Neal Lovlace v. Timothy Kevin Copley
2013 Tenn. LEXIS 718
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Grandparent Lovlace petitioned for visitation under Tenn. Grandparent Visitation Statute after earlier Agreed Order (2006) awarded limited monthly visitation.
- Copleys opposed and later sought termination of Lovlace visitation; subsequent petitions sought modification and contempt for alleged violations.
- Adoption of the minor child by Mr. Copley (2009) raised questions about whether Lovlace rights persisted; Lewis County Final Order of Adoption reserved Lovlace visitation rights.
- Hickman County trial court held a final hearing (2010) and entered January 5, 2011 order modifying visitation and holding Copley in contempt to support attorney’s fees; fees were later reduced on appeal.
- Court of Appeals vacated the contempt and visitation rulings; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to determine appropriate burdens and standards for modification/termination of grandparent visitation and related issues.
- Court reinstates trial court’s visitation modification, vacates contempt findings, and remands on fee issues, applying parent-vs-parent modification standards and recognizing standing under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden and standard for modification of grandparent visitation | Lovlace seeks modification under parent-vs-parent standard | Copleys urge Court to follow Court of Appeals’ mixed standards | Standards same as parent-vs-parent: require material change and best interests (preponderance) |
| Standing of Lovlaces under Grandparent Visitation Statute | Lovlaces qualify as grandparent under §36-6-306(e) | Lovlaces lack biology/step-parent relation, thus not covered | Lovlaces have standing; court had subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Effect of Adoption Statute on grandparent visitation | Adoption does not terminate Lovlaces’ rights;reservation valid | Adoption Statute voids visitation rights upon adoption | Adoption statute’s exception for stepparent adoption controls; Lovlaces’ rights preserved |
| Presumption of parental rights in modification/termination | No rebuttable presumption in modification | Presumption of parental rights should apply | Constitution does not grant presumption of superior parental rights in modification/termination; standard same as Blair v. Badenhope |
| Contempt findings and Rule 52.01 requirements | Trial court adequately found willful contempt and ordered fees | Findings were insufficiently specific; fees misapportioned | Contempt findings vacated for lack of specific factual findings; remand avoided; fees outcome adjusted by Rule 36(a) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (initial substantial-harm requirement for grandparent visitation)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental decision given due weight; due process restraints on nonparent visitation statutes)
- Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002) (modification standard: material change in circumstances; no superior parental rights presumption in modification)