 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State4/4/2005
as in the child's best interest.
After hearing evidence, the Trial Court terminated the father's rights on several statutory grounds. We conclude the determinative issue is whether the State proved abandonment, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). On this ground, the State is required to show by clear and convincing evidence that "the parent or guardian is engaged in conduct prior to incarceration which exhibits a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child." The Trial Judge, in finding that the evidence supported this statutory ground for termination said:
The Court finds that when . . . [the father] absconded from the State of Tennessee to avoid a Court appearance on a felony DUI, that he took the subject child with him. That when . . . [the father] was released in the State of Maryland, came to Damascus, Virginia, and then left, according to his testimony, for the State of Oregon, that he again left the child here in Johnson County, Tennessee, knowing full well that the child was here. Since that time he has had no communication with the child. He has paid no support for the child. He has made no visits with the child. This from the time of his release in Maryland from 16 November, 1999 to the time of his arrest in the State of Utah until the 3rd day of February of 2001, and the next four months preceding. . . . [The father] sent no child support while in Utah or any reasonable payment. The Court finds that as would regard wanton disregard for the welfare of a child. The evidence is clear and convincing that also pending in the General Sessions Court of Johnson County a reckless endangerment involving the subject child, . . .
Our review of the Trial Court's specific finding of fact in termination of parental rights cases is de novo in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13(d), and presumes the findings correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. See, In re F.R.R.III, 2005 WL 473470 at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 1, 2005). The record establishes that the father was subjected to repeated incarceration, and had a long history of drinking problems. The evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding on this issue of clear and convincing evidence as grounds for termination under this statutory provision. See, In re D.N.G., 2004 WL 2314534 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Finally, we hold that clear and convincing evidence supports the Trial Court's decision that termination was in the child's best interest.
The Trial Court was required to find this by clear and convincing evidence based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c). Several of the factors set forth in this section were established by the proof. The father has made no lasting adjustment of circumstances for a safe home for the child to return to. The father was incarcerated at the time of trial and was serving an indeterminate sentence of up to 15 years, and offered no long term placement of the child with relatives during his incarceration. In fact, he has not seen his child for over four years. These circumstances indicate that it would be highly unlikely that a meaningful relationship can be established with the child, and taking into account the father's problems with alcohol and his criminal record, we conclude the Trial Court properly determined the termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand, with the cost of the appeal assessed to the father.
|