Renewing Tennessee Order of Protection Requires New Evidence

Tennessee law case summary on orders of protection in family law from the Court of Appeals.

William Gregory Hall, Jr., v. Hillary Hudgens Hall  – Tennessee divorce order of protection

The divorce proceedings in this Tennessee case date back to 2005, when the parties’ two daughters were 6 years old and 18 months old.  At that time, the father obtained an order for protection against the mother.  Even though the divorce case was pending, the order for protection was under a different court docket number.  The father, who was an attorney, was granted an ex parte order for protection.  In the divorce case, the parents were eventually awarded equal co-parenting time.

In 2012, the father filed a petition in which he alleged that the mother had become verbally and physically abusive.  He also alleged that the mother had driven while intoxicated with the children in the car.  The court granted the father another ex parte order for protection and set a hearing.  After the parties agreed, the court entered a one-year order for protection without holding the hearing.  The order stated that the mother would have three weekly phone calls of 15 minutes each, but otherwise limited her conduct.

About a month later, the father asked to modify the permanent parenting plan, and he later made a motion to consolidate the two cases.  A hearing was held in September 2013, and the father was given a one-year extension of the order of protection.  The court never formally ruled on the motion to consolidate the two cases.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and argued that the trial court had erred in granting the order.

The appeals court first noted that the issue of abuse had not been litigated in 2012, and that the trial court’s first opportunity to address the issue was at the 2013 hearing on the motion to extend.  The appeals court noted that the trial judge had left blank the specific acts of conduct supporting the order.

The court examined the evidence relating to 2013.  It looked at the allegations of driving while intoxicated, and noted that the mother had been stopped for this offense.  However, the court also noted that she had not been responsible for driving the children at this time.

The appeals court noted that the party seeking an order for protection bears a strong burden of proof, and concluded that it had not been met in this case.  The father was unable to point to any specific details of violations that took place in the year the 2012 order was in effect.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated the order for protection and remanded the case.

No. E2013-02227-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Domestic Violence & Tennessee Divorce Law | Get Safe Now.