Skip to main content

In Re: Braxton M.

Citations

  • 531 S.W.3d 708

Syllabus

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Braxton M. and Briley N., the minor children (\the Children\) of Kevin M. (\Father\) and Heather N. (\Mother\). On March 21, 2011, the Washington County Juvenile Court (\juvenile court\) entered an order removing the Children from the parents' custody and placing them in the physical custody of Mother's father and stepmother, William N. and Donna N. (\Maternal Grandparents\) in response to a dependency and neglect action initiated by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (\DCS\) due to Briley's drug-exposed condition at birth.1 In September 2011, the juvenile court entered an order maintaining physical custody of the Children with Maternal Grandparents and directing that the parents would retain the option of petitioning for return of custody at a later date. On April 15, 2015, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition in the Greene County Circuit Court (\trial court\) to terminate the parental rights of the parents and adopt the Children. Mother subsequently surrendered her parental rights to the Children and is not a party to this appeal. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of Father upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Father had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to financially support and visit them. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1). Finding Father to be a putative father, the trial court also applied the statutory grounds provided in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(v) to find clear and convincing evidence that Father had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the Children and that placing the Children in Father's legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to their physical or psychological welfare. The court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights was in

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the version of a termination statute “that was in force when the petition was filed governs this case”
  • holding that the version of a termination statute “that was in force when the petition was filed governs this case”
  • holding the version of a termination statute “‘that was in force when the petition was filed governs this case’”
  • holding the version of a termination statute “‘that was in force when the petition was filed governs this case’”
  • holding the version of a termination statute “‘that was in force when the petition was filed governs this case’”
  • holding “that the version of the statute in effect at the time of the [parental termination] petition’s filing controls this action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Frierson, Susano, McClarty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

95 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named In Re: Braxton M.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.