### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 24, 200 5 AD OLP H M. GR OVE S, JR. v. S AN DR A R ORE X G ROV ES Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 94D-3028 M uriel Robins on, Jud ge
No. M2004- 01391-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 2, 2006

T h i s a p p ea l ar i s es fr o mt h e l as to f m an y p et i t i o n s an d co u n t er -p et i t i o n s b y b o t h p ar t i es t o ch an ge custody of the pa rties’ only

child, to modify

child support, to acquire arr ear ag e judg ments for nonpaid c h il d s u p p o rt, a n d f o r c o n te mp t o f

c o u rt. T h e o r d e r

f r o m w h ic h th is ap p e a l a

r o s e a w arded c us tod y of thec hil d to themothe r anddis mis se d th e fathe r’ s pet iti on fo r c on te mpt . Prior to this order , custody

had bee n awa

rded to the f

ather ; however , he had not provided f inancial support f

or t h e c h i l d , a n d t h e c h i l d h a d n o tl i v e d w i t h h i ms i n c e t h e e n tr y o f t h e o r d e r a w ar d i n g h i mc u s t o d y. The dismissal of the father’s pe tition was based upon the trial court’ s finding the fathe r had f ailed to c omp ly wi th the pr e vio us or de r h e wa s se e kin g to e nf or c e . F ind ing no e rr or , w e a ff irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., joined. D. Sc ott Pars le y a ndJoshu a

G. Stric kland , N a sh vil le , T enn ess ee, fo r the app e llant, Ad olp h M

. Grove s, J r. Sandra Rore x Grove s, Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.T en n. C t
. A p p . R

. 1 0 st ates: 1
T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay a ffirm , r e v e rs e o r mo d i f y t he ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a fo rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by me m o randum op i ni o n it shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. -2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 The mar riage o f Ad olph M. Groves Jr. and Sandra Rore x Grove s produce d one child, Kimberly , born May

27, 1986. The F inal Dec ree of Divorc e wa s entered on Februa ry 5, 1996, at which ti me t he parties wer e awarde d joint custodywith primary custody g oing to the mother

and the fathe r re ceiving standard visitation. Many court he aring s ensued du rin g th en ext eight y ear s, which we re ne cessitated by a number of pe tition s and cou nt er-p eti ti on s fo r cha nge of c us to dy , m od if ica ti on of ch il d s up po rt , an d co ntem pt. The matter s at issue emanate from the la st of those hea ring s, which occ urre d on May 13, 2004. The matte rs a t is su e we rese t in pl ay by th e fathe r’ s p e tit ionse e kin g a n a rr e ara g e jud g me nt f

or c hil d su pp ort. Th e mothe r a ns we re d th e fathe r’ s p e tit ionde nying that hewa s e nti tle d to a ny re lie f b e c aus e he h a d f a il e d to s u p p o rt th e c h il d a n d th a t th e c h il d h a d n o t li v e d w ith h im s ince he had bee n awa rded c ustody . The mother a lso filed a counter -petition seeking y et another chang e of c ustody althoug h the child would be e mancipate d two wee ks following the hearing at issue. Although the re is no tra nscript of the e vidence , b e c a u s e no court reporte r attende d the hea ring at issue, we ha ve the benefit of a Tenn. R. App. P

. 24(f) Statement of the Evidenc e appr oved by the trial court. Ha ving r eviewe d the evidenc e, we find it significant, as did the trial court, that the father is s e e king r e lie f f

ro m th e c ou rt

a lth ou g h h e ha d f

a ile d to c omp ly

wi th the c ou rt

or de r h e se e ks to e nf or c e . T his is b e c aus e the c hil d h a d n ot l ive d w ithhim sin c e thee ntry

of theor de r a wa

rd ing him custody and he ha d otherwise f

ailed to provide f

inancial support f

or the c hild. The evi d ence was undisputed that the child had not been supported by or l iving with the father with t he exception of spending one nig ht at his home, and that the c hild had been supported by and living with the mother every night sa ve that one e vening since the prior order

. Th e fathe r o btaine d a n a

rr e ara g e jud g me nt f

or c hil d sup po rt

a g a ins t th e mothe r o n A ug us t 29, 2003. The trial c ourt acknow ledg ed at the m ost rece nt hearing that the fathe r could e nforc e the arr ear ag e judg ment. The trial court, howeve r, dec lined to awar d the father a dditional relief, whic h included a pray er for c ontempt, due to his failure to c omply with the previous orde rs of the tria l court. Father c ontends on appe al t hat t he trial court erre d by denying him additional relief

. We find no err or with the trial court’s decision to dismiss the fathe r’s pe tition due to his total failure to a bide by the trial court’s order

he see ks to enforc e.-3-

The judg ment of the trial court is aff irmed and this matter is rema nded with costs of appe al assessed a g ainst the fathe r, Adolph M. Grove s, J r.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE