TN Grandmother Denied Visitation Rights | Case Heard Already

Tennessee law case summary on Tennessee grandparent visitation rights in Tennessee family law from the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Jeanette Rae Jackson v Bradley Kent Smith – Tennessee Grandparent Visitation Rights

Bradley Smith, the father, and Stephanie Smith, the mother  were married and had a child in November 2006.   From August 2008 through February 2009, the child lived only with the mother.  In February 2009, the child went to live with the father.   In April 2009, the mother died unexpectedly.    Jeanette Jackson, the mother’s mother and the grandmother of the child, asked to visit the child on several occasions.  The father denied all of her requests.

In April 2009, the grandmother filed a petition with the court according to the Tennessee grandparental visitation statute.   At that time, the law required the grandmother to prove that she had a previously existing relationship with the child and that the child would suffer severe emotional harm or some other substantial harm if this relationship ended and that permitting the grandmother to visit was in the best interest of the child.  The trial court denied the petition, finding that although the grandmother visited the child frequently before the mother’s death, terminating the relationship would not cause substantial harm to the child.  The grandmother did not appeal the decision.

Court determined that the case was heard and completed (res judicata)

In 2010, the Tennessee law was amended and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306(b)(4) took effect.  This new rule stated that a “rebuttable presumption of substantial harm” exists if the relationship between the grandparent and the child is terminated.   This meant that rather than have to prove the potential for harm, the harm was assumed and the parent opposing the visitations had to prove that there would be no harm.   Based on this change in law, the grandmother filed a new petition for visitation rights in 2010.   This new petition contained no new facts or information that had not appeared in the original petition from 2009 but was based solely on the change in law and the presumption of harm.

The father asked that the petition be dismissed because the case had already been decided in 2009 (res judicata) and according to law, could not be re-litigated, unless there was a “material change in the child’s circumstances.”   In response, the grandmother held that while there had been no such change, there had been a “substantial change in the law” which permitted the case to be heard again.   The trial court dismissed the grandmother’s petition.    The grandmother appealed and the court of appeals held that while the doctrine of res judicata did apply, it could not rule because the grandmother had not provided enough information.

The Supreme Court first grappled with the question left open by the appeals court, that is, was her case fully litigated and therefore a second trial prohibited?  The law prohibits a second claim from being brought “between the same parties… on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated…”   The reason for this rule is that it ensures finality or closure in litigation, prevents contradictory decisions from being made, conserves resources and protects the parties from the cost and time involved in additional law suits.

According to the Supreme Court, the grandmother’s new petition in 2010 did not contain any “allegations that would give rise to a res judicata defense.”  It did not even mention the claim from 2009.   Additionally, the father did not file any of the court papers from the 2009 case.   However, in her response to the father’s petition to dismiss the case, the grandmother actually admitted to all of the facts that would make the claim inadmissible because of res judicata.  The grandmother agreed that: this was her second petition on the matter of visitations; there had been a hearing on the previous petition; the trial court had issued a final judgment and; all findings of fact made by the trial court were res judicata.  The appellate court therefore concluded that the two petitions involved the same parties, asserted the same claim, that the earlier judgment was based on its merits and that it was a final judgment, properly entered.

Grandmother argued that change in law should allow for second petition

The grandmother argued that the change in the law allows her to file a new petition for visitation rights, despite the rule of res judicata.    The Supreme Court disagreed.   The court held that the enactment of a new law ordinarily does not permit a completed case to be reopened and tried again.   The cases are rare in which the court will relax this rule.   The court will permit opening the case when the new law offers “an independent basis for relief” which did not exist previously, or if one party was denied a fair chance, or when the issues are particularly sensitive, such as constitutional issues or matters of public policy.  The court cited, for example, a case of continued environmental pollution.

The court held that none of these conditions apply in this case.   Firstly, the grandmother had a fair opportunity to present her request, her new petition did not have new reasons for visitation rights, and there was no issue of public policy.    Secondly, courts and the legislature work independently of one another.  The courts make decisions based on the law in existence at the time the case is tried and each party establishes rights based on that particular decision.  Therefore, laws made by the legislature cannot apply retroactively to a case that has already been decided and in that way, change the court’s earlier decision.  The grandmother’s petition in 2010 was therefore denied.

No. W2011-00194-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.