Background
In April 2023, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) took custody of Elliot S. (born in 2017) after the mother, Emily S., had left the child with a partner who subsequently discovered he was not the biological father. In December 2024, DCS petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights, alleging three statutory grounds: abandonment, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans.
At the final hearing in March 2025, the mother was not present. Her attorney moved for a continuance, explaining the mother had contacted him to say she mistakenly believed the hearing was scheduled for the afternoon, not the morning. The juvenile court denied the motion, noting she had been present when the date was set, and proceeded with the trial. Evidence showed the mother had been recently incarcerated, had failed required drug screens, lacked stable housing, and had not visited or provided support for the child. She only began engaging with DCS services after the termination petition was filed.
The juvenile court found that DCS had proven all three grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother’s subsequent motion for a rehearing based on “excusable neglect” for missing the hearing was denied. She appealed the denial of her motion and the termination order itself.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The court first addressed the mother’s absence from the hearing, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of her motion for a rehearing. The court held that her mistaken belief about the start time was “carelessness and nothing more,” which does not constitute excusable neglect. It also rejected her due process claim, noting that she had proper notice of the hearing and was represented by counsel who participated fully in the trial.
On the merits, the court reviewed the statutory grounds for termination. It accepted DCS’s concession on appeal that there was insufficient evidence for “substantial noncompliance” and summarily reversed that ground. However, the court found clear and convincing evidence for the remaining two grounds. It affirmed the finding of abandonment based on the mother’s incarceration, her failure to visit or support the child in the four months preceding her incarceration, and a broader pattern of conduct—including drug use and instability—that showed a wanton disregard for the child’s welfare.
The court also upheld the ground of failure to manifest an “ability and willingness” to assume custody. The mother’s continued drug use, lack of housing, and failure to engage with services until the eleventh hour demonstrated she was not able or willing to parent. The court concluded that returning the child, who has special needs and is bonded with his foster family, to the mother’s care would pose a risk of substantial harm. Finally, the appellate court agreed that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s mistaken belief about a court hearing’s start time does not amount to “excusable neglect” sufficient to warrant a rehearing, especially when the parent had proper notice and was represented by counsel.
- A parent’s failure to comply with court-ordered prerequisites for visitation, such as passing drug screens, can be treated as a willful failure to visit, supporting a finding of abandonment.
- A termination of parental rights can be affirmed even if one of several grounds is reversed on appeal, as long as at least one other ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is proven to be in the child’s best interest.
Why It Matters
This case reaffirms the principle that while the right to parent is fundamental, it is not absolute. A parent’s “carelessness” in missing a final termination hearing is not a sufficient basis to challenge the outcome, and courts will not grant a do-over for simple mistakes. The decision underscores that parents involved in dependency cases have a responsibility to actively participate and comply with court proceedings.
Furthermore, the ruling provides a clear application of Tennessee’s complex abandonment statute, particularly for incarcerated parents. It illustrates that a court’s analysis is not limited to a narrow window of time but can encompass a parent’s entire pattern of conduct, including substance abuse and instability. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that a parent’s last-minute efforts to work a permanency plan may be viewed as too little, too late when weighed against a long history of conduct that endangers a child’s welfare and stability.