106 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 35 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re MJBgreen2 sentences2025The Department must then demonstrate “that the parent’s noncompliance is substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met.” In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 656 . 2025DCS must also establish “that the parent’s noncompliance is substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met.” In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 656 -9- (citations omitted). | 19 | 57 |
In Re Valentinegreen2 sentences2025As this Court discussed in In re A.J.R., No. E2006-01140-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 3421284 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2006): To prevail in a termination case on a claim of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, DCS must prove: (1) the terms of the plan, Dep’t of Children’s Services v. D.W.J., No. E2004-02586-COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1528367 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., June 29, 2005); (2) that the plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547 ; In re L.J. 2025As this Court discussed in In re A.J.R., No. E2006-01140-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 3421284 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2006): To prevail in a termination case on a claim of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, DCS must prove: (1) the terms of the plan, Dep’t of Children’s Services v. D.W.J., No. E2004-02586-COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1528367 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., June 29, 2005); (2) that the plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547 ; In re L.J. | 13 | 80 |
State, Department of Children's Services v. T.M.B.K.green2 sentences2025As this Court discussed in In re A.J.R., No. E2006-01140-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 3421284 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2006): To prevail in a termination case on a claim of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, DCS must prove: (1) the terms of the plan, Dep’t of Children’s Services v. D.W.J., No. E2004-02586-COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1528367 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., June 29, 2005); (2) that the plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547 ; In re L.J. 2014To prove grounds for termination pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(2), the Department was required to demonstrate that: “(1) the requirements of the permanency plan were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, and (2) the parent’s noncompliance was substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met.” State Dept. of Children’s Serv. v. T.M.B.K., 197 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). -8- Father does not challenge the re | 4 | 4 |
In Re Daymien T.green1 sentence2020Termination of parental rights under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(2) “requires more proof than that a parent has not complied with every jot and tittle of the permanency plan.” To succeed under Section 36-1-113(g)(2), DCS “must demonstrate first that the requirements of the permanency plan are reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place.” Second, DCS must show that “the parent’s noncompliance is substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirem | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tiffany B.green1 sentence2019“Trivial, minor, or technical deviations from a permanency plan’s requirements” do not support a finding of “substantial noncompliance.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548 (Tenn. 2002); Dept. of Children’s Servs. v. C.L., No 2001-02729-COA-R3-JV, 2003 WL 22037399 , at *18 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Aug. 29, 2003). -7- The effort to reunite parents with their children “is a two-way street, and neither law nor policy requires [DCS] to accomplish reunification on its own without the assistance of the parents.” In re Nicholas G., No. 2014-00309-COA-R3-PT, 2014 WL 3778813 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re LJC
green
2 sentences2025As this Court discussed in In re A.J.R., No. E2006-01140-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 3421284 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2006): To prevail in a termination case on a claim of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, DCS must prove: (1) the terms of the plan, Dep’t of Children’s Services v. D.W.J., No. E2004-02586-COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 1528367 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., June 29, 2005); (2) that the plan requirements were reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547 ; In re L.J. 2025DCS must also establish “that the parent’s noncompliance is substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met.” Id. (citations omitted). | 40 | 2004–2025 |
In Re Carrington H.
green
2 sentences2024Determining whether a parent has substantially complied with a permanency plan, therefore, “involves more than merely counting up the tasks in the plan to determine whether a certain number have been completed and ‘going through the motions’ does not constitute substantial compliance.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 537 (quoting In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547 ). 2022When determining whether a parent’s noncompliance with a plan was substantial, the court must do more than “count[ ] up the tasks in the plan to determine whether a certain number have been completed.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 537 . “[T]he parent’s noncompliance [must be] substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met.” In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 656 (citing In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548-59 ; In re Z.J.S., No. M2002-02235-COA- R3-JV, 2003 WL 21266854 , at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2003)). | 4 | 2016–2024 |
In Re AW
green
1 sentence2018Given Father’s failure to take action to complete any of the requirements of the plan in the first two years after the removal of the children and Father’s failure to complete the central requirements of the plans, we must conclude that Father’s steps towards compliance were “[t]oo little, too late.” In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541 , 546–47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (noting that although mother had made a “dramatic improvement[,]” her improvement came “[t]oo little, too late.”). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.