McGarity v. Jerrolds
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 552
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Mother and adoptive father Jerrolds (the Appellants) are the child's biological mother and adoptive father; the child was adopted by Jerrolds after his biological father relinquished rights.
- Paternal grandparents McGaritys petitioned for grandparent visitation; trial court awarded limited visitation after finding a likelihood of substantial harm if visitation ceased.
- Parties stipulated the Grandparents had a substantial existing relationship with the child, including regular babysitting and weekend care prior to cessation of visitation.
- Visitation had been terminated on February 1, 2012, with Grandparents receiving limited visits thereafter; the trial court adopted the Grandparents' findings of fact and conclusions of law in full.
- Appellants challenged evidentiary rulings, the court’s adoption of party-prepared findings, and the legality/appropriateness of grandparent visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Statute.
- The appellate court affirmed on evidentiary/procedural issues but reversed the findings of substantial/severe harm and vacated the visitation award, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of photos and video | Jerrolds argues trial court erred in admitting images despite stipulation. | McGarity argues admissibility is appropriate for evidence of relationship. | Waived; no contemporaneous objection to admission. |
| Trial court adopting party-prepared findings | Jerrolds contends court relied on Grandparents' proposed findings without independent review. | McGarity argues the court properly reviewed and adopted the applicable findings. | Not reversible error; court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Constitutional rights of parents vs. grandparent visitation | Jerrolds asserts Grandparent Visitation infringes parental rights absent harm. | McGarity contends statute properly allows visitation upon showing harm to the child. | Grandparents failed to prove danger of substantial harm; visitation reversed. |
| Threshold harm under §36-6-306(b)(1) | Jerrolds asserts there was substantial/severe harm evidence supporting visitation. | McGarity argues evidence supports substantial harm due to loss of relationship. | Evidence insufficient to show substantial or severe harm; reversed the visitation award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (recognizes parental rights and limits state interference; requires harm threshold)
- Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (defines substantial harm standard for grandparent visitation threshold)
- Keenan v. Dawson, 739 N.W.2d 681 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (upholds visitation where loss of memory/heritage harms child; relevance to threshold harm)
- Mizrahi v. Cannon, 867 A.2d 490 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (harm to child must be identifiable and specific rather than generic)
- Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (defined substantial harm; cited in analysis of threshold burden)