Jonathan Harper v. Steve Harris, M2016-00564-COA-R3-JV

Lexi (b.2005) lived with maternal grandparents (Steve & Faith Harris) after parents moved out; grandparents obtained emergency temporary custody in Jan 2006 based on dependency/neglect findings.
A default judgment in Nov 2006 awarded permanent custody to grandparents after Father allegedly failed to answer and did not appear; Father did not appeal that order.
Father sought modifications repeatedly: a 2010 petition to change custody was denied for failure to show a material change; he did not appeal that denial.
In April 2015 Father filed a new petition seeking custody (claiming superior parental rights) or, alternatively, a parenting plan/visitation schedule; he did not allege a material change in circumstances.
Grandparents moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), asserting res judicata; the magistrate and juvenile court granted dismissal.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Father's custody claim but reversed dismissal of his request for visitation, remanding for further proceedings on visitation rights.

Issue	Father's Argument	Grandparents' Argument	Held
Whether Father can obtain custody based solely on superior parental rights despite the 2006 custody order	Father: He retained superior parental rights and the 2006 order was invalid (lack of proper notice / facial defects), so court should award custody now	Grandparents: Claim is barred by res judicata and prior 2010 judgment rejecting custody change	Held: Dismissed. Res judicata bars the custody claim because the issue was or could have been raised in the 2010 proceedings and that judgment was final
Whether Father is entitled to parenting time / reinstatement of visitation absent a material-change allegation	Father: Alternative request for a parenting plan/visitation; currently no enforceable schedule and visits are at grandparents’ discretion	Grandparents: Treat this as a modification of residential schedule requiring proof of a material change	Held: Reversed dismissal as to visitation. Non-custodial parent has a right to seek reasonable visitation and is entitled to a hearing

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizes parents’ fundamental right to custody of their children)
Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (sets exceptions where superior parental rights survive a nonparent custody order)
Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (nonparent must show substantial harm to award custody over a natural parent in initial disputes)
Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2012) (res judicata/claim-preclusion elements and use in Rule 12.02(6) context)
State ex rel. Cihlar v. Crawford, 39 S.W.3d 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (claim preclusion bars claims that were or could have been raised)
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (scope of Rule 12.02(6) motion — tests legal sufficiency of pleadings only)
Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002) (pleading construction rules for Rule 12.02 motions)
Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999) (complaint should not be dismissed unless no set of facts would warrant relief)
Hogue v. Hogue, 147 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (recognizes noncustodial parent’s right to reasonable visitation)