Christopher Brian Minnich v. Nancy Graves Roberson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided June 4, 1997·No. 03A01-9612-CV-00384·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED June 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk CHRI STOPHER BRI AN M NNI CH, I ) KNOX CI RCUI T ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9612- CV- 00384 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. BI LL SWANN ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) NANCY GRAVES ROBERSON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

J EAN MUNROE a nd LAURA RULE HENDRI CKS, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt .

SCHARLETT A. BEATY, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l e e

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur

Thi s is an a ppe a l f r om t he j udgme nt of t he t r i al c our t

g r a n t i ng j oi nt c us t ody of t he pa r t i e s ' mi nor c hi l dr e n to t he p a r t i e s , wi t h t he hus ba nd ha vi ng pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody. Fo r

r e a s o n s he r e i na f t e r s t a t e d, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l

c our t .

PROCEDURAL HI STORY

The or i gi na l di vor c e c ompl a i nt wa s f i l e d i n t hi s case on

Fe b r u a r y 23, 1994. An a ns we r a nd c ount e r - c ompl a i nt we r e f i l e d o n

J u n e 2 , 1994. An a ns we r wa s f i l e d t o t he c ount e r - c ompl a i nt on J u n e

13, 1 99 4 . On De c e mbe r 12, 1994, an a gr e e d or de r wa s f i l ed

d i s p o s i ng of t he pa r t i e s ' ma r i t a l a s s e t s . On J a nua r y 20, 1995, t he

wi f e f i l e d a mo t i on a s ki n g t he c our t t o s et c hi l d a nd s pou s a l

s uppor t pe ndi ng f i na l di s pos i t i on of t he c a s e . On Fe br ua r y 2 4 ,

1995, a n o r de r wa s e nt e r e d r e f l e c t i ng t ha t a pr e t r i a l c o nf e r e nc e

wa s h e l d. At t he pr e t r i a l c onf e r e nc e , t he t r i a l wa s s c he dul e d f o r

Fe b r u a r y 13, 1995. The pr e - t r i a l or de r r e c i t e d t ha t :

3. The p a r t i e s s t i pul a t e d t ha t t he y s ha l l ha ve j oi nt l e ga l c us t ody of t he i r t hr e e mi nor c hi l dr e n, wi t h t he hus ba nd ha vi ng c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me wi t h t he c hi l dr e n i n e xc e s s o f t ha t whi c h i s nor ma l l y c on- t e mpl a t e d by t he gui de l i ne s .

On M y 30, a 1995, t he c our t e nt e r e d a s e c ond pr e - t r i a l or d e r

wh i c h r e c i t e d t he f ol l owi ng:

1. The pa r t i e s s ha l l s ha r e j oi nt l e ga l c us t ody of t he i r mi nor c hi l dr e n wi t h t he c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me t o

2 be a s f ol l ows : The hus ba nd e xe r c i s e s c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me wi t h t he pa r t i e s ' mi nor c hi l dr e n be gi nni ng on t he f i r s t Sunda y f ol l owi ng t he f i r s t f u l l we e k of t he mont h a t 1: 00 p. m. t hr ough Tue s da y a t 2: 30 p. m. On t he r e ma i ni ng t hr e e we e k e n d s of t he mont h, t he hus ba nd e xe r c i s e s c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me wi t h t he pa r - t i e s ' mi nor c hi l d r e n f r om Sa t ur da y a t 10: 00 a . m t hr ough Tue s da y a t 2: 30 p. m. Ea c h pa r t y wi l l ha ve t hr e e we e ks va c a t i on t i me wi t h t he c hi l dr e n dur i ng t he s umme r .

A f i na l he a r i ng wa s he l d on J a nua r y 2, 1996. I n t he f i n a l

j u d g me n t e nt e r e d t he r e a f t e r , bot h pa r t i e s we r e gr a nt e d a di vor c e .

The p a r t i e s we r e a wa r de d j oi nt l e ga l c us t ody of t he c hi l dr e n. Th e

h u s b a n d wa s gi ve n pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody wi t h t he wi f e ha v i ng

s p e c i f i c c o- pa r e nt i ng t i me a nd s pe c i f i c vi s i t a t i on pr i vi l e ge s . A

mo t i on t o a l t e r or a me nd t he f i na l j udgme nt wa s f i l e d by t he wi f e .

Th e mo t i on wa s de ni e d. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d.

I SSUES

The wi f e pr e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s f or our c ons i de r a t i o n :

W t he r t he t r i a l c our t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by he f i ndi ng t ha t t he or de r a wa r di ng t he mot h e r p r i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody wa s not a f i na l or de r ?

W t he r t he t r i a l c our t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by he a wa r di ng pr i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody t o [ t he ] f a t he r .

Th e hus ba nd pr e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng a ddi t i ona l i s s ue :

3 W t he r t he c our t e r r e d i n a wa r d i n g t he he pa r t i e s j o i nt l e ga l c us t ody of t he i r t hr e e c hi l dr e n?

Si n c e t h e l a s t i s s u e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d b y

t h e a p p e l l e e a r e b a s i c a l l y t h e s a me , we wi l l c o n s i d e r t h e m t o g e t h e r .

STANDARD OF REVI EW

W wi l l e f i r s t d i s c u s s o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. Ou r s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w i n n o n j u r y c a s e s i s c o n t r o l l e d b y Ru l e 1 3 ( d ) , Te n n e s s e e Ru l e s

o f Ap p e l l a t e Pr o c e d u r e i . e . , " [ u ] n l e s s o t h e r wi s e r e q u i r e d b y s t a t u t e ,

r e vi e w of f i ndi ngs of f a c t by t he t r i a l c our t i n c i vi l a c t i ons s ha l l

be de novo upon t he r e c or d of t he t r i al c our t , a c c o mp a n i e d by a

p r e s u mp t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e f i n d i n g , u n l e s s t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e

o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s o t h e r wi s e . "

DI SCUSSI ON

T. C. A. §36- 6- 101 pr ovi de s a s f ol l ows :

De c r e e f or c us t ody and s uppor t of c hi l d - Enf or c e - m nt - Juve ni l e c our t j ur i s di c t i on - Pr e s um i on of e pt pa r e nt al f i t ne s s - Educ at i onal s e m nar s . — ( a ) ( 1) I n a i s ui t f or a nnul me nt , di vor c e or s e pa r a t e ma i nt e na nc e , wh e r e t he c us t ody of a mi nor c hi l d or mi nor c hi l dr e n i s a que s t i on, t he c o u r t ma y, . . . a wa r d t he c a r e , c us t ody a nd c ont r ol of s uc h c hi l d or c hi l dr e n t o e i t he r of t he p a r t i e s t o t he s ui t or t o bot h pa r t i e s i n t he i ns t a nc e of j oi nt c us t ody or s ha r e d pa r e nt i ng, . . . a s t he we l f a r e a nd i nt e r e s t of t he c hi l d or c hi l dr e n ma y d e ma nd, a nd t he c o ur t ma y de c r e e t ha t s ui t a bl e s uppor t be ma de by t h e n a t ur a l pa r e nt s or t h os e who s t a nd i n t he pl a c e of t he

4 n a t ur a l pa r e nt s by a dopt i on. Suc h de c r e e s ha l l r e ma i n wi t hi n t he c ont r ol of t he c our t a nd be s ubj e c t t o s uc h c h a nge s or modi f i c a t i on a s t he e xi ge nc i e s of t he c a s e ma y r e qui r e . 1

W ha ve e xa mi ne d t he r e c or d a t l e ngt h a nd a r e of t he opi n i o n e

t ha t t h e t r i a l c our t di d no t a bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by a wa r di ng j o i n t

c u s t o d y of t he c hi l dr e n t o t he pa r t i e s . The c our t e xpr e s s l y f ou n d

t ha t b o t h pa r e nt s we r e s ui t a bl e pa r e nt s but t ha t t he l i f e s t yl e of

t h e h u s ba nd a nd t he c ondi t i ons of hi s home a s oppos e d t o t hos e o f

t he wi f e d i c t a t e d t ha t i t wa s i n t he be s t i nt e r e s t of t he c hi l dr e n

t ha t p r i ma r y r e s i de nt i a l c us t ody be wi t h t he f a t he r . W f i nd n o e

e r r o r o n t he pa r t of t he t r i a l c our t i n a wa r di ng j oi nt c us t ody .

I t i s a we l l - s e t t l e d pr i nc i pl e of l a w t ha t t he pr e s umpt i on of

c or r e c t ne s s whi c h or di na r i l y a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l j udge ' s f i ndi n g s

i n a b e nc h t r i a l a ppl i e s t o i s s ue s of c hi l d c us t ody.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Christopher Brian Minnich v. Nancy Graves Roberson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Christopher Brian Minnich v. Nancy Graves Roberson (Christopher Brian Minnich v. Nancy Graves Roberson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Griffin v. Stone
834 S.W.2d 300 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)
Grant v. Grant
286 S.W.2d 349 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1954)
Texas Commerce Bank-Austin, N.A. v. Estate of Cox
783 S.W.2d 16 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Scarbrough v. Scarbrough
752 S.W.2d 94 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1988)