Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Corey L. Choate v. Amanda Kay Choate (Ralston)
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2020-01503-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 25, 2021; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Corey L. Choate and Amanda Kay Choate (Ralston) are engaged in an appeal concerning post-divorce parenting arrangements and criminal contempt findings. Following their divorce in 2015, Father filed a petition in 2020 to modify the parenting plan and to hold Mother in criminal contempt. The Chancery Court for Bradley County ruled in favor of Father, granting him full custody of their son, RC, and finding Mother guilty of 573 counts of criminal contempt due to her non-compliance with the parenting plan. Mother's appeal centers on her claim that she did not receive adequate notice of the contempt charges because the Trial Court did not read the charges aloud in court as she requested. However, the appellate court found that the detailed notice provided by Father and the Trial Court's prior written order indicated that Mother was sufficiently informed of the charges. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's decision in its entirety and remanded the case for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to Father. The background reveals that the couple has two children, BC and RC, with BC having reached majority age. After their divorce, both parents remarried, and following a mediation in 2017, a new parenting plan was established that maintained the primary residential parent designations. The plan included provisions for co-parenting and was intended to facilitate communication about the children’s activities. Father later sought modifications to the parenting plan, asserting that Mother had obstructed his co-parenting rights, prompting further legal actions. Father's Second Amended Notice of Criminal Contempt, filed in February 2019, detailed 592 allegations against Mother, warning her of potential fines or jail time. The Trial Court addressed various motions from Mother in March 2019, denying her motion to dismiss the Notice and confirming that she received adequate notice of the charges. The court also denied her requests for discovery and for the charges to be read aloud, stating that Mother’s counsel could read the Notice. Mother subsequently filed an answer and counter-petition alleging Father's contempt and a significant change in circumstances since a January 2017 order. The trial commenced in June 2019 and spanned nine non-consecutive days until September 2019. Key testimony from Father highlighted his deteriorating relationship with their child, BC, which he attributed to Mother's actions, particularly an incident at a race in March 2017 where he felt berated in front of BC. Prior to this incident, Father noted a positive relationship with BC, including regular communication through social media. The court proceedings included discussions about Mother's failure to communicate BC's activities as required by the parenting plan. On March 17, 2017, Mandy sent an email about a barrel race in Calhoun, where she intended to watch her child, [BC]. The witness, accompanied by Kristina, decided to attend the event to avoid confrontation with Mandy. After watching [BC]'s performance, the witness and Kristina attempted to leave but were confronted by Mandy, who aggressively approached them on horseback, verbally assaulting them with accusations that they did not belong there and that [BC] hated them. [BC] was present during this incident but chose to walk away. Following the event, [BC] texted similar accusations to the witness. Prior to this incident, relations had been positive. Bodie, the parental coordinator, testified about her communications with both parents, emphasizing the mother's responsibility for ensuring the father's co-parenting time, which had been a consistent topic of discussion. The father had actively sought co-parenting arrangements and had even waited for extended periods at the mother’s residence for [BC] to come out, but she would not. The mother expressed a desire for the father to relinquish his parental rights, indicating that her current husband, Mr. Ralston, was more of a father figure to [BC]. Dr. William Bernet, an expert in parental alienation, provided testimony for the father, while the mother’s counsel attempted to prevent his testimony, a request the court denied. Dr. Bernet did not evaluate RC or BC but provided testimony regarding parental alienation, which he defined as a psychological condition where a child strongly aligns with one parent (the alienating or preferred parent) while rejecting the other (the alienated or targeted parent) without valid reasons. He identified five key factors indicative of parental alienation: 1) refusal of contact with the rejected parent; 2) a previously positive relationship with that parent; 3) the absence of abuse or neglect; 4) alienating behaviors by the preferred parent; and 5) symptoms of parental alienation in the child. He stated that the case's facts indicated severe alienation of BC toward Father due to Mother's actions, which included denigrating the other parent, limiting contact, interfering with communication, and creating a negative impression of the rejected parent. Bernet also outlined eight symptoms of parental alienation: 1) a campaign of denigration against the rejected parent; 2) frivolous rationalizations for the child's criticisms; 3) lack of ambivalence; 4) claims of independent thought; 5) reflexive support of the preferred parent; 6) absence of guilt regarding exploitation of the rejected parent; 7) repeating phrases from the preferred parent; and 8) spreading animosity toward the rejected parent's extended family. Regarding RC, Bernet confirmed that behaviors exhibited by Mother, such as telling RC he does not love her, using derogatory language about Father in front of RC, and scheduling activities on Father's time, were consistent with alienating factors, though less pervasive than those affecting BC. He also provided information about the Family Bridges treatment program for parental alienation, describing it as a four-day intervention involving the child and the targeted parent in a positive environment, though he noted his lack of direct experience with the program. Children are removed from the influence of an alienating parent to foster healthy interactions with the other parent and to educate them about false beliefs concerning family dynamics. The minimum removal period recommended is 90 days. The mother acknowledged making statements online that undermined the father's role as a parent and admitted to not informing him of a new phone number for their child, BC, until a deposition. Despite this, she recognized the father as a good parent to another child, RC. The mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time with RC out of retaliation and disputed his account of a 2017 incident, asserting that BC's estrangement from the father began earlier. The mother expressed resistance to adhering strictly to the parenting plan, suggesting it should serve as a guideline rather than a strict rule. She emphasized the need for flexibility in parenting due to unforeseen circumstances. On January 7, 2020, a Trial Court issued a detailed 72-page order, incorporating a permanent parenting plan. The Court found both the mother and BC lacked credibility, deemed RC’s testimony influenced by the mother, and held the mother in contempt for 573 violations of the parenting plan, labeling the case as one of the most severe instances of alienation encountered in twenty-one years. The Trial Court determined that the Mother knowingly waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while facing nearly 600 counts of criminal contempt. During her testimony about parenting, she claimed to co-parent effectively, attending all events for her child, RC, and participating in coaching. However, her claims were contradicted by her emails. Mother stated she attempted to communicate with Father, but he only preferred email or text, leading to feelings of embarrassment when she tried to engage him in person. An incident at a football game was highlighted where Mother reacted to comments about her child being hit, resulting in a confrontation with a coach and further complaints about disrespect from assistant coaches. She expressed frustration over Father's lack of public communication and denied using profanity, despite admitting to cursing during their divorce proceedings. The Court found her confrontational and noted she often escalated perceived slights. Mother attributed her inability to coach RC to her commitments with BC, an elite racer, and exhibited little insight into her own inappropriate behaviors or their detrimental effects on her child. When prompted about alternative actions she could have taken, she deflected blame onto Father, claiming he made no effort to reach out to their child. Furthermore, she contradicted herself by stating she did not force their child to visit Father and had sent the child away during pick-ups, which lacked supporting evidence. Despite being pushed by the Guardian Ad Litem, she refused to impose consequences on BC for not visiting Father, asserting that she would not take away something important to her child. Her demeanor in court was frequently disrespectful, characterized by angry exchanges with her attorney and dismissive reactions towards witnesses, all while accusing Father's attorney of disrespectful behavior. Mr. Jenne is perceived by BC's mother as disrespecting BC's achievements in barrel racing. The mother called her son, RC, as a witness, but he displayed reluctance to discuss his parents. He revealed that his mother expressed embarrassment over a football game and that the divorce has made her angry. RC indicated that he feels pressured to testify in a manner favorable to his mother and described instances of his stepmother yelling at him. He noted that neither parent disciplines him, although both impose restrictions as a form of discipline. RC found it "weird" that his father appears intimidated by his mother. His testimony supports the father's claims, showing confusion regarding family dynamics, especially BC referring to Mr. Ralston as "dad" and Father as "Corey." During cross-examination, RC acknowledged that his father's household is stricter, yet he affirmed that both parents love him. RC revealed that he has seen his mother upset while in her care but was hesitant to comment on her temper. He corroborated that there were happy times at his father's home, recalling a family trip to Gatlinburg in December 2016 where BC was present and enjoying herself. However, RC's reluctance to speak positively about his father indicates potential parental alienation by the mother. His demeanor changed when discussing his enjoyment in photos, suggesting nervousness influenced by his mother. RC mentioned fearing his father after witnessing an incident where he thought his dad hit BC, although he did not witness it directly and attributed his feelings to a video shown by his mother. Overall, RC's testimony was seen as lacking objectivity, heavily influenced by his mother, and indicative of severe alienation against Father. The father has been deprived of his parenting rights, missing over 365 days of parenting time, resulting in at least 297 incidents of contempt, which continue post-filing of the contempt petition. BC is still not visiting her father, highlighting ongoing issues of custody and parental rights. Mother has repeatedly violated court orders concerning co-parenting arrangements, demonstrating willful defiance and a lack of cooperation with Father. Specific violations include failing to send regular updates about children's activities, neglecting to meet with the parenting coordinator, and obstructing Father's access to educational records and communication with the children. Mother has made derogatory remarks about Father in the children's presence, failed to provide adequate notice for extracurricular activities, and has not encouraged the children to maintain a positive relationship with Father. These actions have resulted in numerous instances of contempt, jeopardizing the children's welfare. The Court finds a substantial change in circumstances and determines that it is in the best interest of the children for Father to become the primary residential parent. He has been deprived of co-parenting time, and the Court acknowledges the urgency of preserving his relationship with the children, particularly as one approaches adulthood. Father is awarded the next 120 days of uninterrupted co-parenting time, after which he will have full custody, while Mother will have visitation rights every other weekend, contingent upon her completing counseling. The Court also grants Father full decision-making authority regarding both children, citing concerns over potential alienation affecting the younger child. A Guardian Ad Litem was appointed due to the child's age, developmental needs, and inappropriate adult influences, particularly from the Mother, which led to significant parental conflict and interference with custody and visitation. The Court determined that all fees for the Guardian Ad Litem would be the responsibility of the Mother, who has exhibited neglect and substantial non-performance in her parenting duties, detrimental to the children's well-being. The Mother was found to have an emotional impairment affecting her parenting, although no substance abuse was evident. There was a substantial emotional disconnect between the Father and the child, BC, exacerbated by the Mother's abusive conflict behavior and withholding access to the Father without justification. The Court noted a pattern similar to that in McClain v. McClain, where the child demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the Father, a situation worsened by the Mother's influence. The Court emphasized the need for the Father to re-establish a relationship with BC to prevent further long-term psychological harm and noted that the Mother's actions have contributed to the child's developing attitudes of rejection and separation rather than resolution, posing risks to normal personality development. Mother has been found in contempt for 573 violations of previous court orders, which include the failure to submit complete Sunday emails 62 times, 297 missed co-parenting days, failure to consult on school matters, failure to provide school information, and making unwarranted derogatory remarks. Additionally, she did not create a nurturing environment for the children on at least one occasion and failed to provide Father with BC's phone number for scheduled calls, resulting in 208 contempt incidents for that issue alone. To address these issues, the court ordered a 120-day interruption of BC's activities to repair the relationship with Father through the Family Bridges Program. Mother is required to present BC and RC to Father for this program on January 21, 2020, at the Bradley County Sheriff’s Department, and must ensure their cooperation. Failure to comply will result in an arrest warrant. Mother has also been mandated to start intensive counseling immediately and after her potential jail release. The court dismissed Mother’s counter-petition, which she admitted was retaliatory. Mother's visitation rights are contingent upon compliance with the Family Bridges Program and after-care recommendations, beginning after a 120-day no-contact period. Mother was fined $50 for each instance of contempt, totaling $28,650, and sentenced to 200 days in jail, with 10 days for the first 20 instances running consecutively and the remaining violations running concurrently. Additionally, she is required to attend anger management classes. Father was awarded $82,826.76 in attorney fees. Separately, in Georgia, BC filed for emancipation, which Father contested. The Georgia court granted BC’s emancipation petition, stating that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) did not apply since emancipation proceedings are not considered child custody proceedings. The court ruled that BC was a resident of Georgia at the time of filing, thus maintaining jurisdiction despite the Tennessee custody order. Petitioner seeks emancipation to avoid involvement in ongoing legal disputes between her parents. The Georgia Court recognized Petitioner, referred to as BC, as capable of managing her own financial affairs due to her successful career as a horse trainer, with an income projected to exceed $100,000 in 2019. BC plans to attend college on a full scholarship and intends to reside with her grandmother post-emancipation. The Trial Court addressed the implications of the Georgia emancipation in a March 2020 order. The father seeks to enforce a prior January 2020 order, while the mother argues that the father's request for additional findings is untimely, questioning the court's jurisdiction. The previous order did not fully resolve all issues, particularly concerning attorney fees owed to the father. Under T.C.A. 29-31-105, emancipation allows minors to manage their own affairs legally, but the Georgia Court's findings on BC's emancipation do not affect custody issues in Tennessee, where custody remains governed by local laws and orders. The Tennessee Court deems the emancipation irrelevant to its custody case. The court treated the father's post-trial motion as a request for authority to enforce its orders despite BC's emancipation. The court confirmed that the emancipation does not alter its custody directive. In July 2020, the mother filed for custody modification and arbitration, to which the father responded, claiming she had not complied with previous orders. Following a hearing, the court allowed the father to resume communication with the mother as per the former parenting plan. The father subsequently moved to dismiss the mother's modification petition, contending she did not demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since January 2020. Mother petitioned for a modification of the custody order concerning RC, citing a substantial change in circumstances due to BC's emancipation and the Father's failure to appeal the emancipation order, which made the current custody order and Family Bridges protocol unimplementable. She sought permission for phone contact with RC, overnight visitation every other weekend, shared holidays, and the appointment of an independent expert for a clinical evaluation of RC to assess potential emotional harm from lack of contact with her. In October 2020, the Trial Court dismissed Mother’s petition, stating that a material change of circumstances could not arise from her own non-compliance with court orders and prior contempt findings. The Court noted that Mother had not followed through on previous orders aimed at remedying issues with BC and preventing alienation of RC. Consequently, the Court found that Mother had "unclean hands," failed to establish a material change of circumstances, and denied her motion. Subsequently, Father was awarded $7,147.50 in attorney’s fees, and an amended order was issued in January 2021. Mother appealed, consolidating her appeals regarding the January 2020 contempt/custody order and the October 2020 dismissal. The consolidated issues on appeal include: inadequate notice of contempt charges, the sufficiency of evidence for the 573 contempt counts, the excessiveness of her 200-day jail sentence and $28,650 fine, the Trial Court's findings of parental alienation without clinical evaluation, claims of material change of circumstance, the absence of a proper best interest analysis for RC, dismissal of her modification petition, and the granting of attorney's fees to Father. Mother questions whether the Georgia emancipation order overrides the Trial Court’s custody order in favor of Father for BC, but this matter is rendered moot as BC is now an adult. Any facts related to BC’s situation are pertinent only in the context of Mother’s criminal contempt issues. Father seeks to recover attorney’s fees incurred during the appeal. The review process is de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the trial court's factual findings unless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence. Legal conclusions are also reviewed de novo, without any presumption of correctness. Appellate courts give considerable deference to trial courts regarding witness credibility, as trial courts are better positioned to assess witness demeanor and conduct. A trial judge's credibility assessment is not reevaluated on appeal unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. For evidence to be considered clear and convincing, it must eliminate any substantial doubt about the correctness of its conclusions. This standard is a legal question reviewed de novo without a presumption of correctness. The abuse of discretion standard is characterized by a less rigorous review of lower court decisions, acknowledging that decisions often involve multiple acceptable alternatives. However, abuse of discretion occurs when a court fails to follow legal standards, makes illogical decisions, or bases its conclusions on erroneous evidence assessments. The excerpt outlines the standards for appellate review of trial court decisions, particularly in the context of discretion exercised by trial courts. It emphasizes two key concepts: the trial court's authority to select from multiple permissible outcomes and the limited role of appellate courts in not substituting their judgment for that of the trial court. The framework established in Lee Medical for reviewing discretionary decisions includes three criteria: (1) ensuring the decision is supported by evidence, (2) verifying proper legal principles were applied, and (3) confirming the decision falls within acceptable alternatives. The excerpt then addresses a specific case involving a claim that the mother lacked adequate notice regarding criminal contempt charges. The mother contends that the trial court failed to read the charges in open court, which she argues constituted a denial of due process and inadequate notice. The appellate court will review this issue de novo, as it pertains to the sufficiency of notice, while the trial court's exercise of contempt power will be evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard. Relevant legal provisions, specifically Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b), require that notice for criminal contempt include details such as the hearing's time and place. An alleged contemner must be afforded reasonable time to prepare a defense against criminal contempt charges, which must include a clear statement of the essential facts constituting the charge. Notice can be provided orally in open court or through a written order, including an arrest order if necessary. This process may be initiated by the district attorney general, a court-appointed attorney, or an attorney representing a party. Due process requires sufficient notice before a court can impose punishment for criminal contempt occurring outside its presence. This includes explicit notification of the criminal contempt charge and the relevant factual basis, allowing the accused to recognize the nature of the allegation and the potential for punishment rather than civil compliance. In the case of McClain, the court found that the father did not receive adequate notice regarding criminal contempt charges related to a prior court order, as he was not informed of possible jail time until after the contempt ruling. The mother’s motions failed to clearly articulate the specific charges or distinguish between civil and criminal contempt, leading to a determination that the father was not properly notified as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). Consequently, the court vacated the contempt finding and the associated suspended sentence, reaffirming that a suspended sentence does not apply to civil contempt. The court also clarified that the trial court is not mandated to read the charges aloud, as notice can be given through written orders or orally. In March 2019, the Trial Court denied Mother's request to have the charges against her read aloud, determining that she had been adequately notified of the criminal contempt proceedings through the Notices provided to her and her attorney. The Court referenced a detailed 18-page Second Amended Notice from Father outlining the alleged contemptuous acts, confirming Mother's awareness of her constitutional rights and the potential consequences, including jail time. The Court stated that Mother's testimony supported that she understood the charges and had consulted with her attorney prior to trial. Further, the Court examined the validity of the 573 counts of criminal contempt against Mother, emphasizing that her conviction could not be based on Father's actions causing parental estrangement. Mother contested the Trial Court's burden shift to her regarding the production of certain emails she allegedly failed to send to Father per the parenting plan. The Court reiterated the elements required to establish criminal contempt under Tennessee law, which includes: 1) a lawful court order, 2) the defendant's violation of that order, 3) proof of willful violation, and the additional requirement that the plaintiff prove the order was clear and unambiguous. The presumption of innocence for the accused was highlighted, stating that a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of willful noncompliance with the court's order. If found guilty, the defendant bears the burden on appeal to demonstrate the insufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal contempt case, the court must ascertain if the evidence supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If insufficient, the finding must be set aside as per Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In this case, the appellant, referred to as Mother, failed to specify any particular finding of contempt that she believes was not proven. Instead, she made general claims about being improperly burdened with producing emails and attributed her child's estrangement from the father to their relationship rather than her own actions. Evidence presented included Father's testimony that Mother did not regularly send required Sunday activity emails, alongside specific instances of non-compliance. The Trial Court, having the discretion to assess credibility, favored Father's account over that of Mother and the child. Mother's own admissions indicated that she had the ability to comply with the parenting plan but chose not to. Mother did not provide evidence contradicting any specific contempt charge, nor did she substantiate her claim that she had sent the required emails. Although she attempted to introduce additional emails during the trial, the Trial Court excluded them due to improper discovery procedures, and Mother did not contest this exclusion on appeal. The court ultimately upheld the Trial Court’s findings, determining that the evidence against Mother was sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of Mother's sentence of 200 days in jail and a fine of $28,650, which she argued was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion based on the strained relationship between Father and their child. Criminal contempt is applicable when necessary to prevent obstruction of justice, with sanctions being both punitive and unconditional. Sentences must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offenses committed. The court emphasizes that not all contemptuous acts warrant maximum sentences, particularly with consecutive sentencing. The trial court found that the mother consistently disregarded court orders, deprived the father of parenting time, and failed to comply with the parenting plan, which she viewed as insignificant. This behavior included withholding communication and derogatory remarks about the father in front of the children. The trial court concluded that the mother showed no respect for the law and deemed her 200-day sentence justly deserved. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's actions, stating that the use of contempt powers was reasonable and had a sufficient evidentiary basis. Additionally, the trial court’s finding of parental alienation was questioned by the mother, who criticized the reliability of expert testimony due to the absence of clinical evaluations and psychological testing for either parent or the child. Mother argues that there is no evidence of alienation concerning RC and claims that Dr. Bernet's testimony should be dismissed due to alleged bias and a flawed diagnosis. She cites the discretion of the trial court regarding evidentiary rulings, referencing Tennessee Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702, which allows expert testimony if it assists the trier of fact, and Rule 703, which permits experts to base opinions on facts that may not be admissible, provided their probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. The trial court is responsible for determining the expert's qualifications and the trustworthiness of the underlying facts. Father references the case McClain v. McClain, which found evidence of parental alienation after a thorough review of testimony and exhibits, noting that the trial court deemed Dr. Schacht's testimony credible while questioning Father's reliability due to his negative generalizations about Mother. Despite Father's claims of supporting the relationship between Mother and the Children, the trial court found that Mother's management of her bipolar disorder and her stable, professional life contradicted his assertions. Ultimately, the court concluded that a material change in circumstances affecting the Children had occurred, with alienation reaching "crisis proportions" by the time Mother sought custody modification on October 2, 2015. B.M. had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons and expressed significant anger towards Mother for insisting on co-parenting time, raising concerns about his potential danger to himself and Mother. The situation represented a change in circumstances since the 2015 Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP), specifically involving B.M., occurring after the PPP was established, not anticipated at that time, and impacting B.M.'s well-being. Unlike the McClain case, which involved an actual diagnosis of parental alienation, no such diagnosis or evaluation of the children was present in this case. However, expert testimony from Dr. Bernet on parental alienation was deemed relevant and consistent with the evidence presented, including Mother's behavior that suggested alienation, such as disparaging remarks about Father and interfering with his parenting time. The Trial Court recognized signs of alienation in B.C. and emerging signs in R.C., ultimately creating a plan to mitigate parental alienation. Mother's claims against Dr. Bernet's testimony were found unpersuasive, as she failed to specify any issues with it. The Trial Court's admission of this testimony was upheld as logical and supported by evidence. Additionally, the Court found that there was a material change of circumstances regarding R.C., despite Mother's argument that R.C. was thriving and involved in sports. The Supreme Court requires a determination of a material change in circumstances before applying the 'best interest' factors for modifying a parenting plan, as established in Armbrister v. Armbrister. The Court establishes that a lower threshold applies for modifying a residential parenting schedule compared to changing the primary residential parent. To justify such a modification, it suffices to demonstrate that the existing schedule is unworkable. In this case, the Trial Court concluded that the child, RC, faced potential alienation similar to that experienced by another child, BC, due to the mother's behavior, a finding supported by the trial evidence, including RC's testimony. This early indication of risk for parental alienation met the material change of circumstances standard required for modifying the schedule. Furthermore, Mother contends that the Trial Court failed to adequately perform a best interest analysis for RC, lacking sufficient findings of fact regarding both the best interest factors and the material change of circumstances. The best interest determination must consider various statutory factors, including the strength and stability of the child's relationships with each parent, their past and potential future parenting performance, and their willingness to support a close parent-child relationship. Factors such as compliance with court-ordered parenting arrangements and the parents' capacity to provide essential care for the child are also critical. Key factors evaluated by the court in determining the best interests of the child include the emotional bonds between the child and each parent, the child’s emotional needs and developmental level, and the moral, physical, mental, and emotional fitness of each parent for parenting. The court can mandate examinations under Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and may order the disclosure of confidential mental health information relevant to the case, ensuring such information is protected and destroyed or returned after proceedings. Other considerations include the child’s relationships with siblings and relatives, the stability and continuity of the child’s living environment, any evidence of abuse, the character of individuals in the parents' homes, the child's preferences if they are 12 years or older, the parents' employment schedules, and any additional relevant factors. While trial courts must consider these best interest factors, they are not required to explicitly reference each one. In the case discussed, the mother argues that her relationship with the child is positive, highlighting that the child enjoys time with her and has a stable educational environment. She asserts that parenting duties are fulfilled by both parents, despite the father being the primary residential parent. The child reportedly expresses fear of the father and a desire to spend more time with the mother, indicating potential parental alienation. The mother notes the child’s displeasure with the father’s negative remarks about her and issues with the father's household dynamics. The trial court's findings imply consideration of these factors, even if not explicitly stated. The Trial Court's findings regarding BC also apply to RC, particularly the assessment of Mother's emotional unfitness to parent. Evidence demonstrated Mother's harmful behavior towards the children’s relationship with Father, implicating several statutory factors. The Trial Court found that RC's preference, influenced by Mother, did not necessitate acceptance. Concerns about Mother's potential negative influence on RC were justified, and the evidence did not contradict the Trial Court’s factual findings on this matter. There was no clear and convincing evidence to overturn the Trial Court's credibility determinations, and no reversible error was found in the best interest determination regarding RC or the reduction of his time with Mother. The parenting plan for RC was deemed logical, supported by evidence, and compliant with statutory requirements, indicating no abuse of discretion by the Trial Court. In addressing Mother’s post-trial petition for modification, the Trial Court applied a stringent standard for motions to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), focusing on the legal sufficiency of the complaint rather than the strength of the allegations. The Trial Court concluded that Mother's conduct did not constitute a material change in circumstance, and her defiance of court orders could not support her claims. Upon de novo review, the court affirmed the dismissal of Mother’s petition for modification but noted she could file a new petition in the future. Lastly, the issue of whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in granting Father attorney’s fees was also considered. A court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in child custody cases under Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-103(c), with a standard of review based on abuse of discretion. In this case, the Father prevailed at trial. The Mother claimed she could not pay these fees but presented no supporting evidence. Testimony indicated she is Vice President of a business, earning between $38,000 and $76,000, and has made significant purchases indicating financial capability. The Trial Court's decision to award fees to the Father was deemed logical and supported by evidence. Regarding attorney's fees incurred during the appeal, the court considers factors such as the ability to pay, success in the appeal, and good faith in seeking the appeal. The Mother’s request to deny the Father’s fee request was rejected, as the Father fully prevailed on appeal and her claims of financial incapacity were unsupported. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of awarding the Father his attorney’s fees for the appeal and remanded the case to the Trial Court for the collection of costs and additional proceedings consistent with the ruling. Costs on appeal are assessed against the Mother, Amanda Kaye Choate.