Joseph Martin Colley v. Alisha Dale McBee
M2014-02296-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2006; Mother was primary residential parent for their child (born 2003). Mother moved to Maryland in 2008 and parties entered an agreed amended parenting plan leaving Mother primary but granting Father summer, some holiday, and travel-contingent parenting time.
- From 2010–2013 the child experienced serious, chronic mental-health problems (diagnoses including mood disorder/DMDD, ADHD, autism-spectrum disorder) with multiple hospitalizations and long residential treatment stays at St. Vincent’s Villa in Maryland.
- Father petitioned in 2012 to modify the parenting plan and be named primary residential parent, alleging Mother failed to notify him of hospitalizations, withheld medical information, and was otherwise unfit. Father proposed swapping primary custody to him.
- At hearing, medical witnesses (psychiatrist and therapists) testified the child remained in residential treatment and still required the structured, continuous care and local providers in Maryland; Mother had been the primary caregiver managing treatment.
- Trial court found a material change of circumstances (child’s serious mental-health needs) but, after applying Tennessee’s best-interest factors, held it was in the child’s best interest to remain with Mother and continue treatment in Maryland; denied contempt claim against Mother; awarded Mother $7,000 in attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Colley) | Defendant's Argument (McBee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary residential parent should be changed | Child’s needs could be met by Father; Father more stable and able to parent; factors 1 & 5 favor Father | Mother was primary caregiver managing child’s treatment; continuity of care in Maryland is critical | Material change found, but best-interest factors favor Mother; primary residential parent unchanged |
| Whether Mother should be held in contempt for failing to notify/permit visitation | Mother willfully withheld hospitalization and blocked Father’s parenting time, violating the plan | Actions were due to medical necessity and hospital restrictions, not willful disobedience | No contempt: trial court found Mother’s conduct based on medical necessity, not willfulness |
| Whether trial court misweighed best-interest factors (including stability, caregiver role, siblings, parental fitness) | Several factors (including parental fitness, sibling interactions) weigh for Father | Evidence shows Mother more attuned to child’s emotional/developmental needs; continuity and treatment support Mother | Court appropriately weighed factors; evidence does not preponderate against findings favoring Mother |
| Whether attorney’s fees award to Mother was improper | Father argued award was erroneous | Mother prevailed and sought fees; trial court found Mother had financial need and Father ability to pay; awarded reduced fees for litigation conduct | Fee award affirmed as within trial court discretion under Tennessee law |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standards for modification of custody and review scope)
- Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (two-step analysis: material change then best interest)
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (elements and willfulness standard for contempt)
- Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2005) (attorney’s-fee awards and appellate review of fee decisions)
- Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (policy supporting fee awards against party who precipitates unwarranted custody proceedings)