Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to two minor children. The trial court found as grounds for termination: (1) abandonment by failure to support, (2) abandonment by failure to visit, and (3) a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. We affirm as to the finding of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit. Because the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient findings of fact, we vacate the trial court’s findings that the father failed to manifest a willingness and ability to parent. We also reverse the trial court’s use of the outdated best interest factors and vacate the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

This action involves various requests directed to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) for the release of records, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”), related to a school shooting that occurred at a private school in Nashville. Before making a determination concerning release of the records, the trial court allowed certain interested parties to intervene in the action pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.02. The parties requesting the records have appealed that ruling pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.05.1 Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee disputes the trial court’s denial of his request for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses and payment of temporary disability benefits. The employee reported an injury to his back and abdomen while stacking generators at work, and the employer provided a panel of physicians and medical treatment. Meanwhile, the employee also received unauthorized treatment with two other providers and underwent hernia surgery without advising the employer. Subsequently, he sought workers’ compensation benefits, including past medical expenses and temporary disability benefits. During discovery, the employee did not provide the names of his unauthorized providers in his written interrogatory responses or produce medical records in response to requests for production of documents. At an expedited hearing, the employer objected to the introduction of any medical records or medical bills. The court sustained the objection and determined the employee had not presented sufficient evidence that he was likely to prevail at trial in proving his entitlement to past medical expenses or temporary disability benefits. However, the trial court found the employee was entitled to ongoing authorized medical treatment for injuries causally related to the reported work accident. The employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the court’s decision, find the employee’s appeal to be frivolous, and remand the case.

This appeal arises out of an incident where the plaintiff fell off a staircase and sustained injuries. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants, who owned the building, alleging negligence and negligence per se based on a violation of a building code. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

The Defendant, Christopher Guy, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective sixyear probationary sentence for his convictions for two counts of misdemeanor domestic assault and one count of felony vandalism. The Defendant argues that (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because he had completed his probationary period by the time the revocation warrant was filed and (2) the revocation warrant should have been dismissed due to law enforcement’s failure to preserve evidence. The Defendant also contends that he should have been granted an appellate bond during the pendency of the appeal. The State responds that we should affirm the trial court’s revocation order and that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on his appellate bond issue. Following our review, we determine that the Defendant had completed the probationary periods on his misdemeanor domestic assault convictions before the issuance of the revocation warrant but that the revocation warrant was timely as to the probation for his felony vandalism conviction. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for entry of an amended probation revocation order and a corrected judgment for the Defendant’s felony vandalism conviction in accordance with this opinion.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. California Palms Addiction Recovery Campus was established to help people get a fresh start. When it filed for bankruptcy, California Palms hoped for a fresh start of its own. But the bankruptcy court determined that California Palms couldn’t financially rehabilitate, so it converted the proceedings from chapter 11 bankruptcy to chapter 7. We affirm.

The plaintiff underwent surgery for a severe head injury. Due to various complications and infections, he required multiple follow-up procedures and treatments. The plaintiff filed medical malpractice claims against the hospital and doctors involved in his treatment over the course of an approximately five-month time period. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The trial court found that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit more than one year after his cause of action had accrued and that he was not entitled to an extension of the statute of limitations. It therefore dismissed the entire lawsuit. We conclude that the trial court did not err in its determination of the accrual date for the plaintiff’s cause of action as to his initial medical treatment; accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action as to allegations of medical malpractice as it relates to the plaintiff’s initial treatment. We reverse, however, the dismissal insofar as it extends to later alleged incidents of malpractice, as they fell within the statute of limitations.

Priscilla Smith filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”) against multiple neighbors, including Michael and Sharon Berry. She sought access to her property by way of an undeveloped road called Hyder Lane. The Berrys’ garage was on the undeveloped road. After trial, the Trial Court determined that Hyder Lane was a public road and ordered the garage to be removed and the road opened for Ms. Smith’s use and access to her property. The Berrys appealed. Having concluded that certain indispensable parties were never joined to the action, we vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for the joinder of these indispensable parties.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Yun Zheng and Yan Qiu Wu on four counts of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(A)(v)(II).1 Zheng and Wu now appeal, challenging the district court’s jury instructions. Specifically, they argue that the district court: (1) erred in instructing the jury on the meaning of “harboring” by not including a requirement that Zheng and Wu had acted intentionally and knowingly in shielding the illegal noncitizens from law enforcement; and (2) invaded the province of the jury by giving examples of “harboring” in the jury instructions. Finding no error, we affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. In 2009, Clarence Goodwin received a 262-month sentence—one at the bottom of his guidelines range—for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. The First Step Act of 2018 allowed defendants like Goodwin to seek a lower sentence based on changes to the sentencing laws that occurred after their offense. But the district court denied Goodwin’s motion for a reduced sentence primarily because his guidelines range remained the same even after considering these retroactive statutory changes. Goodwin now argues that the district court committed a procedural error by denying relief in a cursory order. He also argues that it committed a substantive error because his rehabilitation efforts (when combined with other legal changes) required the court to issue a below-guidelines sentence. Disagreeing on both fronts, we affirm.