Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2004

State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Joe Eric Taylor, Sr.

State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Joe Eric Taylor, Sr.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided August 17, 2004 · Judge Don T. McMurray

State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Joe Eric Taylor, Sr.

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) KNOX J UVENI LE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVI CES, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9609- J V- 0028 6 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CAREY E. GARETT ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) J OE ERI C TAYLOR, SR. , ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

SHARON F. PATTERSON, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt .

CHARLES W BURSON, At t or ne y Ge ne r a l a nd Re por t e r , a nd W LLI AM ASHBY . I SM TH, As s i s t a nt At t or ne y Ge ne r a l , f or a ppe l l e e .

I

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur

Thi s i s a n a ppe a l f r om a j udgme nt of t h e j u v e n i l e c our t of Kn o x Co u nt y whe r e i n t he c our t t e r mi na t e d t he pa r e nt a l r i ght s of t h e a pp e l l a nt ( de f e nda nt ) . For r e a s ons he r e i na f t e r s t a t e d, we r e ve r s e t h e j u d gme nt of t he t r i a l c our t .

The de f e nda nt i s t he na t ur a l f a t he r of Ra ymond Ant hony Ta y l o r a nd J oe Er i c Ta yl or , Jr. , bot h mi nor s . The na t ur a l mot h e r s u r r e n d e r e d he r pa r e nt a l r i ght s pr i o r t o t he he a r i ng t e r mi na t i ng t he d e f e nda nt ' s r i ght s . The r e c or d r e f l e c t s t ha t t he c hi l dr e n h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n a f os t e r home a nd ha d be e n wi t h t he i r pr e s e nt f os t e r p a r e n t s s ome f i f t e e n mont hs .

The St a t e of Te nne s s e e t hr ough t he De pa r t me nt of Hu ma n Se r v i c e s f i l e d a pe t i t i on t o t e r mi na t e t he de f e nda nt ' s pa r e n t a l r i ght s . The de f e nda nt f i l e d a r e s pons e t o t he pe t i t i on pr o s e .

The c a s e pr oc e e de d t o t r i a l wi t h t he de f e nda nt not ha vi ng t h e b e n e f i t of c ouns e l a nd a ga i n a c t e d pr o s e . At t he c onc l us i on o f t he t r i a l t he c our t f ound t ha t t he de f e nda nt ' s pa r e nt a l r i gh t s s h o u l d be t e r mi na t e d a nd e nt e r e d a j udgme nt a c c or di ngl y.

De f e nda nt c ha l l e nge s t he pr opr i e t y of t he t r i a l c our t ' s a c t i o n i n p r o c e e di ng t o t r i a l wi t hout f i r s t a dvi s i ng t he de f e nda nt of h i s r i g h t t o c ouns e l a nd e xp l a i n i ng hi s r i ght s t o hi m a s r e qui r e d b y t he Te n n e s s e e Rul e s of J uve ni l e Pr oc e dur e . De f e nda nt a l s o c ompl a i n s o f t h e a dmi s s i on of c e r t a i n e vi de nt i a r y ma t t e r s .

W wi l l a ddr e s s t he i s s ue r e l a t i ng t o t he c our t ' s f a i l ur e t o e a d v i s e t he de f e nda nt of hi s r i ght t o c ouns e l a nd t he f a i l ur e of t h e c our t t o a ppoi nt c ouns e l . Fr om a c ons t i t ut i ona l vi e wpoi nt t he Un i t e d St a t e s Supr e me Cou r t ha s de t e r mi ne d t ha t pa r e nt s ha v e a f u n d a me nt a l r i ght to t he car e, c us t ody a nd c ont r ol of t he i r c h i l d r e n. St a nl e y v. I l l i noi s , 4 05 U. S. 645, 92 S. Ct . 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2 d 551 ( 1972) It ha s l i ke wi s e be e n e s t a bl i s he d in t hi s j ur i s d i c t i on t ha t our c ons t i t ut i on ( Ar t i c l e I , Se c t i on 8 ) r e c og - n i z e s a f unda me nt a l r i ght of a pa r e n t t o t he c a r e , c us t ody a n d c ont r ol of t he i r c hi l dr e n. Ha wk v . Ha wk , 855 S. W 2d 573, . 577 ( Te n n . 1 993) . I n Na l e v. Robe r t s on , 871 S. W 2d ( Te nn . . 1 9 94) t h e c o u r t ma de t he f ol l owi ng obs e r va t i ons :

Thi s Cour t f ound i n Da vi s v. Da vi s , 842 S. W 2d 588, .

6 0 0 ( Te nn. 1992) , t ha t " t he r e i s a r i g h t of i ndi vi dua l p r i va c y gua r a nt e e d unde r a nd pr ot e c t e d by t he l i be r t y c l a us e s of t he Te nne s s e e De c l a r a t i on of Ri ght s . " Thi s c o ns t i t ut i ona l r i ght o f pr i va c y i nc l ude s pa r e nt a l r i ght s .

I n l i ght of t hi s r i ght t o pr i va c y, we be l i e ve t ha t whe n no s ubs t a nt i a l ha r m t hr e a t e ns a c hi l d' s we l f a r e , t he s t a t e l a c ks a s uf f i c i e nt l y c ompe l l i ng j us t i f i c a t i on f or t h e i nf r i nge me nt on t he f unda me nt a l r i ght of pa r e nt s t o r a i s e t he i r c hi l dr e n a s t he y s e e f i t .

Th e r i ght t o c ouns e l ha s a l s o be e n a ddr e s s e d bot h by t he U. S.

Sup r e me Cour t a nd our a ppe l l a t e c our t s . I n Hows on v. Hows on , an u n r e p o r t e d opi ni on of t hi s c our t , 1993 Te nn. App. Le xi s 457, t he c o u r t e d not e d:

Unde r t he U. S. Cons t i t ut i on, p a r e nt s do not ha ve a n a b s ol ut e r i ght t o c ouns e l i n s uc h pr oc e e di ngs [ t e r mi na - t i on of pa r e nt a l r i g ht s ] . M n, [ St a t e e x r e l . T. H. b y i H. H. v . M n, 802 S. W 2d 625 ( Te nn. App. 1990) ] a t 626, i . c i t i ng La s s i t e r v. De pa r t me nt o f Soc i a l Se r vi c e s o f Du r ha m Ci t y , 452 U. S. 18, 101 S. Ct . 2153, 68 L. Ed. 2d 6 4 0 ( 1981) . The t r i a l c our t mus t c ons i de r t he i nt e r e s t s o f t he St a t e , t h e i nt e r e s t s of t he pa r e nt s , a nd t he r i s k t ha t a f a i l ur e t o a ppoi nt c ouns e l wi l l l e a d t o a n e r r one ous r e s u l t . The M n c our t a na l yz e d La s s i t e r i n i l i ght of l a t e r Supr e me Cour t de c i s i ons a nd s umma r i z e d how t o a s s e s s t he r i s k of e r r one ous r e s ul t s on t he me r i t s a s f o l l ows :

" To h e l p a s s e s s t he r i s k of a n unf a i r pr oc e e di ng r e s ul t i ng i n a n e r r one ous de c i s i on, t he c our t s i n La s s i t e r a nd Da v i s ha ve l i s t e d s e ve r a l f a c t or s t ha t be a r on t he q u e s t i on. The y i nc l ude : ( 1) whe t he r e xpe r t me di c a l a nd/ or ps yc hi a t r i c t e s t i mony i s pr e s e nt e d a t t he he a r i ng; ( 2) whe t he r t h e pa r e nt s ha ve h a d u nc ommon di f f i c ul t y i n de a l i ng wi t h l i f e a nd l i f e s i t ua t i ons ; ( 3) whe t he r t he pa r e nt s a r e t hr us t i nt o a di s t r e s s i ng a nd di s or i e nt i ng s i t ua - t i on a t t he he a r i ng; ( 4) t he di f f i c ul t y a nd c om- pl e x i t y of t he i s s ue s a nd pr oc e dur e s ; ( 5) t he pos s i bi l i t y o f c r i mi na l s e l f - i nc r i mi na t i on; ( 6) t he e duc a t i ona l ba c kgr ound of t he pa r e nt s ; a nd ( 7) t he pe r ma ne nc y of po t e nt i a l de pr i va t i on of t he c hi l d i n que s t i on. "

Our pr e s e nt Rul e s of J uve ni l e Pr oc e dur e be c a me e f f e c t i ve J u l y 1, 1984. Si nc e t he s e r ul e s pos t da t e La s s i t e r , i t woul d a ppe a r t ha t i n o r d e r t o i ns ur e t ha t t he c ondi t i ons t he r e i n s t a t e d a r e pr ope r l y c o n s i d e r e d, t he Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t a nd t he Ge ne r a l As s e mbl y , by t he a dopt i on of t he Rul e s of J u v e ni l e Pr oc e dur e , pr ovi d e d mi ni mu m r e qui r e me nt s whi c h t he t r i al c our t mus t f ol l ow whe n a p a r e n t a ppe a r s a t a t e r mi na t i on he a r i ng wi t hout a n a t t or ne y.

Rul e 39, Te n n e s s e e Ru l e s of J uve ni l e Pr oc e dur e , pr ovi de s i n p e r t i ne nt pa r t a s f ol l ows :

Rul e 3 9 . Te r m nat i on o f Pa r e nt al Ri ght s . . . . i * * * * ( f ) Ad j udi c a t or y He a r i ng o n Te r mi na t i on.

( 1) The c our t s h a l l c onduc t a n a dj udi c a t or y he a r i ng t o de t e r mi ne t he i s s ue s r a i s e d by t he pe t i t i on a nd by a ny a ns we r ( s ) f i l e d. Not i c e of t he he a r i ng s ha l l be pr ovi de d i n t he s ummons .

( 2) At t he be gi nni ng of t he he a r i ng, a ny pa r t y who a ppe a r s wi t hout a n a t t o r n e y s ha l l be i nf or me d of t he r i ght t o a n a t t or ne y, a nd i n t he c a s e of a n i ndi ge nt r e s ponde nt , t he c our t s ha l l c ons i d e r t he f a c t s a nd c i r c ums t a n c e s a l l e ge d a nd ma ke a de t e r mi na t i on a s t o wh e t he r a n a t t or ne y s houl d be a ppoi nt e d . ( Empha s i s our s ) .

* * * *

Si nc e it is we l l - s e t t l e d t ha t a pa r e nt ha s a f unda me n t a l r i ght , ( c ons t i t ut i ona l l y gua r a nt e e d a ga i ns t t he st at e whe n no s u b s t a n t i a l h a r m t hr e a t e ns a c hi l d' s we l f a r e ) , t o t he c a r e , c us t o d y a n d c o n t r ol of t he i r c hi l dr e n, we c ons i de r t he pr oc e dur e s of Ru l e 9 ( f ) ( 2) , r e ga r di ng t he r i ght t o ha ve a n a t t or ne y, a p poi nt e d o r o t h e r wi s e , t o be ma nda t or y.

The t r a ns c r i pt of t he he a r i n g r e f l e c t s t ha t t he t r i a l c ou r t f a i l e d t o a dvi s e t he de f e nda nt a t t he be gi nni ng of t he he a r i ng t h a t he wa s e nt i t l e d to an a t t or ne y a nd f ur t he r f ai l ed to ma k e a p r e l i mi na r y f i ndi ng of i ndi ge nc y or non- i ndi ge nc y. The r e c or d do e s n o t d e mo ns t r a t e t ha t t he c our t c ons i de r e d t he f a c t s e nume r a t e d i n

La s s i t e r or Da vi s t o ma ke a de t e r mi na t i on of whe t he r t h i s wa s a p r o p e r c a s e f or t he a ppoi nt me nt of a n a t t or ne y. W f i nd t hi s t o b e e r e v e r s i bl e e r r or .

The a bove i s s ue i s di s pos i t i ve of t he a ppe a l , howe ve r , we wi l l b r i e f l y di s c us s t he i s s ue r e l a t i ng t o t h e a dmi s s i on of e vi de n c e .

At t h e he a r i ng, t he a t t or ne y f or t he De pa r t me nt of Huma n Se r vi c e s i n t r o d u c e d e vi de nc e by wa y of c r os s e xa mi na t i on of c onduc t by t h e d e f e n d a nt , whe n he wa s 10 ye a r s o l d . Rul e 608( 3) ( c ) , Te nne s s e e Ru l e s o f e vi de nc e pr ovi de s a s f ol l ows :

( c ) J uve ni l e Conduc t . - Evi de nc e of s pe c i f i c i n s t a nc e s of c onduc t of a wi t ne s s c ommi t t e d whi l e t he wi t ne s s wa s a j uve ni l e i s ge ne r a l l y not a dmi s s i bl e unde r t hi s r ul e . The c our t ma y, howe ve r , a l l ow e vi de nc e of s uc h c o nduc t o f a wi t ne s s ot he r t ha n t he a c c us e d i n a c r i mi na l c a s e i f t he c onduc t woul d be a dmi s s i bl e t o a t t a c k t he c r e di bi l i t y o f a n a du l t a nd t he c our t i s s a t i s f i e d t ha t a d mi s s i on i n e vi de nc e i s ne c e s s a r y f or a f a i r de t e r mi na - t i on i n a c i vi l a c t i on or c r i mi na l pr oc e e di ng.

On r e ma nd, t he c our t s houl d e xa mi ne t he e vi de nc e of t he d e f e n d a nt ' s j uve ni l e c ond u c t unde r t he a bove r ul e . St a t e d o t h e r wi s e , t he c our t mus t de t e r mi ne if t he e vi de nc e woul d be a d mi s s i bl e t o a t t a c k t he c r e di bi l i t y of a n a dul t a nd ma ke a f ur t h e r f i n d i n g t ha t a dmi s s i on of t he e vi de nc e i s ne c e s s a r y f or a f ai r d e t e r mi na t i on o f t he c a s e .

Although no objection was made to the evidence, the failure to do so may be the result of the lack of proper legal advice.

W r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t . e I n s o doi ng, we d o n o t e xpr e s s a ny opi ni on on t he me r i t s of a ny i s s ue be f or e t h e c o u r t o n r e ma nd.

Th i s c a us e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h ot he r a n d f ur t h e r a c t i on a s ma y be ne c e s s a r y t o c onc l ude t hi s c a s e . Cos t s o f t h i s a ppe a l a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l e e .

___________________________ _ _ _ Don T. M M r a y, J udge c ur

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ He r s c h e l P. Fr a nks , J udge

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) KNOX J UVENI LE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVI CES, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9609- J V- 0028 6 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CAREY E. GARETT ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) J OE ERI C TAYLOR, SR. , ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

JUDGMENT

Thi s a ppe a l c a me o n t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t h e J u v e n i l e Cour t of Knox Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Up o n c o n s i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e wa s r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

W r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt e of t he t r i a l c our t . Thi s c a us e i s r e ma nd e d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h ot he r a n d f u r t he r a c t i on a s ma y b e ne c e s s a r y t o c onc l ude t hi s c a s e . Cos t s of t hi s a ppe a l a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l e e .

PER CURI AM

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.