 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re A.L.B.7/6/2005
itions in the picture depicted the reasons for the children's removal. However, although the house is still in poor condition and extremely messy, the pictures actually demonstrate some improvement since these children first came to DCS's attention.
The parents testified that, since the children's final removal, they have continued to make improvements in the home, and the evidence corroborates this testimony. Pictures taken by the guardian ad litem the day before trial demonstrate some additional improvements to the home and show it to be in a liveable condition. Father had also begun working a full-time job and is in a financially better position to make appropriate repairs to the home, obtain a separate home for the family, and otherwise provide for the children. Based on the evidence presented from the beginning of the last 90-day trial home placement through the final date of the trial, we cannot find clear and convincing evidence that the parents failed to substantially comply with the statement of responsibilities as set out in the December 4, 2003, Permanency Plan.
IV. Persistent Conditions
The primary ground for termination at issue in this case is persistence of conditions as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(3)(A). In this case, the children have been in DCS custody since August 30, 2002. However, determining whether "the conditions which led to the child's removal or 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) or guardian(s), still persist," that "there is little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the child can be safely returned to the parent(s) or guardian(s) in the near future," and that "the continuation of the parent . . . and child relationship greatly diminishes the child's chances of early integration into a safe, stable and permanent home," is a much more difficult job for this Court. Each of these three factors must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 149-50.
The majority of the testimony in this case comes from persons involved with this family beginning with the initial referral in March of 2000 until the children were removed in August of 2002. There is little doubt that extremely unsanitary environmental conditions existed which caused these children to be removed from the home. However, there is much less testimony with regard to the environmental conditions beginning with the first trial home placement in Spring of 2003. As mentioned earlier, there is virtually no testimony of environmental concerns while the family was renting a home beginning in January of 2003. During this time, the trial home visits seemed to go well, and the children were removed from the home as a result of an abuse allegation, not environmental concerns. After this removal, there is, again, virtually no testimony with regard to the condition of the home until November of 2003, when DCS recommended a 90-day home trial placement. It seems evident from this recommendation and Mr. Hill's notes and testimony, that the conditions of the home had improved to the point where DCS, and in particular the case manager, felt that reunification was possible. Further, the testimony of Dwayne Hill and Sheila Bayuk leads this Court to the conclusion that the parents had much improved their living conditions since the children were removed in 2002. These two individuals found the condition of the home to be such that the children were in no danger or need of removal.
The testimony of the children's teachers also corroborate th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|