Session September 6, 2017
from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2015-DM-325
Louis W. Oliver, III, Chancellor
divorce action, Father contends the trial court erred by
adding substantive restrictions to the parties' agreed
upon Permanent Parenting Plan that, inter alia,
imposed "paramour" and "lifestyle"
restrictions on Father that were not imposed on Mother. We
have determined that the trial court unilaterally imposed
substantive and material restrictions on Father's
activities during his parenting time without affording him an
evidentiary hearing. We have also determined that some of the
restrictions placed on Father are too vague to be enforceable
and that the Statement of the Evidence does not provide a
factual basis for the restrictions placed on Father. For
these reasons we vacate the judgment of the trial court and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery
Court Vacated and Remanded
E. Smith, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Cordary
Quincy Vernard Brantley.
Leanne Guy Brantley, Gallatin, Tennessee, pro se.
G. Clement Jr., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which D. Michael Swiney, C.J., and Richard H.
Dinkins, J., joined.
G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S.
Quincy Vernard Brantley ("Father") filed a pro se
complaint for divorce from Shayla Leanne Guy Brantley
("Mother") in the Sumner County Chancery Court on
September 17, 2015. Two children were born during the
marriage. Mother did not contest the divorce.
hearing on August 1, 2016, Father made an oral request for
genetic testing based on concerns that the youngest child
born of the marriage was not his biological
child. The court denied the oral motion and set
the uncontested divorce for final hearing on August 22, 2016.
purpose of the hearing on August 22 was for the trial court
to consider and either approve or reject the Final Decree of
Divorce that incorporated the agreed upon Marital Dissolution
Agreement and Permanent Parenting Plan. During the hearing,
the court heard from both parties who revealed, inter
alia, that Father was HIV positive and in a relationship
with a male paramour. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court modified the Final Decree of Divorce by adding
handwritten "Injunctions by Court" that read:
No corporal punishment of children by either party. No
paramours overnight and paternal uncle may not be around
children. No homosexual activity around children. Father to
avoid body fluid exchange with children, no bathing,
showering or sleeping with children. Children exchanged at
Rivergate Mall unless parties agree otherwise. Father may
have no paramours around children whatsoever.
Marital Dissolution Agreement provided that the division of
court costs "will be discussed later amongst both
parties after the divorce decree has been processed and final
fees are drawn up." Following ...