Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on grounds of abandonment, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. Because the record on appeal contains no permanency plans that apply to the children at issue in this case, we reverse the substantial noncompliance with permanency plans ground for termination. We affirm the remaining grounds for termination, as well as the trial court’s best interest finding.

This is an appeal regarding the breach of a lease agreement between Mr. Cruz, the landlord, and Mr. Byrd, the tenant. Mr. Cruz initiated this action against Mr. Byrd because he did not pay any rent for the term of the lease. Mr. Byrd argued that he was not obligated to pay rent because the lease was rendered void and unenforceable upon discovery of a city ordinance that prohibited the intended use of the Property. We disagree. There was no evidence, and Mr. Byrd did not assert, that Mr. Cruz took any action that would violate the agreement; he was able to exercise his right to occupy the Property for the entire term of the lease. Therefore, the lease was enforceable. Furthermore, the lease provided Mr. Byrd a right to terminate if the designated use of the Property was prohibited by law; he did not invoke this remedy. Thus, Mr. Byrd was obligated to pay the rent owed under the lease. Finding no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

This appeal involves a long-running dispute among neighboring property owners over a parking easement near the Green Hills Mall that was formerly owned by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in connection with its operation of a public library. The chancery court declared that the plaintiff now owns fee simple title to its lots in addition to the easement appurtenant over the defendants’ lots for parking purposes. The defendants appeal. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

In this second interlocutory appeal in this case, the employee alleged she suffered injuries as a result of physical altercations occurring at work. Following the initial expedited hearing, the employer was ordered to provide psychiatric treatment recommended by the authorized physician and to pay additional temporary disability benefits. That order was appealed, and we affirmed. After the employer provided a panel of psychiatrists whose practices were not located in the employee’s community of residence, the employee declined to choose a physician from the panel and requested that the court order the employer to either provide a panel of psychiatrists within her community or appoint as the authorized provider the psychiatrist the employee had retained to provide an evaluation. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded the panel offered by the employer was invalid and mandated that the employer authorize the psychiatrist selected by the employee as the treating psychiatrist. The employer has appealed. We vacate the trial court’s decision designating the authorized psychiatrist and remand the case.

The Petitioner, Carlos D’Juan Campbell, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two convictions for attempted first degree murder and one conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, arguing (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the post-conviction court erred in allowing the State to present proof and argument at the post-conviction hearing after the State failed to file a written response to his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Daimeon Mosley appeals the dismissal of his suit against Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (“Kohl’s”) alleging its restrooms at two Michigan locations are inaccessible for persons who use wheelchairs. He brought this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”) requesting declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Kohl’s to bring its facilities into compliance. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. (“ADA”); 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. How and where to educate their children is one of the most important decisions parents face. But the state also has an interest in how and where to educate children. This case presents a conflict between those two interests. At this stage, we do not determine who is right. The question before us is about timing. D.T.’s parents asked for immediate relief but haven’t shown that their injury is imminent. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied them a preliminary injunction. We affirm.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Shaun Michael Vincent, of aggravated robbery after he brandished a baseball bat and took property from the victim, who was attempting to pay the Defendant’s girlfriend for sexual contact. The Defendant was sentenced to serve eleven years in confinement. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts that the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of the victim, excluding evidence implicating the victim in prior sexual misconduct, and excluding a video of the victim’s interactions with police.

Defendant, Norman Lee Follis, appeals his convictions of first degree murder and theft of property, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress his statement and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the first degree murder conviction. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress and the evidence was sufficient to support the first degree murder conviction, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Richard and Kimberly Gaetano trusted Gregory Goodman as their legal advisor and business partner in running a cannabis operation. That trust was spurned. The Gaetanos ended the relationship after ethics violations undid Goodman’s license to practice law. He retaliated by assisting the Internal Revenue Service in a tax audit against them. Concerned about what Goodman might reveal, the Gaetanos sued the government to prevent it from discussing attorney-client confidences with him.