Russell v. Russell

Citation: Not availableDocket: E1999-02742-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 25, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Hamilton County Chancery Court's decision to award primary residential responsibility of the minor child, Brooke Shannon Russell, to the Appellee, Burgess Stephen Russell. The case arose from the divorce between Burgess and Linda Sharion Russell, who were married in 1988 and separated in May 1998. Following the separation, Burgess filed for divorce on November 20, 1998, leading to mediation for temporary visitation arrangements. 

Due to concerns regarding Linda's plans to relocate with the child, Burgess sought and received an injunction preventing the move. After a trial on August 30, 1999, the court granted Burgess primary custody and adopted a parenting plan on September 1, 1999. Linda's appeal centered on the claim that the trial court erred in its custody determination. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the broad discretion required in custody matters and the necessity of considering multiple factual factors. Costs of the appeal were adjudged against Linda and her surety. The case is remanded for any further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

The matter is reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness regarding factual findings unless the evidence preponderates otherwise, as per Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Legal conclusions from the trial court are also reviewed de novo. The appeal focuses on whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding primary residential responsibility of the minor child to Mr. Russell. The abuse of discretion standard, established in BIF, emphasizes the need for consistent and rational judicial decisions, requiring the appellate court to evaluate: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's decision; 2) proper identification and application of legal principles; and 3) whether the decision falls within acceptable alternatives.

Custody determinations prioritize the child’s welfare and best interests, acknowledging that divorce can severely impact children’s stability and well-being. Parental desires are secondary to the children’s needs, and custody should not be used as a punitive measure against parents but instead foster a nurturing environment for the child. Factors influencing the best interest of the child include the parents' demeanor and credibility during trial, as well as statutory factors outlined in T.C.A. 36-6-411(e)(1), which mandate residential provisions that promote stable relationships with both parents.

The court must consider: A) each parent’s ability to prepare the child for adulthood; B) the strength and stability of the child’s relationship with each parent; and C) each parent's past and potential future parenting performance, including their willingness to support a continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.

Willful refusal to attend a court-ordered parent education seminar may indicate a parent’s lack of good faith in legal proceedings. The court considers several factors when determining the best interests of the child, including each parent's ability to provide necessary care, emotional ties to the child, the child's developmental needs, and the parents' fitness to parent. The child's relationships with siblings and other significant adults, continuity in living situations, evidence of abuse, and the character of individuals residing with the parent are also considered. Additionally, the child’s reasonable preference, particularly if aged twelve or older, is taken into account, along with the parents' employment schedules.

Ms. Russell argues that the Trial Court failed to prioritize the child's best interests, citing testimony from her daughter’s teacher, Susan Parker, to illustrate her active involvement in her daughter’s life. Parker noted Ms. Russell’s consistent attendance at school events and described the child as an above-average student. Mr. Russell counters that Parker only taught the child for one year during the parties' separation and claims Ms. Russell hindered his visitation rights. He also acknowledges recognizing Mr. Russell but disputes Ms. Russell's portrayal of him as violent in front of the child. Ms. Russell contends that the Trial Court’s decision was punitive due to her previous noncompliance with a court order regarding the child's residency. Mr. Russell asserts that Ms. Russell did not formally seek custody until the trial began and alleges she obstructed his relationship with their daughter. 

The Court's Memorandum Opinion addressed each factor outlined in T.C.A. 36-6-411, concluding that both parents possess equal capabilities and maintain good relationships with the child; however, Ms. Russell has assumed greater responsibility, limiting Mr. Russell's time with the child as mandated by the court.

Ms. Russell has failed to facilitate a relationship between Mr. Russell and their child, even violating court orders regarding this issue. She also willfully did not attend a required parent education seminar without providing justification. While both parents can provide for the child's basic needs, Ms. Russell's actions have limited the extent of this support. There is mutual love and affection between the child and both parents, with no evidence of the child having special emotional needs or developmental concerns. Except for Ms. Russell's reluctance to allow a normal relationship with Mr. Russell, both parents exhibit equal emotional fitness.

The child has not developed significant relationships with extended family but is actively involved in Bright School and local athletic activities. The child has always lived in Chattanooga until Ms. Russell proposed a move to Kingsport. No evidence of abuse was found regarding parenting responsibilities, and there is uncertainty about who would be in Ms. Russell's home in Kingsport due to her failure to provide notice of the move. The child testified that Ms. Russell's ex-husband visits the home, raising concerns about the character of individuals present in her household.

The child expressed a preference, but the court concluded that Ms. Russell had influenced this preference. Both parents' employment schedules were considered, and claims that the court neglected the child's best interests were dismissed. The court found no evidence supporting Ms. Russell's claims of Mr. Russell's violent behavior, crediting the Trial Court’s assessment of witness credibility. Ms. Russell's arguments regarding Mr. Russell's lack of desire for a relationship with the child were also rejected. The court upheld the decision to grant primary residential responsibility to Mr. Russell, affirming that the Trial Court correctly applied the statutory factors in its determination and found no abuse of discretion. The judgment is affirmed, with costs of appeal assigned to Ms. Russell.