Skip to main content

Tracy Langston Ford-Lincoln-Mer v. Corey Lea

Tenn. Ct. App.October 25, 2018No. M2018-01006-COA-R3-CV
Mixed ResultCorey Lea

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from juvenile court termination decision; mixed affirmance and reversal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Juvenile court's termination of mother's parental rights was affirmed on grounds of substantial noncompliance with permanency plan and abandonment by willful failure to support, but reversed on grounds of abandonment by failure to provide suitable home and persistence of conditions. Termination found to be in best interests of children.

Excerpt

This is a parental termination case. The juvenile court declined to terminate father's parental rights, but it found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate mother's on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The juvenile court further found that termination was in the best interests of the children. We reverse as to the former two grounds, but affirm as to the latter two and further find that termination of mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the children.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved a dispute over whether to terminate a mother's parental rights to her children. A juvenile court had decided to end the mother's legal relationship with her children based on several reasons: failing to provide a safe home, not fixing ongoing problems, not following a court-ordered plan to regain custody, and failing to financially support her children. The father's parental rights were not terminated. **What the court decided:** The appeals court partially agreed with the juvenile court's decision. They upheld the termination of the mother's parental rights, but only for two specific reasons: not following the court's plan for reunification and failing to provide financial support for her children. However, the appeals court disagreed with the other two reasons (failing to provide a suitable home and persistent problems). The court confirmed that ending the mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. **Why this matters for workers:** This case is not directly related to employment law or workplace rights. It involves family court proceedings about parental rights termination, which is a separate area of law that deals with child welfare and family relationships rather than employer-employee disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

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.