 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re C.M.C.8/3/2005
On December 31, 2002, the trial court removed C.M.C. (born 5/4/1992), C.L.C. (born 7/11/1995), and D.A.M. (born 7/1/1999) (collectively, "the children") from Mother's custody upon a petition for temporary custody filed by the Department of Children's Services ("DCS"). In its petition, DCS alleged that Mother had been evicted from her home, had a history of substance abuse, and was living with a man, Billy McClain (Mr. McClain), who was known by DCS to have been abusive to Mother. DCS further alleged the children were dependent and suffering from neglect. The children were returned to Mother's custody in May 2003 for a 90-day trial period. In its order granting the trial period, the trial court ordered Mother to have no contact with Mr. McClain. In July 2003, the children were returned to DCS custody after DCS alleged that Mother had left them in Mr. McClain's company. Following an August hearing, in October 2003 the trial court entered an order finding Mother to be in contempt for violating the no contact order and ordering Mother to pay child support of $75.00 per month to the Child Support Receiving Unit.
On August 24, 2004, DCS petitioned to terminate the rights of Mother and the fathers of the children. The trial court heard the matter in December 2004 and terminated Mother's rights based on the statutory grounds of abandonment, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions and upon finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. We reverse.
Standard of Review
Our standard of review of a trial court sitting without a jury is de novo upon the record. Wright v. City of Knoxville, 898 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tenn.1995). There is a presumption of correctness as to the trial court's findings of fact, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). However, no presumption of correctness attaches to a trial court's conclusions on issues of law. Bowden v. Ward, 275 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn.2000); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113 governs the termination of parental rights. The code provides, in pertinent part:
(c) Termination of parental or guardianship rights must be based upon:
(1) A finding by the court by clear and convincing evidence that the grounds for termination or parental or guardianship rights have been established; and
(2) That termination of the parent's or guardian's rights is in the best interests of the child.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c)(2001). This section also provides the grounds on which parental rights may be terminated. The existence of any statutory ground for termination of parental rights will support the trial court's decision to terminate those rights. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002).
A court's determination to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Clear and convincing evidence is "evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence." Id. (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 n. 3 (Tenn.1992)). In describing what constitutes clear and convincing evidence, this Court has stated:
lthough it does not require as much certainty as the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the "clear and convincing evidence" standard is more exacting than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. O'Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tenn. App. 1995); Brandon v. Wright, 838 S.W.2d 532, 536 (Tenn. App. 1992). In order to be clear and convincing, the evidence mu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|