Grandmothers are not entitled to visitation
Tennessee child custody case summary on grandparent visitation in divorce and family law.
Grandmother failed to establish need for grandparent visitation.
Deborah Fly et al., v. Haley Rae Fly et al.
The mother in this Wilson County, Tennessee, Juvenile Court case was divorced from the biological father and was granted sole custody. After the divorce, the mother moved in with her dad, who saw his grandson almost every day. The mother, at the grandfather’s request, allowed the grandmother to establish a relationship with her child in 2019. She saw the child six times during that year. In 2021, the mother abruptly left the grandfather’s house, leaving behind some clothing and toys for the child. Both grandparents were concerned for the safety of the child. The child was taken from the mother for a week and placed with his grandparents. The child was ordered to be returned with the mother and, when the grandfather checked the home, the child was found to be safe. After a heated court hearing, the trial judge granted the grandmother’s request for visitation. It ordered a weekend every four months, one week in June and a week over Christmas break. The mother then appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. She challenged the constitutionality the Grandparent Visitation Statute. She also argued, even if it was valid, that the evidence predominated against it.
She claimed that the statute wasn’t applicable because it only applies when the custodial parents oppose visitation. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that this threshold was met. It noted that the mother took steps to ensure that visitation did not occur, due to her sudden departure.
The mother also argued that the grandmother had not proven that a denial of visitation would cause the child severe emotional harm. The lower court reached this conclusion, but the appellate court noted that no subsidiary factual findings had been made to support it. The Court of Appeals determined that the grandmother did not meet the burden of proving severe emotional harm.
It reversed the lower courts ruling without having to address the constitutional argument.
