Session February 23, 2017
from the Juvenile Court for Davidson County No. AC1999585,
2008-5426 Sheila Calloway, Judge
petition of a father, a juvenile court held the mother of
father's child in civil contempt. The court found 19
separate instances of mother violating three orders enjoining
her from making certain derogatory comments, both in person
and on social media. Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the mother violated only two of the orders
cited by the father. We also conclude that the court erred in
holding the mother in contempt for two of the counts alleged
by the father. Even so, the juvenile court properly found the
mother in contempt for 17 violations of court orders, and we
find the sanctions imposed by the court to be appropriate.
Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile
Court Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
Ann Hubbell, Antioch, Tennessee, pro se appellant.
L. Reist, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Sinan
Neal McBrayer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and Andy D. Bennett,
NEAL McBRAYER, JUDGE
the second appeal arising from the relationship of Lydia
Hubbell ("Mother") and Sinan Gider
("Father") and the parenting of their child,
Dilara. Shortly after Dilara's birth, in
October 2008, the parties entered into a parenting agreement
in which Mother was designated as primary residential parent
and Father had parenting time 180 days out of the year.
However, the parents did not follow the parenting plan and,
instead, operated under an informal arrangement whereby each
spent substantially equal time with the child.
Petitions to Modify the Custody Arrangement
20, 2014, in the Juvenile Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee, Father filed a pleading entitled, "Petition
to Establish Parenting Plan and Deny Mother's Request to
Homeschool the Child." In his petition, Father alleged
that there had been a material change in circumstances due to
Mother's unstable mental health, problems with her
physical health, and the condition of Mother's home. He
also alleged that homeschooling, as proposed by Mother, was
not in the child's best interest. Father requested that
he be named primary residential parent with Mother having
parenting time two days a week or every other weekend. The
same day, Father also filed a motion to enjoin Mother from
homeschooling Dilara. Mother filed an answer/counter-petition
on June 6, 2014, in which she sought sole decision-making
authority for the child.
15, 2014, a magistrate judge entered an order enjoining
Mother from homeschooling the child based on concerns over
Mother's lack of organizational skills and health. The
order granted Father permission to apply to private school
for the child, and if the parties could not agree upon where
to send Dilara to school, they were to return to court for a
hearing on the matter. After conducting a hearing, the
magistrate entered an order on July 21, 2014, providing that
Dilara would attend the public elementary school for which
Mother was zoned. The magistrate judge also ordered both
parties to refrain from making negative remarks about the
child's schooling situation or the court's order in
front of the child.
Father filed a notice of nonsuit. The magistrate dismissed
Father's petition without prejudice but kept its orders
enjoining the Mother from homeschooling and ordering the
child to attend public school in place. For her part, Mother
filed a motion requesting to proceed as plaintiff on her
request for sole decision-making authority and to homeschool
the child, which was granted.
January 5, 2015, the magistrate judge entered an order ruling
upon Mother's counter-petition. The magistrate kept the
previous order enjoining Mother from homeschooling in place
and ordered parents to continue with joint decision-making.
The parents were also ordered to attend a co-parenting class.
The magistrate judge further ordered the parents to refrain
from discussing the custody case "in any form
or fashion" in front of the child and specifically
ordered Mother not to "post anything on social media
sites relating to the Child's behavior or her negative
thoughts about the Father, nor shall she make negative
statements about the Father to any joint friends of the
parties." Thereafter, Mother filed a motion for
rehearing with the juvenile court judge.
February 24, 2015, Father filed a new petition to modify
and/or establish a permanent parenting plan. Father again
proposed that he be named primary residential parent, but
this time, he proposed that Mother exercise parenting time
from Saturday at 3:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 p.m. and on
Wednesdays after school from 3:00-6:00 p.m. This proposal
represented a significant change from their prior informal
parenting arrangement. Father also requested that he be
granted sole educational decision-making authority for the
request to rehear and Father's petition to modify and/or
establish a permanent parenting plan were combined and set
for trial before a juvenile court judge. Pending trial, the
court ordered that Father would exercise parenting time
during the week and Mother would exercise ...