Dad Gets Sentence Reduced in Contempt Case

The parents in this Williamson County, Tennessee, grandparent visitation case were divorced in 2017.  The mother was named primary residential parent of the child, who had been born in 2012.  Three months later, the mother was killed in an accident.  In 2019, the maternal grandparents filed a petition for grandparent visitation, which was granted in 2020.  They were granted visitation on Mother’s Day weekend, the weekend closest to the mother’s birthday, the weekend before Thanksgiving, and up to ten days in July.  They were also given one FaceTime call per week, and information on extracurricular activities.

Various conflicts and allegations followed, resulting in the grandparents filing a petition for criminal contempt.  The father failed to appear at multiple hearings.  Finally, he did appear, but the order for that hearing had incorrectly stated that he was facing civil contempt.

The grandfather showed a series of texts proposing dates for the summer visitation.  The father responded, incorrectly, that he thought he picked the dates.  Over a month later, the father replied that the child had tennis lessons on that date.  The grandparents went to court and obtained an order setting the dates, but the father refused.

A similar pattern emerged with respect to the Thanksgiving visitation.  The father stated that the child had a swimming lesson.  Ultimately, the visitation didn’t take place.

There was also evidence that the father hadn’t notified the grandparents of various extracurricular events, and of missed FaceTime calls.

Ultimately, the trial court found the father guilty of 23 counts of contempt.  It found the grandparents to be credible, whereas the father was gaming the system and had a bad attitude.

The father was sentenced to 230 days in jail, with 140 days suspended.  The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and bond was set at $30,000 pending appeal.

The appeals court began by noting that the contempt power is inherent in courts, and that this power dated back to the 12^th century.  It next addressed the father’s first argument, that the trial court had used the wrong standard in finding willfulness.  In particular, the father argued that the trial court had not considered his intent.  But the appeals court looked at the lower court’s order, including the cases that it had cited, and found that there was no evidence of misunderstanding.

The father also argued that some of the terms of the order were not clear and specific.  On a few of the counts, the appeals court agreed, and it dismissed those charges.  In particular, it dismissed the counts regarding summer visitation, which conflicted with the tennis lesson.  The appeals court pointed out that “scheduling of a new regularly scheduled activity during summer visitation may be obnoxious does not render it a criminally contemptuous violation.”

The father’s arguments were less availing when it came to the Thanksgiving visitation.  The father argued that his real concern was transportation after the swimming lesson, but the appeals court found that the order did not give the father grounds to approve the transportation plans.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed twelve of the counts of contempt, leaving eleven intact.  It then remanded the case for re-sentencing on those eleven counts.

No. M2022-01261-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Grandparent Visitation Rights Law in Tennessee.