# F I L E D N ovem ber16, 1998 C eci l W . C r o w son A ppel l a t e C our t C l e r k 

### I N TH E CO U RT O F APPEALS O F TENN ESSEE

AT NAS HVI L L E

P E G G Y J EAN BRADF ORD, ) ) Pet i t i oner /

A ppel l ant , )

) A ppeal N o . VS. ) 01-A -01- 9712-C V -00689 ) JAM ES W I L L I A M AN DER S O N ) C o f f ee C i r cui t a n d MY R A A LEA ) N o . 25, 232 ) R espondents /

A ppel l ees, )

) I N R E : R achel Lee A nder son ) d/ o / b : 10/ 20/ 9 0 ) A P P E A L E D F ROM THE CI R C U I T COUR T OF COF F E E COUNT Y

AT M A N C H ESTER, TEN N ESSEE T H E HONORA B L E GE R A L D L . E W E L L , S R . , J UDGE

J . BR OOKS F O X M OORE & HED G E S 105 N . A t l ant i c St r eet P . O . B ox 1810 Tul l ahom a , Tennessee 37388 A t t o r ney f

o rPet i t i oner /

A ppel l ant H . T HOM A S P A R S ONS P A R S ONS , NI CHOL S & J OHNS O N 101 W est

M a i n St r eet M ancheste r , Tennessee 37355 A t t o r ney f

o rR espondents /

A ppel l ees

A F F I R M ED AND RE M ANDED- 2 - BEN H. CANTRE L L P R E S I D I NG J UDGE , M . S . CONCU R : KOCH, J . C A I N , J . 

## O P I N I O N

Thi s i s a cus t ody d i spute bet w een t he chi l d ’ s f a t herand t h e chi l d ’ s m a t e r nal gr andm o t her , w ho w a s nom i nat ed as t h e custodi a n i n t he w i l l of t he chi l d ’ s m o t her . The C i r cui tC our tof C o ffe e C ount y aw a r ded custody to t he f a t herand hi s m o t h e r . W e a f f i r m . I .

The chi l d , R achel Lee A nder son, w as born on O c t ober22, 1990t o Jam es W i l l i a m A nder son and Lees a D eyne Ander son. The par ent s di vorced on August 12, 1991 i n C o f f e e C o unt y , and t h e m o t herw as awa r ded custody of t he m i norchi l d . Leesa Deyne A nder son di ed suddenl y on Apr i l 29, 1997 l eavi ng a w i l l i n w h i ch she appoi n t e d herpar ent s , Peggy and Jer r y Br adf o r d as guar d i ans of t h e chi l d . Jer r y Br adf

o r d pr edeceased hi s daughte ron A p r i l 19, 1996.- 3 - O n M ay 2, 1997 Peggy Br adf o r d fi l ed a pet i t i on f o rcustody i n t he C i r cui tC our tof C o f f ee C ount y . The pet i t i on n a m ed Jam e s W illia m A nder son asa def endantand al l eged t hathe had dem anded custody of

t h e chi l d , butt hatpl aci ng t he chi l d i n hi s cus t ody woul d b e danger ous becaus e of hi s v i o l entand aggr ess i v e beha v i o rand psy chi a t r i c pr obl e m s .

Jam e s W i l l i a m A nder son obta i ned per m i s s i on f o r h i s m o t herM y ra A l e a t o i n t e r vene i n t he act i on. They fi l ed a count e r c l a i m f

o rj o i n tcustody.

The pr o o f

show s t hatsi nce 1980 orbef o r e M r . A nder son had a hi s to r y of

al cohol i s m and schi z ophr eni a , f o rw h i ch he dr a w s a ser v i c e - r e l a t e d di sabi l i t y pens i on. I n t he past he has s how n a p r opensi t y to i m p r ove and then r e l apse. H i s al cohol i s m m akes i t m o r e l i kel y t hathi s s chi z ophr eni a w i l l r ecur . I n t he o p i n i on of one psy chi a t r i s t , a m an w i t h M r . A nder son’ s hi s to r y w oul d have di f fi cul t y w i t h i n t e r per sonal r e l a t i onshi ps and bei n g nur t u r i ng t o ot her s . A s a r esul t , a chi l d i n hi s cus t ody woul d be “ a tr i sk. ”

M r . A nder son o f

f e r ed hi s t r eat i ng psy chi a t r i s t ’ s opi n i o n t hathe w a s capabl e of t aki ng car e of

t he chi l d and t hatt her e w as no psy chi a t r i c pat hol ogy t hatw o u l d pr event hi m fr o m di scharg i ng hi s par ent a l dut i es. D u r i ng t he si x t een m ont hs M r . A n d e r s o n has been- 4 -

undert he psy chi a t r i s t ’ s care , he has been sober and has taken t h e m edi cat i o n pr escri bed f o r t he schi z ophr eni a . I n t he opi n i on of t h e doct o r , M r . A nder son hassteadi l y i m p r oved.

M r . A nder son test i fi ed t hathe i n t ended t o t a ke t he chi l d t o hi s m o t her ’ s hom e i n Fl o r i da unt i l he coul d m ake m o r e per m anent l i v i n g ar r angem ent s . H i s s i s te rl i ves abouta m i l e aw ay f r o m hi s m o t her , so s he can l end addi t i onal f a m i l y s uppor t . B o t h t h e m o t her and si s te rdr i nk soci a l l y .

The onl y test i m ony about any aggress i ve behav i o ron th e par tof M r . A nder son cam e fr o m t he m a t e r n a l g r a ndm o t her . She t e s tifie d t hatshe was present att he hear i ng w hen herdaught e r obt a i ned an uncont este d di vorce. R eci t i ng herdaught e r ’ s test i m ony i n t he f o r m e rt r i a l M s . B r adf o r d sai d herdaught e r te s t i f i e d th a t M r . A nder son had a hott e m perand w oul d di spl ay i ti n publ i c . O n one occasi on, M r . A nder son t h r eat ened t o com m i tsui c i de, and shot a hol e i n t he fl ooro f th e i r tra i l e r . H e once hel d a gun t o hi s w i f e ’ s head, and once l ocked heroutof t he house i n t he r a i n . O ver M r . A nder son’ s obj ect i on, t he t r i a l j udge adm i t t ed t h i s t e s t i m ony under R u l e 804( b ) (a ) , Tenn. R . Evi d . W e w i l l notr evi e w t he cor r ect ness of t hat r u lin g her e , because despi t e t hatevi dence, t he t r i a l j udge f ound t hat M r . A nder son and hi s m o t h e rshoul d be gi ven j o i n tcustody of t h e chi l d .- 5 - II.

N a t u r a l par ent s hav e a const i t u t i onal r i ghtt o r a i se t hei r chi l d r e n as t hey s ee fi t . H a w k v. H a w k , 855 S. W . 2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) . O n l y w hen i ti s neces sary to pr event seri ous harm to t he chi l d , m a y t he sta t e i n t e r f

e r e w i t h t he r i ght s of nat u r a l par ent s . I d . at580. Ther e f o r e , in a cont est

bet w een a par ent and a non- par ent , a par entcannotbe depr i ved o f t he custody of

a chi l d unl ess t her e has been a fi ndi ng, aft e rnot i ce r equi r ed by due pr ocess , o f subs t ant i a l har m t o t he chi l d . O n l y t hen m a y a cour tengage i n a gener a l “ best i n t e r est o f t he chi l d ” eval uat i on i n m a k i ng a det e r m i nat i on of

custody. I n R e A dopt i on of

Fem a l e C h i l d , 896 S. W . 2d 546 at548 (Tenn. 1995) . The bur den is o n t he one seeki ng t o depr i ve t he nat u r a l par entof

t he custody of

hi s or herchi l d t o pr ove t hat t he pa r ent ’ s custody posesa r i sk of seri ous harm t o t he chi l d . I n R e C r a w f o r d , 02A 01- 9405-C H -00124 (fi l ed atJackson, Feb. 22, 1995) . W e a r e sat i s fi e d t hatt he gr andm o t herhas f a i l e d t o car r y t hatbur den i n t h i s case. A l t hough t he f a t herhas s e r i ous m ent a l and dependency p r obl e m s , hi s t r eat i ng phys i c i an expr ess ed hi s opi n i on t hathe posed n o t h r eatt o t he chi l d . I n al l of t he st r ange behavi o rt hathe exhi b i t e d dur i n g hi s i l l ness , t he pr oof di d notr eveal t hathe ever posed a th r eat t o t he chi l d .- 6- A l t hough t he t r i a l j udge di d n o tm ake a speci fi c fi ndi n g t hatt he f

a t herdi d notpose a th r eat t o t he chi l d , such a f i ndi ng i s i m p lic i tin hi s cus t ody order . H i s orderdoes r eci t e t he f a t her ’ s pas t subs t ance abuse and ps ychi a t r i c pr obl e m s but i tr e l i es on t h e tre a t i n g phys i c i an’ s test i m ony t hatt h e condi t i ons w e r e i n r e m i s s i o n and t he “ gener a l sta t e of t he l a w i n Tennesse e r e l a t i ve to gr ant i n g p r e f e r ence t o par ent s ov e ral l ot her s . ” The cour tconcl udes bysay i n g t hat“ t he pr oof

m a n d a t es t hatt he r espondent/ f a t her , t he nat u r a l f a t hero f th i s chi l d , be gi ven her custody and be gi ven an opport uni t y t o r a i se her

j o i n t l y w i t h hi s m o t her . ” W e do nott h i nk t he pr oof p r eponder a t es agai nst t hatfi ndi ng.

B o t h si des argue t h a t th e i rexper t ’ s opi n i on shoul d be g i ven p r i m a r y w e i ght . The gr andm o t herar gues t hatt he t r eat i n g p s y chi a t r i s t

had notr evi e w ed t he m edi cal r ecor ds cov e r i ng M r . A n d e r son’ s ent i r e ei ght een year hi s to r y of

m ent a l i l l ness . M r . A nder son ar gues t hatt he gr andm o t her ’ s expertof f e r ed an opi n i o n b a s e d ent i r e l y on t he m edi cal r ecor ds w i t houtany personal obser vat i on. W e t h i nk undert hose ci r cum s tances t he t r i a l j udge had t o m ake a det e r m i nat i on aboutw h i ch w i t ness w as m o r e cr edi b l e . That det e r m i nat i on i s e n t i t l ed t o gr eatw e i ghton appeal . S t a t e ex r e l . B a l s i ngerv. Tow n of M adi sonv i l l e , 435 SW . 2d 803 (Tenn. 1968) .- 7 - The gr andm o t heral so argues t hatth e w i l l nom i nat i ng her a s custodi an of

t he chi l d shoul d be gi ven s o m e consi der a t i o n . Sh e c i t e s Te n n . C ode A nn. § 34- 12- 103, a gener a l sta t u t e govern i ng t h e appoi n t m entof

guar d i ans. I n t hatsta t u t e , per sons desi gnat ed i n th e w ill of a par entorpar ent s are consi der ed f o rguar d i anshi p j u s t a fte r t he par ent s t hem sel ves .

W e do nott h i nk t h e sta t u t e has anyappl i cat i on her e . Thi s i s nota guar d i anshi p pr oceedi ng. I f i tw e r e , t he sta t u t e gi ves fi r s t p l ace t o par ent s . Ther e f o r e , w e r e j ectt he ar gum entt hatt he sta t u t e w oul d have a beari ng on t h i s cas e .

The j udgm entof

t he cour tbel o w i s af fi r m ed and t he cause i s r e m anded t o t he C i r cui tCo u r tof C o f f ee C ount y f

o rany f

u r t her p r oceedi ngs t hatm ay becom e necess a r y . Tax t he costs on appeal t o t he appel l ant .

______________________________________ BEN H. C A N T R E L L , P R E S I D I NG J UDGE , M . S . CONCU R :

_____________________________ W I L L I AM C. KOCH, J R . , J UDGE- 8-

_____________________________ W I L L I AM B. CA I N , J UDGE