Grandparents Granted Visitation Over Father’s Objection

Tennessee grandparent visitation case summary.

David Cupples, et al. v. Jonathan Alan Holmes et al

The maternal grandparents in this Decatur County, Tennessee filed a petition for grandparent visitation of their grandchild, who was about six years old at the time of trial.  The parents were divorced and the mother’s visitation was severely limited due to her drug use.  The father had been granted custody, and the grandparents alleged that their relationship had been severely limited by the father.

The father indicated that he was not opposed to supervised visitation.  Ultimately, the grandparents petition was granted by default, since neither the father nor the mother had made any answer to the petition.  The father then retained an attorney and moved to set aside the default judgment.

A trial was ultimately held, and the trial court considered the factors in the Tennessee grandparent visitation statute.  The grandparents were granted monthly visitation, plus additional time during school breaks and holidays.  The grandparent visitation was to coincide with the visitation originally granted by the juvenile court to the mother.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The grandparents first argued that the father’s brief on appeal did not conform to the requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the appeals court agreed that the brief of the father, who was acting without an attorney, did have some deficiencies.  However, it went on to hold that it was not bad enough to warrant dismissal.

The court then turned to the requirements of the grandparent visitation statute, and first addressed whether there was a danger of substantial harm if visitation were denied.  The issue is of constitutional dimension, because parents generally have a constitutional right to parent their children as they deem fit, but there is not a corresponding right for grandparents.

The appeals court reviewed the evidence considered by the lower court and agreed that the grandparents had met the “substantial harm” standard.    It noted that they had a significant relationship with the child, and had previously had substantial contact with the child. 

The father next argued that the statute did not apply because he had never severely reduced the grandparents’ visitation of the child.  But both the trial court and appellate court agreed that the parents had enjoyed significant contact with the child, and that this had been terminated.  They cited, for example, a three month period when there was no visitation, and also a text message in which the father asked the grandparents not to have further contact.

Finally, the appeals court turned to the best interest of the child, and agreed with the trial court that a grant of visitation to the grandparents was in the child’s best interests.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  However, it denied the grandparents’ request for their attorney’s fees on appeal.

No. W2021-00523-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31,  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.