Terri G. Bowers v. Frederick Allan Bowers

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJune 4, 1997
Docket03A01-9701-CV-00008
StatusPublished

This text of Terri G. Bowers v. Frederick Allan Bowers (Terri G. Bowers v. Frederick Allan Bowers) 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
Terri G. Bowers v. Frederick Allan Bowers, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED June 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. TERRI G. BOWERS, ) C/ A NO. 03A01-Appellate C ourt Clerk 9701- CV- 00008 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) KNOX LAW ) v. ) HON. BI LL SWANN, ) J UDGE FREDERI CK ALLAN BOWERS, ) ) AFFI RMED AS MODI FI ED De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . ) AND REM ANDED

L. CAESAR STAI R, I I I , BERNSTEI N, STAI R & M ADAM c S, a nd ELI ZABETH K. B. M EADOW SCHM D, J ONES & M S, I EADOW PLLC, S, Kn o x v i l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt .

ROBERT R. SI MPSON a nd J AM ES H. VARNER, J R. , ESHBAUGH, SI MPSON AND VARNER, Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s c us t ody di s put e , t he Tr i a l J udge gr a nt e d

c u s t o d y of t he pa r t i e s ’ c hi l d t o t he f a t he r , a nd t he mot he r

h a s a ppe a l e d.

Te r r i Bowe r s a nd Fr e de r i c k Bowe r s we r e di vor c e d i n

Ke n t u c ky i n 1992. The y a gr e e d t o j oi nt c us t ody of t he i r t he n

t h r e e ye a r ol d da ught e r , Che l s e a , wi t h pr i ma r y r e s i de nc e wi t h

t h e mo t he r . The f a t he r , who ha d move d t o Okl a homa Ci t y, ha d

v i s i t a t i on one out of e ve r y f i ve we e ks , wi t h a ddi t i ona l t i me

o n h o l i da ys a nd dur i ng s umme r .

M he r , t he n move d t o Knoxvi l l e , a nd s he ha s ot

t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he c hi l d e xpe r i e nc e d be ha vi or a l c ha nge s , s u c h a s b e c omi ng l i s t l e s s , c l i ngi ng t o he r mot he r , we t t i ng, a nd

p a r r o t i ng whome ve r s he wa s s pe a ki ng wi t h, f ol l owi ng t he

f a t h e r ’ s vi s i t a t i on pe r i ods . The mot he r dome s t i c a t e d t he

Ke n t u c ky di vor c e de c r e e a nd f i l e d a pe t i t i on i n J uve ni l e Co u r t

t o h a ve c us t ody c ha nge d t o he r a nd vi s i t a t i on wi t h t he f a t h e r

s u s p e n de d. The J uve ni l e Cour t a wa r de d t e mpor a r y c us t ody t o

t he mo t he r a nd l i mi t e d t he f a t he r ’ s vi s i t a t i on t o a n

u n s p e c i f i e d a mount of t i me i n Knoxvi l l e a s ?a gr e e d t o? by t h e

Te nn e s s e e De pa r t me nt o f Huma n Se r vi c e s , t he f a t he r , t he

mo t he r , a nd t he c hi l d’ s t he r a pi s t . Thos e vi s i t s t ha t we r e

a l l o we d we r e t o be s upe r vi s e d by t he Te nne s s e e De pa r t me nt o f

Hu ma n Se r vi c e s .

Ul t i ma t e l y, t h e f a t he r a ppe a l e d t he J uve ni l e Cour t ’ s

a c t i on t o t he Ci r c ui t Cour t , whe r e t he Ci r c ui t Cour t gr a nt e d

s o l e c us t ody of t he c hi l d t o t he f a t he r . The ba s i s of t he

Tr i a l J udge ’ s de c i s i on wa s hi s f i ndi ng t ha t t he f a t he r ha d

b e e n a nd woul d c ont i nue t o e nc our a ge t he c hi l d t o ma i nt a i n a

l o v i n g r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h bot h s i de s of t he f a mi l y, whi l e t h e

mo t h e r s e e me d i nt e nt on e xc l udi ng f a t he r a nd hi s f a mi l y f r om

t he c h i l d’ s l i f e . The Cour t a wa r de d s ubs t a nt i a l vi s i t a t i on t o

t h e mo t he r , i nc l udi ng t he f i r s t a nd t hi r d we e ke nd of e ve r y

mo n t h , e a c h s pr i ng br e a k, Tha nks gi vi ng a nd Chr i s t ma s , a nd

s i x t y c ons e c ut i ve da ys i n t he s umme r .

The mot he r i ns i s t s t he Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng

c u s t o d y t o t he f a t he r . W r e i t i s de mons t r a t e d t ha t a n he

e x i s t i ng j oi nt c us t odi a l a r r a nge me nt i s not i n t he be s t

i nt e r e s t of t he c hi l d, i t i s a ppr opr i a t e f or t he Cour t t o

a l t e r t he c us t ody a r r a nge me nt e s t a bl i s he d i n t he or i gi na l

de c r e e . Dal t on v . Dal t on, 858 S. W 2d 324, 326 ( Te nn. App. .

2 1993) . The de c i s i on of t he Tr i a l J udge r e ga r di ng c us t ody i s

a c c o mp a ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s unl e s s t he r e c o r d

p r e p o n de r a t e s ot he r wi s e . Ni c hol s v . Ni c hol s , 792 S. W 2d 71 3 .

( Te n n . 1990) .

The f a t he r a nd hi s mot he r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he mot h e r

wa s c o nt i nua l l y a t t e mpt i ng t o s hut t he m out of t he c hi l d’ s

l i f e. The mot he r ’ s t e s t i mony s hows t ha t s he ma de l i t t l e

e f f o r t t o put t he c hi l d a t e a s e r e ga r di ng he r pa r e nt s ’

r e l a t i ons hi p. The mot he r ne ve r i ni t i a t e d di s c us s i ons

r e g a r d i ng t he f a t he r a nd ne ve r s ugge s t e d t ha t t he c hi l d c a l l

h e r f a t he r . Thi s s i l e n c e c onf us e d t he c hi l d, who wa s uns ur e

wh e t h e r t o s how a f f e c t i on a nd t o whom whe n bot h pa r e nt s we r e

i n t h e s a me r oom. The s e ma t t e r s woul d be s i gni f i c a nt e ve n

wi t h o u t t he c a mpa i gn wa ge d by mot he r , t o c ha r a c t e r i z e t he

f a t h e r a s ?a bus i ve . ?1 I n c ont r a s t , t he e vi de nc e s uppor t s t h e

c o u r t ’ s f i ndi ng t ha t t h e f a t he r ha s e nc our a ge d t he c hi l d t o

s h o w a f f e c t i on t o he r mot he r a nd ha s a t t e mpt e d t o ma i nt a i n a

wo r k i n g r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h t he mot he r ’ s f a mi l y.

1 Th e t r i a l c o u r t c r e d i t e d t e s t i mo n y t h a t mo t h e r ’ s s i s t e r a n d a t t o r n e y , Li n d a W l c h , h a d s t a t e d t h a t s h e wo u l d ?b r e a k h i m? i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t . e Ap p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w M . s W l c h t o t e s t i f y a n d r e f u t e t h i s s t a t e me n t . e I t i s f i r s t not e d t ha t M . s W l c h wa s g i v e n a c h a n c e t o t e s t i f y a n d d e c i d e d n o t t o , t h e n c a me b a c k e l a t e r and a s ke d t o t a ke t he s t a nd. Ev e n i f t h e Tr i a l Co u r t s h o u l d h a v e l e t h e r t e s t i f y a t t h i s p o i n t , i t wo u l d b e h a r ml e s s e r r o r . Th e a l l e g e d s t a t e me n t i s n o t d e t e r mi n a t i v e t o t h e f i n d i n g t h a t mo t h e r t r i e d t o e x c l u d e t h e f a t h e r a n d h i s f a mi l y f r o m h e r c h i l d ’ s l i f e .

Th e a c t i o n s o f t h e mo t h e r i n a t t e mp t i n g t o h a v e t h e f a t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s ‘ n e g l e c t f u l ’ a r e mu c h mo r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s r e g a r d , a l t h o u g h we n o t e t h a t we d o n o t a g r e e wi t h Ap p e l l a n t ’ s a d d i t i o n a l a r g u me n t t h a t s h e i s b e i n g p u n i s h e d f o r p u r s u i n g s u c h c h a r g e s . Wile a h r e v i e w o f t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n s o f ?a b u s e ? a n d ?d e p e n d e n t a n d n e g l e c t e d c h i l d , ? i n T. C. A. § 3 7 - 1 - 1 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) a n d ( 1 2 ) d e mo n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e y a r e me a n t t o a p p l y t o c a s e s wh e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y mo r e s i g n i f i c a n t ha r m i s b e i ng i nf l i c t e d by a pa r e nt , t he t r i a l c our t doe s n ot a ppe a r t o h a v e ma d e t h i s i s s u e d e t e r mi n a t i v e i n t h e c u s t o d y d e c i s i o n .

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

Related

Kirksey v. Overton Pub, Inc.
804 S.W.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1990)
Jones v. Jones
930 S.W.2d 541 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1996)
Saunders v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
383 S.W.2d 28 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1964)
Dalton v. Dalton
858 S.W.2d 324 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1993)
Cordell Ex Rel. Cordell v. Ward School Bus Manufacturing, Inc.
597 S.W.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1980)
Dodd v. Dodd
737 S.W.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1987)
Lentz v. Baker
792 S.W.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Terri G. Bowers v. Frederick Allan Bowers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terri-g-bowers-v-frederick-allan-bowers-tennctapp-1997.