Jade C. Nunnally v. Adam Nunnally, E2016-01414-COA-R3-CV

Background

Adam and Jade Nunnally married in 2013 and have one daughter (b. Apr. 2015); Wife filed for divorce in July 2015 shortly after the child’s birth.
Wife has a documented history of psychiatric hospitalizations and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with psychosis; medical testimony described ongoing diagnosis and historical noncompliance with medication.
During the marriage and after the child’s birth, text messages and trial testimony showed Wife’s frequent emotional outbursts, intermittent praise for Husband’s parenting, and contentious relationships with her parents.
Husband sought primary residential parent status and limited Wife’s parenting time to supervised visitation; Wife sought designation as primary parent and initially sought to bar Husband’s visitation.
Trial court designated Husband primary residential parent, awarded Wife regular unsupervised visitation (alternate weekends and certain Tuesdays), and set child support based on each party’s hourly rate; trial court emphasized Wife’s need to accept treatment.
On appeal, Wife challenged the custody designation; Husband appealed the lack of supervised visitation and the child-support income calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wife)	Defendant's Argument (Husband)	Held
Who should be primary residential parent?	Wife: trial court relied improperly on psychiatrist who hadn’t treated her in 3 years and lacked direct observation; Wife is fit to be primary parent.	Husband: Wife’s untreated bipolar with psychosis, emotional instability, and strained support system make Husband more suitable.	Affirmed: trial court’s credibility findings and §36-6-106 analysis support designating Husband primary residential parent.
Should visitation be supervised?	Wife: unsupervised visitation appropriate because she poses no danger and shows affection and care for the child.	Husband: Wife’s emotional instability and mental illness present risk; visitation should be supervised.	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to allow unsupervised visitation because no evidence of physical or emotional abuse and public policy favors the least restrictive plan.
How to calculate gross income for child support?	Wife: (implicit) use actual monthly income (including shift differential).	Husband: include commissions/bonuses and post-trial stipulation showing different incomes; contends trial court miscalculated.	Affirmed: trial court permissibly relied on hourly rates and hours testified at trial as most reliable evidence; post-trial stipulation filed after appeal not considered.
Was income imputation or post-trial stipulation reviewable?	Wife: N/A.	Husband: asked court to consider a post-trial stipulation and argue imputation to Wife based on prior full-time job.	Held: post-trial stipulation not considered because filed after trial court lost jurisdiction; imputation argument waived for failure to properly designate as an issue on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Luke v. Luke, 651 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. 1983) (child’s best interest is paramount in custody decisions)
Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (trial court’s credibility and discretionary custody findings entitled to deference)
Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review requires checking factual basis and legal application)
Melvin v. Melvin, 415 S.W.3d 847 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (public policy favors least restrictive visitation that preserves parent-child bond)
Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (child support reviewed under abuse-of-discretion; income findings are factual)
First Am. Trust Co. v. Franklin-Murray Dev. Co., L.P., 59 S.W.3d 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court loses jurisdiction once appeal is perfected)
Spence v. Allstate Ins. Co., 883 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1994) (same principle regarding trial court’s loss of authority after appeal)