Since Preschool Not “Educational” Decision, Mom Can’t Be Held in Contempt for Unilateral Choice
Tennessee child custody case summary and contempt.
Stuart Richard James, III v. Stephanie Lynne James
Shelby County Courthouse
The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were the parents of two children when they divorced in 2019. The marital dissolution agreement (MDA) provided that all major decisions, including education, were to be made jointly. In 2020, the mother worked full time as a nurse, and the children attended a preschool which closed due to COVID-19. When it reopened, its new closing time was about the same time the mother got off work, and she put the children on a waiting list for a different preschool. When spots opened up, she enrolled the children without first obtaining the father’s consent. In fact, she did not provide the preschool with the father’s information until months later.
The father filed a petition for civil contempt for violation of the decision-making provision. The trial court found her in contempt and fined her $50 per child for the decision-making violation. As for not providing the father’s information to the school, it fined her $50 per day per child, which totaled $13,000. It suspended $10,000 of the amount, leaving the mother with a fine of $3000. It denied the father’s request for attorney’s fees.
The issue of child support had not been decided in the MDA, and each party filed a motion to have the amount set. A hearing was held in 2019, and the referee ordered father to pay about $3000 per month, with arrearages to be paid at $500 per month. This order was confirmed by the trial court the following month. The mother was also awarded attorney’s fees of about $1000.
The father appealed the referee’s ruling on child support to the trial court. He argued that the parenting plan, the start date for the child’s custody were such that he was not liable for the arrearages. The trial court agreed with the father that under the MDA, the child support should have taken effect upon the sale of the marital residence, and not the divorce date.
The mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which first considered the contempt finding. The court noted that the essential elements of such a claim are a lawful order; the order must be clear, specific, and unambiguous; there must be actual disobedience; and the disobedience must be willful.
The parenting plan stated that day-to-day decisions while the parent was in custody were to be made by that parent, but major decisions, such as “education” were to be made jointly. The mother contended that her decision related to day-to-day childcare, but the father asserted that the two institutions were educational environments.
The appeals court agreed with the father that there were educational elements. But it zeroed in on the fact that neither child was of school age at the time. It noted that the state statutes regarding compulsory education apply only to children between 6 and 17 years of age. For this reason, the appeals court set aside the lower court ruling of contempt, with regard to educational decision making.
The appeals court next turned to whether the mother was properly found in contempt for not providing the school with the father’s information. The father based his case on a Tennessee statute guaranteeing a parent’s right to participate in their children’s education.
But the appeals court pointed out that nothing in this statute placed any duty upon the mother. It also reiterated that the daycare was not a “school” under this provision, due to the children’s age. For these reasons, the court set aside the lower court’s contempt finding.
The appeals court next turned to the child support issue. The mother argued that the trial court should have left the referee’s original ruling in place. Specifically, she argued that the father’s appeal of the referee’s ruling came too late. The appeals court agreed. It noted that the time limit for appealing a referee’s ruling was 10 days, and the father did not file his objection within this time period. For that reason, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and reinstated the referee’s original order.
Both parties requested attorney’s fees on appeal, but the appeals court denied both requests.
No. W2022-00739-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
