Gregory Charles Hoppe v. Susan Lynn Hoppe, M2020-00331-COA-R3-CV

Background

Father (Gregory Hoppe) and Mother (Susan Hoppe) divorced after repeated allegations by Mother that Father sexually abused their children; multiple DCS and professional investigations found the allegations unfounded.
The 2016 Permanent Parenting Plan awarded Father primary residence but required Mother to continue psychiatric treatment and required counseling for the son (OH) with limits on investigating prior abuse claims.
Mother repeatedly failed to comply with the Plan’s treatment-coordination provisions and continued making abuse allegations, prompting multiple temporary suspensions and ultimately a year of heavily restricted supervised visitation.
In Nov. 2018 Mother made a recorded child disclosure that led to another DCS investigation (again unfounded); Father filed to modify the Plan to require indefinite supervised visitation.
At the Jan. 2020 final hearing the trial court credited Mother’s treating psychologist (Dr. McMillan) as showing improvement, found no material change in circumstance as of trial, restored unsupervised visitation, ordered continued therapy for Mother (but not properly for OH), and denied Mother’s request for attorney fees.
The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Father’s modification petition, vacated the order requiring OH to continue with a specific therapist (not properly before the court), and affirmed denial of Mother’s attorney-fee request.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s repeated accusations and Plan violations constituted a material change to require supervised visitation	Repeated, unfounded allegations and failures to follow the Plan are a material change warranting indefinite supervised visitation	Violations were technical/harmless; trial evidence showed improvement so no material change at time of trial	Affirmed: evidence did not preponderate against trial court’s finding that no material change existed as of trial; visitation restored
Whether the court erred by ordering Mother to continue therapy and ordering OH to continue with Dr. Berryman	Court may order therapy as protective measure	Mother must follow Plan but therapist selection and additional child therapy required proper request and best-interest analysis	Affirmed as to Mother continuing with Dr. McMillan; vacated order requiring OH to continue with Dr. Berryman (issue not properly before court)
Whether Mother was entitled to attorney’s fees under Tenn. Code § 36-5-103(c) or the MDA	Father sought temporary and then indefinite restrictions; litigation altered legal relations so Mother not prevailing	Mother claimed she prevailed because restrictions were ultimately lifted	Affirmed denial: Mother was not the prevailing/successful party given relief Father obtained (temporary restrictions and monetary recovery)
Whether trial court properly voided earlier restraining orders and treated Mother’s allegations as made in good faith	Father argued earlier orders should stand and suspension was justified	Mother argued allegations were in good faith and protected by statute	Trial court found earlier temporary orders void for lack of required findings; appellate challenge rejected as without merit regarding court’s authority to set them aside in context of final judgment (mootness noted for some challenges)

Key Cases Cited

Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for material change and parenting-plan modification)
Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (unfounded parental accusations can be material change)
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (amendment making material-change test easier for residential schedule modifications)
Culbertson v. Culbertson, 455 S.W.3d 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (supervision intended to continue only while reasonably needed)
Fannon v. City of LaFollette, 329 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. 2010) (prevailing-party analysis when litigation alters legal relationships)
Estate of Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (standard for appellate review of discretionary decisions)