In the custody dispute between Alice Elizabeth Durrant and Edwin Brittain Howard, II, the Trial Court awarded custody of their twins to the father, a decision which the mother appealed. The case began with the mother filing a complaint to establish parentage and support, to which the father responded by seeking to legitimate the twins and gain custody. A Parentage Order was issued, initially granting temporary custody to the mother and establishing child support obligations for the father.
During a lengthy trial, evidence was presented regarding custody, and the Court determined that a comparative fitness analysis was necessary. The Court found that the mother had significantly limited the father's access to the twins and created barriers in their relationship. Additionally, it noted the mother’s history of mental health issues, including depression, and her refusal to seek treatment, which the Court found was detrimental to her fitness as a custodial parent. In contrast, the father was deemed credible, stable, and dedicated, with an exemplary parenting record. Consequently, the Court concluded that placing the twins in the father's custody was in their best interests, with the mother receiving a reasonable visitation schedule.
On appeal, the mother raised three issues: the admission of her medical/psychiatric records into evidence, the application of a comparative fitness analysis, and whether the evidence supported the custody decision in favor of the father. The mother contended that the records were irrelevant and improperly admitted, but the Court noted that the mental health of a parent is a relevant factor in custody determinations. The objection regarding authentication of the records was not raised during the trial, thus cannot be addressed on appeal. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's decision.
The records in question are deemed inadmissible hearsay as they consist of out-of-court statements made by individuals who did not testify at trial; these statements were offered for their truth rather than for impeachment purposes and do not fit any hearsay exceptions under Tenn. R. Evid. 801-803. Although admitting these statements was an error, it is considered harmless due to substantial other evidence regarding the mother’s emotional instability, including her admission of past depression and failure to continue treatment. Testimony from Dr. Vey Nordquist, a clinical psychologist, highlighted the mother's mental health history, alongside various witnesses describing her mood swings and temper issues.
The mother contends that custody should have followed the "change in circumstances" standard per Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-303, asserting that custody defaults to the mother for children born out of wedlock. However, the Trial Court rightly applied the comparative fitness test, as there was no prior custody order. The court's decision aligns with precedents that necessitate a judicial determination of custody before applying the changed circumstances standard.
The mother also argues that the evidence contradicts the Trial Court's custody award to the father. Initial custody determinations are reviewed de novo, with a presumption of correctness unless evidence suggests otherwise. Given the factual basis of custody decisions and the trial judge's ability to assess witness credibility, appellate courts are reluctant to overturn such decisions.
In custody cases, the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount, as outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-106. Courts utilize the doctrine of comparative fitness, evaluating the fitness of each parent rather than deeming one unfit. Factors indicating both parents' ability to provide for their children were considered, including the mother's continuity of care. However, her instability in maintaining employment and home life ultimately mitigates against her having custody.
Father is the only parent with nearby family who regularly interacts with the children. Both parents are in good physical health, but the father's mental health is more stable than the mother's, who has exhibited anger, violence, mood swings, and abandonment of the children. Evidence also indicated that the mother physically abused and neglected the children. The court concluded that this evidence supports the custody determination, emphasizing the trial court's role in assessing witness credibility based on their demeanor. The appellate court upholds the trial court's decision, citing the presumption of correctness in child custody matters, and remands the case with costs assessed to the mother, Alice Elizabeth Durrant.
