Facts: Mother left her four-year-old Child home alone one evening in November 2021. The unattended Child was found wandering outside an apartment complex in Nashville, after Mother returned to her job to investigate missing money from a store safe. Police responded and arrested Mother for child neglect.

The next day, the Juvenile Court determined that Child was dependent and neglected due to Mother’s lack of supervision. Child was placed in foster care because Father’s whereabouts were unknown at that time. Mother did not contest the dependency and neglect petition.

After Child was placed in foster care, he was diagnosed with autism and other special needs, including severe behavioral and developmental issues. Child required a strict routine and multiple therapies (occupational, speech, feeding, etc.) to address challenges like dysregulation, aggression, and “blackout” episodes triggered by stress or changes in routine. Child thrived in Foster Mother’s care and made progress with consistent structure. Child was bonded with Foster Mother and her family and felt safe in their home.

Mother initially arranged speech therapy for Child before the removal and recognized the trauma he suffered from being left alone. She maintained regular visits and often brought toys, food, and other items for Child.

Mother participated in services provided by the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). She completed parenting classes, assessments, and a functional parenting evaluation. A trial home visit was attempted in late 2021, but Mother sent Child to live with his grandmother in Alabama for two months, which violated the permanency plan and resulted in Child’s return to foster care.

Despite Mother’s efforts, several warning signs pointed to concerns about her understanding of Child’s special needs. Child’s therapist and the visitation supervisor noticed that Mother often minimized or ignored Child’s autism-related behaviors and needs.

During a visit, Mother took away Child’s sensory chew toy, which was used to help him cope with stress, telling him, “You’re not a dog; you don’t need this.” She allegedly called Child “fat” (Mother claimed she only said he was “big”) and was defensive when given information about Child’s behavioral issues or therapies. The visitation supervisor reported that Mother was sometimes hostile and unreceptive to guidance, and Mother often insisted that Child had no negative behaviors while under her care.

After visits with Mother, Child often experienced severe meltdowns and “blackout” episodes at his foster home. Mother has not participated in Child’s therapy sessions, and her involvement in observing his therapies has been inconsistent. The evidence revealed a gap between Child’s critical needs and Mother’s ability or willingness to understand and address those needs.

Mother’s stability was also in question. She had a sporadic employment history and was fired from her most recent job shortly before the termination trial. She fell behind on her rent after paying off her child-support arrears in lump-sum payments on the eve of trial. Mother moved frequently and periodically stayed with relatives in Alabama, although by the time of the trial, she had secured an apartment in Tennessee and prepared a bedroom for Child. Her court-ordered child support of $35 per month was not paid until shortly before the trial, though Mother claimed she provided in-kind support (food and toys) to Child during visits. She missed some in-person visits in 2023 due to transportation issues but arranged virtual visits during that time. Mother attended most Child and Family Team Meetings and foster-care reviews but did not attend the Child’s medical appointments, saying no one told her when they were.

After a two-day trial in December 2024, the Juvenile Court found that DCS failed to prove any statutory grounds for terminating Mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that Mother had addressed the issue that led to Child’s removal (lack of supervision), and the remaining concerns—particularly Child’s newly diagnosed special needs—were not conditions present at the time of removal and therefore did not serve as grounds for “persistent conditions.” The court also noted that DCS had not provided Mother with autism-specific training or therapy to help her learn how to manage Child’s condition.

Because it found no grounds for termination against Mother, the Juvenile Court declined to terminate Father’s parental rights as well. The Juvenile Court identified multiple reasons for ending Father’s rights and concluded that most of the factors important to the child’s best interest favored termination. However, the Juvenile Court determined that terminating Father’s rights was not in the child’s best interest, since Mother’s rights remained intact and Father might still be able to help Mother care for the child.

Child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) appealed, joined by DCS, challenging the denial of termination.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals vacated the Juvenile Court’s judgment after determining the trial court misapplied the law.

In Tennessee, a parent’s rights can be terminated based on “persistent conditions” when a child has been removed from the parent’s custody for at least six months by court order and certain issues continue. Among other things, TCA § 36-1-113(g)(3) requires evidence that the conditions leading to removal or other factors preventing the child’s safe return still exist, that there is little chance these conditions will be resolved soon, and that maintaining the parent-child relationship significantly reduces the child’s likelihood of early placement into a safe, stable home.

This ground’s purpose is to prevent children from remaining in foster care when a parent cannot provide a safe, stable home within a reasonable time. Tennessee courts focus on the results of a parent’s efforts to improve their parenting rather than just whether efforts were made. Notably, the state is not required to prove that DCS made reasonable efforts to help the parent remedy the conditions; any failure by DCS to assist is considered only during the best-interest analysis, not when determining whether this ground for termination is met.

The Court of Appeals found that the Juvenile Court applied the incorrect legal standard and overlooked significant evidence, requiring a new proceeding on remand:

We agree that the Juvenile Court erred by stating that the conditions needed to have existed at the time of the child’s removal. The statute provides that DCS can prove this ground by either showing that conditions that existed at the time of the Child’s removal persist or that other conditions exist that prevent the child’s safe return to the care of the parent. The Juvenile Court misapplied the law in its consideration of this ground.

*     *     *     *     *

In determining that unsafe conditions no longer existed, the Juvenile Court considered the Mother’s remorse and commitment to never leave the Child alone again and her completion of all assessments required by DCS. However, the Juvenile Court’s findings are largely based on DCS’s failure to assist Mother in learning about autism or incorporating her into [Child’s] therapy sessions with [his therapist]. Our Supreme Court has previously stated:

[N]othing in the plain language of Section 36-1-113 indicates that a petitioner in a proceeding to terminate parental rights is in fact required to put on proof of DCS’s reasonable efforts to assist the respondent parent. Rather, the language of the statute indicates only that the trial court is to consider DCS’s reasonable efforts, or the lack thereof, in determining whether termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest.

DCS’s lack of efforts is not an element of this ground; rather, we focus on the results of the parent’s efforts at improvement rather than the mere fact that he or she had made them. The Juvenile Court also misapplied the law in this respect as well.

*     *     *     *     *

Because the Juvenile Court misapplied the statutory language for the ground of persistent conditions and left relevant testimony unaddressed, we are unable to conclude that it properly dismissed the petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights, and we vacate the judgment and remand for the Juvenile Court to enter an order with specific findings of fact regarding the relevant testimony and correctly applying the law.

The Court also critiqued the Juvenile Court for failing to make specific findings.

For these reasons (and others), the Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

K.O.’s Comment: Tennessee’s “persistent conditions” ground is a tricky one that often trips up trial courts. By its plain terms, this ground isn’t limited to the original reason for the child’s removal. If new problems arise that make a parent unable to safely care for the child, those “other conditions” can justify termination even if the initial issue (like lack of supervision) has been fixed. In similar cases, courts have terminated parental rights when a parent, despite completing some requirements, still couldn’t meet a child’s newly discovered special needs.

Source: In re Tristan J. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, March 24, 2026).

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