Dad Not Entitled to Order of Protection for Alleged “Peeking”

Tennessee case summary on standard of order of protection.

Todd Goldman v. Nicole Griffin and Peter Griffin

The ex-husband in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case filed petitions for orders of protection against his ex-wife and her new husband.  He alleged that they showed up at his property unannounced and peeked through windows while he was exercising co-parenting time.  He also alleged that they were circling his property while he took the child outside for a walk.  He said that he was afraid and wanted them to stay away.  He noted that the new husband had access to weapons and threatened to shoot in the past.

At hearing, the wife and new husband explained that they were unable to confirm the ex-husband’s address, and that he had previously taken the child out of the state without permission.  The trial court, Judge Philip E. Smith, accepted this explanation and dismissed the petitions.  The ex-husband, acting as his own attorney, then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that, as in any non-jury case, review is de novo, with a presumption of correctness.  The judgment will be set aside only if the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to it.

The appeals court then noted that one seeking an order for protection must establish domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that this standard was not met.  In addition, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had not erred in limiting the amount of evidence that was heard.

The ex-wife and new husband also asked for attorney fees for what they deemed to be a frivolous appeal, but the Court of Appeals denied this request.  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

No. M2019-00138-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.