Monica Chamberlain v. Myra Danielle Brown
E2015-01658-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Monica Chamberlain, paternal grandmother) filed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306 seeking grandparent visitation with her grandson, Talan B.; the child lived with Grandmother for over 2½ years after birth.
- Child was removed in 2012 after parents’ arrests and placed with maternal grandparents; Grandmother was granted and exercised court-ordered visitation while the child was in maternal custody.
- Mother regained custody in autumn 2013; initial visits with Grandmother occurred but contact thereafter ceased and Grandmother alleges Mother ignored texts and effectively denied visitation.
- Trial court found (1) the child had lived with Grandmother for more than 12 months (triggering the statutory rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm), (2) a significant existing relationship existed, (3) Mother had effectively denied visitation (relationship severed), and (4) grandparent visitation was in the child’s best interest.
- Trial court awarded reasonable grandparent visitation (one weekend per month requested); Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Chamberlain's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory rebuttable presumption (denial may cause irreparable harm) arose | Child lived in Grandma’s home >12 months and was removed by parents → presumption applies | Grandmother wasn’t sole/primary caregiver; presumption shouldn’t apply when parents also lived in grandparent’s home | Presumption arose under §36-6-306(a)(5); Mother failed to rebut it |
| Whether a “significant existing relationship” existed such that loss likely causes severe emotional harm | Child resided with Grandmother >6 months and had frequent visitation ≥1 year → significant relationship | Disputes scope/quality of caregiving; argues not primary caregiver | Court found statutory factors met; loss likely to cause severe emotional harm |
| Whether relationship was severed/visitation denied | Mother ceased responding to texts and effectively prevented visits → relationship severed | Mother contends she did not affirmatively deny visitation and had safety/behavioral concerns (father’s presence, childcare employment issues) | Court found Mother denied visitation by ignoring/avoiding communications; severance established |
| Whether awarding visitation is in child’s best interest | Visitation maintains emotional ties, prior bond, and lack of ongoing parental unfitness findings; reasonable visitation appropriate | Mother argued safety/behavioral concerns and potential interference with parent-child relationship | Trial court applied §36-6-307 factors and found visitation in child’s best interest; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (explains the three‑pronged analysis for grandparent visitation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑6‑306)
- Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for trial court findings of fact on appeal)
- S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2001) (legal conclusions are reviewed de novo without a presumption of correctness)