The case revolves around a custody dispute between Jamie Edward Hines (Father) and Terrell Lynn Simms (Mother) concerning their son, born August 2, 1999. The couple never married but cohabited until Mother decided to leave for Missouri in August 2001. Father initiated legal action to establish paternity, prevent Mother's relocation with the child, and set child support, leading to a temporary restraining order against Mother. Mother countered with a child support claim and sought to dissolve the TRO.
The trial court confirmed Father as the child's biological parent and established a temporary parenting plan, including a child support payment of $475 per month. The plan allowed Father to have the child for two five-day periods each month, with specific visitation details. After Mother's move to Missouri, the relationship between the parents deteriorated, resulting in contentious visitation exchanges requiring police involvement.
Subsequently, both parties filed contempt petitions related to violations of the parenting plan, with Mother's alleging Father's late child support payments and lack of visitation, while Father sought protection against alleged assaults. The court ultimately dismissed both contempt petitions and maintained the existing temporary parenting arrangement. The trial court's decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
In March 2003, a trial was held to establish a permanent parenting plan. The Father argued for primary custody, citing his role as a teacher and the importance of education, while alleging that the Mother was verbally and physically abusive to him and negatively affected their son during exchanges. Witnesses for the Father, including his mother and a friend, corroborated his claims of Mother's abusive behavior. The Mother, representing herself, claimed to have always been the primary caregiver and left the Father due to feeling overwhelmed by parenting responsibilities. She presented her mother and aunt as witnesses to support her claims of being a loving parent.
The trial court expressed concern over the Mother's behavior, indicating that her actions were undermining the Father's relationship with their child and warned that continued inappropriate conduct could jeopardize her custodial rights. The court acknowledged that both parents were fit but highlighted their mutual disrespect and volatility during visitations. Ultimately, the court awarded joint custody, stipulating that the Mother would have custody from July 1 to December 31 until the child starts kindergarten, after which the Father would have custody during the school year. The court emphasized the need for both parents to respect each other for the child's best interests.
Mother is granted visitation of the minor child during Father's custodial periods for one weekend each month, starting at 6:00 p.m. on the first Friday and ending at 6:00 p.m. the following Sunday, with an option for an additional weekend with 48 hours' notice to Father. Father has similar visitation rights during Mother's custodial periods. Mother is prohibited from harassing or verbally abusing Father and his family. The trial court's final order includes a permanent parenting plan, which Mother is appealing, particularly due to Father being designated as the primary residential parent when their son enters kindergarten. The court emphasized the need for both parents to cease conflicts and work together, stating that past conduct would not affect future considerations.
The legal framework requires every final custody order to include a permanent parenting plan, as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-402(3). This plan must address the child's evolving needs, outline parental responsibilities, minimize exposure to conflict, establish a dispute resolution process, and allocate decision-making authority regarding various aspects of the child's life. The residential schedule must specify the primary residential parent and detail the child's living arrangements throughout the year, including special occasions. The court is tasked with ensuring the residential provisions support the child's development and foster a stable relationship with both parents.
The child’s residential schedule must align with statutory provisions unless otherwise determined by the court, which will evaluate several factors. These include:
1. The parent's ability to prepare the child for adult life.
2. The strength and stability of the child's relationship with each parent.
3. Each parent's willingness to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent.
4. The impact of willful refusal to attend mandated parent education seminars on perceived good faith.
5. Each parent's capacity to provide essential needs like food and education.
6. The primary caregiver's role.
7. The emotional bonds between each parent and the child.
8. The child's emotional and developmental needs.
9. Each parent's physical and emotional fitness for parenting.
10. The child's interactions with siblings and important adults.
11. The significance of continuity in the child’s life and their stable living environment.
12. Evidence of any abuse towards the child or others.
13. The character of individuals residing with a parent and their interactions with the child.
14. The child's reasonable preference if aged 12 or older.
15. Each parent's employment schedule and possible accommodations.
16. Any additional relevant factors.
These factors are derived from both Tennessee statutes and case law, emphasizing that the child’s best interests are paramount in custody and residential placement decisions. The goal is to create an environment that supports the child's emotional growth and stability. Courts are afforded broad discretion in these matters, and decisions are based on the specific circumstances of each case, including the credibility of the parties involved.
The trial court's determination that the Father should be the primary residential parent during the school year and the Mother during summer vacation was upheld. The court found that maintaining a six-month residential split would hinder the child’s ability to attend the same school for an entire year, which is typically not in the child's best interest. The Mother’s claim that the trial court punished her for relocating to Missouri was unsupported by the trial transcript, which indicated the court was more concerned with her "volatile" behavior, including preventing the child from seeing his father and making derogatory remarks about him. The trial court considered all relevant factors in establishing the parenting plan, emphasizing the Father’s profession as a teacher and his commitment to education as beneficial for the child.
Regarding attorney’s fees, Tennessee's American Rule was cited, which requires parties to bear their own fees unless specified otherwise. The decision to award such fees in custody disputes lies within the trial court's discretion, and the appellate court will intervene only in cases of clear abuse of that discretion. The trial court’s denial of the Mother's request for attorney's fees was affirmed, and the Father’s assertion that the Mother’s appeal was frivolous was rejected. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment entirely, with costs taxed to the appellant, Terrell Lynn Simms.
