IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 18, 2002 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES v. R.M.M.,SR. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County No. K2519 Carey E. Garrett, Judge FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 No. E2001-02678-COA-R3-JV

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J.,dissenting.

I cannot concur in the majority opinion. I agree with the trial court’s conclusion that there is clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination of R.M.’s parental rights and clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the “best interests,” see T.C.A. § 36-1-113(c)(2), of R.M.II.

If Dr. Hanaway’s testimony is to be believed – and the trial court certainly did accredit that evidence – R.M. has a serious mental illness, i.e., “schizo-affective disorder which consists of schizophrenia and concurrent symptoms of major depression, mania or a mixed mood disorder,” requiring that he take medication; he will be required to take this medication for the rest of his life; he does not acknowledge that he has a serious mental condition; he does not believe that he needs to be on medication; he has chosen, in the past, to go off his medication necessitating his hospitalization; he believes the doctors who have treated him “don’t know a thing”; and he told Dr. Hanaway “he would take medication until he gets little [R.M., II] back and then will stop taking his medication.” The trial court made a specific finding as to Dr. Hanaway’s testimony regarding R.M.’s statements about his plans to cease taking his medicine: The Court finds and believes that [R.M.] made these statements and will in all probability quit taking his medication when the case ends.

In my judgment, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual determinations, see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), or his finding that the evidence shows, clearly and convincingly, that the parental rights of R.M. should be terminated. I recognize that R.M.II, soon to be four-years-old, is not presently in R.M.’s care; but the majority decision may well prompt a reunification of this boy with his father. Given the trial court’s findings, such a result, in my judgment, may place R.M.II in a very unstable home with very uncertain results. I believe such a scenario has a very high probability of occurring. I further believe that termination of R.M.’s parental right now are in keeping with the purposes of the relevant statutory schemes. See T.C.A.

§§ 36-1-101, 37-2-401.

I respectfully dissent.

___________________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE

-2-