## Facts

- Joseph Daniel Hasty was born out of wedlock on November 20, 1987, to a 14-year-old mother.
- Five days after birth, the mother surrendered the child to Harry and Mary Sonet, a married couple in their early-to-mid 60s.
- The Sonets filed a petition to adopt on April 7, 1988.
- During the child’s time in the Sonet home, the Department of Human Services (DHS) received multiple referrals alleging neglect and inadequate infant care.
- When the child was about 16 months old, he was removed from Mary Sonet’s care by Florida child-welfare authorities during a trip; he was later returned by court order.
- Around 19 months old, physicians evaluated the child at DHS’s request and concluded he was developmentally delayed and “environmentally deprived,” consistent with “failure to thrive.”
- The Sonets’ home situation deteriorated: financial instability followed business failure; for a period the home lacked electricity; Harry Sonet became seriously ill, the couple separated, and he ceased participating in the adoption effort.
- DHS intervened and opposed adoption; Mary Sonet presented contrary testimony that the child improved and that she was bonded to him.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that adoption by Mary Sonet was not in the child’s best interest.
2. Whether, under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s factual findings supporting denial of the adoption petition.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the adoption petition and dismissal of the action.
- The court held the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that adoption by Mary Sonet was not in the child’s best interest.
- The court applied de novo review with a presumption of correctness for factual findings and declined to reweigh conflicting testimony where the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court.
- Custody remained with DHS consistent with the trial court’s disposition.

## Legal Principles

- In adoption proceedings, the child’s best interest is the controlling consideration; adoption is granted only when it clearly appears to serve the child’s welfare.
- Appellate review of factual findings is de novo with a presumption of correctness; findings are not disturbed unless the evidence preponderates against them. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
- In child-welfare cases with conflicting testimony, appellate courts give substantial weight to the trial court’s credibility and evidentiary assessments.
- A proposed adoptive parent’s age is not automatically disqualifying but may be considered with other evidence bearing on the caregiver’s capacity to meet the child’s long-term needs.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of the adoption because the record supported the trial court’s determination that the child’s developmental delay and “failure to thrive,” tied to environmental deprivation and household instability, made adoption by the petitioner contrary to the child’s best interest, and the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s findings under Rule 13(d).


Sonet v. Unknown Father of Joseph Daniel Hasty, 797 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)