Dad in Custody Case Can’t Be Subject to Lifetime Restraining Order

The parents in this Tennessee case had three children at the time of their divorce.  The mother filed for divorce in Benton County and alleged irreconcilable differences.  She asked for, and was granted, an ex parte restraining order.

The husband filed a counter complaint, and a hearing was held.  The mother was named the primary residential parent, with the husband having visitation on weekends.

The wife alleged that the husband was following her, and possibly placed a tracking device on her car, and had been in her house.  The trial court ordered the parties to undergo custodial/forensic evaluations.  It also issued an order prohibiting the father from entering Henry County, Tennessee, or Murray Kentucky, other than for limited purposes.  The husband was ordered to pay $1500 per month child support.

The wife then filed for an order of protection in Henry County.  She alleged tht the harassment was escalating.  The father was ordered to surrender his firearms, and he was only allowed to enter Henry County on a certain highway for work travel.

Incidents continued, and the mother was ultimately awarded a “lifetime Restraining Order” against the father.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father first appealed a provision of the parenting plan under which he was prohibited from contacting the children until he followed the recommendations of a psychiatric evaluation.  His argument boiled down to having a First Amendment right to make offensive comments and violent hyperbole.  However, the Court of Appeals quickly dealt with this argument by pointing out that he hadn’t raised the argument in the trial court.  He also argued that the trial court should have been recused, but the Court of Appeals pointed out that this issue was also waived because it hadn’t been raised in the lower court.

Overall, the Court of Appeals agreed that the father’s actions constituted a pattern of emotional abuse sufficient to limit parenting time.  For that reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s custody rulings.

The father was more successful when it came to the lifetime restraining order.  The appeals court noted that lower courts have great discretion, but that this discretion has limits.  And the appeals court found that the language of the order was not sufficiently specific.  For that reason, it remanded the case to craft a new order.  It did point out, however, that the order should remain in effect until the lower court had a chance to rule.

The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case.  It taxed the costs of appeal half to each party, and denied the mother’s request for attorney fees.

No. W2023-00555-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2024).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.

To learn more, see Domestic Violence in Tennessee.