In Re Caleb F.
M2016-01584-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Father filed a petition (Dec. 2014) for civil contempt and modification of an agreed permanent parenting plan that had designated Mother primary residential parent (Mother 295 days/year; Father 70 days/year).
- Father alleged Mother interfered with his parenting time, limited telephone contact, demeaned him to the children, failed to notify him of medical events, and scheduled events on his visitation days.
- Mother denied the allegations, counter-petitioned for contempt, and sought supervised visitation alleging child abuse concerns (which were investigated and unsubstantiated, allowing Father to resume parenting time).
- Trial was held over three days; witnesses from Health Connect America described markedly worse child behavior in Mother’s care and recommended Mother mental-health evaluation, while a psychologist found Mother’s assessment normal and explained behavior differences as common.
- The juvenile court announced a modification increasing Father’s parenting time (to 120 days/year) and issued a May 4, 2016 “Final Order”; the court found children behaved differently with each parent but also found Mother’s parenting appropriate.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded because the juvenile court’s written order lacked adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; the May 4 order was not final for purposes of timeliness until later items were resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdiction of appeal | Father argued his appeal was timely or should relate back because May 4 order was final | Mother argued notice of appeal was untimely (May 4 final order) and limited in scope | Court held May 4 order was not a final judgment (unresolved counterclaims); notice treated as filed as of Nov. 23, 2016 after final disposition; appeal has jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of trial-court findings (Rule 52.01) | Father argued modification was warranted; asked for more parenting time (even equal time) | Mother argued evidence supported modification as entered and opposed relief on appeal | Court held juvenile court violated Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 by failing to make specific factual findings, statutory best-interest analysis, and credibility assessments; vacated and remanded |
| Whether modification was supported by record (material change / best interests) | Father argued Mother interfered with parenting time and other conduct constituted material change; sought increased time | Mother denied interference and contended parenting was appropriate; pointed to trial evidence supporting plan | Court declined to resolve on merits because written findings were insufficient to determine whether court applied correct legal standards or abused discretion; remanded for a written order explaining the basis for modification |
| Award of appellate attorney’s fees | Mother requested fees as prevailing party | Father opposed | Court declined to award fees given vacatur and remand; declined to find Mother prevailing on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2009) (final-judgment rule and effect on appellate jurisdiction)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate review requires trial court findings sufficient to show reasoning)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standards)