Dad in Custody Case can’t be subject to Lifetime Restraining Order
The parents in this Tennessee divorce case had three children when they divorced. The mother filed a divorce in Benton County, claiming irreconcilable difference. The husband filed a counter-complaint and a hearing took place. The mother was designated as the primary residential parent and the husband had weekend visitation. The trial court ordered that the parties undergo custodial/forensic assessments. The court also issued an order prohibiting fathers from entering Henry County Tennessee or Murray Kentucky except for limited purposes. The husband was ordered by the court to pay $1500 a month in child support.
Then, the wife filed an order of protection with Henry County. She claimed that the harassment was increasing. The father was ordered to surrender his firearms, and he was only allowed to enter Henry County on a certain highway for work travel.
Incidents continued, and the mother was ultimately awarded a “lifetime Restraining Order” against the father. The husband appealed the case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The first issue was a parenting plan provision that prohibited the father from contacting his children until he had completed a psychiatric assessment. His argument was that he had a First Amendment right of making offensive comments and violent hyperbole.
However the Court of Appeals quickly dealt this argument, pointing out that he had not raised the argument at the trial court. He also argued that the trial court should have been recused, but the Court of Appeals pointed out that this issue was also waived because it hadn’t been raised in the lower court.
Overall, the Court of Appeals agreed that the father’s actions constituted a pattern of emotional abuse sufficient to limit parenting time. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the lower court’s rulings on custody were correct. The appeals court stated that lower courts are given a lot of discretion, but this discretion is limited.
And, the appeals court found the language in the order to be not sufficiently specific. It remanded it to the lower court for a new order. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in other parts, and remanded this case. The Court of Appeals taxed half the costs of the appeal to each party and denied the mother’s request for attorney’s fees.
