Department of Children's, Services v. Stanfill

IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
CHRISTOPHER STANFILL )
ANGEL REYNOLDS )
MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile
SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994
) 07-49-29
CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF ) 9519-21993
18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995
)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S, )
SERVICES, )
) Appeal No.
Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616
)
VS.
LORETTA STANFILL,
)
)
)
FILED
) May 29, 1998
Defendant/Appellant. )
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE ANDREW SHOOKHOFF, JUDGE
John Knox Walkup
Attorney General and Reporter
Douglas Earl Dimond
General Civil Division
425 Fifth Avenue North
Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0499
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Kathleen G. Morris, #16223
P.O. Box 128091
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
CHRISTOPHER STANFILL )
ANGEL REYNOLDS )
MICHAEL STANFILL ) Davidson Juvenile
SAMANTHA STANFILL ) No. 9519-21994
) 07-49-29
CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF ) 9519-21993
18 YEARS OF AGE ) 9519-21995
)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S, )
SERVICES, )
) Appeal No.
Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 01A01-9710-JV-00616
)
VS. )
)
LORETTA STANFILL, )
)
Defendant/Appellant. )
OPINION
The captioned respondent, Loretta Stanfill, has appealed from the judgment of the
Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights to her four children. Appellant presents the
following issues for review:
I. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that
the Department of Children’s Services proved by clear and
convincing evidence the persistence of conditions which led
to removal of Loretta Stanfill’s children or which would
subject her children to further neglect with little likelihood of
early remediation.
II. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding clear
and convincing evidence that the mother willfully abandoned
her children.
III. Assuming, arguendo, that the Trial Court
properly found clear and convincing evidence of a violation
of T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(3) or of a willful abandonment of her
children, whether the Trial Court erred in finding clear and
convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interest for
Loretta Stanfill’s parental rights to be terminated.
The appellee, Department of Children’s Services, presents the issues in the following
form:
-2-
I. Whether clear and convincing evidence shows
that conditions dangerous to the children persisted in Ms.
Stanfill’s life and were unlikely to be soon remedied.
II. Whether clear and convincing evidence shows
that Ms. Stanfill abandoned her children by willfully failing
to pay child support.
III. Whether termination of Ms. Stanfill’s parental
rights was in the children’s best interest.
T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113 and 37-1-147 provide in pertinent part as
follows:
36-1-113. Termination of parental rights. - (a) The
chancery and circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction
with the juvenile court to terminate parental or guardianship
rights to a child in a separate proceeding, or as a part of the
adoption proceeding by utilizing any grounds for termination
of parental or guardianship rights permitted in this part or in
title 37, chapter 1, part 1 and title 37, chapter 2, part 4.
----
(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 of 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.
37-1-147. Termination of parental rights. - (a) The
juvenile court shall be authorized to terminate the rights of a
parent or guardian to a child upon the grounds and pursuant
to the procedures set forth in title 36, chapter 1, part 1.
The Juvenile Court ordered:
That all of the Defendant’s, Loretta Lynn Reynolds
Stanfill, parental rights to the said children, Angel Lynn
Reynolds, Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray
Stanfill, and Samantha Nichole Stanfill, be and the same are
hereby forever terminated and the Defendant’s, Tony Willis
Stanfill, parental rights to the said child, Christopher Lee
Stanfill, be and the same are hereby forever terminated, his
rights to the remaining children having been previously
terminated in Oklahoma, and the complete custody, control,
and guardianship of the said children is hereby awarded to the
State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, with
the right to place the children for adoption and to consent to
such adoption in loco parentis.
-3-
Pertinent findings of the Juvenile Court are:
That the said children, Angel Lynn Reynolds,
Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray Stanfill and
Samantha Nichole Stanfill were placed in the custody of the
State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services,
Davidson County Office, by this Court, on November 28,
1995 as a result of said Department filing an Emergency
Neglected and Dependent Abuse Petition. .... Further, that
said children have been in foster care continuously since
November 28, 1995. The children were previously in state
custody in Oklahoma from November, 1991 to 1994. Mrs.
Stanfill returned to Nashville in 1992 following her husband
Tony Stanfill, leaving the children in Oklahoma. The
children were extremely aggressive and disturbed. They
attacked anyone that tried to get close to them. The mother
had custody of the children from 1994 until they came into
custody in Davidson County, Tennessee.
----
That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-102(1)(A)(I) and (iv) the
Defendants, Loretta Lynn Reynolds Stanfill and Tony Willis
Stanfill have willfully abandoned the children for more than
four consecutive months next preceding the filing of this
petition in that the said Defendants have willfully failed to
support or make reasonable payments toward the support of
the children for four (4) consecutive months immediately
preceding the filing of the petition to terminate, despite
having been under a court order to pay fifty ($50.00) each
month.
That pursuant to T.C.A. Section 37-1-113(g)(4), the
Department herein nonsuited the ground of severe child abuse
as to the mother based on the finding on the appeal.
That pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-113(g)(3)(A), the said
children have been removed from the defendant parents, for
more than six (6) months and the conditions which led to
removal or other conditions which in all reasonable
probability would cause the children to be subjected to further
abuse or neglect and which, therefore, prevent the children’s
return to the care of the Defendants still persist; that there is
little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an
early date so that the children can be returned to the
Defendants in the near future; and the continuation of the
legal parent and child relationship greatly diminishes the
children’s chances of early integration into a stable and
permanent home. The conditions leading to removal included
the injury to the minor child, the continued drug usage of the
parents, and the findings of the Referee which brought the
children into care. The Court finds that, based on the un-
unrebutted testimony of Anita Bilbrew with the Department
of Children’s Services, approximately one (1) month after the
filing of the Petition to Terminate, Mr. and Mrs. Stanfill were
at the Department of Children’s Services office, on their
telephone, arranging for the purchase of drugs, which says
something about the strength of addiction in this case. Based
-4-
on the unrebutted testimony of the therapist for Ms. Stanfill,
the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that based
on Ms. Stanfill’s own admission, she continued to use
alcohol, cocaine and marijuana this summer and it is obvious
that Ms. Stanfill failed to acknowledge or address her drug
problems, refused inpatient treatment and stopped treatment
at the end of August, 1997.
----
The Defendant, Loretta Stanfill has complied with
some of the tasks of the Plan of Care but her compliance has
not resulted in changed circumstances and she has not
addressed the problems that needed to be addressed, however,
the Court does not specifically find substantial noncompliance
with the Plan of Care as to Loretta Stanfill.
----
That it is in the best interest of the said children and
the public that all of the parental rights of the Defendant,
Loretta Lynn Reynolds Stanfill to the said children, Angel
Lynn Reynolds, Christopher Lee Stanfill, Michael Allen Ray
Stanfill, and Samantha Nichole Stanfill and the Defendant,
Tony Willis Stanfill, parental rights to the minor child,
Christopher Lee Stanfill, be forever terminated and that the
complete custody, control, and guardianship of the said
children be awarded to the State of Tennessee, Department of
Children’s Services, with the right to place the said children
for adoption and to consent to such adoption in loco parentis.
An order was entered in conformity with the foregoing findings.
In response to the appellant’s three issues, this Court has reviewed the record which
contains clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which caused the subject children to
be removed from the custody of appellant in November, 1995, have persisted to the date of the
order of the Juvenile Court; that said conditions would subject said children to continued neglect;
that there is little likelihood of early remediation of such conditions; that the appellant willingly
abandoned said children; and that the termination of appellant’s parental rights in respect to said
children is in the best interest of said children.
-5-
The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against
the appellant. The cause is remanded to the Juvenile Court for necessary proceedings.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
_________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
_____________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
_____________________________
WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
-6-