Gordon Peters v. Sharon Peters

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02A01-9810-CH-00283

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; May 10, 1999; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's denial of Gordon L. Peters' petition to change custody of his daughter, Brianna, from Sharon Peters (Moore). The case, stemming from a post-divorce custody dispute, alleges that violence in the mother’s home constitutes a material change of circumstances justifying the custody change. The parties divorced in 1992, with custody awarded to the mother. 

The father filed for custody modification in April 1997, citing several incidents of physical abuse in the mother’s relationships. Notably, the mother had been married three times since the divorce, with documented instances of severe domestic violence, including assaults by her second husband, William Mount, and her third husband, Anthony Smith. In one incident, Mount kicked the mother, causing her to fall down stairs, and later broke into her home and assaulted her multiple times while Brianna was present. 

The mother’s psychological evaluation revealed concerning personality traits, and her previous husband sought custody of his daughters from a prior marriage due to the violence in the home. Additionally, the mother’s relationship with Michael Moore was also marked by violence. The court ultimately determined that the accumulated evidence of domestic violence constituted a significant change in circumstances, warranting a review of custody arrangements.

Mother married Moore in December 1997, and they remain married as of the trial. Moore characterized their household as "normal" and assured the court of no future violence. Due to multiple marriages and violent relationships, Mother and her daughter Brianna have moved six times since 1992. From September 1992 to mid-1995, Mother provided babysitting services but has since had sporadic employment. She earned a nursing degree in 1996 but has not passed the state board exam. At the time of trial, she worked part-time at a center for mentally handicapped adults.

Father has lived in Franklin, Tennessee, since their divorce in 1992 and has been a national sales manager at Murray, Inc. for thirteen years, earning approximately $65,000 annually. He remarried in November 1997 after a five-year relationship with his current wife and has regular visitation with Brianna.

Brianna, a healthy seven-year-old, was evaluated by psychiatrist Dr. David Clein, who found her functioning well despite her less-than-ideal environment, with no signs of psychiatric disorders. However, the report noted potential risks for future issues due to instability, frequent moves, and negative parental remarks. Brianna was also assessed by social worker Joanne Zambo, who noted that Brianna loves both parents and prefers to stay with her mother.

The trial court found that Mother has been married three times since her divorce and has faced mental and physical abuse from all husbands. However, she and Moore have had a good relationship since their marriage, despite being on probation for Moore's prior abuse. The court identified serious judgment errors by Mother since the divorce, constituting a material change in circumstances warranting a review of the custody situation. Father has established a stable home in a desirable neighborhood with good schooling for Brianna.

The father’s petition to change custody was denied by the trial court, which found that the minor daughter, Brianna Michelle Peters, age eight, was thriving under her mother’s care. The mother, Mrs. Moore, had a history of turbulent marriages and had relocated multiple times since 1992, but her current marriage to Michael Moore appeared stable. The child had been in her mother’s custody since the parents' separation, had regular visitation with her father, and was performing well academically, being an Honor Roll student without any psychiatric issues as confirmed by professionals. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining stable custody for the child, rejecting the father's request to change custody due to a lack of evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances or substantial harm to the child. 

The appellate review process is de novo, with a presumption favoring the trial court's factual findings but not its legal conclusions. Under Tennessee law, a change in custody requires proof of new facts or changed circumstances, and the burden lies with the noncustodial parent to demonstrate that the custodial parent’s behavior poses a danger to the child’s well-being. The appellate court would only consider changing custody if such conditions were met, followed by a comparative fitness analysis.

Evidence of domestic violence can serve as a basis for modifying custody arrangements, as demonstrated in several Tennessee Court of Appeals cases where custody was changed due to violence in the home and lack of supervision. In the current case, the trial court found sufficient changes in circumstances to evaluate the child's best interests but ultimately denied the father's petition to change custody based on a comparative fitness analysis and the need for stability in the child’s life.

The mother has a history of tumultuous relationships, having been married three times and moved six times since the divorce in 1992. Her past marriages included incidents of substance abuse and violence, with Brianna witnessing at least one of these violent episodes. The mother's current husband was involved in a violent incident where the mother stabbed him in self-defense. A psychiatrist evaluated Brianna, noting her lack of psychiatric symptoms but highlighting her risk due to an unstable and potentially violent environment, suggesting her resilience rather than an ideal situation.

The father argues that merely exposing the child to domestic violence is enough to warrant a custody change. However, the legal precedent indicates that changes in circumstances must be compelling enough to justify a custody modification, with the child's best interests being the primary consideration. While exposure to domestic violence can initiate a review of custody, the court must also ensure that any new arrangement does not place the child in an equally or more harmful situation.

A material change of circumstances, including domestic violence, prompts the Court to evaluate the fitness of both parents to determine the best custody arrangement for the child. Tennessee law outlines several factors for this comparative fitness analysis, including the emotional ties between parents and child, each parent's ability to provide for the child, the stability of the child's environment, and the parents' mental and physical health. The case notes that Brianna has a loving relationship with both parents and has been primarily cared for by Mother, who has provided for her needs despite a turbulent home life characterized by violence, multiple marriages, and frequent relocations. In contrast, Father offers a stable home environment, consistent employment, and active involvement in Brianna’s life, including regular visitation and extracurricular activities. The Court highlights the importance of continuity in the child's life and stability, which favors Father's custodial capacity given the chaotic nature of Mother's situation, despite her role as primary caregiver.

Brianna's psychological resilience has played a significant role in her circumstances within an unstable environment. The relevant statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(9), considers the character and behavior of individuals residing with a parent. The record shows that Father lived with his current spouse before their marriage, while Mother's husband, Michael Moore, claims a positive relationship with Brianna and views a past violent incident involving Mother as accidental. Despite this assurance, the history of violence is a critical concern. While there is tension regarding Father's relationship with his current wife Fran during the divorce, it is acknowledged that they maintain a stable relationship and that Fran is affectionate towards Brianna.

The statute also emphasizes each parent's willingness to promote a relationship between the child and the other parent. Both parents have made negative comments about one another, particularly Mother, but there is no evidence of significant attempts to damage Brianna’s relationship with either parent. Upon reviewing the entire record, the trial court's denial of Father's custody petition is reversed. Although Mother's role as Brianna's primary caregiver is acknowledged, the unpredictable and violent nature of her environment cannot be allowed to continue. The case is remanded to the trial court for further actions regarding custody, visitation, child support, and related issues, with costs assigned to the Appellee.