Justice Inman delivered the opinion in a termination of parental rights case.  Here the mother has a history of drug use and criminal activity, and at the time of trial was incarcerated.  The trial judge had found that clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother's parental rights should be terminated, and then did so.  

   Normally that would be the end of the issue, and yet Justices Inman, Koch, and Swiney, upon applying constitutional law, held that the child must first be found to be in substantial harm, and so reversed the trial court and restored the mother's rights.  "State intervention in the parent-child relationship must be justified.  Against these principles we weigh whether the evidence was clear and convincing that the conduct of Mother resulted in, or would result in, substantial harm to R.  Clear and convincing evidence is a stringent burden the State must bear; DCS must produce evidence which eliminates any "serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness to be drawn from the the evidence."  In a  contest between a parent and non-parent, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody of a child unless there has been a finding of substantial harm to the child.  Only then may a court engage in a "general best interests" of the the child evaluation in making a determination of custody." DCS v. D. S. No. M2000-02380-COA-R3-JV (TennApp2001)  p.3

   Justices Inman, Koch, and Swiney have shown a respect and understanding of constitutional law.  The next step for this case is remanding back to the trial court to find if the child is in serious harm or not.  If it is found that under the mother's care this circumstance exists, then parental rights can be properly terminated.  

Judicial Guide

CBI Homepage