 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re D. B.6/13/2005
any time. The trial judge noted that Mother had maintained contact with D.B. and had established a meaningful relationship with her, but Father had not. Emphasizing the fact that Mother had no intent to live apart from Father, the trial court said:
There is no hope for these two parties living together. To put a three-year-old back in that condition, that would be the wors thing I could possibly do. . . .
I . . . find that [Mother] continues to live in the home, continues to have domestic problems with [Father], refuses to leave the home. . . . She has stated that she loves [Father]; I believe that. I believe that she loves [Father] more than she loves the child. She'd much rather be with [Father], in the court's opinion than she had to be with the child. So I'm giving her that opportunity.
Based on this analysis, the judge terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father. From this judgment, Mother now appeals.
On appeal, Mother asserts that the trial court did not have clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights and that DCS did not make reasonable efforts to enable D.B. to return home.
The standard of review of a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is de novo upon the record with a presumption of the correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The trial court's conclusions of law are given no such presumption of correctness. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996).
Termination of parental rights are governed by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(c)(1), which requires the court to first find grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and then determine by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c)(1) (2001). In O'Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), this Court stated that
he "clear and convincing evidence" standard defies precise definition. While it is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard, it does not require such certainty as the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Clear and convincing evidence eliminates any serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness of the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. It should produce in the fact- finder's mind a firm belief or conviction with regard to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
O'Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), superceded by statute on other grounds.
Mother asserts that the State has not proven its case by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the trial court judge terminated Mother's parental rights based on the grounds of persistent conditions, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113 (g)(3)(A). Mother argues that D.B. was removed from her home due to the filthy conditions of the home into which D.B. was born. Mother notes that she left this home and moved in with Grandmother as directed by DCS, so this ground is not applicable. The statute, however, states that grounds for termination are established not only if the original conditions which led to removal still exist, but also if "other conditions which in all reasonable probability would cause the child to be subjected to further abuse or neglect and which, therefore, prevent the child's safe return to the care of the parent(s) . . . still persist. . . ." There is ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Mother had failed to establish a home and financial stability apart from Father, and that so long as Mother and Father were residing together
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.
|
|