Mom is jailed and loses custody for coaching child to refuse visitation
Tennessee child custody case summary on custody modification in divorce and family law.
Mom loses custody after coaching child to refuse visitation.
Brandy Leigh Frame Taylor (now Tipper) v. Joseph Daniel Taylor
The child in this Lincoln County, Tennessee, case was born in 2013, and the parents divorced in 2017. The mother was designated as the primary residential parent under the permanent parenting plan. The father was granted 124 days of parenting time per year. Both parents went back to court when the child turned nine and claimed that circumstances had changed materially. The mother claimed the child refused to see his father. However, the father claimed this was due to the mother’s interference. The trial court found that the father was more credible. The mother was also found guilty of criminal contempt and ordered jailed, although the majority of the sentence was suspended on the condition that she comply scrupulously with future court orders. The mother was also found guilty of criminal contempt and ordered jailed, although most of the jail sentence was suspeneded on the condition that she comply scrupulously with future court orders.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the mother brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The trial court had found that the mother, and her mother, encouraged and coached the child not to visit the father. The mother and her mother would take him to the exchange area, where he would become hysterical, and refuse to leave the car. Appellate review is on an abuse of discretion standard.
Since she had filed her own petition, the mother agreed that there had been a material change of circumstances in the case. The lower court focused on the mother’s mental fitness and emotional state. In particular, it noted that the mother’s actions had prevented the child from interacting with his siblings and step-siblings.
The appeals court reviewed the evidence carefully and concluded that the evidence preponderated in favor of the lower court’s findings. It focused on the fact that mother had stated four times she would not obey court orders. The appeals court also agreed with the lower court that the mother’s beliefs regarding abuse were patently unreasonable. The appeals court cited trial documents filed by father which clearly outlined the issues. The appeals court agreed with the lower courts that the mother’s behavior was willful. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment because it was necessary to protect lower court orders.
It noted the maximum sentence for the 71 counts could have been 710 jail days. The Court of Appeals also awarded the father’s attorney fees for defending his appeal and remanded it for a determination on the amount.
