Court Needn’t Consider Incidents in Other Counties After Parental Rights Petition Filed

Tennessee child custody case summary.

In re Joseph E., et al.

The mother and father in this Tennessee parental rights termination case were both residents of Sumner County. They were divorced in 2009, and the mother was named primary residential parent.

In 2010, the mother filed a petition in Davidson County Juvenile court to have two of the children declared dependent and neglected.  This petition was based on two alleged incidents of physical abuse that took place in Davidson County.  The mother alleged that the father had hit one child with a menu at a restaurant, locked another child in the car against his will, and caused a cut with keys and refused to do anything about the bleeding.

A hearing was held, and the Davidson County court held that the evidence did not support a finding of dependency or neglect.  The mother appealed, and asserted that the trial court had erred in limiting the testimony to incidents that had occurred in Davidson County and refusing to consider her expert witnesses.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals first addressed the issue of whether the testimony was properly limited to incidents occurring in Davidson County.  It held that the trial court had acted properly in making this ruling.  The appeals court noted that the proceeding was in the nature of an emergency hearing, and it was proper to limit testimony in this way.  Even though the mother wanted to introduce the evidence to show the context for the events, the appeals court held that the limitation was proper when the action was brought away from the children’s home county where the divorce case was pending.

The appeals court next looked at the trial court’s exclusion of some of the testimony of her expert witnesses.  It noted that expert testimony should be allowed if it will assist the trier of fact.  But in this case, since the sole issue was whether the incidents had taken place in Davidson County, the experts’ testimony as to the background of the case would have been of little help to the trial court.  For this reason, it acted properly in excluding the evidence.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals held that the lower court had acted properly, and affirmed the dismissal of the case.

No. M2014-00138-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.