Background
Jaden H. was born in June 2019 to David H. (“Father”) and Tiffany W. (“Mother”), who were never married. Following Mother’s incarceration on drug-related convictions, Jaden came to reside with his maternal grandparents, Harold and Natalie W. (“Grandparents”). In March 2023, while Father was being sentenced on a probation violation, Grandparents obtained an ex parte custody order from the Grainger County Juvenile Court. Father initially waived his right to a preliminary hearing on that order, and the Child remained in Grandparents’ care. In July 2023, Grandparents and Mother jointly petitioned the Jefferson County Chancery Court to terminate Father’s parental rights and allow Grandparents to adopt Jaden. Mother consented to the termination of her own rights.
An amended petition filed in February 2024 detailed Father’s extensive criminal history — including convictions for drug possession, vandalism, harassment, stalking-related offenses, and multiple DUI offenses, one of which involved driving at 105 miles per hour with Jaden improperly restrained in the vehicle. Trial testimony further established that when Jaden returned to Grandparents’ care, he tested positive for recent cocaine exposure, had developed severe dental problems, and had failed to gain weight. Multiple witnesses recounted that Jaden spontaneously told them Father was “mean” to him and that he was afraid of Father. A video recording captured Jaden telling a neighbor that Father had placed a pillow over his face and forced him to hide under a bed.
Father contested the termination, arguing primarily that the ex parte juvenile court custody order — which he claimed was obtained through misrepresentations — had prevented him from visiting or supporting Jaden and therefore could not serve as the basis for termination. He also claimed substantial income from an international jewelry business (including $100,000 in the month before trial) while admitting he paid no support to Grandparents during the fifteen months they held custody. Following a two-day trial in June 2024, the chancery court terminated Father’s parental rights on two grounds and found termination to be in Jaden’s best interest. Father appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights in full. On the threshold jurisdictional question, the court held that Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-116(f) expressly suspended the juvenile court’s dependency and neglect proceedings upon filing of the termination petition, vesting exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the child in the chancery court. Because Father had also initially waived his right to a timely preliminary hearing in the juvenile court and only attempted to “revoke” that waiver after the termination petition was filed, the trial court committed no error in declining to resurrect those proceedings.
The appellate court upheld both statutory grounds for termination. On the failure-to-manifest ground under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14), the court found clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to manifest a willingness to assume financial responsibility for Jaden — he paid no support despite self-reported income of tens of thousands of dollars — and that returning the Child to Father’s custody would pose a risk of substantial harm given Father’s documented history of criminal behavior, drug use and dealing, and reckless conduct committed in the Child’s presence. On the abandonment-by-failure-to-financially-support ground, the court found that Father’s nonpayment during the applicable four-month statutory window (October 4, 2023 through February 4, 2024) was willful, not the product of inability, given his claimed income. The court also affirmed the best-interest finding, noting that the statutory factors overwhelmingly favored termination.
The court rejected Father’s argument that the ex parte custody order caused or excused his failure to support. The trial court had found, and the appellate court agreed, that Father’s refusal to pay support stemmed from animosity toward Grandparents, not from any legal impediment. The court further affirmed the trial court’s determination that the paternal grandparents were not indispensable parties to the termination proceeding under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-117(a).
Key Takeaways
- Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(f), filing a termination/adoption petition immediately suspends all pending custody or visitation proceedings involving a child in the petitioners’ physical custody and vests exclusive jurisdiction in the adoption court — a parent cannot revive a waived preliminary hearing from collateral proceedings by raising it in the termination action.
- The failure-to-manifest ground (§ 36-1-113(g)(14)) requires proof that a parent failed to manifest both ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; a parent who claims substantial income while paying zero support cannot escape a willfulness finding by blaming an adverse custody order.
- Abandonment by willful failure to support does not require an existing support order — the statutory obligation to financially provide for one’s child exists independently, and deliberate non-payment during the four-month statutory window suffices.
- A child’s documented fear of a parent, combined with evidence of physical and dental neglect, drug exposure, and reckless criminal behavior in the child’s presence, strongly supports a best-interest finding in favor of termination.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of the Tennessee adoption court’s exclusive-jurisdiction statute and the limited ability of a parent to challenge collateral custody proceedings once a termination petition is filed. Practitioners representing parents should be alert to the fact that any waiver of preliminary hearing rights in juvenile dependency proceedings will carry significant consequences if a termination petition is subsequently filed — the avenue to contest an ex parte removal order will close.
The case also offers a clear illustration of how Tennessee courts assess the failure-to-manifest and financial-abandonment grounds together: credible evidence of a parent’s income, set against a complete absence of voluntary financial support, will support both grounds simultaneously and is not defeated by a generalized claim that an adverse custody arrangement made support impractical. For attorneys advising parents in similar postures, the opinion underscores the importance of documenting any genuine attempt to provide support or maintain contact, even under an adverse ex parte order, before a termination petition is filed.