Jason Baine v. Brenda Woods
W2016-00583-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- Parents had a permanent parenting plan (2007) designating Mother as primary residential parent; Father had 158 days of parenting time.
- In May 2013 DCS removed the child temporarily after an abuse report; a preliminary hearing returned custody to Mother under the existing plan.
- Father filed a petition (July 2013) to modify the parenting plan, alleging material changes (strained relationship with stepfather, removal of half-sister, interference with counseling, and restrictions on equine competition); he also sought temporary custody.
- Mother filed a response denying material change and counter-petitioned for contempt based on Father’s alleged plan violations.
- After multi-day hearings in 2014, the juvenile court (April 6, 2015) found no material change warranting a custody modification, denied Father’s temporary custody request, and denied Mother’s contempt petition.
- Father moved to amend the judgment to secure a schedule ensuring continued equine-competition participation; the motion was denied. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstance existed to modify primary residential parent | Father: Evidence at trial showed material changes (child’s strained relationship, removal of half-sister, counseling interference, limits on equine competition) supporting a change in primary custody | Mother: No material change occurred; existing plan should remain | Affirmed — appellant failed to provide transcript or statement of evidence; appellate court presumed trial court findings supported and found no reversible error |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by denying motion to alter or amend (equine-competition relief) | Father: Trial evidence required amendment to ensure child’s continued participation at prior competition level | Mother: Proposed relief would unreasonably restrict her parenting time and favor only equine activities | Affirmed — lack of record prevents meaningful review; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether appeal is frivolous and damages should be awarded | Father: Appeal challenges trial findings | Mother: Appeal is frivolous due to inadequate record and thus seeks damages under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 | Held frivolous — appellate court finds appeal "utterly devoid of merit" for failure to provide adequate record; remanded to juvenile court to fix damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for modification determinations)
- Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (definition of preponderance against a factual finding)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Darocha, 241 S.W.3d 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (presumption in favor of trial court findings when record is incomplete)
- In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for post-judgment motions)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Gulf Ins. Grp., 546 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn. 1977) (standard for awarding damages for frivolous appeals)
- Combustion Eng’g, Inc. v. Kennedy, 562 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1978) (what constitutes a frivolous appeal)
- Word v. Word, 937 S.W.2d 931 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (appellant’s duty to provide adequate appellate record)
- Reid v. Reid, 388 S.W.3d 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (pleadings/briefs do not substitute for transcript)
- Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (appeal without adequate record undermines ability to address issues)