In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring

DecidedApril 14, 2005

DocketM2004-02377-COA-R3-PT

StatusPublished

This text of In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring (In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 2, 2005

IN RE M.J.M., JR., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for White County No. JU 1839 Sam Benningfield, Judge

No. M2004-02377-COA-R3-PT - Filed April 14, 2005

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., concurring.

I agree fully with the majority’s resolution of this case and the issues raised therein. I write separately, however, to express my concern with the apparent inconsistency in the grounds alleged by the Department. Specifically, while the parents’ failure to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home for the first four months after removal of the child from the home is a definition of abandonment, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A), it is questionable to me whether the Department can rely on that ground when it has entered into a permanency plan that gives a parent one year to find stable and suitable housing. The majority found that ground unavailable because the Department did not use reasonable efforts, making it unnecessary to address my concern. I agree with that conclusion, but want to make it clear that some question about reliance on that ground may exist regardless of the Department’s efforts.

____________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 2, 2005

IN RE M.J.M., JR., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for White County No. JU 1839 Sam Benningfield, Judge

No. M2004-02377-COA-R3-PT - Filed April 14, 2005

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., concurring.

I agree fully with the majority’s resolution of this case and the issues raised therein. I write separately, however, to express my concern with the apparent inconsistency in the grounds alleged by the Department. Specifically, while the parents’ failure to make reasonable efforts to provide a suitable home for the first four months after removal of the child from the home is a definition of abandonment, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A), it is questionable to me whether the Department can rely on that ground when it has entered into a permanency plan that gives a parent one year to find stable and suitable housing. The majority found that ground unavailable because the Department did not use reasonable efforts, making it unnecessary to address my concern. I agree with that conclusion, but want to make it clear that some question about reliance on that ground may exist regardless of the Department’s efforts.

____________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re M.J.M., Jr., L.P.M., & C.A.O.M. - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mjm-jr-lpm-caom-concurring-tennctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack