Name Change in Custody Case Hinges on Best Interests of Children

Tennessee case summary on name change in Tennessee family law.

Nathan Z. Vinson v. Kristin Denise Ball, et al.

In this Cumberland County, Tennessee, child custody case, the biological parents agreed to an order in 2010 naming the mother as the primary residential parent, with the father having visitation rights.  The mother sent the two children to live with their maternal grandfather, and in 2014, the father filed a petition asking to modify the prior order and name him as primary residential parent.  The trial court determined that there would be a risk of harm if the father was awarded custody, and instead granted custody to the grandfather, who had intervened in the case.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father had filed his modification petition on the grounds of changed circumstances.  He alleged that the mother had sent the children to the grandfather without his knowledge, and that the grandfather had interfered with his visitation rights.

At the hearing, the mother acknowledged that she did not have the financial resources to care for the children.  The father testified that the grandfather was initially cooperative, but became less so over time.  The grandfather began referring to the father as the “sperm donor.”  The father also testified that he was currently earning about $60,000 per year in Louisiana, and that his mother was also able to assist in the children’s care.

The appeals court first addressed the custody issue.  It held that the evidence did not support the lower court’s finding of harm.  While there were vague allegations, there was no evidence that the father had any history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or criminal behavior.  The appeals court held that under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence did not clearly establish a risk of substantial harm to the children.  Therefore, it held that the lower court erred in granting custody to a non-parent.  It then remanded the case for a determination of whether there was a change of circumstances warranting changing custody to the father.

The father also appealed an order under which the lower court refused to change the children’s last name in accordance with an earlier parentage order.  The mother and grandfather argued that the prior order merely permitted the father to change the names, but the father failed to accomplish this task.

The appeals court noted that the earlier order did not purport to be a final order.  Therefore, it was not binding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The appeals court held that the name change would depend on the best interests of the children.  Since the lower court had not made a determination on this issue, the appeals court also remanded this issue for the trial court to make a decision.

After addressing the issue of retroactive child support, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. E2015-01856-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.