Background
In February 2022, the child’s parents were arrested following a domestic violence incident and both were homeless. The child was placed with paternal relatives (Joseph L. and Jacqueline L.) by court order. In May 2022, the mother failed drug tests and relocated to Michigan; she made her last in-person visit in August 2022 for the child’s second birthday. By June 2022, the Department of Children’s Services closed its case, finding the conditions persisted that necessitated removal.
In August 2023, the child’s custody was transferred to Adoptive Mother (Jacqueline’s sister), who is married to Adoptive Father—the biological grandfather of the child. The biological father’s parental rights had been relinquished years earlier. On July 29, 2024, the Adoptive Parents filed a petition to terminate both parents’ parental rights and adopt the child. The trial court held a hearing in June and July 2025, and on August 21, 2025, terminated the mother’s parental rights based on two grounds: statutory abandonment by failure to visit and persistence of the conditions that led to removal. The trial court rejected a third ground—failure to manifest ability and willingness to assume custody. The mother appealed.
One of the mother’s key arguments was that Adoptive Father lacked standing to file the termination petition due to his criminal history and prior relinquishment of parental rights to the biological father. The mother also challenged the trial court’s findings on each statutory ground, and the Adoptive Parents cross-appealed the trial court’s rejection of the third statutory ground.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination order in part and reversed in part. On standing, the court held that Adoptive Father had authority to file the petition because he maintained physical custody of the child from August 2023 through July 2024—nearly a year before filing—and this satisfied the statutory requirement of physical custody at the time of filing. The court rejected the argument that Adoptive Father’s initial exclusion from custody due to his criminal record forever barred his participation, particularly since the Department of Children’s Services and the juvenile court later approved his home for the child’s residence after conducting home inspections.
On the statutory grounds, the court affirmed the trial court’s findings that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based on (1) abandonment by failure to visit—the mother made no visits during the four-month period preceding the petition filing, and her attempts at video calls did not constitute sufficient contact under the statute—and (2) persistence of the conditions that led to removal, as the mother remained homeless, continued to struggle with substance abuse, and showed no stable housing or employment. Critically, the court reversed the trial court’s determination that the Adoptive Parents had failed to prove the third ground (failure to manifest ability and willingness to assume custody). The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother had never demonstrated an ability or willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility for the child, thus supporting termination on this ground as well.
Key Takeaways
- An adoptive grandparent may file a termination petition despite a prior criminal record and initial refusal of custody, if the parent has maintained physical custody of the child for nearly a year before filing—the statute does not require initial custodial placement at the time of removal.
- Statutory abandonment by failure to visit requires no visits (beyond token contact) during the applicable period; a parent’s limited means to visit is not a defense if no visits occur, and attempted video calls do not satisfy the statutory requirement when in-person or substantial contact was possible.
- The failure to manifest ability and willingness to assume custody is a separate and independent statutory ground for termination; evidence that a parent lacks stable housing, employment, and resources to support the child supports this ground even if other bases for termination exist.
- Appellate courts reviewing parental termination cases apply heightened scrutiny and independently determine whether facts support clear and convincing evidence, not merely whether the trial court’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the statutory framework for parental rights termination and adoption in Tennessee. It establishes that the “physical custody” requirement for standing to file a termination petition is measured at the time of filing, not at the time of the child’s initial removal. This has practical significance for grandparents and other relatives who later become primary caregivers but were initially excluded from custody. The decision also reinforces that statutory abandonment is a serious ground for termination and does not hinge on a parent’s subjective reasons for non-contact; the statute focuses on the objective fact of whether visits occurred during the prescribed period.
Additionally, the court’s reversal on the third statutory ground demonstrates that appellate courts will independently evaluate whether trial court findings meet the heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, particularly in cases involving the fundamental right to parent. For practitioners, the decision emphasizes that termination petitions should carefully plead all applicable statutory grounds, as courts will examine each independently, and that evidence of multiple grounds strengthens a petitioner’s case even when trial courts reject some bases for relief.