In re CALEB F. et al.
Session September 7, 2017
from the Juvenile Court for Montgomery County No. 14-JV-794,
14-JV-795 Timothy K. Barnes, Judge
after entry of an agreed permanent parenting plan, Father
filed a petition to find Mother in contempt and to modify the
parenting plan. The petition alleged that a material change
in circumstance had occurred since the adoption of the agreed
plan, such as Mother allegedly interfering with Father's
parenting time. The juvenile court found a material change in
circumstance had occurred and modified the parenting plan by
increasing Father's parenting time. From this ruling,
Father appealed, claiming that the court erred by not
granting him equal parenting time. Because the court's
order modifying the plan contains insufficient findings of
fact and conclusions of law, we vacate and remand.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile
Court Vacated and Case Remanded
T. Massey, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Bryan
R. Olson and Taylor R. Dahl, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the
appellee, Kera S.
Neal McBrayer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Andy B. Bennett and Richard H. Dinkins, JJ., joined.
NEAL McBRAYER, JUDGE.
December 18, 2014, Bryan F. ("Father") filed a
petition in the Juvenile Court for Montgomery County,
Tennessee, for civil contempt against Kera S.
("Mother") and for modification of permanent
parenting plan. The plan, which had been approved by an
October 8, 2014 order, addressed the parties' two
children: Caleb F., born in May 2007, and Jack F., born in
February 2009 (together, the "children"). According
to the order approving the plan, the parties had
"reached a substantial agreement with regard to the
terms of the [plan]." The plan designated Mother as the
primary residential parent and awarded her 295 days of
parenting time each year, while Father received 70 days.
modification petition, Father alleged that Mother had
"willfully violated the Court's Order and plan as
a. By denying the Father his allotted parenting time;
b. By denying the Father the ability to communicate with the
children by phone or other means;
c. By demeaning the Father to the children and instructing
them to lie to him[;]
d. By harassing the Father to his Army superiors about child
support despite his compliance with the Court's Order;
e. By failing or refusing to inform Father of medical
emergencies of children;
f. Mother is intentionally scheduling events and appointments
for children on Father's days of visitation.
on these allegations, Father asserted that a material change
in circumstance warranted a modification of the parties'
agreed parenting plan. Father sought, among other things,
"more time with the children" and a
"recalculat[ion of] any award of child support
arrearages based upon any re-calculated child support figures
resulting from this petition."
filed a response, generally denying all material allegations
in Father's petition. She counter-petitioned for civil
and criminal contempt, alleging that Father abused the
children and ...