Grandpa failed to meet burden of showing substantial harm

Tennessee grandparent visitation case summary.

In re Gracelyn H. et al.

Grandparent Visitation Rights in Tennessee

The children in this Crockett County, Tennessee grandparent visitation case were born in 2013 and 2017.  The children often visited the home of their maternal grandfather, and they and the mother moved in with the grandfather in 2019.

Their residence there was short lived, however. The mother and grandfather often disagreed over how the children should be cared for, and the mother and children moved out three months later, and cut off all contact with the grandfather.

The grandfather went to court and made a petition for grandparent visitation under the Tennessee Grandparent Visitation Statute.

The mother and grandfather were able to come to terms, and agreed to an order for temporary visitation.  Under this order, the grandfather had visitation with the older grandchild once per week.  But the mother refused to comply with the order, and the grandfather made a motion for contempt.

The grandfather testified as to a relationship with the grandchildren, but there was also testimony that the grandfather’s house was a “large playhouse” with little structure.

After hearing, the court found that the grandfather had failed to meet his burden of showing substantial harm without visitation.  As to the contempt motion, the trial court credited the mother’s testimony that she was pressured into agreeing to the order.  The grandfather then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court began by noting that cases of grandparent visitation are of a constitutional dimension.  Parents have a right to make decisions as to the care, custody, and control of their children, and grandparents do not have a corresponding right.  Accordingly, to prevail, a grandparent must show that there would be substantial harm to the child in the absence of visitation.  The Tennessee Grandparent Visitation statute lists a number of factors that court consider in determining whether this standard has been met.

In this case, both parties agreed that the grandfather had a significant existing relationship with the children.  But there was also evidence that after contact was cut off that the children did not seek contact with him.

The appeals court noted that because of the constitutional issue, the grandparent has a heavy burden of proof, and that this had not been met in the case.

The appeals court reviewed the evidence and agreed with the lower court that the standard had not been met.

On the issue of contempt, the Court of Appeals held that the contempt charge was not appropriate, because the grandfather had failed to prevail on the merits of the underlying case.

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

No. W2021-00141-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4,  2022).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Grandparent Visitation Rights Law 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.