 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re D. B.6/13/2005
while impaired and, in August 2003, she was convicted of public intoxication. Mother acknowledged that in January 2003 she had pled guilty to assaulting Grandmother and had been under a restraining order as a result of the assault charge. In April 2003, Mother conceded, she was convicted of assault against Father. Mother allowed that Father still drank alcohol. Mother admitted that she had accused Father of assaulting her, but said that she had lied about the alleged assault because she was angry at Father. While acknowledging that her relationship with Father was the cause of many of her problems, Mother testified that she did not intend to leave him.
After the testimony, the trial court judge issued an oral ruling. He found that, although Father stated that he loved D.B., he chose to buy beer rather than a phone card to call his child. The judge noted that at the time of the trial in April 2004, Father had not seen D.B. since June 2003. The trial court found that, if Father had really wanted to visit D.B., he could have found a way to do so. The judge then cited Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102, which defines abandonment as a willful failure to visit a child for a period of four months preceding the filing of a petition to terminate the parental rights. The judge found that Father's actions clearly fell within the statutory definition of abandonment, which was grounds for termination of parental rights.
As to Mother, the trial judge first found that Mother "lies whenever it suits her purpose." The trial judge acknowledged that Mother had attended the counseling sessions required by DCS, had visited D.B. and sent her letters, and had tried to be with D.B. whenever she could. However, the trial judge stated that, based on Mother and Father's history and the domestic violence that had occurred only a few weeks before the trial, he had no doubt that the domestic abuse would continue.
The trial court found that the grounds for termination existed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113 (g)(3)(A), noting that D.B. had been removed from the home for a period greater than six months and found that the conditions that led to her removal still persisted and were unlikely to change and prevented her safe return to the care of Mother and Father. The trial judge found that the continuation of the parental relationship greatly diminished D.B.'s chance of early integration into a stable permanent home. Thus, the judge found grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights.
After finding grounds, the trial court determined that termination of parental rights was in D.B.'s best interest. The trial judge cited Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i)(1), which states that the court should consider " hether the parent or guardian has made such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the child's best interest to be in the home of the parent or guardian." Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)(1). The trial court found that "the parents still drink, that alcohol is used in the home; that the parties still argue; that parties still call the sheriff's department concerning domestic abuse, and they certainly - - that's not in the best interest of the child." Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i)(2), the trial court also found that the parents had failed to effect a lasting adjustment after reasonable efforts by available social services agencies and that lasting adjustment did not appear possible, noting that despite DCS, Mother had failed to secure suitable housing apart from Father. The trial court observed that Father and Mother were living in Grandmother's house, with no legal title, and that Father's siblings could force them out at
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|