IN THE MATTER OF B.L.R., D.O.B. 10/14/02, A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS
OF AGE
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
Langdon S. Unger, Jr., Martin, TN, for Appellant
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Kate Eyler, Deputy
Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Appellee
Judge: HIGHERS
First Paragraph:
This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a
biological father to his infant daughter. The day after the daughter
was born, the Department of Children's Services became involved with
the family and learned that both the mother and father were using
methamphetamine. Shortly after the department became involved in this
case, the mother took very little interest in her infant daughter. The
department implemented several permanency plans calling for father to
demonstrate that he remained drug free and was attending counseling to
resolve his addiction. When the father failed to attend counseling on
a regular basis and continually tested positive for methamphetamine,
the department filed a petition to terminate his parental rights.
Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court held that the
department had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, all the
grounds for termination alleged in the petition. The trial court also
held that terminating father's parental rights was in the child's best
interest. Father appealed, and we affirm the trial court's decision
regarding the grounds for termination, however, we vacate the order
and remand this case to the trial court for further action consistent
with this opinion.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/blr8405.pdf
IN THE MATTER OF: C.M.C., C.L.C., and D.A.M.
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
M. Brent Hensley, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the appellant, SAF.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Sharon G.
Hutchins, Assistant Attorney General, for the Petitioner/Appellee,
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services.
Judge: FARMER
First Paragraph:
The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights based on
abandonment, substantial noncompliance with a permanencyplan,
persistence of conditions, and a finding that termination was in the
best interests of the children. Mother appeals. We reverse.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/cmc8405.pdf
BECCA JO MARONEY v. BRANDON LEE MARONEY
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
R.D. Hash, Maryville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Becca Jo Maroney.
Lori F. Fleishman, Samuel W. Brown, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the
Appellee Brandon Lee Maroney.
Judge: SWINEY
First Paragraph:
Becca Jo Maroney ("Mother") and Brandon Lee Maroney ("Father") were
divorced in September of 2002. The parties agreed at that time for
Mother to be the primary residential parent for the parties' son. In
July of 2003, Father filed a petition for change of custody claiming
there had been a material change in circumstances and that it was in
the best interest of the minor child for custody to be transferred to
Father. After a trial, the Trial Court concluded that there had been a
material change in circumstances and that designating Father as the
primary residential parent was in the best interest of the minor
child. Mother appeals. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate
against the Trial Court's findings, and the judgment of the Trial
Court is affirmed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/maroneyb8405.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LACEY JONES
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Anthony Helm, Bartlett, Tennessee (on appeal), and Tim Williams,
Memphis, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Lacey Jones.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Richard H. Dunavant,
Assistant Attorney General; and James Wax and Michelle Parks,
Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of
Tennessee.
Judge: WADE
First Paragraph:
The defendant, Lacey Jones, was convicted of four counts of especially
aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and two
counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the aggravated
robbery convictions into the convictions for especially aggravated
kidnapping and ordered a concurrent sentence of thirty-five years for
each of the four counts. The trial court ordered the aggravated
burglary sentence of seven years to be served consecutively, for an
effective sentence of forty-two years. In this appeal of right, the
defendant argues that his convictions for especially aggravated
kidnapping and aggravated robbery violate principles of due process;
that the trial court erred by merging the aggravated robbery
convictions into the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; and
that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. The
judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/jonesl8405.pdf
|
