Facts: The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took a three-year-old child into protective custody after both parents and the Child tested positive for methamphetamine. Child’s hair-follicle drug test in October 2023 came back positive for meth. At that time, Child was in the exclusive care of her Mother and Father, who also tested positive. Child was found dependent and neglected by the juvenile court.

Both parents were also indicted for child neglect, and Mother later pleaded guilty to that charge. DCS placed Child with Foster Parents, where she remained. On the day of removal, both Mother and Father signed a form acknowledging the criteria for termination of parental rights; however, Father, whose primary language is Spanish, was not provided a translator to explain it to him.

DCS developed a permanency plan aiming for reunification. It required the parents to clean the home, undergo drug and alcohol assessments, submit to regular drug screens, and attend counseling. Mother engaged with these services and initially showed progress. She produced some clean drug tests and completed recommended programs.

Father, however, continued to fail drug tests and did not comply consistently with the plan’s requirements. Notably, DCS never gave Father a Spanish-language interpreter during important meetings or for the permanency plan documents, leaving Father to rely on Mother or others to understand his obligations.

Over the next year, the parents attended supervised visitation regularly and improved the home’s condition, but ongoing drug use remained a problem. Mother relapsed with a positive methamphetamine test in September 2024, and Father failed another drug screen as late as February 2025. Mother was briefly jailed for the child neglect conviction, and Father still faced pending criminal charges. Meanwhile, Child was thriving with the Foster Parents.

By the May 2025 trial, Child had lived with them for 18 months, bonded with their family, and was doing well in daycare and activities.

The trial court found three grounds for terminating both parents’ rights: (1) persistence of conditions (the circumstances leading to removal had not been remedied), (2) severe child abuse (exposing Child to methamphetamine), and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The court also concluded that termination of parental rights was in Child’s best interest. Both Mother and Father appealed.

On Appeal: In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of both parents’ rights.

Under Tennessee law, a parent’s rights can be terminated only if there is clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground (such as severe child abuse) and that termination is in the child’s best interest. Exposing a young child to illegal drugs, e.g., for example, a child under age eight testing positive for methamphetamine, constitutes “severe child abuse.”

Courts determining the best interests of the child consider many factors, including whether DCS made reasonable efforts to assist the parents, but no single factor is determinative. The child’s safety and need for a stable home are paramount considerations.

The Court of Appeals’ majority concluded that Father’s continued methamphetamine use, which led to the Child’s drug exposure, amounted to severe abuse, and that terminating both parents’ rights was clearly in the Child’s best interest despite DCS’s shortcomings with translation and assistance:

The Child’s positive hair follicle test definitively proved that the Child had been exposed to methamphetamine while in Mother’s and Father’s exclusive care. Neither Mother nor Father deny that they each used methamphetamine at that time or that the Child was exposed while in their care. Whether it was Mother or Father who exposed the Child to methamphetamine, and whether each knew of the other’s drug use, is of no import. The controlling determination is that while the Child was in the exclusive care of Mother and Father, both parents failed to protect the Child from exposure to drugs. Therefore, Father’s arguments concerning this ground are unavailing, and we affirm the finding of severe child abuse as to both parents.

*     *     *     *     *

By failing to provide Father with a Spanish interpreter to [explain the process] and what was expected of him to regain custody of the Child, … DCS fell short of its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to assist Father. Accordingly, we conclude that factor (L) [the reasonable efforts factor] weighs against termination of Father’s parental rights.

However, we reiterate that the reasonableness of DCS’s efforts is but one factor to be considered among twenty factors in the best interest analysis. Furthermore, when reasonable efforts are being evaluated, the “child’s health and safety” is of “paramount concern.” Regardless of any deficiency on the part of DCS, Mother and Father continued to test positive for methamphetamine after the Child was removed from their care. Thus, the parents demonstrated an inability to eradicate drugs from their home, and this fact proved fatal to their case. Considering the totality of the best interest factors, we determine that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest.

The Majority affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

Dissenting Opinion: Judge Bennett dissented in part. He agreed that the parents had problems but disagreed on two key points: (1) whether Father committed severe child abuse, and (2) whether termination was truly in the Child’s best interest given DCS’s limited efforts to help.

The dissent noted there was no evidence Father used meth around Child or knew Mother was using, so Father should not be deemed to have “knowingly” exposed Child to abuse. Judge Bennett also criticized DCS for doing less than it could have, especially failing to ensure Father understood the process in Spanish. He further argued that terminating parental rights after roughly one year, with such minimal efforts to assist, was premature. In his view, the proof did not clearly and convincingly show that severing parental rights was necessary for Child’s best interests:

I disagree with the finding of severe abuse by the Father and I disagree that the best interests of the child require termination.

Father’s culpability for severe child abuse is unclear. He did use methamphetamine, but there is no evidence in the record that he used it around the Child or failed to protect the Child from severe child abuse by Mother. Father also claimed not to know that Mother was using methamphetamine. The trial court seemed to accept, without saying so, the [DCS’s] argument that it is incredulous to think that the two parents, who had been in a relationship for 13 years, and who both favored the same drug, did not know of the other’s drug use. Without more evidence of the record, however, I cannot find that there is clear and convincing evidence that Father either exposed the child to methamphetamine or knowingly failed to protect her from Mother’s use of methamphetamine.

*     *     *     *     *

Why do we require [DCS] to make reasonable efforts to assist parents facing termination of their parental rights? We, as a society, value keeping families together. The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests protected by the Constitution.

*     *     *     *     *

[I]t is evident that Father did not understand the criteria for termination, even though he signed the required form. He testified he could not read and understand it. Yet, no document was provided to him in Spanish and there is no proof that DCS reviewed the criteria with him…. Father also testified that he asked a social worker for an interpreter, but”[n]o one ever got back”to him and that “no one ever communicated with me adequate.” Father’s testimony shows that at least some of the time Mother acted as his interpreter. Cases from other states indicate that having a relative or friend translate for someone may be adequate. But it was not adequate in this case. Father testified to being “very confused” during the process. Father further testified that he did not understand until “[r]ecently right up until two, maybe three weeks, is when I kinda started figuring out how grave that this situation has become.”

*     *     *     *     *

Termination of parental rights should be a last resort, available only when all reasonable efforts to reunite the family have failed.

*     *     *     *     *

Based on this record, I cannot say that there is clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child require the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father. I cannot even say that they received equal access to justice. What I can say is that a parent’s fundamental right to raise a child should not be taken away after minimal DCS efforts at rehabilitation or with procedures and forms that the parent does not understand. I commend my colleagues in the majority for recognizing DCS’s failures regarding providing Father with an interpreter earlier in the process, they do not go far enough. As part of their reasonable efforts, DCS should evaluate every non-native, English-speaking parent for English proficiency and supply those who need help understanding with interpreters and appropriate documents in the language they do understand.

K.O.’s Comment: Providing an interpreter for a parent like Father (who isn’t fluent in English) seems like a basic and necessary step. In fact, an earlier opinion, In re Valle, 31 S.W.3d 566, 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), reversed a termination of parental rights partly because the trial court failed to provide a Spanish translator at all stages. The law recognizes that parents must understand what’s happening to have a fighting chance. Here, DCS did a lot (drug treatment referrals, classes, etc.), but skipping a translator at critical points gave the dissent plenty of fuel to say the process wasn’t “fundamentally fair.”

I agree with Judge Bennett that attorneys, judges, and DCS should ensure language isn’t a barrier in these cases. If you represent a parent who isn’t fluent in English, insist on interpreters and translated documents from day one. That not only helps avoid an appellate issue, but it’s also simply the right thing to do to make sure everyone understands the stakes.

Source: In re Juanita M. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, January 16, 2026).

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