In Re Grace F.

                                                                                         12/27/2023
               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                           AT NASHVILLE
                         Assigned on Briefs October 2, 2023

                              IN RE GRACE F., ET AL.

                  Appeal from the Juvenile Court for White County
                     No. JV-2063, 5142 John Meadows, Judge
                     ___________________________________

                            No. M2023-00344-COA-R3-PT
                         ________________________________

This appeal concerns a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother and a putative
father. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that several grounds for
termination had been proven and that termination was in the best interest of the children.
The mother and putative father appeal. On appeal, the Department of Children’s Services
concedes some of the grounds that the trial court concluded were established. However,
DCS maintains that five grounds for termination were sufficiently proven against the
mother and that three grounds along with the putative father grounds were sufficiently
proven against the father. We conclude that these remaining grounds for termination were
sufficiently proven, and we conclude that termination was in the best interest of the
children. We reverse in part, with respect to one ground for termination of mother’s
parental rights and three grounds for termination of the putative father’s parental rights,
but otherwise we affirm the trial court’s order terminating parental rights.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed in
                     Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded

CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W.
MCCLARTY and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.

J. Brad Hannah, Smithville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Whitney F.

J. Patrick Hayes, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ted H.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, and Katherine P. Adams, Assistant
Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.


                                       OPINION
                            I.       FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        This appeal concerns the parental rights of Whitney F. to two of her children, Grace
and Ransom, and the parental rights of Ted H. to Ransom.1 When the children were born,
Whitney was married to another individual, but there was no father listed on the birth
certificate of Grace or Ransom. Genetic testing established that Whitney’s former
husband is not the biological father of either child, and he executed a denial of paternity
for both children. It was later established through genetic testing that Ted is the biological
father of Ransom but not of Grace.

       In September 2020, prior to the birth of Ransom, the Department of Children’s
Services (“DCS”) received a report alleging inappropriate supervision and drug exposure
as to Grace and three other siblings, perpetuated by Whitney and Ted. The report
specifically alleged that Whitney and Ted had left the children in the care of two known
drug users. A DCS case manager went to the home and observed that the two known drug
abusers along with Ted’s father were in a camper next to Whitney and Ted’s home.
Although there were two cars in the driveway, Ted’s father reported that Whitney and Ted
were not at home. The case manager returned to the home later accompanied by law
enforcement and probation officers. This time, one of the residents of the nearby camper
reported that she had access to the home and admitted that there were drugs in the home
and in the camper where she stayed. She further stated that she babysat the children.
Then, law enforcement and probation officers searched the camper and found
methamphetamine, syringes, spoons, and other drug paraphernalia. Whitney and Ted then
exited the home with one-year-old Grace. Ted appeared to be under the influence because
his eyes were bloodshot, his pupils were constricted, and his speech was slurred. Ted
admitted to having used methamphetamine in the past few days, and he further admitted
that he had illegally used suboxone. Whitney reported that she was four months pregnant
and admitted to having used methamphetamine two weeks earlier. Whitney further
admitted to using drugs with Ted and that she knew about the other adults on the property
using drugs. After Whitney entered the home, despite instruction not to do so, the case
manager became concerned that she was trying to hide something. Law enforcement then
entered the home and found needle caps, marijuana, a glass pipe, and resale bags. All
adults were issued a citation. Ted then completed a drug test and tested positive for
amphetamine, methamphetamine, suboxone, and MDMA. Whitney was also tested and
was negative for all panels used. The home was not clean, and it had little food and no
running water. Grace had only a few diapers. The pool next to the home was filled with
burning trash. Whitney reported that she had been to a domestic violence shelter three
weeks earlier, but she denied that Ted had been abusive to her. According to Whitney,
she lied to the shelter and wanted to leave the home for a few days.

        1
        In order to protect the privacy of the children involved, it is this Court’s policy to use the first
names and initials of the parties and children.
                                                   -2-
        In September 2020, DCS filed a petition to declare Grace and her siblings
dependent and neglected. The juvenile court subsequently issued attachments pro corpus
and protective custody orders placing Grace in the protective custody of DCS and placing
her siblings with Whitney’s former husband. After it was established by DNA testing that
Ted was not the biological father of Grace, he was dismissed. In April 2021, after a
hearing, the juvenile court found that the State had proven by clear and convincing
evidence that Grace and her siblings were dependent and neglected and that it was in the
best interest of these children for custody of Grace to remain with DCS and custody of the
siblings to remain with Whitney’s former husband.

       Ransom was born in March 2021. DCS received a report concerning Ransom
alleging prenatal drug use by his mother, Whitney. A DCS case manager spoke with a
hospital social worker who reported that Whitney and Ransom were being discharged after
Whitney and the child tested negative for illegal drugs. The case manager subsequently
attempted to conduct a home visit. The case manager later contacted Whitney and
reminded her that the case manager would need to visit the child. Whitney replied that
she did not have to meet with her and that she was aware of a child and family team
meeting which she would attend by phone. After the case manager explained that DCS
needed to observe the child, and if not allowed to, would seek court action, Whitney
replied that she was in Cookeville and would meet the case manager in public. The case
manager then requested that Whitney submit to a drug test, but Whitney refused to do so
without a court order and further reported that she had submitted to a hair follicle drug test
about four months earlier, of which the case manager found no record. Whitney stated
that she would not allow the case manager to complete a home visit without a court order.
DCS then filed a petition to declare Ransom dependent and neglected and sought an
immediate protective custody order. The juvenile court subsequently issued an attachment
pro corpus and protective custody order placing Ransom in the protective custody of DCS.
In June 2021, the court found that DCS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that
Ransom was dependent and neglected and that it was in Ransom’s best interest for custody
to remain with DCS.

        DCS developed the first permanency plan in March 2021, which was subsequently
ratified by the juvenile court. The statement of responsibilities for both Whitney and Ted
required them to obtain and maintain safe and stable housing free of safety hazards. The
plan also required them to obtain income to support themselves and the children and
provide proof of employment to DCS. Additionally, due to concerns about prior reports
of domestic violence, they were required to successfully complete a domestic violence
education program with an approved provider. To maintain a bonded relationship with
the children, the plan also provided for scheduled visitation with a responsibility to attend
all scheduled visits and arrive on time, with a confirmation of each visit at least twenty-
four hours in advance. Whitney and Ted were also required to successfully complete
parenting education with an approved provider. Because of their history with substance
                                            -3-
abuse, the plan further required them to obtain an alcohol and drug (“A&D”) assessment
and follow all recommendations. Whitney and Ted were also to submit to random drug
screens and maintain sobriety and a drug free lifestyle for a minimum of six months.
Because of their criminal history and pending charges, the plan required Whitney and Ted
to resolve their pending legal charges and not obtain any new charges. Due to mental
health concerns, they were required to complete psychological evaluations. The statement
of responsibilities for Ted included an additional responsibility of completing DNA
testing for Ransom due to Ted’s status as a putative father. Over the course of DCS’s
involvement with the family, three other permanency plans were developed in September
2021, March 2022, and September 2022. These plans were ratified by the juvenile court.
The responsibilities in these permanency plans remained substantially the same.

        In March 2022, DCS filed a petition for the termination of Whitney’s parental
rights to the children and for the termination of Ted’s parental rights to Ransom. DCS
alleged that six grounds for termination existed as to Whitney and Ted: (1) abandonment
by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) abandonment by failure to
establish a suitable home; (4) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (5)
persistent conditions; and (6) failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume
custody or financial responsibility. DCS alleged additional grounds as to Ted for
abandonment by wanton disregard and putative father grounds under Tennessee Code
Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9).2 DCS further alleged that it was in the best interest of
the children for the parental rights of Whitney and Ted to be terminated. A trial on the
petition was held in December 2022.

       The trial court first heard testimony from Julie Brown, a family services worker
with DCS. Ms. Brown testified that Whitney was not incarcerated in the four months
preceding the filing of the petition and that Whitney did not pay child support in this
period. She further stated that Whitney is not disabled and was aware of her duty to
support the children because it was discussed in the dependency and neglect proceedings
as well as in the permanency plan meetings. Ms. Brown explained that at one time,
Whitney reported that she was employed to do housekeeping at a hotel. Ms. Brown stated
that Whitney had not provided DCS with any excuse for not paying child support. Both
Ted and Whitney had vehicles, and Ms. Brown further stated that they had tested positive
for methamphetamine, so they must have money available to purchase drugs. Ms. Brown
further testified that Whitney and Ted did not regularly visit the children, and during the
four months preceding the filing of the petition, Whitney only visited once in November
2021. For this visit, Whitney was forty-five minutes late to the visitation. Ms. Brown
further stated that both Whitney and Ted were aware of their duty to regularly visit the

        2
          In the petition, DCS alleged all of the additional grounds for termination of putative father’s
parental rights listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9), but these allegations were
listed under the heading entitled “Failure to Establish Parentage.” However, it is clear from the petition
that DCS was alleging each ground applicable to putative fathers in this statute.
                                                  -4-
children as it was discussed in every permanency plan as well as every child and family
team meeting. Ms. Brown also testified that Whitney had the ability to visit as DCS
offered transportation and scheduled visitation around her schedule.

       Ms. Brown explained that the concerns that led to the removal were the drug users
in and out of the home and the cleanliness of the home. Ms. Brown visited the home in
March 2022 and noticed that the home was very cluttered with car parts on the floor, a
large bottle of liquor on the floor, a sandwich bag with white pills that Ted said were
ibuprofen, and pill bottles in the living area with other people’s names on them. Ms.
Brown stated that the home was in the same situation in March 2022 that it was when the
children were removed. She also expressed concern about Whitney and Ted’s continued
use of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

       Ms. Brown further testified that Whitney had not completed any of the permanency
plan requirements. She said Whitney had several opportunities to go into inpatient drug
rehab centers but she did not engage in any of them. DCS offered transportation for her
on two separate occasions, but Whitney refused it. Whitney continued to use illegal
substances and appeared to be under the influence during visitation with the children.
Whitney also had underlying mental health conditions that were never treated. Ms. Brown
stated that Whitney did not follow through with any of the recommendations on the
permanency plan regarding parenting, domestic violence counseling, or obtaining and
maintaining employment. She also explained that Ted did not do anything on the
permanency plans. He did not complete an A&D assessment, did not do anything in
regards to his mental health or parenting, and he did not obtain employment. He would
also come to visitation smelling like alcohol.

        Ms. Brown also testified concerning the reasonable efforts by DCS regarding the
parents and the children. The requirements of the permanency plans and criteria and
procedure for termination of parental rights were all explained to Ted and Whitney. DCS
provided Whitney and Ted a list of service providers along with assistance in scheduling
appointments with providers. Ms. Brown stated that she submitted requests for financial
resources through DCS for help in obtaining services for Ted since he did not have
insurance. DCS also offered assistance with transportation for Whitney and Ted to go to
and from appointments with service providers. Ms. Brown felt she had gone above and
beyond the reasonable efforts required of her. She stated that neither Whitney nor Ted
had completed any services offered by DCS and providers to resolve any of the conditions
that led to removal. She stated that both parents failed to visit the children on a regular
basis, continued to engage in criminal activity, continued to use illegal drugs, failed to
seek treatment for mental health or parenting concerns, and failed to have a stable income
to support the children. She further testified that the children would suffer further abuse
if they are returned to the care of the parents. Ms. Brown stated that Whitney and Ted
will likely not remedy their conditions because they have had every opportunity to follow
their plan and make improvements but failed to do so.
                                            -5-
       Ms. Brown then expressed that the children have strong bonds with their foster
parents and are attending day care and necessary medical appointments regularly. She
recalled a time when she went to pick up the children from the foster parents’ home to
transport them to visitation, and she “literally had to peel them off the foster parents
crying.” Ms. Brown then concluded by stating that the children deserve stability and
permanency, and Whitney and Ted are not able to provide them that but the foster parents
can. Ms. Brown ultimately stated that it was in the best interest of the children for the
parental rights of Whitney and Ted to be terminated.

        On cross-examination, Ms. Brown stated that Ted was doing odd jobs during the
proceedings, and Ted reported that he was rebuilding carburetors in his home. Ms. Brown
then testified that she assumes that Ted had money because he bought drugs. She stated
that she did not know if Ted was working, but there was nothing preventing him from
working. Ms. Brown further testified that Ted had participated in the parenting classes,
but she never got a certificate of completion. Ms. Brown noted that she did not know how
many drug screens Ted had passed before she received the case, but she did know that
Ted had submitted to a urine drug screen at a visitation in May 2022 and had tested
positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Ted also submitted to a court-ordered
hair follicle test and was positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Ms. Brown
also stated that visitation had been cancelled a few times because Whitney and Ted failed
to confirm the visit twenty-four hours prior as a court order required. DCS also assisted
Whitney in attending visitation by paying for gas money and assisting her in remedying
battery problems with her car. During supervised visits, Whitney was in and out of the
visitation, but she did play with the children. Though DCS offered transportation to
Whitney for visitation, there were three occasions where DCS could not complete a
request for transportation. Whitney brought food, toys, and clothes for the children to
visitation. Ms. Brown also stated that Whitney had employment when she was pregnant
with her latest child during part of the case, and this may have affected her ability to work;
however, Whitney had reported employment at a laundry department at a hotel.

       The court then heard testimony from the pre-adoptive foster mother of the children.
Grace had been in her home for three years, and Ransom had been in her home since he
was ten days old. She testified that she had observed the children interact with each other,
and they love each other. She stated that she has established a strong bond with the
children, and the children have a strong bond with her. The children also call her and her
husband, “mom” and “daddy.” The foster mother further testified that the children are
now well-adjusted in her home and that they are happy and healthy. She also stated that
when Grace comes back home from visitation, she is disruptive and acts out of character,
but when she does not visit, she is happy, healthy, and well-adjusted. The foster mother
then concluded her testimony by asking the court to consider the children’s well-being,
health, and upbringing in a well-adjusted home to be a priority.

                                            -6-
       Ted also testified. He stated that he participated in a parenting class but he did not
receive a certificate because DCS claimed that he did not follow procedure in completing
an A&D assessment first. He said he had made appointments to do the A&D assessment,
but he did not complete it because he missed the appointments due to transportation issues
or issues with his phone. Ted stated that he could not complete the A&D assessment
because he did not understand that he had to go to a place of DCS’s choosing to complete
it. Ted stated that he now is employed with a stable job, and he believed that he was in a
better position to complete the program due to his current employment.

        Whitney also testified at trial. She stated that she had completed her parenting class
twice, did several A&D assessments, and passed a drug screen when the case first opened.
She further said that she tried to get help with finding a domestic violence class, but it was
not made available to her. She testified to having mental health problems throughout the
case, with depression when the case was opened and severe postpartum depression after
two pregnancies. Though she had a psychological evaluation scheduled, she was not able
to complete her mental health treatment because she missed the appointments. Regarding
visitation, Whitney stated that she had visited as many times as she could, the visits went
well, and she felt that she has bonded with the children. She had reached out for
transportation on several occasions due to issues with her car, but she had recently
acquired another vehicle that runs. However, she is still not able to go to Davidson County
for visitation. Whitney recalled a time when DCS offered her transportation to a visit with
the children at a restaurant, but she never received any follow up message until the time
of the visit, when a DCS worker texted her, “Are you not going to be at the visit?” Later,
upon cross-examination, it was revealed that she may have been confused about that visit,
and she cancelled that visit because she was sick. She further testified that DCS scheduled
another visit knowing that she could not make it, and after she requested transportation,
she never heard back.

        Whitney testified that she had been on medication for mental health issues for the
past two and a half months, and she had gone to counseling while the case was pending.
She also testified that she continued to use drugs while she was pregnant, and she was still
combatting the addiction and had relapsed a month ago after someone offered her
methamphetamine. Although she was not working a steady job at the time of trial, she
stated that she had a job interview for a position that would pay nineteen dollars an hour.
She had worked side jobs where she cleaned houses, making about forty to forty-five
dollars per house, which amounted to $120 to $140 per week. Her regular expenses
included about one hundred dollars per month on utilities and about twelve dollars a month
on cigarettes. She also testified that she was paying automobile insurance. Although her
testimony was not clear, it appeared that she was claiming that she was paying $62 three
times a year. She also stated that she was going to start paying child support, and she was
capable of making nineteen dollars per hour.

       In January 2023, the trial court orally announced its findings of fact and
                                       -7-
conclusions of law, which were later reduced to writing. In February 2023, the court
entered a written order terminating the parental rights of both Whitney and Ted. The court
found that DCS had established the following grounds for the termination of the parental
rights of both Whitney and Ted: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) abandonment
by failure to visit; (3) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home (4) substantial
noncompliance; (5) persistent conditions; and (6) failure to manifest a willingness and
ability [to assume custody and financial responsibility]. The court also found that Ted
was the putative father of Ransom and that DCS had established the grounds for
termination of Ted’s parental rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-
113(g)(9).3 However, the court found that DCS failed to meet its burden of proof with
respect to abandonment by wanton disregard as to Ted. Additionally, the court found that
termination was in the best interests of the children. Whitney and Ted subsequently
appealed.

                                     II.     ISSUES PRESENTED

       Whitney presents the following issues for review on appeal, which we have slightly
restated:

        1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that DCS proved the ground of
           abandonment by clear and convincing evidence;
        2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that DCS proved the ground of
           substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan by clear and convincing
           evidence;
        3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that DCS proved the ground of persistent
           conditions by clear and convincing evidence;
        4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that DCS proved the ground of failure
           to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody by clear and
           convincing evidence;
        5. Whether the trial erred in finding that DCS proved that termination of the
           appellant’s parental rights is in the best interest of the minor children.

Ted presents the following issue for review on appeal, which we have slightly restated:

       1. Whether the trial court erred when it determined that it was in the best interest
of the child to terminate Ted’s parental rights.

        Although Ted does not present any issue regarding the grounds for termination of

        3
          Like the petition, the trial court’s order also listed findings on the grounds for termination of
putative father’s parental rights listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9) under the
heading entitled “Failure to Establish Parentage.” It is also clear that the trial court made a finding and
ruled on each ground within the statute.
                                                  -8-
his parental rights, we must review the trial court’s decision as to grounds as well. See In
re Carrington H., 

 (Tenn. 2016) (holding that “appellate courts must
review a trial court’s findings regarding all grounds for termination and whether
termination is in a child’s best interests, even if a parent fails to challenges these findings
on appeal”). We note, however, that DCS states in its brief on appeal that “DCS concedes
the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and abandonment by failure to visit as
to [Ted] only, and abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home as to [Whitney]
and [Ted].” We therefore reverse the trial court’s findings as to these grounds. See In re
Jaylan J., No. W2019-02025-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Dec. 22, 2020); In re Colton B., No. M2018-01053-COA-R3-PT, 

, at
*6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2019) (“[W]hen the
petitioner who sought termination has conceded on appeal that a ground was not
sufficiently proven, this Court has, in several cases, reversed the trial court’s finding as to
that ground without reaching the merits of whether the ground was actually established.”);
In re Zane W., No. E2016-02224-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App.
July 6, 2017) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 26. 2017) (reversing a ground that DCS “does
not defend” and noting that Carrington “has never been construed to require this Court to
also consider the grounds sustained by the trial court and thereafter conceded or waived
by the non-parent on appeal”). DCS defends only the grounds of abandonment by failure
to support, abandonment by failure to visit, substantial noncompliance, persistent
conditions, and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody against
Whitney and the grounds of substantial noncompliance, persistent conditions, failure to
manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody, and the five additional putative
father grounds of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9) against Ted. We
therefore proceed to consider these issues.

                 III.    STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TERMINATION CASES

        Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113 “sets forth the grounds and
procedures for terminating the parental rights of a biological parent.” In re Kaliyah S.,

 (Tenn. 2015). Pursuant to this statute, the petitioner seeking
termination of parental rights must prove two elements. 

. First, the petitioner
must prove the existence of at least one of the statutory grounds for termination as
provided in section 36-1-113(g). 

 The grounds are “cumulative and nonexclusive, so
that listing conditions, acts or omissions in one ground does not prevent them from coming
within another ground[.]” 

(g). Second, the petitioner must
prove that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child under the factors
set forth in section 36-1-113(i). In re Kaliyah S., 

.

        Because of the constitutional dimension of the rights at stake, the petitioner seeking
termination “must prove both elements by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Khloe
O., M2021-01125-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2022)
(citing In re Bernard T., 

 (Tenn. 2010)); see 

-
                                           -9-
1-113(c). “Clear and convincing evidence enables the fact-finder to form a firm belief or
conviction regarding the truth of the facts[.]” In re Bernard T., 

 (citing
In re Audrey S., 

 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). It also “eliminates any
serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of these factual findings.” 

 (citing In
re Valentine, 

 (Tenn. 2002); State, Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. Mims
(In re N.B.), 

 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)).

       Due to the heightened burden of proof applicable in parental termination cases, we
adapt our customary standard of review on appeal. In re Audrey S., 

.
We review the trial court’s factual findings de novo in accordance with Rule 13(d) of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and presume each factual finding to be correct
unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. In re Carrington H., 

.
We then make our own determination “as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial
court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing
evidence of the elements necessary to terminate parental rights.” 

 (citing In re Bernard
T., 

). “The trial court’s ruling that the evidence sufficiently supports
termination of parental rights is a conclusion of law, which appellate courts review de
novo with no presumption of correctness.” 

 (citing In re M.L.P., 

(Tenn. 2009)).

                                           IV.     DISCUSSION

                                   A.    Grounds for Termination

                              1.        Abandonment as to Whitney

      This ground exists when a parent has abandoned his or her child, as defined in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A). 

(g)(1).4
Within section 36-1-102(1)(A) are “five alternative definitions for abandonment as a
ground for the termination of parental rights.” In re Ciara O., No. E2022-01179-COA-
R3-PT, 

, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2023) (citing In re Audrey S.,

)). The relevant definition for purposes of this appeal provides that
abandonment occurs when:

        For a period of four (4) consecutive months immediately preceding the filing
        of a proceeding, pleading, petition, or any amended petition to terminate the
        parental rights of the parent . . . of the child who is the subject of the petition
        for termination of parental rights or adoption, that the parent . . . either have
        4
           Since the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, the termination statute has been
amended. All quotes and references to the termination statute in this opinion are to the version of the
statute in effect when the petition was filed in March 2022. See In re J.S., No. M2022-00142-COA-R3-
PT, 

, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2023) (“This court applies the versions of the parental
termination statutes in effect on the date the petition was filed.”).
                                                 - 10 -
        failed to visit or have failed to support or have failed to make reasonable
        payments toward the support of the child[.]

(1)(A)(i).5

                                         a.     Failure to Support

        The statute defines failure to support as the failure “to provide monetary support”
or “to provide more than token payments toward the support of the child.” 

(1)(D). “Token support” is support that “under the circumstances of the
individual case, is insignificant given the parent’s means[.]” 

-
102(1)(B). The determinative time period for this ground as to Whitney, counting back
four months from when the petition was filed on March 1, 2022, was from October 28,
2021 to February 28, 2022. In July 2021, the trial court had ordered Whitney to pay $50.00
monthly for each child, totaling $100.00 per month in required child support payments.
However, Ms. Brown testified that the only financial support Whitney paid was a single
payment of approximately $23.00 for Grace in November 2021, which was confirmed by
a print-out from the Child Support Enforcement Services database. Thus, Whitney paid
little monetary child support for Grace and no support for Ransom during the relevant
four-month period. Though we recognize that Whitney contributed some necessary items
such as food, gifts, and clothing to the children, the monetary support that Whitney paid
is no more than token support when compared to the amount that she was supposed to pay
during the four-month period and her ability to earn income during this period. Though
her employment during this period was not stable, she was not disabled and was capable
of working. Therefore, the trial court correctly found that there was clear and convincing
evidence supporting this ground as to Whitney.

                                           b.    Failure to Visit

        Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) further provides a definition
of abandonment for when the parent has “failed to visit” within the “period of four (4)
consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of a proceeding, pleading, petition,
or any amended petition to terminate the parental rights of the parent.” Failure to visit is
further defined as “the failure, for a period of four (4) consecutive months, to visit or
engage in more than token visitation.” 

(1)(E). “Token
visitation” is defined as visitation that “under the circumstances of the individual case,

        5
          A parent may raise the affirmative defense of absence of willfulness. 

-
102(1)(I). Here, however, Whitney did not raise this affirmative defense in an answer to the petition.
Consequently, she waived that affirmative defense. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.08 (specifying that affirmative
defenses not raised by motion or answer are waived). Additionally, Whitney did not raise the issue at trial.
Therefore, the defense of willfulness was not tried by implied consent. See McLemore v. Powell, 

 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (“Implied consent hinges on the issues that were actually litigated
by the parties . . . .”).
                                                  - 11 -
constitutes nothing more than perfunctory visitation or visitation of such an infrequent
nature or of such short duration as to merely establish minimal or insubstantial contact
with the child[.]” 

(1)(C).

        The trial court found that Whitney had failed to engage in more than token
visitation during the four-month period preceding the filing of the petition to terminate
parental rights, October 28, 2021 to February 28, 2022. Specifically, the trial court noted
that Whitney had attended one hour and fifteen minutes of one scheduled two-hour visit
but had missed one two-hour scheduled visit and three four-hour scheduled visits. The
record supports these findings. On appeal, Whitney argues that there was not clear and
convincing evidence to prove this ground because she did visit within the four-month
period and there was no evidence presented as to what happened at the visit between the
child and her. Nevertheless, of sixteen hours scheduled during this four-month period,
Whitney only attended one hour and fifteen minutes of visitation. Furthermore, Ms.
Brown testified that she did not have a reasonable expectation that Whitney will create a
secure and healthy relationship with the children due to her lack of visitation. Such
visitation is token in that it does nothing more than establish “minimal or insubstantial
contact with the child[.]” 

(1)(C). Therefore, we affirm this
ground for termination of Whitney’s parental rights to the children.

                      2. Substantial Noncompliance with the Permanency Plan

        Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(2) provides one ground for a
parent’s rights to be terminated if “[t]here has been substantial noncompliance by the
parent . . . with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan.” The permanency
plan requirements must be “reasonable and related to remedying the conditions which
necessitate[d] foster care placement.” In re Valentine, 

. Not every failure
to comply with a requirement in a permanency plan will constitute grounds for termination
of parental rights. In re Jaylan J., No. W2019-02025-COA-R3-PT, 

,
at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2020) (citing In re Abigail F.K., No E2012-00016-COA-
R3-JV, 

, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. September 14, 2012)). Instead, the
noncompliance with the permanency plan “must be substantial.” 

 (quoting In re
Valentine, 

). Thus, “[t]rivial, minor, or technical deviations” do not rise
to the level of substantial noncompliance. In re M.J.B., 

 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 2004).

       The children were placed in DCS custody due to lack of and/or inappropriate
supervision, drug exposure, insufficient housing, and domestic violence.                   The
responsibilities on the permanency plans were devised with the aim of correcting these
issues by aiding Whitney and Ted in creating a safe, clean, and drug-free home for the
children and in developing a strong family relationship. Although this ground does not
require a parent to comply with every jot or tittle of the statement of responsibilities in the
permanency plan in order to preserve their parental rights, In re Ronon G., No. M2019-
                                           - 12 -
01086-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2020), the record
supports a finding that neither Whitney nor Ted successfully completed the majority of
their responsibilities. Although Whitney testified that she had completed an A&D
assessment, she did not submit any paperwork to corroborate this claim. Likewise,
Whitney did not complete domestic violence classes. She also did not successfully obtain
any sufficient and regular income or obtain a safe home for the children. Whitney further
failed to maintain sobriety. Although Whitney had visited the children, the visitation was
sporadic in frequency and cut short. Ted, as well, failed to complete any of his
responsibilities except for undergoing DNA testing. Therefore, we conclude that there is
clear and convincing evidence to support this ground as to Whitney and Ted.

                               3.     Persistent Conditions

      We next address whether the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing
evidence to support the ground of persistent conditions. This ground applies when:

      (3)(A) The child has been removed from the home or the physical or legal
      custody of a parent . . . for a period of six (6) months by a court order entered
      at any stage of proceedings in which a petition has been filed in the juvenile
      court alleging that a child is a dependent and neglected child, and:

      (i) The conditions that led to the child’s removal still persist, preventing the
      child’s safe return to the care of the parent . . . , or other conditions exist
      that, in all reasonable probability, would cause the child to be subjected to
      further abuse or neglect, preventing the child’s safe return to the care of the
      parent . . . ;

      (ii) There is little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an
      early date so that the child can be safely returned to the parent . . . in the near
      future; and

      (iii) The continuation of the parent . . . and child relationship greatly
      diminishes the child’s chances of early integration into a safe, stable, and
      permanent home;

      (B) The six (6) months must accrue on or before the first date the termination
      of parental rights petition is set to be heard[.]

(g)(3). Each element must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Valentine, 

. This Court has explained that “[t]he
necessary order of removal is ‘the threshold consideration’ for this ground.” In re Lucas
S., No. M2019-01969-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24,
2021) (quoting In re Alleyanna C., No. E2014-02343-COA-R3-PT, 

, at
                                          - 13 -
*14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015)).

       We begin by considering whether Grace has been “removed from the home or the
physical or legal custody” of Whitney “for a period of six (6) months by a court order
entered at any stage of proceedings in which a petition has been filed in the juvenile court
alleging that a child is a dependent and neglected child.” 

-
113(g)(3)(A). In September 2020, DCS filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that
Grace was dependent and neglected. The juvenile court then entered a protective custody
order finding probable cause to believe that Grace was dependent and neglected. The
court then removed Grace from Whitney’s home. When the trial was held in December
2022, more than two years had passed from the time Grace was removed from Whitney’s
home, which well exceeded the necessary period of six months for this ground. See 

(g)(3)(B). Therefore, we determine that the requirement of the
order of removal has been satisfied for this ground for Whitney as to Grace.

       Concerning the order of removal as to Ransom, after DCS filed a petition alleging
that he was dependent and neglected, the juvenile court entered a protective custody order
in March 2021 finding probable cause to believe that Ransom was dependent and
neglected, and the court removed Ransom from Whitney and Ted’s home. In March 2022,
DCS filed its petition to terminate Whitney’s parental rights to the children and Ted’s
parental rights to Ransom, and the trial was held in December 2022. Thus, more than one
year had passed from the time Ransom was removed until the time the trial was held.
Accordingly, we conclude that the requisite order existed for this ground for Whitney and
Ted as to Ransom.

       Furthermore, the conditions that led to the removals of Grace and Ransom have
persisted, and they prevent the children’s safe return to the parents’ care. See 

(g)(3)(A)(i). Grace was removed due to lack of and/or inappropriate
supervision, drug exposure, insufficient housing, and domestic violence. Ransom was
removed due to the same circumstances that necessitated the prior removal of Grace.
Whitney and Ted remained in the home that was described by Ms. Brown as dirty and
hazardous.      The drug use has largely persisted, with Whitney having used
methamphetamine a month before trial and Ted testing positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine in July 2022. Although there were concerns about domestic violence,
Whitney and Ted remained in a relationship and did not attend domestic violence
counseling. With these conditions continuing from the time DCS filed the dependency
and neglect petitions until the time of trial, it is unlikely that these conditions will be
remedied at an early date. See 

(g)(3)(A)(ii); Dep’t of
Children’s Servs. v. B.B.M., No. E2006-01677-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *9
(Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2007) (“Given that Mother has been unable to remedy these
problems for many years, it is unlikely that these conditions would be remedied at any
time in the near future.”). Likewise, we find that continuing the parent-child relationship
would greatly diminish the children’s chances of integrating into a safe, stable, and
                                           - 14 -
permanent home. See 

(g)(3)(A)(iii). We therefore conclude
that the ground of persistent conditions existed to terminate Whitney’s parental rights to
the children and Ted’s parental rights to Ransom.

                 4.      Failure to Manifest an Ability and Willingness

       We now turn to address the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness
to assume custody or financial responsibility. This ground exists when:

        A parent . . . has failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and
       willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial
       responsibility of the child, and placing the child in the person’s legal and
       physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or
       psychological welfare of the child[.]

(g)(14). There are two elements necessary to prove for this
ground. In re Neveah M., 

, 674 (Tenn. 2020).

        The first element “places a conjunctive obligation on a parent . . . to manifest both
an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial
responsibility for the child.” Id. at 677. Therefore, if the petitioner “seeking to terminate
parental rights proves by clear and convincing proof that a parent . . . has failed to manifest
either ability or willingness, then the first prong of the statute is satisfied.” Id. (citing In
re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *13 (Tenn. Ct. App.
June 20, 2018)). A parent’s ability to assume custody or financial responsibility is
evaluated based “on the parent’s lifestyle and circumstances.” In re Zaylee W., No.
M2019-00342-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020)
(citation omitted). As for willingness, it is common for parents to state that they are
willing to assume custody or financial responsibility; however, “[w]hen evaluating
willingness, we look for more than mere words.” In re Jonathan M., No. E2018-00484-
COA-R3-PT, 

, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Both Whitney
and Ted have failed to complete most of the responsibilities in their permanency plans,
and they have not paid more than token support for the children. Furthermore, both have
continued to use drugs despite efforts by DCS to connect them with providers to remedy
these issues. Whitney and Ted’s continued failure to complete the actions required for
creating a home and family environment that is safe and healthy for the children attests to
a lack of ability and willingness to personally assume physical and legal custody or
financial responsibility for the children.

        The second element requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that placing the child in the parent’s legal and physical custody would pose a
risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. In re Neveah
M., 614 S.W.3d at 677 (quoting 

(g)(14)). We have described
                                            - 15 -
this element as follows:

       “[T]he use of the modifier ‘substantial’ indicates two things. First, it
       connotes a real hazard or danger that is not minor, trivial, or insignificant.
       Second, it indicates that the harm must be more than a theoretical possibility.
       While the harm need not be inevitable, it must be sufficiently probable to
       prompt a reasonable person to believe that the harm will occur more likely
       than not.”

In re Brianna B., No. M2019-01757-COA-R3-PT, 

, at *6 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Jan. 29, 2021). Further, “parents with a significant, recent history of substance abuse
. . . could lead to a conclusion of a risk of substantial harm.” 

        The continued drug use by Whitney and Ted leads us to conclude that placing the
children in their custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the welfare of the
children. Despite her children being removed from her home, Whitney continued to use
drugs, even during pregnancy. Ted likewise continued to use drugs during the pendency
of this case. Furthermore, Whitney and Ted’s home was not in a substantially better
position in March 2022 than it was at the time of removal of the children. Therefore, the
record supports the findings of the trial court, and the court correctly determined that the
failure of Whitney and Ted to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or
financial responsibility was a proper ground for termination of their parental rights.

                           B.    Putative Father Grounds for Termination

       The trial court also found each of the five enumerated subsections of ground (g)(9)
applicable in this case. Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9) provides
additional grounds for termination for “any person, who, at the time of the filing of a
petition to terminate the parental rights of such person, . . . is the putative father of the
child.” A putative father is defined as:

        [A] biological or alleged biological father of a child who, at the time of the
       filing of the petition to terminate the parental rights of such person . . . , meets
       at least one (1) of the criteria set out in § 36-1-117(c), has not been excluded
       by DNA testing as described in § 24-7-112 establishing that he is not the
       child’s biological father . . . and is not a legal parent.

(44). A “legal parent” is defined as:

       (i) The biological mother of a child;

       (ii) A man who is or has been married to the biological mother of the child
       if the child was born during the marriage or within three hundred (300) days
                                          - 16 -
       after the marriage was terminated for any reason, or if the child was born
       after a decree of separation was entered by a court;

       (iii) A man who attempted to marry the biological mother of the child before
       the child’s birth by a marriage apparently in compliance with the law, even
       if the marriage is declared invalid, if the child was born during the attempted
       marriage or within three hundred (300) days after the termination of the
       attempted marriage for any reason;

       (iv) A man who has been adjudicated to be the legal father of the child by
       any court or administrative body of this state or any other state or territory
       or foreign country or who has signed, pursuant to § 24-7-113, § 68-3-203(g),
       § 68-3-302, or § 68-3-305(b), an unrevoked and sworn acknowledgment of
       paternity under Tennessee law, or who has signed such a sworn
       acknowledgment pursuant to the law of any other state, territory, or foreign
       country; or

       (v) An adoptive parent of a child or adult; . . .

(29). The trial court found that Ted is not the legal parent of
Ransom and that he is the putative father. Ted does not meet any of the aforementioned
statutory definitions for a legal parent. Furthermore, Ted meets the criteria set out in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-117(c)(2), which provides:

       (2) The biological father has claimed to the child’s biological mother, or to
       the petitioners or their attorney, or to the department, a licensed child-
       placing agency, or a licensed clinical social worker who or that is involved
       in the care, placement, supervision, or study of the child that the biological
       father believes that the biological father is the father of the child[.]

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that Ted is the putative
father of Ransom.

        After finding that Ted was the putative father of Ransom, the trial court found that
Ted failed to support Ransom even though he was able-bodied and capable of working to
support the child and that there was no good cause or excuse for Ted’s failure to make
reasonable and consistent payments for the support of Ransom in accordance with the
child support guidelines. See 

(g)(9)(A)(i) (“The person has
failed, without good cause or excuse, to make reasonable and consistent payments for the
support of the child in accordance with the child support guidelines promulgated by the
department pursuant to § 36-5-101.”). It also found that Ted had not sought reasonable
visitation with Ransom and had only engaged in token visitation. See 

(g)(9)(A)(ii) (“The person has failed to seek reasonable visitation with the child,
                                           - 17 -
and if visitation has been granted, has failed to visit altogether, or has engaged in only
token visitation, as defined in § 36-1-102.”). It also found that Ted failed to manifest a
willingness and ability to assume custody of Ransom based upon his continued use and
abuse of methamphetamine, substantial noncompliance with his statements of
responsibilities in the permanency plans, failure to engage in anything other than token
visitation, and failure to pay any support for Ransom in foster care. See 

(g)(9)(A)(iii) (“The person has failed to manifest an ability and willingness to
assume legal and physical custody of the child.”). The trial court further found that placing
Ransom in Ted’s custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child’s welfare. See

(g)(9)(A)(iv) (“Placing custody of the child in the person’s
legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or
psychological welfare of the child.”). The trial court also found that Ted failed to establish
parentage by failing to file a petition to legitimate Ransom within thirty days after notice
of alleged paternity. See 

(g)(9)(A)(v) (“The person has failed
to file a petition to establish paternity of the child within thirty (30) days after notice of
alleged paternity, or as required in § 36-2-318(j), or after making a claim of paternity
pursuant to § 36-1-117(c)(3).”). The record clearly and convincingly supports each of the
trial court's findings and conclusions as to these grounds.

                             C.     Best Interest of the Child

         We now turn to address whether the trial court erred in finding that it was in the
best interest of the children to terminate Whitney’s parental rights and that it was in the
best interest of Ransom to terminate Ted’s parental rights. The Tennessee Supreme Court
has summarized the law regarding the best interest analysis as follows:

       Facts considered in the best interests analysis must be proven by “a
       preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In
       re Kaliyah S., 

 (citing In re Audrey S., 

). “After making the underlying factual findings, the trial court should
       then consider the combined weight of those facts to determine whether they
       amount to clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s
       best interest[s].” 

 When considering these statutory factors, courts must
       remember that “[t]he child’s best interests [are] viewed from the child’s,
       rather than the parent’s, perspective.” In re Audrey S., 

.
       Indeed, “[a] focus on the perspective of the child is the common theme”
       evident in all of the statutory factors. 

 “[W]hen the best interests of the
       child and those of the adults are in conflict, such conflict shall always be
       resolved to favor the rights and the best interests of the child . . . .” 

(d) (2017).

       Ascertaining a child’s best interests involves more than a “rote examination”
       of the statutory factors. In re Audrey S., 

. And the best
                                            - 18 -
        interests analysis consists of more than tallying the number of statutory
        factors weighing in favor of or against termination. White v. Moody, 

 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). Rather, the facts and
        circumstances of each unique case dictate how weighty and relevant each
        statutory factor is in the context of the case. See In re Audrey S., 

. Simply put, the best interests analysis is and must remain a factually
        intensive undertaking, so as to ensure that every parent receives
        individualized consideration before fundamental parental rights are
        terminated. In re Carrington H., 

. “[D]epending upon
        the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the
        consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the
        analysis.” In re Audrey S., 

 (citing White v. Moody, 

).

In re Gabriella D., 

 (Tenn. 2017).6 The twenty statutory best-
interests factors are:

        (A) The effect a termination of parental rights will have on the child’s
        critical need for stability and continuity of placement throughout the child’s
        minority;

        (B) The effect a change of caretakers and physical environment is likely to
        have on the child’s emotional, psychological, and medical condition;

        (C) Whether the parent has demonstrated continuity and stability in meeting
        the child’s basic material, educational, housing, and safety needs;

        (D) Whether the parent and child have a secure and healthy parental
        attachment, and if not, whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
        parent can create such attachment;

        (E) Whether the parent has maintained regular visitation or other contact
        with the child and used the visitation or other contact to cultivate a positive
        relationship with the child;

        (F) Whether the child is fearful of living in the parent’s home;

        (G) Whether the parent, parent’s home, or others in the parent’s household

        6
          Although the prior version of the best interest factors was in effect in In re Gabriella D., we have
recently stated that “we believe the Tennessee Supreme Court’s analysis applies to the amended version
of 

(i), as well.” In re Skylith F., No. M2022-01231-COA-R3-PT, 

, *19 n.7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2023).
                                                   - 19 -
trigger or exacerbate the child’s experience of trauma or post-traumatic
symptoms;

(H) Whether the child has created a healthy parental attachment with another
person or persons in the absence of the parent;

(I) Whether the child has emotionally significant relationships with persons
other than parents and caregivers, including biological or foster siblings, and
the likely impact of various available outcomes on these relationships and
the child’s access to information about the child’s heritage;

(J) Whether the parent has demonstrated such a lasting adjustment of
circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it safe and beneficial for the
child to be in the home of the parent, including consideration of whether
there is criminal activity in the home or by the parent, or the use of alcohol,
controlled substances, or controlled substance analogues which may render
the parent unable to consistently care for the child in a safe and stable
manner;

(K) Whether the parent has taken advantage of available programs, services,
or community resources to assist in making a lasting adjustment of
circumstances, conduct, or conditions;

(L) Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to assist the parent
in making a lasting adjustment in cases where the child is in the custody of
the department;

(M) Whether the parent has demonstrated a sense of urgency in establishing
paternity of the child, seeking custody of the child, or addressing the
circumstance, conduct, or conditions that made an award of custody unsafe
and not in the child’s best interest;

(N) Whether the parent, or other person residing with or frequenting the
home of the parent, has shown brutality or physical, sexual, emotional, or
psychological abuse or neglect toward the child or any other child or adult;

(O) Whether the parent has ever provided safe and stable care for the child
or any other child;

(P) Whether the parent has demonstrated an understanding of the basic and
specific needs required for the child to thrive;

(Q) Whether the parent has demonstrated the ability and commitment to
                               - 20 -
       creating and maintaining a home that meets the child’s basic and specific
       needs and in which the child can thrive;

       (R) Whether the physical environment of the parent’s home is healthy and
       safe for the child;

       (S) Whether the parent has consistently provided more than token financial
       support for the child; and

       (T) Whether the mental or emotional fitness of the parent would be
       detrimental to the child or prevent the parent from consistently and
       effectively providing safe and stable care and supervision of the child.

(i)(1)(A)-(T). “When considering the factors [above], the
prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in
the child’s best interest.” 

(i)(2). The trial court found that
all of these factors except for factor (I) weighed in favor of termination.

        Because evaluation of these factors often involves discussion of similar issues, we
combine our discussion of these factors “based on the overarching themes within the list
of twenty factors.” In re Chayson D., No. E2022-00718-COA-R3-PT, 

,
at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2023). We begin by addressing the interrelated factors
concerning the children’s emotional needs. See 

(i)(1)(A)
(concerning a child’s need for stability), (B) (concerning how a change in caretaker would
affect a child’s wellbeing), (D) (concerning the attachment between the parent and child),
(E) (concerning visitation between parent and child), (H) (concerning the child’s parental
attachment with individuals other than the parent), and (T) (concerning the effect of the
parent’s fitness on the child). The children are in a stable home and are happy and healthy.
They are currently receiving adequate medical care, and their needs are taken care of.
They have developed a strong attachment with their foster parents to the point they cry
and hold onto their foster parents when Ms. Brown goes to take them to visitation. The
foster mother also reported that Grace is normally a well-behaved and loving child, but
she becomes disruptive after visitation. The children need stability in a loving and secure
home, and they have found it with their foster parents and apart from Whitney and Ted.
Therefore, these factors weigh in favor of termination.

        Next, we address the factors concerning the physical environment of the child and
the parent. See 

(i)(1)(F) (concerning whether the child is
fearful of living in the parent’s home), (G) (concerning whether being in the parent’s home
triggers the child’s trauma), (N) (concerning abuse or neglect in the parent’s home), (O)
(concerning whether the parent has provided safe and stable care to any child in the past),
(Q) (concerning the parent’s commitment to maintaining a home that meets the child’s
needs), and (R) (concerning the health and safety of the parent’s home). Ms. Brown
                                             - 21 -
testified that the children would be fearful of living with Whitney and Ted because they
are essentially strangers to the children. Likewise, Whitney and Ted’s continued drug use
could cause the children to experience traumatic symptoms in their home. Both Whitney
and Ted’s history of parenting reveal that similar concerns arose concerning the care of
their other children. Whitney does not have custody of her three oldest children, and her
visitation with them is supervised. Ted’s parental rights were terminated with respect to
two of his other children. Whitney and Ted also do not have custody of their youngest
child, who was born drug exposed in May 2022. The trial court also found that their
youngest child was a victim of severe child abuse perpetrated by Whitney and Ted. Thus,
these facts lead to the conclusion that Whitney and Ted have not maintained a physical
environment in their home that is healthy and safe for the children or that meets their
needs. Therefore, we conclude that these factors weigh in favor of termination.

       We now turn to consider the factors pertaining to the efforts made by the parents.
See 

(i)(1)(C) (concerning the parent’s demonstration of
continuity and stability in meeting the child’s needs), (J) (concerning the parent’s lasting
adjustment of circumstances), (K) (concerning the parent’s use of available programs,
services, or community resources), (L) (concerning DCS’s efforts), (M) (concerning
parent’s sense of urgency), and (P) (concerning the parent’s understanding of the child’s
needs). Despite DCS’s extensive efforts to connect them with resources, Whitney and
Ted have continued to use drugs, have continued to stay in an unsanitary and unsafe home,
and have not completed most of their permanency plan responsibilities. Likewise,
although DCS has often provided them with offers of assistance of transportation, they
have not taken advantage of these opportunities to attend visitation and strengthen their
bond with the children. Their failures to pay support, visit, and follow any permanency
plan responsibilities further evince a lack of understanding as to the children’s needs. We
therefore find that these factors weigh in favor of termination.

        Next, we address factor (S), which concerns whether the parents have paid more
than token financial support. As we previously discussed in our analysis of the ground of
abandonment by failure to support, Whitney has only paid $23.00 toward the support of
Grace and has paid no money to the support of Ransom. Likewise, Ted has paid no money
for the support of Ransom. Although we recognize that Whitney and Ted have provided
other items for the children, this support is token when compared to the monetary support
ordered by the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that factor (S) weighs in favor of
termination.

       Finally, we address factor (I), which pertains to the child’s relationship with others.
Ms. Brown and the foster mother both testified that the children are well-bonded with each
other. Ms. Brown further testified that the termination of parental rights will not
negatively impact the “children’s heritage about one another” because the children will be
adopted by the same foster parents. Therefore, we conclude that this factor weighs in
favor of termination.
                                           - 22 -
        After reviewing all of these statutory factors, we find clear and convincing evidence
that it is in the children’s best interest for parental rights to be terminated so that the
children can find a permanent secure and loving home. See In re L.S.W., No. M2000-
01935-COA-R3-JV, 

, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2001) (“To do
other than affirm the termination of parental rights would leave these children ‘in limbo’
indefinitely, and we cannot agree that long-term foster care is in the children’s best
interest.”). Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the termination was in the
children’s best interest.

                                     V.      CONCLUSION

       For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the termination of the parental rights
of Whitney F. for failure to establish a suitable home and the termination of the parental
rights of Ted H. for abandonment by failure to support, failure to visit, and failure to
establish a suitable home. Otherwise we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the
parental rights of both Whitney F. and Ted H. We remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

       Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellants, Whitney F. and Ted H., for which
execution may issue if necessary.


                                                     _________________________________
                                                     CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, JUDGE




                                            - 23 -