ÿWPCà4 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ 0³å ˜ 0D  wä 4ú  0J 0Tg 0^» 0h 0r 0|ó 0†o 0õ 1u… U,ú 0d&U,ŠU7>¶B)ôDC AM` B­U*Ê8ô>,j D3{ª®úX 0@R€’}ýŒŒ£! /#":&%\'%(%¦)Ë*v~ê+vÓh- AO;3ÆŠ3 0DP4 D/”4 BÃ4˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 'æ() Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular¼($¡¡- ù-(c(2ô$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X…MX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóój#(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÓ€  Gav T$<3|x 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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌMarch€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAct€of€April€7,€1994,€ch.€810,€ðð€1,€1994€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€556.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11€provides:€ð ðThat€laws€made€for€the€punishment€of€actsÏcommitted€previous€to€the€existence€of€such€laws,€and€by€them€only€declared€criminal,€areÏcontrary€to€the€principles€of€a€free€Government;€wherefore,€no€Ex€post€facto€laws€shall€beÏmade.ððÌ%%%%'ÿÿdxd  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11€did€apply€to€this€case,€altering€the€appellate€reviewÏfor€juvenile€court€decisions€is€not€unconstitutional.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashby›,óó€823€œS.W.2d›€166,€167Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Edwards,€óó868€œS.W.2d›€œat›€701€œ(applying›€an€amended€appellate€standardÏof€review€to€conduct€occurring€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment€does€not€violateÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11).€€Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòBrewer€v.€Aetna€Life€Ins.€Co.,óó€490€S.W.2d€506,€510„11€(Tenn.€1973)€(statuteÏdeclaring€a€rule€of€evidence);€òòState€ex€rel.€Neilson€v.€Haywood,óó€183€Tenn.€567,€575,€194ÏS.W.2d€448,€451€(1946)€(statute€increasing€the€scope€of€relevant€evidence).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòDark€Tobacco€Growersðð€Co„op.€Assððn€v.€Dunn,óó€150€Tenn.€at€632,€266€S.W.€at€312Ï(statute€providing€additional€remedies).Ì sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòGardenshire€v.€McCombs,óó€33€Tenn.€at€85„86€(statute€increasing€the€ceiling€on€theÏcosts€awarded€to€successful€plaintiffs).Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€cases€cited€by€the€parents€to€support€their€claimed€right€to€a€jury€trial€areÏinapposite.€€They€either€recognize€aòò€juvenileððsóó€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€a€òòdelinquencyóó€proceeding,ÏòòState€v.€Strickland,óó€532€S.W.2d€912,€921€(Tenn.€1975);€òòArwood€v.€State,óó€62€Tenn.€App.Ï453,€457„58,€463€S.W.2d€943,€946€(1970),€or€construe€a€juvenileððs€òòstatutoryóó€right€to€a€juryÏtrial€in€a€òòdelinquencyóó€proceeding,€òòDoster€v.€State,óó€195€Tenn.€535,€539,€260€S.W.2d€279,€280„81€(1953).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€parentsðð€lawyers€took€issue€with€the€inclusion€of€a€citation€to€an€A.L.R.Ïannotation€dealing€with€legal€malpractice€in€the€ð ðcollateral€referencesðð€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ23„3„201€(Supp.€1995),€the€statute€describing€the€grounds€for€disbarring€or€discipliningÏlawyers.Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€May€10,€1994,€the€chief€justice€wrote€an€open€letter€to€the€members€of€the€barÏencouraging€them€to€volunteer€to€accept€more€pro€bono€cases.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€parents€concede€that€they€were€afforded€full€access€to€the€reports€of€theÏdepartmentððs€treatment€personnel€as€well€as€to€the€persons€who€prepared€the€court„orderedÏreports.€€While€they€requested€independent€expert€assistance,€they€could€not€point€to€a€rule,Ïstatute,€or€constitutional€mandate€that€required€the€provision€of€expert€assistance€in€terminationÏcases.€€This€right€is€not€even€available€to€indigent€criminal€defendants€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòSeeóóÏòòDavis€v.€State,€óó912€S.W.2d€689,€695€(Tenn.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1)(A).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1)(B).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1)(C).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d).ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€!¼ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€/¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€" §u` ÑÔ€!„Ôà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€$'#;+'h|Å4` ç `€€Lßà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€ATÏNASHVILLEó óÌÌÔ€!¼ÔÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMontgomery€JuvenileÌIN€RE:€S.M.,€JR.€€(A€minor)à àà à)à àNo.€57„29Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9506„JV„00233Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€JUVENILE€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CLARKSVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€CATALANO,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€B.M.C.óó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Dept.€of€Human€Servicesóó:ÌÌDiane€T.€Hutchinsà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDickson,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLisa€A.€YacuzzoÌòòFor€S.M.,€Sr.óó:à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌGregory€D.€SmithÌClarksville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÔ€!„ÔÌÌà@ àò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€!¼ÔÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÓ€ÓÔ€!„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€!¼ÔÌÑ ° ÑÑ „ ÑÌà àThis€appeal€involves€the€termination€of€parental€rights€of€two€mildlyÏretarded€parents€with€regard€to€their€eleven„year„old€son.€€The€MontgomeryÏCounty€Juvenile€Court€removed€the€child€from€his€parentsðð€home€and€awardedÏtemporary€custody€to€the€Department€of€Human€Services€after€determiningÏthat€he€had€been€sexually€abused€by€his€father.€€Approximately€two€and€one„half€years€later,€the€juvenile€court€€terminated€the€parentsðð€parental€rights€andÏawarded€the€department€permanent€custody€of€the€child.€€On€this€appeal,€theÏparents€challenge€the€constitutionality€of€denying€them€a€de€novo€appeal€to€theÏcircuit€court€and€the€evidentiary€support€for€the€juvenile€courtððs€decision.€€WeÏhave€determined€that€the€parents€were€afforded€a€constitutionally€adequateÏhearing€in€the€juvenile€court€and€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juvenile€courtððsÏdecision.€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€terminating€the€parentsððÏparental€rights.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àB.M.C.€is€a€36„year„old€woman€who€lives€in€Clarksville.€€She€is€mildlyÏmentally€retarded€and€is€also€physically€disabled€as€a€result€of€a€childhoodÍbone€disease.€€She€is€unemployable€and€supports€herself€with€governmentalÏassistance.€€B.M.C.€was€married€at€one€time€to€S.M.,€Sr.€who€is€thirty„nineÏyears€old€and€who€is€also€mildly€retarded.€€S.M.,€Sr.€has€a€history€ofÏunemployment€and€excessive€alcohol€abuse€and€a€sexual€fetish€for€life„sizeÏdolls€and€pornographic€materials.ÌÌà àIn€July€1984,€B.M.C.€gave€birth€to€S.M.,€Jr.€€The€boy€was€also€mildly€toÏmoderately€retarded€and€suffered€from€chronic€encephalopathy,€articulationÏdisorders,€and€auditory€problems.€€The€Department€of€Human€Services€hadÏbeen€made€aware€of€B.M.C.€before€her€sonððs€birth€and€undertook€to€provideÏher€with€homemaker€services€and€other€support€for€the€first€five€or€six€yearsÏof€the€boyððs€life.€€Notwithstanding€their€problems,€the€family€functioned€fairlyÏwell€because€of€the€departmentððs€intensive€intervention.€€ÌÌà àThe€family€began€to€deteriorate€after€the€departmentððs€support€was€noÏlonger€available.€€In€mid„1992,€S.M.,€Jr.€complained€to€his€mother€that€S.M.,ÏSr.€has€been€sexually€abusing€him.€€B.M.C.€did€not€believe€her€son€andÏpermitted€S.M.,€Sr.€to€continue€to€take€baths€with€the€boy€and€to€take€the€childÏinto€his€bedroom€every€night€and€to€remain€there€behind€closed€doors.€ÏB.M.C.€finally€recounted€her€sonððs€statements€to€his€aunt€who€insisted€that€theÏabuse€be€reported€and€who€refused€to€allow€S.M.,€Jr.€to€return€home.€€WhenÏB.M.C.€declined€to€report€the€abuse,€S.M.,€Jr.ððs€aunt€took€it€upon€herself€toÏinform€the€department€of€the€boyððs€complaints.€€ÌÌà àThe€department€filed€a€petition€for€temporary€custody€in€theÏMontgomery€County€Juvenile€Court.€€The€court€placed€the€child€in€protectiveÏcustody€on€August€17,€1992,€after€finding€that€S.M.,€Sr.€had€sexually€abusedÏhis€son€and€that€B.M.C.€had€failed€to€protect€the€child.€€The€boy€had€all€theÍsymptoms€of€a€child€suffering€from€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€and€wasÏalso€behaving€like€a€child€who€had€been€sexually€abused.€€Accordingly,€theÏdepartment€placed€him€in€a€therapeutic€foster€care€program€in€Nashville.€€ItÏalso€placed€him€in€special€education€classes€because€of€his€mental€retardation.ÌÌà àB.M.C.€divorced€S.M.,€Sr.€in€June€1993,€not€because€he€had€sexuallyÏabused€their€son€but€because€of€his€excessive€drinking.€€Three€months€later€sheÏmarried€J.L.C.,€one€of€S.M.,€Sr.ððs€long„time€friends.€€J.L.C.€is€fifty„five€yearsÏold,€functionally€illiterate,€and€unemployed.€€He€also€has€a€history€of€alcoholÏabuse€and€still€spends€a€great€deal€of€time€with€S.M.,€Sr.€€He€and€B.M.C.€haveÏeven€permitted€S.M.,€Sr.€to€reside€with€them.€€B.M.C.€has€lived€in€tenÏdifferent€places€since€her€divorce€and€is€currently€living€in€a€dilapidated€houseÏin€one€of€Clarksvilleððs€poorest€areas,€the€same€house€where€she€lived€whileÏmarried€to€S.M.,€Sr.€€Ìà àÌà àFollowing€the€divorce,€S.M.,€Sr.€and€his€new€girlfriend€moved€into€aÏlow€income€apartment€in€Clarksville.€€He€has€not€been€employed€and€shows€noÏinterest€in€looking€for€work.€€S.M.,€Sr.€supports€himself€with€governmentalÏbenefits€and€spends€most€of€his€time€watching€television€and€riding€aroundÏClarksville€in€his€girlfriendððs€automobile.€€ÌÌà àBoth€B.M.C.€and€S.M.,€Sr.€received€counseling€after€S.M.,€Jr.€wasÏplaced€in€protective€custody.€€The€teacher€of€their€parenting€class€reportedÏthat€they€were€incapable€of€comprehending€the€subject€matter€of€the€class.€ÏAfter€several€sessions,€B.M.C.ððs€therapist€concluded€that€she€would€not€benefitÏfrom€additional€therapy.€€S.M.,€Sr.€also€participated€in€group€therapy€forÏsexual€abusers.€€Even€though€he€made€some€progress,€the€persons€workingÏwith€him€eventually€concluded€that€he€will€never€acquire€appropriateÍparenting€skills€because€he€is€focused€more€on€satisfying€his€own€desires€thanÏon€being€his€childððs€caretaker.ÌÌà àB.M.C.€does€not€believe€her€sonððs€sexual€abuse€complaints€and€refuses€toÏrecognize€his€special€needs.€€Even€though€she€is€permitted€regular,€supervisedÏvisits€with€her€son,€she€does€not€visit€with€him€regularly.€€Her€visitations€areÏgenerally€difficult€because€she€does€not€interact€well€with€her€son.€€S.M.,€Jr.ððsÏclinical€therapist€noted€that€the€visits€disturb€the€boy€and€that€he€shows€moreÏprogress€when€he€does€not€visit€with€his€mother.€€S.M.,€Sr.€has€not€beenÏpermitted€to€visit€with€his€son,€and€S.M.,€Jr.€has€shown€no€interest€in€visitingÏwith€his€father.ÌÌà àB.M.C.€and€her€new€husband€petitioned€for€custody€of€S.M.,€Jr.€inÏApril€1994.€€Six€months€later,€the€department€requested€the€juvenile€court€toÏterminate€B.M.C.ððs€and€S.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights.€€Following€a€hearing€inÏFebruary€1995,€the€juvenile€court€entered€an€order€on€March€27,€1995,Ïterminating€B.M.C.ððs€and€S.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights€and€naming€theÏdepartment€as€S.M.,€Jr.ððs€guardian.€€The€court€decided€to€terminate€B.M.C.ððsÏparental€rights€because€of€(1)€her€lack€of€progress€in€counseling,€(2)€herÏcontinuing€relationship€with€S.M.,€Sr.,€(3)€the€poor€quality€of€the€visitation,Ï(4)€her€inability€to€meet€S.M.,€Jr.ððs€special€needs,€and€(5)€her€poorÏhousekeeping€and€inability€to€provide€a€stable€environment.€€It€terminatedÏS.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights€because€of€(1)€his€lack€of€parental€responsibility€andÏ(2)€his€inability€to€provide€for€his€sonððs€special€needs.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àWe€turn€first€to€the€parentsðð€constitutional€issues.€€They€assert€that€theyÏwere€deprived€of€their€vested€right€to€a€de€novo€trial€in€circuit€courtÏfollowing€the€proceeding€in€juvenile€court€and€that€the€juvenile€courtÏproceeding€itself€was€constitutionally€deficient.€€We€find€no€constitutionalÏshortcomings€in€the€procedures€used€to€terminate€the€parentsðð€parental€rightsÏin€this€case.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àPrior€to€1994,€any€party€dissatisfied€with€a€juvenile€courtððs€decision€in€aÏtermination€of€parental€rights€case€was€entitled€to€a€de€novo€trial€in€the€circuitÏcourt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(a)€directed€the€circuit€court€to€ð ðhear€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€and€try€the€case€de€novo.ðð€€Thus,€instead€ofÏreviewing€the€juvenile€courtððs€decision€based€on€the€record€of€the€juvenileÏcourt€proceeding,€the€circuit€court€conducted€an€entirely€new€trial€as€if€theÏcase€had€originated€in€the€circuit€court.€€Parties€dissatisfied€with€the€circuitÏcourtððs€judgment€were€entitled€to€an€appeal€as€of€right€to€this€court.ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€changed€the€adjudicatory€procedure€forÏtermination€of€parental€rights€cases€in€1994€by€amending€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ37„1„159(a)€to€eliminate€the€de€novo€trial€in€circuit€court.× ƒ( ××  ×€€While€thisÏamendment€accomplished€the€desired€effect€of€hastening€final€decisions€inÏtermination€of€parental€rights€cases,€it€also€accentuated€the€importance€of€theÏjuvenile€court€proceeding.€€The€juvenile€court€trial€was€no€longer€the€warm„up€for€a€circuit€court€trial.€€Instead,€it€became€the€partiesðð€only€opportunity€toÏpresent€evidence€on€the€termination€of€parental€rights€issue.€€Appellate€courtsÏbase€their€decisions€on€the€lower€courtððs€record,€and€thus€the€juvenile€courtÍrecord€became€the€evidentiary€foundation€for€all€later€judicial€consideration€ofÏthe€case.ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àThe€parents€first€assert€that€applying€the€amended€version€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159€to€their€case€violates€the€prohibition€against€òòex€postÏfactoóó€laws€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Their€reliance€on€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,Ïðð€11€is€misplaced€because€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€òòex€post€factoóóÏlaws€applies€exclusively€to€criminal€offenses.€€òòJones€v.€Jones,óó€2€Tenn.€(2ÏOvert.)€2,€5€(1804)€(òòex€post€factoóó€laws€relate€to€public€punishment).€€RecentÏdecisions€have€held€that€the€five€types€of€statutes€proscribed€by€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€I,€ðð€11€include€statutes€that€criminalize€previously€noncriminal€conduct,Ïthat€aggravate€criminal€offenses,€that€increase€criminal€punishment,€that€easeÏthe€Stateððs€burden€of€proof€in€criminal€cases,€and€that€otherwise€disadvantage€aÏcriminal€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Pearson,óó€858€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòMiller€v.€State,óó€584€S.W.2d€758,€761€(Tenn.€1979);€òòState€v.€Edwards,óó€868ÏS.W.2d€682,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11€has€no€application€to€civil€proceedings.€€AÏtermination€of€parental€rights€case€is€a€civil,€not€criminal,€proceeding.€€TheÏparents€have€not€been€charged€with€a€criminal€offense,€and€they€are€notÏexposed€in€this€proceeding€to€even€the€remotest€risk€of€receiving€criminalÏpunishment€of€any€sort.€€Accordingly,€applying€the€amended€appellateÍprocedures€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159€to€this€case€does€not€run€afoul€ofÏthe€constitutional€prohibition€against€òòex€post€factoóó€laws.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àThe€parentsðð€argument€that€they€were€unconstitutionally€deprived€ofÏtheir€vested€right€to€a€de€novo€trial€in€circuit€court€more€properly€implicatesÏthe€interests€protected€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20.€€This€provision€states:Ïð ðThat€no€retrospective€law,€or€law€impairing€the€obligation€of€contracts,€shallÏbe€made.ðð€While€its€operation€is€similar€to€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11,€it€protectsÏdifferent€rights.€€òòTownsend€v.€Townsend,óó€7€Tenn.€(Peck)€1,€15€(1821);€òòJonesÏv.€Jones,óó€2€Tenn.€at€5.ÌÌà àTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20€does€not€proscribe€all€retrospective€laws€butÏrather€proscribes€only€those€laws€that€divest€or€impair€vested€substantiveÏrights.€€òòHanover€v.€Ruch,óó€809€S.W.2d€893,€896€(Tenn.€1991);€òòMiller€v.€Sohns,óóÏ225€Tenn.€158,€162,€464€S.W.2d€824,€826€(Tenn.€1971);€òòDark€TobaccoÏGrowersðð€Co„op.€Assððn€v.€Dunn,óó€150€Tenn.€614,€632,€266€S.W.€308,€312Ï(1924).€€Vested€rights,€as€defined€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€includeÏthose€ð ðwhich€it€is€proper€for€the€State€to€recognize€and€protect€and€of€whichÏthe€individual€should€not€be€deprived€arbitrarily€without€injustice.ððòò€€Morris€v.ÏGross,óó€572€S.W.2d€902,€905€(Tenn.€1978).€€Thus,€retrospective€laws€are€thoseÏð ðwhich€take€away€or€impair€vested€rights€acquired€under€existing€laws€orÏcreate€a€new€obligation,€impose€a€new€duty,€or€attach€a€new€disability€inÍrespect€of€transactions€or€considerations€already€passed.ðð€€òòMorris€v.€Gross,óóÏ572€S.W.2d€at€907.ÌÌà àNo€party,€however,€has€a€vested€right€in€a€particular€remedy.€ÏAccordingly,€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20€does€not€prohibit€the€General€AssemblyÏfrom€changing€existing€remedies€and€procedures.€òòMorris€v.€Gross,óó€572ÏS.W.2d€at€905;€òòLunati€v.€Progressive€Bldg.€&€Loan€Assððn,óó€167€Tenn.€161,Ï168,€67€S.W.2d€148,€150€(1934);€òòGardenshire€v.€McCombs,óó€33€Tenn.€(1ÏSneed)€83,€86€(1853).€€These€changes€may€be€applied€to€circumstances€orÏproceedings€occurring€before€their€enactment.€€The€courts€have€thus€approvedÏapplying€statutory€changes€in€evidentiary€rules,× ƒ, ××  ×€remedies,× ƒ. ××  ×€and€the€assessmentÏof€costs× ƒ/ ××  ×€to€cases€involving€occurrences€that€took€place€before€the€changesÏbecame€effective.€ÌÌà àThe€courts€have€also€considered€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20's€applicationÏto€statutes€affecting€appeals.€They€have€held€that€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20Ïprohibits€the€application€of€a€statute€curtailing€appeals€in€cases€involving€theÏremoval€of€local€election€officials€who€took€office€before€the€effective€date€ofÏthe€statute.€€òòMcKee€v.€Board€of€Elections,óó€173€Tenn.€276,€287„88,€116€S.W.2dÏ1033,€1037€(1938).€€Even€though€statutes€doing€away€with€all€appellate€rightsÏcannot€be€applied€retroactively,€this€court€has€held€that€a€statute€enlarging€theÏscope€of€appellate€review€could€be€applied€to€proceedings€begun€before€itsÍpassage.€€òòNational€Life€&€Accident€Ins.€Co.€v.€Atwood,óó€29€Tenn.€App.€141,Ï146,€194€S.W.2d€350,€353€(1946).€€In€doing€so,€we€stated:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àAs€applied€to€procedural€changes€governingÏthe€right€of€appeal€the€rule€is€that,€where€dueÏprovision€has€been€made€for€the€preservation€ofÏessential€rights,€the€procedure€for€review€or€theÏextent€of€review€are€so€far€within€the€power€of€theÏlegislature€as€to€preclude€the€raising€of€questions€ofÏdue€process€with€respect€to€the€method€or€procedureÏfor€review,€the€parties€entitled€to€review,€or€theÏcharacter€of€review€in€the€appellate€court.ÌÌÓ€ÓòòNational€Life€&€Accident€Ins.€Co.€v.€Atwood,óó€29€Tenn.€App.€at€147,€194ÏS.W.2d€at€353.ÌÌà àThe€amendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(a)€was€enacted€eightÏmonths€before€the€department€petitioned€to€terminate€the€parentsðð€parentalÏrights€and€ten€months€before€the€trial€in€juvenile€court.€€Applying€theÏamended€version€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(a)€to€this€case€did€not€curtailÏthe€parentsðð€appellate€rights€nor€did€it€come€at€such€an€advanced€stage€of€theÏproceeding€that€it€undermined€their€substantive€rights.€€The€parents€had€ampleÏnotice€of€the€procedural€changes€and€of€the€increased€importance€of€theÏjuvenile€proceeding.€€Since€the€amendment€left€intact€the€parentsðð€right€toÏappeal€to€this€court,€it€did€not€unconstitutionally€hinder€their€ability€to€presentÏtheir€case€in€the€juvenile€court€or€their€ability€to€seek€appellate€review€of€theÏjuvenile€courtððs€decision.ÌÌà@ àò òD.ó óÌÌà àThe€parents€also€challenge€the€fundamental€fairness€of€the€juvenile€courtÏproceedings€in€three€other€respects.€€They€assert€that€the€1994€amendment€toÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(a)€deprived€them€of€their€right€to€a€jury€trial,Ïtheir€right€to€a€trial€presided€over€by€a€judge€who€is€a€licensed€lawyer,€andÏtheir€right€to€obtain€the€broad€pretrial€discovery€that€would€have€beenÏavailable€to€them€in€circuit€court.€€We€have€concluded€that€the€juvenile€courtÏproceeding€in€this€case€met€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€andÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThe€Parentsðð€Right€to€a€Jury€Trialó óóóÌÌà àThe€right€to€a€jury€trial€stems€from€one€of€two€sources.€€It€can€beÏguaranteed€by€the€state€or€federal€constitutions,€or€it€can€be€based€on€a€statute.€ÏThe€parents€have€not€pointed€to€any€statute€giving€them€the€right€to€a€jury€trialÏin€a€termination€of€parental€rights€proceeding.€€Accordingly,€their€right€to€aÏjury€trial,€if€in€fact€it€exists,€must€be€constitutionally€based.€€ÌÌà àThe€parents€assert€that€their€right€to€a€jury€trial€derives€from€U.€S.ÏConst.€amend.€VII.€€The€Seventh€Amendment,€however,€does€not€does€notÏapply€to€state€court€proceedings.€€òòMinneapolis€&€St.€L.€R.R.€v.€Bombolis,óó€241ÏU.S.€211,€217,€36€S.€Ct.€595,€596„97€(1916);òò€Eilenbecker€v.€PlymouthÏCounty,óó€134€U.S.€31,€34„35,€10€S.€Ct.€424,€425€(1890);€òòElliott€v.€City€ofÏWheat€Ridge,óó€49€F.3d€1458,€1459„60€(10th€Cir.€1995).€€Thus€the€only€possibleÏremaining€source€of€the€parentsðð€right€to€a€jury€trial€must€be€Tenn.€Const.€art.ÏI,€ðð€6.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcKeiver€v.€Pennsylvania,óó€403€U.S.€528,€547,€91€S.€Ct.€1976,Ï1987€(1971)€(the€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€juvenile€cases€is€a€question€of€stateÏlaw).ÌÌà àTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€does€not€guarantee€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€inÏevery€civil€case.€€It€preserves€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€only€in€those€cases€whereÏthe€right€existed€at€common€law.€€òòNewport€Housing€Auth.€v.€Ballard,óó€839ÏS.W.2d€86,€88€(Tenn.€1992);€òòHarbison€v.€Briggs€Bros.€Paint€Mfg.€Co.,óó€209ÏTenn.€534,€541,€354€S.W.2d€464,€467€(1962);€òòSpurgeon€v.€Worley,óó€169€Tenn.Ï697,€701,€90€S.W.2d€948,€949€(1936).€€Termination€proceedings€are€civil€inÏnature€and€statutory€in€origin.€Accordingly,€parents€do€not€have€a€common„law€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€a€proceeding€to€terminate€their€parental€rights.€ÏòòMays€v.€Department€of€Human€Resources,óó€656€S.W.2d€252,€253€(Ky.€Ct.€App.Ï1983);òò€In€re€Shane€T,óó€544€A.2d€1295,€1297€(Me.€1988);€òòIn€re€Colon,óó€377ÏN.W.2d€321,€328€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1985);òò€In€re€C.L.A.,óó€685€P.2d€931,€933„34Ï(Mont.€1984);€òòIn€re€Clark,óó€281€S.E.2d€47,€57€(N.C.€1981);€òòIn€re€GP,€óó679€P.2dÏ976,€983€(Wyo.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€parents€did€not€have€a€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial€either€inÏthe€juvenile€court€or€in€the€circuit€court€prior€to€the€enactment€of€theÏamendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(a)€in€1994.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Accordingly,€theÏ1994€amendment€had€no€effect€on€their€right€to€a€jury€and€did€not€depriveÏthem€of€a€fundamental€right€existing€before€the€enactment€of€the€amendments.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThe€Parentsðð€Right€to€a€Law„Trained€Judgeó óóóÌÌà àThe€parents€also€assert€that€the€1994€amendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„1„159(a)€violates€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€because€it€creates€the€possibilityÍthat€the€only€trial€in€a€termination€case€will€be€presided€over€by€a€judge€who€isÏnot€licensed€to€practice€law.€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€theÏjudges€presiding€over€delinquency€proceedings€must€be€licensed€to€practiceÏlaw€because€of€the€fundamental€importance€of€the€childððs€liberty€interests.€ÏòòState€ex€rel.€Anglin€v.€Mitchell,óó€596€S.W.2d€779,€791€(Tenn.€1980).€€WhileÏparental€rights€may€be€equally€as€important,€no€court€has€yet€held€that€dueÏprocess€requires€that€judges€who€preside€over€termination€of€parental€rightsÏcases€must€be€licensed€to€practice€law.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€importance€or€novelty€of€an€issue,€courts€shouldÏstay€their€hand€when€a€case€does€not€involve€a€genuine€controversy€requiringÏthe€adjudication€of€existing€rights.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Lewis€v.€State,óó€208€Tenn.€534,Ï537,€347€S.W.2d€47,€48€(1961);€òòDockery€v.€Dockery,óó€559€S.W.2d€952,€954Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).€€Accordingly,€we€regularly€decline€to€render€advisoryÏopinions,€òòSuper€Flea€Mkt.€of€Chattanooga€v.€Olsen,óó€677€S.W.2d€449,€451Ï(Tenn.€1984);€òòParks€v.€Alexander,óó€608€S.W.2d€881,€892€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1980),€or€to€decide€abstract€legal€questions.òò€€State€ex€rel.€Lewis€v.€State,óó€208ÏTenn.€at€538,€347€S.W.2d€at€49.ÌÌà àThis€is€not€the€proper€case€for€addressing€the€constitutionality€ofÏpermitting€non„lawyer€juvenile€court€judges€to€preside€over€termination€ofÏparental€rights€cases.€€The€question€here€is€theoretical€and€academic€since€theÏjuvenile€judge€who€presided€over€the€parentsðð€hearing€was€licensed€to€practiceÏlaw.€€Accordingly,€the€question€must€await€another€day€and€a€proper€case.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThe€Parentsðð€Right€to€Discover€Relevant€Informationó óóóÌÌà àAs€a€final€matter,€the€parents€assert€that€eliminating€the€trial€de€novo€inÏcircuit€court€undermines€their€ability€to€defend€themselves€by€curtailing€theirÏright€to€discover€the€key€elements€of€the€departmentððs€case.€€They€insist€thatÏtheir€discovery€rights€in€juvenile€court€under€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€25€areÏnarrower€than€their€rights€in€circuit€court€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.€€We€failÏto€perceive€a€material€difference€in€the€scope€of€discovery€in€the€two€courts.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02(1)€provides€parties€with€a€broad€right€ofÏdiscovery€of€€ð ðany€matter,€not€privileged,€which€is€relevant€to€the€subjectÏmatter€involved€in€the€pending€action.ðð€€The€scope€of€discovery€under€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Juvenile€Procedure€is€equally€as€broad,€and€in€fact,€theÏdiscovery€procedures€available€in€juvenile€court€are€more€flexible€than€thoseÏavailable€in€the€circuit€or€chancery€courts.€€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€25€provides,€inÏpart,€that€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àBy€local€rule€and€according€to€whatever€process,Ïinformal€or€otherwise,€is€appropriate€for€that€court,Ïeach€juvenile€court€shall€insure€.€.€.€that€the€parties€inÏother€cases€[cases€other€than€delinquent€and€unrulyÏproceedings]€have€access€to€information€which€wouldÏbe€available€in€the€circuit€court.ÌÌÓ€ÓAccordingly,€parents€faced€with€the€prospect€of€losing€their€parental€rightsÏhave€the€right€to€discover€the€substance€of€any€expert€reports€or€studiesÏordered€by€the€court,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€39(f)(3),€including€theÏpredisposition€reports€and€social€histories€authorized€in€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€33.€€ÌÌà àThe€parents€do€not€assert€that€the€juvenile€court€placed€any€significantÏrestrictions€on€their€discovery€or€that€the€department€failed€or€refused€toÏproduce€any€evidence€that€would€have€assisted€in€the€preparation€of€their€case.€ÏIn€fact,€they€concede€in€their€brief€that€the€ð ð[j]uvenile€[c]ourt€ruled€thatÍtermination€cases€should€proceed€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26€discovery.ðð€ÏAccordingly,€they€have€failed€to€demonstrate€how€the€juvenile€courtððsÏdecisions€with€regard€to€discovery€undermined€their€right€to€a€fair€hearing€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà@ àò òE.ó óÌÌà àThe€parents€conclude€their€constitutional€arguments€with€a€litany€ofÏcomplaints€concerning€the€1994€amendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„1„159(c).€€These€complains€involve€substance€of€the€ð ðcollateral€referencesððÏprepared€by€the€Tennessee€Code€Commission€for€inclusion€with€other€statutesÏapplicable€to€this€case,× ƒ1 ××  ×€an€open€letter€from€the€former€chief€justice€urgingÏlawyers€to€volunteer€for€more€pro€bono€cases,× ƒ2 ××  ×€and€the€courtððs€refusal€toÏprovide€indigent€parents€with€their€own€experts.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€None€of€these€complaintsÏhave€been€adequately€briefed,€and€accordingly€we€deem€them€waived€on€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àParental€rights€are€fundamental€liberty€interests€for€constitutionalÏpurposes.€€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€a€Female€Child€(Bond€v.€McKenzie),óó€896€S.W.2dÍ546,€547€(Tenn.€1995);€òòNale€v.€Robertson,óó€871€S.W.2d€674,€678€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòBroadwell€v.€Holmes,óó€871€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏAccordingly,€parents€faced€with€the€prospect€of€losing€their€parental€rights€areÏentitled€to€the€due€process€protections€guaranteed€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8Ïand€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€Determining€theÏscope€of€these€protections€requires€a€balancing€of€the€private€interests€at€issue,Ïthe€governmentððs€interests,€and€the€risk€that€the€procedures€used€will€lead€toÏerroneous€decisions.òò€€Lassiter€v.€Department€of€Social€Servs.,óó€452€U.S.€18,€27,Ï101€S.€Ct.€2153,€2159€(1981).€€ÌÌà àBecause€of€the€interests€at€stake€in€a€termination€case,€fundamentalÏfairness€requires€that€parents€be€afforded€a€hearing€on€adequate€notice,€òòStanleyÏv.€Illinois,óó€405€U.S.€645,€649,€92€S.€Ct.€1208,€1211€(1972);€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.Ï39(f)(1),€and€representation€when€required€by€the€facts€of€the€particular€case,ÏòòLassiter€v.€Department€of€Social€Servs.,óó€452€U.S.€at€31„32,€101€S.€Ct.€at€2162;ÏTenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€39(f)(2).€€Due€process€also€requires€that€parties€seeking€toÏterminate€a€parentððs€rights€prove€their€case€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€ÏòòSantosky€v.€Kramer,óó€455€U.S.€745,€747„48,€102€S.€Ct.€1388,€1391„92€(1982);ÏTenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€39(f)(5).ÌÌà àWe€are€satisfied€that€the€procedure€employed€by€the€juvenile€court€inÏthis€case€complies€with€the€requirements€of€due€process€and€that€the€parentsÏreceived€a€fair€hearing.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€parentsðð€constitutionalÏchallenges€to€the€termination€procedures€are€without€merit.€€Having€disposedÏof€the€constitutional€issues€that€are€ripe€for€adjudication,€we€will€now€considerÏwhether€the€department€proved€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theÏparentsðð€rights€with€regard€to€S.M.,€Jr.€should€be€terminated.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àBoth€parents€also€question€the€evidentiary€foundation€of€the€juvenileÏcourtððs€decision€to€terminate€their€parental€rights.€€Since€the€decisionÏimplicates€fundamental€constitutional€rights,€we€employ€a€heightened€standardÏof€review€in€order€to€prevent€the€unwarranted€termination€or€interferenceÏwith€the€biological€parentsðð€parental€rights.€€òòOððDaniel€v.€Messier,óó€905€S.W.2dÏ182,€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€first€review€the€juvenileÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€and€thenÏwe€determine€whether€the€facts€make€out€a€clear€and€convincing€case€in€favorÏof€terminating€the€parentsðð€parental€rights.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)Ï(Supp.€1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòOððDaniel€v.€Messier,óó€905€S.W.2d€at€187;€òòTennesseeÏDept.€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Smith,óó€785€S.W.2d€336,€339€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€these€proceedings,€parental€rights€could€be€terminatedÏonly€in€a€limited€number€of€well€defined€circumstances€and€only€if€the€courtÏdetermined€that€terminating€the€parental€rights€was€in€the€childððs€best€interests.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)€defined€five€circumstances€warranting€theÏtermination€of€parental€rights,€including€the€continuation€for€at€least€one€yearÏof€the€conditions€that€warranted€the€childððs€removal€from€his€or€her€parentsððÏhome.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1).€€The€department€predicated€itsÏtermination€petition€in€this€case€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1).€€ÌÌà àIn€order€to€terminate€parental€rights€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(d)(1),€the€juvenile€court€must€find€that€the€record€establishes€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€(1)€that€the€child€has€been€removed€from€his€or€herÏparentsðð€home€for€at€least€one€year,× ƒ4 ××  ×€(2)€that€the€conditions€that€led€to€theÍremoval€or€other€similar€conditions€warranting€removal€still€persist,× ƒ5 ××  ×€(3)€thatÏthere€is€little€likelihood€that€the€conditions€will€be€remedied€at€an€early€date,× ƒ6 ××  ×Ï(4)€that€continuing€the€parentsðð€relationship€with€the€child€will€greatlyÏdiminish€the€childððs€chances€of€early€integration€into€a€stable€and€permanentÏhome,× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€(5)€that€termination€of€the€parentsðð€parental€rights€is€in€the€childððsÏbest€interests.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Consideration€of€the€childððs€best€interests€and€the€possibilityÏof€returning€the€child€to€his€or€her€parents€in€the€near€future€should€be€guidedÏby€the€six€factors€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„147(e)€and€other€similar€factors.€ÏThese€factors€include€extent€of€the€parentsðð€adjustment€to€the€circumstances,Ïthe€parentsðð€brutality,€abuse,€or€neglect€of€other€children,€the€parentsðð€use€ofÏdrugs€or€alcohol,€the€level€of€financial€support€if€the€parents€are€financiallyÏable€to€support€the€child,€the€extent€of€the€parentsðð€visitation€or€other€contactsÏwith€the€child.ÌÌà àBy€the€time€of€the€hearing€in€juvenile€court,€S.M.,€Jr.€had€been€removedÏfrom€their€custody€for€over€two€years.€€S.M.,€Sr.€still€continued€to€play€a€roleÏin€B.M.C.ððs€life€even€though€she€had€divorced€him.€€S.M.,€Sr.€was€a€closeÏfriend€of€her€new€husband€and€spent€a€great€deal€of€time€in€B.M.C.ððs€home.€ÏB.M.C.€continued€to€fail€to€understand€the€significance€of€her€continuingÏrelationship€with€S.M.,€Sr.€because€she€still€does€not€believe€that€S.M.,€Sr.Ïsexually€abused€their€son.€€All€counseling€and€parental€skills€training€have€hadÏlittle€effect€on€either€B.M.C.€or€S.M.,€Sr.,€and€thus€there€is€little€likelihoodÏthat€the€conditions€that€caused€them€to€lose€custody€of€S.M.,€Jr.€in€AugustÍ1992€will€be€remedied€in€the€foreseeable€future.€€All€professionals€familiarÏwith€the€parents€and€the€child€have€concluded€that€terminating€B.M.C.ððs€andÏS.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights€will€advance€S.M.,€Jr.ððs€best€interests€by€improvingÏhis€chances€of€being€provided€a€stable,€permanent€placement.ÌÌà àWe€are€aware€of€the€gravity€of€the€decision€to€remove€a€childÏpermanently€from€his€or€her€natural€parents€and€to€terminate€their€parentalÏrights.€€Decisions€in€cases€of€this€sort€are€among€the€most€difficult€that€judgesÏare€called€upon€to€make€because€they€indelibly€affect€all€parties€concerned.€ÏThe€evidence€in€this€case€demonstrates€clearly€and€convincingly€that€S.M.,ÏJr.ððs€physical€safety€and€psychological€maturation€will€be€best€served€byÏterminating€B.M.C.ððs€and€S.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights.€€Accordingly,€we€findÏthat€the€evidence€supports€the€juvenile€courtððs€decision€to€terminate€theÏparentsðð€parental€rights.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ÌÌó óà àB.M.C.ððs€final€argument€is€that€the€juvenile€court€erred€when€itÏterminated€her€parental€rights€because€the€department€had€not€demonstratedÏthat€it€could€no€longer€provide€her€rehabilitative€and€support€services.€€ThisÏargument€assumes€that€B.M.C.€has€a€constitutional€right€to€demand€that€theÏState€provide€these€services€and€that€her€parental€rights€cannot€be€terminatedÏif€she€might€be€able€to€meet€her€parental€responsibilities€and€obligations€withÏgovernmental€support.€€We€find€that€her€assumptions€are€misplaced.ÌÌà àBiological€parents€have€a€fundamental€liberty€and€privacy€interest€in€theÏcare€and€custody€of€their€children.òò€€In€re€Adoption€of€Female€Chile€(Bond€v.ÏMcKenzieóó),€896€S.W.2d€at€547;€òòNale€v.€Robertson,óó€871€S.W.2d€at€678.€TheyÍdo€not,€however,€have€a€constitutional€right€to€expect€that€the€government€willÏguarantee€the€continuing€existence€of€the€family€unit€at€state€expense.€€òòBlack€v.ÏBeame,óó€550€F.2d€815,€817€(2d€Cir.€1977);€òòDoe€v.€Oettle,óó€293€N.W.2d€760,Ï761€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1980);òò€In€re€Welfare€of€J.H.,óó€880€P.2d€1030,€1033Ï(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€A€state€is€not€constitutionally€required€to€continue€toÏprovide€support€indefinitely€simply€because€it€provided€support€at€someÏearlier€time.€€òòSavage€v.€Aronson,óó€571€A.2d€696,€711„12€(Conn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àDecisions€to€create€family€support€programs€and€to€continue€to€fundÏthem€are€the€Congressððs€or€the€legislatureððs.€€òòIn€re€Welfare€of€J.H.,óó€880€F.2dÏat€1033.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€federal€constitution€empowers€the€courts€toÏsecond„guess€€the€decisions€of€state€officers€charged€with€the€difficultÏresponsibility€of€allocating€limited€public€resources€among€the€many€potentialÏrecipients.€òòDandridge€v.€Williams,óó€397€U.S.€471,€487,€90€S.€Ct.€1153,€1162„63Ï(1970).€€Accordingly,€the€state€is€not€constitutionally€required€to€provide€theÏhousing€and€support€services€needed€to€keep€a€family€of€nine€childrenÏtogether,€òòBlack€v.€Beame,óó€550€F.2d€at€817,€or€to€provide€a€single€mother€withÏplacement€in€a€group€home€in€order€to€prevent€the€termination€of€her€parentalÏrights.òò€€Doe€v.€Oettle,óó€293€N.W.2d€at€761.€It€is€likewise€not€required€toÏprovide€emergency€housing€to€a€single€mother€and€four€children,€òòIn€reÏWelfare€of€J.H.,óó€880€P.2d€at€1033,€or€to€continue€to€provide€housing€subsidiesÏto€AFDC€recipients.€€òòSavage€v.€Aronson,óó€571€A.2d€at€712.ÌÌà àB.M.C.€has€not€directly€challenged€the€departmentððs€decision€toÏdiscontinue€providing€her€with€intensive€support,€and€thus€she€should€not€beÏpermitted€to€attack€that€decision€collaterally€in€this€proceeding.€€Even€thoughÏthe€department€provided€her€with€intensive€homemaker€and€other€supportÏservices€at€one€time,€she€does€not€have€a€constitutional€or€statutory€right€toÍexpect€to€continue€to€receive€these€services€indefinitely.€€More€importantly,Ïthe€departmentððs€representatives€testified€that€continuing€to€provide€theseÏservices€would€not€enhance€B.M.C.ððs€parenting€skills€to€the€point€where€sheÏcould€provide€S.M.,€Jr.€with€the€type€of€environment€required€to€meet€hisÏspecial€needs.€€Thus,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€that€continuing€toÏprovide€these€services€would€tip€the€factors€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ37„1„147(d)(1),€„147(e)€in€B.M.C.ððs€favor€and€away€from€terminating€herÏparental€rights.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€have€determined€that€the€juvenile€court€proceedings€complied€withÏstate€and€federal€constitutional€requirements€and€that€the€evidence€supports€theÏjuvenile€courtððs€decision.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€terminatingÏB.M.C.ððs€and€S.M.,€Sr.ððs€parental€rights€and€remand€the€case€to€the€juvenileÏcourt.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€HumanÏServices.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÔ% € Ô