Mom Ordered Not to Talk about Dad on Social Media
- At July 17, 2017
- By Miles Mason
- In Custody Modification
0
Tennessee child custody modification case summary.
The child in this Davidson County, Tennessee, was born in 2008. The mother and father entered into an agreement that the mother would be primary residential parent and that the father would have 180 days per year parenting time. The parties did not follow that agreement, but operated under an informal agreement under which the child spent substantially equal time with each parent.
In 2014, the father went to court alleging that there had been a material change of circumstances because of the mother’s unstable mental health, problems with her physical health, and the condition of her home.
The mother had also proposed homeschooling, which the father believed was inappropriate. He asked to be named the primary residential parent, with the mother having only limited parenting time.
A magistrate judge entered a temporary order enjoining the mother from homeschooling. The father was to apply to private school, and if the parents could not agree on a school, they were instructed to come back to court. After a hearing, the magistrate ordered that the child would attend a public elementary school.
The case was ultimately heard by the trial court. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services evaluated the mother’s home and found that it was inappropriate for raising a child. At this time, another court found that the mother had been stalking the father and had entered an order of protection.
After hearing all of the evidence, the juvenile court granted the father’s petition. The father was named primary residential parent, and the mother was given visitation, with various conditions. Among those conditions was that the mother was enjoined from referencing father or the child on social media. The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising numerous issues. After agreeing with most of the lower court’s rulings, the appeals court turned to the restrictions on the mother’s communications.
The mother argued that these restrictions violated both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions as an impermissible prior restraint on speech. The appeals court agreed that the juvenile court’s order was clearly a prior restraint. It acknowledged that the child’s well being was a competing concern, but a prior restraint is appropriate only if there is a clear and present danger of serious and imminent threat. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that a restriction was proper to stop disparaging and defamatory remarks about the father.
Even though restrictions were appropriate, the appeals court turned to whether the particular restrictions were overbroad or vague. It noted that the order prohibited any reference to the father, including the most benign. Therefore, it modified the order to remove the broad language involving references to the father “at all on social media.” The appeals court did note that the trial court might make more specific orders in the future, subject to constitutional requirements.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court, with this modification.
No. M2015-00032-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
