Grandparents Denied Visitation When No Harm to Child Shown

Tennessee law case summary on grandparent visitation in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Billy W. Huffman v. Whitney Nichole Huffman – Tennessee divorce grandparents visitation.

The child in this grandparent visitation case was born in 2010.  The grandparents (the mother’s parents) alleged that they babysat 3-5 days per week while the mother worked and that there were also overnight visits.  They alleged that they had a strong bond with the child.  The grandparents testified that they fed and bathed the child countless times, and they introduced many family photos with the child.

The grandparents had disagreements with the mother, mostly centering around the mother’s current husband.  At one point, the mother also obtained an order of protection against the grandfather, but she later dropped it.  The trial court denied the grandparents petition for visitation, and they appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The trial court had found that there were no grounds for visitation under the Tennessee grandparent visitation statute.  The trial court had ruled this way because it found that there was no significant existing relationship, as required by the statute.  It also found that there was no showing of substantial harm to the child by severing that relationship.

The Court of Appeals first noted that the issue was one of constitutional dimension, since parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children.  Then it examined the issue of whether there was a significant existing relationship.  The Court of Appeals found that there was, based upon the amount of frequent visitation during the child’s life.  It then went on to examine the second issue under the statute, namely, whether there would be substantial harm to the child from ending that relationship.

The mere fact that a relationship will end does not alone constitute a substantial harm.  The Court of Appeals agreed that the grandparents had not proven this element.  There had been no expert testimony in the case.  The Court of Appeals agreed that expert testimony was not an absolute requirement, but it also found that there was insufficient other proof.  The Court of Appeals noted that there was evidence that the child is doing well at present.  Even though the grandparents undoubtedly cared deeply for the child, the Court made clear that this is not the standard.

Since it found no significant risk of harm to the child, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

No. E2012-02164-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2013).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

Tennessee Grandparent Visitation Rights Law in Tennessee Divorce Law | Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC