Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113

Section 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) requires petitioners to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to a child’s removal still persist.

In Re: Joshua S. · filed 2011-06-16(g)(3)(A)

We emphasize at the outset that the Foster Parents, as the petitioners, bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to Joshua’s removal still persisted.

Section 36-1-113 permits termination when conditions leading to a child's removal persist, are unlikely to be remedied soon, and termination is in the child's best interests.

State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. Yvonne Bardin - Concurring · filed 1997-11-03(g)(A)

Thus, if the conditions leading to removal have not been cured and are unlikely to be cured in the near future, a court may terminate parental rights in the best interest of the children.

Section 36-1-113(g)(8)(A) permits termination of a nonlegal parent’s rights on any one or more of its additional statutory grounds.

Bethany Christian Services v. Jackson · filed 1999-05-19(g)(8)(A)

Any of these grounds constitutes a basis to terminate parental rights, but five are applicable to Jackson.

Section 36-1-113(g) permits termination when any one listed ground is established by clear and convincing evidence.

State Dept. of Children Svcs v. Manier · filed 1997-10-31(g)

As we interpret the plain language of this statute, subsection (g) sets forth several grounds for termination of one’s parental rights, “any” of which are appropriate for doing so if shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 36-1-113 permits termination of parental rights when statutory grounds are proven by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the child’s best interest.

Dept of Children's Srvcs v. A.N.G. & S.L.G · filed 2003-01-30(g)(2), (g)(3)(A)(i)-(iii), and (i)

Based on our review of the record, including the facts detailed above, we do not believe the Juvenile Court committed any reversible error in reaching its conclusion that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(2) and (g)(3)(A)(i) through (iii). ... After considering all relevant statutory factors in light of the testimony of the witnesses at trial, we do not believe the Juvenile Court committed reversible error when it concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Parents’ parental rights.

Section 36-1-113 requires clear and convincing proof of the applicable termination grounds and the child’s best interest; these grounds include persistent removal conditions and a parent’s impaired mental condition, with no willfulness finding required under subsection (g)(8)(C).

In Re: Thomas A.H. · filed 2014-02-21(g)(3), (g)(8)(B), (g)(8)(C)

Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of all three factors. ... With these considerations in mind, we conclude that DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother is (1) presently incompetent to adequately provide for the care and supervision of the Child because of mental impairment and (2) such mental impairment is so likely to remain that it is unlikely that Mother will be able to resume care or responsibility for the Child in the near future.

Section 36-1-113(c) permits termination of parental rights only when clear and convincing evidence establishes both a statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In Re Aden H. · filed 2018-06-19(c)

A court may terminate a person’s parental rights only if (1) the existence of at least one statutory ground is proved by clear and convincing evidence and (2) it is shown, also by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest of the child.

Section 36-1-113(c)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground for terminating parental rights; abandonment may satisfy that requirement.

Webb v. Wilson · filed 1998-03-05(c)(1)

We find that the evidence as heretofore recited does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that there is clear and cogent evidence sufficient to support abandonment.

Section 36-1-113(c) requires clear and convincing proof of a ground for termination before a court considers the child's best interest.

In re: Adoption of a male child, Derrick Douglas Duncan · filed 2000-07-28(c)(1)-(2)

Therefore, a finding by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist is the threshold issue that must be addressed; and the issue of the best interest of the child is not reached unless grounds for termination are first established.

Section 36-1-113(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of both grounds for termination and the child’s best interest.

State of Tennessee, Department of Children Services v. MR · filed 2000-08-16(c)

Additionally, a party seeking to terminate parental rights must prove by clear and convincing evidence, not only that the grounds exist, but that the termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 36-1-113(g) permits termination based on any single established statutory ground.

In re Adoption of K.M.K. and K.L.K. · filed 2006-05-24(g)

Under the statutory scheme, a parent’s rights may be terminated based on any single ground established under Section 36-1-113(g).

The persistent conditions ground permits termination when the conditions preventing safe return are either the conditions that led to removal or other conditions likely to cause further neglect.

In Re: B.B. & T.S.B. · filed 2004-06-09(g)(3)(A)

Under the clear language of the statute, the conditions which prevent the child’s safe return to the home may be either (1) the conditions that led to removal or (2) other conditions likely to cause further neglect.

Section 36-1-113(g)(2) permits termination for substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, while subsection (g)(3) requires proof that removal conditions or other conditions persist, are unlikely to be remedied soon, and impede the child's safe return.

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. K.L.K. · filed 2004-07-06(g)(2), (g)(3)

Therefore, while we affirm the Juvenile Court’s conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to § 36-1-113(g)(2) for failure to substantially comply with the Plan, we reverse the Juvenile Court’s determination that grounds existed pursuant to § 36-1-113(g)(3).

Section 36-1-113(g)(3)(A) permits termination when children have been removed for more than six months, the conditions preventing their safe return persist and are unlikely to be remedied soon, and continuing the parent-child relationship diminishes their chances of a permanent home.

In the Matter of: T.K.C., T.J.C., C.B.W., T.S.W., T.S.C. · filed 2002-10-31(g)(3)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g), we find that these children have been removed from the home of the parents for a period of more than six (6) months. Furthermore, the conditions which led to the children’s removal still persists and, therefore, prevent these children’s safe return to their mother’s care. There is also little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the children can be safely returned to the mother in the near future. Consequently, we find that the continuation of the parent and child relationship greatly diminishes the children’s chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Subsection (f)(3) gives an incarcerated parent the right to participate in termination proceedings and contest the allegations.

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v., JCG, In the matter of BJG · filed 2005-04-04(f)(3)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(f)(3) provides that an incarcerated parent has the right to participate in the proceedings and contest allegations that his/her parental rights should be terminated.

Section 36-1-113(f)(3) gives the trial court discretion to determine how an incarcerated parent participates in a termination hearing.

Katarina Rice v. Rice · filed 1999-02-23(f)(3)

Thus, it is clear under § 36-1-113(f)(3) (Supp. 1998), that it is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the nature of the incarcerated parent’s participation in the proceeding.

Section 36-1-113(c) requires clear and convincing proof of termination grounds and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.

In Re MLD · filed 2005-06-08(c)

A finding of grounds to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 36-1-113(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interests.

Jenkins v. Jenkins · filed 2003-05-30(c)

T.C.A. 36-1-113(c) provides that termination of parental or guardianship rights must be based upon a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the grounds for termination of parental or guardianship rights have been established, and that termination is in the best interests of the child.

Section 36-1-113(c) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one statutory ground and termination is in the child’s best interest.

State, Department of Children's Services v. Culbertson · filed 2004-04-21(c)

T.C.A. § 36-l-113(c) allows for termination of parental rights if any one of the grounds outlined in T.C.A. § 36-l-113(g) is found by clear and convincing evidence, and termination is in the best interest of the child.

The statute requires a termination petition to be verified, but permits the trial court to allow amendment to satisfy that requirement.

State of Tennessee v. McCrary · filed 2006-07-06(d)(1)

Although T.C.A. § 36-1-113(d)(1) mandates that the petition to terminate parental rights shall be verified, we find nothing in the language of the statute that would prohibit a trial court from permitting a party to amend their petition in order to comply with the requirements of the statute.

Section 36-1-113(g)(9)(vi) permits termination when a person fails to file a petition to establish paternity within the required time after notice of alleged paternity.

In Re: O.J.B., D.O.B. 07/24/05, A Child Under 18 Years of Age · filed 2009-11-02(g)(9)(vi)

Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that grounds existed for terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(vi) due to his failure to file a petition to establish paternity.

Section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(vi) provides a ground for termination when an alleged father fails to petition to establish paternity within thirty days after the mother's notice of alleged paternity, even if he is later found to be the child's legal father.

Jones v. Pierce Garrett, a/k/a Perry Garrett · filed 2001-07-10(g)(9)(A)(vi)

Mr. Garrett contends that because in a separate proceeding he was found to be the legal as well as the biological father of the child, the foregoing provision does not apply, but applies only to cases where no such relationship has been established. We see nothing in the Statute that supports this insistence.

Section 36-1-113(g)(1) permits termination of parental rights for abandonment, including failure to provide a suitable home after reasonable efforts by DCS.

In Re B.L. · filed 2018-04-06(g)(1)

The evidence demonstrates that mother failed to provide a suitable home despite reasonable efforts by DCS. We hold, as a matter of law, that this ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 36-1-113(g)(8) permits, but does not require, termination when an additional ground applies.

Bull v. Bull · filed 1998-03-25(g)(8)

Finally, we observe that Sub-section (8) uses the precatory word "may," rather than the mandatory one "shall."

Section 36-1-113(g)(8)(A) requires a proceeding to determine parental competency separate from the adoption proceeding.

In Matter of R.C v. and O.V. · filed 2002-09-19(g)(8)(A)

By it’s plain language, T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(A) requires a proceeding separate from the adoption proceeding to determine competency of the parents. That proceeding is precisely what we are dealing with in this appeal. The matter before us is a termination of parental rights hearing.

Section 36-1-113(m) gives DCS, when appointed guardian after termination of parental rights, exclusive authority to place the child for adoption and consent to the adoption.

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Christina Marie Keelyn and Edward Malachowski · filed 2006-10-24(m)

Like section 36-1-102(25)(C)(ii), this statute indicates that, once the parental rights are terminated, DCS has the exclusive right to place the child for adoption and consent to the child’s adoption following a termination of parental rights.

Section 36-1-113(h)(2) requires reasonable efforts by social services agencies, but does not require a herculean effort.

State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. Anna Patricia Malone -Concurring · filed 1998-02-05(h)(2)

The statute does not require a herculean effort on the part of DCS. What is required is that the State make “reasonable efforts.” The evidence does not preponderate against a finding that DCS has met its obligation under T.C.A. § 36-1-113(h)(2).