Facts: Father and Mother were in the midst of a divorce but continued living together in Clarksville, Tennessee, with their four young children. Despite their pending divorce, their relationship remained amicable.

One winter evening, a tragic incident occurred in the family home. Mother’s father (“Grandfather”) arrived unexpectedly with a loaded gun. An altercation ensued during which Grandfather shot and killed Mother. Grandfather’s gun misfired when he aimed at Father, giving Father a chance to tackle Grandfather, disarm him, and knock him unconscious.

Father called 911 to report the shooting. Grandfather regained consciousness about five minutes later. Still perceiving Grandfather as a threat to himself and the children, Father forcefully subdued Grandfather a second time. Unfortunately, Grandfather died from this second confrontation.

Father, a paramedic by profession, was initially charged with two counts of first-degree murder, but the prosecutor later dropped the charges before any criminal trial.

The children were in another room during the violence. Although one child heard a gunshot and at least two children saw the aftermath of the incident, none of the children were physically injured. No expert testified that this trauma was likely to cause the children serious long-term mental health issues. Still, medical records showed the children experienced some post-traumatic stress symptoms from that night.

In the trial court, Father described the events as self-defense. He claimed Grandfather had unexpectedly attacked with a gun, and that he acted to protect himself and the children.

With no evidence to refute Father’s account, the trial court largely accepted Father’s version of events. The trial court even found it “conceivable” that Father’s initial use of force was in self-defense and that “it [is] reasonable to defend one’s home and family even with lethal force if someone attacks with a gun.” However, the trial court faulted Father for the second, ultimately fatal, altercation with Grandfather, reasoning that Grandfather no longer posed a danger after being disarmed the first time.

The trial court also expressed concern about Father’s history of violence and discipline. A witness testified that Father had previously boasted, “If anyone ever points a gun at me, it will be the last mistake they ever make.” In discussing his work as a paramedic, Father had also remarked, “If they die, oh well.” Additionally, a home security video showed Father spanking one of the children for misbehavior, something Father admitted he had done on other occasions. The trial court found it “especially disturbing” that Father routinely used excessive physical discipline on the children.

Although the trial court acknowledged that the children were not physically harmed or directly abused, it concluded they were nevertheless dependent and neglected because they were present during the deadly altercation. Given that finding, Tennessee law required the court to determine whether Father had committed severe child abuse.

The trial court decided that Father’s actions met two statutory definitions of severe child abuse. Specifically, it ruled that Father (1) knowingly exposed the children to abuse or neglect likely to cause serious injury or death, and (2) subjected the children to abuse so brutal or shocking that it would likely cause severe psychological injury. The trial court placed the children in Maternal Grandmother’s custody. Father was granted extensive unsupervised visitation with the children.

Father appealed the severe child abuse findings.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the severe abuse rulings against Father for lack of clear and convincing evidence, while affirming the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals reversed the severe abuse rulings against Father for lack of clear and convincing evidence, while affirming the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.

When a child is found to be dependent and neglected due to abuse or neglect, the trial court must determine whether a parent perpetrated severe child abuse.

Tennessee law defines “severe child abuse” in several ways.

• Severe child abuse includes “the knowing exposure of a child to or the knowing failure to protect a child from abuse or neglect that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.” This requires proof that the parent’s conduct was “knowing,” meaning the parent had actual knowledge of the significant danger or acted with reckless disregard for it.
• Tennessee law also defines severe child abuse to include “specific brutality, abuse or neglect towards a child that in the opinion of qualified experts has caused or will reasonably be expected to produce severe psychosis, severe […] or severe impairment of the child’s ability to function”, or the knowing failure to protect the child from such conduct.

Importantly, any severe abuse finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, a heightened burden of proof requiring evidence that leaves “no serious or substantial doubt” about the truth of the allegations. This standard establishes a firm belief in the truth of the allegations and is more demanding than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Tennessee’s appellate courts review a severe abuse finding in two steps. First, they review the trial court’s factual findings for correctness, reversing only if the evidence preponderates against them. Second, they determine whether all the facts, taken together, amount to clear and convincing evidence of severe child abuse.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the proof did not meet this rigorous standard, particularly with respect to the “knowing” requirement and the lack of expert testimony. As a result, the Court set aside the trial court’s severe abuse determination against Father:

We are not firmly convinced that [Father] committed severe child abuse as defined in § 37-1-102(b)(27)(A). The [trial] court reasoned that the children could have easily walked into the room where the fatal altercation occurred and been “shot themselves or physically harmed in any scuffle that took place.” True, but the evidence is less than clear and convincing that [Father] knowingly exposed the children to this danger or knowingly failed to protect them. The [trial] court found that [Grandfather], not [Father], was the initial aggressor. Once aware of the danger, [Father] took immediate action to protect the children. Regrettably, [Grandfather] died from [Father]’s overly zealous efforts to subdue him. According to the [trial] court, [Father] misjudged the danger level. Still, that fact alone under these circumstances does not amount to clear and convincing evidence that he knowingly exposed the children “to abuse or neglect that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.” The children did not witness the assault. Absent proof of relevant facts or circumstances that should have put [Father] on notice that his actions placed the children at risk of physical harm, we must reverse the court’s finding that [Father] committed severe child abuse….

The Court also addressed the alternative definition of severe abuse that the trial court applied, which concerned the children’s psychological harm. It noted that this definition expressly requires expert testimony linking the parent’s conduct to severe psychological or developmental harm in the child. Here, no such expert proof was presented. Because of that omission, that ground for severe abuse could not be sustained:

Expert proof is mandatory under this definition. No qualified expert provided the requisite opinion here. The children’s medical records do not suffice. Without expert opinion testimony, the proof does not support a finding that [Father] committed severe child abuse….

With the severe abuse findings reversed, the Court of Appeals affirmed the rest of the trial court’s decision as modified, i.e., with the severe abuse label removed. The dependency and neglect adjudication remains in place, and custody of the children remains with Maternal Grandmother.

K.O.’s Comment: It is worth noting the internal inconsistency in the trial court’s ruling. Despite branding Father a perpetrator of “severe child abuse,” which is a ground for terminating parental rights, the trial court still allowed him extensive unsupervised parenting time.

Tennessee law prohibits returning a child to a parent who committed severe abuse unless there is clear evidence the child will be safe. If a court finds a parent truly perpetrated severe child abuse, one would not expect that parent to have unsupervised visitation right away. This anomaly suggests the trial court may have had doubts about the severity of Father’s conduct or his current risk to the children.

Source: In re Skylar K. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, February 20, 2026).

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