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 af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o 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 f o 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 m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and
s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Apr il 13, 200 7
AMANDA DA WN ALDERI DGE v . LYNN VERNON ALDERIDG E, JR.

Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Law rence County No. 11843-04 Rober t L. Hollow ay, Judge

No. M2004- 02568-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on May 3, 2007

I n th is d ivo rc e pr oc e e din g , the a pp e lla nt co nte nd s the tr ia l cou

rt e rr e d by g ra

nti ngthe div or c e to h is wife a nd desig nating her as the prim ary residential parent of their m inor child. Finding no err or, we a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm 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.
L y nn V. Alder idge , J r., Whitevill e, Te nnessee , Pro Se.
Amanda D awn Alde ridg e, Cumberland F urnac e, Te nnessee , Pro Se.
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1
Amanda D awn Alde ridg e (Mother) and Ly nn Ver non Alderidg e, J r. (F ather ) we re ma rried o n No v em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 0

. On e ch i l d wa s b o rn o f t h ei r m arri age
. T h e p ar t i es ’ r el at i v el y s h o rt m arri age was tumultuous and v i o l en t for whic h Husband wa s arr ested seve ral times for dome stic violence ag ainst Wi fe a s evidenc ed by the ar rest re cords pr esente d to the Chance ry Court.
On Februa

ry 24, 2004, Mother filed a Complaint for Divorce on the g rounds that the conduc t of F ather toward he r wa s inappropriate as set f orth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101(11) . Father filed an A ns we r and a Cr os s- Com pla int

. He a dd iti on a lly

re qu e ste d th e c a se be “ de lay e d unti l hi s r e le a se from custody .” This is beca use Father was incar cer ated at the time of trial, serving a c o m b ined-2-

sentenc e of te n (10) y ear s on a two (2) y ear char g e out of L awr ence County , Tenne ssee, and a prior eig ht (8) y ear

sentenc e for

Rape. F ather ’s re quest for pa role wa s denied in Mar ch of 2005.
The Chanc ery

Court denied F ather ’s re quest for a leng thy delay of the proce eding s and set the matter f

or hea ring . Following an evide ntiary hear ing, t h e C h an cellor f ound that Father wa s curr ently incar cer ated with the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ctions, that he had been abusive of Mo the r duri ngthe marr ia g e , a nd that sh e wa s e nti tle d to a div or c e ba se d u

po n h is i na

pp ro pr iate marital conduc t. The re levant finding s and conc lusions by the Chance llor are set forth in the portion of the F inal Dec ree of Divorc e set for th below:

F I NAL DE CRE E OF DI VORCE
T h i s c a u s e c am e t o b e h e ar d

b e f o r e t h e C h an c e r

y C o u rtf o r L aw r e n c e C o u n t y, Tenne ssee, on the Compl aint for Divorce filed by Amanda D awn Alde ridg e and the Counter-Claim for Divor ce f iled by L y nn Ver non Alderidge, J r. The Court has revie wed the ple ading s in this fil e and ha s hear d testimony from the Plaintiff/Count er- Def

endant a nd from the sister of

the Def endant/Counter- Plaintiff. Wherefor e, the Court make s the following finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law: 1. The pa rties were married on November 27, 2000, and have one child born of this union. The parties a re not curr ently residingtoge ther due to the threatening behavior of the De fenda

nt towards the Plaint i ff for which he wa s arr ested. The De fe nd ant i s c ur

re ntl y inc arc e rate d w iththe Te nn e sse e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio ns
. 2. The Def

endant has been abusive to the Plaintiff dur ing the course of the marria g e, ther eby , entitling her to a d i v o rce based upon his inappr opriate ma rital c on du c t. T he Hu sb and ’s Counte r- Com pla int fo r D ivo rc e is f

ound to b e wi t h o ut m e ri t and should be dismissed.
3. The Plaintiff has be en the pr imary car eg iver to the minor child since the child’s birth. The De fenda nt is curre ntly

incar cerat ed an d wi ll be rele ased in or b e f o r e M ar c h 2 0 0 5

. A c c o r d in g ly , th e Pl a in ti f f s h o u ld b e n a me d

th e p r im ary resi d e n ti a l p ar e n t f

o r th e mi n o r c h il d

. T h e Co u rt is c o n c e r n e d a b o u t th e h is tor

y of thr e a ts a nd vio le nc e by the De fe nd ant, and the re fo re or de rs that th e De fe nd ant s ha ll be re quired to petition this C ourt prior to re ceivingvisitation wit h the minor child.

. . . . The F inal Dec ree of Divorc e wa s en t er ed on S eptember 9, 2004, and F ather

perf ecte d a timely appea l. On appea l, Fathe r conte nds the Chance llor should have dela y ed the hea

ring of Mother’s C o m p l aint for Divor ce pe nding his re lease from state c ustody . He a lso contends the Chance llor

e r r e d b y a d o p ti n g th e p ar e n ti n g p la ns h e s u b mi tt e d an d b y d e s ign a ti n g M o th e r

a s the primary residential pa

rent. We find no mer it to either issue.-3-

The trial c ourt is affor ded g reat discretion in deter mining the m anner

and time fra

me by wh ic h a pe nd ingc a se sh a ll pr oc e e d to tr ia l. C on sid e ri ngthe fa c ts o f t his c a se , w e fi nd

no e rr or wi th the Chance llor’s dec ision to deny Father’s r equest to delay the t rial. F urther, the fac ts fully support the Cha nc e llo r’ s d e c isi on

to a wa rd the div or c e to M oth e r o n the g ro un ds of F a the r’ s in a

pp ro pr iate marital conduc t.
As for the pare nting plan, T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-101 g rants broa d latitude to the trial court reg ardingthe establishment of a pare nting plan. A side from the sig nificant fa ct th at Father wa s incar cer ated f

or a le ng thy

period, a nd thus unable to ca

re f or the parties' child, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106( 8) and § 36- 6-406(c ) authorize the c ourt to consider e vidence of phy s i ca l or emotional abuse of the child, other pa

rent or a ny person, and phy sical abuse or a pattern of e motional abuse of the parent, child or of another person. Considering Father' s rec ord, ea ch of the above f actor s lead to only one log ical conc lusion, that Mother be desig nated the pr imary residential pa

rent.
We a lso note that the Chance llor took the additional step of prote cting the rig hts of Father by expressly providing that he could pe tition for modification of the per manent parenting plan upon his relea se fr om prison.
The rec ord in t h i s case fully supports eac h of the Chance llor’s decisions that are at issue. Ac c or din g ly , w e fi nd

no e rr or and a ff ir m in a ll r e sp e c ts.
I N C ONCL US I ON The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med, and this matter is re manded with costs of a ppeal assessed a g ainst L y

nn Ver non Alderidg e, Jr.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CL EMENT, JR ., J UDGE