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 ompl 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 ) .
* * * *
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Joe Eric Taylor, Sr. (State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Joe Eric Taylor, Sr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.