In Re H.A.L. - Concurring

Case Number
M2005-00045-COA-R3-PT

The opinion of the Court asserts:

The heightened burden of proof required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c)(1) requires us to adapt Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)’s customary standard of review for cases of this sort. First, we must review the trial court’s specific findings of fact de novo in accordance with Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). Thus, each of the trial court’s specific factual findings will be presumed to be correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Second, we must determine whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by the preponderance of the evidence, clearly and convincingly establish the elements required to terminate a biological parent’s parental rights. Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d at 838; In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548-49; In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d at 640; In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 654.

Authoring Judge
Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge
Judge Samuel E. Benningfield
Case Name
In Re H.A.L. - Concurring
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version
HALCON.pdf10.8 KB