ÿWPC– …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0Jé 0T3 0^‡ 0hå 0rM 0|¿ 0†; 0Á 1uQ U,Æ 0dò UBV %˜ U,ž U6Ê B) DC) AMl U*¹ -ã Bv~-vÓ« D3~ 0@± AOñÆ@ 0D D/J Byà~| ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡  D EDDÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òApril€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ïåXXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.Ï03A01„9502„JV„00052ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€HUMAN€SERVICES,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€GREENE€JUVENILEÌà àPetitioner„Appellee,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€JAMES€D.€CARTER,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBONNIE€SUE€NORTON€and€à àà à)ÌRICK€NORTON,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants„Appellants,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌIN€THE€MATTER€OF:à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àCODY€JAY€NORTONà àà à)Ìà àDALLAS€RAY€NORTONà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà à(Children€under€the€ageà àœ)€AND›Ìà à€of€18€years)à àà àà àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSON,€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌandÌMICHELLE€K.€HOHNKE,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€forÏPetitioner„Appellee.ÌÌDAVID€L.€LEONARD,€LEONARD€&€KERSHAW,€Greeneville,€forÏDefendants„Appellants.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌÌà àà àIn€this€action€the€Trial€Court€terminated€the€parentalÏrights€of€appellants€to€the€children€ages€six€and€seven€at€theÏtime€of€trial.€€Ìà àà àAppellants€insist€there€is€no€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€to€support€the€termination€of€their€rights,€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€Section€37„1„147(d)(1)€and€the€Trial€Court€improperlyÏfailed€to€allow€the€children€to€testify€at€trial.Ìà àà àFollowing€the€trial,€the€Trial€Judge€made€findings€ofÏfact€and€said€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àà àAs€in€the€past,€the€parents€continue€to€blameÏothers€for€their€short€comings.€€The€parents€have€beenÏgiven€several€opportunities€to€accept€services€whichÏcould€have€benefited€them€in€regaining€custody€ofÏtheir€children€and€were€informed€of€consequences€ifÏthey€did€not€comply.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€fosterÏcare€plan€which€was€explained€to€the€parents€and€whichÏthe€parents€had€signed€has€never€been€substantiallyÏcomplied€with.ÌÌà0 àà0 àà àThe€Court€finds€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏthat€the€children€have€been€in€foster€care€for€twenty„six€months€and€that€the€conditions€which€led€to€theÏremoval€or€other€conditions€which€in€all€reasonableÏprobability€cause€the€children€to€be€subjected€toÏfurther€abuse€or€neglect€and€which€therefore€preventÏthe€childrenððs€return€to€the€care€of€the€parents€stillÏpersist.ÌÌà0 àà0 à.€.€.ÌÌà0 àà0 àà àThe€parents€have€never€demonstrated€the€abilityÏto€understand€or€deal€with€the€special€needs€of€theÏchildren.€€The€parents€have€denied€or€refused€toÏaccept€the€fact€that€they€as€well€as€their€childrenÏhave€any€problems€which€they€cannot€handle€on€theirÍown.€€The€parents€have€poor€personal€hygiene€andÏrefuse€any€efforts€to€show€them€how€to€improve.ÌÌà0 àà0 àà àThe€Court€further€finds€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€that€the€conditions€stated€above€will€not€beÏremedied€at€an€early€date€so€the€children€can€beÏreturned€to€their€parents€in€the€near€future.€€FromÏthe€findings€which€the€Court€has€previously€stated,Ïespecially€the€non„cooperation€or€refusal€of€servicesÏoffered€to€the€parents,€there€is€ample€evidence€thatÏthe€parents€.€.€.€are€unable€and€will€continue€to€beÏunable€to€see€that€the€social,€physical€and€emotionalÏneeds€of€the€children€are€met.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Trial€Judge€acted€under€the€authority€of€T.C.A.Ïðð37„1„147(d)(1)€which€states:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àAfter€hearing€evidence€on€a€termination€petition,€theÏCourt€may€terminate€parental€rights€if€it€finds€on€theÏbasis€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theirÏtermination€is€in€the€childððs€best€interest€and€thatÏone€(1)€or€more€of€the€following€conditions€exist:ÌÌà0 àà0 à(1)€The€child€has€been€removed€from€the€custody€of€theÏparent€by€the€Court€for€at€least€one€(1)€year€and€theÏCourt€finds€that:€(A)€the€conditions€which€led€to€theÏremoval€or€other€conditions€which€in€all€reasonableÏprobability€would€cause€the€child€to€be€subjected€toÏfurther€abuse€or€neglect€and€which,€therefore,€preventÏthe€childððs€return€to€the€care€of€the€parent(s)€stillÏpersist;€(B)€there€is€little€likelihood€that€theseÏconditions€will€be€remedied€at€an€early€date€so€thatÏthe€child€can€be€returned€to€the€parent€in€the€nearÏfuture;€œ(C)›€the€continuation€of€the€legal€parent€andÏchild€relationship€greatly€diminishes€the€childððsÏchances€of€early€integration€into€a€stable€andÏpermanent€home.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€evidence€is€undisputed€that€the€children€had€beenÏremoved€from€the€custody€of€the€parents€by€the€Court€for€moreÏthan€two€years€at€the€time€of€trial.€€The€children€were€removedÏfrom€the€home€because€of€the€dangerous€conditions€in€the€homeÏand€the€neglect€of€the€children€by€the€parents.€€A€foster€planÍof€care€was€entered€with€the€parents€after€the€childrenððsÏremoval€and€the€record€establishes€that€many€of€the€conditionsÏof€that€plan€have€not€been€satisfied.€€The€children€need€specialÏtreatment€and€counseling€which€the€parents€are€unable€orÏunwilling€to€provide.€€It€is€clear€from€the€evidence€that€theÏparents€are€in€need€of€treatment€and€counseling€themselves,Ïwhich€they€reject.€€The€motherððs€testimony€reveals€her€strongÏhostility€to€anyone€connected€with€the€Department€of€HumanÏœServices€and€other€supporting€agencies,›€and€the€father€in€hisÏtestimony€refused€to€assume€any€personal€responsibility€for€hisÏown€problems,€as€well€as€those€of€his€children.€€The€evidence€isÏclear€that€these€parents€cannot€properly€care€for€theseÏchildren,€taking€into€account€their€own€emotional€and€mentalÏstate€as€well€as€that€of€the€children.Ìà àà àThe€parents€have€demonstrated€through€their€inabilityÏor€refusal€to€cooperate€and€comply€with€a€foster€parents€planÏthat€there€is€little€likelihood€the€conditions€will€be€remediedÏat€an€early€date.€€We€agree€with€the€Trial€Judge€on€his€findingÏon€this€issue.€€He€found€that€the€parents€ð ðare€unable€and€willÏcontinue€to€be€unable€to€see€that€the€social,€physical€andÏemotional€needs€of€the€children€are€met.ð ð€€à àà àThe€evidenceÏalso€satisfies€the€third€prong€of€the€test,€i.e.,€that€the€legalÏparent/child€relationship€greatly€diminishes€the€childððs€chancesÏof€an€early€integration€into€a€stable€and€permanent€home.€€TheÍevidence€establishes€the€special€needs€of€the€children€and€thatÏan€adoptive€placement€can€be€found€for€the€children,€but€thatÏcontinuing€foster€care€œdiminishes›€the€likelihood€of€a€successfulÏadoption.Ìà àà àWe€find€that€the€statutory€œrequirements›€forÏtermination€of€parental€rights€œhave›€been€satisfied€by€clear€andÏœconvincing€evidence.›€€The€parentsðð€œcircumstances€are›€pitiable,Ïbut€it€is€clearly€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children€that€theÏrelationship€be€terminated.Ìà àà àFinally,€it€is€argued€that€the€Trial€Judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€not€permitting€the€children,€ages€six€and€seven,Ïto€testify.€€Under€Rule€601€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÏð ð[e]very€person€is€presumed€competent€to€be€a€witness€except€asÏotherwise€provided€in€these€Rules€or€by€statuteð ð.€€According€toÏthe€comment,€children€are€included,€but€the€presumption€isÏrebuttable.€€œÌà àà àThe›€State€sought€to€rebut€the€presumption€by€calling€aÏwitness€who€qualified€as€an€expert€regarding€the€competency€ofÏthe€children€to€testify.€€At€no€point€did€appellants€object€toÏthe€testimony€of€this€œwitness.€€He€opined€that›€requiring€theÏchildren€to€testify€would€not€be€in€their€best€interest.€€HeÏstated€ð ð[b]oth€children€shut€down€in€therapy€and€the€responsesÏto€me€many€times€is€that€they€just€donððt€want€to€discuss€it.€ÏAnd€the€higher€their€anxiety€or€depression€goes,€depending€onÍwhich€child€youððre€talking€about,€the€more€resistant€they€are€toÏdiscussing€the€issues€because€of€the€emotional€pain€associatedÏwith€the€issues€and€the€blame€they€put€on€themselves.ð ðÌà àà àThe€evidence€offered€does€not€rebut€the€presumption€ofÏcompetency,€but€goes€to€the€propriety€of€forcing€the€children€toÏtestify€in€court.€€If€a€witness€is€competent,€the€Court€isÏrequired€to€accept€his€or€her€testimony,€but€œthere€are›Ïcircumstances€œwhere€the€Court€should›€tailor€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€evidence€is€received€so€as€to€minimize€œany€harmful›€œeffectsÏon€the€witness.›€€Ìà àà àApparently€no€request€for€receiving€the€childrenððsÏtestimony€under€other€conditions€was€made,€but€the€failure€ofÏthe€Trial€Judge€to€allow€evidence€from€the€children€was€error,Ïhowever,€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€more€probably€thanÏnot€this€failure€œdid›€not€affect€the€judgment,€due€to€theÏœsubstantial,€clear›€and€convincing€evidence€on€the€issue€ofÏtermination.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€Rule€36.Ìà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Trial€Court€and€remand€at€appellantsðð€cost.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ