Dad With Two Conflicting Court Orders Can’t Be Found in Contempt

The father in this Warren County, Tennessee, case was sentenced to jail for contempt by Juvenile Court Judge Ryan J. Moore after withholding visitation to the child’s grandmother.  But the father had previously obtained from an Illinois court an order for protection against the grandmother, based upon allegations of sexual misconduct by the grandmother.  This order was in effect at the time the father was found guilty of contempt, and he appealed the case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The grandmother was the father’s mother, and originally had joint custody of the child until their relationship soured.

The father obtained the order of protection in 2021 after hearing from the child that the grandmother had touched her inappropriately.  The Illinois order stated that the grandmother’s visitation had been “suspended until further order of the court.”

The grandmother then brought a motion for contempt in the Tennessee Court.  The court stated that it was “reluctant” to find the father in contempt, given the Illinois order.  But since one occurrence was before the Illinois order took effect, and since one charge was for denying telephone contact, it nonetheless found the father in contempt.

The father was sentenced to a total of 100 days, but the sentence was suspended.  The father was also fined $500.

The trial court had noted that the Department of Children’s Services had found the accusations unfounded, and reminded the father to seek an order from the Tennessee court before violating court orders.

At a later hearing, the father was sentenced to another 280 days, and the suspension of the earlier sentence was revoked.  The father was thus sentenced to 380 days, although the court noted that the father could ask for early release at some time in the future.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father argued that the contempt finding denied him of the right to seek relief from the Illinois court, and that the Tennessee court, at a minimum, should have consulted with the Illinois court.  The appeals court rejected these arguments, but instead turned to the issue of willfulness.  The appeals court noted that the father was faced with two court orders that were in conflict with one another.  It pointed out that the two orders were diametrically opposed, and that compliance with both would have been impossible.

The mother argued that the father had set up this impossibility by obtaining the Illinois court order.  While the appeals court saw some merit to this argument, it pointed out that the lower court had made no finding that the father had acted in bad faith in pursuing the Illinois court order.  While the Tennessee court found the allegations unfounded, there was no evidence that the father had fabricated them.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence did not support the finding of willfulness.  Therefore, it reversed the order finding the father in criminal contempt.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals was authored by Judge Jeffrey Usman.