Nathan Z. Vinson v. Kristin Denise Ball
E2015-01856-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Two minor children born to Father (Nathan Vinson) and Mother (Kristin Ball). A 2010 parentage order named Mother primary residential parent and granted Father visitation; the order reserved child support and directed Father to change children’s surnames to Vinson.
- Over the next years the children lived primarily with Mother’s father (Grandfather, Richard Smith); Mother admitted financial inability to care for them and Grandfather provided day-to-day care. Father intermittently visited, later lived in Louisiana and worked on an oil rig with alternating two-week shifts.
- Father filed to modify custody in July 2014 seeking to be primary residential parent; Mother and Grandfather opposed and Grandfather moved to intervene and sought custody.
- Trial court allowed Grandfather to intervene, found a material change in circumstance, and—after later amendment alleging substantial harm—awarded primary custody to Grandfather, denied retroactive child support, and declined to change the children’s surnames back to Vinson.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the custody award to Grandfather (a non‑parent), holding Grandfather had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that placing the children with Father would pose a risk of substantial harm; remanded for a hearing on whether a material change in circumstance exists between Mother and Father and for reconsideration of the name-change issue; affirmed denial of retroactive support to Grandfather.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother/Grandfather’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by permitting Grandfather to intervene | Intervention improper; custody contest should be between parents only | Grandfather had cared for children for years and alleged parents failed to support; permissive intervention appropriate | Trial court did not abuse discretion permitting intervention (permissive intervention allowed) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion awarding custody to Grandfather absent finding of substantial harm to children in Father’s care | Grandfather failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s custody would subject children to substantial harm; custody should not go to non‑parent | Father failed to support children and works away from home; longevity/stability of Grandfather’s care supports transfer; amendment pleaded substantial harm | Reversed: no clear and convincing evidence of substantial harm; custody award to Grandfather vacated; remanded to determine whether material change in circumstance occurred between parents and, if so, best interests analysis between Mother and Father |
| Whether trial court erred refusing to change children’s surnames (contrary to 2010 order) | 2010 order required name change; collateral estoppel/previous order controls | Children have used surname Smith for years; best interest may counsel keeping Smith | Trial court’s surname ruling vacated and remanded for reconsideration of surname change under best‑interest analysis (2010 order not final; collateral estoppel inapplicable) |
| Whether trial court erred by denying retroactive child support to Grandfather | Grandfather sought retroactive support for support he provided while caring for children | Father had not been ordered to pay support previously; court reserved child support in 2010 order | Affirmed: appellate court affirmed trial court’s denial of retroactive child support to Grandfather (inappropriate given reversal of custody award) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002) (non‑parent cannot obtain custody from a parent absent a finding of substantial harm)
- Elmore v. Elmore, 173 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (grandparents seeking custody must show substantial harm by clear and convincing evidence)
- Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (analysis of substantial‑harm standard and focus on present fitness over past misconduct)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for modification of custody between parents: material change in circumstance by preponderance)
- Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate standard of review for bench trials)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for family law determinations)