ÿWPC™  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ B< 0hY 0rÁ 0|3 ¯ 0†· 0= 1uÍ 0dB D3¦U >ÙU 6 0@MB)DC¶ AMùU*FpÖ^Um³ƒ v~£vÓ! AOôÆC 0D D/M B| ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ YZD[D\E]D^V_D`aÓ€m©U!3|xm&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òOctober€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÌÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€,ÔThe€petition€also€sought€a€termination€of€the€parental€rights€of€AmandaððsÏnatural€mother,€Debbie€McCoy.€€Ms.€McCoyððs€parental€rights€were€terminated€by€theÏtrial€courtððs€order€of€December€6,€1995.€€That€decree€is€not€before€us€on€this€appeal.Ô€+ÔÌ TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€adoption€petition€is€apparently€still€pending.€€Because€of€the€exigency€ofÏthe€circumstances,€we€are€reviewing€this€case€as€an€interlocutory€appeal.Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€,ÔAmanda€is€the€youngest€of€four€children€born€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€McCoy.€€The€otherÏchildren,€Ashley,€Travis€and€Ricky›,€Jr.,€were€not€the€subject€of€the€proceedingsÏbelow.Ì yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThis€case€was€decided€before€the€effective€date€of€the€new€adoption€statutes.€ÏòòSeeóó€Chapter€532,€Public€Acts€of€1995.€€ð ðAbandonmentðð€is€now€defined€at€T.C.A.€ðð€36„1„102(1)(A).ÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€,ÔÑ7€µXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌIN€THE€MATTER€OF:à àà àà à€€)€C/A€NO.€œ03A01›„9604„CH„00143Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€HAMILTON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌTERMINATION€OF€PARENTAL€RIGHTS€€)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€02/;+'h|âÂ` Å `€€Lß›OF€œRICKY›€LYNN€œMcCOY›,à àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àRespondent„Appellant,€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌAND€THE€ADOPTION€OFà à€€€à àà à€€)ÌAMANDA€FAITH€œMcCOY›à àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌBY€CALVIN€DOUGLAS€WILLIAMSà à€€)ÌAND€SHARON€SAUCIER€WILLIAMS,à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€HONORABLE€œHOWELL›€N.€PEOPLES,Ìà àPetitioners„Appellees.€€€€€)€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà à€€€€For€AppelleesÌÌSHERRY€B.€œPATY›à àà àà àà à€€€€W.€JEFFREY€œHOLLINGSWORTH›ÌœPaty›,€œRymer›€&€œUlin›,€P.C.à àà à€€€€œMONICA€L.€ALLIEÌChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àà à€€€€Stophel€&€Stophel,€P.C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€Chattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌFor€Guardian€Ad€LitemÌÌBRUCE€H.€GUTHRIE,€IIÌBruce€Guthrie,€P.C.ÌChattanooga,€Tennessee›ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€,ÔÔ€,XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœSusano›,€œJ.Ç›€ÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€termination€of€parental€rights€case.€€Calvin€DouglasÏWilliams€and€his€wife,€Sharon€Saucier€Williams€(collectively€ð ðtheÏWilliamsðð),€filed€a€petition€seeking€to€adopt€Amanda€Faith€McCoy€(Amanda),Ïwho€was€born€on€November€12,€1982.€€As€a€part€of€the€adoption€petition,Ïthey€also€sought€to€terminate€the€parental€rights€of€œAmandaððs›€naturalÏfather× ƒ3 ××  ×,€œRicky›€Lynn€McCoy€(Father).€€After€finding€that€Father€hadÏabandoned€Amanda,€the€trial€court€terminated€his€parental€rights€andÏawarded€œlegal›€custody€of€Amanda€to€the€Williams.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€Father€appeals,€raisingÏthree€issues€that€present€the€following€questions:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€properly€terminate€FatherððsÏparental€rights€and€award€custody€of€Amanda€to€theÏWilliams?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Was€Father€denied€procedural€and€substantiveÏdue€process?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€properly€assess€all€costs,Ïincluding€the€œfees€of€the€guardian›€ad€œlitem,›Ïagainst€Father?ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àAmanda€has€not€lived€with€Father€since€some€unspecified€timeÏprior€to€September€20,€1988,€the€date€of€the€œMcCoys›ðð€divorce.€€œHe›€did€notÏseek€custody€of€Amanda€or€her€siblingsœ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€Ms.ÏMcCoy€was€initially€awarded€their€custody;€however,€due€to€œher›€physicalÏabuse€of€the€children,€the€Department€of€Human€Services€(œDHS›)€removed€themÏfrom€her€custody€in€May,€1989.€€The€children€were€then€found€to€beÏdependent€and€œneglected;›€Father€also€œchose›€not€œto€seek›€œtheir€custody›€œat›Ïthat€time.€€Temporary€custody€of€the€children,€including€Amanda,€wasÏawarded€to€their€maternal€grandparents,€without€objection€by€Father,€whoÏwas€granted€visitation€œrights.ÌÌà àà àIn›€January,€1990,€œthe›€Juvenile€Court€directed€that€Father€wasÏnot€to€have€œvisitation›€with€the€children€until€he€complied€with€a€fosterÏcare€plan€prepared€by€œDHS›.€€Father€met€with€Susan€Bowers€of€œDHS›€in€April,Ï1990,€and€inquired€as€to€what€he€had€to€do€to€regain€custody€of€hisÏchildren.€€She€informed€him€that€he€needed€to€establish€a€permanent€homeÏand€attend€counseling€for€alcoholism.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€a€hearing€on€April€20,€1990,€which€Father€did€notÏattend,€Amanda€was€returned€to€the€custody€of€œDHS›€and€placed€in€the€homeÏof€the€Williams.€€Mrs.€Williams€was€Amandaððs€first€grade€teacher€at€theÏtime.€€At€another€hearing€the€next€month,€Father€voiced€no€objection€toÏœAmanda€remaining€in€the€care€of€the€Williams.›€€A€second€œDHS›€case€worker,ÏœDeidra›€Anderson,€testified€that€in€August,€œ1990,›€she€gave€Father€a€copy€ofÏa€foster€care€plan€and€explained€its€requirements€to€him.€€Ms.€AndersonÏtestified€that€he€did€not€complete€the€requirements€of€that€plan.€€TheÏthird€œDHS›€worker€on€the€case,€David€Mann,€also€sent€Father€a€copy€of€theÏfoster€care€plan,€but€received€no€response.€€In€addition,€the€transferÏsummary€prepared€by€Ms.€Anderson€on€January€2,€1991,€refers€to€an€earlierÏplan,€stating€that€Father€ð ðalso€has€had€a€foster€care€plan€since€1987€andÏhas€yet€to€complete€any€tasks.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Williams€filed€their€petition€for€termination€of€parentalÏrights€and€adoption€on€April€30,€1991.€€In€his€answer,€Father€soughtÏcustody€of€Amanda,€asserting€that€he€had€been€prevented€from€seeing€herÏand€that€he€had€never€received€a€foster€care€œplan;€however,›€the€testimonyÏof€the€œDHS›€employees€œclearly€indicates›€that€Father€did€receive€one€or€moreÏfoster€care€plans.€€Ms.€Anderson€stated€that€parents€always€receive€a€copyÏof€the€plan,€and€that€in€this€case,€she€personally€gave€Father€a€copy€andÏexplained€its€contents.ÌÌà àà àA€hearing€on€the€Williamsðð€petition€was€held€in€September,Ï1992.€€As€of€that€time,€Father€had€not€visited€the€Williamsðð€house,€andÏhad€only€called€once€to€talk€to€Amanda.€€He€had€sent€Amanda€cards€for€herÏbirthday,€Christmas,€Valentineððs€Day€and€Easter.€€Father€had€requested€andÏreceived€one€visit€with€Amanda,€at€the€office€of€her€guardian€ad€litem.€ÏFollowing€this€visit,€œFather€requested€more€visitation,€but€that€requestÏwas›€denied€by€the€trial€œcourt€because€the€prior€visit€had€not€gone€well.›€ÏMeanwhile,€Father€had€signed€yet€another€foster€care€plan,€which€wasÏprepared€by€the€next€DHS€employee€on€this€case,€Gary€œKidd›.€€Mr.€œKidd›Ïtestified€that€Father€cooperated€in€implementing€the€plan,€by€completingÏsix€weeks€of€parenting€classes€and€by€maintaining€the€same€job€and€homeÏfor€over€a€year.€€The€trial€court€recessed€the€September,€1992,€hearing,Ïfinding€that,€due€œto€the€failure›€of€DHS€œto€properly€handle›€œFatherððs›€case,Ïthere€was€no€clear€and€convincing€proof€to€warrant€a€termination€ofÏFatherððs€parental€rights€at€that€time.€€However,€the€court€did€grant€fullÏcustody€of€Amanda€to€the€œWilliams,€apparently€so€they€could€obtain€medicalÏinsurance€for€her.›ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€then€submitted€competing€visitation€plans€to€theÏcourt.€€No€further€action€was€taken€on€the€case,€however,€forÏapproximately€one€year.€€During€this€time,€Fatherððs€only€contact€withÍAmanda€consisted€of€two€cards.€€The€first€card€was€sent€to€Amanda€afterÏher€birthday€in€November,€1992;€the€second€card,€which€arrived€inÏDecember,€1992,€was€signed€ð ðDaddyðð€in€what€appeared€to€be€a€womanððsÏhandwriting.€€The€next€hearing€was€held€in€October,€1993.€€Father€failedÏto€attend€this€hearing,€allegedly€due€to€car€trouble€on€the€way€to€court.€ÏœFollowing€that€hearing,€the›€trial€court€œconfirmed€the€removal€of›€AmandaÏfrom€the€custody€of€DHS€and€œthe€award€of€her›€œcustody›€œto›€the€Williams.€ÏHowever,€the€court€still€declined€to€terminate€Fatherððs€parental€rights€orÏto€grant€the€adoption,€once€again€due€to€a€lack€of€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€of€abandonment€œresulting›€from€the€œfailure›€of€œDHS€to€properlyÏhandle€Fatherððs€case.›€€The€court€also€refused€to€award€any€visitation€toÏFather€because€of€his€failure€to€appear.ÌÌà àà àAfter€explaining€his€absence€and€moving€for€visitation,€FatherÏmade€it€back€into€court€on€April€11,€1994.€€He€œhad€had›€no€contactÏwhatsoever€with€Amanda€for€over€a€year.€€Father€contended€that€he€had€beenÏwaiting€for€the€entry€of€an€order€regarding€visitation,€since,€accordingÏto€him,€he€was€under€the€impression€there€was€to€be€no€contact€until€suchÏan€order€was€entered.€€He€testified€that€he€had€attended€parentingÏclasses,€had€maintained€steady€employment,€and€had€lived€in€the€same€placeÏfor€over€three€years.€€On€the€other€hand,€Father€had€not€tried€to€callÏAmanda€since€before€the€October,€1992,€hearing,€and€had€failed€to€send€herÍa€birthday€card€in€November.€€The€court€nevertheless€granted€FatherÏvisitation€on€the€third€Saturday€of€each€month,€as€well€as€one€phone€callÏeach€Thursday€between€8:15€and€8:30€p.m.€€He€was€also€allowed€to€writeÏletters€and€send€cards€to€Amanda.ÌÌà àà àFatherððs€monthly€visitation€with€Amanda€began€in€May,€1994,Ïand€continued€until€August,€1994,€when€he€canceled€a€œvisit,›€allegedly€dueÏto€the€birth€of€his€son€by€his€current€wife.€€In€September,€œaccording€toÏFather,€he›€called€the€Williams€to€set€up€a€visit€and€left€a€message€onÏtheir€answering€machine,€but€œreceived›€no€response.€€He€did€not€try€to€callÏagain,€and€thus€did€not€see€Amanda€that€month.€€He€claims€that€the€sameÏthing€happened€in€October,€and€again€no€visit€took€place.€€Father€thenÏfiled€contempt€charges€against€the€Williams,€and€he€did€visit€Amanda€inÏNovember€and€December€of€œ1994;›€œhowever,›€he€then€stopped€making€the€visitsÏand€had€not€visited€Amanda€since€December€of€1994€as€of€the€final€hearing.€ÏAccording€to€Father,€the€visits€had€not€gone€particularly€well.€€HeÏtestified€that,€because€of€the€Williamsðð€presence€during€the€visits€andÏlimitations€that€he€complained€were€placed€on€the€visits,€he€felt€thatÏthey€were€not€worthwhile.€€In€short,€because,€again€according€to€him,€heÏthought€that€the€visits€caused€more€harm€than€good,€he€gave€up€on€them.ÌÌà àà àA€similar€pattern€emerged€with€regard€to€the€telephoneÏvisitation.€€Father€initially€called€as€scheduled,€but€Amanda€consistentlyÏrefused€to€talk€to€him€and€hung€up€the€phone.€€The€record€indicates€thatÏFatherððs€subsequent€calls€were€not€always€on€the€appointed€day€or€at€theÏdesignated€time.€€On€some€occasions,€he€did€not€call€at€all.€€ThisÏsporadic€calling€continued€until€February,€1995,€when€Father€simply€gaveÏup.€€He€stated€that€this€was€because€Amanda€would€never€talk€to€him,€and,Ïin€his€words,€ð ðafter€several€months€of€that...€what€was€the€point?ððÌÌà àà àThe€final€hearing€in€the€trial€court€commenced€on€November€13,Ï1995.€€Father€offered€the€aforementioned€explanations€for€his€failure€toÏvisit€and€call€Amanda,€and€also€testified€that€he€was€behind€in€childÏsupport€payments,€but€that€he€intended€to€pay€his€arrearage.€€FollowingÏthis€hearing,€the€trial€court€terminated€Fatherððs€parental€rights€andÏawarded€permanent€custody€of€Amanda€to€the€Williams.€€The€courtÏacknowledged€that€Father€was€not€always€kept€informed€or€provided€withÏdocumentation€about€what€was€required€to€improve€his€parenting€skills€orÏto€regain€custody€of€his€children;€however,€the€court€also€found€thatÏFather€had€not€aggressively€sought€custody€of€his€children,€and€had€doneÏnothing€on€his€own€initiative€to€establish€a€home€for€them.€€The€courtÏfound€that€he€had€instead€waited€for€the€œcourt›€or€DHS€to€do€things€for€himÏor€tell€him€what€to€do.€€Noting€an€absence€of€testimony€demonstratingÍFatherððs€love€and€care€for€Amanda,€the€court€found€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€of€abandonment.€€The€court€went€on€to€note€that€Fatherððs€childÏsupport€was€delinquent,€that€there€were€many€reasons€why€Amanda€shouldÏremain€with€the€Williams,€and€that€any€change€in€custody€would€causeÏsubstantial€harm€to€Amanda,€who€is€now€almost€14€years€old.€€There€isÏtestimony€in€the€record€that€clearly€reflects€that€Amanda€recognizes€onlyÏthe€Williams€as€her€parents.Ì̜Ǜà@ àIIÌÌà àà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.ÌÌà àà àWhen€an€adoption€petition€alleges€that€a€biological€parent€hasÏabandoned€a€child,€the€test€of€abandonmentœ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€is€whether€ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àany€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€parent€...€evinces€aÏsettled€purpose€to€forego€all€parental€duties€andÏrelinquish€all€parental€claims€to€the€child.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòEx€Parte€Wolfendenó óóó,€349€S.W.2d€713,€714€(Tenn.€App.€1959).€€òòSee€alsoÏò òAdoption€of€Bowling€v.€Bowlingó óóó,€631€S.W.2d€386,€389€(Tenn.€1982);Ïò òòòœKoivu›€v.€Irwinóóó ó,€721€S.W.2d€803,€807€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€ò òòòœFancher›€v.ÏMannó óóó,€432€S.W.2d€63,€66€(Tenn.€App.€1968).€€In€making€this€determination,ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àwe€do€not€necessarily€look€to€the€protestations€ofÏaffections€and€intentions€expressed€by€the€naturalÏparent€but€must€look€at€the€past€course€of€conduct.€ÏThe€evidence€must€clearly€show€a€consciousÏdisregard€or€indifference€to€the€parentalÍobligations€for€a€court€to€forfeit€the€parentalÏrights€and€obligations.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòœFancher›ó óóó,€432€S.W.2d€at€65.€€òòSee€alsoò ò€œKoivu›óóó ó,€721€S.W.2d€at€807.ÌÌà àà àThe€courts€consider€many€factors€in€determining€whether€anÏabandonment€has€taken€place:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à(1)€the€parentððs€ability€to€support€the€child;€(2)Ïthe€amount€of€support€the€parent€has€provided€toÏthe€child;€(3)€the€extent€and€nature€of€the€contactÏbetween€the€parent€and€the€child;€(4)€the€frequencyÏof€gifts€on€special€occasions;€(5)€whether€theÏparent€voluntarily€relinquished€custody€of€theÏchild;€(6)€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€beenÏseparated€from€the€parent;€and€(7)€the€homeÏenvironment€and€conduct€of€the€parent€prior€to€theÏremoval€of€the€child.€€[citations€omitted].€€NoÏsingle€factor€is€controlling.€€AbandonmentÏinquiries€are€heavily€fact„oriented,€so€the€courtsÏmay€consider€any€fact€that€assists€in€decidingÏwhether€the€parentððs€conduct€demonstrates€aÏconscious€or€willful€disregard€of€all€of€his€or€herÏparental€duties.€[citation€omitted].ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòœOððDaniel›€v.€Messieróóó ó,€905€S.W.2d€182,€187€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àAbandonment€must€be€shown€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€Ïò òòòId.óóó ó;ò òòò€œKoivu›óóó ó,€721€S.W.2d€at€807.€€The€concept€of€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€has€been€described€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àWhile€it€is€more€exacting€than€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€standard,€it€does€not€require€suchÏcertainty€as€the€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏstandard.€€Clear€and€convincing€evidence€eliminatesÏany€serious€or€substantial€doubt€concerning€theÏcorrectness€of€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€It€should€produce€in€the€fact„finderððsÏmind€a€firm€belief€or€conviction€with€regard€to€theÏtruth€of€the€allegations€sought€to€be€established.Ï[citations€omitted].ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòœOððDaniel›óóó ó,€905€S.W.2d€at€188.€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€there€wasÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€to€support€the€termination€of€FatherððsÏparental€œrights.ÌÌ›à@ àIIIÌÌà àà àAs€noted€earlier,€œAmanda›€œhas€not€lived€with€Father€since›Ïœbefore€1988.›€€His€contact€with€Amanda€since€that€time€can€only€beÏcharacterized€as€sporadic.€€It€is€true€that€certain€limitations€wereÏplaced€by€the€trial€court€on€his€relationship€with€Amanda;€however,ÏFatherððs€minimal€contact€with€his€daughter€has€been€primarily€due€to€hisÏown€lack€of€initiative.€€Father€did€not€seek€custody€of€Amanda€in€hisÏdivorce,€or€even€when€she€was€removed€from€his€ex„wifeððs€custody€due€toÍphysical€abuse.€€He€also€did€not€seek€custody€when€Amanda€was€placed€withÏher€grandparents,€or€when€she€was€initially€placed€œwith›€the€œWilliams.›ÌÌà àà àWhen€Father€was€given€an€opportunity€to€visit€his€daughter,€heÏfailed€to€take€advantage€of€it.€€Since€Amanda€began€living€œwith›€theÏœWilliams,›€Father€has€visited€her€approximately€seven€times.€€He€continuedÏthe€monthly€visitation€granted€by€the€court€until€he€decided€that€theÏvisits€were€no€longer€worthwhile.€€At€that€point,€Father€voluntarilyÏterminated€the€visitation.€€He€œacknowledged›€that€some€visitation€wasÏbetter€than€œnone;›€but€œadmitted€that›€he€quit€visiting€nevertheless.€€FatherÏlikewise€gave€up€on€his€weekly€telephone€visitation€with€Amanda.€€He€oftenÏcalled€at€the€wrong€time,€and€in€some€cases€did€not€call€at€all.€€When€heÏdid€call€at€the€appointed€time,€Amanda€did€not€want€to€talk€to€him,€and€heÏtherefore€stopped€calling€altogether€after€œFebruary,›€œ1995.›€€ÌÌà àà àThere€is€evidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€Father€wasÏaware€of€what€he€needed€to€do€to€regain€custody€of€Amanda,€and€that€he€hasÏseen€and€discussed€œvarious›€foster€care€œplans›€with€œDHS›€employees.€€ThereÏare€few€instances€of€his€attempted€compliance€with€any€œof€these€plans.›€€InÏaddition,€there€is€evidence€that€he€œalso›€failed€to€comply€in€any€way€withÏan€earlier€foster€care€plan€that€had€been€developed€in€1987.€€FatherÏœacknowledges›€that€the€court€encouraged€him€to€write€letters€and€send€cardsÍto€Amanda,€yet€in€the€five€and€one„half€years€that€Amanda€œlived›€in€theÏWilliamsðð€home,€he€œsent›€her€only€a€handful€of€cards,€and€no€letters.€ÏFurthermore,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€in€November,€1995,€Father€had€notÏcalled€the€Williams€to€find€out€anything€about€Amandaððs€school,€œherÏactivities,›€or€general€well„being.€€For€example,€he€was€unaware€that€sheÏhad€been€diagnosed€with€a€learning€disability€in€the€first€grade.€€InÏaddition€to€his€somewhat€random€efforts€at€contacting€Amanda,€or€atÏfinding€out€information€about€her,€Father€has€fallen€over€six€monthsÏbehind€in€child€support€payments.ÌÌà àà àIn€defense€of€his€erratic€pattern€of€contact€with€Amanda,ÏFather€offers€various€excuses€that€place€the€blame€alternatively€upon€theÏœtrial€court,›€DHS,€and€the€Williams.€€Our€review€of€the€record,€however,Ïpersuades€us€that€the€vast€majority€of€the€blame€must€fall€upon€FatherÏhimself.€€The€trial€court€found€that€FatherÌÌÓÓà àà8 àœon›€his€own€initiative€has€done€nothing€to€establishÏor€to€improve€his€parenting€skills€or€to€establishÏa€home€for€[Amanda],€but€has€instead€waited€for€theÏcourts€or€social€workers€or€others€to€do€it€for€himÏor€to€tell€him€what€to€do.ÓÓÌÔ€+ÔÌà àà àÔ€,ÔIn€summary,€Father€failed€to€do€that€which€could€reasonably€beÏexpected€of€a€responsible,€caring€parent.€€From€the€time€that€Amanda€wasÍplaced€in€the€Williamsðð€home,€on€April€20,€1990,€to€the€hearing€in€theÏtrial€court€on€April€11,€1994,€Father€visited€his€daughter€only€one€time.€ÏBetween€the€April€11,€1994€hearing,€and€the€final€hearing€on€November€13,Ï1995,€Father€had€the€opportunity€to€exercise€his€court„ordered€monthlyÏvisitation€at€least€eighteen€times.€€During€that€time,€œhe›€visited€AmandaÏœonly€six›€times.€€Furthermore,€Father€rarely€even€telephoned€Amanda€or€theÏWilliams€to€find€out€how€she€was€doing.€€The€record€indicates€that€at€theÏtime€of€the€April€11,€œ1994,›€hearing,€he€had€called€the€œWilliams›€only€onceÏin€the€four€years€that€she€had€resided€there.€€After€weekly€telephoneÏcalls€were€allowed€by€the€court,€Father€did€not€exercise€that€visitationÏconsistently€either€and€eventually€gave€up€trying€to€call.€€In€short,ÏFather€has€not€taken€advantage€of€many€available€opportunities€for€contactÏwith€Amanda,€as€would€be€expected€of€a€parent€who€wished€to€reestablish€aÏrelationship€with€his€child.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€was€in€the€best€position€to€judge€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€his€finding€that€there€is€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€of€abandonment€sufficient€to€terminate€Fatherððs€parental€rightsÏand€to€grant€full€custody€of€Amanda€to€the€Williams.€€The€burden€was€onÏFather€to€do€more€than€send€a€few€cards€and€call€from€time€to€time.€€HisÏasserted€reliance€upon€the€œtrial€court›€and€DHS€to€do€everything€for€him€isÍno€excuse€for€failing€to€make€contact€with€Amanda€or€to€stay€informedÏabout€her€life.€€Fatherððs€voluntary€termination€of€the€in„personÏvisitation€with€his€daughter€is€especially€difficult€to€understand,Ïbecause€it€seems€to€us€that€a€parent€wishing€to€œreestablish›€a€relationshipÏwith€his€child€would€pursue€every€available€opportunity€to€visit€thatÏchild,€regardless€of€any€limitations€placed€upon€the€visits.€€Therefore,Ïgiven€these€considerations,€we€find€that€Fatherððs€conduct€clearly€andÏconvincingly€manifests€a€ð ðsettled€purpose€to€forego€all€parental€dutiesÏand€relinquish€all€parental€claimsðð€to€Amanda,€in€accordance€with€ò òòòExÏParte€Wolfendenóóó ó€and€its€progeny.€€Fatherððs€œdeeds,€or,€moreÏappropriately,€his€lack€of€deeds,›€speak€louder€than€his€words.Ì̜Ǜà@ àIVÌÌà àà àFatherððs€second€issue€raises€the€question€of€whether€he€wasÏdenied€procedural€and€substantive€due€process€in€these€proceedings.€ÏFather€asserts€that€he€received€no€notice€of€the€Williamsðð€petition€forÏcustody€of€Amanda.€€However,€the€evidence€indicates€that€he€was€aware€ofÏthe€hearing€on€the€petition,€which€was€held€on€April€20,€1990.€€SusanÏBowers€of€DHS€spoke€with€him€the€day€before€the€hearing€and€reminded€himÏabout€it.€€Father€did€not€attend€the€hearing,€and€Amanda€was€sent€homeÏwith€the€Williams€that€day.€€On€this€and€other€occasions,€Father€hadÏsufficient€notice€of€pending€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€He€alone€isÏresponsible€for€his€erratic€attendance.ÌÌà àà àFather€also€appears€to€contend€that€the€delays€in€this€caseÏand€the€failures€of€DHS€to€follow€standard€procedure€have€resulted€in€aÏdenial€of€his€due€process€rights.€€It€is€true€that€this€case€was€continuedÏseveral€times€and€was€not€always€handled€in€the€usual€manner€by€DHS.€ÏDespite€these€obstacles,€Father€has€had€ample€opportunity€throughout€theÏcourse€of€these€proceedings€to€œreestablish›€his€parental€relationship€withÏAmanda;€yet,€as€previously€noted,€he€has€failed€to€do€so.€€Father€alsoÏargues€that€this€case€should€have€ended€when€the€trial€court€originallyÏfound€that€the€Williams€had€failed€to€prove€abandonment€by€clear€andÍconvincing€evidence.€€The€trial€court,€however,€had€the€authority€toÏcontinue€custody€in€the€Williams,€and€to€continue€the€matter€for€furtherÏreview€without€returning€custody€to€Father€œpending€that€review.›€€ÌÌà àà àOur€œanalysis›€of€the€procedural€history€of€this€case€revealsÏthat€Father€was€afforded€protection€of€his€fundamental€rights.€ÏFurthermore,€the€heightened€standard€of€proof€provided€additional€dueÏprocess€to€Father€by€requiring€that€clear€and€convincing€evidence€ofÏabandonment€be€shown€before€his€parental€rights€could€be€terminated.€€òòSeeÏò òState,€Dept.€Of€Human€Services€v.€Smithó óóó,€785€S.W.2d€336,€339€(Tenn.Ï1990).€€As€explained€in€the€preceding€section,€the€trial€courtððsÏtermination€of€Fatherððs€parental€rights€was€properly€based€on€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€of€abandonment.€€Thus,€we€find€that€Fatherððs€secondÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àVÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€Father€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€adjudging€all€œcosts›€œagainst›€him.€€He€suggests€that€he€should€have€beenÏconsidered€a€ð ðprevailing€partyðð,€under€Rule€54.04(1),€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.,Ïfollowing€the€trial€courtððs€earlier€determination€that€the€Williams€hadÏfailed€to€carry€their€burden€of€proof,€and€that€the€costs€included€in€theÍbill€of€costs€to€that€point€therefore€should€not€have€been€assessedÏagainst€him.€€However,€the€Williams€ultimately€were€the€prevailing€œparties›Ïin€this€matter,€and€the€trial€court€thus€acted€properly€in€adjudging€thoseÏcosts€against€œFather.›€€ÌÌà àà àFather€also€argues€that€this€was€not€a€proper€case€for€theÏassessment€of€the€guardian€ad€litem€fees€against€him.€€Rule€œ54.04(2),ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,›€specifically€includes€guardian€ad€litem€fees€in€theÏclass€of€allowable€discretionary€costs.€€òòId.óó€€Furthermore,€the€assessmentÏof€such€costs€falls€within€the€reasonable€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ïwhich€may€allocate€the€costs€between€the€parties€as€it€feels€the€equitiesÏrequire.€€ò òòòPerdue€v.€Green€Branch€Min.€Co.,€Inc.óóó ó,€837€S.W.2d€56,€60Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€Appellate€courts€will€generally€not€interfere€with€theÏtrial€courtððs€assessment€of€costs,€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€Ïò òòòId.ó óóó€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€œcase.›€€Therefore,€we€upholdÏthe€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€all€costs,€including€the€guardian€ad€litemÏfees,€against€Father.€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€assessed€to€the€appellant€and€his€surety.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€collection€of€costs€assessed€there,€pursuant€toÏapplicable€law.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€œSusano›,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHouston€M.€œGoddard›,€œP.J.›ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌDon€T.€œMcMurray›,€J.