tal rights, the trial
court called attention to its earlier finding that Mother had committed severe child abuse against


                                                -7-
Tyrone Jr. That finding, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, is also
relevant in the best-interest analysis. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)(6).

        Mother argues that the trial court “hardly carried the day on best interests of the children,
much less by clear and convincing evidence.” We disagree. There is ample evidence in the record
to support the trial court’s findings. Certainly the history of child abuse in Mother’s household
would raise concerns about the health of these children, should they be returned to Mother. There
was also a history of domestic violence between Mother and her partners. Mother testified that she
had been in three abusive relationships in her lifetime, one of which is with her current husband,
Tyrone Sr., who is also the father of three of the children at issue in this case. Mother was diagnosed
with personality disorders by two mental health professionals, and the court stated that it witnessed
symptoms of Mother’s antisocial personality disorder while she was testifying. Furthermore, there
is evidence that Mother’s parenting ability will be impaired because of her mental health condition.

        Three case managers from DCS testified that they would not recommend that Mother be
allowed to have custody of her children. They described her temper tantrums during visits with her
children and a general uncooperative attitude when she interacted with DCS employees. In fact,
Mother’s behavior during visits was so extreme and so upsetting to her children that the court
terminated her visitation. Mother was also uncooperative during her parenting assessment and did
not complete the counseling that was required as part of her permanency plan. She failed to pay
child support and testified that she does not want to get a job because she is trying to get disability
payments.