660 S.W.3d 704
Tenn. Ct. App.2022Background
- Child (Houston D.) born in July 2014 while parents were unmarried; paternal grandparents had regular twice-weekly care/visitation from infancy until August 2018.
- Contacts declined after a family dispute involving the paternal uncle and his visiting partner; parents communicated that the child would not go to grandparents’ home and later limited in-person contacts.
- Grandparents filed a petition for grandparent visitation in February 2019; intermittent contact continued through 2019 but visits were further curtailed and then ended in July 2020.
- Juvenile court found the parents opposed or had severely reduced visitation, found a significant existing relationship, and concluded severance would likely cause severe emotional or substantial harm; it awarded specific visitation.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed (1) whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306(a) when the child was born out of wedlock but the parents later married, and (2) whether grandparents proved the requisite substantial or severe emotional harm; the appellate court reversed and dismissed for lack of proof of harm (while upholding juvenile-court jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (juvenile court under §36-6-306(a)) | §36-6-306(a) applies because the child was born out of wedlock; juvenile court is a proper forum. | Juvenile court should not retain jurisdiction once parents married; chancery/circuit could be proper fora. | Juvenile court had jurisdiction: statute’s plain language covers children "born out of wedlock," and subsequent parental marriage does not alter that jurisdictional fact. |
| Whether visitation was "opposed" or severely reduced under §36-6-306(a) | Parents had effectively opposed or reduced visitation (texts, refusal of requests, dramatic drop in visits) prior to the petition. | Parents contend they did not oppose visitation wholesale; some visits continued and limitations (e.g., restricting certain guests) were reasonable. | Court affirmed that parents opposed or severely reduced visitation based on communications and the practical reduction from regular twice-weekly visits to very limited contact before filing. |
| Whether grandparents proved danger of "substantial harm" or "severe emotional harm" under §36-6-306(b) | Loss of the existing significant relationship would likely occasion severe emotional or other substantial harm to the child. | Evidence did not show the child was suffering or likely to suffer severe emotional or substantial harm; parents’ decisions protected the child’s welfare. | Reversed: grandparents failed to prove by preponderance that severance/reduction would cause substantial or severe emotional harm; record lacked evidence of actual or likely severe impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Olson, 551 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2018) (explaining conflict between parental constitutional rights and grandparents’ statutory visitation claims)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (statutory construction principles and standards for appellate review)
- Smallwood v. Mann, 205 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2006) (discussing juvenile court jurisdiction under prior grandparent-visitation statute)
- Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (parents’ fundamental right to raise children and the substantial-harm requirement for state interference)
- McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (grandparents must prove substantial or severe emotional harm to justify intrusion into parental decision-making)
- In re D.Y.H., 226 S.W.3d 327 (Tenn. 2007) (juvenile courts are courts of limited, statutory jurisdiction)