No Grandparent Visitation After Mom’s Death Absent Interference with Visits

Tennessee child custody case summary on grandparent visitation and life insurance proceeds.

Rose Coleman v. Bryan Olson  – Tennessee divorce Auto Injunction and GP Visitation

The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in 2007 and had a child the next year.  In 2012, the wife sued for divorce.  Under Tennessee law, when a divorce action is filed, an injunction automatically goes into place, and this injunction prohibits either party from changing the beneficiary on any life insurance policy without the other spouse’s consent.

Four days after filing for divorce, the wife was hospitalized and shortly thereafter signed a document changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy from the husband to her mother.  The wife died a week later, and the mother collected almost $400,000 on the insurance policy.

About a week later, the wife’s mother filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that the child was dependent and neglected.  She sought either custody or grandparent visitation.  The issue was ultimately heard by the circuit court, which granted visitation under the Tennessee grandparent visitation statute.

The court also heard evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the change of beneficiary, including testimony of a handwriting analysis.  The trial court found no evidence of forgery or fraud.  It further held that the change was a violation of the injunction, but was not intentionally contemptuous.  It nevertheless held that the benefits should have gone to the child, and ordered the mother to deposit the funds received with the court.

After posttrial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  In 2017, the Court of Appeals held that the change of beneficiary was void, and that the status quo should be restored.  Accordingly, it awarded the insurance proceeds to the husband, the beneficiary prior to the change.  It also held that the award of grandparent visitation was improper, since there was no evidence that the husband had opposed visitation.  Under the statute, relief can be granted only if a parent interferes with visitation, and this had not happened in the case.

The mother then asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to review the case, and the high court agreed to hear it.  The court turned first to the question of the insurance proceeds.  The Supreme Court noted that the mother had not been a party to the divorce case, and was therefore not subject to the injunction.  The issue, therefore, was whether the injunction would be applied in the later litigation.

On this issue, it cited a Vermont case with similar facts.  The Vermont court had held that in this situation, the lower court should consider all of the facts of the case and balance the equities, rather than automatically applying the injunction to the subsequent litigation.  The Court held that this same approach should be followed in Tennessee.

The Court of Appeals had essentially adopted the same rule, and balanced the equities in awarding the proceeds to the child.  However, the Supreme Court held that the intermediate court had not correctly balanced the equities.  In particular, it noted that in the trial court, the husband had never been informed of the need to present evidence on this issue.  For that reason, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower court to hear additional evidence on the issue.

The high court then turned to the grandparent visitation issue.  It first pointed out that the issue had a constitutional dimension, since parents have a liberty interest in raising their children, and the state should interfere only if there is a compelling state interest.  It then looked at the statute, and noted that it comes into play only if the court finds that the child risks harm from grandparent visitation being taken away.  The trial court had found that there was a likelihood of opposition by the husband, although he had never actually objected to visitation.

Here, the Supreme Court held that there must be actual interference with grandparent visitation, not a mere likelihood of such interference.  Since there was no actual denial of visitation, the Supreme Court held that the statute was not triggered.  Therefore, it held that the lower court erred in making its order.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the orders of the lower courts and remanded the case.

No. M2015-00823-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. June 15, 2018).

TN grandparent must show interference in order to get visitation order; change of insurance must take into account all factors.

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.