Ferryl Theresita McClain v. Richard Perry McClain
539 S.W.3d 170
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2001; multiple modifications to parenting plan; father was primary residential parent under a 2015 permanent parenting plan (2015 PPP) giving mother 85 days/year and father decision-making authority.
- Mother filed emergency motions Oct 2015 alleging parental alienation and other violations; forensic psychologist Dr. Thomas Schacht was court-appointed and found severe parental alienation supported by father and paternal grandmother.
- After two bench trials (Oct 2015 and June 2016) the trial court awarded primary custody to mother, ordered the children and mother to participate in the Family Bridges workshop (a reunification intervention), and temporarily prohibited father from contacting the children pending progress; court ordered father to advance Family Bridges costs and awarded mother $20,000 in attorney’s fees (reduced from request) to offset costs.
- The trial court also found father in contempt and imposed an eight-day jail sentence suspended on condition of no further violations; father appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody modification and Family Bridges order, vacated the criminal-contempt portion of the contempt order because father lacked the Rule 42(b) notice required for criminal contempt, and remanded for reconsideration of attorney’s fees in light of the vacated contempt finding. Mother’s request for appellate fees was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClain) | Defendant's Argument (McClain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly modified custody without expressly finding a material change in circumstance | Mother: parental alienation reached crisis after 2015 PPP and justified modification | Father: trial court failed to make the threshold material-change finding and thus erred | Court: de novo review found material change (severe alienation culminating in hospitalizations) — error in failing to state it was harmless; modification affirmed |
| Whether trial court considered statutory best-interest and limiting factors properly | Mother: court and expert considered §36-6-106 factors and §36-6-406 concerns — alienation skewed some factors | Father: court over-relied on expert, ignored father’s primary-caregiver history, misweighed factors | Held: trial court adequately analyzed factors, gave weight to alienation evidence and credibility findings; decision affirmed |
| Whether ordering Family Bridges and allocating costs to father was proper | Mother: Family Bridges is a therapeutic reunification intervention; costs are appropriate health/mental-health expenses; father’s income supports allocation | Father: expert had not personally used Family Bridges; program characterized as “educational,” so costs aren’t health expenses; court abused discretion | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion; Family Bridges treated as therapeutic intervention and costs properly ordered; father’s advance payment credited against reduced fee award |
| Whether contempt findings and sanctions were proper, and whether father received adequate notice for criminal contempt | Mother: alleged willful violations warrant civil and criminal contempt and fees | Father: some contempt claims were civil and purgable; court imposed criminal punishment without Rule 42(b) notice | Held: trial court imposed criminal contempt (suspended jail) but failed to provide Rule 42(b) notice — criminal contempt vacated; remand to reevaluate attorney’s fees in light of vacated contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard and procedures for custody modification and residential schedule modifications)
- Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (threshold requirement of material change in circumstances before custody modification)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (standards for appellate review when trial court’s findings are insufficient)
- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt remedies)
- Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (weight afforded trial-court credibility findings on appeal)
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (de novo review standard for non-jury cases and appellate review principles)