Manning v. Manning, 474 S.W.3d 252

Paternal grandparents (Frank and Brenda Manning) petitioned for court-ordered visitation after their previously frequent overnight and daycare contact with their grandson mostly ceased in mid-2012. Petition filed October 18, 2013; trial April 4, 2014.
Mother (Amy Manning) and father divorced; father has criminal history and no visitation. Mother repeatedly limited or refused overnight/unsupervised visits and declined to list grandparents as school emergency contacts after a pickup miscommunication.
Grandparents asserted Mother opposed visitation and sought monthly overnight weekends and a five-day summer visit; Mother contended she offered supervised/daytime visits (parks/restaurants) and that grandparents declined.
Trial court concluded grandparents had a 12-month prior residence with the child, found "some deprivation" of visitation, applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-307 best-interest factors, and awarded limited visitation (one Friday evening per month and a five-day summer period).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded because the trial court failed to make specific findings whether Mother actually "opposed" visitation (the statutory threshold), and did not resolve the credibility conflict over whether Mother offered reasonable supervised visits that grandparents refused.

Issue	Grandparents' Argument	Mother's Argument	Held
Whether trial court should have dismissed petition because Mother did not oppose visitation	Mother opposed/denied visitation (statutory trigger met)	Mother placed reasonable limits and offered supervised/daytime visits; did not oppose all visitation	Vacated and remanded: trial court failed to make specific findings on whether Mother opposed visitation as required; credibility issue unresolved
Whether child resided with grandparents 12 consecutive months before cessation	Grandparents claimed 12-month residence entitling them to a rebuttable presumption of harm	Mother disputed some residence periods and relevance	Not reached on merits—pretermitted pending resolution of threshold opposition finding
Whether denial of visitation caused irreparable/substantial harm	Grandparents claimed cessation caused substantial harm and presumption applied	Mother testified child showed no adverse effects; child doing well	Not reached—trial court’s other findings deemed advisory until opposition resolved
Whether trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees on appeal	Both parties requested fees on appeal	Neither party provided adequate legal authority	Fee requests waived; appellate court declined to award fees

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (plurality opinion) (parents have fundamental right to make childrearing decisions; courts must give special weight to fit parents’ determinations)
Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (courts may not presume grandparent visitation benefits the child; parental rights are fundamental)
Smallwood v. Mann, 205 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2006) (grandparents must show harm if visitation denied; statutory prerequisites protect parental rights)
Spears v. Weatherall, 385 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (grandparent visitation statutes construed narrowly because they derogate parental constitutional rights)
Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417 (Tenn. 2011) (deference afforded trial court on witness credibility and factual findings)
In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for trial-court factual findings in civil cases)