# F I L E D O c t o b e r14, 1998 C e c i l W . C r o w son A p p e l l a t e C o u r tC l e r k 

### I N THE C O U R T OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASH V I L L E

BAXTER NEAL HELSON, ) ) P l a i n t i f f/ A ppel l ant , ) ) A ppeal N o . ) 01- A - 01- 9802- C H - 00091 VS. ) ) W i l l i a m son Chancer y ) N o . 24911 L ETI C I A FI NLEY CYRUS, ) ) D e f endant/

A ppel l ee. ) A P P E ALED FRO M THE C H A N C E R Y C O U R T O F W I L L I A M S O N C O U N T Y AT F RAN K L I N , TENNESSEE T HE HONORABL E HE NRY DE N M ARK BE L L , CHANCE L L O R

CHARL E SG. BL

ACK ARD, I I I 155 Fr ankl i n R oad, S u i t e 155 B r ent w ood, Tennessee 37027 A t t o r ney f

o r P l a i n t i f f/ A ppel l ant J . RUSSELL

HELDM A N 320 M a i n S t r eet , S u i t e 101 F r ankl i n , Tennessee 37064 A t t o r ney f

o r D e f endant/

A ppel l e e

AFFI R M E D I N PAR T ; R E V E R S E D I N PAR T ;

AND REM AND E D

B E N H. CANT REL L , J UDGE CONCUR: T O D D , P . J ., M . S . CAI N , J . 

## O P I N I O N- 2 - The i s s ues i n t h i s appeali nvolve the l o w e r cour t ’ s or der i ncor por a t i n g ( 1 ) a pr ovi s i on t hata ni ne- year - o l d chi l d di d nothave t

o vi s i tw i t h hi s fa t her

agai nst hi s (th e chi l d ’ s )w i shes

and ( 2 ) a pr ovi s i o n t hatt he m o t her w as t o ar r ange apr i vat

e phone cal l bet w een t he chi l d and hi s fa t her once a week. W e r ever se t h e or der

w i t h r espec

t t o vi s it a t i on. O t herw i se we af f i r m . I .

The C irc u it C o u rt o f B o y d C ount y , K ent uck yent e r ed an agreed or der on M a y22, 1992 grant i ng pr i m a ry custody of a m i nor chi l d t o t h e m o t her , a nd set t i n g speci f i ctim e s fo r th e f a t her ’ s vi s i t a t i on. S ubsequent or der s m ade som e m i nor a l t e r a t i o n s , pr i m a r i l y w i t h r esp ect t o vi s i t a t i o n du r i n g sum m e r vaca t i o n s .

The m o t her m oved t

o W i l l i a m son Coun t y and l a t e r r e m a r r i ed. The f a t her al so m oved t

o t he N ashvi l l e ar ea. O n A ugust 28, 1997 t he f a t her

f i l ed a pet i t i o n i n t he W i l l i a m son Count y Chancer y Cour tt o enf o r ce t he K ent uck y or der s and t

o set speci f i ct i m es fo r

vi s it a t i on. The m o t her f i l ed a m o t i on f o r

an order t hatt her e be no f o r cedvi s it a t i on bet w een t he f a t her and chi l d , and t hatt he f a t her be en j o i ned f r o m m aki n g der ogat o ry s t a t e m ent s about t he m o t her , or

t he m o t her ’ s fa m i l y , i n t h e p r esenc e oft he chi l d .
A fte r a hear i ng, t h e chanc e l l o r ent e r ed an order

adopt i ng and dom est i cat i n g t he or der s f r o m B oyd Count y , K ent uck y . The or der

r esult ed i n w hatth e l o w e r cour tt e r m ed, “ s tandar d ever y other w eekend vi s i t a t i on and such vi s i t a t i on i s not t o be super

v i sed. ” O n t he m o t her ’ s m o t i on t hatt he chi l d notbe f o r ced t o vi s i tw i t h hi s f a t her , t he cour

tor der ed t he f o l l o w i ng: 6 . D e f endant ’ s m o t i o n f o r an order ofno f o r ced or coer cedvi s i t a t i o n i s gr a n t e d . P l a i n t i f f ’ s vi s i t a t i o n or vi s i t a t i o n p r i v i l egesw i t h t he m i nor c h ild shal l notbe coer

ced or f o r ced- 3 - b yan yon e a g a i nst t h e m i n o r chi l d ’ s w i she s , a nd t he m i nor c h ild shal l notbe r equi r ed, t o vi s i tw i t h P l a i n t i f f agai nst t h e m i nor chi l d ’ s wi shes . 7 . D e f endantshal l t e l l t he m i nor chi l d t hathe is not t o b e f o r ced t

o go on v i s i t a t i on w i t h P l a i n t i f f , t hati f he doe s notw antt o go on v i s i t a t i on, he does not go, and t hathe does nothave t

o go on v i s i t a t i on unl ess he deci des he want s t o go. 8 . D e f endantshal l ar r ange f o r t he m i nor

chi l d t o m ake a weekl y t

e l ephone c a ll to P l a i n tif f in a l ocat i on w her e n o one i s heari ng w hatt h e conv e r sat i on i s on t he cal l i ng si de, sai d w eekly t

e l ephone cal l t o occu r appr oxi m a t e l y at

7: 0 0 p . m . each S unday eveni ng.

* * * 11. D e f endant ’ s m o t i on f o r an order

r equi r i n g v i s ita t i o n t o be super v i sed i s deni ed att h i s t i m e ; and D e f endant ’ s m o t i o n fo ran i n j unct i on agai nst P l a i n t i f f f r o m m aki n g der ogat o ry s

t a t e m ent s i s her

eby grant e d and i s m ade r eci p r ocala g a i nst

bot h part i es and ther e f o r e P l a i n t i f f and D e f enda n t each ar

e her eby enj o i ned and r est r a i ned f r o m m aki n g der ogat o ry s

t a t e m ent s aboutt he ot her or m e m ber s o f th e ot h e r ’ s f a m i l y , i ncl u d i n g gr a n d p a r e n t s , i n t he pr esenc e o f t he m i nor

chi l d .
II.
The l o w e r cour t ’ s or der w as based on t h e t est i m ony of t he chi l d ’ s m o t her , hi s grandm o t her , and a t r eat i ng psy chi a t r i s t . A l l of t he w i t nesses test i f i ed t hat t h e chi l d di d notw i sh t o ever vi s i thi s fa t her

agai n or

even t o t a l k t o hi m o n t h e t e l ephone. The an i m osi t y , acco r d i ng t o th e w i t n e sses, gr e w ou tof t h e f a t h e r ’ s act s i n ( 1 ) cut t i ng t he chi l d ’ s hai r

w hen he vis i t ed w i t h t he f a t her and ( 2 ) per s i s t i ng i n c a llin g t he chi l d N eal w hen he pr e f e r r ed bei ng cal l ed “ T r ace. ”

A l t hough t he m o t her

has custody,t h e chi l d act ual l y l i ves w i t h hi s g randm o t her

and a t en- year

- o l d hal f si s te r , i n a house cl ose t o w her e t he m o t her

and s tepf a t her

l i ve wi t h t hei r

t w o sm a l l e r

chi l d r en. The m o t her

and grandm o t her

t est i f i e d t hatw hen t he chi l d w entof f w i t h t he f a t her he di d so r

e l uctant l y , and w hen he cam e hom e he w oul d be upset and agi t a t ed. H e b egged nott o be m ade t o go w i t h hi s f a t her or t o t a l k to hi m on t he t e l ephone. Fr o m t he t i m e he w as t h r ee, he had of t e n- 4 -

begged t o be abl e t o t a l k to som eone, a j udge or t he pol i ce, so t hathe w oul d nothave t o vi s i thi s fa t her . H e hat ed t he hai r cut s given hi m by hi s fa t her and he w i shed t

o be cal l ed Tr ace. The

psych i a t r i s twh o had been t r eat i ng t he chi l d si nce 1994 t est i f i ed t hat t h e chi l d had an att ent i o n de f i c i tand anxi e t y di sor der and w as hy

per act i ve. The a t t ent i o n def i c itdi sor

der w as bei ng t r eat e d w i t h t he dr ug R i t a l i n . The anxi e t y di sor der conc e r ned a f ear

ofb e i ng separ

a t ed f r o m hi s gr

andm o t her . H e al so had a l ong s tandi n g f ear

of get t i n g hi s hai r

cut . The psych i a t r i s t had w r i t t en a l e t t e r

t o t h e m o t her ’ s l a w yer st a t i n g t h e chi l d ’ s f e a r s i n t h i s r e g a r d . T h e psyc h i a trist te s tifi ed , how ever , t hatt he chi l d had never voi ced a det

e r m i nat i on nott o vi s i tw i t h hi s fa t her agai n unt i l he r e t u r ned f r o m t he sum m e rv i s i t a t i on i n A ugust of1997. W hen ask

e d i f she had an opi n i o n on w het her t he chi l d shoul d be fo r c e d to v i s it withh i s fa t h e r, th e psych i a t r i s tsai d , “ I t h i nk t o f o r ce itw hen a chi l d i s t h i s opposed w o u l d be r eal l y anxi e t y - p r ovoki ng and ve ry dif f i cultf o r hi m . S o I don’ tt h i nk itshoul d be f o r ced. ”
The f a t her ’ s t e s tim ony gav

e an ent i r e l y dif f e r entpi c t u r e . H e t est i f i ed t hat t h e hai r cut

s he had gi

ven the chi l d w e r e w i t h t he chi l d ’ s c onsent and t hatt he onl y obj ect i on t o t he use of

t he nam e “ N eal ” cam e f r o m t he chi l d ’ s gr andm o t her . The chanc e l l o r m ade onl y a f

e wf i ndi ngs of

f act . A tt h e end oft h e h e a r i n g he di scusse d t h e pr o o f w i t h t h e l a w yer s :

[ T H E COURT] : A tt he sam e t i m e , I t h i nk we’ ve got a c h ild w ho i s i n a pr edi cam entw h e r e to f o r ce hi m pr obabl y w oul d m ake t he r e l a t i onshi p , th e poss i b i l i t y of a r e l a t i onshi p w o r s e r a t her

t han bet t e r , and t hat ’ s t he sense I getf r o m w hat t h e p s y c h i a

tris t te s tifi e d to . A nd I t h i nk t her e w as so m e t h i n g i n t her e about- - I don’ t r e m e m b e r anyth i ng abouthi m d r i nki ng or

anyth i ng t hatw oul d sugges tf ear . * * * W e ll, t he psy

chi a t r i s t wa s w a t chi ng t he chi l d and t ry i n g t o gi v e a f u l l r eport , I t h i nk. A nd i tboi l s down t o t h e fa c t th a t w hatw as t r u l y s i gni f i cant t o t he chi l d w as a dam n hai r cut .- 5 - * * * B u tt he w ay iti s , t hat ’ s appar ent l y a bi g t h i ng t o t h e c h ild and I don’ tknow

anyt h i ng t o do aboutt hatexc eptI t h i n k h i s c r e d i b ility - - he go tt h e ha i r cut s , as t he chi l d say s and th e m a t e r nal si de has t

est i f i ed, I t h i nk, he gott he hai r cut s . A n d I t h i nk t hatw a s so out

of pr oport i on t o t h e si gni f i canc e t hati t shoul d have,butas t he psy chi a t r i s t say s , w hat ever

you th i n k o r I t h i nk, t o hi m i t ’ s of

vit a l i m port ance. A n d as I ’ m gett i ng t he sense ofi t , t hatand t he nam e “ T r a c e ” have

been abee i n t he chi l d ’ s bonnet t hathave k

ept h i m f r o m havi ng as go

od a r e l a t i onshi p as he s houl d .

* * * I w oul dn’ tm ake a f i ndi ng, as I sai d , I have a pr o f ound susp i c i o n and have had t hose pr o f ound sus p i c i ons befo r e , and al l I can say i s t hatI bel i eve t hati f t he grandm o t her has i n t ent i onal l yt r i ed t o dest r oy or har m t h e poss i b ilitie s o f a good r e l a t i onshi p , I f i r m l y bel i eve ther e i s an es peci a l l y hot p l ace in h e ll w a itin g fo r h e r. T h a t’s a l l . I’mju s ta Judge.A n d I don’ tt h i nk - - an d o n t h a tI t h i nk m y j u d g m e n ti s j ust as good a s t he psy

chi a t r i s t . A nd t o have th i s chi l d com e i n and say t hat , w het her

he i s p r ogr a m m ed or

not , i t ’ s a fact

ofl i f e t hat he w oul d say

t hathe doesn’tw antt o be f o r ced. S o , t he vi s i t a t i on w i l l , I guess , need t o be am end e d onl y- - I t h i nk itcer

t a i n l y c an’ tbe i ncr

eased. I th i n k

th e v i s ita tio n schedul e shoul d be a s it i s , a t th i s hom e , w her ever i tm ay be,and I don’ tt h i nk itneeds t o be super

v i sed. O n t h e o t her hand, t he m o t i on t hati tnotbe f o r ced, I t h i nk t hathas t o be sus t a i ned. M R . H E L D M A N : Thank you,Y our H onor . T H E COURT: T h e r e ’ s no way I can f i x it , exc eptt hat I t h i nk t her e needs t

o be som e t h i ng t hatput s t he bur den, t hat t her e be som e r equi r ed cont act . V i s i t a t i on, can’tm ake hi m go. I f he say

s he does n ’ tw ant t o go, he doesn’tgo. I t h i n k t he chi l d shoul d be t o l d t hat , t hathe i s not t o be f o r ced, and t hathe doesn’thave t

o go unt i l he w ant s to . A nd he’ s goi n g t o have t o deci de w het her

he w ant s a r

e l a t i onshi p or

not . B u t I th i nk t her e oughtt o be an order - - I don’ tkno

w w hat- - t h i s l ady i s not

a par t y to t h i s pr

oceedi ng. I can’tor der her t o d o a nyt h i n g , exce p t she ’ s t h e r e . B u tI can or der t h i s l ady because she

i s t he m o t her

oft h e chi l d , and so the or der w ill be on he r

t o m ake ar r a n g e m e n t s f o r th e chi l d t o m ake w eeklyt e l ephone cal l s to t he f a t her w i t h no one hear i ng w hat t he conv e r sat i on i s on t he cal l i ng si de.
The chancel l o r

di d notf i nd t hatvi s i t a t i on w i t h t he f a t her w oul d be det r i m ent a l t o t h e c h ild or t hati tw as i n t he c h ild ’ s bes ti n t e r est

s to have the f a t her ’ s vi s i t a t i o n- 6 -

t e r m i nat ed. I n f act , t he vi s i t a t i on or der s ar e st i l l i n ef f ect . S o , t he f a t her ’ s vi s i t a t i o n w i t h t he chi l d w i l l be det e r m i ned sol e l y by t he chi l d ’ s wi shes . III.
I n t h i s c ase, one ofan i ncr

easi ng num ber

i nvolv i ng coer

c ive v i s i t a t i o n o r der s , w e sta rtby r

ecogni z i ng a genera l r u l e : t hat‘ t he det a i l s ofcus t ody and v

i s i t a t i o n w i t h chi l d r e n ar e pecul i a r l y wi t h i n t he br oad di s c r e t i on oft he t r i a l j udge. ” S u ttle s v . S u ttle s , 748 S . W . 2d 427 at429 ( Tenn. 1988) . S ee al so Ed w a r

d s v . E d w a r d s , 501 S . W . 2 d 283 ( Tenn. A pp. 1973) . W e have no pr obl e m w i t h t he t r i a l j udge t e r m i nat i n g v i s ita tio n pr i v i l e g es a l t o g e t h e r on a f i n d i n g t h a tsuch vi s i t s woul d r esulti n har m t o t h e c h ild “ i n ei t her

a phys i calor

m o r a l sense . ” S ee S u tt l e s at429. W e ar e al so t

o l d t hat v i s ita tio n can be deni ed t o a non- cust odi a l par entw hen i tw oul d r esulti n sev e r e e m o t i onal har m . S e e

Tenn. C ode A nn. § 36- 6 - 301 ( A c ts 1995 , ch. 42 8 , § 3) . B u t absent such f i n d i n g s , t h e pu b l i c po l i cy of t h i s st a t e i s t h a tt h e cou rt shal l “ g r a n tsuch r i ght s of vi s it a t i on as wi l l enabl e t h e chi l d and t he non- cus t odi a l par entt o m a i n t a i n a par ent - chi l d r e l a t i onshi p . ” I d . S e e P i z z illo v . P i z z ill o , 884 S . W . 2d 749 ( Tenn. A pp. 1994) . The

chanc e l l o r r ecog n i zed these pri nci p l es when he ent e r ed t h e v i s ita tio n or der s f r o m t he K ent uck y c ourt . A s t he r ecor

d now stands t he f a t her

has th e r i ghtto have the chi l d w i t h hi m a cer t a i n num ber

ofdays each m ont h , f o r

a t i m e i n t h e s u mme r , and on cer

t a i n hol i days . The num ber and l engt h oft h e vi s i t a t i on per i ods on t h e f ace of

t he or der

ar e notan i s s ue on appeal . The chancel l o r di d notf i nd t hatt h e exe r c i s e o f t he cour

t - o r der ed vi s i t a t i on w oul d har m t he chi l d i n any way, phys i cal l y , m o r a l l y , orem o t i onal l y - - even t hough t he psy chi a t r i s t of f e r e d som e l i m i t ed t est i m ony conc e r n i n g t he chi l d ’ s em o t i onal sta t e . W e do nott h i nk t hatt he psy chi a t r i s t’ s opi n i o n t hatf o r ced vi s it a t i on w oul d pr ovok e anxi e t y i n t he chi l d and w oul d be “ver y dif f i cultf o r h i m ” r i ses

t o t he l evel

oft he sev

e r e em o t i onal har m desc r i bed i n t he st a t u t e .- 7 - W e com e back

t o t he concl usi on t hatt he vi s i t a t i on i n t h i s c ase i s based ent i r e l yon t he chi l d ’ s wi shes , and w e concl ude t hatal l o w i ng a ni ne- year - o l d boy t

o deci d e w het her

hi s fa t her

can ex e r c i se hi s c

ourt - o r der ed vi s i t a t i on i s not an exer c i s e o f t he chan cel l o r ’ s di s c r e t i on. R a t her , i tl eaves t he questi on t o t he di s c r e t i on oft h e c h ild . A s we have r ecent l y hel d , t he chi l d ’ s pr e f e r ence i s only one f acto r t o be cons i der e d i n d eci d i n g w h i ch p a r e n tge t s cus t ody oft he chi l d . S e e

Tenn. C ode A nn. § 36- 6 - 106. “ I tsi m p l y c an’ tbe t he onl y f

acto r t o cons i der

i n deci d i ng vis i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g es. ” W

ils o n v . W ils o n , N o . 01- A - 01- 9707- C V - 00325 ( N ashvi l l e , S ept . 2, 1998) , s l i p op. * 18.
W e ar e aw a r e ofatl east t w o opi n i ons of t h i s c ourtw i t h w h i ch our hol d i n g i n t h i s c

ase seem s to conf l i c t . A nd w e f ear t hatt hose

case s ar e bei n g i n t e r p r e t e d as a m andat e t o t he t r i a l cour t s to r e f r a i n f r o m or der i ng a chi l d t o vi s i twi t h t h e non- cus

t odi a l par entagai nst

t he chi l d ’ s wi shes . W e t h i nk t hati s an err oneous i n t e r p r e t a t i on ofbot h cases.

P e r h a p s t h e l e a d i n g case i s Jones v.Jones

, N o . 01- A - 01- 9607- C V - 00346 ( N ashvi l l e , Feb. 26, 1997) i n w h i ch t h e t r i a l j udge had order ed “ m eani ngf u l v i s ita tio n ” w i t h t he non- cus t odi a l par ent s (

t he m o t her

had cus t ody of t he t w o younger chi l d r en; t he f a t her

cus t ody of t he t w o ol d e r

ones) . The cour

tw entf u rt her

t o or der t hati f a chi l d r e f usedt o com p l yw i t h t he cour t ’ s or der s , an unr u l y ch i l d pet i t i on w oul d be f i l ed agai nst

t he chi l d i n t he j uveni l e cour t . O n appeal t h i s c

ourtsai d : C ustody and vis i t a t i on i s s u e s t ouch t he hom es, heart hs, and heart s o f e m o t i onal l y v u l ner abl e chi l d r en and adul t s . The sensit i ve ci r cum s tances ofa f a m i l y br

oken apartby di vor ce r equi r e r est r a i n tand unders tandi n g r a t her t han heavy

hande d , aut hor i t a r i an i n t e rventi on. Thus, cus

t ody and v

i s i t a t i on or der s s hou l d r e f l e c t th e r e a litie s of a l l f a m i l y m e m ber s and s houl d pr o m o t e conduc t t hat i s r

easonabl e i n l i ghtofal l t h e c i r cum s t a n ces . They s houl d be det a i l ed enough t o enabl e t he part i es t

o unders tand pr eci sely what t he cour t expec t s of t hem and w hat t he consequences oft hei r f a i l u r e t o abi de by the cour t ’ s or der w i l l be.- 8 - M e a n i n g f u l n e s s i s a v

ague and subj ect i ve c

o n cept . V i s ita tio n t hatm i ghtbe cons i der ed m eani ngf u l by so m e m i ghtnotbe cons i der ed m eani ngf u l by o t her s . No cons i s tent l yr e l i abl e basi s exi s ts fo r det e r m i n i n g w het her a part i cul a r

vi s i tw as m eani ngf u l or not . A ccor d i ngl y , m e a n i n g f u l n e s s does not pr ovi de a w o r kabl e standar d fo r v i s ita t i o n ar r angem ent s bec ause itf a i l s to i n f o r m t h e part i es of

t he pr eci se c

onduct expec t ed oft hem . Ther e ar e al so pr

act i call i m i t s on a c

ourt ’ s abi l i t y t

o r e s t o r e t he bonds of

t r ust and af f ect i on i n dys

f unct i o n a l f a m ilie s . M ost

cour t s do not

have the r esou r ces o r exper t i s e f o r t h i s t ype of sus t a i ned i n t e rventi on. C oer ced v i s ita tio n i s r a r e l y m eani ngf u l and usual l y dr i ves f a m i l y m e m ber s f a rt her

apart . A c c

o r d i ngl y , cour

t s shoul d avoi d a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r ce m eani ngf u l r e l a t i onshi ps upon par ent s and chi l d r en w ho have been al i enat ed f r o m each. The t r i a l cour

tw entt oo f a r

w hen i tor d e r ed t h e chi l d r e n t o have “m eani ngf u l vi s i t a t i on” and w hen i t r equi r e d t he par ent s t o coer ce t he chi l d r e n t o com p l y wi t h t h e vi s it a t i on schedul e . A c c o r d i ngl y , w e m o d i f y

th e tri a l cour t ’ s vi s it a t i on and cus

t ody decr ees by

del e t i ng bot h t h e r equi r e m entt hatvi s i t a t i on be “ m eani ngf u l ” and t h e par ent s ’obl i gat i o n t o com m ence unr u l y ch i l d pr oceedi ngs i f t he chi l d r en do notcooper a t e w i t h vi s i t a t i on. S i nce t h e part i es’ol dest

chi l d has now r eached the age ofm a j o r i t y , t h e part i es’onl yr e m a i n i ng obl i gat i ons ar e t o r e f r a i n f r o m d i spar agi n g each other

i n t he pr esenc

e oft hei r chi l d r e n a n d to cooper

a t e w i t h t hei r

r espec t i ve ef f o rt s t o have v i s ita tio n i n t he m anner pr esc r i bed by the t r i a l cour t . The par ent s shoul d not be r e qui r ed t o f o r ce t hei r chi l d r en t o e n g a g e i n vi s i t a t i o n ag a i nst t h e i r w i she s . The genera l i m p r ess i on t hatt r i a l j u d g e s can ’ tor d e r chi l d r e n t o vi s i tt hei r non- cus t odi a l par ent s i s pr

obabl ybased ont he l ast sentence of

t he quot e d p a r a g r a p hs. B u tt he opi n i on shoul d be r ead i n context . The chi l d r en i n v o l ved i n Jones w e r e ator

near t he age ofm a j o r i t y , and t hey had l i ved i n t he sam e househol d w i t h t hei r m o t her unt i l t w o year

s earl i e r . Ther e w as, consequent l y , no sus p i c i on t hat t h e cus t odi a l par enthad del i ber a t e l y al i enat ed t h e chi l d r en f r o m t hei r m o t her . U nder such ci r cum s t a n ces t h i s cour tw as r e l uctantt o ventu r e outon a cour se t hatm i ght m ake t h i ngs wor se.

I n t h i s c ase, t h e chi l d has l i ved v i rt ual l y al l hi s l i f e apartf r o m hi s fa t her . H e i s now ni ne. A l t h o u g h i ti s cl e a r t h a the ha s exp r esse d a w i sh n o t t o vi s i thi s- 9 -

f a t her , w e cannot

acc eptt he concl usi on t hatt he cour thas no power t o r ender ai d t o t h e f a t her

i n f u rt her ance of

t he st a t u t o ry m andat e t o pr o m o t e t he par ent - chi l d r e l a t i onshi p .
I n addi t i on, af t e r w e r ever

sed t he m o r e r adi calpr ovi s i ons in Jones, th e part i e s st i l l had an obl i gat i on “ t o cooper a t e w i t h t hei r

r espec t i ve ef f o rt s to have v i s ita tio n i n t he m anner pr esc r i bed by the t r i a l cour t s . ” S l i p op. 5. I n t h i s case t h e chanc e l l o r al l o w ed t he m o t her

t o t e l l t he chi l d t hathe di d nothave t o go w i t h hi s fa t her a g a i nst hi s wi shes . W e t h i nk t h i s i s a g u a r a n t e e t h a tt h e chi l d w i l l ne ver vi s i tw ithth e f a t her as l ong as the chi l d i s under t he cus t o d y and cont r o l oft he m o t her and g randm o t her . A n o t her case i nvol v i n g f o r ced vi s i t a t i o n i s Co llin s v . C o llin s , N o . 01- A - 01- 9211- C V - 00459 ( N ashvi l l e , M ay 26,1993) , w her e t h i s c ourtaf f i r m e d t he t r i a l cour t ’ s r e f usalt o f o r ce a f

ourt een- year

- o l d daught e r

t o vi s i tw i t h her

m o t her . The chi l d ’ s obj ect i ons w e r e based onher st r ong re l i g i ous f eel i ngs thather m o t her ’ s hom osexual l i f est y l e w as i m p r oper . The tria l c o u rt in t hatcase , how ever, f ound t hatf o r ced vi s i t a t i o n w oul d b e det r i m ent a l t o t he chi l d / par entr e l a t i onshi p . The cour tal so found t hatt h e r e l a t i onshi p shoul d be encour aged by unm oni t o r ed t e l ephone pr i v i l eges and an adm oni t i o n t o t he f a t her nott o t ake any

act i o n t hatw oul d al i enat e t he chi l d f r o m t h e m o t her . W e do nott h i nk Co llin s v . C o llin s i s aut hor i t y f

o r t he act i o n t aken by

t he t r i a l j udge i n t h i s c

ase.
I V . W e r ever

se t he port i on oft he chanc e l l o r ’ s or der hol d i ng t hatt he chi l d does nothave t

o vi s itw i t h hi s fa t her

and t hatt he m o t her

shoul d i nst r uct

t h e chi l d t hat- 10 -

h e does not

have t o vi s ithi s fa t her

i f he doesn’t w i sh i t . W i t houta f i ndi ng t hatt h e v i s i t s w oul d har m t he chi l d , such an order i s c ont r a ryt o t he publ i c pol i c y oft h i s s t a t e as ex p r essed i n ourC ode and t he cases i n t e r p r e t i ng i t . W e shoul d add, how ever, t hatenf o r c i ng t he vi s i t a t i on or der s i s anot her p r obl e m . A s we sai d i n Jones, w e t h i nk t hatt h r eat eni n g t he par ent s wi t h conte m p tor t h e chi l d w i t h d e l i n q u e ncy p r oce e d i n g s i s r a r e l y ef f ect i v e a nd f r equent l y c ount e r - p r oduct i ve. A s l ong as th e cus t odi a l par enti s neut r a l t o w a r d t he vi s i t a t i on and r e f r a i n s fro m t aki ng any a

c t i o n t o al i enat e t h e chi l d f r o m t he ot her par ent , t he bur den i s on t h e non- cus t o d i a l par entt o est

abl i sh t he m u t ual t r ust

and conf i dence t hatm ust be t h e basi s f o r a m eani ngf u l r e l a t i onshi p . W e cannot bel i eve thata l ovi ng parent w oul d i nsi s t on m aki ng hi s ch i l d m i ser abl e . The c h ild ’ s separ

a t i on anxi e t y i n t h i s c

ase m ay be t r i ggered by th e l engt h o f t he vi s it a t i o n per i ods. W hen t he part i es wer e l i v i ng so f a r apart , a vi s i tof som e days and ni ght s was pr obabl y the onl y pr act i calsol u t i on. B u tw i t h t he p a rtie s liv i n g w ith i n a shor

tdr i ve of each other , a m o r e cr

eat i ve pl an i nvolv i ng shor t - t e r m vi s i t s at t h e begi nni ng m i ghtm i t i gat e t he anxi e t y . I f t h e c h ild knew t hathe w oul d r e t u r n t o hi s h o m e atni ghtand t hathi s fa t her w oul dn’ tcut

hi s hai r , hi s feel i ng ofsecu r i t y woul d sur e l y i m p r ove.O n r e m and t he t r i a l cour ti s f r ee t o exam i ne al l poss i b i l i t i es. W e w oul d m ake one m o r e obser vat i o n aboutt he chi l d ’ s hai r . The sty l e and l e n g t h o f t h e ha i r

of a ch i l d o f t h i s ag e i s o r d i nar i l y a choi ce fo r t he cus t odi a l par ent . The f a t her

shoul d r espec

tt he j o i n tdeci s i on oft he m o t her and t he chi l d .
W i t h r espec

tt o t he chi l d ’ s nam e , w e a r e of t h e opi n i on t hatt he f a t her m a y use t he chi l d ’ s given nam e w hen r e f e r r i ng t o hi m . The f a t her ’ s wi shes sho u l d com m and t he sam e r espec tt hatany par

enti s due on s u ch a per sonalchoi ce. To g i v e t he chi l d a vet

o pow e r on t h i s i ssue set s a bad exam p l e f o r t he chi l d . W e w oul d- 11 -

a l s o add t hatt he f a t her

shoul d r espec

tt he chi l d ’ s wi shes

w i t h r espec

tt o t he nam e he w i shes t o be cal l ed i n hi s ot her per sonalr e l a t i onshi ps. Ther e f o r e , t he f a t her shoul d nott h r eat en t o cont

act t he chi l d ’ s schoolor

ot her t h i r d part i es t

o i nsi s t t hatt hey use t he chi l d ’ s given nam e .
V .

The m o t her has appeal ed t he l o w e r cour t ’ s or der o n t he t e l ephone conv e r sat i ons bet w een t he f a t her and chi l d . A s i ndi cated i n t he f o r egoi ng por t i ons of t h i s opi n i on w e f i nd t he m o t her ’ s pos i t i on on t h i s i s s ue t o be w i t houtm e r i t .

The l o w e r cour t ’ s or der i s r ever sed as i ndi cated i n t h i s opi n i on. I n al l o t her r espec t s iti s af

f i r m ed. The cau s e i s r e m anded t o t he C hancer y Cour tof W illia m s o n C ount y f

o r f u rt her pr oceedi ngs.Tax t he cos t s on appeal

equal l y t

o t h e part i es.

_______________________________ B E N H. CANT REL L , J UDGE CONCUR:

_______________________________ HENRY F . T ODD, PRE S I D I NG J UDGE M I DDL E S ECT I O N

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