## Facts

- B.A.C. was born in June 2007 with severe drug withdrawal and extremely high drug levels attributed to Mother’s prenatal cocaine use.
- In a dependency and neglect case, the juvenile court found B.A.C. dependent and neglected and found Mother committed severe child abuse based on prenatal drug exposure; that severe-abuse finding became final after appellate review in a separate appeal.
- Mother had a decades-long history of substance abuse, repeated failed treatment attempts, and drug-related criminal conduct.
- After the child’s removal, Mother continued using multiple controlled substances and engaged in criminal behavior to obtain drugs, including theft and selling methadone and possessions.
- DCS provided permanency planning and services, but Mother did not show sustained sobriety or stability sufficient for safe reunification within a reasonable time.
- In April 2009, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights on two grounds—severe child abuse and persistence of conditions—and found termination was in the child’s best interests.
- Mother appealed, arguing the grounds and best-interest finding were not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior, final adjudication that Mother committed severe child abuse (based on prenatal drug exposure) could be relied on as a statutory ground for terminating parental rights in the termination proceeding.
2. Whether DCS proved the statutory ground of persistence of conditions by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was proven by clear and convincing evidence to be in the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Mother’s parental rights.
- The court held the prior severe-abuse adjudication was final and binding and satisfied the severe child abuse ground for termination.
- The court held DCS proved persistence of conditions by clear and convincing evidence because Mother’s addiction and related instability continued, were unlikely to be remedied soon, and delayed the child’s placement in a safe, permanent home.
- The court held clear and convincing evidence supported that termination was in the child’s best interests given Mother’s ongoing substance abuse and the child’s need for stability and permanence.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of (1) at least one statutory ground for termination and (2) that termination is in the child’s best interests.
- A prior, final severe-abuse adjudication involving the same parent and child may be treated as established in a later termination proceeding and need not be relitigated.
- Persistence of conditions is established when the conditions leading to removal remain after the child has been removed for the statutory period, are unlikely to be remedied at an early date, and continuation of the relationship would significantly delay the child’s integration into a safe, stable, permanent home.
- In best-interest analysis, courts weigh statutory factors including the parent’s lasting adjustment, the risk of harm from continued substance abuse, and the child’s need for timely permanence and stability.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed termination because the severe-abuse finding from the prior dependency and neglect case was conclusive, Mother’s long-standing substance abuse and instability persisted with little likelihood of near-term correction, and the child’s best interests required a safe and permanent home without further delay.


In re B.A.C., 317 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010)