WPCcW # UN %W 0 (] w@ 4  UP 0l8 0D B 0~  0x 0k 0kn 0 0~v 0 0 0 D3O 0 0 y 0@ 0 01 0C 0VU 0 0z 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0x 0z 0 1n 0s W! 0=h! 0F! 0P! 1;" 0" 0C# 0}# 0xE$ 0$ 0jJ% 0e% 0W& 0Wp& 0& 0jK' 0' 0n( 0:) 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0-- 0@. 0-0 00 0v1 02 02 0W3 03 04 0M5 15n6^?777UB);Ek; 0Jm; 0T; 0^ < 0hi< 0r< 0|C= 0= 0E> 1u> 0dJ?U >?U6?B)"@DCK@ AM@ AO@*AU*A 0DB D/^B BBBfCxEFz%IpJLf-NfNNv~PvQHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ UDDӀU!b3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (/$  6   dV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/^W8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   'dxdz{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..("$    z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS =8567349:  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S8567349: CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style?S C2%) $!&   I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S@AB($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 2%) $!& A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper e(2C$ !  p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. '(+,./01 CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS z E(  f&XXXXX6g'*d66g'*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  jklmnopq ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d||||7Border 1dd-}C << G-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5<  9p`(Arial($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !#d#z     YYY FILEDX October4,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  \ !#d#z   $       {{TheDepartmentofHumanServiceselectednottofileabriefinthismatter,pointingoutthatthechildatissueisnolongerinitsphysicalorlegalcustody. n !#d#z   $       z{Thetrialcourtalsoterminatedtheparentalrightsofthechildsnaturalfather,JackJ.Defriece.Thatjudgmentwasnotappealed.zzX  !#d#z   $       z{InadditiontoJohn,Motherhasthreeotherminorchildren:Katie(DOB:August18,1986);Tiffany(DOB:July6,1989);andAmber(DOB:August3,1991).Atpresent,MotherhascustodyofKatie.MothersurrenderedherparentalrightstoAmber,whileTiffanyremainsinthecustodyoftheDepartmentofHumanServices.SincethisappealconcernsJohn,weaddressonlythoseissuesbearingontheterminationofMothersparentalrightsastothatchild. p !#d#z   $       {{Asnotedearlier,theeffectivedateoftheamendmentwasApril151994.ThesecondhearingwasheldonApril20,1994,andthethirdhearingtookplaceonAugust25and26,1994. f !#d#z   $       {{Wenote,inpassing,thatthepertinentsectionsofthestatutehaverecentlybeenthesubjectofsubstantialamendment.T.C.A.371147and148(Supp.1995).  !#d#z   $       {{T.C.A.371148(1991)provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:{X 8 {Anorderterminatingtheparentalrightsofaparentterminatesallofsuchparentsrightsandobligationswithrespecttothechildandofthechildtosuchparentarisingfromtheparentalrelationship.... \\RA'\ \\RA'\  !  #d#z     YYY FILEDX October4,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva ! . z  P \RA'\ћ7U XXdd7  @ {INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEESTATEOFTENNESSEE   )C/ANO.03A019604JV00150DEPARTMENTOFHUMANSERVICES,)BRADLEYCOUNTYJUVENILECOURT      )  PetitionerAppellee,)L~};+'h|`  `L      )and      )      )      )WILLIAMD.GARDNERand  )JOANNGARDNER,    )      )  Intervening  )  PetitionersAppellees,)      )      )      )v.      )      )      )      )DANAD.DEFRIECE,   )      )  RespondentAppellant.)      )INTHEMATTEROF:   )      )  JOHNDEFRIECE,  )HONORABLEC.VANDEACON,JR.,  aminor.  )JUDGEForAppellant    ForAppelleesGardners    כ      DEBRAL.HOUSE    RANDYG.ROGERSSoutheastTennesseeLegal Athens,TennesseèServices    Cleveland,Tennessee@    OPINION{{XVACATEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  ThetrialcourtterminatedtheparentalrightsofDanaD.Defriece(Mother)toherson,JohnDefriece(John)(DOB:January9,1988).    כMotherappeals,raisingthreeissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestions: 8 1.IstheproperappealrouteinthiscaseϜdirectlytotheCourtofAppealsorrathertoϜcircuitcourtforadenovohearing? 8 2.DotheallegationsoftheinterveningpetitionsatisfytherequirementsofT.C.A.Ϝ371147(a)(1991)? 8 3.IsthetrialcourtsterminationofMothersparentalrightssupportedbyclearandconvincingevidence?@ I  ThetrialcourtinitiallyplacedMothersfourminorchildren,includingJohn    כ,intheprotectivecustodyoftheDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS).ThefostercareplanintherecordindicatesthatthereasonsfortheplacementwereMothersabuseofalcoholanddrugs;herfailuretoprovideastablehomeforthechildren;andhermovementwiththechildrenintoandoutofaboyfriendsresidenceallwithinoneweek.TheplanalsonotesthatDHShadmade allreasonableeffortstopreventthisremoval,thatMotherhadbeenofferedcounselinganddaycare,andthatshehadmovedoutofhousingprovidedbyalocalchurch.AfterahearingonDHSspetition,thetrialcourtfoundthechildrendependentandneglectedandawardedtheircustodytoDHS.ThecourtorderedthatMotherseekjobtraining,placementthroughVocationalRehabilitation,obtainherGED,andfullycomplywiththefostercareplan.  Johnhasresidedprimarilywiththeinterveningpetitioners,WilliamandJoAnnGardner(Gardners),sincehewastenmonthsold.AfterthechildrenwereplacedinthetemporarycustodyofDHS,theGardnersfiledtheirinterveningpetition(Petition)askingthecourttograntthemcustodyofJohnandhissister,Katie,andseekingtheterminationoftheparentsrightswithrespecttothosechildren.InresponsetothePetition,theGuardianadLitemexpressedtheopinionthatitwasinthechildrensbestinteresttoremainwiththeGardners.  ThetrialcourtheldthreeseparatehearingsontheϜPetition.Followingthefirsthearing,thecourtawardedfulllegalcustodyofJohnandKatietotheGardners,findingthatMotherhad failedtoshowanysubstantialimprovementinhercircumstances,andthattheGardnerswerefitpersonstohavethechildrenscustody.Thecourtcontinuedthematteruntilalaterdate,andprovidedthatitsorderwouldbecomefinalifMotherdidnotmakesignificantprogress.Afterthesecondhearing,thecourtorderedthatJohnandKatieremaininthecustodyoftheGardners,andsetthematterforfurtherreviewatalatertime.Followingthethirdhearing,thetrialcourtfound 8 thatthesubjectchild,JohnDefriece,hasbeeninthecustodyoftheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServicesinexcessofoneyear;thattheconditionswhichledtosaidchildsremovalstillpersist,thatthereislittlelikelihoodthatsaidconditionswillberemediedatanearlydatesothatthechildcanbereturnedtoeitherparentinthenearfuture,thatthecontinuationofthelegalparentandchildrelationshipgreatlydiminishesthechildschancesofearlyintegrationintoastableandpermanenthome;thatthelackofstabilityofthenaturalmother...hasbeenmonumental;thatthenaturalmothercontinuestolacktheabilitytoprovideforthesubjectchildren....ThecourtthusfoundthatitwasinJohnsbestinterestforMothersparentalrightstobeterminatedandforJohntobeplacedinthefullcustodyoftheGardners.Thecourtsubsequentlyenteredanordertothateffect.@ II  Ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; TennesseeDept.ofHumanServicesv.Riley ,689S.W.2d164,170(Tenn.App.1984).  ThecriteriauponwhichthetrialcourtterminatedMothersparentalrightsaresetforthinT.C.A.371147(d)(1)(1991): 8 Afterhearingevidenceonaterminationpetition,thecourtmayterminateparentalrightsifitfindsonthebasisofclearandconvincingevidencethatterminationisinthechildsbestinterestandthatone(1)ormoreofthefollowingconditionsexist: 8 (1)Thechildhasbeenremovedfromthecustodyoftheparentbythecourtforatleastone(1)yearandthecourtfindsthat: 8 (A)Theconditionswhichledtotheremovalor  otherconditionswhichinallreasonable 8 probabilitywouldcausethechildtobe  subjectedtofurtherabuseorneglectandwhich,  therefore,preventthechildsreturntothe  careoftheparent(s)stillpersists;  (B)Thereislittlelikelihoodthatthese  conditionswillberemediedatanearlydateso  thatthechildcanbereturnedtotheparentin  thenearfuture;and  (C)Thecontinuationofthelegalparentand  childrelationshipgreatlydiminishesthe  childschancesofearlyintegrationintoa  stableandpermanenthome[.]7U XXdXXd7  PriortoApril15,1994,T.C.A.371159(a)(1991)providedthatapartyappealingajuvenilecourtsdecisioninaterminationofparentalrightscasewasentitledtoatrialdenovoincircuitcourt;however,thisprocedurewaschangedbytheenactmentofChapter810ofthePublicActsof1994,effectiveApril15,1994.TheamendedversionofT.C.A.371159(Supp.1995)eliminatedthedenovotrialincircuitcourtandprovidedinsteadforanappealasofrightdirectlytothiscourt.T.C.A.371159(a)and(g)(Supp.1995); InreS.M.,Jr. ,C/ANo.01A019506JV00233,1996WL140410(Tenn.App.,M.S.,filedMarch29,1996,Koch,J.).@ III  WeturnfirsttoMotherscontentionthatsheisentitledtoatrialdenovoincircuitcourtduetothefactthattheamendmenttoT.C.A.371159(1991)becameeffectiveafterthecommencementoftheseproceedings.TheGardnersPetitionwasfiledonFebruary11,1993.ThefirsthearingonthematterwasstartedonAugust24,1993,andcompletedonSeptember29,1993.TheamendedversionofT.C.A.371159(Supp.1995)becameeffectiveonApril15,1994.Thesecondhearingwasheldfivedayslater,onApril20,1994.Thethirdhearing,afterwhichMothersparentalrightswereterminated,washeldonAugust25and26,1994.Ascanbeseen,thechangeinappellateproceduretookeffectinthemiddleofthislitigation.  Motherarguesthatapplicationoftheamendedstatutetothisappealcausesherunfairprejudice.Shearguesinherbriefthatshehadtherighttoexpectatrialdenovoincircuitcourtandthat,becauseofthisexpectation,shedidnottakestepstopreservetherecordforappealbyemployingacourtreportertotranscribetheevidencepresentedintheBradleyCountyJuvenileCourt.Motherarguesthatthesecondandthirdhearingsweresimplycontinuationsofthefirsthearing,whichwasheldpriortotheamendmentseffectivedate.Sheassertsthatshewasdenied anotheropportunitytofullypresenthercaseincircuitcourt,andthatthiscaseshouldthereforeberemandedtocircuitcourtforatrialdenovosothatshemay properlypresenthercaseandpreservealltestimonyforpurposesofanappeal,shouldsuchbenecessary.  Wemustfirstdeterminewhetherthe1994amendmenttoT.C.A.371159(1991)iswithintheclassofenactmentsthatmaybeappliedretroactivelytopendingcases.Thegeneralruleisthatstatutesarepresumedtooperateprospectively. Keev.ShelterInsurance ,852S.W.2d226,228(Tenn.1993).Nevertheless,asstatedbytheSupremeCourt, 8 [a]nexceptionexists...forstatuteswhichareremedialorproceduralinnature.Suchstatutesapplyretrospectively,notonlytocausesofactionarisingbeforesuchactsbecomelaw,butalsotoallsuitspendingwhenthelegislationtakeseffect,unlessthelegislatureindicatesacontraryintentionorimmediateapplicationwouldproduceanunjustresult.  Id.(citing Saylorsv.Riggsbee ,544S.W.2d609,610(Tenn.1976)).Thus,thequestionariseswhetherthestatuteatissuehereisremedialorproceduralasopposedtosubstantiveinnature.In Saylors ,theSupremeCourtadoptedthefollowingdescriptionof procedurefromaKansascase: 8 [T]hemodeorproceedingbywhichalegalrightisenforced,asdistinguishedfromthelawwhichgivesordefinestheright,andwhichbymeansoftheproceeding,thecourtistoadministerthemachinery,asdistinguishedfromitsproduct;...includingpleading,process,evidence,andpractice....Practice[is]theform...fortheenforcementofrightsortheredressofwrongs,asdistinguishedfromthesubstantivelawwhichgivestherightordenouncesthewrong.̜544S.W.2dat610(quoting Jonesv.Garrett ,192Kan.109,386P.2d194(1963))(emphasisin Saylors opinion).Inaddition,remedialstatutesaredefinedas 8 [l]egislationprovidingmeansormethodwherebycausesofactionmaybeeffectuated,wrongsredressedandreliefobtained... BlacksLawDictionary 1293(6thed.1990).Seealso Morfordv.YongKyunCho ,732S.W.2d617(Tenn.App.1987).̀  Alegislativeenactmentchangingthejurisdictionofacourtisremedialinnature.Id.at620.Asnotedin Morford ,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasupheldtheconstitutionalityofretroactivelyapplyingapurelyremedialactwhichincreasesthejurisdictionofacourt. Id .at621(citing UnitedStatesv.UnionPac.R.R. ,98U.S.(8Otto)569,607608,25L.Ed.143(1878)).Furthermore,anewstatutethatchangesaruleofpracticeappliestoallpendingcases. Framev.MarlinFirearmsCo.,Inc. ,514S.W.2d728,730(Tenn.1974); Rossv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,592S.W.2d897,898(Tenn.App.1979).  Inlightoftheseconsiderations,weconcludethattheamendmenttoT.C.A.371159(1991)isproceduralratherthansubstantive.Thiscourthasdeclaredthat 8 [a]sappliedtoproceduralchangesgoverningtherightofappealtheruleisthat,wheredueprovisionhasbeenmadeforthepreservationofessentialrights,theprocedureforreviewortheextentofreviewaresofarwithinthepowerofthelegislatureastoprecludetheraisingofquestionsofdueprocesswithrespecttothemethodorprocedureforreview,thepartiesentitledtoreview,orthecharacterofreviewintheappellatecourt. NationalLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.Atwood ,194S.W.2d350,353(Tenn.App.1946).Findingthattheamendmentinquestionisprocedural,however,doesnotautomaticallypermititsretroactiveapplication.Evenaproceduralenactmentmaynotbeappliedretroactivelyinthefollowingcircumstances:wherethelegislaturehasmanifestedacontraryintention;whereapplicationofthenewlawwouldimpairavestedrightorcontractualobligation;orwhereimmediateapplicationofthestatutewouldproduceanunjustresult. Kee ,852S.W.2dat228; Saylors ,544S.W.2dat610;and Morford ,732S.W.2dat620.Weaddresseachoftheseexceptionsinturn.  Chapter810ofthePublicActsof1994offersnoindicationthattheGeneralAssemblyintendedittoapplyϜprospectivelyonly.Intheabsenceofanyexpressionofthatintent,wecannotassumesuchintent.Thus,retrospectiveapplicationoftheamendmentisnotprohibitedbylegislativeintent.Likewise,applicationoftheamendedstatutewouldnotinfringeuponanyofMothersvestedrights,norwoulditimpairanycontractualobligations.ArticleI,20oftheTennesseeConstitutionprohibitstheenactmentofany retrospectivelaw,orlawimpairingtheobligationsofcontracts.Thisprovision,however, proscribesonlythoselawsthatdivestorimpairvestedsubstantiverights. InreS.M.,Jr. ,1996WL140410at*4.Asthiscourthasstated,theGeneralAssemblymayimplementproceduralorremedialchangesinthelaw,andmaysubstituteoneremedyforanother;thereisnovestedrightinaparticularremedy. Atwood ,194S.W.2dat353; InreS.M.,Jr. 1996WL140410at*4.Inthecaseof InreS.M.,Jr. ,thecourtheldthatthesameamendedlawatissueherecouldbeappliedretrospectivelytodenyatrialdenovoincircuitcourttotwoparentswhoserightshadbeenterminated. Id .at*5.Thus,Motherdoesnothaveavestedrightinheravenueofappealthatwouldbedisturbedbyapplyingthenewprocedurallawtohercase.  Thethirdlimitationprohibitstheretrospectiveapplicationofaproceduralchangewhendoingsowouldproduceanunjustresult. Saylors ,544S.W.2dat610.MotherarguesthattheonlyfairremedyherewouldbeforthiscourttoremandhercasetotheBradleyCountyCircuitCourtforatrialdenovo.Sheinessencemaintainsthattheapplicationoftheamendedlawcausedanunjustresult,inthatshewasunabletoadequatelypreservetherecordinjuvenilecourtorsubsequentlydevelophercasemorefullyincircuitcourt.Sincethereisnoevidenceofunfairprejudice,wedisagreewithhercontention.Motherhasnotsubmittedanyaffidavitsorotherevidenceclearlydemonstratingthatshewouldhaveconductedherselfdifferentlyduringthehearingshadsheanticipatedadirectappealtothiscourt.Shearguesthatshehasbeenprejudicedbythelackofatranscriptofthehearings;however,shehassubmitted,withoutobjectionfromopposingcounsel,astatementoftheevidencethatencompassesthethreehearingsinquestion.Furthermore,shefailedtoretainacourtreporterforthesecondandthirdhearings,whichwereheldaftertheeffectivedateoftheamendment.    ׀Motherhadsufficientnoticeofthechangeinappellateprocedure,andoftheincreasedsignificanceofahearinginjuvenilecourt.See InreS.M.,Jr. ,1996WL140410at*5.SheandherattorneywerechargedwithknowledgeoftheamendmenttoT.C.A.371159(1991).Therefore,wefindthatapplicationoftheamendedstatutedidnotunjustlylimitherabilitytopresenthercaseinjuvenilecourt,ortoobtainreviewofthatcourtsdecisiononappeal. Id. Weholdthatsheisnotentitledtoatrialdenovoincircuitcourt,underthelanguageofT.C.A.371159(Supp.1995),asamendedeffectiveApril15,1994.Herappealisproperlybeforeus.@ IV  MotherssecondissueraisesthequestionofwhethertheϜinterveningpetitionfiledbytheGardnerscomplieswiththerequirementsofT.C.A.371147(a)(1991).    ׀ThestatuteineffectatthetimeoftheGardnersPetitionprovidedinpertinentpart: 8 Thepetitiontoterminateparentalrightsshallcomplywith371121andstateclearlythatanorderforterminationofparentalrightsisrequestedandthattheeffectthereofwillbeasstatedinthefirstsentenceof371148.    כMothercontendsthattheGardnersPetitiondidnotcomplywiththisprovision,andthatitthereforefailedtoputheronnoticethataterminationofherparentalrightswasbeingsought.Wedisagree.  TheGardnersintheirpetitionsetforththefollowinginoneoftheirprayersforrelief: 8 Thatuponhearingofthiscause,thattheCourtwouldterminatetheparentalrightsofbothnaturalparentsofJohnDefrieceandKatieDefriece.ThePetitionmakesnoothermentionofaterminationofMothersparentalrights.Nevertheless,webelievethattheprayersubstantiallycomplieswithT.C.A.371147(a)(1991).Inreviewingtheadequacyofparticularpleadings,wegiveeffecttotheirsubstanceratherthantheirformandterminology. Brownv.CityofManchester ,722S.W.2d394,397(Tenn.App.1986); Usreyv.Lewis ,553S.W.2d612,614(Tenn.App.1977).WefindthatthesubstanceofthePetitionsufficedtoputMotheronnoticethattheGardnerswereseekingaterminationofherparentalrights.  WealsonotethattherecordrevealsthatMotherfailedtoobject,priortothisappeal,toanydeficiencyinthepleadings.TheprayerinthePetitionprovidedsufficientnoticetoobligatehertoobjecttoanytechnicalnoncompliancewiththestatute.Shehadampleopportunitytomoveforadismissalormoredefinitestatement,yetshefailedtodoso.Itiswellsettledthatissuesnotraisedattrialmaynotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal. Simpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion ,810S.W.2d147,153(Tenn.1991); Lawrencev.Stanford ,655S.W.2d927,929(Tenn.1983).Accordingly,wefindthatMotherssecondissueiswithoutmerit.̛̜@ V  Mothersthirdissuepresentsthequestionofwhetherthetrialcourtsterminationofherparentalrightsissupportedbyclearandconvincingevidence.Courtshavelongrecognizedthefundamentalrightofparentstothecare,custody,andcontroloftheirchildren. InreDrinnon ,776S.W.2d96,97(Tenn.App.1988)(citing Stanleyv.Illinois ,405U.S.645,92S.Ct.1208,31L.Ed.2d551(1972));however,parentalrightsarenotabsoluteandmaybeterminatedifthereisclearandconvincingevidencejustifyingsuchtermination. InreDrinnon ,776S.W.2dat97(citing Santoskyv.Kramer ,455U.S.745,102S.Ct.1388,71L.Ed.2d599(1982)).Therefore,pursuanttoT.C.A.371147(d)(1)(1991),wemustdeterminewhetherthetrialcourtproperlyfoundclearandconvincingevidence:(1)thatJohnhadbeenremovedfromMotherscustodyforatleastoneyear;(2)thattheconditionswhichledtotheremoval,orothersimilarconditionsthatwouldsubjectJohntofurtherabuseorneglect,stillexist;(3)thatthereislittlechancethattheseconditionswillsoonberemedied;(4)thatcontinuingMothersrelationshipwithJohnwillgreatlydiminishhischancesofearlyintegrationintoastableandpermanenthome;and(5)thatterminationofMothersparentalrightsisinJohnsbestinterests. TennesseeDept.OfHumanServicesv.Riley ,689S.W.2d164,165(Tenn.App.1984); InreS.M.,Jr. ,1996WL140410at*8.Eachoftheseelementsmustbefoundbyclearandconvincingevidence. Riley at165.  MotherconcedesthatJohnhasbeenremovedfromhercustodyformorethanoneyear.Withregardtothesecondandthirdcriteria,whichinvolvetheconditionsthatledtoJohnsremovalfromMotherscustody,theevidenceislesscertain.ThereclearlyisevidencethatMotherhasnotprovidedJohnwithasuitablehome.ThefostercareplanindicatesthatMotherhadproblemswithdrugsandalcohol.ThetrialcourtfoundJohntobedependentandneglected.Inaddition,therecordcontainsevidencethatMotherwasinvolvedwithseveraldifferentmenfollowingherdivorcefromJohnsnaturalfather.Shechangedjobsandresidencesquitefrequently,contributingtothelackofstabilityinJohnslife.TherecordsofDHSalsoreflectherlackofprogressattimestowardthegoalsofthefostercareplan.  TheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingcustodyofJohntotheGardnersstatesthatMotherhadmadenosubstantialimprovementinhercircumstances.AtthetimeitterminatedMothersparentalrights,thetrialcourtfoundthatshehaddemonstrateda monumentallackofstability,aswellasaninabilitytoprovideforherchildren.Inaccordancewiththefourthandfifthcriterialistedabove,thecourtwentontofindthataterminationofMothersparentalrightstoJohnwasinhisbestinterestandwouldgreatlyenhancehisopportunityforintegrationintoastable,permanenthome.  Ontheotherhand,therecordreflectssomeevidenceofMotherseffortstowardimprovement.Sheattendedcounselingsessionsandcompletedparentingclasses.Sincetheinitialplacementofherchildren,therehavebeennofurtherallegationsofdrugoralcoholabusebyMother.Infact,theDHSreportsindicatethatshehasmadesomeprogresstowardabatingtheconditionsthatnecessitatedplacementofherchildreninthecareofothers.ShehascompletedaVocationalRehabilitationprogram,andatthetimethatherparentalrightswereterminated,shewasworkingfortyhoursaweekatanewjob.Motherisalsoinvolvedinamorestablerelationship,withGeorgeBlackwell,amansheϜhasbeenseeingfornearlyayear.Mr.Blackwellhasattendedandcompletedparentingclasseswithher.HerresidentialsituationϜhasstabilizedsomewhat,asshehasbeenlivingwithMr.Blackwellinatwobedroomtrailersuppliedbyhisemployer.  Giventheforegoing,wecannotconcludethatthereisclearandconvincingevidencethatalloftherequirementsofT.C.A.371147(d)(1)(1991)weremetsoastojustifyaterminationofMothersparentalrights.Theclearandconvincingstandardimposesaheightenedburdenonthoseseekingtoterminatetherightsofanaturalparent.Tomeetthisstandard,apartymustgobeyondthemerethresholdofapreponderanceoftheevidence: 8 Clearandconvincingevidenceeliminatesanyseriousorsubstantialdoubtconcerningthecorrectnessoftheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheevidence.Itshouldproduceinthefactfindersmindafirmbelieforconvictionwithregardtothetruthoftheallegationssoughttobeestablished. ODanielv.Messier ,905S.W.2d182,188(Tenn.App.1995)(citationsomitted).Theevidenceinthiscasesimplydoesnotrisetosuchalevel.See InreDrinnon ,776S.W.2dat100.  WeholdthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthattheevidenceestablishedtheelementsofT.C.A.371147(d)(1)Ϝ(1991)byclearandconvincingevidence.WeacknowledgethatourdecisionisinpartinfluencedbyevidenceofapartialimprovementinMothersabilitytoprovideastable,caringenvironmentforJohn.Wehastentoadd,however,thatasfarastherecordnowstands,theevidenceclearlysupportstheconclusionthatJohnscustodyshouldstaywiththeGardners.Sincewearenotprivytowhathasoccurredsincethelasthearingdate,August26,1994,weexpressabsolutelynoopinionastowhetherorwhenJohnscustodyshouldbereturnedtoMother.Infact,thecorrectoutcomeofthislitigationmaystillinvolvetheterminationofMothersparentalrights;however,anysuchdeterminationmustbebaseduponclearandconvincingevidencethateachrequirementforterminationinT.C.A.371147(d)(1)(1991)hasbeenmet.WeleavethatdecisiontotheJuvenileCourtuponremandofthiscause.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Costsonappealareassessedagainsttheappellee.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.       _________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.  7f*fXXdXXd7 `  , 5  | u` @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜J~;+'b|`  `@Jߛ@ EASTERNSECTIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE   )DEPARTMENTOFHUMANSERVICES@ )      0       )  PetitionerAppellee,)      )and      )      )      )WILLIAMD.GARDNERand  )JOANNGARDNER,    )      )  Intervening  )  PetitionersAppellees,) BRADLEYCOUNTYJUVENILECOURT     ) C/ANO.03A019604JV00150      )      )v.      )      )      )      )DANAD.DEFRIECE,   )      )  RespondentAppellant.)      )INTHEMATTEROF:   )      )  JOHNDEFRIECE,  )  aminor.  )    CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurinthemajorityopinionthatnotallofthecircumstancesnecessarytoterminateparentalrightshavebeenshownbyclearandconvincingevidence.  IwriteseparatelytoemphasizethatIdonotandIamsurethemajorityofthemembersoftheCourtdonotcondonetheϜunmarriedMotherlivingwithMr.Blackwell,andsuggestthatcontinuanceofsucharelationshipdoesnotadvancehergoaltobereunitedwithherchild.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.