Crone & Mason, plc Family Law Practice Group e-Newsletter
April 25, 2006
The Crone & Mason, plc Family Law Practice Group e-Newsletter is a service provided by Crone & Mason, plc’s Family Law Practice Group to clients, friends, and persons requesting family law updates through e-mail from: www.MemphisDivorce.com.
Relocation Trends by Miles Mason, Sr.
A very foreseeable national trend is the Relocation Action. In order to move town, a primary residential parent must give the non-primary residential parent notice. Prior the relocation stature being enacted, see http://www.memphisdivorce.com/relocation_law.html, most trial judges believed that a parental relocation should be avoided at all cost. If there is a choice, almost all judges and lawyers would agree that two parents in the same city is far more advantageous for a child that only one. But, relocation is a fact of life that the courts, lawyers, and parents cannot ignore.
Since the relocation statute was enacted, I would estimate that by far, almost all relocation actions have resulted in the relocating parent being allowed to move with the child. Interestingly though, on appeal, the results of appeals have shown almost a fifty/fifty result. It seems that when the trial courts refuse to allow the primary residential parent to relocation, there is likely a higher likelihood on appeal. Very few trends have evolved that provide important insight beyond. In my opinion, there are only a few things we have learned, for sure, about relocation actions:
1) The statute must be followed or risk serious adverse consequences;
2) Custodial parents relocating must plan for litigation; and,
3) Try and settle by creating new parenting plans and avoid court.
The American Bar Association Family Law Section’s Family Practice quarterly magazine recently hit our offices. The entire issue focused on Relocation actions. This national trend will continue and the unfortunate trend of parents having to relocate will likely increase.
New Feature - Professional and Expert Listings on MemphisDivorce.com
This month, MemphisDivorce.com added a new feature, called the MemphisDivorce.com Divorce and Family Law Professional Listing Pages, located at: http://www.memphisdivorce.com/prof_listing.html. If lists several different categories of professionals including forensic accountants, tax professionals, forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, and counselors.
Important Family Law Decisions from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Suzanne Burlew v. Brad Burlew - W2005-00526-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - The trial court modified the parties' decree of divorce, changing custody of parties' minor child from joint custody to Father, and transferred control of a custodial account from Mother to Father. The trial court also denied Mother's petition to set visitation and ordered Mother to have no contact with child. Mother appealed. The Appellate Court vacated the trial court's order regarding visitation and the award of attorney's fees and remand on these issues. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed.
Peter Plotitsa v. Mila Plotitso - W2004-01039-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - This is an appeal from a final order granting the parties an absolute divorce and dividing the marital property. The Final Order also incorporated a permanent parenting plan for the parties' minor child. Husband appealed and asserted, inter alia, that the division of marital property is inequitable and that the chancellor abused his discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded.
Julie Ann Nahon v. Isaac Nahon - W2004-02023-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - Plaintiff Julie Nahon ("Plaintiff") filed for divorce from Defendant Isaac Nahon ("Defendant"). The parties later entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA") whereby Defendant agreed to obtain a loan and pay off certain marital debts. Four days later, Defendant repudiated the MDA after failing to obtain his anticipated loan. Plaintiff sought to enforce the MDA as a contract. The trial court held that the MDA was a valid and enforceable contract, and subsequently incorporated the MDA into the parties' Final Decree of Absolute Divorce. Defendant appealed. Defendant subsequently failed to adhere to the financial obligations set forth in the Permanent Parenting Plan and MDA. As a result, Plaintiff filed several contempt petitions against Defendant. The trial court eventually entered an Order on Petition for Contempt against Defendant which granted Plaintiff final and enforceable judgments against Defendant for all delinquent obligations under the Permanent Parenting Plan and MDA. Defendant appealed both the final divorce decree and the Order on Petition for Contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Grace Swaney v. Randall Swaney - W2005-00156-COA-R3-CV View
Shelby County - This action stemmed from a divorce case. In this appeal, the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether the circuit court applied an inappropriate standard when disposing of a husband's motion to dismiss his wife's complaint for divorce for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The wife asserted that, by considering evidence outside the pleadings, the circuit court converted the husband's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and that the circuit court failed to apply the standards under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when considering the husband's converted motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Further, the Appellate Court declined to award damages to Appellee for frivolous appeal, and likewise, declined to award Appellant attorney's fees on appeal.
In RE: D.A.J..- M2004-02421-COA-R3-JV View
Montgomery County - Romina Jessica Clifton ("Mother") and Dwight Cain Jemison ("Father") are the parents of a six year old daughter. In 2004, Father filed a petition to modify custody of the child by seeking to be designated the child's primary residential parent. Following a hearing, the Juvenile Court concluded that there had been a material change in circumstances and that it was in the child's best interest to designate Father the primary residential parent. The Juvenile Court also set forth Mother's co-parenting schedule as well as her monthly child support payments. Mother appealed challenging the propriety of the Juvenile Court's decision to designate Father the primary residential parent as well as the amount of her child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the designation of Father as the primary residential parent but modified the amount of Mother's monthly child support.
Deane Church v. Thomas Church - M2004-02390-COA-R3-CV View
Williamson County - The Trial Court granted the parties' divorce, divided the marital property, awarded alimony and fees. Issues on appeal are division of marital property, alimony award and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's Judgment, with modifications.
Donna Morgan vs. Jeffrie W. Morgan - E2005-00305-COA-R3-CV View
McMinn County - Donna Renee Morgan ("Mother") filed a complaint for divorce from her husband of 11 years, Jeffrie W. Morgan ("Father"). The trial court awarded Mother a divorce and designated her as the primary residential parent of the parties' minor child. In addition, the trial court divided the parties' property and awarded Mother alimony and child support, basing its child support award on an annual salary for Father of $110,000. Father appealed, arguing that he should have been awarded primary residential parent status and contended that the trial court erred in its determination of his annual income. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Cynthia McPherson v. Craig McPherson - M2003-02677-COA-R3-CV View
Marshall County - This appeal involved a continuing post-divorce dispute regarding child support and related issues. Seven years after the divorce, the former husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Marshall County requesting the court to recalculate his child support obligation and to re-establish visitation that had been suspended earlier because of non-payment of child support and failure to abide by the court's orders. The former wife responded by requesting that her former husband be held in contempt for failing to comply with the earlier court orders. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order finding the former husband in "civil" contempt. The court sentenced the former husband to a mandatory ten-day jail sentence and ordered that he remain incarcerated until he paid a portion of his child support arrearage and other financial obligations. The court also recalculated the former husband's child support obligation and ordered the resumption of visitation. On this appeal, the former husband took issue with the contempt judgment, the earlier suspension of his visitation, and the denial of his request to claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes. While the Court of Appeals determined that the judgment of contempt cannot stand because it is procedurally defective, it find that the remainder of the trial court's August 22, 2003 order is legally and factually sound.
Mary Lopez v. Danny Taylor, et al. - M2003-02481-COA-R3-CV View
Wilson County - This appeal involved a dispute between divorced parents over one of their son's college expenses. Their older son became eligible for a substantial tuition discount after his father was employed by the university where he was enrolled. However, the father and son concealed the father's employment and the son's discount from the mother and actually sent her statements that did not reflect the discount. The mother paid one-half of the expenses reflected in these statements until she discovered the tuition discount. She then filed suit against her former husband and her son in the Circuit Court for Wilson County alleging breach of contract and fraud. She also sought a declaration regarding her continuing obligation to pay her son's college expenses. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the father had breached the marital dissolution agreement and ordered the father to pay the mother $2,737.01. The court also found that the mother had breached the marital dissolution agreement by declining to pay her son's college expenses after discovering the tuition discount and ordered her to resume paying her share of these expenses. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded (1) that the father committed a material breach of the marital dissolution agreement, (2) that the father and the son engaged in fraudulent conduct by concealing the tuition discount from the mother and then pocketing her overpayments, (3) that the mother did not breach the marital dissolution agreement when she stopped paying her son's college expenses, and (4) that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of the mother's overpayment. Accordingly, the Court determined that the mother recover $3,590 from the husband and that the actions of the father and son warranted terminating her obligation to pay the son's college expenses.
Michael Jerry Cox v. Pamela Kay Cox - W2005-00552-COA-R3-CV View
Tipton County - This is a divorce case. Plaintiff Husband appealed the trial court's award of alimony in futuro to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Robert Thym v. Mary Thym - M2004-02389-COA-R3-CV View
Davidson County - In this post-divorce alimony modification case, the primary issue is whether the trial court erred in applying T.C.A. § 36-5-101(a)(3) (now T.C.A. § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B)), the "cohabitation statute," to terminate Robert Henry Thym's alimony payments. Based on its finding that Mr. Thym was living with another person, the trial court terminated the $4,000 per month payments owed under the divorce decree by Mary Davenport, Mr. Thym's former wife. The Court of Appeals held that the alimony payments should be suspended rather than terminated, pursuant to the terms of the statute. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.
Donita Dale Dowden vs. Ronald J. Feibus - E2004-02751-COA-R3-CV View
Hamilton County - After fourteen years of marriage, Donita Dale Dowden ("Wife") sued Ronald J. Feibus ("Husband") for a divorce. After trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree, inter alia, awarding Wife a divorce, dividing the parties' marital property, and ordering Husband to pay Wife alimony in futuro of $1,000 per month. Husband appealed claiming that the Trial Court erred in awarding Wife alimony in futuro instead of rehabilitative alimony, in awarding Wife 50% of Husband's federal pension when a portion of that pension was earned prior to the marriage, and in dividing an award that Husband received from a personal injury lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Joel T. Shuman vs. Sharon Shuman - E2005-00846-COA-R3-CV View
Knox County - After the divorce where the wife was awarded alimony for two years, the wife petitioned the Court for alimony in futuro, which the Trial Court granted. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed.
Thomas Caldwell vs. Davina Caldwell - E2005-00139-COA-R3-CV View
Bradley County - Thomas David Caldwell ("Father") filed a complaint for divorce from his wife of ten years, Davina Kay Duke Caldwell ("Mother"). The trial court, inter alia, awarded the parties a divorce, named Mother primary residential parent of the parties' minor child, and divided the parties' marital property. Father appealed both the custody determination and the division of marital property. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Elizabeth Martella v. David Martella - M2003-03105-COA-R3-CV View
Franklin County - This appeal involved a parental dispute over the payment of child support for a fifteen-year-old child. One year following the divorce, the child's father filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Franklin County seeking to modify his $2,100 per month child support obligation because his visitation with his daughter had increased and because his daughter was receiving Social Security benefits as a result of his retirement. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the father was willfully unemployed and declined to lower his child support obligation. However, the court determined that the father was entitled to an offset in the amount of the Social Security benefits that the child was receiving as his dependent. Both the mother and the father took issue with the judgment. The father asserted that the trial court erred by refusing to lower his child support obligation. The mother insisted that the court erred by giving the father credit for the Social Security benefits the child was receiving. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Elizabeth Needham v. Chad Dearman - M2004-02031-COA-R3-CV View
Dickson County - Plaintiff appealed from failure of the trial court to allow interest on a child support arrearage judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-5-101(A)(5). The judgment of the trial court was reversed.
Christina M. McWhorter v. James C. McWhorter - M2005-00359-COA-R3-CV View
Montgomery County - Defendant in this divorce case appealed asserting that the trial court erred in failing to treat his admittedly untimely Motion for a New Trial and to Alter and Amend the Divorce Decree as a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 Motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the trial court.
State v. Scotty Henry Pace, Jr. - M2004-00139-COA-R3-CV View
Davidson County - The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to ten days in jail for violating an Order of Protection. He appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient. The Appellate Court agreed.
Pamela Lichtenwalter v. Chris Lichtenwalter - M2003-03115-COA-R3-CV View
Davidson County - This appeal illustrated the problems that befall divorcing parents when they agree, without court approval, to a child support arrangement that is inconsistent with the Child Support Guidelines. Five years after the parents' divorce, the mother filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to increase the father's child support obligation. The trial court approved a formula devised by the parties that did not comply with the Child Support Guidelines. The parties later ignored that formula and followed another ad hoc arrangement for approximately ten years. Eventually, the mother filed a petition in the trial court seeking to hold the father in contempt for failing to pay child support and to collect the arrearage. The trial court turned the matter over to a substitute judge who determined that the father was not in contempt because both parties had followed their formula to the best of their abilities even though it was ambiguous. The trial court also set the father's support for the remaining minor child and directed the father to pay $2,375 in additional support for that child. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeals determined that the father owes $64,529 in back child support and that the parties' three children are entitled to this arrearage. Therefore, the Appellate Court vacated the portion of the judgment regarding back child support and remanded the case for the entry of an appropriate payment plan.
Allison Simmons v. Richard Simmons - M2005-00348-COA-R3-CV View
Robertson County - Both parties appealed aspects of the final divorce decree. Husband contended the trial court erred by awarding wife transitional alimony in excess of his ability to pay and in excess of her need. Wife raised six issues, contending she should have been granted the divorce due to his abuse; that child support should be increased; that she should be awarded the tax deductions for all three children; that she should be named trustee of life insurance for the benefit of the children; and that husband should pay her attorney fees at trial and on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects but one, finding the transitional alimony was set at an amount greater than husband's ability to pay.
Yelena Kesterson v. Thomas Kesterson - W2004-02815-COA-R3-CV View
Carroll County - This case involved issues arising out of the parties' divorce. The chancery court designated and divided the parties' assets and placed an equitable lien on the separate property of the husband. The chancery court did not award alimony or attorney's fees and discretionary costs to the wife. The Appellate Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Further, the Court of Appeals declined to award attorney's fees and costs on appeal.
Michael Ort v. Lora Ort - W2005-00833-COA-R3-CV View
Gibson County - This is a divorce case. Husband appealed the trial court's division of marital property, award alimony in futuro to Wife, naming of Wife as primary residential parent, and child support order. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Bruce R. Goodman v. Judy Goodman - M2004-02781-COA-R3-CV View
Davidson County - Appellant Bruce Goodman ("Husband") filed for divorce from Appellee Judy Goodman ("Wife") after twenty-six years of marriage. The parties entered into a permanent parenting plan and subsequently went to trial seeking a property settlement and a decree on spousal support. The trial court awarded each party approximately $1.4 million from the marital estate and also granted Wife $4,000 per month in alimony in futuro. Husband appealed the alimony award. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Marie Torrico (Morales) v. David Smithson - M2004-01924-COA-R3-JV View
Wilson County - David Randal Smithson ("Father"), a Tennessee resident, is a pilot for a major airline and his job duties require him to fly to Bolivia, South America. During one of these trips to Bolivia, Father became romantically involved with Marie Soledad Torrico (Morales) ("Mother"), a citizen and resident of Bolivia. In April of 2001, Mother gave birth in Bolivia to the parties' son, who is a citizen and resident of Bolivia and has been since his birth. After obtaining a temporary Visa authorizing her to come to the United States, Mother filed this paternity action in the Wilson County Juvenile Court. Based on DNA test results, the Juvenile Court enter an Order establishing Father as the biological father of the child. The Juvenile Court later entered an order requiring Father to pay child support based on the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. Father appeals claiming, among other things, that the Juvenile Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order requiring him to pay child support when the child was conceived in Bolivia, born in Bolivia, and when both Mother and the child are citizens and residents of Bolivia. The Court of Appeals held that the Juvenile Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings but erred in applying Tennessee law. The judgment of the Juvenile Court was, therefore, vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
State ex rel. Sylvana LaSelva vs. Henry Ziomek - E2005-00542-COA-R3-CV View
Sevier County - This appeal concerned a decision of the Sevier County Circuit Court that a child support judgment entered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was entitled to registration, but was not entitled to enforcement in Tennessee pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2001, et seq. After determining that the Canadian judgment was not enforceable, the Circuit Court ordered the father to pay significantly less than the amount previously ordered by the Canadian Court. The Court of Appeals held that the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is entitled to registration and enforcement in Tennessee under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Appellate Court also held that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the father’s child support payment. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Sandra Elaine Helton (Buscher) v. Shaun Edward Helton - M2005-00268-COA-R3-CV - View
Davidson County - This post-divorce case presented the question of whether the trial court correctly interpreted and enforced a provision in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (MDA) providing that if Sandra Elaine Buscher relocated from Davidson County or counties adjacent to Davidson, she agreed to “pay all expenses necessary for Husband [Shaun Edward Helton] to maintain the same visitation” with their child as originally agreed in the MDA. On remand from this court, the trial court allowed Ms. Buscher to relocate with the child to Jackson, Mississippi, and awarded Mr. Helton visitation comparable to that which he originally received. The trial court, however, did not require Ms. Buscher to pay for Mr. Helton’s costs of traveling to Mississippi to exercise all of his visitation. Mr. Helton appealed. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s judgment to provide that Ms. Buscher shall be responsible for such costs as are reasonable and necessary for Mr. Helton to exercise the same amount of visitation as before Ms. Buscher’s move, pursuant to the MDA’s terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.
Important Family Law Decisions from across the Nation
Child Custody
Dailey v. Chermak
No. A05-1244 (Minnesota Court of Appeals, February 21, 2006)
An award of child custody may properly be made conditional on maintaining a particular geographical residence for the child, as long as that residence is shown clearly and genuinely to serve the child's best interests.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0602/opa051244-0221.htm
Child Custody - Relocation
In re Marriage of Brown and Yana
38 Cal. Rptr.3d 610 (California Supreme Court, February 2, 2006):
A noncustodial parent opposing relocation is not barred from seeking and obtaining modification of the custody order upon a showing of changed circumstances, even when the parent who desires to relocate with the child has been awarded sole physical and legal custody in final order; in such circumstances, the trial court has discretion to deny the modification request without holding an evidentiary hearing if the noncustodial parent fails to make a legally sufficient showing of detriment.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S131030.PDF
Child Custody
Khan v. Saminni
446 Mass. 88 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, February 15, 2006):
A consent decree issued by a family court in Trinidad was in substantial conformity with the law of Massachusetts such that the trial court was required under Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA) to defer jurisdiction over matter to family court in Trinidad.
http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=15933&sid=120
Child Support
In re Marriage of Heiner
No. A107485 (California Court of Appeals, 1 District, February 27, 2006):
The entirety of a parent's undifferentiated lump sum personal injury recovery is not income for purposes of calculating child support; the court may exclude that portion attributable to compensation for pain and suffering or future medical costs rather than past or future lost earnings, and the parent seeking exclusion bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence for that determination.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A107485.PDF
Arrington v. Helms
No. 04-15078 (United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, February 13, 2006):
Custodial parents receiving state-collected Title IV-D child support payments brought a class action, alleging deficiencies in state's child support payment system. On the issue of first impression, the court held that federal statute setting the terms for the various states' distribution of payments does not provide custodial parents with individual rights, enforceable against state under § 1983.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415078.pdf
Marriage
Seymour v. Holcomb
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 01215 (New York Appellate Division, Third Department, February 16, 2006):
New York marriage laws that limit marriage to one woman and one man do not violate New York Constitution.
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2006/98204.pdf
Pickard v. Pickard
No. COA05-426 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, February 21, 2006):
Husband, who asserted in a sworn statement during proceeding to adopt wife's daughter that he and wife were married, was judicially estopped from subsequently obtaining an annulment and denying his 11-year marriage to wife.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2006/050426-1.htm
Paternity
State ex rel. Sanders v. Sauer
No. SC 86955 (Missouri Supreme Court, January 31, 2006):
A paternity judgment entered on default is a judgment that legitimates a child by legal process, thus subjecting the father to criminal non-support proceedings without DNA testing.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/...?OpenDocument
Premarital Agreements
Kornegay v. Robinson
No. COA05-131 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, February 21, 2006):
Where wife, who possessed only a high school education, was presented at decedent's attorney's office with a premarital agreement which waived all spousal rights, including all rights to decedent's estate, while en route to the wedding, she raised material issue of fact as to whether the agreement was signed voluntarily, precluding summary judgment in favor of husband.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2006/050131-1.htm
Property Division
Rayborn v. Rayborn
No. 2005-SC-0357-DG (Kentucky Supreme Court, February 23, 2006):
Sale of farm was nothing more than a distribution of property that should have occurred as part of the divorce decree, and thus, sale did not constitute change in circumstances warranting modification of ex-husband's maintenance obligation.
http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2005-SC-000357-DG.pdf
Property Division - Pensions
Everette v. Everette
No. 79A02-0503-CV-208 (Indiana Supreme Court, January 27, 2006):
The husband's Public Employees' Retirement Fund (PERF) account was exempt from levy, sale, garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, including a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to statute, and, thus the QDRO issued by trial court in divorce action was invalid and exceeded court's authority.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01270603pds.pdf
Separation/Property Settlement Agreements
Roman v. Roman
No. 01-04-00541-CV (Texas Court of Appeals, Houston (1st Dist.), February 9, 2006):
Agreement between husband and wife that provided that frozen embryos were to be discarded in the event of divorce was valid and enforceable.
http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=82705
Third Party Visitation
In re Marriage of Riggs and Hem
No. 93734 (Kansas Court of Appeals, February 17, 2006):
The Kansas stepparent visitation statute violated due process on its face, but it was constitutional as construed where the court engrafted the limitations from the grandparent visitation statute onto the stepparent visitation statute. The statute, so construed, thus allowed the trial court to grant stepparent visitation if it found that visitation was in the child's best interest, and there existed a substantial relationship between the child and the stepparent.
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2006/20060217/93734.htm
Conlogue v. Conlogue
No. Aro-05-49 (Maine Supreme Court, February 9, 2006):
Grandparent visitation statute that conferred automatic standing to grandparents so they may visitation when a parent has died was subject to strict scrutiny. Under the strict scrutiny test, the statute violated the mother's fundamental due process right to make decisions regarding the care, custody and control of child as applied.
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/2006%20documents%20/06me12co.htm
Why Do We Pick These Particular Cases? Each month, many appellate decisions are available from which to choose. We include in the e-Newsletter all family law cases from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, most appellate cases originating from Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts, and a handful of cases from across the state and occasionally from across the U.S. Our goal is to provide an array of cases most likely of interest to our readers.
Miles Mason, Jr. brings the heat pitching for his school team.
If you received a benefit from this free service of Crone & Mason, plc and MemphisDivorce.com, please consider making a donation to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital: http://www.stjude.org/donate.
END of Crone & Mason, plc Family Law Practice Group e-Newsletter.
Divorce and Family Law Professional Listing Pages