Background
Kadence M. was born in October 2022 and tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed her from her mother Brandy B-K.’s care with the mother’s agreement and placed her with Angela D. and James D. In January 2023, the Cheatham County Juvenile Court found Kadence a victim of severe child abuse and ordered her to remain in the Petitioners’ care. Mother’s visitation was suspended in July 2023 after she exhibited “extreme behaviors” during visits, such as chewing gravel from the driveway. In August 2023, the trial court awarded the Petitioners custody and Mother visitation rights every other Sunday.
In September 2023, the Petitioners filed a petition in Chancery Court to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and the biological father (whose paternity was later established through DNA testing) and to adopt Kadence. The trial court held a hearing on December 5, 2024, and entered final judgment on April 28, 2025, finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination. Mother appealed on two issues: whether statutory grounds existed for termination and whether termination was in the child’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on four statutory grounds. First, the court found abandonment for failure to support under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(1). Mother had provided no financial support whatsoever and failed to assert the affirmative defense that her failure to support was not willful, thereby waiving that defense. The court noted that Mother had not seen Kadence in more than a year.
Second, the court affirmed termination on the ground of persistence of conditions under § 36-1-113(g)(3). The child had been removed for more than six months, the conditions that led to removal—Mother’s methamphetamine use—still persisted, and Mother was evasive about her drug use and not in treatment for mental health issues. The court found Mother’s trial testimony “erratic” and noted she “appeared confused at times.” The opinion emphasized that Mother is one of eight children; her parental rights have been terminated to six of her elder children, and two of those (twins) were also removed at birth. Mother’s unwillingness to consistently take medication for mental health has been a longstanding impediment to her ability to care for children, and there is little likelihood these conditions will improve in the near future.
Third, the court affirmed the finding of severe child abuse under § 36-1-113(g)(4). The statute defines severe child abuse as “knowingly or with gross negligence allowing a child under eight years of age to ingest an illegal substance or a controlled substance that results in the child testing positive on a drug screen.” Kadence tested positive for methamphetamine at birth, and the Juvenile Court had already made this finding in January 2023. The doctrine of res judicata prevented re-litigation of this issue. Fourth, the court affirmed termination under § 36-1-113(g)(14) for lack of ability and willingness to assume custody. Mother had not financially supported or visited the child in over a year, was unemployed, and had a documented history of unresolved mental health concerns. The court found that placing the child in Mother’s care would result in substantial harm.
The court further affirmed that termination is in Kadence’s best interest. Kadence has lived continuously and stably with the Petitioners since birth; she knows them as her parents and has formed a healthy parental attachment with them. Mother has not demonstrated a secure and healthy parental attachment with the child, and there is no reasonable expectation such an attachment could be created. The child’s home environment with the Petitioners is safe and stable; Mother’s home, by contrast, shows evidence of drug use and domestic violence. The Petitioners wish to adopt Kadence, and continuation of Mother’s parental relationship would diminish the child’s chances of early integration into a permanent home.
Key Takeaways
- Affirmative defenses to abandonment must be properly pleaded and asserted; Mother’s failure to plead lack of willfulness as to failure to support resulted in waiver of that defense.
- A parent’s long history of terminations of parental rights to multiple children, combined with ongoing untreated mental health issues and substance abuse, supports findings of persistence of conditions and inability to assume custody.
- Once a trial court has found severe child abuse in a final order (as the Juvenile Court did here), the doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of that issue in a subsequent termination proceeding.
- The best-interest analysis must focus on the child’s perspective and stability, not the parent’s interests; a child’s established attachment to and stability with current caregivers is a powerful factor supporting termination.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces Tennessee’s strong protections for children in termination proceedings and the importance of procedural compliance. It illustrates how cumulative evidence—prior terminations, ongoing substance abuse, mental health non-compliance, lack of contact, and absence of financial support—supports termination even without a single dramatic incident. The court’s emphasis on the child’s perspective and the stability she has achieved with the Petitioners over nearly two years illustrates how Tennessee law prioritizes permanent, safe placement once a child has established roots elsewhere.
The decision also clarifies that once severe child abuse has been adjudicated in a prior final order, parties cannot re-litigate that finding in a termination action, streamlining such proceedings and protecting children from extended litigation. For practitioners, the opinion serves as a cautionary reminder that affirmative defenses to abandonment must be formally pleaded and asserted; Mother’s failure to do so, despite having counsel, resulted in forfeiture of a potentially viable defense and contributed to the termination of her rights.