Timothy Shaun McClure v. Stacy Dawn McClure

Citation: Not availableDocket: W1998-00804-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 1, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Timothy Shaun McClure (Plaintiff/Appellant) and Stacy Dawn McClure (Defendant/Appellee) are involved in a divorce case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The trial court awarded sole custody of their two children to Timothy, mandated child support payments from Stacy, and granted her supervised visitation rights. Additionally, visitation was allowed for the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother, and the marital home was ordered to be sold with proceeds divided between the parties. 

The appellate court affirmed the custody award to Timothy but reversed the visitation rights granted to the maternal relatives and the order for the sale of the marital home, remanding the case for further proceedings. The couple married on June 3, 1990, and has two children. Following an incident on October 3, 1996, where Stacy was charged with child abuse after allegedly attacking their son while intoxicated, the couple separated. A juvenile court awarded Timothy sole custody shortly after the incident, and he subsequently filed for divorce citing inappropriate conduct by Stacy. Stacy counter-filed for custody and support, seeking visitation with supervision. A temporary restraining order against Stacy was issued shortly after the incident, and she was later granted supervised visitation through the court.

Wife claimed that Husband restricted her visitation with their children to his or his parents' homes and that his family disrupted these visits. In contrast, Husband argued that Great-Grandmother often neglected her supervisory duties during Wife's visits, contrary to the trial court's order. On January 17, 1997, the trial court ordered psychological evaluations and counseling for Husband, Wife, and their older child to assess fitness for custody and visitation. Dr. Peter W. Zinkus recommended that Wife have supervised visitation on alternating weekends with her maternal grandmother, Linda Strawn, and urged Wife to continue psychiatric treatment and avoid alcohol during visits. 

On April 25, 1997, Grandmother and Great-Grandmother filed a corrected petition seeking visitation rights alongside their supervision of Wife’s visits, which Husband opposed. Following an arrest for DUI on June 10, 1997, Wife spent 28 days at the Memphis Mental Health Center; she later testified that the DUI charge was expunged, while past charges of reckless driving and public drunkenness were dismissed. Wife claimed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice weekly and see a psychiatrist every three weeks.

During a trial on November 13, 1997, Husband testified that he had been the primary caregiver for the children since the separation, asserting that he met their needs with minimal financial support from Wife. Wife challenged this, alleging inadequate care and concerns over Husband’s discipline methods. She admitted to not paying child support and living in a condominium funded by part-time jobs and parental assistance, including purchasing a new car post-separation. 

The valuation of the marital home was disputed; the Fayette County Tax Assessor appraised it at $39,300 in 1997, while Wife claimed a 1995 appraisal by First Tennessee Bank valued it at $58,000, asserting improvements had been made since then. Both Wife and Great-Grandmother reiterated claims of interference in visitation by Husband and his family, which Husband denied, stating he aimed to facilitate pleasant visits and had no objections to future supervision by either Grandmother.

On December 29, 1997, the trial court issued a 'Final Decree of Divorce,' granting Husband and Wife a divorce, awarding Husband 'temporary custody and control' of their two minor children, and granting Wife supervised visitation on alternating weekends. Wife was required to pay child support and back child support. The decree mandated the sale of all marital property, including their home, with net proceeds to be equally divided unless an alternative agreement was reached within sixty days. Dr. Zinkus was instructed to provide a follow-up report by September 1, 1998. 

Husband appealed the decree on January 26, 1998, while Wife filed a motion to alter or amend the decree on January 29, 1998, claiming the absence of a full report from Dr. Zinkus and seeking a reduction in her child support due to job loss. Husband opposed this motion and sought to limit Wife's visitation, alleging unsupervised visits and potential abuse. In response, Wife requested that the court place the children in State custody for investigation.

Grandmother and Great-Grandmother later sought visitation rights. On April 30, 1999, the trial court denied Wife’s motion, affirmed the December 29 decree as final under Rule 54.02, and noted that visitation, custody, and support could be modified. The court permitted Wife to make phone calls to the children and visit them at Husband's home.

Husband then appealed both the 'Final Decree of Divorce' and the April 30 order, arguing errors in the award of 'temporary' custody instead of permanent custody, visitation rights granted to Grandmother and Great-Grandmother, the decision to not award the divorce to him, and the order to sell the marital home. He contended that permanent custody was warranted due to Wife’s history of abuse and neglect, while Wife argued that the temporary custody was justified by Husband's lack of prompt medical care for the children and his disciplinary approach. The case is reviewed de novo, maintaining a presumption of correctness for the trial court's factual findings, emphasizing that the welfare and best interests of the children are paramount in custody decisions.

Tennessee law mandates that trial courts consider specific statutory factors when determining a child's best interests, as outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-106. In the case at hand, the trial court awarded Husband "temporary custody and control" of the children in the Final Decree of Divorce, which was later clarified to be a final judgment subject to modification. The absence of the term "permanent" did not negate the court's intent for the custody award to be effectively permanent, while still allowing for future changes as necessary.

Husband challenged the court's decision to permit Grandmother and Great-Grandmother to intervene and to award them visitation rights. He contended that there were no grounds justifying grandparent visitation. However, Wife maintained that the visitation order fell within the trial court's discretion. According to Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-306, grandparent visitation is permissible if the parents are divorced or separated and is in the best interests of the child, but it must respect the parents' constitutional right to privacy in child-rearing decisions. The Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in Hawk v. Hawk established that grandparent visitation cannot be granted unless the court finds that denying such visitation would cause substantial harm to the child. This precedent applies even in non-intact family situations, as substantiated in Simmons v. Simmons. Ultimately, the trial court's custody award to Husband was affirmed.

In Hilliard v. Hilliard, the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed several key legal issues regarding grandparent visitation rights and divorce proceedings. The court examined cases where grandparents sought visitation under varying circumstances, highlighting that for visitation to be granted, there must be evidence of substantial harm to the child if visitation is denied, per previous rulings such as Hawk and Ellison. In this case, the court found no allegations of substantial harm in the pleadings or testimony, rendering the trial court's award of visitation to both Grandmother and Great-Grandmother erroneous.

Additionally, the court considered the grounds for divorce, with Husband arguing for an absolute divorce due to Wife's inappropriate conduct. The trial court, having assessed the credibility of witnesses, determined that both parties exhibited inappropriate behavior, leading to a divorce granted to both. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the trial judge's superior position in evaluating witness credibility.

Finally, concerning the equitable division of marital property, Husband contended he should retain the marital home for the children's sake. However, the trial court's decision to sell the home and equally divide the proceeds was deemed appropriate and within its discretion. The appellate review maintained a presumption of correctness regarding the trial court's factual findings, concluding that no misapplication of law occurred.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121(c) mandates that trial courts consider various factors for the equitable division of marital property, with special attention given to the spouse who has physical custody of the children, as per § 36-4-121(d). In this case, Husband has resided in the marital home with the couple's two children since separation, and his parents assist in child care. The parties disagreed on the home's value; Wife stated it was appraised at $58,000 in 1995, while Husband claimed a 1997 appraisal of $39,300. Due to this valuation dispute, the trial court ordered the sale of the home and equal division of proceeds. However, the court found that special consideration for Husband, as the custodial parent, was warranted, and determined the trial court erred in ordering the sale of the marital home. Consequently, the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for an equitable property division that allows Husband to retain the home. This could involve awarding the home to Husband, assessing its value, and requiring him to compensate Wife, or other adjustments as deemed appropriate by the trial court. Additionally, the trial court's orders effectively granted sole custody of the children to Husband, with the ability to modify if circumstances change. The decision to grant visitation rights to Grandmother and Great-Grandmother was reversed, though Wife's visitation supervision order remains intact. Overall, the trial court's ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with costs equally assessed to both parties.