State Dept. of Children's Services v. J.S.10/25/2001
Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2001
This case involves a petition for termination of parental rights brought by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS"). Following a bench trial, the court below terminated the parental rights of J.S. ("Mother") and T.P. ("Father") with respect to their minor child, A.R.P. (DOB: November 5, 1995), finding, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that both Mother and Father exhibited a wanton disregard for the child such as to constitute abandonment under T.C.A. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), and (2) that termination is in the child's best interest. Mother and Father appeal separately, arguing that the trial court erred in terminating their parental rights because clear and convincing evidence of abandonment was not shown at trial. They also contend that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. We affirm.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded
Charles D. Susano, Jr., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Houston M. Goddard, P.J., and D. Michael Swiney, J., joined.
OPINION
I. Facts
On March 23, 1996, six-month old A.R.P. was taken into the custody of DCS. He had been left at the home of a non-relative because Mother had been arrested and Father could not be located. On July 22, 1997, an adjudicatory hearing was held, and it was ordered that A.R.P. should remain in the custody of DCS. At the time of the trial below, on October 6, 2000, nearly four and one-half years after A.R.P. had been removed from Mother's care, he was still in state custody.
In March, 2000, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and Father claiming, among other things, that abandonment of A.R.P. by his parents pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1- 102(1)(A)(iv) had occurred; specifically that the parents' drug use and criminal activity prior to their incarceration showed a wanton disregard for A.R.P.'s welfare. At the time of trial on October 6, 2000, Mother was incarcerated, awaiting a release date sometime in January, 2001, and Father had been released from prison in July, 2000, just eight weeks earlier.
Testimony at trial revealed that both Mother and Father have extensive criminal histories, and both are admitted drug addicts. Beginning in 1994, Father was convicted of aggravated robbery and placed on supervised probation for six years. In 1997, his probation was revoked when he was found guilty of aggravated assault and was sentenced to three years in prison to run consecutively with his six-year sentence. Mother's criminal history also dates back to 1994. From 1994 until 1996, she was placed on intensive supervised probation for charges of reckless endangerment and driving under the influence . In 1996, her probation was revoked and she was ordered to undergo drug rehabilitation in a halfway house. In 1997, she was charged with nine counts of passing worthless checks, and she was imprisoned for aggravated robbery and facilitation of robbery. According to her testimony, most of these crimes were committed to support her addiction to crack cocaine. In April, 1999, she was released from prison and placed on parole. However, after only four months, she tested positive for cocaine and was charged with disorderly conduct and vandalism, resulting in a violation of her parole and, ultimately, re-incarceration in July, 1999.
Following a bench trial, the court entered an order on October 19, 2000, granting DCS's petition, finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of both parents' parental rights was justified. The court found that th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|