C.W.H. v. L.A.S.

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a custody modification involving unmarried parents after the mother relocated with the children and concealed her residence and employment. The court held that the Court of Appeals improperly applied the standard of review, used the wrong version of Tennessee’s best-interest statute, and ordered an immediate custody change without allowing review by the Supreme Court. The court reversed and remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The Court of Appeals improperly failed to defer to the juvenile court's factual findings and improperly usurped the trial court's role in assessing witness credibility and parenting-plan facts.
2. The juvenile court's finding of a material change in circumstances based on Mother's hostility toward Father was an unappealed finding that supported proceeding to the best-interest analysis.
3. The 2014 version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 governed the juvenile court's best-interest analysis because the amendment was procedural rather than substantive.
4. The Court of Appeals erred by ordering an immediate transfer of custody without allowing Father an opportunity to seek review in the Tennessee Supreme Court, absent allegations or evidence of danger to the children or another compelling reason for expedited issuance.
5. Father's claim for attorney's fees was waived because he did not raise the issue in his Rule 11 application or brief before the Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly rejected the juvenile court's factual findings and failed to apply the deferential standard of review applicable to custody and parenting-plan decisions.
2. Whether the juvenile court applied the correct version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 in conducting the best-interest analysis.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by ordering an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity to seek review in the Tennessee Supreme Court.
4. Whether Father's claim for attorney's fees was preserved for review.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded