F IL ED

O c t o b e r 14, 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 t C 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 S G. 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 appeal i nvol ve t he 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 hat a ni ne- year - o l d chi l d di d not have t o vi s i t w i t h hi s f a 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 hat t he m o t her w as t o ar r ange a pr i vat e phone

cal l bet w een t he chi l d and hi s f a 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 i t a t i on. O t her w 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 y ent e r ed an agr eed or der on

M a y 22, 1992 gr ant i ng pr i m a r y c ust ody of a m i nor chi l d t o t h e m o t her , a nd set t i n g

spec i f i c tim e s fo r th e f a t her ’ s v i 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 ashv i 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 t t o enf o r ce t he K ent uck y or der s and t o set

spec i f i c t i m es f o r vi s i t a t i on. The m o t her f i l ed a m o t i on f o r an or der t hat t her e be no

f o r ced vi s i t a t i on bet w een t he f a t her and chi l d , and t hat t he f a t her be en j o i ned f r o m

m aki n g der ogat o r y s t a t e m ent s about t he m o t her , or t he m o t her ’ s f a m i l y , i n t h e

p r esenc e of t 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 or der 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 esul t ed i n w hat th e

l o w e r cour t t e r m ed, “ s t andar d ever y ot her w eekend v i s i t a t i on and suc h 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 hat t he chi l d not be f o r ced t o vi s i t w i t h hi s

 f a t her , t he cour t or 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 or der of no f o r ced or

coer ced vi 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 eges w i t h t he m i nor c h ild shal l not be coer ced or f o r ced
- 3 -

b y an 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 not be r equi r ed, t o vi s i t w 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 endant shal l t e l l t he m i nor chi l d t hat he 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 hat i f he doe s

not w ant t o go on v i s i t a t i on, he does not go, and t hat he does

not have 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 endant shal 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 hear i ng w hat t h e conv e r sat i on i s on t he cal l i ng si de,

sai d w eekl y t e l ephone cal l t o occ u 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 or der 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 at t h i s t i m e ; and

D e f endant ’ s m o t i o n fo r an 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 r y s t a t e m ent s i s her eby gr ant e d and i s m ade

r eci p r ocal a g a i nst bot h par t i es and t her 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 r y s t a t e m ent s about t 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 bas ed on t h e t est i m ony of t he chi l d ’ s

m o t her , hi s gr andm 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 ness es t est i f i ed t hat

t h e chi l d di d not w i sh t o ever vi s i t hi s f a 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 , acc o r d i ng t o th e w i t n e sses, gr e w ou t of 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 vi s 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 c ust ody, t h e chi l d act ual l y l i ves w i t h hi s

g r andm o t her and a t en- year - o l d hal f si s t e r , i n a house c l ose t o w her e t he m o t her and

s t epf 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 gr andm o t her t est i f i e d

t hat w hen t he chi l d w ent of f w i t h t he f a t her he di d so r e l uct ant 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 not t o be m ade t o go w i t h hi s

f a t her or t o t a l k t o 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 t o som eone, a j udge or t he pol i ce, so t hat he w oul d not have

t o vi s i t hi s f a t her . H e hat ed t he hai r cut s gi ven hi m by hi s f a t her and he w i shed t o be

cal l ed Tr ace.

The psych i a t r i s t wh 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 at t ent i o n de f i c i t and 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 i t di 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 of b 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 t andi n g f ear of get t i n g hi s hai r cut . The psyc h 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 tris t te s tif i e d ,

how ever , t hat t he chi l d had never voi ced a det e r m i nat i on not t o vi s i t w i t h hi s f a t her

agai n unt i l he r e t u r ned f r o m t he sum m e r v i s i t a t i on i n A ugust of 1997. 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 w ith h i s fa t h e r, th e

psych i a t r i s t sai d , “ I t h i nk t o f o r ce i t w hen a chi l d i s t h i s oppos ed w o u l d be r eal l y

anxi e t y - p r ovok i ng and v e r y di f f i cul t f o r hi m . S o I don’ t t h i nk i t shoul 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 di f f e r ent pi 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 t he chi l d w e r e w i t h t he chi l d ’ s c onsent and t hat t 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 w f i ndi ngs of f act . A t t h e end of t 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 t t 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 ent w 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 sens e I get f 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 s o m e t h i n g

i n t her e about - - I don’ t r e m e m b e r anyt h i ng about hi m

d r i nki ng or anyt h i ng t hat w oul d sugges t f 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 r y i n g

t o gi v e a f u l l r epor t , I t h i nk. A nd i t boi l s down t o t h e fa c t th a t

w hat w 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 t t he w ay i t i 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’ t know anyt h i ng t o do about t hat exc ept I t h i n k

h i s c r e d i b ility - - he go t t h e ha i r cut s , as t he chi l d say s and t h e

m a t e r nal si de has t est i f i ed, I t h i nk, he got t he hai r cut s . A n d

I t h i nk t hat w a s so out of pr opor t i on t o t h e si gni f i canc e t hat i t

shoul d have, but as t he psy chi a t r i s t say s , w hat ever you t h i n k

o r I t h i nk, t o hi m i t ’ s of vi t a l i m por t ance.

A n d as I ’ m get t i ng t he sens e of i t , t hat and t he nam e

“ T r a c e ” have been a bee i n t he chi l d ’ s bonnet t hat have 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’ t m 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 bef o r e ,

and al l I can s ay i s t hat I bel i eve t hat i f t he gr andm o t her has

i n t ent i onal l y t 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 t her 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’m ju s t a Judge. A n d

I don’ t t h i nk - - an d o n t h a t I t h i nk m y j u d g m e n t i s j ust as good

a s t he psy chi a t r i s t . A nd t o have t h 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 f act of l i f e t hat

he w oul d say t hat he doesn’ t w ant t 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 i t cer t a i n l y c an’ t be i ncr eased. I th i n k th e

v i s ita tio n sc hedul e shoul d be a s it i s , a t th i s hom e , w her ever

i t m ay be, and I don’ t t h i nk i t needs t o be super v i sed. O n t h e

o t her hand, t he m o t i on t hat i t not be f o r ced, I t h i nk t hat has 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 i t , exc ept t hat

I t h i nk t her e needs t o be som e t h i ng t hat put 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’ t m ake hi m

go. I f he say s he does n ’ t w ant t o go, he doesn’ t go. I t h i n k

t he chi l d shoul d be t o l d t hat , t hat he i s not t o be f o r ced, and

t hat he doesn’ t have t o go unt i l he w ant s t o . 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 ought t o be an or der - - I don’ t kno w

w hat - - t h i s l ady i s not a par t y t o t h i s pr oceedi ng. I can’ t or der

her t o d o a nyt h i n g , exce p t she ’ s t h e r e . B u t I can or der t h i s

l ady becaus e she i s t he m o t her of t h e chi l d , and so t he 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 eekl y t e l ephone cal l s t o 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 not f i nd t hat vi 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 hat i t w as i n t he c h ild ’ s bes t i n t e r est s t o have t he f a t her ’ s v i 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 v i 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 of an i ncr easi ng num ber i nvol v i ng coer c i ve v i s i t a t i o n

o r der s , w e st a r t by r ecogni z i ng a gener a l r u l e : t hat ‘ t he det a i l s of cus 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 of t he t r i a l j udge. ” S u ttle s v .

S u ttle s , 748 S . W . 2d 427 at 429 ( 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 t such vi s i t s woul d r esul t i n har m t o t h e

c h ild “ i n ei t her a phys i cal or m o r a l sens e . ” S ee S u t t l e s at 429. 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- cus t odi a l par ent w hen i t w oul d r esul t i 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 t s 199 5 , 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 t t h e cou r t shal l “ g r a n t such

r i ght s of vi s i t 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 ent t 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 t hese pr i 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 our t . A s t he r ecor d now st ands t he f a t her has th e

r i ght to have t he chi l d w i t h hi m a cer t a i n num ber of days 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 of t 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 not an i s s ue on appeal . The chancel l o r di d not f i nd t hat t 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 , or em 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 st a t e . W e do not t h i nk t hat t he psy chi a t r i s t ’ s opi n i o n

t hat f o r ced v i s i t 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 di f f i cul t f o r

h i m ” r i ses t o t he l evel of t 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 conc l usi on t hat t 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 y on t he chi l d ’ s wi shes , and w e conc l ude t hat al l o w i ng a ni ne- year - o l d boy t o

deci d e w het her hi s f a t her can ex e r c i se hi s c our t - 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 t l eaves t he quest i on t o t he di s c r e t i on of t 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 onl y one f act o 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 t ge t s cus t ody of t he chi l d . S e e Tenn. C ode A nn.

§ 36- 6 - 106. “ I t si m p l y c an’ t be t he onl y f act o r t o cons i der i n deci d i ng vi s 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 ashv i l l e , S ept . 2, 1998) ,

s l i p op. * 18.

W e ar e aw a r e of at l east t w o opi n i ons of t h i s c our t w i t h w h i ch our

hol d i n g i n t h i s c ase s eem s t o conf l i c t . A nd w e f ear t hat t 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 t o r e f r a i n f r o m or der i ng a chi l d t o vi s i t wi t h

t h e non- cus t odi a l par ent agai nst t he chi l d ’ s wi she s . W e t h i nk t hat i s an er r oneous

i n t e r p r e t a t i on of bot h cas es.

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 ashv i l l e , Feb. 26, 1997) i n w h i ch t h e t r i a l j udge had or der 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 t w ent f u r t her t o or der

t hat i f a chi l d r e f used t o com p l y w i t h t he cour t ’ s or der s , an unr u l y c h 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 our t sai d :

C ust ody and vi s i t a t i on i s s u e s t ouch t he hom es,

hear t hs, and hear t 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 sensi t i ve c i r cum s t ances of a f a m i l y br oken

apar t by di vor ce r equi r e r est r a i n t and under s t andi n g

r a t her t han heavy hande d , aut hor i t a r i an i n t e r vent i 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 ght of al l t h e

c i r cum s t a n ces . The y s houl d be det a i l ed enough t o

enabl e t he par t i es t o under s t and pr eci sel y what t he cour t

expec t s of t hem and w hat t he cons equences of t hei r

f a i l u r e t o abi de by t he 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 hat m i ght be cons i der ed m eani ngf u l by s o m e

m i ght not be cons i der ed m eani ngf u l by o t her s . No

cons i s t ent l y r e l i abl e basi s ex i s t s f o r det e r m i n i n g w het her

a par t i cul a r vi s i t w 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 st andar d fo r

v i s ita t i o n ar r angem ent s bec ause i t f a i l s t o i n f o r m t h e

par t i es of t he pr eci se c onduct expec t ed of t hem .

Ther e ar e al so pr act i cal l i m i t s on a c our t ’ 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 t he 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 r vent i 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 r t her apar t . 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 t w ent t oo f a r w hen i t or 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 i t a t i on sc hedul 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 i t a t i on and cus t ody dec r ees by del e t i ng bot h t h e

r equi r e m ent t hat vi 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 c h i l d pr oceedi ngs

i f t he chi l d r en do not cooper a t e w i t h vi s i t a t i on. S i nce t h e

par t i es’ ol dest chi l d has now r eached t he age of m a j o r i t y ,

t h e par t i es’ onl y r 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 ot her i n t he pr esenc e of t 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 r t s t o have

v i s ita tio n i n t he m anner pr esc r i bed by t he 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 gener a l i m p r ess i on t hat t r i a l j u d g e s can ’ t or d e r chi l d r e n t o vi s i t t hei r

non- cus t odi a l par ent s i s pr obabl y based on t he l ast sent ence of t he quot e d

p a r a g r a p hs. B u t t he opi n i on shoul d be r ead i n cont ext . The chi l d r en i n v o l ved i n

Jones w e r e at or near t he age of m 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 ear l i e r . Ther e w as, cons equent l y , no sus p i c i on t hat

t h e cus t odi a l par ent had 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 t w as r e l uct ant t o vent u r e out on a cour se t hat m 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 r t ual l y al l hi s l i f e apar t f r o m hi s f a t her .

H e i s now ni ne. A l t h o u g h i t i s cl e a r t h a t he ha s exp r esse d a w i sh n o t t o vi s i t hi s
- 9 -

f a t her , w e cannot acc ept t he conc l usi on t hat t he cour t has no power t o r ender ai d t o

t h e f a t her i n f u r t her ance of t he st a t u t o r y 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 cal pr ovi s i ons in Jones , th e

par t 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 r t s t o have

v i s ita tio n i n t he m anner pr esc r i bed by t he 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 hat he di d not have t o go w i t h hi s f a 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 t t h e chi l d w i l l ne ver vi s i t w ith th e

f a t her as l ong as t he chi l d i s under t he cus t o d y and cont r o l of t he m o t her and

g r andm 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 C o llin s v . C o llin s , N o . 01- A - 01-

9211- C V - 00459 ( N ashv i l l e , M ay 26, 1993) , w her e t h i s c our t af f i r m e d t he t r i a l cour t ’ s

r e f usal t o f o r ce a f our t een- year - o l d daught e r t o vi s i t w i t h her m o t her . The chi l d ’ s

obj ect i ons w e r e based on her st r ong r e l i g i ous f eel i ngs t hat her m o t her ’ s hom osex ual

l i f est y l e w as i m p r oper .

The tria l c o u rt in t hat cas e , how ever , f ound t hat f o r ced v i 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 ent r e l a t i onshi p . The cour t al so f ound t hat t 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 not t o t ake any act i o n t hat w 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 not t h i nk C o 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 por t i on of t he chanc e l l o r ’ s or der hol d i ng t hat t he chi l d

does not have t o vi s i t w i t h hi s f a t her and t hat t 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 i t hi s f a t her i f he doesn’ t w i sh i t . W i t hout a f i ndi ng t hat t h e

v i s i t s w oul d har m t he chi l d , suc h an or der i s c ont r a r y t o t he publ i c pol i c y of t h i s s t a t e

as ex p r essed i n our C 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 hat enf 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 hat t h r eat eni n g t he par ent s wi t h cont e m p t or

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 t h e cus t odi a l par ent i 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 ent t o est abl i sh t he m u t ual t r ust and conf i dence t hat m 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 t hat a l ovi ng par ent w oul d

i nsi s t on m aki ng hi s c h 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 gger ed by t h e l engt h

o f t he vi s i t a t i o n per i ods. W hen t he par t i es wer e l i v i ng so f a r apar t , a vi s i t of som e

days and ni ght s was pr obabl y t he onl y pr act i cal sol u t i on. B u t w i t h t he p a r tie s liv i n g

w ith i n a shor t dr i ve of each ot her , a m o r e cr eat i ve pl an i nvol v i ng shor t - t e r m vi s i t s at

t h e begi nni ng m i ght m i t i gat e t he anxi e t y . I f t h e c h ild knew t hat he w oul d r e t u r n t o hi s

h o m e at ni ght and t hat hi s f a t her w oul dn’ t cut hi s hai r , hi s f eel i ng of sec u 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 t i 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 about t he chi l d ’ s hai r . The st y 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 f o r t he cus t odi a l

par ent . The f a t her shoul d r espec t t he j o i n t deci s i on of t he m o t her and t he chi l d .

W i t h r espec t t o t he chi l d ’ s nam e , w e a r e of t h e opi n i on t hat t he f a t her

m a y use t he chi l d ’ s gi ven 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 t t hat any par ent i s due on s u ch a per sonal choi 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 hat t he f a t her shoul d r espec t t he chi l d ’ s wi shes w i t h r espec t t o t he nam e he

w i shes t o be cal l ed i n hi s ot her per sonal r e l a t i onshi ps. Ther e f o r e , t he f a t her shoul d

not t h r eat en t o cont act t he chi l d ’ s s chool or ot her t h i r d par t i es t o i nsi s t t hat t hey us e

t he chi l d ’ s gi ven 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 cat ed 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 hout m e r i t .

The l o w e r cour t ’ s or der i s r ever sed as i ndi cat ed i n t h i s opi n i on. I n al l

o t her r espec t s i t i 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 t of

W illia m s o n C ount y f o r f u r t her pr oceedi ngs. Tax t he cos t s on appeal equal l y t o t h e

par t 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