Lorna Mae Gibson v. Charles William Bikas
556 S.W.3d 796
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 Ms. Gibson obtained an order of protection (2015 OP) against her brother‑in‑law, Charles Bikas, that prohibited contact with her and her two minor daughters; that order expired May 19, 2016.
- After the 2015 OP lapsed, Gibson alleged Bikas continued stalking/harassing conduct and threatened to pursue custody of the children; she filed a new petition for a one‑year no‑contact order on March 24, 2017.
- The trial court entered an ex parte order for Gibson but initially denied ex parte relief for the children pending a hearing, questioning Gibson’s standing because she lacked current custody.
- At a bench trial (April 10, 2017) testimony included Gibson’s allegations, and a school speech‑language pathologist (who later fostered the older child) described sexually reactive behavior and statements by the child implicating Bikas.
- The trial court found Gibson and the witness credible, found Bikas not credible, concluded Bikas posed a present danger to Gibson and the children, granted a one‑year no‑contact order (2017 OP) including the children, and awarded Gibson attorney’s fees; Bikas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek protection for children | Gibson: as a parent she may petition under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑3‑602(b) even without current custody | Bikas: Gibson lacked legal/physical custody so lacked standing | Court: Gibson has standing under §36‑3‑602(b); parent need not have custody to sign petition |
| Double jeopardy / reuse of prior facts | Gibson: civil protective action not criminal; prior facts relevant background | Bikas: revisiting 2015 conduct places him in double jeopardy / prior order bars relief | Court: Double jeopardy inapplicable to civil protective orders; prior events relevant to present risk |
| Evidentiary standard / sufficiency | Gibson: preponderance of evidence supports extension; witnesses credible | Bikas: Gibson failed to meet required standard; evidence insufficient and credibility findings improper | Court: Preponderance standard applies; record supports findings of stalking, threats, and sexual abuse; evidence does not preponderate against trial court |
| Judicial bias / recusal | Gibson: N/A (respondent raised) | Bikas: trial judge was biased and should be recused; rulings show hostility | Court: Issue not preserved (no timely recusal motion); no extrajudicial basis shown; adverse rulings alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (standard of appellate review for non‑jury cases)
- Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. 1998) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417 (Tenn. 2011) (trial court credibility findings afforded great weight)
- Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney’s fees awards)
- Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (discretionary nature of awarding fees on appeal)