Mom Loses Custody After Getting “Specious No Contact Order” Against Dad

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

In re L.T. 

The child in this Shelby County, Tennessee, custody case was born in January 2014.  After her birth, the father made a petition for visitation rights, and this petition was granted.  He was awarded custodial visitation on alternating weekends and certain holidays.  He was also allowed regular telephone conversations.  He was also ordered to pay $1,350 per month in child support.

In 2015, the father requested a modification in the schedule due to a change in his work schedule.  The parents were awarded alternating two-week periods of residential parenting time.  Some modifications were made at a rehearing.

Two weeks after the final order, the mother went to the Attorney General’s office in her home state of Arkansas to obtain a “letter of no contact.”  This order effectively prevented him from contacting his daughter.  Later the same year, the father filed a petition to modify the visitation schedule due to material change of circumstances.  A hearing was held before Juvenile Court Judge David S. Walker, sitting as Special Judge, who granted the father’s petition.  Judge Walker found that the mother had willfully and intentionally deprived the daughter of a meaningful relationship with the father and had refused to comply with the court’s visitation order.

The mother followed up with a contempt petition, and the various pending motions were heard by the trial court.  The trial court denied the mother’s contempt motion, and named the father the primary residential parent.  The mother than appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court began its analysis by pointing out that a material change of circumstances is a question of fact.  The appeals court reviews de novo, but affirms unless the evidence preponderates against the lower court’s findings.

The mother argued that there had been no material change of circumstances.  Her arguments focused on her allegations that the father medically neglected the child.  She relied upon her mother’s testimony that the father’s household was chaotic and lacked structure.  But the grandmother admitted that she had never been in the house.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings.  It also looked at the father’s evidence, and noted that he had been deprived of visitation on numerous occasions.  It especially noted what it called the “specious no contact order” in coming to this conclusion.

Having found that there was a material change of circumstances, the court turned to the best interests of the child.  After reviewing the statutory factors, it concluded that none of them favored the mother, but that several favored the father.  Once again, the appeals court concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s finding that the father had the most willingness to facilitate a good relationship with the daughter.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed and assessed the costs of appeal against the mother.

No. W2018-00931-COA-R3-JV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019).

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.