Termination of Parental Rights

Termination of Parental Rights – Need to Review All Grounds for Termination

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.

Opinions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

In re Jayla S., No. M2022-01492-COA-R3-PT, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2023). 

In an appeal, “this [c]ourt is required ‘to review thoroughly the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests.’” In re Connor B., 603 S.W.3d 773, 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 525). In doing so, we must “determine whether the trial court’s findings, made under a clear and convincing standard, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006). Stated another way, we must make our “own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate parental rights.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 524.

The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates against those findings. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 524.

In re Krisley W., No. E2022-00312-COA-R3-PT, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023). 

“[I]n an appeal from an order terminating parental rights[,] the Court of Appeals must review the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 525-26 (Tenn. 2016). Likewise, this court must “review the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each ground for termination, even though the statute only requires the finding of one ground to justify terminating parental rights.” Id. at 525 (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 251 n.14 (Tenn. 2010)). This court applies the versions of the parental termination statutes in effect on the date the petition was filed. See In re Braxton M., 531 S.W.3d 708, 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (holding “that the version of the statute in effect at the time of the petition’s filing controls this action”).

In re Jackson R., No. M2021-01545-COA-R3-PT, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2023). 

In an appeal, “this [c]ourt is required ‘to review thoroughly the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests.’” In re Connor B., 603 S.W.3d 773, 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 525). In doing so, we must “determine whether the trial court’s findings, made under a clear and convincing standard, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006). Stated another way, we must make our “own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate parental rights.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 524.

The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates against those findings. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 524.

In re J.S., No. M2022-00142-COA-R3-PT, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2023). 

Nevertheless, “in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights[,] the Court of Appeals must review the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 525-26. Likewise, this court must “review the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each ground for termination, even though the statute only requires the finding of one ground to justify terminating parental rights.” Id. at 525 (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 251 n.14 (Tenn. 2010)).

In re Cayson C., No. E2022-00448-COA-R3-PT, p. 13-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2022). 

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact in termination proceedings using the standard of review in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596; In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 246. Under Rule 13(d), appellate courts review factual findings de novo on the record and accord these findings a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596; In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387, 393 (Tenn. 2009); In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 809 (Tenn. 2007). In light of the heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings, however, the reviewing court must make its own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate parental rights. In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596-97. The trial court’s ruling that the evidence sufficiently supports termination of parental rights is a conclusion of law, which appellate courts review de novo with no presumption of correctness. In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d at 393 (quoting In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d at 810). Additionally, all other questions of law in parental termination appeals, as in other appeals, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 246.

In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 521-24 (Tenn. 2016) (footnotes in original but renumbered). In conjunction with a best interest determination, clear and convincing evidence supporting any single ground will justify a termination order. E.g., In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). Mother does not challenge severe child abuse, one of the five grounds found against her. Nevertheless, the Tennessee Supreme Court has instructed “that in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights the Court of Appeals must review the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 525-26 (footnote and citation omitted). Therefore, we will review each of the grounds found against Mother.

In re Morgan R., No. E2021-01206-COA-R3-PT, p. 4 fn. 2  (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 2022).

In her brief, Mother appeals only the ground pertaining to her visitation. Nevertheless, in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 525-26 (Tenn. 2016), we are required to review the trial court’s findings as to each of the grounds for termination and “whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.”

License

Grading Papers - Civil Copyright © 2023 by BirdDog Law, LLC (No copyright claimed as to government works).. All Rights Reserved.