Mom Gets Custody Despite Dad’s Finding “Study” on Internet

Tennessee child custody case summary in divorce.

Katherine D. Morgan v. Kenneth F. Morgan, Jr.

The parents in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case were married in 2010, separated temporarily in 2012, but had a child in 2013.  In 2015, the mother filed for divorce.  They agreed to a permanent parenting plan, but the father then made an oral motion alleging dependency and neglect.  These allegations arose out of an accident in 2015 while the child was in the mother’s custody, that resulted in the amputation of the end of one of the child’s fingers.

Under the agreed parenting plan, each parent alternat5ed 48 hours of parenting time, and this continued for four years.

The father filed a number of petitions in juvenile court alleging abuse, but these were all dismissed for various reasons.  The trial court summarized them that there had been little, if any, proof to substantiate the charges.

Late in 2016, a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) was appointed, and the next year, the father moved to remove the GAL, arguing that the she was biased.  The trial court denied this motion.

Ultimately, the mother was named the primary residential parent, with the father exercising parenting time every other weekend during the school year.  In the summer, the parents were ordered to alternate weeks.

The father was then ordered to pay two-thirds of the GAL’s approved fees of $21,000, based upon his greater ability to pay.  The father was also ordered to pay almost $90,000 in attorney’s fees.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father first argued that the trial court erred in adopting its permanent parenting plan.  After stating the standard of review and the relevant statutory factors, the court addressed this issue.

The trial court had concluded that the mother had a stronger relationship with the child, and the father attacked this conclusion.  He argued that the trial court must have based this upon “societal stereotypes of women as caretakers,” and cited a “study” he had found on a website.  But the appeals court pointed to the evidence cited by the lower court, and concluded that the lower court had made no presumption, as claimed by the father.

The father once again cited his concerns of abuse and neglect, and claimed that the lower court had incorrectly held these concerns against him.  But the appeals court pointed out that all of the claims were determined to be unfounded.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court held that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings.

The husband also argued that he was improperly deprived the opportunity to present testimony from an expert witness, but the appeals court agreed with the limits that had been placed on the testimony of that witness.

The appeals court also reviewed the refusal to remove the GAL, and the awards of fees by the lower court.  It affirmed the lower court’s judgment in its entirety.

No. E2020–00618-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7,  2021).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined 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.