Opinion

Blair v. Badenhope

  • 940 S.W.2d 575
  • 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 607
  • 1996 WL 555229
Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Oct 1, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Franks
On the bench
Judge Herschel P. Franks
Cited by
83 cases
Authority
More cited than 95.1%

No Rule 11 app. for perm. to appeal filed

How later courts described this case

  • No Rule 11 app. for perm. to appeal filed

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

FILED

October 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

ARTHUR BLAI R, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9604- CH- 00128

)

Pe t i t i one r - Appe l l a nt , ) GREENE CHANCERY

)

v. ) HON. DENNI S H. I NMAN,

) CHANCELLOR

MARI LYN BADENHOPE, )

) AFFI RMED AND

Re s ponde nt - Appe l l e e . ) REMANDED

CHARLES G. CURRER, Knoxvi l l e , f or Pe t i t i one r - Appe l l a nt .

J OHN T. M LBURN ROGERS, ROGERS, LAUGHLI N, NUNNALLY, HOOD &

I

CRUM Gr e e ne vi l l e , f or Re s ponde nt - Appe l l e e .

,

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

J oy Ba de nhope i s t he c hi l d of Sus a n Ba de nhope a nd

Ar t h u r Bl a i r . Sus a n Ba de nhope , a r e s i de nt of Nor t h Ca r ol i n a ,

d i e d whe n t he c hi l d wa s l e s s t ha n one ye a r ol d. Af t e r he r

d e a t h , J oy be ga n r e s i di n g wi t h he r ma t e r na l gr a ndmot he r ,

M r i l y n Ba de nhope , i n Te nne s s e e .

a The gr a ndmot he r wa s gr a nt e d

c u s t o d y by a Nor t h Ca r ol i na c our t i n a n a c t i on f or c us t ody s h e

f i l e d s ome t wo mont hs a f t e r t he mot he r ’ s de a t h. The f a t he r

s o o n t he r e a f t e r move d t o Te nne s s e e a nd f i l e d a n a c t i on i n

Te n n e s s e e t o i nc r e a s e vi s i t a t i on a nd a t t a i n c us t ody.

The Cha nc e l l or he l d t ha t t he r e ha d be e n a n

i n s u f f i c i e nt c ha nge of c i r c ums t a nc e s t o me r i t a c ha nge of

c u s t o d y a nd he r e f us e d t o a l t e r vi s i t a t i on.

The f a t he r c i t e s c a s e s s howi ng t ha t unde r r e c e nt

c o u r t de c i s i ons i n t hi s j ur i s di c t i on, bi ol ogi c a l pa r e nt s a r e

g i v e n pr e f e r e nc e ove r no n- pa r e nt s i n ma t t e r s of c us t ody, a nd

a r g u e s t ha t Te nne s s e e s houl d not f ol l ow t he Nor t h Ca r ol i na

d e c i s i on a s t o c us t ody of hi s da ught e r .

Te nne s s e e i s r e qui r e d t o r e c ogni z e a nd e nf or c e t h e

c u s t o d y de c r e e of a s i s t e r s t a t e . T. C. A. § 36- 6- 214 1 . Nor t h

Ca r o l i na wa s t he home s t a t e of J oy Ba de nhope a nd Ar t hur Bl a i r .

Th e No r t h Ca r ol i na Cour t ha d s ubj e c t ma t t e r a nd pe r s ona l

j u r i s d i c t i on ove r t he pa r t i e s .

I t s houl d be not e d t ha t t hi s i s not a n i ni t i a l

d e c i s i on de t e r mi ni ng who i s gr a nt e d c us t ody unde r Te nne s s e e

l a w. The r e f or e t he que s t i on i s , ha s t he r e be e n a ma t e r i a l

c ha ng e of c i r c ums t a nc e s s uf f i c i e nt t o a l t e r t he Nor t h Ca r ol i n a

a wa r d of c us t ody? M t e r of Par s ons , 914 S. W 2d 889, 893

at .

( Te n n . App. 1995) . The bur de n i s on t he non- c us t odi a l pa r e n t

t o p r ove c ha nge d c i r c ums t a nc e s . M s e l man v . Ac uf f , 826

us

S. W 2 d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1991) .

.

The onl y ?ma t e r i a l c ha nge ? c i t e d i n t he body of t h e

1

T. C. A. § 3 6 - 6 - 2 1 4 i s t h e Te n n e s s e e Un i f o r m Ch i l d Cu s t o d y J u r i s d i c t i o n

Ac t . I t r e a ds :

Re c o g n i t i o n a n d e n f o r c e me n t o f f o r e i g n d e c r e e d . - Th e Co u r t s o f t h i s

s t a t e s h a l l r e c o g n i z e a n d e n f o r c e a n i n i t i a l o r mo d i f i c a t i o n d e c r e e o f a

Co u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e wh i c h h a d a s s u me d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r s t a t u t o r y

p r o v i s i o n s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h i s p a r t o r wh i c h wa s ma d e

u n d e r f a c t u a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s me e t i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s o f t h e

p a r t , s o l o n g a s t h i s d e c r e e h a s n o t b e e n mo d i f i e d i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h

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

2

f a t h e r ’ s b r i e f i s t ha t ?Ar t hur Bl a i r a nd J oy ha ve bui l t a

r e l a t i ons hi p of l ove a nd t r us t ?.

W r e vi e w t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s de c i s i on de novo upon

e

t h e r e c or d wi t h a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s . T. R. A. P. Rul e

13( d) . The Tr i a l Cour t wa s not pe r s ua de d t ha t t he r e ha d be e n

a c ha nge of c i r c ums t a nc e s uf f i c i i e nt t o a l t e r c us t ody.

?Cha nge d c i r c ums t a nc e s ? i nc l ude s a ny ma t e r i a l c ha ng e

o f c i r c ums t a nc e s a f f e c t i ng t he we l f a r e of t he c hi l d, i nc l ud i n g

n e w f a c t or s or c ha nge d c ondi t i ons whi c h c oul d not be

a n t i c i pa t e d by t he c us t ody or de r . Dal t on v . Dal t on, 858

S. W 2 d 324 ( Te nn. App. 1 993) .

. W c onc l ude f r om our r e vi e w o f

e

t h e r e c or d t ha t t he e vi de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t t h e

Tr i a l Cour t ’ s f i ndi ng of no ma t e r i a l c ha nge . The e vi de nc e

t h a t t he c hi l d ha s gr own c l os e r t o he r f a t he r a nd s t e p- mot h e r

i s a c i r c ums t a nc e t ha t i s hope d f or i n gr a nt i ng r e gul a r

v i s i t a t i on, not a n une x pe c t e d c i r c ums t a nc e . W a f f i r m t he

e

j u d g me nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t .

The f a t he r r a i s e s t he i s s ue ?di d t he Cha nc e l l or e r r

i n d e c l i ni ng t o i nc r e a s e a ppe l l a nt ’ s vi s i t a t i on? ? The i s s ue

i s r a i s e d i n t he s e c t i on t i t l e d ?I s s ue s Pr e s e nt e d on Appe a l . ?

Ho we v e r , i t i s not di s c us s e d i n t he br i e f . W n a pa r t y f a i l s

he

t o b r i e f a n i s s ue , t h e i s s ue i s wa i ve d. T. R. A. P. 2 7; Tay l o r

v . S t at e , 875 S. W 2d 684 ( Te nn. Cr i m. App. 1993) .

.

W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t a t

e

a p p e l l a nt ’ s c os t , a nd r e ma nd.

________________________

3

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ ___________________ ___

Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, P. J .

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ ___

Do n T. M M r a y, J .

c ur

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.