Facts: Child lived with Mother until 2018, when Child began staying with Grandmother after transferring to a nearby elementary school. By 2019, Child was living with Grandmother full time, although Child occasionally stayed overnight with Mother. During the 18 months before Grandmother filed her petition, Child’s overnight visits with Mother were infrequent. On two occasions, Child asked Grandmother to retrieve her from Mother because Child was concerned for her safety. Grandmother provided Child’s financial support during this period. Mother occasionally provided food and made several small payments, but Grandmother considered those contributions token support rather than regular, dependable support. In July 2023, Grandmother took Child to Georgia for a wedding. Mother reported to police that Child had been kidnapped. Mother also called and texted Child with threats of consequences, leaving Child greatly upset. Grandmother petitioned the juvenile court for custody, alleging that Mother and Father had left Child in Grandmother’s sole physical and financial care for more than 18 months and that Child would suffer substantial harm if removed from Grandmother’s care. The juvenile court found Child dependent and neglected under TCA § 37-1-102(b)(13)(J) and awarded custody to Grandmother. Mother appealed to the Davidson County Circuit Court for a de novo hearing. Before trial, Father agreed that Grandmother would have custody and Father would have visitation. Thus, the circuit court did not adjudicate any claims against Father. The circuit court conducted a two-day trial. The court credited the testimony of Grandmother, Child, Father, and Child’s counselor. It found Mother’s testimony inconsistent and erratic. Grandmother testified that Child had lived with her since 2018 and that she had provided all Child’s financial support since February 2022. Mother substantiated payments totaling $179.40 during the relevant 18-month period. The circuit court found those contributions did not constitute regular, dependable support. Child testified that Mother struck her in 2022 and threatened her in 2023. Child also produced hostile and degrading messages Mother sent in 2025. Mother ultimately admitted that she sent some messages intending to hurt Child, Grandmother, and Father. Child testified that she feared something bad might happen if she were returned to Mother’s care. Child’s counselor testified that Child should not return to Mother’s home at that time. The circuit court found clear and convincing evidence that Child had been in Grandmother’s sole physical and financial care for the required 18 months. It also found Child would suffer substantial harm if removed from Grandmother’s care. The circuit court found Child dependent and neglected and awarded custody to Grandmother. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence occurring after Grandmother filed the dependency-and-neglect petition. On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. In Tennessee, dependency-and-neglect proceedings have two phases. First, the court determines whether the child is dependent and neglected. If so, the court then makes a disposition best suited to the child’s physical, mental, and moral welfare. The version of TCA § 37-1-102(b)(13)(J) in effect when Grandmother filed her petition defined a dependent-and-neglected child as one willfully left in a related caregiver’s sole physical and financial care for at least 18 consecutive months who would suffer substantial harm if removed from that caregiver’s continuous care. Effective July 1, 2024, § 37-1-102(b)(13) was amended to provide that dependency and neglect is determined “at the time of the filing of the petition.” But Grandmother filed her petition in August 2023, so the Court applied the earlier version of the statute. The Court of Appeals held that the 18-month sole-care requirement necessarily concerns the period before the petition was filed. But the statute contained no similar limitation for the substantial-harm requirement: Regarding the first prong of the statute, whether the child has “willfully been left in the sole financial care and sole physical care of a related caregiver for not less than eighteen (18) consecutive months by the child’s parent,” a fair reading of the statute, before or after the 2024 amendment, limits the court’s review to the period prior to the filing of the petition. However, we find no such limitation to the second prong, which requires a finding that “the child will suffer substantial harm if removed from the continuous care of such relative.” Because the circuit court determines dependency and neglect as of the de novo hearing, post-petition evidence may be considered when determining whether the child would suffer substantial harm if removed from the relative’s care: Thus, post-petition evidence may and should be considered to determine whether “the child will suffer substantial harm if removed from the continuous care of such relative.” The post-petition evidence provided additional support. It included Mother’s abusive messages, Mother’s admission that some messages were intended to cause hurt, Child’s fear of returning, the counselor’s opinion, and the uncertainty surrounding Mother’s ability to provide Child’s everyday needs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s finding that Child was dependent and neglected. Mother did not challenge the dispositional ruling awarding custody to Grandmother, so that ruling remained in effect. K.O.’s Comment: Practitioners should be cautious about applying this holding to petitions filed on or after July 1, 2024. The amended statute now defines a dependent-and-neglected child by reference to the child’s circumstances “at the time of the filing of the petition.” The Court did not decide how that new language affects the admissibility or significance of post-petition evidence in a case governed by the amended statute. Source: In re Shelby B. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, August 17, 2026). If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.
Join 1,892 other subscribers
Child Left in Grandmother’s Sole Care Is Dependent and Neglected in Nashville, Tennessee: In re Shelby B. was last modified: August 24th, 2026 by
Categories:
