In re Emily N.I.

11 Citing cases

  1. In re Avalee W.

    No. E2023-00977-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2024)

    See Inre Zakary O., No. E2022-01062-COA-R3-PT, 2023 WL 5215385, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2023) (recognizing that an improvement in compliance should be considered in a parent's favor but holding that the mother's efforts at completing permanency plan requirements after the petition for termination was filed were "too little, too late"); In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) ("We believe that the [p]arents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late' ...."). Therefore, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence supporting this ground for termination.

  2. In re Zakary O.

    No. E2022-01062-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2023)   Cited 13 times

    Although Mother has recently begun to make progress on the requirements, Mother's efforts are 'too little, too late.'"); In re Maya R., No. E2017-01634-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 1629930, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018) ("[A]lthough Mother completed some of the requirements of the permanency plan by the time of trial, the proof showed that she made no real effort at compliance until after DCS filed the petition to terminate."); In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 ("We believe that the [p]arents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late.'" (citing In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003))).

  3. In re Kailyn B.

    No. E2021-00809-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Finding factor to weigh against termination when no proof was presented regarding the parent's mental health, despite the trial court's finding that the factor was inapplicable

    We have held in similar circumstances that such effort is simply "too little, too late." See In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) (explaining that the parents' "refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late'" given the length of time the child had been removed from the parents' custody); In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that the mother's improvement only a few months prior to trial was "[t]oo little, too late").

  4. In re Kayden A.

    No. W2020-00650-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Her participation in services at the prison began the same month of trial, not in the two years she had been incarcerated and not before the filing of the termination petition a year prior. Cf. In re Madux F., No. E2019-01535-COA-R3-PT, 2020 WL 1893646, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020) (affirming ground where mother entered rehabilitation shortly before trial); In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) ("We believe that the Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late.'") (citing In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). The record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings, and we conclude that the court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights on the ground of failure to substantially comply with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plans.

  5. In re Malik G.

    No. E2019-01040-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In another parental rights termination case, this Court stated: "[T]he Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late' . . ." In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) (quoting In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). Mother offered no reason other than her anger, which we find less than compelling, as to why she waited until after the petition was filed to get moving in earnest on her permanency plan responsibilities.

  6. In re Serenity W.

    No. E2018-00460-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019)

    See e.g., In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) ("We believe that the Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed ... was simply '[t]oo little, too late'" given the length of time the child had been removed from the parents' custody.) (quoting In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 54647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (indicating that mother's efforts after the filing of the termination petition constituted improvement, but ultimately holding that such improvement was "[t]oo little, too late")); see also In re Jada T.L.P., No. E2011-00291-COA-R3-PT, 2011 WL 3654486, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2011) (holding that mother's submission to drug tests after the filing of the termination petition was "too little, too late").

  7. In re McKenzie O.

    No. E2017-00956-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 5, 2018)

    We have previously recognized that a parent's efforts to comply with a permanency plan after the filing of a petition to terminate can be "too little, too late." In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that, although the mother's condition improved upon taking medication for her mental health issues, her efforts came "too little, too late" because she refused to take the medication until two months before trial); see also In reMalaya B., No. E2015-01880-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 3083045, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016) (holding that the mother's efforts to comply with the permanency plan were "too little, too late" because she only made efforts to address her mental health issues after the filing of the termination petition); In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) (holding that "the Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late . . . .'"). Moreover, following completion of the alcohol and drug treatment program, Mother failed to comply with DCS's efforts to monitor her sobriety by refusing requests that she submit to drug screens and a hair follicle test.

  8. In re Maya R.

    No. E2017-01634-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018)   Cited 151 times
    Upholding the termination of mother's parental rights for failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody where mother's living situation remained unstable and itinerant

    We have previously recognized that a parent's efforts to comply with a permanency plan after the filing of a petition to terminate can be "too little, too late." In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that, although the mother's condition improved upon taking medication for her mental health issues, her efforts came "too little, too late" because she refused to take the medication until two months before trial); see also In re Malaya B., No. E2015-01880-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 3083045, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016) (holding that the mother's efforts to comply with the permanency plan were "too little, too late" because she only made efforts to address her mental health issues after the filing of the termination petition); In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) (holding that "the Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply '[t]oo little, too late.'"). Here, although Mother completed some of the requirements of the permanency plan by the time of trial, the proof showed that she made no real effort at compliance until after DCS filed the petition to terminate.

  9. In re Tristan B.

    No. E2015-01993-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 2, 2016)

    We have held in similar circumstances that such effort is simply "too little, too late." See In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810, at *16 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) ("We believe that the Parents' refusal to complete a number of the requirements until after the termination petition was filed . . . was simply „[t]oo little, too late'" given the length of time the child had been removed from the parents' custody.) (quoting In re A.W., 114 S.W.3d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (indicating that mother's efforts after the filing of the termination petition constituted improvement, but ultimately holding that such improvement was "[t]oo little, too late")); see also In re Jada T.L.P., No. E2011-00291-COA-R3-PT, 2011 WL 3654486, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2011) (holding that mother's submission to drug tests after the filing of the termination petition was "too little, too late").

  10. In re Michaela V.

    No. E2013-00500-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that a parent is not excused from paying child support based on the absence of a court order requiring such payment

    State, Dep't of Children's Servs. v. Culbertson, 152 S.W.3d 513, 523-24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); see, e.g., In re Emily N.I., No. E2011-01439-COA-R3-PT, 2012 WL 1940810 at *13 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) (concluding that the father's reliance "on the fact that he was not specifically ordered by the court to remit child support" until a month prior to filing of the petition for termination was erroneous in light of his presumed knowledge of the obligation). Father's reliance on In re J.J.C. is misplaced.