Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring

DecidedSeptember 6, 2012

DocketE2010-01588-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring (Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2012 Session

KIMBERLIE EDMONSON v. JEREMY JAMES McCOSH ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for McMinn County No. 23964 Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

No. E2010-01588-COA-R3-CV-FILED-SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., Judge, concurring in result.

I concur completely in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my disagreement with the following dicta in the majority opinion:

While the wording of [Tennessee Supreme Court] Rule 13 [§1(d)(2)(B)] indicates that Grandmother may have had a statutory right to an attorney during the termination proceeding, ...

(Emphasis in original.)

As relevant to the facts of this case, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 §1(d)(2)(B) provides as follows:

In the following proceedings, . . . the court . . . shall advise any party without counsel of the right to be represented throughout the case by counsel and that counsel will be appointed if the party is indigent and, . . . requests appointment of counsel. . . . (B) Cases under Titles 36 and 37 of the Tennessee Code Annotated involving allegations against parents that could result in finding a child dependent or neglected or in terminating parental rights;

In my opinion, this provision does not apply to Kimberlie Edmonson because she is not a “party” to the termination case and is not a “parent[]” of the child at issue in Father and Stepmother’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, I would hold that Ms. Edmonson was not entitled to the appointment of counsel in the termination action of which she was not a party; and that, based upon well-established precedent cited in the majority opinion, she has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in the custody case of which she is a party.

_______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE

-2-

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2012 Session

KIMBERLIE EDMONSON v. JEREMY JAMES McCOSH ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for McMinn County No. 23964 Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

No. E2010-01588-COA-R3-CV-FILED-SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., Judge, concurring in result.

I concur completely in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my disagreement with the following dicta in the majority opinion:

While the wording of [Tennessee Supreme Court] Rule 13 [§1(d)(2)(B)] indicates that Grandmother may have had a statutory right to an attorney during the termination proceeding, ...

(Emphasis in original.)

As relevant to the facts of this case, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 §1(d)(2)(B) provides as follows:

In the following proceedings, . . . the court . . . shall advise any party without counsel of the right to be represented throughout the case by counsel and that counsel will be appointed if the party is indigent and, . . . requests appointment of counsel. . . . (B) Cases under Titles 36 and 37 of the Tennessee Code Annotated involving allegations against parents that could result in finding a child dependent or neglected or in terminating parental rights;

In my opinion, this provision does not apply to Kimberlie Edmonson because she is not a “party” to the termination case and is not a “parent[]” of the child at issue in Father and Stepmother’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, I would hold that Ms. Edmonson was not entitled to the appointment of counsel in the termination action of which she was not a party; and that, based upon well-established precedent cited in the majority opinion, she has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in the custody case of which she is a party.

_______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimberlie-edmonson-v-jeremy-james-mccosh-concurrin-tennctapp-2012.