CHARLES D. SUSANO, Jr., J.
Perley W. Jr., ("Father") appeals the termination of his rights to his minor daughter, Rebekah R.W. (DOB: Oct. 7, 2005) ("the Child").
Trial was held in May 2010. In addition to Father, who was transported from prison to attend the hearing, the court heard testimony from the Grandparents, a parole officer, and the Grandparents' acquaintances. The Child, by then age four and a half, had lived with the Grandparents since they were awarded temporary custody of her in 2007. Prior to then, the Child first lived with Amy W. ("Mother") for several months and then, after Father obtained legal custody, with him
At trial, grandmother testified that she and grandfather had little to no contact with either Father or Mother and had received no support for the Child since she came to live with them. When they picked her up, they immediately took her to the hospital for treatment of a large boil with a staph infection that took over a year to resolve. Grandmother said that initially, the Child was "very frightened [of] men," and "very withdrawn." Grandmother said, however, that by the time of trial, the Child was "wonderful" and physically "very healthy." In addition, the Child had recently completed counseling sessions for her emotional issues; grandmother said she "saw a new child emerging." The Grandparents lived on a farm and the Child enjoyed riding her pony, swimming, and playing with the dog they had bought her. In addition, she had started learning to use a computer. Grandmother noted that the Child had four half-siblings with whom she regularly spent time during their visits to the Grandparents' home and other "play dates." Regarding the Child's parents, grandmother stated that Mother, her daughter, had a drug problem and had been in and out of the Child's life before absenting herself completely. Grandmother said she initially had a "good opinion" of Father, even after he admitted to once assaulting Mother, until after he threatened in a telephone call "to get" grandmother. Grandfather corroborated grandmother's testimony. He added that he would question the ability and desire of someone like Father, with a history of criminal activity, to care for a child. Grandfather believed the Child had been exposed to violence in the past because he had witnessed her waking in the night, "hollering, `[p]lease don't hit me, don't hit me, don't hit me.'"
Long-time friends of the Grandparents characterized them as "the nicest people" whose integrity was "beyond reproach." The friends testified to the effect that the Grandparents and the Child shared a loving relationship and described the Child as "always smiling." The Grandparents stated they intended to file for adoption in the event the termination petition was granted.
The pre-sentence investigation report for Father's most recent convictions revealed an extensive criminal history dating back to 1990. Among his offenses were multiple driving under the influence convictions, various drug-related crimes, burglary, habitual motor vehicle offender, weapons possession, and two counts of aggravated assault.
Father briefly testified that he and the Child shared a "pretty good relationship," and concluded: "I love her. She loves me." Father stated that when he was able, he had cared for the Child and provided her with a suitable home. He enjoyed spending time with the Child and requested that he be permitted to retain his parental rights.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that, as to both parents, grounds for termination were established, and that termination is in the best interest of the Child, all by clear and convincing evidence. As to Father, the trial court found one ground for termination — that Father "was convicted in the Criminal Court for Monroe County, Tennessee, on January 25, 2008 of two offenses of attempted first degree murder . . . and sentenced for those convictions to an effective sentence of forty (40) years.
Father presents one issue for our review:
We employ the following standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental rights:
It is well established that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children.
This Court has observed:
Father does not challenge the trial court's finding of a ground to terminate his parental rights; nor could he have done so successfully. The judgments of conviction indisputably establish a basis for terminating his rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6). Accordingly, we next consider whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's best interest determination. Guided by the relevant statutory factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i),
In a nutshell, Father asserts that it is not in the Child's best interest to terminate "the one parent she had" because it gains her nothing; the Child is already in the Grandparents' custody and Father will be unavailable to her for the foreseeable future.
Regarding the Child's best interest, the trial court stated:
In short, nothing in our review of the evidence undermines the court's conclusion that terminating Father's rights is in the Child's best interest. The proof showed that, as a result of his continuing criminal behavior, Father had failed to adjust his circumstances or conduct to enable him to parent the Child. He is unavailable to support the Child's basic needs or build a meaningful presence in her life. Moreover, the Child had lived with the Grandparents for some two and a half years by the time of trial and she was, by all accounts, healthy, happy, and well-provided for with them. It appears that her emotional state has improved with counseling and she is well-adjusted. Looking at the situation from the Child's perspective, as we must, the evidence preponderates overwhelmingly in favor of the court's finding that she needs and deserves the permanency that the Grandparents intend to provide.
The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the Child's best interest to terminate Father's parental rights.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Perley W., Jr. This case is remanded to the trial court, pursuant to applicable law, for enforcement of the trial court's judgment and the collection of costs assessed below.