WPCCS *=}}X~ W@:aC:$Skj?,p2F;R[ɡ(E奌X0]>4ſ"vYl벚 ϊgE?@Iҡu 6<\駱Zi*:|b?bHQZy 0;0 kAWte.IU^QW8p]a0PPOVgAE.׋EXon[d 9?#<ڵ4$zhV=-7B),څe_@9.a#HUN  %W 0c]U":w4 0DXXZ h$)C- m!080(2U:3|"4y4U:6Q6U:8U:99 0Vs9U:99n:U:q;U:;; B;U:<<<<E<<U:>U:>UN>U:C?U:}?U:??????????U:?U:+@+@U:e@e@e@e@e@e@e@ 0@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@FA D5NANANANANA ASAA 0VB 0DBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6CHHJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ MU:RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN5S^ 7SHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;$XXX,cAZ"Arial Regulard/'NBvv  A4M$XXX   5    _ԀThisdefinitioncontainedintheTennesseeCodesectionsonadoptionwasineffectjustprior  totheadoptionofthenewlanguagein1995.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.361102(1)(A)(1994).#߯##Ɛ#3|x(#$  0   N A4M$XXX   1    _ :7 :x  :7BrigitteSwansondiedinOctoberof1996.Herparentalrightswereneveratissueinthis  litigation.  A4M$XXX   8    _ԀTwointerestedpartiesalsofiledamicusbriefsinthisCourt.TheMemphisAreaLegal  ServicesfiledabriefinsupportofMr.Swansonsposition,assertingthatthedefinitionofabandonment   isunconstitutionalsinceitcreatesanirrebuttablepresumptionofunfitness.RobertTuke,anattorney  andmemberoftheCommissiontoStudytheAdoptionLawsoftheStateofTennesseecreatedbythe   GeneralAssemblyin1993,alsofiledanamicusbrief.Mr.TukecontendsthatthisCourtshouldconstrue Z R thedefinitionof willfullyfailedtosupporttocontainawillfulnesselement;whensoconstrued,according   toMr.Tuke,thestatuteisconstitutional. ^ A4M$XXX   9    _Ԁ#7 #x  #7Wenote,asarguedbytheAttorneyGeneral,thatothersectionsgoverningabandonmentdo  containthewillfulnesselement.Forexample,aseparatedefinitionisgivenfor willfullyfailedtovisit.   Thatterm meansthewillfulfailure,foraperiodoffour(4)consecutivemonths,tovisitorengagein  morethantokenvisitation.Tenn.CodeAnn.361102(1)(E).TheAttorneyGeneralarguesthatsince   thewillfulnesselementisincludedelsewhereinthestatute,theGeneralAssemblymusthaveintended x p thatitbeincludedinthesectionsconcerning failuretosupport.However,itisjustaspossiblethatthe @ 8 legislature,byexcludingthewillfulnesstermfromthedefinitionof failuretosupport,meanttodefineit   differently.  A4M$XXX   12    _Ԁ)7 )x  )7WenoteinpassingthatthecircumstancesofMr.SwansonsrelationshiptoBrittanyather  birthandforatleastayearthereafteraredifferentthanthecircumstancesoftheunwedfathers   discussedinmostofthecases.Mr.SwansonwasmarriedtoBrittanysmotheratthetimeofBrittanys  birthandwasmerelyseparatedfromherwhenhelostcontactwithBrittany.Hethereforestandsina   strongerpositionthantheunwedfatherswhomerelyhadaninchoaterighttothecareandcustodyof x p theirchildren.Itisnecessaryfortheunwedfatherstoseizeupontheopportunitytoparentbeforetheir @ 8 righttoparentisentitledtodueprocessprotection.SeeLehrv.Robertson,463U.S.248,262(1983).   Mr.SwansonsrighttothecareandcustodyofBrittanywasnotinchoate;italreadyexistedbecauseof   hismarriagetohermother. 9 A4M$XXX   14    _Ԁ,,,Wewishtomakeitclearthatthedefinitionpreviouslyineffectwasthedefinitionasitexisted  in1994.Underthepriorstatute,thedefinitionof abandonedchildcontainedanelementofintentboth   infailurestovisitandfailurestosupport.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.361102(1)(A)(i)(Supp.1994).U  A4M$XXX   2    ___ԀAccordingtoMr.Swansonspresentwife,Mr.Swansonplacedoveronehundredphonecalls  toMr.EllingburgtodiscoverthelocationofBrittanyandhermother.Often,thesephonecallswerenot   answered.  A4M$XXX   6    _Ԁ7 x  7Thisprovisionspecificallydeletedanyrequirementforwillfulnessinthedefinitionof willfully  failedtosupportand willfullyfailedtomakereasonablepaymenttowardsuchchildssupport.,cAZ"Arial Regular Jur S.W.Govtexscinded 98thAssnDrowota o A4M$XXX   4    _ԀInaccordwiththemostrecentversionofthestatute,seeTenn.CodeAnn.36102(1)(D)  (1996),weusetheterm willfully.,@AZ"Arial Regular  A4M$XXX   7    _Ԁ7 x  7 xTheCourtofAppealsnotedtheunusualcircumstancesofthiscase,particularlyMrs.  SwansonsinformingagenciesthatMr.Swansonwasdead,Mrs.Swansonsrelocationwiththechild   severaltimes,andthelackofanyattempttocontactMr.Swansonduringtheinitialproceedingto  determinewhetherBrittanywasdependentandneglected.#x #,@AZ"Arial Regular, AZ"Arial Regular(.3$ !USUS.,  , AZ"Arial Regular d b"USUS.,  _ XGXXX I X XG   Ad FILED XGX  I  October4,1999  Cecil_Crowson_,Jr. xx AppellateCourtClerkdA ,@AZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular d, AZ"Arial Regular ; A4M$XXX   15    _Ԁ(7 (x  (7-x  (xThecircuitcourtfoundthatMr.SwansonhadnotwillfullyabandonedBrittany.Thecircuit  courtalsoconsideredthespecificcircumstancesofthiscaseanddeterminedthatreturningcustodyof   Brittanytoherfatherwouldnotcausesubstantialharmtoher.#(x  -x#, AZ"Arial Regular, AZ"Arial Regular(Y Z 6Times New Roman Regular, AZ"Arial Regular,@AZ"Arial Regular, AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular, AZ"Arial Regular(W(34M$ !XXX     0   """")!dxdxabc[E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1    A4M$XXX   10    _ԀSeealsoLewisv.Donoho(InthematterofBiancaArnescheAskew),993S.W.2d1,4  (Tenn.1999)( Themagnitudeofaparentsconstitutionalrighttorearandhavecustodyofhisorher   childrenwouldnecessitateaclearfindingofsubstantialharm.)#%ߑ#%;Petroskyv.Keene,898S.W.2d726,  72728(Tenn.1995)(holdingthatifanunwedfatherhastakenaffirmativestepstodevelopasubstantial   relationshipwithhischild,thestatemaynotinterfereexcepttoprotectthechildfromharm);#%*#%ԀBond,896 Z R S.W.2dat548( [I]nacontestbetweenaparentandanonparent,aparentcannotbedeprivedofthe   custodyofachildunlesstherehasbeenafinding,afternoticerequiredbydueprocess,ofsubstantial   harmtothechild.Onlythenmayacourtengageinageneralbestinterestofthechildevaluationin   makingadeterminationofcustody.)._#%߉#_  A4M$XXX   11    _ԀInRobertson,thisCourtemphasizedthatthebiologicalfatherhadgraspedeveryopportunity  todevelopasubstantialrelationshipwithhissonandhadacceptedresponsibilityforhiscareand  custody.871S.W.2dat678.#%ߏ#  A4M$XXX   13    _ԀWerejectthecontentioncontainedinMr.Tukesamicusbriefthatatsomepointthefactthat  thechildhasbeeninthecustodyofanonparentforaperiodoftimemeansthatalesserstandardcan  beappliedindeterminingwhetherparentalrightsmaybeterminated.Suchastandardwouldincrease  thelikelihoodfordelayingcasesinorderthatthechildremaininfostercare.Wecannotapproveofa N F standardthatwouldpotentiallycausethatresult.  A4M$XXX   3    _Ԁ%%ThecasemanagerforBrittanytestifiedthatDHShadnorecordofsupportfromMr.Swanson.  DHShadmadenoefforttolocateMr.SwansoninpartbecauseDHShadbeentoldbyMrs.Swanson   thathewasdeceased.Ԁ##Thisinformationwasseeminglycollaboratedtosomeextentafalsestatement  madebyMs.SwansononaMississippimarriagelicenseapplicationinSeptemberof1992totheeffect   thatherpreviousmarriagehadendedinthedeathofherhusband. Z R  InMarchof1993,twomonthsbeforeDHSwasgrantedcustodyofBrittany,Ms.Swanson   obtainedanannulmentofhermarriageonthegroundsthattheshewasnotlegallydivorcedfromMr.   Swanson.AlthoughDHShadarecordoftheannulment"andthereforemusthaveknownthataccounts   ofMr.Swansonsdeathwereinaccurate"DHSstillmadenoapparentefforttocontacthim.+zAZ"Arial RegularhD'L !XXX  __8RXdd8XRXXGXXXR  TR[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T  =zXXdd=@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  x`[B2.jzX`  `@EL` 8ttxP( x@  +ATJACKSON    0      8     INRE:BRITTANYSWANSON,@__0)  FORPUBLICATION   ~ AMINOR,@__0)   r j @__0)  FILED:October4,1999  X P TENNESSEEBAPTISTCHILDRENS@__0)   D< HOMES,INC.,@__0)  _TIPTON_ԀCIRCUIT *"  @__0@@__0)      Appellee,@__0)  Hon.JoeH.Walker   @__0)  Judge   v.@__0)     @__0)  SupremeCourt   HARRYLEESWANSON,@__0)  No.02S019810CV00103   @__0)   tl  Appellant.@__0)   ZR FortheAppellant:@0  FortheAppellee:  JamesH.Bradley     8     H.WilliamScott,III  Covington,Tennessee   8     Brentwood,Tennessee  WebbA.Brewer&     8     FrankC._Ingraham_ ph DebraN._Brittenum_     8     Nashville,Tennessee VN MemphisAreaLegalServices,Inc. < 4 Memphis,Tennessee   8     PaulG.Summers "! (AmicusCuriae)     8     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter "   0      8     XGXXXG(AmicusCuriae)#XGXXXG # "   0      8       0      8     DouglasE._Dimond_ $!   0      8     AssistantAttorneyGeneral %"   0      8     XGXXXG(AmicusCuriae)#XGXXXG # &~#   0      8     RobertD._Tuke_ R(J!%   0      8     _Tuke_,_Yopp_Ԁ&Sweeney 8)0"&   0      8     Nashville,Tennessee *#'   0      8     XGXXXG(AmicusCuriae)#XGXXXG# +#( @-XXG OPINION  4,2 XGXREVERSEDANDREMANDED0 8 !%  abandonmentinadoptioncases.In1959,theCourtofAppealsheldthattrialcourts * #' werenotboundbythestatutorydefinitionof abandonmentwhenmakingsucha +$) determinationinanadoptionproceeding.TheCourtheldthat [a]bandonment -&+ importsanyconductonthepartoftheparentwhichevincesasettledpurposeto v/n(- foregoallparentaldutiesandrelinquishallparentalclaimstothechild....Exparte B1:*/ Wolfenden,49Tenn.App.1,5,349S.W.2d713,714(1959)(quoting1Am.Jur.  AdoptionofChildren42).ThisCourtadoptedanidenticalstandardinInreAdoption  ofBowling,631S.W.2d386,389(Tenn.1982).    Todeterminewhethertheparentsconducthadevinced asettledpurposeto <4 foregoallparentaldutiesandtorelinquishallparentalclaimstothechild,thecourts   developedseveralfactors:(1)theparentsabilitytosupportthechild;(2)theamount   ofsupportprovided;(3)theextentandnatureofthecontactbetweentheparentand   thechild;(4)thefrequencyofgifts;(5)whethertheparentvoluntarilyrelinquished ld custodyofthechild;(6)thelengthoftimethechildhasbeenseparatedfromthe 80 parent;and(7)thehomeenvironmentandconductoftheparentpriortoremoval.  SeeODanielv.Messier,905S.W.2d182,187(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).     Itwasagainstthisbackgroundthatthelegislatureamendedtheadoptioncode h` in1995.See1995Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.532(codifiedasTenn.CodeAnn.361 4 , 101to361206(1996&Supp.1998)).Sincethepetitiontoterminateparentalrights " inthiscasewasfiledonJanuary25,1996,thiscaseisgovernedbythenewadoption #  lawenactedin1995andeffectiveJanuary1,1996.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.361 %" 103(b)( AdoptionsandterminationsofparentalrightspendingonJanuary1,1996, d'\ $ andsurrendersandconsentsexecutedpriortoJanuary1,1996,shallbegovernedby 0)("& priorexistinglaw.).Section361113providesinrelevantpart: *#( 8 (g)Terminationofparentalorguardianshiprightsmaybebasedupon .', anyofthefollowinggrounds:z/r(- (# (# 8 (1)Abandonmentbytheparentorguardian,asdefinedin361102, F1>*/ hasoccurred;,2$+0 (# (# Id.361113(g)(1).Also,section361102(1)(A)provides: 3,2   4-3 8 Abandonmentmeans,forpurposesofterminatingtheparentalor  guardianrightsofparent(s)orguardian(s)ofachildtothatchildinorder  tomakethatchildavailableforadoption,that: (# (#  8 (i)Foraperiodoffour(4)consecutivemonthsimmediatelyprecedingthe   filingofaproceedingorpleadingtoterminatetheparentalrightsofthe  ~ parent(s)orguardian(s)ofthechildwhoisthesubjectofthepetitionfor l d terminationofparentalrightsoradoption,thattheparent(s)or R J guardian(s)eitherhavewillfullyfailedtovisitorhavewillfullyfailedto 80 supportormakereasonablepaymentstowardthesupportofthechild;   Ѐ  (# (#   0 ....   8 (B)Forpurposesofthissubdivision(1), tokensupportmeansthatthe   support,underthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase,isinsignificant   giventheparentsmeans;z  (# (# 8 (C)Forpurposesofthissubdivision(1), tokenvisitationmeansthatthe NF visitation,underthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase,constitutes 4, nothingmorethanperfunctoryvisitationorvisitationofsuchan  infrequentnatureorofsuchshortdurationastomerelyestablish  minimalorinsubstantialcontactwiththechild; (# (# 8 (D)Forpurposesofthissubdivision(1), willfullyfailedtosupportor   willfullyfailedtomakereasonablepaymentstowardsuchchilds  supportmeanthat,foraperiodoffour(4)consecutivemonths,no z monetarysupportwaspaidorthattheamountofsupportpaidistoken jb support;  #  6      RJ (# (# 8 (E)Forpurposesofsubdivision(1), Willfullyfailedtovisitmeansthe  ! willfulfailure,foraperiodoffour(4)consecutivemonths,tovisitor " engageinmorethantokenvisitation;" (# (# 8 (F)Abandonmentmaynotberepentedofbyresumingvisitationor $! supportsubsequenttothefilingofanypetitionseekingtoterminate %" parentalorguardianshiprightsorseekingtheadoptionofachild;and&|# (# (# 8 (G) Abandonmentdoesnothaveanyotherdefinitionexceptthatwhich P(H!% issetforthherein,itbeingtheintentofthegeneralassemblytoestablish 6)."& theonlygroundsforabandonmentbystatutorydefinition.Specifically,it *#' shallnotberequiredthataparentbeshowntohaveevincedasettled +#( purposetoforegoallparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesinorderfora +$) determinationofabandonmenttobemade.Decisionsofanycourtto ,%* thecontraryareherebylegislativelyoverruled;-&+ (# (# Id.361102(1)(A)(emphasisadded). /x(-   L1D*/  TheCourtofAppealsdeterminedthatthiscasewasentirelycontrolledbythe   statute,thattheproofwasclearandconvincingregardingMr.Swansonsnonsupport,  andthatitwasthereforeboundwithregardtotheresultreached.  #  7      ׀Mr.Swanson   contendsthatthestatutorydefinitionof willfullyfailedtosupportand willfullyfailedto l d makereasonablepaymentstowardsuchchildssupportisunconstitutionalbecause 80 thedefinitioncontainsnoelementofintentwithregardtofailuretosupport.He   arguesthatthedefinitioncreatesaconclusivepresumptionthatafailuretoprovide   monetarysupportforfourmonthsprecedingthefilingofthepetitiontoterminate   rendersaparentunfit.Hefurtherarguesthatthispresumptionfailstocomportwitha h` parentsfundamentalconstitutionalrighttothecareandcustodyofhisorherchildren. 4, See,e.g.,Stanleyv.Illinois,405U.S.645,650(1972);Bondv.McKenzie(Inre  AdoptionofFemaleChild),896S.W.2d546(Tenn.1995).   Conversely,theBaptistChildrensHomeassertsthattheCourtofAppeals d\ correctlyconstruedthestatutorydefinitionofabandonmentandcorrectlyfoundthat 0 ( Mr.SwansonabandonedBrittanywithinthemeaningofthestatute.Italsoasserts ! thatthestatutorydefinitionsof willfullyfailedtosupportand willfullyfailedtomake #  reasonablepaymentstowardsuchchildssupportdonotviolateMr.Swansons %" fundamentalrighttoparenthischild. `'X $  Sincetheconstitutionalityofastatestatutehasbeenquestioned,theAttorney *#( Generalwasrequestedfileabriefandhasdoneso.SeeTenn.R.App.P.32.The ,%*  AttorneyGeneralassertsthattheelementofwillfulnessshouldbereadintothe .', definitionof willfullyfailedtosupport.Hecontendsthatreadingtheelementintothe  statutorydefinitionavoidsconstitutionalproblems.   #  8      ׀    Thefirstissuewemustaddressiswhetheritisappropriatetoreadanelement l d ofintentintothestatutorydefinitionof willfullyfailedtosupport.Itisabundantlyclear 80 fromthelanguageusedbytheGeneralAssemblythatitintendedtolimitthediscretion   oftrialjudgeswhenmakingadeterminationastowhetherabandonmenthas   occurred.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.361102(1)(G)(1996&Supp.1998)   ( Abandonmentdoesnothaveanyotherdefinitionexceptthatwhichissetforth h` herein,itbeingtheintentofthegeneralassemblytoestablishtheonlygroundsfor 4, abandonmentbystatutorydefinition.Specifically,itshallnotberequiredthataparent  beshowntohaveevincedasettledpurposetoforegoallparentalrightsand  responsibilitiesinorderforadeterminationofabandonmenttobemade.Decisionsof  anycourttothecontraryareherebylegislativelyoverruled.). d\  Notwithstandingtheplainlanguageofthestatute,Mr.Swansonandthe ! AttorneyGeneralwouldhaveusreadtheword willfullyintothedefinitionof willfully #  failedtosupportand willfullyfailedtomakereasonablepaymentstowardsuchchilds %" support.Theyarguethattheword willfullyshouldbeincludedinordertoeffectuate `'X $ theintentofthelegislatureandinordertopreservetheconstitutionalityofthestatute. ,)$"&  Werecognizethatthereareoccasionsinwhichitisappropriatetorejecta ,%* literalreadingofastatutewhenitwouldresultinthestatutebeingdeclared .', unconstitutional.Statev.Hudson,562S.W.2d416,41819(Tenn.1978);Kirkv. \0T). State,126Tenn.7,13,150S.W.83,85(Tenn.1911).Moreover,courtsmaysupply  wordswhenreasonablycalledfor.MetropolitanGovtv.Poe,215Tenn.53,74,383  S.W.2d265,274(1964).Nevertheless,itistheprerogativeofthelegislature,andnot   thecourts,toamendstatutes.Manahanv.State,188Tenn.394,397,219S.W.2d p h 900,901(1949). <4  Inthiscase,wefindthatitisinappropriateforthisCourttosupplytheelement   ofintentinthedefinitionof willfullyfailedtosupportand willfullyfailedtomake   reasonablepaymentstowardsuchchildssupport.Itappearstousthatthedefinition ld wascarefullycraftedbythelegislatureagainstabackdropofbothjudicial 80 interpretationandlegislativeenactment.Throughoutitsfortyfouryearhistory,the  definitionof abandonmentasitpertainedtofailuretosupportalwayscontainedan  elementofintentorpurposefulness.Wecannotconcludethatthelegislature  excludedthewillfulnessaspectoffailuretosupportinadvertentlyormistakenly, h` XGXXXGparticularlyinlightofthelegislaturespronouncementthattheonlydefinitionof 4 , abandonmentwhichshouldbeappliedisthatwhichisincludedinthestatute.#XGXXXGt#  #  9      ׀Itis " evidentthatthelegislatureconsciouslyanddeliberatelyexcludedtheelementof #  intent.WethereforedeclinetoreadthestatuteassuggestedbyMr.Swansonandthe %" AttorneyGeneral,butinsteadwewillconstrueitsconstitutionalityasdraftedand d'\ $ enactedbytheGeneralAssembly. 0)("& @  ConstitutionalityofTenn.CodeAnn.361102(1)(D)  ,%*  .',  BoththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutionsprotectaparentsrightto  thecustodyandupbringingofhisorherchild.Stanley,405U.S.at650;Nalev.  Robertson,871S.W.2d674,678(Tenn.1994).InStanley,theUnitedStates   SupremeCourtheldthatanunwedfatherwasentitled,asamatterofdueprocess,to l d ahearingonhisfitnessasaparentbeforehischildrenweretakenfromhim.The 80 SupremeCourthasalsoemphasizedthatunwedfathersmustseizeuponthe   opportunitytoshouldersignificantresponsibilityforthechildsrearingbeforedue   processrightsareimplicated.Oncethatopportunityhasbeenseized,thechildmay   notberemovedintheabsenceofafindingofparentalunfitness.Quilloinv.Walcott, h` 434U.S.246,256(1978).SeealsoCabanv.Mohammed,441U.S.380,395(1978) 4, (holdingunconstitutionalastatutethatdistinguishesbetweenrightsofunmarried  mothersandunmarriedfathersbecauseunwedfathershaveafundamentalrightto  parentchildrenwhentheiridentityisknownandwhentheyhavemanifesteda  significantpaternalinterestintheirchildren). d\  Similarly,thisCourthasheldthattheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesfora ! parentalrighttoprivacytocareforchildrenwithoutunwarrantedstateintervention #  unlessthereisasubstantialdangerofharmtothechildren.Hawkv.Hawk,855 %" S.W.2d573,579(Tenn.1993).  #  10      ׀ThisCourthasalsoheldthattheStateandfederal `'X $ constitutionsrequireanunwedbiologicalfathersparentalrightstobedetermined ,)$"&  beforethecourtmayproceedwiththeissueofadoption.SeeRobertson,871S.W.2d *#( at678.  #  11      ׀Itisthereforebeyondquestionthatbeforeaparentsrightscanbe   terminated,theremustbeashowingthattheparentisunfitorthatsubstantialharmto  thechildwillresultifparentalrightsarenotterminated.  #  12      ׀Certainly,aparentwhohas   abandonedhischild,eitherbywillfullyfailingtovisitorbywillfullyfailingtosupport,is l d unfit.However,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection361102(1)(D)maybereadto 80 permitterminationofparentalrightsevenwhenthefailuretopaysupportwasnot   intentional.XGXXXG   #  13      #XGXXXGÃ#Ԁ    Sincethestatutorydefinitionsof willfullyfailedtosupportand willfullyfailedto h` makereasonablepaymenttowardsuchchildssupportineffectcreateanirrebuttable 4, presumptionthatthefailuretoprovidemonetarysupportforthefourmonthspreceding  thepetitiontoterminateparentalrightsconstitutesabandonment,irrespectiveof  whetherthatfailurewasintentional,weholdthatthosedefinitionsareunconstitutional.  Thestatutorydefinitionssimplydonotallowforthetypeofindividualizeddecision d\ makingwhichmusttakeplacewhenafundamentalconstitutionalrightisatstake. 0 ( Therefore,theyimpermissiblyinfringeuponaparentsrighttothecareandcustodyof ! hisorherchildren. #   %"  Thefederalandstateconstitutionsrequiretheopportunityforanindividualized  determinationthataparentiseitherunfitorwillcausesubstantialharmtohisorher  childbeforethefundamentalrighttothecareandcustodyofthechildcanbetaken   away.Stanley,405U.S.at65859;Bond,896S.W.2dat548.AstheSupremeCourt l d notedinStanley,aprocedurewhichelevatesapresumptionoverarequirementof 80 proofofunfitnessmaybecheaperandeasiertoadministerthananindividualized   determination,butit needlesslyrisksrunningroughshodovertheimportantinterests   ofbothparentandchild.405U.S.at658.   XGXXXG WefurtherholdthatonlythatportionofthestatutecontainedatTennessee 4, CodeAnnotatedsection361102(1)(D),whichincludestheunconstitutional  definitions,isherebyinvalidated.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,weareableto  elidetheunconstitutionalportionofthestatute,andtheremainingprovisionsofthe  Actmaybeenforced.Ourlegislaturehasspecificallydeclaredthattheprovisionsof d\ theTennesseeCodeareseverable.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection13110 0 ( provides: ! 8 Itisherebydeclaredthatthesections,clauses,sentencesandpartsof %" theTennesseeCodeareseverable,arenotmattersofmutualessential z&r# inducement,andanyofthemshallbeexscindedifthecodewould `'X $ otherwisebeunconstitutionalorineffective.Ifanyone(1)ormore F(>!% sections,clauses,sentencesorpartsshallforanyreasonbequestioned ,)$"& inanycourt,andshallbeadjudgedunconstitutionalorinvalid,such * #' judgmentshallnotaffect,impairorinvalidatetheremainingprovisions *#( thereof,butshallbeconfinedinitsoperationtothespecificprovisionor +$) provisionssoheldunconstitutionalorinvalid,andtheinapplicabilityor ,%* invalidityofanysection,clause,sentenceorpartinanyone(1)ormore -&+ instancesshallnotbetakentoaffectorprejudiceinanywayits .', applicabilityorvalidityinanyotherinstance.v/n(- (# (# ̀Werecognizethatthelegislaturesendorsementofelisiondoesnotautomatically 3,1 makeitapplicabletoeverysituation;however,whenaconclusioncanbereachedthat 4-3 thelegislaturewouldhaveenactedtheactinquestionwiththeunconstitutionalportion 6/5 omitted,thenelisionoftheunconstitutionalportionisappropriate.SeeStatev.  Tester,879S.W.2d823,830(Tenn.1994);Statev.Murray,480S.W.2d355,35657  (Tenn.1972).    Inthiscase,theunconstitutionaldefinitionswerebutasmallpartofalargeact 80 overhaulingthisstatesadoptionlaws.SeeTenn.Pub.Acts,ch.532.ThisActwas   enactedafterextensivestudybytheCommissiontoStudytheAdoptionLawsofthe   StateofTennessee.SeeS.J.Res.17,98thGen.Assembly(1993).Giventhe   breadthandscopeoftheactandthefactthatthedefinitionsofabandonmentas h` relatedtofailuretosupportwerebutasmallportionoftheAct,itseemsapparentto 4, usthattheGeneralAssemblywouldhaveenactedtheActnotwithstandingthe  unconstitutionalsections.Wethereforedeterminethattheunconstitutionaldefinitions  areproperlyelided.#XGXXXGf#   SincetheCourtofAppealsappliedtheunconstitutionaldefinitionsin 0 ( XGXXXGTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection#XGXXXGј#361102(1)(D)todeterminethatMr.Swanson ! hadabandonedBrittany,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed.Until #  otherwiseamendedbyourlegislature,thedefinitionthatwasineffectunderpriorlaw %" shallbeapplied.  #  14      ׀XGXXXGLeechv.AmericanBooksellersAssnInc.,582S.W.2d738,740 `'X $ (Tenn.1979)(holdingthatpriorlawisinfullforceandeffectwhenanactisheld ,)$"& unconstitutional);seealsoStatev.Driver,598S.W.2d774,776(Tenn.1980).#XGXXXG#Ԁ *#(  Whentheappropriatestandardisappliedandthe+XzXXXGpresumptionofcorrectness .',  isgiventothecircuitcourtsfindingsoffact,seeTenn.R.App.P.13(d),itfollowsthat t0l). Brittanywasnotabandonedbyherfather.'  #  15      ׀WethereforeconcludethatMr.   SwansonsparentalrightstoBrittanyshouldnotbeterminated,andweremandthe  casetothetrialcourtforpreparationandimplementationofaplanreturningcustody   ofBrittanytoMr.Swanson.ThetrialcourtisdirectedtoprepareaplanforBrittanys   returnwhichwillminimizethetraumatothechildbyprovidingforhergradualreturn.  TheplanshallprovidethatshebereturnedtoMr.Swansonscustodynolaterthan h`  ninetydaysfromtheentryofthejudgmentinthiscase.#XGXX+Xzb#*XXXXG H@   #XGXX*Xi#7XzXXXGCostsofthisappealshallbepaid#XGXX7Xz͠#*XXXXGԀ#XGXX*X1#8XzXXXGbytheappellee,BaptistChildrensHome.     0      8     򀀀    0      8     WilliamM.Barker,Justice xp CONCUR: H!@ Anderson,C.J. (#  Drowota,Birch,Holder,JJ.