Tennessee: Appeals Court Awards Full Custody to Father for Reasons of Parental Alienation. BY: Erin L.

Link for Opinion: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jonathanscbopn.pdf

Title: Tennessee: Appeals Court Awards Full Custody to Father for Reasons of Parental Alienation

The Tennessee Court of Appeals decided In re Jonathan S. C. B., 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. Ct. App., Aug. 20,2012) after finding the accusations of sexual abuse to the child were inaccurate awarded custody of the minor child to the father.  Custody of the child to the father was decided to be in the best interest of the child after deciding the mother’s actions of accusing sexual abuse was fueled due to the mother’s desire to remove the father from the child’s life.

Jonathan S. is the child of unmarried father Dr. Stephen Bruehl and mother Dr. Ok Yung Chung.  The initial trial regarding custody and visitation of Jonathan was concluded on October 6, 2009 with the following results; Mother was awarded primary residential parent, with the father allowed supervised visits.  The father was also ordered to abstain from prescription drugs and alcohol and continue with an aftercare program to remain sober.  After two years of sobriety the father was able to file for a modification of visitation schedule.  The mother was also ordered to inform father of all child’s doctor’s appointments and assist in selecting a psychologist to help build a positive relationship between the child and father.  Both parents were also warned about making negative remarks about the other parent.

Shortly after initial hearing father filed a motion to modify the courts order.  The hearing took place November 25, 2009.  At which time the court permitted the father to have phone visitation with the child two days a week, as well as enlarging the individuals who could supervise the fathers visits with the child.  The court also made plans for the parents to exchange the child at the Belle Meade police station before and after all visits.

Regardless of the courts attempt to help better the relationship of the parents, the relationship continued to deteriorate.  Father filed a petition against the mother for criminal and/or civil contempt and other relief.  In the petition the father asked the court to increase fathers parenting time, as well as lift the requirement for supervised visits.  Father also accused the mother of not allowing him phone visitation.  The mother was also accused by the father of making negative remarks about the Father to the child, and that she did not follow the October order and did not involve the child with a child psychologist.   The father also indicated he had been visited by The Department of Children’s Services with an anonymous complaint alleging the Father had used drugs and physically abused his son Jonathan during his parenting time.

After Fathers petition was filed Jonathans Mother filed an Emergency Petition to suspend all visitations as well as a restraining order against the father.  Mother stated the basis for this request was the fact DCS was investigation a complaint of child abuse against the Father. The court decided during this hearing not issue a ruling on Mother’s petition, instead would wait it had the chance to review the evidence from the Father’s contempt petition.

Finally throughout numerous petitions and motions filed the trial court finally made a decision to award Jonathans Father full custody with primary decision making responsibility.  The court also ordered the Mother to receive ample amount of parenting time with the child.  The Mother was ordered to pay child support as well as the attorney fees the father incurred during litigation of this matter.  The guardian ad litem as well as a child psychologist appointed by the court involved in the case were awarded judgments for their services as well.  The mother after, filed a motion for stay of the court’s order and a motion to amend the order.  This decision of the trial court came from the fact the court found the Mother had engaged in deliberate process known as alienation, by accusing the Father of child abuse and refused to accept fact indicating the abuse did not occur.  Soon after, an appeal by the mother followed.

The decision of the trial court was affirmed in the Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Juvenile Court of Davidson County to determine necessary attorney fees to be awarded to the Father that were incurred on appeal, as well as any other further proceeding necessary.