ÿWPCÔ8 V»ˆãJúŒÜkÓ•þ¨DWE%âóí&x“=ÆÛÝS…Ë&çÁçjÜ1òQÀߨ`8Ï*&?ú.áÈÖÓS1Ûdûl8ŒÍÝŒëÉ~[€1á¦ÐÄÃqÉtsï“ ¢aäÜ%çÞþ#½“ú¦Ì ,ß“ñê`êcã†ìå´“Õt Rßè=ìt¤Í ü.ß–ÌŒÖhÎa2–¹ñ}žtm‹ãRHcï\71Àf¨ª|‘è# ¯»I¤úŽ^)Eëœ8sÖzd^7¸bÜ%»X=ãð£ŒË®‹ Ð˜’/Ý^«BmuFù¦5´a`dXi¦ÿOÐò]UüÿmƒƒXäEµ`÷F?úI¿È}*ï¶ß½æm:˜ö?œ€‡ÂãÓþy«¬ø ñAx”é—í7ÔÑå-,níí…wÑÉúg`oÛoÄ‹©ÌsÀïc)Õ C×é'[ì ¨Â¡vMÐ 3ýßA5t—µE¯ˆ^ ûŒŠ£ÚlÁX„¦ä=¾&î(×Ü3iåˆÀ ‘i(57XP²ãÞØæw‚ïR§8ccħÔòâË(m¸Ÿ·É­†Ä|ÑÖðx²h °?G©•fA÷ÿ%ð9œ³‡XÐ"‰îË©ÀbÒ•ñ É™ºs±¿…pÍSK¬²× ½hvb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ USN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz b‘ Æ• Æ[ Æ! Æç UN­Nû¡ý 0DžEâÆä@ªU@êù*’##„µ&g9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+9+ 3 3 3 3 3b¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3¨3 0 °3°3°3°3 Bº4º4 0¤×4 D5{5 D-°5 0KÝ5Ý5 AS(6Æ{6 0¤A7 0Då7 A«)8˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»y›)L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì(”³ k1Lž ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ùLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular —Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôöíòXX9ÔIn€the€cases€from€this€court€cited€earlier,€the€transcript€of€the€termination€hearing€was€deemed€sufficient€forÐ e Ðreview€of€the€appointment€of€counsel€issue.€€We€are€aware€of€òòState€Ô_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€of€Human€Ô_ÔServsÔ_Ô.€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€01A01„9203„Ð )Ä ÐCV„00109,€1992€WL€259288€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€7,€1992)€(perm.€app.€denied€Dec.€21,€1992)€in€which€this€court€heldÐ íˆ Ðthat€the€absence€of€a€trial€transcript€precluded€appellate€evaluation€of€the€factors€set€out€in€òòLassiter€óóandòò€Ô_ÔT.H.Ô_Ôóó,€stating€thatÐ ±L Ðð ðabsent€a€transcript€or€a€statement€of€the€evidence,€this€court€must€presume€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÐ u Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decision€denying€the€appointment€of€counsel€on€appeal.ðð€€òòHarrisóó,€1992€WL€259288€at€*3.€€We€note€thatÐ 9Ô ÐòòHarrisóó€predated€òòÔ_ÔM.L.B.Ô_Ôóó,€wherein€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€stressed€the€necessity€of€an€adequate€record€to€the€effectiveÐ ý˜ Ðappeal€of€issues€affecting€constitutionally€protected€interests.Ô#†X9Xòôöí#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¼Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÔ‡ôöíòXX9ÔTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔJuvÔ_Ô.€P.€39(f)(2)€requires€the€court,€at€the€beginning€of€the€hearing,€to€inform€an€unrepresented€parentÐ e Ðin€termination€of€parental€rights€casesÔ#†ôöíòòôöí#ÔÔ‡ôöíòòôöíÔ€of€the€Ô#†ôöíòòôöíÊ#ÔÔ‡ôöíòòôöíÔð ðright€to€an€attorney,€and€in€the€case€of€an€indigent€respondent,€.€.€.€[to]Ð )Ä Ðconsider€the€facts€and€circumstances€alleged€and€make€a€determination€as€to€whether€an€attorney€should€be€appointed.ððÔ#†ôöíòòôöí#ÔÔ#†X9Xòôöí¼#ÔÔ€ôöíòXX9Ô€òòÐ íˆ ÐóóTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔJuvÔ_Ô.€P.€39(f)(2);€òòsee€also€In€re€Valleóó,€No.€W1998„00617„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€286710€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ±L ÐFeb.€17,€2000)€(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed€Apr.€20,€2000ò òó ó)€(termination€reversed€because€ð ðthe€mandate€of€RuleÐ u Ð39€was€not€metðð).€€Although€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔJuvÔ_Ô.€P.€39€applies€only€to€juvenile€courts,€the€parentððs€due€process€rights€do€notÐ 9Ô Ðvary€depending€on€the€court€hearing€the€termination.òòóó 6Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔòòÔ€ôöíòXX9ÔSee€In€re€Swansonóó,€2€S.W.3d€180,€188€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†ôöíòòôöí#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ïÝ ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôöíòXX9ÔAlthough€the€Court€used€the€word€ð ðtranscriptðð€in€its€opinion,€it€also€used€the€phrase€ð ðrecord€of€sufficientÐ e Ðcompleteness.ðð€€òòSee€M.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€128,€117€S.€Ct.€at€570,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€495€(citing€òòMayeróó,€404€U.S.€at€198,€92Ð )Ä ÐS.€Ct.€at€416,€30€L.€Ed.€2d€at€380).€€Ô‡ôöíòòôöíÔIn€a€footnote€the€Court€indicated€that€a€full€verbatim€transcript€may€not€be€required.€Ð íˆ ÐòòSee€M.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€112,€117€S.€Ct.€at€561,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€485€n.5€(quotingòò€€Draper€v.€Washingtonóó,€372€U.S.€487,Ð ±L Ð495,€83€S.€Ct.€774,€779,€9€L.€Ed.€2d€899,€905€(1963)€(ð ðAlternative€methods€of€reporting€trial€proceedings€are€permissibleÐ u Ðif€they€place€before€the€appellate€court€an€equivalent€report€of€the€events€at€trial€from€which€the€appellantððs€contentionsÐ 9Ô Ðarise.ðð);€òòMayer€v.€Chicagoóó,€404€U.S.€at€194,€92€S.€Ct.€at€414„15,€30€L.€Ed.€2d€at€378€(ð ðA€record€of€sufficientÐ ý˜ Ðcompleteness€does€not€translate€automatically€into€a€complete€verbatim€transcript.ðð)).Ô#†ôöíòòôöí#Ôòòóó€€Because€the€case€before€usÐ Á \ Ðcontains€neither€a€transcript€nor€any€attempt€at€a€complete€record€of€the€evidence€or€events€at€trial,€we€need€not€determineÐ …  Ðwhat€a€ð ðrecord€of€sufficient€completeness€for€appellate€reviewðð€needs€to€contain.€€We€simply€note€that€we€are€unable€toÐ I ä  Ðreview€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€the€case€before€us.€ ˆÝ ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôöíòXX9ÔWe€recognize€some€distinction€between€òòM.L.B.óó€and€the€case€before€us.€€In€òòM.L.B.óó,€the€trial€proceedings€hadÐ e Ðbeen€transcribed,€but€the€mother€was€denied€a€transcript€because€of€her€inability€to€prepay€the€cost€of€producing€it.€€€Here,Ð )Ä Ðthere€is€no€indication€that€the€trial€was€recorded.€€However,€the€primary€teachings€of€òòÔ_ÔM.L.B.Ô_Ôóó€are€that€effective€appealÐ íˆ Ðcannot€be€denied€a€parent€because€of€his€or€her€poverty€and€that€a€record€of€sufficient€completeness€is€necessary€forÐ ±L Ðeffective€appellate€review.€Those€principles€are€the€basis€of€our€ruling€herein.Ô#†X9Xòôöí#Ô zÝ ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÔ‡ôöíòXX9ÔEven€in€a€case€such€as€the€one€before€us€involving€a€termination€petition€brought€by€private€parties,€the€stateÐ e Ðis€required€to€provide€a€record€because€state€action€is€invoked€by€asking€a€court€to€end€a€parental€relationship.Ô#†ôöíòòôöí#ÔÔ#†X9Xòôöí¼#Ô€Ô€ôöíòXX9ÔIn€òòM.L.B.,Ð )Ä Ðóóthe€Supreme€Court€noted,€ð ðAlthough€the€termination€proceeding€in€this€case€was€initiated€by€private€parties€as€a€preludeÐ ° Ðto€an€adoption€petition,€rather€than€by€a€state€agency,€the€challenged€state€action€remains€essentially€the€same:€M.L.Bòò.óóÐ Ùt Ðresists€the€imposition€of€an€official€decree€extinguishing,€as€no€power€other€than€the€State€can,€her€parent„childÐ 8 Ðrelationships.ðð€òò€M.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€116,€117€S.€Ct.€at€564,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€488€n.8.Ð aü ÐÌ ]Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ‡X9XXX9ÔóóÔ‡ôöíòXX9ÔSpecifically,€the€Court€relied€upon€òòGriffin€v.€Illinoisóó,€351€U.S.€12,€18„19,€76€S.€Ct.€585,€590„91,€100€L.€Ed.Ð e Ð891,€899€(1956)€(recognizing€ð ðthe€importance€of€appellate€review€to€a€correct€adjudication€of€guilt€or€innocenceðð€andÐ )Ä Ðholding€that€appellate€review,€including€transcripts€needed€to€pursue€appeals,€cannot€be€denied€indigent€defendants€whereÐ íˆ Ðit€is€available€to€more€affluent€persons),€òòMayer€v.€Chicagoóó,€404€U.S.€189,€196„98,€92€S.€Ct.€410,€415„16,€30€L.€Ed.€2dÐ ±L Ð372,€379„80€(1971)€(declining€to€limit€òòGriffinóó€to€cases€where€the€defendant€faced€incarceration,€holding€an€indigentÐ u Ðdefendant€found€guilty€of€conduct€only€ð ðquasi€criminal€in€nature€.€.€.€cannot€be€denied€a€record€of€sufficient€completenessÐ 9Ô Ðto€permit€proper€[appellate]€consideration€of€his€claimsðð),€òòLassiter€v.€Department€of€Social€Servs.óó,€452€U.S.€18,€27,€101Ð ý˜ ÐS.€Ct.€2153,€2160,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€640,€650€(1981)€(recognizing€that€the€object€of€termination€proceedings€is€not€simplyÐ Á \ Ðto€infringe€Ô#†ôöíòòôöí #ÔÔ‡ôöíòòôöíÔ€upon€the€parentððs€interest,€but€to€end€it,€thus€ð ðworking€a€unique€kind€of€deprivation,ðð€and€holding€that€a€case„Ð …  Ðby„case€determination€of€the€need€for€appointed€counsel€for€an€indigent€parent€facing€termination€of€parental€rights€wasÐ I ä  Ðrequired),€and€òòSantoskyóó,€455€U.S.€at€758„59,€102€S.€Ct.€at€1397,€71€L.€Ed.€2d€at€610€(a€parentððs€interest€is€ð ðfar€moreÐ  ¨  œ Ðprecious€than€any€property€right,ðð€and€the€ð ðclear€and€convincingðð€proof€standard€is€constitutionally€required€inÐ e Ðproceedings€to€terminate€that€interest)Ô#†ôöíòòôöí‹#Ô.Ô#†X9XòôöíÂ#Ô - ù-(›G2î$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Bµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôöíò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9XòôöíÔ d(|3G‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Bµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Bµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Bµ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑe°ÑÔ€¼Bµ»»»ÔÑ€ .ÑÑ8€9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î@tBµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ e Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Bµ»îî@t#ԈР‹& ÐÓ  ÓMAY€2000€SESSIONÐ ±L ÐÓÁÓÔ‡X9X»¼BµÔÌò òÔ#†¼Bµ»XX9#ÔÓ  ÓIN€RE:€ADOPTION€OF€Ô_ÔJ.D.W.Ô_ÔÐ ¯J Ðó óÌÓHÓÌÔ€X9X»¼BµÔà@ ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Ô_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ ç ‚ Ðà@Ô Ô ìàNo.€9800€€€€€€€Allen€W.€Wallace,€ChancellorˆÐ Ó n ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<–` A߈Ð —2  ÐÌà@¸ ¸ ìàNo.€M2000„00151„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€August€16,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР’-  Ðó óÌßA€V) °°` dE<i` AßÐ j Ðà  àÌà  àThis€case€involves€a€fatherððs€objection€to€the€trial€courtððs€order€terminating€his€parental€rightsÐ e Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„1„102(1)(A)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô),€finding€that€the€father€had€abandoned€the€boy€andÐ Qì Ðthat€the€termination€of€the€fatherððs€parental€rights€was€in€the€boyððs€best€interest.€€The€father€was€notÐ =Ø Ðrepresented€by€counsel€at€trial,€and€no€transcript€was€made€of€the€proceedings.€€The€father€appeals,Ð )Ä Ðclaiming€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€abandonment€and€that€hisÐ ° Ðrights€to€due€process€were€violated€by€his€lack€of€representation.€€The€lack€of€a€transcript€preventsÐ œ Ðus€from€€determining€whether€sufficient€evidence€supported€the€termination€and€denies€the€fatherÐ íˆ Ðproper€appellate€consideration€of€his€claims.€€We€therefore€vacate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÐ Ùt Ðremand€the€case€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð Å` ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Vacated€andÐ ‰$ ÐRemandedó óÐ u ÐÓe ÓÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔM.SÔ_Ô,óóÐ M è Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð 9!Ô  ÐÌRonald€K.€West,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð #¬" ÐÌHubert€D.€Patty,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Anthony€Blaine€Ô_ÔMayberryÔ_Ô.Ð é$„ $ ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ Á&\"& ÐÌà  àThe€child€who€is€the€subject€of€this€action,€Ô_ÔJ.D.WÔ_Ô,€€a€boy,€was€born€December€30,€1986.€€HisÐ ™(4$( Ðparents€divorced€in€1990,€and€the€mother€remarried€in€1991.€€The€father€moved€to€California€afterÐ …) %) Ðthe€divorce.€€In€1997,€a€Davidson€County€court€set€visitation€and€telephone€visits€between€the€fatherÐ q* &* Ðand€son€at€the€fatherððs€request.€€The€father€called€the€son€for€a€while,€but€the€calls€became€less€andÐ ]+ø&+ Ðless€frequent.Ð I,ä', ÐÐ 5-Ð(-ý' ÐÔ_Ôà  àIn€1998,€the€mother€and€stepfather€initiated€these€proceedings€to€terminate€the€fatherððsÐ e Ðparental€rights€and€for€the€stepfather€to€adopt€the€boy,€based€on€the€fatherððs€failure€to€visit€or€supportÐ Qì Ðthe€child.€€The€father€answered,€denying€that€the€termination€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€boy,€andÐ =Ø Ðclaiming€that€the€failure€to€visit€or€support€the€boy€was€not€ð ðwillfulðð€because€he€lived€so€far€awayÐ )Ä Ðand€had€no€income€other€than€his€Social€Security€disability€payments.€€The€father€claimed€in€hisÐ ° Ðanswer€that€he€made€few€telephone€calls€because€his€son€became€hostile€and€refused€to€speak€to€him.Ð  œ ÐÌà  àA€hearing€was€held€in€April€1999€in€which€the€father€represented€himself.€€Apparently€noÐ Ù t Ðcourt€reporter€was€present.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€termination€of€the€fatherððs€parental€rights€andÐ Å ` Ðthe€stepfatherððs€adoption.€€The€father€filed€two€motions€for€a€new€trial,€the€second€of€which€wasÐ ± L  Ðaccompanied€by€a€motion€for€the€court€to€appoint€counsel€to€represent€him.€€€All€of€the€fatherððsÐ  8  Ðmotions€regarding€a€new€trial€were€denied.Ð ‰$  ÐÌà  àNo€verbatim€record€was€made€of€the€April€1999€hearing,€nor€any€other€hearing€in€this€matter.€Ð aü  ÐThe€father€attempted€to€prepare€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence€of€the€April€hearing€for€submission€toÐ Mè  Ðthis€court,€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c),€but€his€statement€was€unacceptable€to€the€trialÐ 9Ô  Ðcourt.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€father€to€ð ðfile€a€correct€Statement€of€the€Evidence€within€ten€(10)Ð %À Ðdays€from€December€6,€1999.€€In€the€event€said€statement€is€not€properly€filed€as€directed€theÐ ¬ ÐStatement€of€the€Evidence€shall€[be]€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€the€Court€on€record€in€this€case.ðð€Ð ý˜ ÐThe€revised€statement€was€apparently€also€unacceptable€to€the€court,€and€the€trial€court€ordered€thatÐ é„ Ðfindings€of€fact€in€the€Memorandum€Opinion€become€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence.Ð Õp ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion€were€as€follows:Ð ­H ÐÌà8  àThe€biological€father€and€mother€of€the€child€were€divorced€on€July€6,€1990.€€ByÐ …  ÐJanuary€1997,€when€respondent€filed€a€petition€in€Davidson€County€to€reduce€hisÐ q  Ðarrearage€and€support€and€for€visitation€privileges,€he€was€sixteen€thousand€dollarsÐ ]ø Ð($16,000.00)€in€arrears.€€ÐIäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àOn€February€18,€1997,€his€arrearage€was€reduced€to€three€thousand,€nine€hundredÐ !¼ Ðninety€five€dollars€($3,995.00)€and€support€was€reduced€from€fifty€dollars€($50.00)Ð  ¨ Ðper€week€to€one€hundred€fifteen€dollars€($115.00)€per€month.€€He€was€also€grantedÐ ù ” Ðcertain€visitation€rights€and€could€call€the€child€at€specific€times.€€In€1997,€he€shouldÐ å!€  Ðhave€called€the€child€forty€five€(45)€times€and€he€called€seventeen€(17)€times.€€InÐ Ñ"l! Ð1998,€he€should€have€called€the€child€fifty€three€(53)€times€and€he€called€the€childÐ ½#X" Ðeleven€(11)€times.€€Ð©$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHe€never€paid€support€as€ordered€in€May€1997€until€August€3,€1997€he€made€sevenÐ &"% Ð(7)€child€support€payments€which€totaled€one€hundred€thirty€three€dollars€and€eightyÐ m'#& Ðfive€cents€($133.85).€€For€a€period€from€August€15,€1997€until€April€20,€1998,€heÐ Y(ô#' Ðpaid€a€total€amount€of€child€support€of€one€dollar€and€six€cents€($1.06).€ÐE)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÐ  ,¤'+ Ðà8  àDuring€the€period€of€four€(4)€months€next€preceding€the€filing€of€this€petition,€heÐ e Ðmade€no€support€payments€and€made€one€(1)€phone€call€on€October€1,€1998.ÐQìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àHe€contends€he€has€not€willfuly€[sic]€refused€to€pay€child€support€because€he€isÐ )Ä Ðdisabled€and€only€drew€Social€Security€Insurance€benefits€of€six€hundred€fifty€twoÐ ° Ðdollars€($652.00)€per€month.€€He€further€testified€he€is€a€musician€and€did€do€someÐ  œ Ðstudio€work€as€a€favor€to€his€friends,€but€received€no€money€for€his€work.€€HeÐ í ˆ Ðsubmitted€certain€medical€reports€which€the€Court€considered,€but€the€Court€is€of€theÐ Ù t Ðopinion€his€explanation€of€his€disability€was€more€severe€than€indicated€by€hisÐ Å ` Ðmedical€reports.б L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHe€explained€he€did€not€call€as€ordered€by€the€Davidson€County€Court€because€he€feltÐ ‰$  Ðit€not€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ðu Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àRespondent€has€since€the€parties€divorced€engaged€in€mere€perfunctory€and€tokenÐ Mè  Ðvisitation€and€support.€€During€four€(4)€months€preceding€the€filing€of€this€complaint,Ð 9Ô  Ðhe€made€one€(1)€phone€call€and€no€support.€[sic]Ð%ÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€then€concluded€that€the€evidence€was€clear€and€convincing€that€the€fatherÐ ý˜ Ðabandoned€the€child€and€that€termination€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ð é„ ÐÌà  àThe€father€appeals,€claiming€that€the€evidence€did€not€show€that€his€lack€of€visitation€andÐ Á\ Ðsupport€was€ð ðwillfulðð€and€that€due€process€required€that€he€should€have€had€appointed€counsel€toÐ ­H Ðrepresent€him€at€the€hearing.Ð ™4 ÐÌÓ  ÓI.€€The€Interests€at€StakeÐ q  ÐÓ/%ÓÌà  àÔ‡X9XXX9ÔThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€the€unique€nature€of€proceedings€toÐ Iä Ðterminate€parental€rights,€stating€that€ð ð[f]ew€consequences€of€judicial€action€are€so€grave€as€theÐ 5Ð Ðseverance€of€natural€family€ties.ðð€òòÔ#†X9XXX9‡%#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔM.L.B.€v.€S.L.J.óó,òò€óó519€U.S.€102,€119,€117€S.€Ct.€555,€565,€136€L.€Ed.Ð !¼ Ð2d€473,€489€(1996òòóó)Ô#†X9XXX9Ó&#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€(quoting€òòSantosky€v.€Kramer,€óó455€U.S.€745,€787,€102€S.€Ct.€1388,€1412,€71€L.Ð  ¨ ÐEd.€2d€599,€628€(1982)€(Rehnquist,€J.,€dissenting))Ô#†X9XXX9'#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôòò.óó€€As€a€result,€Ô#†X9XXX9l(#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôð ð[T]he€interest€of€parents€in€theirÐ ù ” Ðrelationship€with€their€children€is€sufficiently€fundamental€to€come€within€the€finite€class€of€libertyÐ å!€  Ðinterests€protected€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.ðð€òòId.óó€€Ô#†X9XXX9Ä(#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€The€constitutional€protections€of€the€parent„Ð Ñ"l! Ðchild€relationship€require€certain€safeguards€before€the€relationship€can€be€severed.€€òòSeeóó€òòOððDanielÐ ½#X" Ðv.€Messieróó,€905€S.W.2d€182,€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)òòÔ#†X9XXX9ý)#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôóó.Ô#†X9XXX9A+#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÐ ©$D # ÐòòóóÔ#†X9XXX9‡+#ÔÌà  àÔ‡X9XXX9ÔAmong€those€safeguards€is€the€requirement€that€courts€apply€a€heightened€standard€of€proof,Ð &"% Ðthe€ð ðclear€and€convincingðð€proof€standard.€òòSee€Santoskyóó,€€455€U.S.€at€769,€102€S.Ct.€at€1403,€71Ð m'#& ÐL.Ed.€2d€at€617Ô#†X9XXX9ñ+#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô;òòÔ#†X9XXX93-#Ô€O'Danielóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€186.€To€justify€the€termination€of€parental€rights,€theÐ Y(ô#' Ðgrounds€for€termination€must€be€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code.€Ann.Ð E)à$( Ððð€36-1-113(c)(1)€(Supp.€1999);€òòState€Depððt€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Defrieceóó,€937€S.W.2d€954,€960Ð 1*Ì%) Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€Evidence€which€satisfies€the€clear€and€convincing€standard€"eliminates€anyÐ +¸&* Ðserious€or€substantial€doubt€concerning€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÐ  ,¤'+ Ðevidence."€òòO'Danielóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€188.€€€"This€heightened€standard€.€.€.€serves€to€prevent€theÐ e Ðunwarranted€termination€or€interference€with€the€biological€parents'€rights€to€their€children."€€òòIn€reÐ Qì ÐM.W.A.óó,€980€S.W.2d€620,€622€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð =Ø ÐÌà  àUnder€this€heightened€standard€of€proof,€an€appellate€court€must€first€review€the€trial€courtððsÐ ° Ðfindings€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€€Ô‡X9XXX9ÔThat€review€€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumptionÐ  œ Ðof€correctness€for€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ í ˆ Ðotherwise.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Ô#†X9XXX9À1#ÔThen,€we€must€determine€whether€the€facts€make€out€a€clearÐ Ù t Ðand€convincing€case€in€favor€of€terminating€the€parentsðð€parental€rights.€€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Drinnonóó,€776Ð Å ` ÐS.W.2d€96,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).Ð ± L  ÐÌòòóóÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÓ  ÓII.€Lack€of€a€TranscriptÐ ‰$  ÐÓ%4ÓÌÔ#†X9XXX94#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àFather€herein€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€willfulÐ aü  Ðabandonment,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€essentially€an€argument€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ Mè  Ðfindings,€including€its€finding€that€the€mother€and€stepfather€had€presented€clear€and€convincingÐ 9Ô  Ðevidence€of€abandonment.€€Ô#†X9XXX9’4#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔThe€trial€court€herein€adopted€its€findings€of€fact€in€the€MemorandumÐ %À ÐOpinion€as€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence.€€No€transcript€or€other€substantially€complete€record€wasÐ ¬ Ðmade€of€the€proceedings€below€or€provided€to€us.€€The€lack€of€such€a€record€prevents€our€review€ofÐ ý˜ Ðthe€evidence€to€determine€whether€it€supports€or€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€andÐ é„ Ðprevents€our€application€of€the€clear€and€convincing€evidence€standard.€€While€in€other€types€of€civilÐ Õp Ðcases€we€would€be€required€to€conduct€our€review€using€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence,€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð Á\ ÐR.€App.€P.€24(c),€or€to€accept€as€conclusive€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€òòsee€King€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2dÐ ­H Ð216,€220€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€such€procedures€do€not€satisfy€the€constitutional€requirementsÐ ™4 Ðapplicable€to€an€appeal€from€an€order€terminating€parental€rights.Ð …  ÐÌÔ#†X9XXX9¨6#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àÔ#†X9XXX9ó:#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€In€òòÔ#†X9XXX9A;#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔM.L.B.€v.€S.L.J.óó,òò€óó519€U.S.€102,€117€S.€Ct.€555,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€473€(1996òòóó)Ô#†X9XXX9Š;#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô,€the€U.S.Ð ]ø ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€a€parentððs€interest€in€Ô#†X9XXX9#<#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôdefending€against€€a€stateððs€action€in€terminatingÐ Iä Ðparental€rights€required€a€record€complete€enough€to€allow€fair€appellate€consideration€of€the€parentððsÐ 5Ð Ðclaims.€òòSee€M.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€121„22,€117€S.€Ct.€at€566,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€491.€€Relying€on€previousÐ !¼ Ðrulings€regarding€due€process€and€equal€protectionÔ#†X9XXX9¶<#ÔòòóóÔ‡X9XXX9Ô,׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€Court€in€òòM.L.B.óó€held,€ð ðwe€place€decreesÐ  ¨ Ðforever€terminating€parental€rights€in€the€category€of€cases€in€which€the€state€may€not€ððbolt€the€doorÐ e Ðto€equal€justice.ðððð€òòM.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€124,€117€S.€Ct.€at€568,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€493òò.óóÔ#†X9XXX9y>#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€€Ô#†X9XXX9>@#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9ÔThe€Court€€ruledÐ Qì Ðthat€the€State€could€not€withhold€from€an€indigent€parent€seeking€review€of€a€termination€of€parentalÐ =Ø Ðrights€ð ða€ððrecord€of€sufficient€completenessðð€to€permit€proper€[appellate]€consideration€of€[her]Ð )Ä Ðclaims.ðð€€òòM.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€128,€117€S.€Ct.€at€570,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€495Ô#†X9XXX9‚@#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô.Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€Court€noted€that€the€trial€judge€in€òòM.L.Bóó.€had€simply€recited€the€statutory€language,€andÐ í ˆ Ðthat€his€order€ð ðdescribes€no€evidence,€and€otherwise€details€no€reasons€for€finding€M.L.B.€ððclear[ly]Ð Ù t Ðand€convincing[ly]ðð€unfit€to€be€a€parent.ðð€òòM.L.B.óó,€519€U.S.€at€121,€117€S.€Ct.€at€566,€136€L.€Ed.€2dÐ Å ` Ðat€491.Ô#†X9XXX95B#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€€The€Court€then€stated,€ð ðOnly€a€transcript׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€can€reveal€to€judicial€minds€other€than€theÐ ± L  ÐChancellorððs€the€sufficiency,€or€insufficiency,€of€the€evidence€to€support€his€stern€judgment.ðð€Ð  8  ÐòòM.L.B.óó,òòóó€519€U.S.€at€121„22,€117€S.€Ct.€at€566,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€at€491Ô#†X9XXX9D#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô.€€While€the€trial€court€in€the€caseÐ ‰$  Ðbefore€us€made€findings€of€fact€and€did€not€merely€recite€conclusions€in€statutory€language,€we€thinkÐ u  Ðthat€distinction€does€not€alter€the€effect€of€the€lack€of€a€complete€record€of€the€events€at€trial€on€ourÐ aü  Ðability€to€provide€the€type€of€complete€appellate€review€required€in€termination€of€parental€rightsÐ Mè  Ðcases.€€Without€a€complete€record€of€the€evidence€below,€we€are€unable€to€conduct€the€type€of€Ð 9Ô  Ðreview€required€in€termination€cases.€€Ô#†X9XXX9ìE#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôð ðA€parentððs€interest€in€the€accuracy€and€justice€of€the€decisionÐ %À Ðto€terminate€his€or€her€parental€status€is,€therefore,€a€commanding€one.€€Since€the€State€has€an€urgentÐ ¬ Ðinterest€in€the€welfare€of€the€child,€it€shares€the€parentððs€interest€in€an€accurate€and€just€decision.ðð€Ð ý˜ ÐòòLassiteróó,€452€U.S.€at€27,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2160,€68€L.€Ed.2d€atò ò€ó ó650Ô#†X9XXX9qH#ÔòòóóÔ‡X9XXX9Ô.Ô#†X9XXX9`J#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€€€Full€appellate€consideration€of€aÐ é„ Ðtrial€courtððs€determination€to€terminate€a€parentððs€rights€is€part€of€the€process€designed€to€achieveÐ Ùt Ðan€accurate€and€just€decision€and,€therefore,€cannot€be€denied€to€a€parent€because€of€his€or€herÐ Å` Ðfinancial€inability€to€produce€a€record€for€such€review.׃L ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ±L ÐÔ#†X9XXX9£J#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àThus,€we€hold€that,€in€cases€involving€the€termination€of€parental€rights,€a€record€of€theÐ 8 ÐproceedingÔ#†X9XXX9³L#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€of€sufficient€completeness€to€permit€proper€appellate€consideration€of€the€parentððs€claimsÐ ‰$ Ðmust€be€made€in€order€to€preserve€that€parentððs€right€to€an€effective€appeal.€€If€the€parent€whoseÐ e Ðrights€are€to€be€terminated€is€indigent,€then€the€trial€court€must€ensure€that€such€a€record€is€createdÐ Qì Ðand€made€available€to€a€parent€who€seeks€to€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóóò ò€€ó óBecause€the€trial€record€does€not€constituteÐ =Ø Ða€record€of€sufficient€completeness€for€appellate€review,€we€vacate€the€orders€terminating€the€fatherððsÐ -È Ðparental€rights€and€granting€the€subsequent€adoption€and€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€newÐ ´ Ðtrial€on€this€matter.€€The€trial€court€shall€determine€the€fatherððs€indigency,€and€if€the€father€isÐ    Ðindigent,€the€trial€court€shall€ensure€the€availability€of€a€record€of€trial€evidence€and€events€whichÐ ñ Œ Ðis€sufficiently€complete€to€allow€an€appellate€court€to€review€the€evidence€in€accordance€withÐ Ý x Ðapplicable€standards.ò òÐ É d ÐÔ#†X9XXX9zM#Ôòòó óóóÌÓ  ÓIV.€Lack€of€CounselÐ ¡ <  ÐÓ•RÓÌà  àIn€òòLassiter€v.€Department€of€Social€Servicesò òó óóó,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€considered€whether€theÐ y  Ðdue€process€clause€required€the€appointment€of€counsel€for€an€indigent€parent€facing€termination€ofÐ e  Ðhis€or€her€parental€rights.€€Applying€a€ð ðfundamental€fairness€test,ðð€the€Court€determined€that€in€eachÐ Qì  Ðcase€three€elements€must€be€evaluated€to€determine€the€answer:€the€private€interests€at€stake,€theÐ =Ø  Ðgovernmentððs€interest,€and€the€risk€that€the€procedures€will€lead€to€erroneous€decisions.€€òòLassiter,Ð )Ä Ðóó452€U.S.€at€27,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2159,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€at€649òòóó€(citing€òòMathews€v.€Eldridgeóó,€424€U.S.€319,Ð ° Ð335,€96€S.€Ct.€893,€903,€47€L.€Ed.€2d€18,€33€(1976)).Ð œ ÐÌà8  àTo€summarize€the€above€discussion€of€the€òòEldridgeóó€factors:€the€parentððs€interest€isÐ Ùt Ðan€extremely€important€one€(and€may€be€supplemented€by€the€dangers€of€criminalÐ Å` Ðliability€inherent€in€some€termination€proceedings);€the€State€shares€with€the€parentÐ ±L Ðan€interest€in€a€correct€decision,€has€a€relatively€weak€pecuniary€interest,€and,€in€someÐ 8 Ðbut€not€all€cases,€has€a€possibly€stronger€interest€in€informal€procedures;€and€theÐ ‰$ Ðcomplexity€of€the€proceeding€and€the€incapacity€of€the€uncounseled€parent€could€be,Ð u Ðbut€would€not€always€be,€great€enough€to€make€the€risk€of€an€erroneous€deprivationÐ aü Ðof€the€parentððs€rights€insupportably€high.ÐMèÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIf,€in€a€given€case,€the€parentððs€interests€were€at€their€strongest,€the€Stateððs€interestsÐ %À Ðwere€at€their€weakest,€and€the€risks€of€error€were€at€their€peak,€it€could€not€be€saidÐ  ¬ Ðthat€the€òòEldridgeóó€factors€did€not€overcome€the€presumption€against€the€right€toÐ ý ˜ Ðappointed€counsel,€and€that€due€process€did€not€therefore€require€the€appointment€ofÐ é!„  Ðcounsel.€€But€since€the€òòEldridge€óófactors€will€not€always€be€so€distributed,€and€sinceÐ Õ"p! Ðð ðdue€process€is€not€so€rigid€as€to€require€that€the€significant€interests€in€informality,Ð Á#\" Ðflexibility,€and€economy€must€always€be€sacrificed,ðð€neither€can€we€say€that€theÐ e ÐConstitution€requires€the€appointment€of€counsel€in€every€parental€terminationÐ Qì Ðproceeding.Ð=ØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòLassiteróó,€452€U.S.€at€31,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2161„62,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€at€652€(citations€omitted).Ð ° ÐÌà  àRecognizing€that€facts€and€circumstances€of€termination€of€parental€rights€cases€vary€greatly,€Ð í ˆ Ðthe€Court€determined€that€the€right€to€appointed€counsel€must€be€made€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòSeeÐ Ù t Ðid.óó€€Our€court€has€determined€that€the€main€consideration€in€determining€whether€counsel€must€beÐ Å ` Ðappointed€is€the€chance€that€the€failure€to€appoint€counsel€will€result€in€an€erroneous€decision.€€òòSeeÐ ± L  ÐState€ex€rel.€T.H.€v.€Minóó,€802€S.W.2d€625,€626„27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Ð  8  ÐÌà8  àTo€help€assess€the€risk€of€an€unfair€proceeding€resulting€in€an€erroneous€decision,€theÐ u  Ðcourts€in€òòLassiter€óóand€òòDavisóó€have€listed€several€factors€that€bear€on€the€question.€Ð aü  ÐThey€include:€(1)€whether€expert€medical€and/or€psychiatric€testimony€is€presentedÐ Mè  Ðat€the€hearing;€(2)€whether€the€parents€have€had€uncommon€difficulty€in€dealing€withÐ 9Ô  Ðlife€and€life€situations;€(3)€whether€the€parents€are€thrust€into€a€distressing€andÐ %À Ðdisorienting€situation€at€the€hearing;€(4)€the€difficulty€and€complexity€of€the€issuesÐ ¬ Ðand€procedures;€(5)€the€possibility€of€criminal€self„incrimination;€(6)€the€educationalÐ ý˜ Ðbackground€of€the€parents;€and€(7)€the€permanency€of€potential€deprivation€of€theÐ é„ Ðchild€in€question.ÐÕpÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó,€802€S.W.2d€at€627€(citing€òòLassiteróó,€452€U.S.€at€30,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2161„63,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€at€651„52;Ð ­H ÐòòDavis€v.€Pageóó,€714€F.2d€512,€516„17€(5thòò€óóCir.€1983)).€€While€not€specifically€listed€among€theÐ ™4 Ðfactors€above,€the€Court€in€òòLassiteróó€also€considered€€the€parentððs€efforts€to€avoid€or€oppose€theÐ …  Ðtermination€of€parental€rights.€€òòSee€Lassiteróó,€452€U.S.€at€33,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2163,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€at€653Ð q  Ð(noting€that€the€mother€had€declined€to€appear€at€an€earlier€custody€proceeding€and€had€failed€toÐ ]ø Ðmention€the€termination€proceedings€to€the€attorney€representing€her€in€a€criminal€matter).Ð Iä ÐÌà  àòòóóIn€a€number€of€cases,€Tennessee€appellate€courts€have€reviewed€the€termination€of€parentalÐ !¼ Ðrights€when€the€parent€was€unrepresented€at€the€hearing€on€a€case€by€case€basis,€as€required€byÐ  ¨ ÐòòLassiteróó.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€T.H.óó,€802€S.W.2d€at€627€(requiring€a€rehearing€on€removal€of€custody€of€childrenÐ ù ” Ðfrom€parents€after€noting€that€medical€and€hearsay€evidence€was€presented€at€trial);€òòState€Depððt€ofÐ å!€  ÐHuman€Servs.€v.€Tayloróó,€No.€03A01„9609„JV„00286,€1997€WL€122242€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.Ð Ñ"l! Ð19,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(termination€of€parental€rights€reversed€becauseÐ ½#X" Ðtrial€court€did€not€advise€father€of€his€right€to€counsel,€did€not€make€inquiry€about€his€indigency,€andÐ ©$D # Ðdid€not€show€consideration€of€òòLassiteróó€factors);òò€In€re€Adoption€of€Howsonóó,€No.€03A01„9302„CV„Ð •%0!$ Ð0072,€1993€WL€258783€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€12,€1993)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ &"% Ðfiled)€(termination€of€parental€rights€vacated€because€the€court€did€not€appoint€counsel€for€anÐ m'#& Ðindigent€mother€€facing€medical€testimony,€who€did€not€understand€the€rules€of€procedure,€andÐ Y(ô#' Ðwhose€dispute€with€the€father€involved€three€states)òòóóò òòòóóó ó,€òòbut€seeóó€òòÔ‡X9XXX9ÔIn€re€Fillingeróó,€No.€02A01„9409„JV„Ð E)à$( Ð00223,€1996€WL€271748€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€23,€1996)ò ò€ó ó(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ 1*Ì%) Ðfiled)Ô#†X9XXX9Ñk#Ôòò€óó(in€which€parents€who€delayed€an€earlier€hearing€in€order€to€obtain€counsel,€but€did€not€do€so,€Ð !+¼&* Ðand€then€actively€participated€in€the€hearing€were€found€to€have€no€right€to€appointed€counsel).€€InÐ  ,¨'+ Ðeach€of€these€cases,€this€court€applied€the€òòLassiter€óótest€using€the€transcript€of€the€termination€hearing.€Ð e ÐÌÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àIn€òòState€Depððt€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Tayloróó,€1997€WL€122242,€this€court€stated:Ð =Ø ÐÌà8  àThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€reflects€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€advise€the€defendantÐ ° Ðat€the€beginning€of€the€hearing€that€he€was€entitled€to€an€attorney€and€further€failedÐ  œ Ðto€make€a€preliminary€finding€of€indigency€or€non„indigency.€€The€record€does€notÐ í ˆ Ðdemonstrate€the€the€court€considered€the€facts€enumerated€in€òòLassiteróó€or€òòDavisóó€toÐ Ù t Ðmake€a€determination€of€whether€this€was€a€proper€case€for€the€appointment€of€anÐ Å ` Ðattorney.€€We€find€this€to€be€reversible€error.б L Ð Ð  ÐÌòòTayloróó,€1997€WL€122242€at€*2.€€This€holding€rests€in€part€upon€the€requirement€in€the€TennesseeÐ ‰$  ÐRules€of€Juvenile€Procedure,€applicable€to€the€trial€court€in€òòTayloróó€but€not€to€the€trial€court€herein,Ð u  Ðthat€€the€court€inform€a€defendant€parent€of€the€right€to€counsel€and,€if€that€parent€is€indigent,€toÐ aü  Ðconsider€the€facts€and€circumstances€and€determine€whether€counsel€should€be€appointedÔ#†X9XXX9Hn#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†X9XXX9?s#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€€TheòòÐ Mè  ÐTayloróó€court€considered€these€rules€to€have€been€designed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€and€theÐ 9Ô  ÐGeneral€Assembly€to€ensure€compliance€with€òòLassiteróó.€òò€Id.óó€€Regardless€of€the€applicability€of€theÐ %À ÐRules,€the€holding€thus€additionally€rests€on€the€reasoned€interpretation€and€application€of€òòLassiteróó.Ð ¬ ÐòòIdóó.€€Ô#†X9XXX9×s#ÔÐ ý˜ ÐÌà  àLike€the€òòTaylor€óócourt,€we€read€òòLassiter€óóas€holding€that,€while€constitutional€due€process€mayÐ Õp Ðnot€require€the€appointment€of€counsel€in€every€case,€it€does€require€the€trial€court€to€considerÐ Á\ Ðwhether€appointment€of€counsel€is€necessary€in€order€to€ensure€fundamental€fairness.€€€The€SupremeÐ ­H ÐCourt€also€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€initial€determination€of€whether€due€process€requires€theÐ ™4 Ðappointment€of€counsel€for€an€indigent€parent€òòóóis€ð ðsubject,€of€course,€to€appellate€review.ðð€òò€óó€òòLassiteróó,Ð …  Ð452€U.S.€at€33„34,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2163,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€at€653„54.€€Therefore,€we€are€€of€the€opinion€thatÐ q  Ða€record€sufficient€to€allow€appropriate€appellate€review€of€the€determination€on€€appointed€counselÐ ]ø Ðis€also€required.׃ì×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòÐ Iä ÐÐ 5Ð Ðà  àóóIn€the€case€before€us,€the€record€includes€no€transcript€of€the€termination€hearing,€and€theÐ e Ðrecord€does€not€indicate€that€the€father€requested€that€counsel€be€appointed€for€him€until€after€hearingÐ Qì Ðand€judgment.€€However,€a€parentððs€failure€to€request€a€court€appointed€attorney€prior€to€trial€doesÐ =Ø Ðnot€relieve€the€court€of€the€obligations€to€inform€the€parent€of€his€right€to€be€represented€and€toÐ )Ä Ðdetermine€whether€due€process€requires€the€appointment€of€counsel€where€the€parent€is€indigentòò.Ð ° ÐóóÌÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà  àHaving€considered€our€precedents€and€òòLassiteróó,€we€reiterate€that€trial€courts€must€determineÐ í ˆ Ðwhether€an€indigent€parent€is€entitled€to€appointed€counsel.€€The€court€must€apply€the€òòLassiteróóÐ Ù t Ðfactors,€as€well€as€other€appropriate€factors,€and€determine€whether€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€requiresÐ Å ` Ðthat€the€parent€receive€court€appointed€counsel.€€Because€the€record€does€not€include€a€transcript€orÐ ± L  Ðother€record€of€the€evidence€and€events€at€trial,€we€cannot€determine€whether€the€trial€court€evenÐ  8  Ðconsidered€appointing€counsel€for€the€father.€€Further,€we€are€unable€to€Ô#†X9XXX9G|#Ôperform€aòò€Lassiter€óóanalysisÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÐ ‰$  Ðon€our€own.Ð u  ÐÌÔ#†X9XXX9`#Ôò òó óÓ  ÓV.Ð Mè  ÐÌÓÞÓà  àWe€vacate€the€order€terminating€the€fatherððs€parental€rights,€as€well€as€the€one€granting€theÐ %À Ðadoption,€and€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€CostsÐ ¬ Ðare€taxed€against€the€Appellee€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ý˜ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ™4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ …  Ð