Sonet v. Unknown Father

797 S.W.2d 1 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was approximately sixty-six years old when this saga began. The fourteen-year-old daughter of a man working for P gave birth to a son, Joseph. P persuaded the mother to surrender the child to her. P filed a petition for adoption in April of 1988. In January of 1989, Mr. Sonet was hospitalized for complications from a diabetic condition. His business had failed, and financial problems connected with that failure caused a strain on the party's relationship. P and the child lived in a home without electricity. P and the child had moved out of the home they had previously occupied. Department of Human Services had received five neglect referrals regarding the child. Two referrals alleged that Joseph was being neglected due to no electricity in the home among other concerns. On March 31, 1989, Joseph was removed from the custody of P. P had asked a stranger in the park to watch the child for her. Because of P's age, her out of state automobile registration, and the lack of any papers showing her right to custody of the child, the authorities were suspicious that the child was being kidnapped. Joseph was eventually placed in a foster home in Tennessee for about one month until custody was returned to P by court order on June 26, 1989. Experts determined that Joseph was environmentally deprived over a long period of time and that he was developmentally delayed as a result. At eighteen months, she found Joseph to have developed only to the extent of a thirteen-month-old. She advised against his being returned to the custody of P. There were both negative and positive comments from all the authorities involved. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial court dismissed the adoption petition and awarded custody of Joseph to the Tennessee Department of Human Services in order that Joseph be placed in a stable and permanent environment. The trial court found that due to the lack of P's parenting ability with no foreseeable improvement, her age and the child's failure to thrive, it is not in the best interest of Joseph to continue to live with or to be adopted by P. This appeal resulted.