because the juvenile court clerk had certified it as a true and correct copy of the order entered on the minutes of the juvenile court. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 683 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

4. Termination of Parental Rights And Adoption.

Trial court erred in separating grandparents'  termination and adoption actions and transferring only the termination portion of the proceedings to the juvenile court because once the grandparents filed their adoption and termination petition, the trial court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the matter to the exclusion of all other courts; if the termination petition was adjudicated as a separate matter, it could result in two separate appeals on the grandparents'  single petition. In re Tyler G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

Court of appeals did not have jurisdiction over a father's appeal because the father failed to sign his notice of appeal; thus, his appeal was dismissed. In re Mya V., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2017).

While language contained in the judgment might satisfy the requirement of an express direction for the entry of judgment, the judgment lacked a finding that there was no just reason for delay; despite this, the court found good cause to exercise jurisdiction, given the grave nature of the termination proceedings and the importance that statutes placed on expeditious resolution of these matters. In re Josiah T., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2019).

5. Notice of Appeal.

Prematurely filed notice of appeal in a termination of parental rights case was timely filed because the parent filled out the notice of appeal form and the parent's handwritten name in the blank space on the notice of appeal form designated for the name of the person taking the appeal indicated a desire to have the termination of the parent's rights reviewed. In re Tanya G., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2017).

In a case terminating the mother's parental rights, the mother's appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, although the mother filed a timely notice of appeal, which was signed by her attorney, the notice of appeal was not signed by the mother; the lack of the mother's signature on her notice of appeal was fatal as the language in this statute that the appeal “shall be signed by the appellant” was mandatory; and, in the absence of full compliance with the statutory requirements, the appellate court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. In re Nevaeh B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2017).

Appellate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a mother's appeal of an order terminating her parental rights because she failed to sign the original and first amended notice of appeal, although her second amended notice of appeal did contain her signature, it was filed more than 30 days after the entry of the trial court's judgment, and the appellate court had no authority to expand or waive the 30-day time limitation. In re Homer D., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2017).

In a termination of parental rights case, because this statute does not require the appellant to sign “personally” the notice of appeal and does not distinguish the appellant from his or her attorney, the word “appellant” includes an attorney specifically authorized to file a notice of appeal on the appellant's behalf. Because nothing in the record overcame the presumption that the father's attorney had specific authority to initiate the appeal on his behalf, the notice of appeal signed by the father's attorney satisfied the signature requirement, and was not subject to dismissal. In re Bentley D., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Nov. 22, 2017).

Father's counsel signed his notice of appeal, which was sufficient under T.C.A. § 36-1-124(d) [repealed], and thus the notice of appeal was not jurisdictionally deficient. In re Da'Vante M., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 797 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017).

Mother timely filed her amended notice of appeal because her original notice of appeal complied with the demands of the statute; both the original notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal were filed before the trial court entered a final judgment, and thus, the court of appeals treated the mother's original notice of appeal as timely filed, which allowed it to exercise jurisdiction over the case. In re T.W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017).

Father's appeal from a judgment terminating his parental rights to two children was not subject to dismissal simply because the father's timely notice of appeal was signed by the father's attorney rather than by the father personally. In re Addison E., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

6. Signature of Guardian.

Guardian's appeal of an order declaring a final order of adoption void was dismissed because based on the language of the statute, the absence of the guardian's signature on the notice of appeal was a jurisdictional default; neither in the Tennessee Code Annotated nor in the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure was there a safety valve or means of waiver for the requirement of the guardian's signature. In re Gabrielle W., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2017), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 737 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2017).

7. Signature of Appellant.

Appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a father's appeal of the termination of his parental rights because his initial notice of appeal lacked the father's statutorily-required signature and his amended notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days following entry of the trial court's final judgment. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2017).

Although the Tennessee Department of Children's Services asserted that a parent, rather than merely the parent's counsel, was to sign a notice of appeal, the ambiguous statutory language was not be read to require the personal signature of the parent. In re Colton B., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2017).

Father's appeal of the termination of his parental rights was not subject to dismissal simply because his timely notice of appeal was signed by his attorney rather than by the father personally. In re Catherine J., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018).

Notice of appeal was not jurisdictionally deficient when a mother whose parental rights were terminated did not sign the notice of appeal because the mother's counsel signed the notice of appeal based upon the mother's specific instructions as counsel of record in the termination proceeding. In re Jabari B., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018).

Mother did not fail to strictly comply with subsection (d) by failing to personally sign the initial notice of appeal because the signature of the mother's counsel on the initial notice of appeal complied with subsection (d) as a matter of law. In re D.T., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2018).

8. Failure to Sign Notice.

Failure of the mother and the father to sign their notices of appeal rendered the appeal deficient and required dismissal. In re Jayden R., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2017).

Court of appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate a mother's appeal of an order terminating her parental right because although the mother did not sign the notice of appeal, her attorney did. In re Noah S., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Biological and adoptive parents and an adoption agency had standing to bring an action challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing disclosure of previously confidential adoption records. Doe v. Sundquist, 943 F. Supp. 886, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19778 (M.D. Tenn. 1996), aff'd, dismissed, 106 F.3d 702, 1997 FED App. 51P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2178 (6th Cir. 1997).

Legislation allowing the disclosure of previously confidential adoption records does not violate the familial right of privacy, right to reproductive privacy, and right to nondisclosure of personal matters under the fourteenth amendment. Doe v. Sundquist, 943 F. Supp. 886, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19778 (M.D. Tenn. 1996), aff'd, dismissed, 106 F.3d 702, 1997 FED App. 51P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2178 (6th Cir. 1997).

Legislation allowing the disclosure of previously confidential adoption records does not discriminate between women who opt for abortion and those who choose to carry a pregnancy to term for equal protection purposes. Doe v. Sundquist, 943 F. Supp. 886, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19778 (M.D. Tenn. 1996), aff'd, dismissed, 106 F.3d 702, 1997 FED App. 51P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2178 (6th Cir. 1997).

2. Disclosure of Information.

Because all of the electronically stored information data from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities'  and the Department of Children's Services'  incident reporting data and another database contained highly relevant information on defendants'  violation of federal law and plaintiffs'  federal constitutional rights and because an appropriate protective order for discovery and trial could avoid disclosures of the identities of the children, doctors and other protected persons, under Fed. R. Evid. 501, the state law privileges under T.C.A. §§ 37-1-409(a)(2), 37-1-615(b), 37-5-107, 37-1-612, 37-2-408, 36-1-125, 36-1-126, 36-1-138 did not bar discovery. John B. v. Goetz, 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8821 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Disclosure of Information.

Because all of the electronically stored information data from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities'  and the Department of Children's Services'  incident reporting data and another database contained highly relevant information on defendants'  violation of federal law and plaintiffs'  federal constitutional rights and because an appropriate protective order for discovery and trial could avoid disclosures of the identities of the children, doctors and other protected persons, under Fed. R. Evid. 501, the state law privileges under T.C.A. §§ 37-1-409(a)(2), 37-1-615(b), 37-5-107, 37-1-612, 37-2-408, 36-1-125, 36-1-126, 36-1-138 did not bar discovery. John B. v. Goetz, 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8821 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section does not violate a federal constitutional right of familial privacy, if such a right exists, nor does it unduly burden the adoption process, nor violate any right to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Doe v. Sundquist, 106 F.3d 702, 1997 FED App. 51P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2178 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, Doe v. Sundquist, 522 U.S. 810, 118 S. Ct. 51, 139 L. Ed. 2d 16, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4618 (1997).

Birth parents who surrendered their children for adoption under former law had no reasonable expectation that adoption records were permanently sealed; thus, this section is merely procedural in nature and does not create any new right nor allow access to any records that previously were not to be released, and the retroactive application is not a violation of Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 20. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. 1999).

Disclosure of adoption records does not invade the rights of familial privacy by impeding a birth parent's freedom to determine whether to raise a family and disrupting both biological and adoptive families by releasing identifying information previously sealed. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. 1999).

2. Legislative Intent.

This section, read in conjunction with T.C.A. § 36-1-130, reflects the legislature's view that the disclosure of adoption records is in the best interest of the adopted person and the public, but also balances disclosure by allowing the birth parent or related individual a “veto” that prevents contact with the adopted person. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. 1999).

The disclosure of adoption records in accord with this section does not violate the constitutional right to privacy; it does not impede a birth parent's freedom to determine whether to raise a family, nor does it disrupt both biological and adoptive families by releasing identifying information previously unavailable. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legislative Intent.

This section, read in conjunction with T.C.A. § 36-1-127, reflects the legislature's view that the disclosure of adoption records is in the best interest of the adopted person and the public, but also balances disclosure by allowing the birth parent or related individual a “veto” that prevents contact with the adopted person. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Disclosure of Information.

Because all of the electronically stored information data from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities'  and the Department of Children's Services'  incident reporting data and another database contained highly relevant information on defendants'  violation of federal law and plaintiffs'  federal constitutional rights and because an appropriate protective order for discovery and trial could avoid disclosures of the identities of the children, doctors and other protected persons, under Fed. R. Evid. 501, the state law privileges under T.C.A. §§ 37-1-409(a)(2), 37-1-615(b), 37-5-107, 37-1-612, 37-2-408, 36-1-125, 36-1-126, 36-1-138 did not bar discovery. John B. v. Goetz, 879 F. Supp. 2d 787, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8821 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2010).

36-1-201. Terms of compact.

The Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance is hereby enacted into law and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in form substantially as follows:

INTERSTATE COMPACT ON ADOPTION AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

Article I. Findings

The party states find that:

1. In order to obtain adoptive families for children with special needs, prospective adoptive parents must be assured of substantial assistance (usually on a continuing basis) in meeting the high costs of supporting and providing for the special needs and services required by such children;
2. The states have a fundamental interest in promoting adoption for children with special needs because the care, emotional stability and general support and encouragement required by such children to surmount their physical, mental or emotional conditions can be best, and often only, obtained in family homes with a normal parent-child relationship;
3. The states obtain advantages from providing adoption assistance because the customary alternative is for the state to defray the entire cost of meeting all the needs of such children;
4. The special needs involved are for the emotional, physical maintenance of the child, and medical support and services; and
5. The necessary assurance of adoption assistance for children with special needs, in those instances where children and adoptive parents are in states other than the one undertaking to provide the assistance, is to establish and maintain suitable substantive guarantees and workable procedures for interstate payments to assist with the necessary child maintenance, procurement of services, and medical assistance.

Article II. Purposes

The purposes of this compact are to:

1. Strengthen protections for the interest of the children with special needs on behalf of whom adoption assistance is committed to be paid, when such children are in or move to states other than the one committed to make adoption assistance payments; and
2. Provide substantive assurances and procedures which will promote the delivery of medical and other services on an interstate basis to children through programs of adoption assistance established by the laws of the party states.

Article III. Definitions

As used in this compact, unless the context clearly requires a different construction:

1. “Adoption assistance” means the payment or payments for maintenance of a child, which payment or payments are made or committed to be made pursuant to the adoption assistance program established by the laws of a party state;
2. “Adoption assistance state” means the state that is signatory to an adoption assistance agreement in a particular case;
3. “Child with special needs” means a minor who has not yet attained the age at which the state normally discontinues children's services or twenty-one (21) years of age, where the state determines that the child's disabilities warrant the continuation of assistance, for whom the state has determined the following:
   1. That the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the child's parents;
   2. That there exists with respect to the child a specific factor or condition (such as the child's ethnic background, age, or membership in a minority or sibling group, or the presence of factors such as medical condition or disabilities) because of which it is reasonable to conclude that such child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance;
   3. That, except where it would be against the best interests of the child because of such factors as the existence of significant emotional ties with prospective adoptive parents while in the care of such parents as a foster child, a reasonable, but unsuccessful, effort has been made to place the child with appropriate adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance payments;
4. “Parents” means either the singular or plural of the word “parent;”
5. “Residence state” means the state of which the child is a resident by virtue of the residence of the adoptive parents; and
6. “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or a territory or possession of the United States.

Article IV. Adoption Assistance

1. Each state shall determine the amounts of adoption assistance and other aid which it will give to children with special needs and their adoptive parents in accordance with its own laws and programs. The adoption assistance and other aid may be made subject to periodic reevaluation of eligibility by the adoption assistance state in accordance with its laws. The provisions of this Article and of Article V are subject to the limitation set forth in this paragraph.
2. The adoption assistance and medical assistance services and benefits to which this compact applies are those provided to children with special needs and their adoptive parents from the time of the final decree of adoption or the interlocutory decree of adoption, as the case may be, pursuant to the laws of the adoption assistance state. In addition to the content required by subsequent provisions of this Article for adoption assistance agreements, each such agreement shall state whether the initial adoption assistance period thereunder begins with the final or interlocutory decree of adoption. Aid provided by party states to children with special needs during the preadoptive placement period or earlier shall be under the foster care or other programs of the states and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article, shall not be governed by the provisions of this compact.
3. Every case of adoption assistance shall include an adoption assistance agreement between the adoptive parents and the agency of the state undertaking to provide the adoption assistance. Every such agreement shall contain provisions for the fixing of actual or potential interstate aspects of the adoption assistance, as follows:
   1. An express commitment that the adoption assistance shall be payable without regard for the state of residence of the adoptive parents, both at the outset of the agreement period and at all times during its continuance;
   2. A provision setting forth with particularity the types of child care and services toward which the adoption assistance state will make payments;
   3. A commitment to make medical assistance available to the child in accordance with Article V of this compact; and
   4. An express declaration that the agreement is for the benefit of the child, the adoptive parents and the state and that it is enforceable by any or all of them.
4. Any services or benefits provided by the residence state and the adoption assistance state for a child may be facilitated by the party states on each other's behalf. To this end, the personnel of the child welfare agencies of the party states will assist each other and beneficiaries of adoption assistance agreements with other party states in implementing benefits expressly included in adoption assistance agreements. However, it is recognized and agreed that in general children to whom adoption assistance agreements apply are eligible for benefits under the child welfare, education, rehabilitation, mental health and other programs of their state of residence on the same basis as other resident children.
5. Adoption assistance payments, when made on behalf of a child in another state, shall be made on the same basis and in the same amounts as they would be made if the child were in the state making the payments.

Article V. Medical Assistance

1. Children for whom a party state is committed in accordance with the terms of an adoption assistance agreement to make adoption assistance payments are eligible for medical assistance during the entire period for which such payments are to be provided. Upon application therefor by the adoptive parents of a child on whose behalf a party state's duly constituted authorities have entered into an adoption assistance agreement, the adoptive parents shall receive a medical assistance identification made out in the child's name. The identification shall be issued by the medical assistance program of the residence state and shall entitle the child to the same benefits, pursuant to the same procedures, as any other child who is a resident of the state and covered by medical assistance, whether or not the adoptive parents are eligible for medical assistance.
2. The identification shall bear no indication that an adoption assistance agreement with another state is the basis for issuance. However, if the identification is issued on account of an outstanding adoption assistance agreement to which another state is a signatory, the records of the issuing state and the adoption assistance state shall show the fact, shall contain a copy of the adoption assistance agreement and any amendment or replacement therefor, and all other pertinent information. The adoption assistance and medical assistance programs of the adoption assistance state shall be notified of the identification issuance.
3. A state which has issued a medical assistance identification pursuant to this compact, which identification is valid and currently in force, shall accept, process and pay medical assistance claims thereon as on any other medical assistance eligibilities of residents.
4. An adoption assistance state which provides medical services or benefits to children covered by its adoption assistance agreements, which services or benefits are not provided for those children under the medical assistance program of the residence state, may enter into cooperative arrangements with the residence state to facilitate the delivery and administration of such services and benefits. However, any such arrangements shall not be inconsistent with this compact nor shall they relieve the residence state of any obligation to provide medical assistance in accordance with its laws and this compact.
5. A child whose residence is changed from one (1) party state to another party state shall be eligible for medical assistance under the medical assistance program of the new state of residence.

Article VI. Joinder and Withdrawal

1. This compact shall be open to joinder by any state. It shall enter into force as to a state when its duly constituted and empowered authority has executed it.
2. In order that the provisions of this compact may be accessible to and known by the general public and so that its status as law in each of the party states may be fully implemented the full text of the compact, together with a notice of its execution, shall be caused to be published by the authority which has executed it in each party state. Copies of the compact shall be made available upon request made of the executing authority in any state.
3. Withdrawal from this compact shall be by written notice sent by the authority which executed it to the appropriate officials of all other party states, but no such notice shall take effect until one (1) year after it is given in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.
4. All adoption assistance agreements outstanding and to which a party state is signatory at the time when its withdrawal from this compact takes effect shall continue to have the effects given to them pursuant to this compact, until they expire or are terminated in accordance with their provisions. Until such expiration or termination, all beneficiaries of the agreements involved shall continue to have all rights and obligations conferred or imposed by this compact and the withdrawing state shall continue to administer the compact to the extent necessary to accord and implement fully the rights and protections preserved hereby.

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 1; 2011, ch. 47, §§ 27, 28.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 107 provided that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the eligibility for services or the rights or responsibilities of individuals covered by the provision on the day before the date of enactment of this legislation, which was July 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 108 provided that the provisions of the act are declared to be remedial in nature and all provisions of the act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

36-1-202. Amount of assistance.

The amounts of adoption assistance and other aid that Tennessee will provide to children with special needs in accordance with Article IV of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance shall be determined in accordance with § 37-5-106(a)(13).

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 2.

36-1-203. Documentation of eligibility.

For the purpose of determining eligibility for any benefit under this part from the state of Tennessee, the adoptive parents of any child on whose behalf benefits are sought shall annually furnish the department of children's services documentation establishing that the adoption assistance agreement continues in force or has been renewed.

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 3; 1996, ch. 1079, § 69.

36-1-204. Applicability of part.

This part shall apply only to medical assistance for children under adoption assistance agreements from states that have entered into a compact with this state under which the other state provides medical assistance to children with special needs under adoption assistance agreements made by this state. Eligibility of all other children for assistance pursuant to adoption assistance agreements entered into by this state shall be determined in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable thereto.

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 4.

36-1-205. Violations — Penalties.

Whoever knowingly obtains, or attempts to obtain, or aids, or abets any person to obtain, by means of a willfully false statement or representation or by impersonation, or other fraudulent device, any assistance on behalf of a child or other person pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Adoption Assistance and Medical Assistance to which such child or other person is not entitled or assistance greater than such child or other person is entitled, commits a Class E felony.

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 5; 1989, ch. 591, § 32.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class E felony, § 40-35-111.

36-1-206. Construction — Compliance with federal laws.

This compact shall, insofar as practical, be construed to be in compliance with all federal laws governing adoption assistance and payment for medical assistance. In the event subsequent changes in federal law or regulations necessitate changes in the text of the compact, the commissioner of children's services is authorized to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to alter the terms of the compact to comply with federal law or regulations.

Acts 1985, ch. 35, § 6; 1996, ch. 1079, § 69.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1996, ch. 1079, § 184 provided:

“Any provision of this act, or the application thereof, which is inconsistent with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed to be construed as being consistent with federal law, rule or regulation.”

Part 3
Adoption Contact Veto Registry

Part 3
Parentage and Legitimation

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Marriage Void.

This statute is expressive of settled public policy in this state regarding public morals and good order in society, and a marriage entered into in violation of the statute is void in Tennessee regardless of whether the marriage was entered into in Tennessee or in another state where the marriage would be valid. Rhodes v. McAfee, 224 Tenn. 495, 457 S.W.2d 522, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1970).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Engagement of Married Person.

A marriage engagement is illegal, and will not sustain an action for the breach, where the plaintiff was a married woman at the time of the engagement, and the same was made within five years after the disappearance of the plaintiff's husband who had deserted her, and was not known to be living. Johnson v. Iss, 114 Tenn. 114, 85 S.W. 79, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 76, 108 Am. St. Rep. 891 (1904).

The illegality of the engagement of a married person is not cured by the fact that the marriage was not to take place until after the five years prescribed by statute had expired, or until plaintiff had procured a divorce from her husband. Such contracts are immoral and against public policy. Johnson v. Iss, 114 Tenn. 114, 85 S.W. 79, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 76, 108 Am. St. Rep. 891 (1904).

2. Presumption of Dissolution of Marriage.

Where a man, a resident of Tennessee, celebrated a second marriage in Arkansas, stating at the time that he was a resident of the state of Ohio, the court records of states other than that of Tennessee need not be searched, in order to rebut the presumption that there was a divorce. Payne v. Payne, 142 Tenn. 320, 219 S.W. 4, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1920).

The presumption of divorce in favor of the legality of a second marriage is not for the benefit of the parties, or intended to allow the bigamous wife or the bigamous husband to prevail over a legal spouse, or a legal marriage. Payne v. Payne, 142 Tenn. 320, 219 S.W. 4, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1920).

The presumption in favor of the legality of a second marriage that the person celebrating the marriage has obtained a divorce is one of fact, and may be rebutted. Payne v. Payne, 142 Tenn. 320, 219 S.W. 4, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1920).

Requestor was not entitled to a declaratory judgment that the marriage between the requestor's deceased father and stepmother was void ab initio because the requestor failed to submit sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of the validity of the decedent's divorce from the requestor's mother and marriage to the stepmother. The searches of records that were performed were insufficient to establish no record of a divorce and the decedent advised both the requestor and the stepmother that the decedent obtained a divorce. Fowlkes v. Fowlkes, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2018).

3. —Rumor of Death or Divorce.

Honest belief with respect to divorce and death of former spouse may not be rested on mere rumor, but should be based on investigation of the report. White v. State, 157 Tenn. 446, 9 S.W.2d 702, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 207 (1928).

4. Marriage Within Five Years.

Second marriage within five-year period under honest belief that divorce had been granted is no defense to bigamy charge. Moody v. T. H. Hays & Sons, 189 Tenn. 666, 227 S.W.2d 20, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1950).

5. Marriage After Five Years.

Where a wife had not heard from her husband for eight years and knew nothing of his whereabouts for that time, she could contract a legal second marriage. Hall v. Hall, 13 Tenn. App. 683, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

Second marriage after lapse of five-year period is not consummated at peril, if whereabouts of spouse during five-year period is unknown. Moody v. T. H. Hays & Sons, 189 Tenn. 666, 227 S.W.2d 20, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1950).

Surviving spouse was not barred from compensation for death of second husband who she married after seven years of absence by first husband even though she made no investigation to determine first husband's whereabouts. Moody v. T. H. Hays & Sons, 189 Tenn. 666, 227 S.W.2d 20, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1950).

6. Estoppel.

Application of marriage by estoppel to a void, bigamous marriage would result in the court's recognition of a void marriage that the parties cannot ratify; furthermore, application of the doctrine would contravene T.C.A. § 36-3-102 and T.C.A. § 36-3-306 and the public policy of Tennessee by condoning the bigamous marriage. Guzman v. Alvares, 205 S.W.3d 375, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. July 11, 2006).

7. Child Support.

Although the parties' marriage was void because it was bigamous, that did not affect the legitimacy of the parties four children; however, the trial court did not specify in its order whether the ten thousand one hundred seventy-six dollars constituted net income or gross income and did not explain how it computed the father's income and his child support obligation. Guzman v. Alvares, 205 S.W.3d 375, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. July 11, 2006).

8. Miscellaneous.

Civil statutes rendering bigamous marriages void ab initio such as O.C.G.A. § 19-3-2(a)(3) and T.C.A. § 36-3-102 do not exonerate defendants charged with bigamy, nor do they shield defendants from prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) for failing to disclose overlaps in marital relations on citizenship applications or to officers of the United States government. United States v. Ali, 557 F.3d 715, 2009 FED App. 73P, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2009).

Marriage between the decedent and the woman he lived with for over 41 years was bigamous, void, and could not be made valid by the doctrine of estoppel, as they two were wed before the decedent's first marriage was dissolved and Tennessee does not recognize common law marriage. Lewis v. Lewis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Ceremony Outside County Where License Issued.

Marriage should not be annulled and held void because the ceremony was, through ignorance and mistake, performed in a county adjoining that in which the license was issued. Douglas v. Douglas, 6 Tenn. App. 12, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

2. Invalid License.

Alleged license issued by a former deputy clerk was invalid where parties to marriage were informed that person issuing license was no longer a deputy clerk. Horn v. Shelton, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 530 (1916).

3. Signatures.

The statutes governing marriage licenses do not required either the bride's or the groom's signature on the marriage license. Aghili v. Saadatnejadi, 958 S.W.2d 784, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

4. Estoppel.

Plaintiffs could not proceed with a loss of consortium claim as a result of an accident pursuant to T.C.A. § 25-1-106 because they were not legally married in that they had no valid license as required under T.C.A. §§ 36-3-103 and 36-3-109, a common law marriage was not recognized in Tennessee, and marriage by estoppel was not established. Becker v. Judd, 646 F. Supp. 2d 923, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73684 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2009).

5. Mental Capacity.

Although there was evidence that appellant's marriage to appellees'  father was conducted in accordance with T.C.A. § 36-3-103, there was substantial material evidence to support the jury's finding that the marriage was void due to the father's mental incapacity; the father's mental acuity had been slipping for some time, he was completely unable to conduct business in the last several months of his life, and the father was unable to communicate the day before the wedding and remained non-communicative (reversed on grounds of admission of prejudicial evidence)Smallman v. Caraway (In re Estate of Smallman), — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2011), rev'd, In re Estate of Smallman, 398 S.W.3d 134, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Validity of Marriage.

Marriage in violation of this section is valid until set aside by the court. Keith v. Pack, 182 Tenn. 420, 187 S.W.2d 618, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 236, 159 A.L.R. 101 (1945).

2. Discretion as to Annulment.

The use of the word “may” in this section obviously commits to the court a certain discretion as to annulment of such marriages and the provision is not imperative. Keith v. Pack, 182 Tenn. 420, 187 S.W.2d 618, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 236, 159 A.L.R. 101 (1945).

3. Foreign Marriage.

Marriage consummated in Georgia between residents of Tennessee wherein girl was only 13 could not be set aside by father in proceeding under this section where parties cohabited after girl reached age of 14, the age of consent in Georgia, where Georgia law made marriage valid if cohabitation after age of 14. Keith v. Pack, 182 Tenn. 420, 187 S.W.2d 618, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 236, 159 A.L.R. 101 (1945).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Noncompliance.

Disregard of this section does not render a marriage void, but merely voidable after an appropriate proceeding. Bryant v. Townsend, 188 Tenn. 630, 221 S.W.2d 949, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 381 (1949); Hunt v. Hunt, 56 Tenn. App. 683, 412 S.W.2d 7, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Plaintiffs could not proceed with a loss of consortium claim as a result of an accident pursuant to T.C.A. § 25-1-106 because they were not legally married in that they had no valid license as required under T.C.A. §§ 36-3-103 and 36-3-109, a common law marriage was not recognized in Tennessee, and marriage by estoppel was not established. Becker v. Judd, 646 F. Supp. 2d 923, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73684 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2009).

2. Right to Set Aside Marriage.

Brothers and sisters of deceased could not set aside his marriage consummated six weeks prior to his death where they alleged that deceased was known to be insane several years prior to his death where they had made no attempt to have him declared insane or to appoint a guardian for his property. Bryant v. Townsend, 188 Tenn. 630, 221 S.W.2d 949, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 381 (1949).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.  Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18 is held invalid to the extent it excludes same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.  Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250, 83 U.S.L.W. 4592 (U.S. 2015).

Part 3
Ceremony