### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Se pte m be r 18, 200 6 S es sio n
LISA DA WN WIN TON HA INES v. LE E A LAN HA INES
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Blou nt County No. E-18839 W. Dale Young, Judge

No. E2005-02180-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JANUARY 4, 2007

I n th is p os t- div or c e pr oc e e din g , th e tr ia l c ou rt g rante d the pe tit ion of L e e Al a n Ha ine s ( “ F a the r” ) t o chang e the c ustody

of the pa rties’ two minor children from L isa Dawn Wi nton Haines (“ Mother”) to F a the r. Th e c hang e in c us tod y fo llo we d a be nc h tria l a t w hic h th e tr ia l c ou rt he ard , in c ha mbe rs , the testimony

of t h e chil dren a s elicited by the leading questions of the Gua rdian Ad Litem (“the GAL ”). The examination took pl ace outside the phy sical pre sence of counse l for the pa rties. Mother
app e a ls, (1 ) c ha lle ng ing thec ha ng e of c us tod y ; (2) qu e sti on ing e vid e nti ary ru lin g s b y

the tr ia l c ou rt ; and (3) asserting that the trial court e rre d in allowing the children to be questioned in cha mbers by the GAL outside the phy sical pre sence of counse l for the pa rties. We hold that the i n -c h am bers proce eding , as desig ned and co n d u ct ed bythe trial court, constitutes error . Be cause we de em the
err or to be a

violation of due proc ess and pr ejudicial to the judicial proc ess, we va cate the trial
c ou rt ’s jud g me nt in toto and re mand for a new tria l before a diffe rent judg e. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Vacat ed; Case R em anded

C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.

Ge ri D. Spi nd e l, Kno xvill e , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, L isa

Da wn Wint on Haine s.
Ki rk An dr e ws a ndL a ur a

Jane Web b, Ma

ryvil le , T e nn e sse e , f

or the app e lle e , L e e Al a n H a ine s.
No brief filed on beha lf of Jerry

W. C unnin gh am , M ary ville, Tennesse e, Gua rdian Ad Litem for Ab ig a y le L e ig h H a ine s a ndJess ic a Da wn Ha ine s.

OP IN ION-2- I.

Mother and Father were divorced on September 17, 2001. The parties enter ed int o, and the tr ia l c ou rt app ro ve d, a

Ma ri ta l D iss olu tio n A g re e me nt ( “ the MD A” ), wh ic h pro vid e s tha t Mo the r i s to hav e s o l e cust ody

of the c hildren, Abig ay le L eig h Haines ( DOB : Aug ust 24, 1994) and Jessica Dawn Haines (DOB : O ctober 30, 1995) (collec tively “the children” ). Pursuant to the MDA, F ather
wa s to ha ve re a so na

ble vis itatio n w ith the c hil dr e n, inc lud ing e ve ry oth e r wee ke nd , a lte rn a te holiday s, one we ek at Christmas, and two we eks in the summer.

On No ve mbe r 6 , 2 00 3, F a the r f ile d a pe tit ion for cha ng e of

c us tod y . F a the r a lle g e d th a t a substantial and material chang e of c ircumstance s warr anted a modification of custody

and that it was in the best interest of the children that they reside w ith him. Father set forth the following g rounds in support of his petition:

Th a t prior to the div or c e [Mothe r] m ov e d wi th the c hil dr e n to Mid dle T e n n e s s e e
. S h e s u b s e q u e n t l y t o o k a j o b a s a J a i l o r i n W h i t e C o u n t y. [Mot her] has coha

bited with men to whom she is not married.
[Mot her] has take n the childre n into a bar in Te x as whe re the children
rema ined with her in the ba r wh i le she drank alcohol and play ed poker. That since moving with the children, [ Mother] has had a pattern of ha vin g bo y frie nd s a nd baby sitte rs wh o h a ve c ri min a l r e c or ds . It is kn ow n at th is tim e that [Mothe r’ s] c ur re nt b oy frie ndis i mpriso ne d in Titusvill e, Te nnessee . [Mot her] has take nth ep arties’ minor children,
on a t le a st tw o oc c a sio ns , to thi s fa c ili ty a nd e xpos e d the c hil dr e n to the sec urity

chec ks and g ener al unheal t h yprison atmosphere

. [Mothe r] has a lso e nc ou ra g e d th e min or c hil dr e n to write le tte rs to her boy friend in prison.

Further, [Mother] has left the childre n al o n e o v ernig ht instead of providing adequate a n d proper supervision for the parties’ minor
c hil dr e n h e rs e lf . [F a the r] w ou ld ave r that [Mo th er] ha s f a ile d to provide a safe environment in whic h t h e m inor children may reside during copar enting time or as part of her sole custody of the c hildren.

Th at [ Mo the r] h a s r e c e ntl y le ft he r p re vio us job du e to an in -h ou se investigation concerning a lleg ations that she was selling pr escription drug s in the jail. Si nce le aving this p o s ition, [ Mother] has taken a new job in Nashvill e, Tennessee which requires her t o beg in work atI t a pp e a r s f r om t h e r e c or d t h a t a h e a r i n g t oo k pl a c e on Fa t h e r ’ s mot i on on Oct ob e r 26 , 20 04 a n d t h a t t h e GAL 1
t est i f i ed and f i l ed wri t t en repo rt s f avo ri ng Fa t her o n t he al l egat i o ns m ad e (al t ho ugh t he t rans cri p t of t hese pro ceed i ngs i s n ot c on t ai n ed i n t h e r ec or d)

. W e n ot e t h at M ot h er ’ s r epl y br i ef i n cl u des a n a r g u men t t h at t h e t r i al c ou r t e r r ed by
en t er i n g a n or der ba s ed u pon t h e G AL’ s t es t i mon y an d r epor t s
. T h i s ma t t er w as n ot pr es en t ed i n t h e “ i s s u es ” s ec t i on of M ot her ’ s i ni t i al bri ef

as r equi r ed by T enn
. R. Ap p. P

. 27(a) ( 4). Accordi ng l y , we wi l l not cons i der t hi s i s s ue.

-3- 7:00 a.m. There fore , s h e h as been taking the childre n to a frie nds [sic ] hou se a t app ro xima te ly 4:0 0 a. m[.] to ca tc h the bu s for sc ho ol.
(Para g raph numbe ring in orig inal omitted). Father soug ht temporary and permanent c ustody of the
c hil dr e n, a s w e ll a s a

te mpo ra ry re str a ini ng or de r p ro hibit in g M oth e r f ro m in te rf

e ri ng wi th h is custody of the c hildren.

The trial c ourt adopted a temporar y p ar en t ing pla n that vested tempora ry custody of the children w ith Father

. The plan provided that Mother would have visitation with the children e very other we ekend. F ollowing a hearing on November 14, 2003, the trial court ordere d that a tempora ry re s tra i n i n g o rd erp re v i o u s l y en t er ed aga i n s tM o t h erb e m ad e p er m an en tp en d i n g a f i n al h ea ri n g.
On Janu ary

7, 20 04 , th e tr ia l c ou rt

e nte red an ord e r p ro vid ing that Mo the r w ou ld h a ve a ll
rea sonable a cce ss for co- pare nting tim e and for telephone contact with the childre n. On Aug ust 3, 2004, the trial court modified its earlier order by restric ting Mother’s telephone contac t. The latter order also permitted F ather

to tape-r ecor d all telephone c onversations with Mot her.

On Oc tob e r 1 8, 20 04 , F a the r f ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that Moth e r’ s co- pa re nti ng tim e wi th the c h il d r e n b e s u p e r v is e d

. I n s u p p o r t o f th is mo ti o n , F a th e r

a ll e g e d th a t M o th e r

d ir e c te d the children to misbeha ve in F ather ’s car e for the purpose of aff ecting the outcome of

this case; that she instructed the c hildren to false ly report to their teac hers that they wer e sca red of their stepmother, Kar en Ha ines; and that she told the childre n to ex p o s e t h ei r g enitals to their stepbrother for the purpose of

cre ating trouble. On Nove mber 15, 2004, the tria l court orde red tha t M other’s c opare nting time with the childre n b e s u p ervised at the Gar dner Plac e in Maryville and furthe r that Mother’s visitation with the children at their schools was suspende d. 1

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

c on du c te d a

be nc h tria l on Ma y

25 , 2 00 5, a nd on June 14 , 20 05

. On the fi rs t date of the hea ring , the trial court hear d the t estimony of the minor childre n in chamber s outside the prese nce of

counsel for

the parties. The ex amination was conducted by the GAL , with the parties
an d co u n s el o b s er v i n g v i a c l o s ed ci rc u i tt el ev i s i o n
. T h e pa rt i es ’ at t o rn ey s we re t h en al l o we d t o go into the court’s c hamber s to ask questions of the childre n.
The trial court also hear d the testimonyof F ather ; his new wife; Mother ; her ne w husband; and numer ous other witnesses who testified on beha lf of Mother. A fter ta king the matter unde r advisement, the court enter ed its fina l judg ment on Aug ust 31, 2005, gr anting Father’s pe tition for chang e of custody and adopting the proposed findings of fac t and conc lusions of law submitted by Father.A b iga yle ’s na m e is m issp e lled in the tra n sc rip t. 2

-4- The fa ctual finding s that formed the b asi s of the trial c ourt’s dec ision to m odify custody i n cl u d e t h e f

o l l o wi n g:
I t is specifica lly

found that [Mother] acted inappropriately wi t h the minor children, Abig ail and J essica, in that [Mot her] took the minor 2
c hil dr e n to a

state priso n o n many

occasion s to vis it w ith a n in ma te with whom she had a p ersona l relationship. I t is specifica lly found that [ Mo the r] inst

ru c te d the min or c hil dr e n to lie to the Judg e in this
c a se abo ut the fa c t that [Mothe r] h a d c o- ha bit e d w ith va

ri ou s me n in the pre sence of the c hildren. Fu rt her, it is found that [Mother] instructed the minor c hildren to ac t ba dly with [ Father] during the copare nting e x chang es. Specifica lly it is found that [ Mother] told t he children to scre am, cry , and refuse to g o with [Father] when [Mother]
me t [F a the r] at th e Coo ke vil le , T e nn e sse e Mc Do na ld’ s r e staur a nt, and that she did this on more than one occa sion. Further , it is found that [Mo the r] i ns truc te d th e min or c hil dr e n to e xpos e the ir g e nit a ls t o their y oung er step- brother Bry ce in or der to fa cilitate the step-br other acting simil arly and, therefor e, providing [Mother] wit h rea sons why the minor children should be remove d from [Fathe r’s] home. Additionally , it is found that [ Mother] instruc ted the minor children to l ie to the ir sc ho ol te a c he rs sa y ing that th e y we re a fr a id o f [F a the r’ s] wife, a nd that she did this in order to f urther [Mot her’ s] pending ca se. F urthe r, it i s fo un d that [Mothe r] f urthe r a sk e d th e min or

c hil dr e n to be ha ve ba dly

a ndc a us e pr ob le ms in the ho me wi th [F a the r] a ndhis wife, K are n. I t is specifica lly found that [Mother] t ook the minor children to be er pa

rties, poker

g ames a nd to a bar in Texas that served alcohol. F urther, it is found that [Mot her] place d photos of the minor children on the automobile that she was using or trave ling in, and that these photos sur

rounded a prominent sign statin g “B L OUNT COUNTY COURT TOO K MY CHIL DRE N AW AY FROM ME. GUIL TY UNTI L P R OVEN INNOCENT” , and that this was ina pp ro pria te a ndpla c e d th e min or c hil dr e n a ndthe pa

rt ie s in th is
case at risk in that strang ers would perha ps be incited to some ac tion by this inflammatory

sign.
(C apit a lizatio n in orig inal ; par a g ra ph nu mbe ri ng in o ri g ina l om itt e d) . T he tr ia l c ou rt sp e c if ic a lly f o u n d t h a tF a t h e r

w a s c r e d i b l e a n d t h a tM o t h e r l a c k e d c r e d i b i l i t y.
II.

Mo the r a pp e a ls a ndraise s th e fo llo wi ng iss ue s:-5- 1. Di d th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr in h e ari ng the te sti mon y of the pa rt ie s’ minor children in chambe rs without the pr esenc e of c ounsel for e ither party and allowing the GAL to inter rog ate the children i n a l ea ding
ma nn e r a bo ut the ir op ini on s a ndoth e r m a tte rs ?

2. Di d the tr ia l cou rt e rr in r e fu sin g to a dmi t he ars a y state me nts int o evidenc e whe n they

wer e subjec t to a hear say exception?

3. Did the trial court err in g ranting Father’s petition f or cha ng e of
c us tod y wi tho ut e vid e nc e of

a ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e s?

III

. Ou r r e vie w o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t is de novo up on the re c or d, wh ic h c ome s to us acc ompanied by

a pres u m ption of corr ectne ss, a pre sumption we must honor unless the pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vidence is a g a ins t th os e fi nd ing s. Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Union C arbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 854 S.W .2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993) . There is no presumption of cor rec tness as to the t rial court’s conclusions of law

. Cam pbell v. Florida S teel Corp. , 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996).

I V.

Mother asse rts that the tri al co u rt erred whe n it permitted the minor children to be interrog ated by

the GAL about their opinions and other matters i n a l eading manne r in cha mbers outside the prese nce of

parties’ counsel. We ag ree
. On April 15, 2005, Mother’s counsel filed a motion with the trial court seeking to have the children a ppear befor e the judg e for

a “private in cha mbers mee ting.” The motion spec ifically stated that “Jessica and Abig ay le should have an opportunity to speak with the Honor able Judge Young private ly wi tho ut the inf

lue nc e of e ith e r pa

rt y to a ssi st in makin g a fi na l de c isi on that is in the ir be st interests

. ” O n M a y

1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , a

f e w d a y s b e f

o r e th e h e ar in g , th e tria l c o u r t e n te r e d a n o r d er a dd re ssi ng the mot ion a s f oll ow s:
Th e Mo tio n to he ar the pa rt ie s [sic] mino r c hil dr e n in the Ho no ra ble Judg e Yo un g ’s c ha mbe rs is g rante d a nda g re e d u po n b y bo th p art ie s; The pa rties [sic] minor children wil l s er v e merely as fa ct witnesses
o n l y; The [GAL ] shall be present in cha mbers d u ring the time that the children a re to spea k to the J udg e; and-6- The Honor able J u dg e Young will determine on the 25[th] day of Ma y , 200 5 w he the r c ou ns e l f or bo th p art ie s sh a ll a lso be pr e se nt i n chambe rs while the c hildren spea k to the J udg e. (Para g raph numbe ring in orig inal omitted). We have g leane d from the r ecor d that the trial court later determined that the interview of t he children would take place outside the phy sical pre sence of the parties a nd their counsel; that the children would be place d under oath; and that counsel would be permitted in cha mbers to ask questions afte r having observe d, by closed c ircuit television, the GAL ’s q u es t i o n i n g. The que stioning of the minor c hildren by t h e GA Lin the judge ’s chambers outside the pr e se nc e of c ou ns e l fo r the pa rt ie s c on su me s app ro xima te ly 25 pa g e s of the tr a ns c ri pt. I n o rd e r t o g ive the re ader

the “f lavor” of the int er ro gat i o n, we ha ve attac hed the most pertinent pa rts of the GAL ’s interrog ation as an a ppendix t o this opini on.
At the conc lusion of the GAL ’s examination, the trial court permitted counsel for the parties to enter the room wher e the interrog ation had occur red. They wer e then a llowed to ask the c hildren questions. During this ti me, Father’s c ounsel elicited testimony from the children that Mother had tol d th e m to e xpos e the ir

private pa

rt s to the ir

ste pb rothe r andthat Mo the r h a d in str uc te d th e m to tell their t eac hers that they wer e scared of their stepmother, K are n. At this ti me, the GAL asked one fi na l qu e sti on abo ut w he the r M oth e r h a d in str uc te d th e c hil dr e n to be dif fi c ult to g e t a lon g wi th i n the pre sence of Ka

ren, a nd the childre n answe red in the a ffirmative. Mother’s objec tion to the pr ocedur e utiliz ed by the trial court is three fold: first, she conte nds it was reve rsible er

ror ba sed solely

upon the fa ct the trial c ourt p er m i t t ed the questioning of the minor children by

the GAL to be conducte d outside the pre sence of the pa rties’ c ounsel; second, she arg ues t h at it was err or for the trial cour

t to allow the GAL

to interrog ate the c hildren in such a blatantly leading manner ; and finally , she asse rts that it was err or for the trial court to allow the GAL to interrog a te th e c h il d r e n ab o u t th e ir o p in io n s s in c e th e tria l c o u r t’ s o r d e r h a d p r o v id e d th a t the children w ould “serve mere ly as fa ct witnesses only .”

I n response to Mother’s a

r g u me n t with respec t to the absenc e of c ounsel, Father c ontends that Mother wa s the one who r equeste d that the children be interview ed privately in chamber s; that
c ou ns e l, w hil e no t ph y sic a lly in the ro om, ob se rv e d th e c hil dr e n’ s te sti mon y thr ou g h c los e d c ir c uit te le vis ion ; a ndthat, o nc e c ou ns e l w e re pe rm itt e d in to the tr ial c ou rt ’s c ha mbe rs to a sk qu e sti on s, Mother’s c ounsel failed to object to the pre viously -g iven testimony . Father further a sserts that the tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y e xer c ise d it s d isc re tio n in a llo wi ng the GA L to a sk the c hil dr e n le a din g qu e sti on s. Finally , as to the i ssue of asking the children for their opinions, Father maintains that his petition for chang e of c ustody

was g rante d beca

use he ma de o u t a s o l i d case showing a material chang e of circ umstances a nd the best interest of the children. H e conte nds the children’ s testimonythat they pref err ed to live with him had very littl e impact on the outc ome.
I n Ruthe rf

or d v . Rut he rf or d , 971 S.W .2d 955, 956-57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), we he ld that-7- [t ]he Trial J udg e has discretion to interview children a part fr om the courtroom se tting if he considers it i s in the best interest of the child. Howeve r, i f he elec ts to follow this procedur e, he must examine the child “in the pr esenc e of at torneys for eac h side and in the prese nce of t he court reporte r” Newburger v. Ne wburger , 10 Tenn. App. 555, 566 (1930), a nd in order to ha ve a c omplete re cord on a ppeal, a transcript of such evidenc e must be filed. (Emphasis adde d). I n Ruthe rf or d , the father filed a petiti on to rehe ar, pointi ng out that the mother failed to obje ct to the proce dure utiliz ed by the trial judg e. Id. a t 957. I n re sp on se to this arg ume nt, we fi l ed an o t h ero p i n i o n , i n wh i ch we s ai d t h e f o l l o wi n g:
Whil e we ag ree that counsel should have objected, f ailure to objec t does not insul at e t h e Tria l Court from committing re versible e rror , which we held was to intervie w the child without making a re cord of the interview for pur

poses of re view on appea l in the absenc e of the
a tto rn e y s.
Id.

I n an ea

rlier de cision, Sta te v . M

itc he ll , No. 03A01-9602- J V-00043, 1996 WL 659060, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed Nov. 14, 1996) , we we re pr esente d with a fac tual scena rio involving
a n in te rv ie w o f a

c hil d b y a tr ia l ju dg e wi th o nly

the g ua rd ia n a d li te m a nd the c ou rt re po rt e r p re se nt. We noted that “the p ra ct i ce of interviewing witnesses in cha mbers without counsel be ing pr esent violates the litiga nt’s rig ht to due proce ss of law.” Id. at *3. I n a m o re r ece nt case , Mulkey v. Mulkey , No. E2 00 4– 00 59 0- CO A- R3- CV , 200 4 WL 24 12 61 0, a t *3 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . E .S. , f ile d O c t. 28, 2004), the trial judge interviewe d the childre n in c am e ra with the parties’ attorney s prese nt but without a court re porter. Judge Her schel P. Fr anks, who authore d the dec ision in Ruthe rf or d , filed
a concur ring opinion in Mulkey in which he note d that the fa ilure to follow the proc edure outlined in Ruthe rf

or d , i.e. having both the attorney s and a c ourt report er p re sent for the examination of a child, “is g rounds, standing alone, to vac ate a nd/or reve rse” the trial court’s judgme nt. Id. at *6. Rely ing upon Ruthe rf

or d , we a g ree with Mother that the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to allow the parties’ counsel to be phy sically prese nt in chambe rs during t he GAL ’s examination of the children
co n s t i t u t es re v er s i b l e e rr o r. Fa t h erap p ea rs t o s u gges tt h at M o t h eri n v i t ed t h i s erro r b y fi l i n g a motion in which she reque sted that the children speak to the j udg e “privately without the influence of either pa rty .” (Emphasis added). We disag ree
. The motion ref ers to the “ part[ies]” not being pr e se nt; it s a y s n oth ing abo ut counsel for the parties. Mother is not culpable in the tria l court’s e rror
. Moreove r, we are disturbed bythe over all tenor in which the GAL interrog ated the c hildren on direct examination . T he GA L be g a n b y a sking the c hil dr e n: “D o y ou un de rs ta nd wh a t this i s a ll
abo ut? We’ ve be e n o ve r i t ma ny tim e s, ha ve n’ t w e ? ” Th e c hil dr e n n od de d a ff ir ma tiv e ly

to the se questions. At the conclusion of his questioning, the GAL asked the children: “And what e lse did y ou-8-

volunteer to d o th is mo r n in g ? D o y o u r e me mb e r y o u a s k e d me if I w a s r e ti r in g a n d ru n ning f or m a yo r , a n d yo u v o l u n t e e r e d t o v o t e f o r m e , d i d n ’ t yo u ? ” A g a i n , t h e c h i l d r e n n o d d e d a f f i r m a t i v e l y, and when asked who told them that he wa s running for may or, one c hild answere d, “Da ddy .” At one p o i n t , t h e G A L

e v e n a s k e d t h e c h i l d r e n , “ Y o u w a n ty o u r m o mt o g e ts o m e h e l p , d o n ’ ty o u ?”

As ca n be see n from a r eading of the a ppendix, t he GAL

int er ro gated these children, w ho
wer e at a y oung and impression ab le ag e, with very leading questions. One example involved the issue of Mother taking the children to visit an inmat e i n prison. The following questions are ill us tr a tiv e : Now, y o u t o l d me when I first met y ou that one of the things that
rea lly , rea lly

troubled y ou was whe n y ou all would have to g o to the penitentiary

to see y our m o m’s boy friend, T ex; do y ou reme mber that?;

And she took y ou to the penitentiary about fiftee n times y ou told me.;

An d th a t sc are d y ou ever y time andy ou did n’ t li ke that a t a ll, did y o u ? I s t h a tr i g h t ?; And we g ot that taken ca re o f s o y ou didn’t have to g o back to the penitentiary , y ou reme mber. And I ’m sure that J udg e is not ever , ever g oing to let any

body take y ou to the penitentiary ag ain. Okay ? That
w a s f r i g h t e n i n g , w a s n ’ ti t ?; And y ou had bad dr eams about it and everything, didn’t y ou? ; and fi na lly

Hu h? Bu t th os e ba d d re a ms are ov e r no w. An d I ’m so rry I ha ve to bring that back up, but t h at ’s p ar t of what y ou share d with me that tr o u b l e d y o u , w a s n ’ ti t ?

The GAL elicited the following testimony from the children while the parties’ counsel we re not present: (1) Mother took the children to visit her boy friend in jail about 15 times and this was
rea lly troubling to them; (2 ) M o t h er told the children to lie to the judg e about a man named T om sp e nd ing the nig ht; (3 ) Mo the r t oldthe c hil dr e n to mis be ha ve a ndbe dif fi c ult wh e n it wa s ti me to exchang e with F ather ; and (4) Mother had sever al men spend the night in the prese nce o f t he
c hil dr e n. F a the r p oints ou t th a t Mo the r f a ile d to ob

je c t on c e the a tto rn e y s w e re pe rm itt e d in chambe rs to question the children. Whil e we ag ree that it would have bee n pref era ble for Mothe r to state her obje ction on the re cord, we note that the “cat w as alre ady out of the bag ,” so to speak, by the time the attorney s were permitted in the court’s chambe rs. Se e als o Ruthe rf or d , 971 S.W .2d at 957 (noting that counsel’s f ailure to objec t “does not insulate” the trial court f rom committing theO nl y t wo f act ual f i nd i ngs

– t hat M o t her t o o k t he chi l d ren t o b eer p art i es, p o ker gam es, and a ba r i n T exas and 3
t hat M ot her i nappropri at el y pl ace d phot os of t he ch i l dren wi t h a si gn i n her car an d i n do i ng so pl ace d t he chi l dren at ri sk

– were not i ncl ud ed i n t he t est i m o ny of t he chi l d ren. -9- reve rsible er

ror of interviewing the child in the abse nce of the attorne y s and without making a re cord of the intervie w).

As demonstrate d by

the numerous e x amples in the appe n d i x , we c onclude that the trial
co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n t o m o d i fy cu s t o d y i n fa v o r o f F at h er wa s t ai n t ed b y

t h e e v i d en ce t h at ca m e t h ro u gh the examination of the children by the GAL . I ndeed, w hile being questioned in a l eading manne r as t o their opinions and other matters, the childre n testified about most of the fa ctual finding s made 3 by the trial court in support of its de cision to modify custody . I t is clear that a substantial basis for the trial court’s decision relates back t o t h e t ai nted, i.e. , g iven outside the phy sical pre sence of
c o u n s e l , t e s t i m o n y

t h a tw a s e l i c i t e d b y

t h e G A L.

We hold that the right to have counsel phy sically prese nt during a trial court’s interview of a child is a substantial rig ht, impli cating , as it does, a lit igant’s rig ht to due proce ss. The violation of this constituti onal rig ht in the instant case , without more, just ifies our decision to vac ate the trial court’s judg ment. Howeve r, eve n if we w ere to hold that this err or does not ri s e t o t h e level of a constitutional viol ation, it would sti ll be a serious proce dural e rror and one that “more pr obably than not aff ecte d the j udg ment

. . . [and] result[ed] in prejudice to the j udicial process.” Te nn. R. App. P. 36(b).

Be cause we find it ne cessa ry to vacate the judg ment of the trial c ourt, and in the intere st of fa i rn es s , we d i re ct t h e t ri al j u d ge, wi t h re s p ec tt o fu t u re p ro ce ed i n gs i n t h i s m at t e r, t o i n t er ch an ge with another judg e in his district or seek the appointment of anothe r judg e by the Admi n i s t rative Offic e of the Courts. Mother is entitled to have Fathe r’s petiti on hear d by a judg e who ha s not been
e x p o s e d t o t h i s t a i n t e d t e s t i m o n y.
V.

Mo the r a rg ue s th a t th e tr ial co urt e rr e d in re fu sin g to a dmi t a dmi ssi ble he ars a y state me nts into evidence

. Be cause this case is being rema nded for a new trial, we c hoose to addre ss this i ssue. We conclude that the hear say statements ar e not s ubject to the ex ceptions urge d by Mother. He nce, we hold that the tria l court wa s not in error w hen it ref used to admit the testimony into evidence

. Mother spec ifically

contends that two piec es of hear say evidenc e should have been a dmitted
un d e r th e e xc it e d u tt e r a n c e e xc e p ti o n to th e h e ar s a y ru le

. Sh e a ls o ar g u e s th a t th e te s ti mo nywas admissible because it was not offe red to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

L ee Huddle s to n te s ti f

ie do n b e h a lf

o f M o th e r
. T h e w it n e s s is th e c o u s in o f M o th e r ’ s n ew husband. During Mr. Huddleston’s testimony , he st at ed t h at he was ca rving pumpkins with t he parties’ children during a family reunion. He ex plained that one of the children was very rela x ed andW e n o te , in p a ssin g , tha t the re is n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt M o the r’s “b e lief.” H e n c e , w e d o u b t the tes tim o n y’s 4

r el eva ncy ev en i f

ot her wi s e a dm i s s i bl e u nder t he R ul es of E vi dence

. -10- the n s ud de nly

be c a me e xtre me ly

up se t a ndbe g a n s ta

bb ing the pu mpkin wh ile e xclaimi ng , “ I hate y ou, I hate y ou, I

hate y ou.” F ather ’s counsel objected to this testimony , and the trial court sustained the objectio n
. I n attempting to de fend the admission of this testi mony , Mother ar g ued that she be lie ve s th e c hil d w a s a c tua lly re fe rring to the c hil d’ s st e pmo the r, Ka re n, du ri ng thi s in c ide nt. 4

Th e se c on d p ie c e of

he ars a y e vid e nc e c a me thr ou g h the te sti mon y of B arb ara B ur g e ss, wi th whom Mother and the children had lived for a short period of time. Ms. B urg ess testified that one of t he children, who was visibly upset, confide d in her that their ste pmother Ka ren ha d blamed the children f

or “kill[ing] her baby .” Appa rently , and unfortunately , Kar en Ha ines s u ff er ed a mis c arria g e a t so me po int in tim e
. Ag a in, c ou ns e l fo r F a the r ob je c te d, a nd the tr ial cou rt qu ic kly sustained the objec tion.

A hea rsay statement is “a statement, other tha n one made by the dec lara nt while testify ing at the trial or he aring , offe red in e vidence to prove the truth of the matter a sserted.” Tenn. R. Evid. 8 0 1 ( c )

. Su c h a

s tate me n t i s n o t a d mi s s ib le u n le s s it is s h o w n to b e a d mi s s ib le “ a s p r o v id e d b y th e []
ru le s [of e v i d e n c e ] o r o t h e r w i s e b y l a w
. ” T e n n
. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 2

. T e n n
. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 3 ( 2 ) p r ov ide s a hear say exception for “[a] statement relating to a sta rtling e vent or c ondition m ad e while the decla rant wa s under the stress of excitement c aused by the eve nt or condition.” The r ule that “tria l courts have broad discretion in determining the a dmissibi lityof evide nce” is well established. Sta te v . St inne tt , 958 S.W .2d 329, 331 (Tenn. 1997). Ther efor e, an a ppellate c ourt will not rever se a tria l court’s r uling r eg arding the admission or exclusion of h ear say evidenc e abse nt an abuse of discretion. Id.

I n reve rse or der, w e first addre ss Mothe r’s contention that these two piece s of evide nce do not qualify

as hea rsay beca use, ac cording to her, they were not offe red to prove the truth of the matter a sserted. Mother

appea rs to arg ue that the two state ments were not offer ed to prove that the child in fac t hated the stepmother or that the stepmother in fac t blamed the childre n for a miscarriag e, but rather that the statements we re of fer ed to show that the c hild was in a distraug ht state of mind. We disag ree with Mother and c onclude that the statements wer e indee d hear say beca use they wer e offe red to prove the truth of a ne g ative re lationship with t he stepmother. Having determined that the statements m eet the he arsay definition, we ne x t addre ss Mother’s arg ument that the hea

r s ay statements qualify

for the e x cited uttera nce e x ception under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2). We conc lude that the child’s state ments (1) re lati n g t o h ati ng someone, supposedly her stepmother, and ( 2) as to be i n g b l amed for her stepmother’s misca

rriag e, do not meet the e x cited utteranc e exception urg ed by Mother. The se st atements sim ply do not “re lat[e] to a startling event or condition,” a nd they

wer e not “made while the decla rant was under the stress of excitement caused by the eve nt or condition,” as require d by the evidentiary exception under discussion. I ndeed, Mr

. Hu dd le sto n te sti fi e d th a t th e c hil d w a s v e ry re la xedwh ile c arv ing the pu mpkin andthe n s ud de nly g ot upset without ex p l an at i o n. As for Ms. B urg ess, she testified that the child was visibly upset-11-

when she confide d in her, but there is nothing in her te stimonyto indicate that there was a “startling event or condition” or that the c hild was under the “stress of excite m en t ” engende red by such an
e ve nt o r c on dit ion wh e n s he ma de the state me nt t o th e wi tne ss.
B a se d u po n th is a na ly sis , w e c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt di d no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in ref using to a dmit the hearsay statements at is sue. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s de cision t o e x c l u d e t h e s u b

j e c tt e s t i m o n y.
V I. Finally , Mother conte nds that the trial court erre d in g ranting Father’s pe tition for chang e of custody without e vidence of a chang e in c ircumstance s. I n view of our decision on the issue of the GA L ’s int e rr og a tio n o f the c hil dr e n o uts ide the pr e se nc e of the part ies ’ cou ns e l, w hic h r e qu ir e s a ne w t ri al, we do no t r e a c h th e me ri ts o f M oth e r’ s c la im that th e re ha s n ot b e e n a c ha ng e in circ umstances in this case

. V II.

We va c a te the jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ou rt c ha ng ing c us tod y of the c hil dr e n f

ro m Mo the r t o Father. This case is rema nded for a new trial befor e a differ ent t rial j udg e. Costs on appea l are taxed to the app e lle e , L e e Al a n H a ine s.

_______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, J R., J UDGE