Facts: Mother experienced childhood trauma that led to drug use by age sixteen. After an overdose in 2018, she joined the United States Army. She met Father in 2019, and they married shortly thereafter. Child was born later that year. Mother maintained sobriety during her pregnancy.
In mid-2020, Mother accepted Father’s offer to use drugs. By September 2020, both parents were using drugs daily. Child often stayed with Paternal Grandmother and Grandfather.
In December 2020, authorities removed Child from the parents’ home after discovering filth, malnourishment, drug activity, and serious criminal conduct by Father. Both parents were arrested. Child was placed with Grandmother and Grandfather, who later obtained legal custody.
Mother faced criminal charges but immediately took steps to turn her life around. After her release, she stopped using drugs and remained sober. She participated in weekly therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, completed parenting and life-skills classes, obtained steady employment, maintained a suitable home, and filed for divorce from Father.
Bond conditions initially prevented Mother from having contact with Child. By mid-2021, the juvenile court allowed supervised therapeutic visits. Mother attended regular visits and had positive, loving interactions with Child, who remained bonded to her. A DCS worker recommended unsupervised visitation in early 2022 because of Mother’s engagement and progress.
Before unsupervised visits began, Grandmother and Grandfather filed a petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. Mother’s visitation stopped. Grandmother and Grandfather later filed a second termination petition. Supervised visits eventually resumed, and observers reported that Child was happy to see Mother and had a healthy attachment to her.
The trial court held a six-day trial. By then, Child had lived with Grandmother and Grandfather for over three years and was strongly bonded with them and their household.
Child also had behavioral and emotional issues while in their care, including tantrums and concerning behavior at daycare. Grandmother and Grandfather attributed those problems to Mother’s visits, but the proof did not support that claim. Daycare records showed Child’s behavioral issues began before Mother’s visits resumed and did not worsen afterward.
The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of two grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to support and severe child abuse by Mother. Mother did not contest those grounds.
The trial court then found Grandmother and Grandfather failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best interest.
Grandmother and Grandfather appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of termination.
Tennessee courts use a two-step analysis when deciding whether to terminate parental rights. First, the petitioner must prove at least one statutory ground for termination. Second, the petitioner must prove that termination is in the child’s best interest. Both must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The best-interest analysis is separate from the grounds for termination. Even when grounds are proven, the court must still decide whether severing the parent-child relationship serves the child’s best interest.
The Court of Appeals stressed that the best-interest analysis focuses on the child’s perspective, considers all relevant statutory factors, and depends on the facts of each case. The facts underlying each factor need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, but the combined weight of the facts must clearly and convincingly show that termination is in the child’s best interest.
The Court agreed with the trial court that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that termination was in Child’s best interest, explaining:
In sum, the circumstances precipitating the child’s removal from Mother’s custody were horrible, but Mother immediately began work on remedying those circumstances and has accomplished a rare feat in parental termination cases—she established that ‘[n]ot all parental misconduct is irredeemable.’ The majority of the best interest factors weigh against terminating her parental rights. It is clear that the [Grandparents] love the child, but we agree with the [trial] court’s determination that the combined weight of the proven facts does not amount to clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child. We note that our holding here does not mean that Mother immediately regains custody of the child or that she will ever regain custody. It merely means that the [Grandparents] failed to meet their burden of proof.
The Court also quoted the Tennessee Supreme Court’s reminder from In re Gabriella D. that the heightened burden of proof exists to reduce the risk of erroneous decisions that permanently sever fundamental parental rights:
[W]e do not at all condone or excuse the conduct that resulted in the removal of [Child] from Mother’s custody. . . . And we certainly do not minimize the genuine concern and affection [Petitioners] have for [Child]. Our decision instead results from an objective and comprehensive review of the record to determine whether the facts presented satisfy the constitutionally mandated heightened standard of proof. This heightened standard is designed specifically to reduce the risk of erroneous decisions depriving parents of their precious and fundamental rights to the care and custody of children. In this case, this heightened standard of proof was not satisfied. We recognize that the result in this case is unusual, but this is an unusual case. Too often parents fail to rehabilitate themselves and make the changes needed to avoid losing their parental rights forever. The proof in this record establishes that Mother has been able to make the necessary adjustments. This is precisely how the system is designed to function.
The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
K.O.’s Comment: The facts are terrible. Grounds were proven. Mother did not even fight them. And she still kept her parental rights.
Mother did what parents in these cases rarely do. She got sober immediately. She stayed sober. She went to therapy every week. She completed every class available to her. She got stable housing and employment. She divorced Father. She visited Child whenever she was allowed to. And, critically, Child remained bonded to her. That combination of immediate action, sustained effort, and preserved bond is what separates this case from the typical outcome, where a parent’s improvements are too little, too late, or too disconnected from the child’s needs.
For lawyers representing parents, this case is a roadmap. Do not rely on vague assertions that the parent has changed. Prove it with treatment records, drug screens, employment history, housing proof, visitation testimony, and witnesses who can describe the parent-child bond. Visitation is particularly important. If the parent is not visiting, the bond evidence disappears, and so does the strongest argument against termination.
Source: In re Liam M. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, June 3, 2026).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.