Skip to main content

In Re Addalyne S.

Tenn. Ct. App.April 26, 2018No. M2017-00958-COA-R3-PTCited 57 times
Defendant WinIn Re Addalyne S.

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal affirming trial court judgment on parental termination case

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Trial court denied termination of parental rights for mother and found insufficient grounds for father's termination despite one ground being established, determining termination was not in the child's best interest. Appellate court affirmed.

Excerpt

In this parental termination case, maternal Grandparents sought termination of both Mother's and Father's rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support and (2) abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court found no grounds for termination as to Mother and only one ground—failure to support—as to Father. The trial court however found that it was not in the child's best interest to terminate Father's rights. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

Similar Rulings

In Re Gabriella D.
Tenn.Sep 2017

The Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") removed three children from the custody of their parents and placed them with foster parents in March 2012 because one of the children, an infant, was severely malnourished. By July 2012, the children's mother was cooperating with DCS and complying with a permanency plan that set the goal for the children as reunification with their mother or another relative. The mother continued to comply with the permanency plan for the next sixteen months that the children were in foster care. On the day the children were scheduled to begin a trial home visit with the mother, July 31, 2013, the foster parents filed a petition in circuit court seeking to terminate the mother's parental rights and to adopt the children. After the foster parents filed their petition in circuit court, the juvenile court, which had maintained jurisdiction over the dependency and neglect proceeding, ordered DCS to place the children with the mother for the trial home visit. The circuit court trial on the foster parents' petition did not occur until September 2015. By that time, the children had resided with the mother on a trial basis for two years without incident. The mother, DCS, and the guardian ad litem appointed by the juvenile court in the dependency and neglect proceeding opposed the foster parents' petition. The foster parents and a guardian ad litem appointed by the circuit court sought termination of the mother's parental rights. After the multi-day trial, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the foster parents had proven a ground for termination by clear and convincing proof but had failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that termination is in the children's best interests. The foster parents appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We granted the mother's application for permission to appeal and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment dismissing the fost

Plaintiff Win
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.G. (Minor Child), and N.R.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 2016
Remanded
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parental Rights To: E.R.C.K., Minor Child, V.L.K. v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
Wyo.Dec 2013
Dismissed
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.B.M. and H.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Nov 2014
Mixed Result
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: LDB, TJB, and JCB, Minor Children, Sheryl Lynn Ellis v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
Wyo.Dec 2019
Dismissed

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.