As Presiding Judge of the Middle Section Justice Cantrell in a termination of parental visitation case properly applied constitutional law, and came to an accordingly proper conclusion.  From DCS vs. Pamela Cox M1999-01598-COA-R3-CV, "Although parents' have a right to raise, care for and have the companionship of their child under both Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions, these rights can be infringed upon if the court finds substantial harm threatens a child's welfare."   That is a correct statement regarding the serious harm standard.  And, "The court made clear that there must be a threshold finding of harm before the state can intervene in a parent-child relationship; however, once this finding of harm to the child is made, a determination of custody is made based on the "best interest of the child".  This threshold finding of substantial harm was made when Pamela was found by the juvenile court to be abused, dependent, and neglected and removed form (sic) the custody of her parents and placed in foster care."  This statement properly affirms a threshold of serious harm must be found prior to a court applying the best interest of the child standard.  Justice Cantrell ruled in accordance with well established constitutional principles.

   We do have significant concerns about this ruling, although they do not affect the outcome.   It was never specified which standard of review was being applied.  When fundamental rights are at stake, strict scrutiny is applied, and yet this was not mentioned.  Also although the serious harm standard is repeatedly and correctly cited (although called substantial harm), it does not appear to have been specified this is the state's compelling interest being advanced.  Finally, due process in the ruling is artificially limited to notice and opportunity to be heard, "We find that Ms. Graves had adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard".  Due process entails much more than that.  In its entirety in this case it consisted of applying strict scrutiny to the mother and father's fundamental liberty and privacy interests, determining if the threshold for the state's compelling interest of protecting children from serious harm was met, and if so then tailoring any resulting orders as narrowly as possible.  Although those intermediate steps were not specified, they were in fact all met, and as such the ruling is sound.

   Congratulations to Justices Cantrell, Cain, and Cottrell, for a correct outcome in what was essentially a termination of parental rights case.