Facts: Mother and Father (“Parents”) are the parents of two children. In 2018, the police responded to a report of child abuse in Parents’ home. The child that was the subject of the report, G.P., was found to have swelling, bruising, and redness on the right side of his face and throat. Other children in the home (five of the children’s cousins also lived there) told police that Father hit G.P. in the face and strangled him.

When told of the children’s claims, Father responded, “They’re not wrong.” Still, Father denied the allegations of abuse.

The children were placed with their maternal aunt, and they have remained in their maternal aunt’s custody since then.

Father was criminally charged with aggravated child abuse of G.P., but he pleaded guilty to the lesser-including offense of child abuse. He also pleaded guilty to child abuse of three other children and entered a plea of no contest to child abuse of a fourth child. Father was sentenced to 10 years of supervised probation.

Mother was criminally charged with child neglect of four children and failure to protect one child. She pleaded no contest to the charges and was sentenced to three years of supervised probation.

The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) also filed a petition alleging severe abuse of G.P. and that the other children were dependent and neglected in Parents’ care.

Parents waived their right to an adjudicatory hearing in juvenile court and stipulated that the children were dependent and neglected and that one child was the victim of severe child abuse.

In the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found that the children’s maternal aunt in Florida is an appropriate custodian, that the children are bonded to her, and that it’s in the children’s best interest to remain in her care and custody.

Mother and Father appealed the ruling as to disposition, i.e., whether it’s in the children’s best interest to remain in the custody of their maternal aunt in Florida. They argued the trial court erred by not explicitly engaging in a best-interest analysis.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Tennessee law—specifically TCA § 37-1-130(c)—requires that a child who’s been found to be the victim of severe child abuse shall not be returned to the custody of a person who engaged in or knowingly failed to protect the child from the abuse “unless the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the child will be provided a safe home free from further such brutality and abuse.” Written findings of fact to that effect are required before the child can be returned to the perpetrator of abuse.

Mother and Father argued this law requires a trial court to make written findings that placing the child back with the Parents is not in the child’s best interest.

The Court of Appeals was not persuaded:

Although a placement that is best suited to the child’s welfare would certainly be in his or her best interest, the statute does not require a trial court to conduct a full best-interest analysis as required under the other custodial statutes…. Contrary to [Parents’] position, where (as here) the trial court opts to place the child outside the perpetrator’s home, the court does not have to justify that decision on any ground other than such placement is “best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child.” In short, TCA § 37-1-130(c) is not applicable here because the trial court did not decide to place [Child] in the home of his abusers, and the “written findings” requirement of TCA § 37-1-130(c) is only triggered when a trial court determines to place the abused child in the home with the perpetrator. In that case, the trial court may not proceed with such disposition unless it first makes written findings that such disposition will provide the child with “a safe home free from further such brutality and abuse.”

*     *     *     *     *

The Children have been in [their maternal aunt’s] custody since October 2018.

*     *     *     *     *

At the hearing, Mother and Father continued to deny that any abuse happened.

*     *     *     *     *

The Children appear to be fully integrated into [their maternal aunt’s] home, which (given their young ages at the time of removal) is probably the only home they remember. By all accounts, the Children are thriving in their current placement, and there is ample evidence that placement with [their maternal aunt] is best suited to their protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Source: In re Josephine H. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, September 4, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.