Mom Guilty of Contempt for Discussing Custody With Kids

Tennessee case summary on divorce process.

Dustin Balch v. Brittanie Cilley

The two children in this Fentress County, Tennessee, juvenile court case were born in 2007 and 2009, and had most recently lived in Cumberland County.  In February 2022, the Circuit Court heard an appeal of a Juvenile Court case involving a petition for dependency and neglect filed against the mother.  The children communicated their preference to live with the father, and the court directed the parties to develop a parenting plan, even though the evidence did not support a finding of dependency and neglect.  Ultimately, the parents agreed upon a plan naming the father the primary residential parent, with the mother having 85 days per year parenting time.

Only a few days after that order was adopted, the father filed a motion to suspend the mother’s contact, and for contempt.  The mother and the maternal grandmother had indicated to the father that the children wanted to remain in New Hampshire after spring break.  The trial court entered an order suspending the mother’s contact with the children, and a hearing was scheduled.  The children testified in chambers, and they indicated that the mother had spoken to them about the court proceeding, in violation of an earlier order.  The mother also asked to have venue changed, since the children no longer lived in Fentress County.

Based upon her talking to the children about the case, the mother was found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to 10 days for each offense, but the sentence was suspended.  It also denied the mother’s motion to change venue.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first concluded that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, before turning to the propriety of the contempt conviction.  The mother argued that when she came to court, she had no idea that the motion for contempt was under consideration.  But the appeals court noted that she didn’t make any objection or move for a continuance after learning that the contempt matter would be heard that day.  Since she failed to object, the court held that this issue was waived.

The mother argued that the court’s actions amounted to a deprivation of her rights to see the children, since contact was conditioned upon not speaking with the children about the case.  The appeals court was somewhat sympathetic, since over a year had passed.  It held that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to see if the order could be modified to permit contact.

The mother also argued that the trial court should have transferred the case to Cumberland County, where the children were then living.  The trial court had denied the motion on the grounds of judicial economy, since a long complex case had already been heard.  The appeals court agreed that the lower court had acted within its discretion.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.

No.M2022-01100-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2023).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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