Anthony Murray v. Charlotte Murray

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2009-01576-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; September 28, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee upheld a Chancery Court decision transferring primary residential placement of an eight-year-old girl from her mother, Charlotte Murray, to her father, Anthony Murray. The trial court found that the mother's post-divorce behavior, including drug use and sexual indiscretions, constituted a material change in circumstances detrimental to the child's well-being. The court determined that it was in the child's best interest for the father to become the primary residential parent.

In the divorce proceedings, the parties had initially agreed to a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) which established the mother as the primary residential parent. The agreement included a parenting plan outlining visitation rights, child support obligations, and stipulations regarding alcohol and drug use around the child.

Following the divorce, the father filed a petition for a permanent change of custody, citing that the mother’s home had been raided by law enforcement, leading to the discovery of illegal substances and potential criminal charges against her. He also alleged that the mother left the child unsupervised while engaging in substance abuse and had a new partner involved in similar behaviors. The Court affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the decision to prioritize the child's best interests.

In February 2008, Mother was indicted by the Wilson County Grand Jury for possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, but later received pre-trial diversion and had her record expunged. On August 16, 2007, the trial court awarded Father an Emergency Order of Exclusive Custody, allowing Mother only supervised visitation due to concerns over her judgment in choosing roommates. A hearing on September 24, 2007, concluded that Father did not provide sufficient evidence for an immediate change of custody, but required hair follicle drug testing for both parents, indicating that Mother’s living arrangements would be scrutinized. Mother passed the drug test and regained custody of the child.

In August 2008, Father filed an Emergency Motion to suspend Mother's visitation, which prompted a court hearing on September 3, 2008. The court increased Father's visitation and ordered a criminal background check on Mother's boyfriend. The final custody hearing was held over two days in May 2009, with the parties’ child testifying. On the first day of the trial, Mother filed a contempt petition against Father for failing to pay child support, claiming he had made only one payment since 2004 and had not provided necessary financial documentation. This contempt claim was not addressed during the custody proceeding due to timing issues.

Evidence presented indicated that Mother had lived with Billy Wells for five months before they separated. Wells reported to Father that Mother was using drugs, leading to a police investigation and a search of Mother's home on August 13, 2007, which uncovered drugs and paraphernalia. Mother, a nurse, was subsequently fired from Vanderbilt University Medical Center for stealing morphine vials. During the trial, she acknowledged poor relationship choices and mentioned an order of protection against Wells, as well as a previous affair with a married man.

Mother acknowledged her past mistakes regarding relationships but maintained that she had never involved inappropriate individuals around her children. She admitted to having had an inappropriate sexual relationship with her son’s basketball coach and described another relationship with a man named Heath, whom she met online. During a visit to Knoxville with her daughter, they stayed overnight at Heath's apartment, with Mother claiming that no inappropriate actions occurred. 

During a police search of Mother's home, detectives seized various controlled substances, including marijuana and morphine, while a former boyfriend was present. Mother was questioned about nude photographs she had taken of herself, which unintentionally circulated beyond her control, including being seen by her daughter. 

Teachers from Presleigh's previous school reported her as a good student who was well-adjusted and involved in school activities, although on one occasion after the police search, Presleigh appeared confused and disheveled when arriving late to school. Following this incident, Mother transferred her daughter to a different school. Observations from staff at the new school indicated that Presleigh's half-brother had behavioral issues and was often disciplined for aggressive behavior. Mother also indicated her concern for her son’s mental health, noting that he had been hospitalized for suicidal tendencies.

Mother expressed love for her children and indicated progress in her relationship with Father, Clay. Father, who has remarried and has stepdaughters, asserted his capability to care for Presleigh and promised continued access for Mother. He claimed to have consistently paid child support but admitted the lapse of a life insurance policy for Presleigh after losing his job in 2008. Currently employed full-time and a partner in an insurance agency, Father sought sole decision-making authority over Presleigh due to concerns about Mother’s judgment, though he was open to discussing child-rearing matters with her.

Presleigh, nearly nine at the time of trial, demonstrated articulate responses during questioning. She disclosed witnessing inappropriate content on Mother's phone and knowledge of her drug use, including finding drugs in her belongings. Presleigh recognized the presence of various men in Mother's life and expressed fear about staying at the home of Mother's internet acquaintance, Heath. She indicated that she usually had breakfast at Father's house and received more academic support from him. While she loved both parents, she expressed a preference for living with Father, citing his kindness.

The trial court determined there had been significant changes affecting Presleigh’s welfare, including Mother’s relationships with married men, her drug use, and moral concerns regarding her lifestyle. The court also noted that Mother's son had developed psychological issues, possibly linked to her behavior. Despite acknowledging Mother's strengths as a caregiver, the court concluded that it would be in Presleigh's best interest to reside with Father, considering the stability he provided and the potential psychological risks associated with her current living situation.

The court transferred primary residential placement of the child, Presleigh, to Father, granting Mother visitation every other weekend. A Final Order was issued on July 2, 2009, which ended Father’s child support obligation and established a new weekly child support payment of $125 to Father. The updated parenting plan maintained joint decision-making for major matters concerning the child between both parents, and each party was responsible for their own attorney fees. 

In the appeal analysis, the standard of review for non-jury cases allows for a de novo review of factual findings with a presumption of correctness unless evidence suggests otherwise. Legal conclusions are also reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness. The trial court has broad discretion in child custody and visitation matters, and appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s assessments of credibility and fact-specific decisions unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated. 

To modify a parenting arrangement, the petitioner must show both a material change of circumstances and that the modification is in the child's best interest. Factors considered for a material change include whether the change occurred post-order, was unanticipated at the time of the order, and significantly impacts the child's well-being. The trial court identified Mother’s sexual behavior, drug use, and issues with her other son as material changes, which Mother attempted to downplay but acknowledged exercising poor judgment.

Mother is contesting the trial court's decision, arguing that it improperly focused on her behavior rather than its impact on her child, Presleigh. Although Mother acknowledges her inappropriate conduct, she claims there is no evidence that it negatively affected Presleigh, citing the child’s strong academic performance and positive feedback from teachers. However, evidence presented includes testimony from Presleigh’s teacher about the child appearing confused after a drug search at their home, and Presleigh herself expressing fear during an overnight stay at a stranger's house. Mother also faced an altercation related to her romantic involvement, leading to a restraining order against a previous partner, suggesting her choices have repercussions for the child.

Mother argues against the trial court's speculative concerns about future psychological harm to Presleigh, referencing the Berry v. Berry case to support her claim that the court cannot base custody decisions on potential future issues without substantial evidence. In Berry, the court found no evidence of adverse effects from the mother's sexual orientation on the child. In contrast, the current case presents evidence that Mother’s drug use and relationships have already had a detrimental impact on Presleigh, undermining her argument that the trial court's concerns were unfounded.

The trial court concluded that a material change in circumstances had occurred that significantly affected the child, which justified reconsideration of the existing parenting plan. The court is allowed to reassess the child's best interest only after confirming such a change. Tennessee law provides a set of factors for courts to evaluate the child's best interest, as outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-106(a). The mother argued that the court did not properly apply these statutory factors, asserting that evidence favored her remaining the primary caregiver. Although the trial court found it would be in the child's best interest to live with the father, it did not articulate its reasoning based on the statutory criteria.

While trial courts are encouraged to be specific in their findings regarding custody, there is no legal obligation to list every factor alongside conclusions. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors and noted that both parents love the child and are committed to her well-being. The mother has been the primary caregiver, but the father has been more actively involved in specific aspects of the child's care, such as ensuring she has breakfast before school. There were conflicting claims regarding the father's child support payments, but no evidence was provided on this issue during the trial.

The father has consistently acted as an alternate residential parent, and a custody change would not disrupt the child's stability. He has a stable home life, while the mother has had multiple relationships, including taking out a restraining order against one partner. The child is well-adjusted and performing well in school, with both parents actively participating in her education; however, evidence suggested that the father was more involved in helping her academically.

Presleigh expressed a clear preference to live with her Father, with no evidence indicating improper influence. Given her age of under nine, her preference was afforded lesser weight, although she articulated her reasons and described the living conditions at both homes. The trial court noted concerns regarding some of Mother's male friends, suggesting potential risks due to her poor judgment, despite no direct negative impact on Presleigh. Additionally, Presleigh reported her older brother Clay's disciplinary issues, including his aggressive behavior towards her. In contrast, there were no similar concerns related to Father’s stepdaughters. Both parents demonstrated a willingness to collaborate for Presleigh's benefit. After evaluating all factors, the court determined that placing Presleigh primarily with Father served her best interests, affirming the trial court's designation of him as her primary residential parent. 

Regarding attorney fees, Father requested reimbursement for his appeal costs, citing relevant Tennessee statutes that allow such awards in custody cases. The court found that the appeal was not frivolous or solely for delay, yet decided against awarding attorney fees to Father, stating no compelling reason justified such a decision. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for any necessary further proceedings, with costs taxed to the appellant, Charlotte Wright-Murray.