ÿWPC $ ># tUN %Í 0 GÓU:w@T4”¨ 0¶· 0Dm±L¹U:  0JG 0T‘ 0^å 0hC 0r« 0| 0†™ 0 0@¯ D3ï 1u" 0d— Bû AQ Æi 0D/ 0Ds D/· Bæ U>U *AB)kDC” AM×$f*«¯;<ê)&v~OvÓ͘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 234g5î6U78 g9Ó€EHB\J#3|xH(f(2’%$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X¡XXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô"•ôXX¡Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTŸ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd* 4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òDecember€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€special€legislative€committee€studied€Tennesseeððs€adoption€laws.€€òòSeeóó€S.J.Res.€17,€98th€Gen.ÏAssembly,€1st€Sess.,€1993€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1050.€€The€committee€introduced€legislation€in€the€Ninety„Ninth€General€Assembly€that€replaced€the€existing€standards€with€a€single€standard.€€òòSeeóó€S.€653/H.€406,Ï99th€Gen.€Assembly,€1st€Sess.,€ðð€[1],€36„1„102(1),€at€3„6€(1995).€€This€adoption€standard€was€codified€atÏT.C.A.€Title€36€Chapter€1€Parts€1€and€2€and€became€effective€January€1,€1996.€€The€definition€ofÏð ðabandoned€childðð€applicable€when€this€case€came€to€trial€was€as€follows:€€Ìà8 àà8 àð ðAbandoned€childðð€means:€A€child€whose€parents€have€willfully€failed€toÏvisit€or€have€willfully€failed€to€support€or€make€reasonable€paymentsÏtoward€such€childððs€support€for€four€(4)€consecutive€months€immediatelyÏpreceding€the€institution€of€an€action€or€proceeding€to€declare€the€child€toÏbe€an€abandoned€child.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„1„102€(1)(A)€(1991Supp.).Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€a€matter€of€law,€we€note€that€at€the€time€of€this€case€there€was€a€distinction€in€the€law€betweenÏcases€where€an€abandonment€is€asked€to€be€declared€and€those€cases€where€not€only€is€there€anÏabandonment€request,€but€also€an€adoption€of€the€abandoned€child.€€In€1995,€the€former€situation€wasÏcontrolled€by€a€statutory€definition€of€ð ðabandoned€childðð€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„1„102(1)(A)€(1991€Supp.).€€In€theÏlatter€situation,€case€law€sets€the€precedent€concerning€the€definition€of€ð ðabandoned€child.ðð€€The€newÏversion€of€the€adoption€statute,€codified€at€T.C.A.€Title€36,€Chapter€1,€Parts€1€and€2,€encompasses€bothÏsituations.€€However,€the€events€of€this€case€took€place€before€this€statute€was€enacted€on€January€1,Ï1996.Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòPierce€v.€óóBechtold,€448€S.W.2d€425€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1968);€Inòò€re€Adoption€of€Female€ChildóóÏ(òòBond€v.€McKenzieóó),€896€S.W.2d€at€547€(Tenn.€1995);€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€Parsonsóó,€766€S.W.2d€196€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1988);€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€Selfóó,€836€S.W.€581€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòIn€re€Rigsbyóó,€App.€No.€01„A„01„9304„CV„00171,€slip€op.€at€10.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€light€of€our€affirmance€of€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€we€decline€to€address€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€appellants€perpetrated€fraud€by€stating€in€their€petition€for€adoption€and€in€their€amendedÏpetition€for€adoption€that€the€father€of€the€child€in€question€was€unknown.€€Although€appellee€properlyÏraised€this€issue,€it€has€become€moot.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œÑ7€¼ëXXdðXXdð7ÑÙ€*ÙßR€564A1-j|µr` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌIN€RE:€CHAD€ALAN€ANDOLINOà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€ALAN€MIX€and€LORENAà à)ÌMAY€MIX,à àà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPetitioners/Appellants,à àò ò)€€€Decatur€Chancery€No.€2305Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9510„CH„00224Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌROBERT€BARTON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óIntervening€Petitioner/à àò ò)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DECATUR€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€DECATURVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WALTON€WEST,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌÌò òLEW€CONNERó óÌò òLARRY€H.€HAYES,€JR.ÌBOULT,€CUMMINGS,€CONNERS€&€BERRY,€PLCÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€J.ó óœà àÌÓÓà àThis›€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€DecaturÏCountyÑ€7ÑÇÑ7€§°XXdðXXdð7Ñfinding€that€the€Defendant,€Robert€Barton€(ð ðFatherðð)€did€not€abandon€his€son,€ChadÏAndolino€(ð ðSonðð)€and,€therefore,€œdismissing›€Plaintiffsðð,€Charles€and€Lorena€MixÏœ(ð ðMixesðð),›€petition€for€adoption.€€The€œMixes›€appealedœ.›€€For€reasons€stated€hereinafter,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òFactsóóó óÌÓ  Óà àBarton€first€met€the€natural€mother€of€œSon,›€Debra€Andolino€(ð ðMotherðð),€œon›€EasterÏSunday,€April,€1991.€€œMother›€discovered€she€was€pregnant€in€September,€1992.€€œSon›Ïwas€born€May€12,€1993.€€œFather›€and€Mother€began€living€together€in€January,€1993,Ïand€continued€to€do€so€until€March,€1993,€when€they€œseparated.€Mother›€has€threeÏdaughters€from€previous€œrelationships.›ÌÌà à€The€œpartiesðð›€assertions€of€facts€conflict€œin€nearly›€every€respect.€€The€œMixes›Ïcontend€that€Father€wanted€Mother€to€get€an€abortion,€that€Father€added€virtuallyÏnothing€to€Motherððs€support€while€they€lived€together,€that€Father€never€evinced€anyÏreal€interest€in€Son€before€or€after€his€birth,€and€that€Father€only€desires€custody€ofÏSon€now€in€order€to€gain€a€promised€financial€windfall€from€Fatherððs€mother.€€FatherÏrepudiates€these€claims€and€argues€that€his€apparent€lack€of€œcare›€for€Son€is€solely€theÏresult€of€attempts€by€the€œMixes›€to€keep€him€from€having€any€contact€œwith›€œSon.›€ÌÌà àSpecifically,€there€is€some€dispute€over€Fatherððs€contributions€to€Mother€andÏSon€before€and€after€Sonððs€birth.€€Father€contends€that€Mother€and€he€compiled€theirÏmoney€and€split€the€bills.€€œMother›€asserts€that€Father€made€virtually€no€contributions€toÍthe€household.€€œSeveral›€witnesses€on€behalf€of€Mother€testified€that€Mother€paid€theÏbills,€bought€food,€and€borrowed€money€from€others€in€order€to€buy€groceries€and€gas.€ÏœFather›€supplied€several€receipts€to€prove€his€contributions.€€œFather›€contends€that€theseÏare€representative€of€the€financial€contributions€made€by€him€to€the€household.€€MotherÏtestified€that€many€of€these€receipts€œbelonged€to›€œher›€and€not€œFather.›€Ìà àFather€admits€to€using€illegal€drugs€and€drinking€alcohol€in€the€past,€butÏcontends€that€he€has€never€œdrunk›€beer€or€taken€any€illegal€drugs€in€front€of€theÏchildren€and€has€never€encouraged€the€children€to€do€so.€€œAdditionally,›€Father€claimsÏthat,€at€the€present€time,€he€does€not€partake€of€drugs,€and€only€occasionally€drinksÏbeer.€ÌÌà àFather€admits€that€he€did€not€aid€with€Motherððs€medical€costs€during€herÏpregnancy,€but€œasserts›€that€Motherððs€pregnancy€was€covered€by€Medicaid.€ÏAdditionally,€Father€contends€that€he€escorted€Mother€œto€the›€doctor€several€times€whileÏshe€was€pregnant€with€Son.€€œMother›€contends€that€Father€went€to€the€doctor€on€oneÏoccasion€for€the€ð ðselfish€purposeðð€of€verifying€that€Mother€was€pregnant€and,€onÏanother€occasion,€to€drop€off€Mother€at€the€emergency€room.€ÌÌà àFather€and€Mother€separated€in€March,€1993.€€As€Father€and€MotherððsÏrelationship€was€nearing€an€end,€Mother€contends€that€Father€beat€her€daughter,ÏShantel,€to€the€point€œthat›€bruises€were€left€by€the€beating.€€œFather›€admits€only€toÏð ðspankingðð€Shantel€and€denies€that€he€left€any€marks€on€her.€€œAs›€a€result,€MotherÏreceived€a€restraining€order€against€Father,€restraining€him€from€the€house.€Ìà àœÌà àAfter›€separating,€Father€made€no€contact€with€œMother€and€Son.›€€FatherÏacknowledged€this€lack€of€contact€with€œMother€and›€œSon€after›€his€separation€withÏMother.€€However,€Father€alleged€that€this€was€because€he€did€not€understand€that€heÏwas€free€to€contact€her€under€the€restraining€order.€€œFather›€and€Mother€did€not€seeÏeach€other€again€until€April,€1993,€when€the€two€met€at€Pizza€Hut,€along€with€LorenaÏMix,€Motherððs€friend,€Jennifer€Roman,€and€Lorena€Mixððs€brother,€Eddie.€€Mother€wasÏattempting€to€procure€Fatherððs€consent€for€adoption.€€œFather›€contends€that€he€did€notÏknow€why€Mother€called€the€meeting,€but€he€thought€the€meeting€was€probably€to€ð ðtalkÏpeace.ðð€€Father€asserts€that€he€had€no€idea€that€the€meeting€was€to€discuss€adoptionÏand€œthe€surrender›€of€his€parental€rights.€€œFather›€did€not€agree€to€the€adoption€œnor›€to€œtheÏsurrender›€his€parental€rights.€ÌÌà àIn€œApril,›€1993,€Mother€returned€with€Lorena€Mix€to€Nashville,€Tennessee.€ÏœLorena›€Mix€stayed€with€Mother€in€a€Nashville€hotel€and€was€present€when€MotherÏwent€into€labor.€€œThe›€Mixes€were€married€on€May€1,€1993.€€œSon›€was€born€on€May€12,Ï1993,€and€has€lived€with€the€Mixes€since€May€œ14›€of€that€same€year.€€œMother›€legallyÏsurrendered€œSon›€to€the€Mixes.€€œMother›€did€not€tell€Father€that€she€had€gone€toÏNashville,€Tennessee.€€Father€called€several€hospitals€to€find€the€whereabouts€ofÏMother.€€œUnsuccessful›€in€his€attempts€to€locate€Mother,€Father€hired€an€attorney€and€œaÏprivate›€investigator€to€find€Mother€and€possibly€their€œnewborn€child.›€œThe›€privateÏinvestigator€located€Mother€and€Son€and€informed€Father€œof€their€whereabouts.›€ÌÌà àAfter€Sonððs€birth,€Mother€saw€Father€in€June,€1993.€€Father€asked€Mother€aboutÏSonððs€sex,€name,€and€health.€€œMother›€alleges€that€Father€made€no€further€inquiryÏabout€Son,€and€did€not€offer€payment€of€support,€nor€payment€of€any€hospital€bills€as€aÏresult€of€the€birth€of€Son.€€œThat›€same€month,€Mother€started€dating€Father€again.€ÏMother€asserts€that,€in€this€time,€Father€never€asked€about€Son.€€œThe›€relationshipÏended€when€Mother€discovered€that€the€Mixes€had€been€served€with€court€papers€onÏbehalf€of€œFather.€›Ìà àÌà àOn€June€3,€1993,€the€Mixes€filed€a€petition€for€the€adoption€of€Son.€€Father€filedÏa€petition€to€intervene€and€a€motion€to€dismiss€petition€for€adoption€on€November€23,Ï1993.€€œOn›€January€3,€1994,€Fatherððs€petition€to€intervene€was€allowed.€€œAn›€order€wasÏentered€in€the€state€of€Florida€adjudicating€Father€to€be€the€natural€father€of€Son€onÏJune€6,€1994.€€œOn›€June€7,€1994,€the€Mixes€filed€an€amended€petition€for€adoption€inÏpart€to€change€Sonððs€name€to€Charles€Alan€Mix€from€the€present€name€of€Chad€AlanÏAndolino.€€On€September€15,€1994,€Fatherððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€adoption€wasÏdenied.€€Thereafter,€on€October€18,€1994,€the€Mixes€filed€a€petition€for€a€home€study€ofÏFather€on€the€claims€that€he€did€not€earn€enough€money€or€have€a€proper€home€inÏwhich€to€raise€Son.€€œOn›€February€20,€1995,€the€Mixes€filed€a€petition€for€custody.€ÏœSubsequently,›€on€March€13,€1995,€the€trial€court€issued€its€order€denying€the€MixesÏpetition€for€adoption.€€œThe›€trial€court€found€that€ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àThe›€evidence€in€this€case€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€clearÏand€convincing€proof€of€the€fatherððs€intent€to€abandon€hisÏchild,€especially€considering€that€all€legitimatelyÏcontroverted€facts€are€to€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€father.€ÌÌIn€determining€that€the€evidence€of€abandonment€was€not€clear€and€convincing€proof,Ïthe€ÌÌcourt€stated:ÌÌà8 àœà8 àUp›€until€two€months€prior€to€the€birth€of€the€child,€the€fatherÏresided€with€the€mother€and€contributed€support€to€theÏhousehold.€€A€protective€order€prohibited€the€father€fromÏcontacting€the€mother€between€the€dates€of€the€parentððsÏseparation€in€March€and€the€birth€of€the€child€in€May.€.Ï.[u]pon€learning€of€the€approximate€date€of€the€childððs€birth,Ïthe€father€made€efforts€to€locate€the€mother€and€child.€€AfterÏdiscovering€the€child€had€been€placed€for€adoption,€theÏfather€proceeded€to€file€custody€proceedings€in€FloridaÏseeking€custody€of€his€child.€€In€conclusion,€the€Court€findsÏthat€the€legal€standard€for€abandonment€in€adoption€casesÏhas€not€been€met.€ÌÓÓ€€Ìà àA€petition€for€transfer€of€custody€and€for€a€temporary€restraining€order€were€filedÏby€Father€on€May€26,€1995.€€œThereafter,›€Lorena€Mix€absconded€with€Son.€€œOn›€June€20,Ï1995,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€Son€be€turned€over€to€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices.€€œOn›€July€3,€1995,€Father€filed€an€answer€to€the€petition€for€custody.€€œA›€motionÏfor€stay€of€temporary€custody€order€pending€final€custody€determination€was€filed€byÏthe€Mixes€on€August€17,€1995.€€œThe›€trial€court€granted€an€additional€fifteen€days€fromÏOctober€5,€1995,€to€perfect€an€interlocutory€appeal€of€the€œdismissal›€of€the€MixesððÏpetition€for€adoption.€€œThe›€Mixes€filed€their€notice€of€appeal€on€October€12,€1995.€ÌÌà àBy€an€order€dated€October€24,€1995,€this€Court€remanded€the€case€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€a€hearing€to€determine€Fatherððs€fitness€and€ability€to€take€care€of€Son.€€TheÏhearing€was€conducted€on€December€1,€1995.€€œBy›€an€order€entered€January€19,€1996,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€Father€had€married,€that€Father€and€his€wife€had€a€stableÍhome€environment,€and€that€Father€and€his€wife€resided€in€appropriate€physicalÏfacilities€within€which€to€rear€œSon.›€€œHowever,›€the€trial€court€further€found€that€FatherÏstayed€away€from€home€after€his€regular€work€hours€and€spent€that€time€involved€inÏillegal€drugs€or€frequenting€places€where€drugs€were€easily€obtainable.€€The€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€Father€could€not€provide€a€stable€home€environment€for€Son€andÏwould€not€be€an€appropriate€person€to€have€custody€of€Son.€€€œAs›€it€stands€now,€theÏMixes€have€custody€of€Son,€but€have€been€denied€the€right€to€adopt€him.€€FatherððsÏparental€rights€are€still€intact.€€This€appeal€ensued.ÌÌà àThe€Mixes€œappealed,›€challenging€the€order€of€the€trial€court€finding€that€FatherÏhad€not€abandoned€Son€and,€thereby,€dismissing€their€petition€for€adoption.€ÌÌò òòòœà@ àDiscussionóóó ó›Ìà àInasmuch€as€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€below€sitting€without€a€jury,€thisÏcourtððs€review€on€appeal€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏ13(d),€which€directs€us€to€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó.€€òòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€Bd.€ofÏEduc.óó,€692€S.W.2d€863,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòHaverlah€v.€Memphis€Aviation,€Inc.óó,Ï674€S.W.2d€297,€300€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€In€conducting€a€òòde€novoóóÏreview€of€the€record€below,€however,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€of€fact€are€correct.€€Under€this€standard€of€review,€we€must€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€unless€the€trial€court€committed€an€error€of€law€affecting€the€result€orÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòRobertsóó,€692ÏS.W.2d€at€865.€€In€this€regard,€when€a€conflict€in€testimony€requires€the€trial€court€toÍmake€a€determination€regarding€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€witnesses,€such€aÏdetermination€is€binding€on€the€appellate€court€unless€other€real€evidence€compels€aÏcontrary€conclusion.€€òòHudson€v.€Cappsóó,€651€S.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€ÌÌà àParents,€including€parents€of€children€born€out€of€wedlock,€have€a€fundamentalÏliberty€interest€in€the€care€and€custody€of€their€children€under€both€the€United€StatesÏand€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€òòStanley€v.€Illinoisóó,€405€U.S.€645€(1982);€òòNale€v.ÏRobertsonóó,€871€S.W.2d€674,€678€(Tenn.€1994).€€These€parental€rights€are€primary€andÏsuperior€above€all€others€and€continue€unless€the€parent€œconsents,›€œrelinquishes›€them,Ïabandons€his€or€her€child,€or€forfeits€his€or€her€parental€rights€by€some€conduct€that€isÏnot€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€as€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„147(b)(c)(d)(1)€„€(6).€ÏIndeed,€we€recognize€that€adoption€proceedings€profoundly€affect€not€only€the€rights€ofÏthe€natural€parents€but€also€the€rights€of€the€child€and€the€adoptive€parents.€€When€anÏadoption€is€granted,€the€natural€Ñ7€¼´XXdðXXdð7Ñœparents€are›€reduced€to€the€role€of€œcomplete›€œstrangers›Ïand€œhave›€no€rights,€parental,€visitation€or€other€insofar€as€the€child€is€concerned.€ÏòòGrider€v.€Grideróó,€187€S.W.2d€613,€614€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1945).€€At€this€time,€the€grantingÏof€a€petition€for€adoption€establishes€from€that€date€a€relationship€of€parent€and€childÏbetween€the€adoptive€parents€and€the€adopted€child€as€if€the€adopted€child€had€beenÏborn€to€the€adoptive€parents€in€lawful€wedlock.€€òòIn€Re€Adoption€of€Dearingóó,€572€S.W.2dÏ929,€932€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€this€case€came€to€trial,€Tennessee€lacked€a€uniform€standard€forÍdetermining€whether€a€parent€has€abandoned€his€or€her€child.œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›€€We€should€note€œthat,›Ïœaccording€to€its€express€provisions,€the›€definition€of€ð ðabandoned€œchild,ðð›€in€œthe€versionÏof€T.C.A.›€ðð€œ36„1„102(1)(A)€applicable€at€the€time€of€this€case,€relates€to›€cases€whereÏthere€is€an€ð ðaction€or€proceeding€to€declare€the€child€to€be€an€abandoned€œchild.ð𛀜€At€theÏtime€of€this€case,€this€had€not›€been€extended€by€amendment€or€construction€to€applyÏwhen€the€issue€of€abandonment€is€under€consideration€in€an€adoption€proceeding€inÏœthe€circuit€or€chancery›€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€Re€Adoption€of€Parsonsóó,€766€S.W.2d€196,€200Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€œThus,€the€trial€court€is€not€limited€by€the€definition€of€anÏabandoned€child€found€in›€T.C.A.€ðð€œ36„1„102(1)(A)€(1991€Supp.).€€òòEx€Parte€Wolfendenóó,Ï349€S.W.2d€713,€714€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1959).ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€articulated€the€standards€for€determiningÏabandonment€in€adoption€proceedings€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAbandonment,€as€it€pertains€to€an€adoption€proceeding,× ƒ9 ××  ×›Íimports€any€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€parent€which€evincesÏa€settled€purpose€to€forego€all€parental€duties€andÏrelinquish€all€parental€claims€to€the€child.€.€.ÌÌÓÓòòIn€re€Adoption€of€Bowlingóó,€631€S.W.2d€386,€389€(Tenn.€1982)(quoting€òòEx€parteÏWolfendenóó,€349€S.W.2d€713,€714€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1959));€òòSee€alsoóó€òòIn€re€Adoption€ofÏFemale€Childóó€(òòBond€v.€McKenzieóó),€896€S.W.2d€546,€547€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€Court€hasÏheld€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€evidence€of€abandonment€must€show€a€ð ðconsciousÏdisregard€or€indifferenceðð€for€parental€obligations€and€mustÏdemonstrate€that€there€has€been€an€actual€desertion,Ïaccompanied€with€an€intention€to€entirely€sever,€so€far€as€itÏis€possible€to€do€so,€the€parental€relationship€and€throw€offÏall€obligations€growing€out€of€the€same.€€ÌÌÓÓòòFrancher€v.€Mannóó,€432€S.W.2d€63,€65€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1968).€€Accordingly,€weÏconcludedÌ€that€the€conduct€must€amount€to€ð ðan€absolute,€complete€and€intentionalÏrelinquishment€of€all€parental€control€and€interest€.€.€.€[in]€the€childðð€in€order€to€constituteÏabandonment.€€òòFrancheróó,€432€S.W.2d€at€66.ÌÌà àAs€mentioned€above,€a€natural€parents€rights€are€given€a€position€œof€priority›€andÏsuperiority€over€all€others.€€The€heightened€burden€of€proof€charged€upon€thoseÏseeking€a€declaration€of€abandonment€in€an€adoption€proceeding€is€anotherÏsafeguard€against€a€wrongful€termination€of€these€parental€rights.€€Unlike€most€otherÏcivil€cases€requiring€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€adoption€casesÏmandate€the€party€asserting€that€a€parent€has€abandoned€his€or€her€child€prove€theirÍcase€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€a€Female€Childóó,€896€S.W.2dÏat€547;€òòKoivu€v.€Irwinóó,€721€S.W.2d€at€807.€Ìà àÌà àThe€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€standard€defies€precise€definition.€€òòMajorsÏv.€Smithóó,€776€S.W.2d€538,€540€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€While€it€is€more€precise€than€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€standard,€òòRentenbach€Engineering€Co.€V.€GeneralÏRealty€Ltd.óó,€707€S.W.2d€524,€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985),€it€does€not€require€suchÏcertainty€as€the€€ð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubtðð€standard.€€òòBrandon€v.€Wrightóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€532,€536€œ(Tenn.€Ct.›€App.€1992).€€Clear€and€convincing€evidence€eliminatesÏany€serious€or€substantial€doubt€concerning€the€correctness€or€the€conclusions€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€It€should€produce€in€the€€fact„finderððs€mind€a€firm€belief€or€conviction€withÏregard€to€the€truth€of€the€allegations€sought€to€be€established.€€òòBrandon€v.€Wrightóó,€838ÏS.W.2d€at€536;€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Armstrongóó,€859€S.W.2d€323,€328€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€œ1993).ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€record€does€not€qualify€by€the€foregoing€standard.›ÌÌà àCourts€have€consistently€used€the€standards€set€forth€in€òòEx€parte€WolfendenóóÏandòò€Francher€v.€Mannóó€to€determine€whether€a€parent€has€abandoned€his€or€her€child.× ƒ: ××  ×€ÏThese€decisions€illustrate€that€the€courts€consider€the€following€matters€whenÍascertaining€whether€an€abandonment€has€occurred€or€not:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€parentððs€ability€to€support€the€child;€(2)€the€amountÏof€support€the€parent€has€provided€to€the€child;€(3)€theÏextent€and€nature€of€the€contact€between€the€parent€and€theÏchild;€(4)€the€frequency€of€gifts€on€special€occasions;€(5)Ïwhether€the€parent€voluntarily€relinquished€custody€of€theÏchild;€(6)€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€been€separatedÏfrom€the€parent;€and€(7)€the€home€environment€and€conductÏof€the€parent€prior€to€or€in€lieu€of€any€actual€removal€of€theÏchild€to€another.€€ÌÌÓÓòòKoivu€v.€Irwinóó,€721€S.W.2d€803,€807€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€No€single€factor€isÏcontrolling.€€€òòOððDaniel€v.€Messieróó,€905€S.W.2d€182,€187€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€ÏAbandonment€inquiries€are€heavily€fact„oriented,€so€the€courts€may€consider€any€factÏthat€assists€in€deciding€whether€the€parentððs€conduct€demonstrates€a€consciousÏdisregard€of€all€of€his€or€her€parental€responsibilities.€€òòId.óó€€We€feel€that€it€is€important€toÏnote€that€abandonment€by€natural€parents€may€be€found€only€when,€being€givenÏbenefit€of€every€controverted€fact,€such€inference€follows€from€the€evidence€as€a€matterÏof€law.€€òòEx€parte€Wolfendenóó,€348€S.W.2d€at€756„757.€ÌÌà àTurning€to€the€factors€articulated€in€òòKoivuóó,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÏthat€Father€never€abandoned€Son.€€œRegarding›€factor€(1),€Father€has€remarried,€hasÏregular€employment€with€a€radio€station€and€as€a€musician,€œand€has›€a€stable€homeÏenvironment€with€his€present€wife.€€Factor€(2)€is€a€controverted€fact,€and€as€such,ÏFather€should€be€given€the€benefit€of€this€fact.€€Father€testified€that€Mother€and€he€ð ðsplitÏthe€bills.ðð€€Additionally,€Father€testified€that€he€attempted€to€send€clothes€and€toys€toÏœSon,›€but€the€Mixes€would€not€allow€him€to€do€so.€€œThe›€Mixes€admit€to€denying€FatherÏany€right€to€see€Son€or€assert€his€rights€as€a€parent.€€œConcerning›€factors€(3),€(4),€andÍ(6),€as€mentioned€above,€the€Mixes€have€denied€Father€any€right€to€see€Son€or€toÏassert€any€of€his€rights€as€a€parent;€therefore,€any€efforts€of€Father€were€futile.€€FatherÏrequested€œvisitation,›€but€has€not€been€granted€such€by€the€Mixes.€€œFatherððs›€offers€toÏsend€clothes€and€toys€were€emphatically€denied€by€the€œMixes.€Factor›€(5)€is€illustratedÏin€that€Father€has€refused€to€surrender€his€rights€œafter›€repeated€request€to€do€so€byÏMother.€€œUpon›€learning€of€the€approximate€date€of€Sonððs€birth,€Father€made€efforts€toÏlocate€Mother€and€Son.€€œAfter›€discovering€that€Son€had€been€placed€for€adoption,ÏFather€filed€custody€proceedings€in€Florida.€€œConcerning›€factor€(7),€the€conduct€andÏhome€environment€of€Father€in€lieu€of€actual€removal€of€Son€to€the€Mixes€was€stable€inÏthat€Father€had€remarried,€was€employed€full€time,€and€according€to€his€testimony,€didÏnot€presently€partake€of€drugs€and€only€occasionally€drank€beer.€€œIn›€fact,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€Father€and€his€new€wife€presented€a€stable€home€environment€for€a€child.€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€the€evidence€concerning€many€of€these€factors€was€œdisputed›Ïat€trial.€€The€trial€court,€however,€was€in€a€position€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses€at€the€hearing,€and€the€court€apparently€resolved€this€dispute€in€favor€ofÏFather.€€We€agree.ÌœÌà àWe€feel€that€it€is€necessary€to€note€the€gravity€and€difficulty€in€this€matter.€ÏUndoubtedly,€certain€children€would€be€better€off€without€the€presence€of€one€parent€orÏthe€other€in€their€lives,€but€that€is€not,€and€has€never€been€a€basis€to€grant€a€petition€forÏadoption.€€This€is€an€adoption€proceeding€not€a€custody€determination.€€As€this€courtÏquoted€in€òòEx€parte€Wolfendenóó,€ð ðThe€rights€of€the€parties€and€authority€of€the€court€in€anÍadoption€proceeding€differs€greatly€from€those€in€a€chancery€action€involving€mereÏcustody,€for€adoption€affects€the€course€of€inheritance,€severing€forever€andÏconclusively€the€legal€rights€and€interests€of€the€natural€parents,€while€custody€is€onlyÏa€change€into€another€relationship€on€a€temporary€basis.ðð€€òòEx€parte€Wolfendenóó,€348ÏS.W.2d€at€757.ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€it€is€one€thing€to€say€that€a€parentððs€actions€have€been€of€such€aÏnature€as€to€remove€a€child€from€the€parentððs€home,€but€it€is€quite€another€thing€to€sayÏthat€€a€parentððs€actions€have€gone€so€far€as€to€decree€that€ð ðthe€child€is€no€longer€yourÏchild.ððÌÌà àBased›€on€the€evidence€in€this€record,€giving€Father€the€benefit€of€everyÏcontroverted€fact,€there€is€no€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€Father€abandonedÏœSon€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.›€ÏWe€hereby€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€the€Mixes€petition€forÏadoption.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›ÌÌòòò òœà@ àConclusionóóó ó›Ìœà àBased€on€the€foregoing€analysis,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding›€that€FatherÏhad€not€abandoned€œSon,€and›€that€it€œwould€not›€be€in€Sonððs€best€interests€to€œterminate›ÍFatherððs€parental€œrights›.€€We€further€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€œMixesðð›€petition€forÏadoption.€œThis€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌcase€is€remanded€to›€the€trial€court€œfor€such€other€and€›€further€proceedings€œas€may€beÏnecessary›€and€consistent€with€œthis›€œopinion›.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellants,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHAYES,€J.Ì›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌÌà àÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àÌÌà à€ÌÌà àà àÌÌà àÌÌà àà àÌÌà àÌÌà àà àÌÌà à