No Malpractice When Lawyer Adds Reasonable Conditions to PPP

Tennessee family law malpractice claim in custody case.

Matthew Marble v. Jaimee Underwood

This Macon County, Tennessee, legal malpractice case had its start in a custody case involving a child born in 2012.  The father, who lived in Michigan, was listed on the birth certificate and later signed an acknowledgment of paternity.  The child lived with the mother in Tennessee until the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the child from the home in 2013 due to allegations of abuse stemming from a head injury.  The father contacted DCS and informed them that he was the father.

An attorney was appointed to represent the father, and the attorney helped put together permanency plans, which the father later agreed to.  There were a number of conditions included, including sobriety and parenting classes.  When a hearing was held, the attorney advised the father to stipulate that the child was dependent and neglected.  At that time, the father also admitted to the court that he did not have suitable housing.

DCS filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights, and the father hired another attorney to represent him.  The case went to trial, and the court ruled that the father did not have an ability to care for the child.

While that case was still pending, the father filed a malpractice claim against the first lawyer.  He claimed that the conditions in his proposed permanency plan were unduly burdensome, and that essentially made it impossible to meet.  He also argued that the first attorney failed to request an assessment under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The trial court, Judge Amy V. Hollars, granted the attorney summary judgment, and the father brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted the elements of the cause of action:  The attorney must owe a duty to the client, that duty must be breached, there must be damages, and the breach of duty must be the proximate or legal cause.

The key issue in the case was the issue of causation.  The father argued that the attorney’s failure to protect his interest ultimately led to the termination of his parental rights.  The attorney, on the other hand, argued that there was no causation, because the permanency plan would be approved only if reasonable.

The appeals court agreed with the attorney.  In particular, the lower court examined the plan and found that these conditions were reasonable.  That finding was upheld in an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeals.  For that reason, the Court of Appeals agreed that the causation element was not met in the case.

For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the attorney.

No. M2017-02040-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 24,  2019).

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 examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.