interests analysis in Tennessee

2024When conducting a best interests analysis, conflicts between the interests of the parent and child are to be resolved in “favor of the rights and best interest of the child.” Id. at 573 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-101 (d)).

2024Importantly, the best interests analysis “must be viewed from the child’s, rather than the parent’s, perspective.” White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2026To ensure that every parent receives the individualized consideration to which they are entitled, “the best interests analysis is and must remain a factually intensive undertaking.” Id.

2026The “factors are illustrative, not exclusive, and any party to the termination proceeding is free to offer proof of any other factor relevant to the best interests analysis.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662, 681 (Tenn. 2017).

2026In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); see also In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 (“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.” (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 , (Tenn. 2010))).

2026Facts 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., 455 S.W.3d [533,] 555 [(Tenn. 2015)] (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 ).

2026In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); see also In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 (“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.” (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 , (Tenn. 2010))).

2026Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 877 ; see also Carrington, 483 S.W.3d at 523 (“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.”) (quoting In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 254 (Tenn. 2010)).

2026“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.” In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 254 .

2026If the trial court’s best interests analysis “is based on additional factual findings besides the ones made in conjunction with the grounds for termination, the trial court must also include these findings in the written order.” Id.

2025Because not all misconduct is irredeemable, this state’s parental termination “statutes recognize the possibility that terminating an unfit parent’s parental rights is not always in the child’s best interests.” In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2010The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination. 16 In re Marr, *255 194 S.W.3d at 498 ; see In re C.B.W., No. M2005-01817-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 1749534 , at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App.

2016In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250 ; In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006); In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). ―The best interests analysis is 4 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1)-(13). -7- separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.‖ In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 254 .

2016In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250 ; In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006); In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). ―The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.‖ In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 254 .

2021Each 12 factor does not have to favor termination in order to “conclude that terminating a parent’s parental rights is in the best interest of a child.” In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2016In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2018Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1 - 113(c)(2); In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d at 523 (“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear-and-convincing evidence of grounds for termination.”) “These requirements ensure that each parent receives the constitutionally required ‘individualized determination that a parent is either unfit or will cause substantial harm to his or her child before the fundamental right to the care and custody of the child can be taken away.’” See In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d at 523 (quoting In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tenn. 1

2018Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1 - 113(c)(2); In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 (“The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear-and-convincing evidence of grounds for termination.”) “These requirements ensure that each parent receives the constitutionally required ‘individualized determination that a parent is either unfit or will cause substantial harm to his or her child before the fundamental right to the care and custody of the child can be taken away.’” See In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 (quoting In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 188 (T

2016In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250 ; In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006); In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). ―The best interests analysis is 4 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1)-(13). -7- separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.‖ In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 254 .

2016In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 250 ; In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006); In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). ―The best interests analysis is separate from and subsequent to the determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.‖ In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d at 254 .

2025The facts considered in a court’s best interests analysis must be proven by “a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 555 (Tenn. 2015).

2025The facts considered in a court’s best interests analysis must be proven by “a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 555 (Tenn. 2015).

1996We began our analysis by criticizing the open-endedness of the best interests standard generally, stating that "the absence of standards for its determination threatens to render the concept of `best interest' so vague that it defies analysis, invites decision by guesswork, and evades any sort of meaningful review on appeal." Taylor, 849 S.W.2d at 326 .

1996The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, and we granted the mother’s application for permission to appeal. 9 We began our analysis by criticizing the open-endedness of the best interests standard generally, stating that “the absence of standards for its determination threatens to render the concept of ‘best interest’ so vague that it defies analysis, invites decision by guesswork, and evades any sort of meaningful review on appeal.” Taylor, 849 S.W.2d at 326 .

2024When undertaking a best interests analysis, courts must consider a non-exhaustive list of statutory factors.7 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (i); In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).

2016In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d at 440 ; In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tenn. 2003). 3 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). -5- The legislature has identified nine statutory factors for the court to consider in making a best interest

2021See In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 368 (Tenn. 2003) (“Because grounds for terminating the parental rights of Mr. Moore have not been established, we do not reach the best interest of the child analysis.”); see also In re Nevaeh B., No. E2020-00315-COA- R3-PT, 2020 WL 4920020 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020) (“Because we have vacated the sole ground for termination against Father, we do not address the trial court’s best interests analysis as to the termination of Father’s parental rights.”).

2016In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d at 440 ; In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tenn. 2003). 3 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). -5- The legislature has identified nine statutory factors for the court to consider in making a best interest

2020Clear and convincing evidence “establishes that that truth of the facts asserted is highly probable, and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from evidence,” and “[i]t produces in a fact-finder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the facts sought to be established.” In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citations omitted).

2020Clear and convincing evidence “establishes that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable, and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from evidence,” and “[i]t produces in a fact-finder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the facts sought to be established.” In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citations omitted).

2002The children’s best interest “is the polestar, the alpha and omega.” Bah, 668 S.W.2d at 666 (emphasis in original).

1997See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996); Holloway v. Bradley, 190 Tenn. 565, 571 , 230 S.W.2d 1003, 1006 (1950); Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

1996Indeed, we recognized the open-endedness of the best interests test in Rogero v. Pitt, 759 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tenn.1988), where we stated: There are few legal formulae or invariable principles to guide the courts in decisions of this nature.

1996Indeed, we recognized the open-endedness of the best interests test in Rogero v. Pitt, 759 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tenn. 1988), where we stated: There are few legal formulae or invariable principles to guide the courts in decisions of this nature.

2021Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249, 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2014“If a material change in circumstances has occurred, then the best interest analysis becomes mandatory.” Boyer, 238 S.W.3d at 259 -60 (citing Keisling, 196 S.W.3d at 718). “[A] finding of a material change in circumstances since the entry of the [pre-existing parenting] order does not predetermine the outcome of the best interests analysis.” In re T.C.D., 261 S.W.3d at 746 (citing Krupp, 2006 WL 2505037 , at * 7).

2025See In re Addalyne S., 556 S.W.3d 774, 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (citing In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d at 607 ) (noting that depending on the circumstances of a case, one single factor can dictate the outcome of a best interests analysis).

2025See In re Addalyne S., 556 S.W.3d 774, 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (citing In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d at 607 ) (noting that depending on the circumstances of a case, one single factor can dictate the outcome of a best interests analysis).

2020See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (c) (requiring first a finding by the court of a ground for termination of parental rights and then a determination as to whether the termination is in the child’s best interests); In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d at 368 (refusing to reach the issue of best interests due to a failure to establish a ground for terminating parental rights).

2013She also contends the court “erred in engaging in the best interests analysis of the parent-child relationships between the parties and the minor child.” 2 This court has “long recognized the difficulties trial courts have in domestic cases - the near- impossible job of trying to deal with broken relationships while protecting the children of the marriage and preserving the respective rights of the parents.” Hogue v. Hogue, 147 S.W. 3d 245, 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).