In re Avery B. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    May 14, 2015 Session
    IN RE AVERY B.
    Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Tipton County
    No. 08JV10382     William A. Peeler, Judge
    ________________________________
    No. W2014-01974-COA-R3-JV – Filed July 2, 2015
    _________________________________
    This appeal arises from a custody dispute in the Juvenile Court of Tipton County.
    Because the order appealed from is not a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack
    of subject matter jurisdiction.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J. STEVEN
    STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined.
    Rachel L. Lambert, Arlington, Tennessee, for the appellant, M. K. B.
    Mitchell D. Moskovitz and Adam N. Cohen, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, C.C.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    Background and Procedural History
    The parties in this case are unmarried parents to the minor child at issue, Avery B.
    1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:
    This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or
    modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have
    no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated
    “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any
    reason in any unrelated case.
    (“Avery”).2 On December 22, 2008, approximately a month after Avery’s birth, Mother
    filed a petition for child support and medical expenses in the Juvenile Court of Tipton
    County. Father responded on December 23, 2008, by filing a motion for genetic testing.
    Genetic testing later confirmed that Father was the biological parent of Avery, and
    initially, the parties were able to reach an agreement as to parenting issues. On March
    26, 2010, the trial court approved an agreed permanent parenting plan that designated
    Mother as the primary residential parent. Father was awarded specified parenting time
    under the plan and was also ordered to pay $1,533.00 in monthly child support.
    Unfortunately, whatever peace was achieved through this parenting plan did not last.
    On December 18, 2012, Father filed a petition to modify the parties’ parenting
    plan. His petition averred that Mother’s mental capacity impeded her ability to properly
    care for Avery and also alleged that Mother had engaged in a pattern of behavior that
    alienated Avery from Father. In particular, Father claimed that Mother had made
    numerous false allegations that Father had sexually abused Avery. Father asserted that
    these allegations had resulted in a substantial decrease in his parenting time with Avery
    due, in part, to investigations of Father by the Department of Children’s Services
    (“DCS”) at the instigation of Mother. On January 8, 2013, Father filed a petition for
    criminal contempt against Mother. Father’s contempt petition was predicated on
    Mother’s alleged failure to honor Father’s holiday parenting time.
    On March 28, 2013, the trial court entered a consent order adjudicating Father’s
    petitions. Although the trial court did not alter its designation of Mother as Avery’s
    primary residential parent, it did approve an agreed parenting plan that afforded Father
    increased parenting time. Father’s petition for criminal contempt was dismissed without
    prejudice. As before, the resolution of the litigation brought only temporary peace
    between the parties.
    On December 16, 2013, Mother filed a pleading styled “Emergency Petition for
    Injunction and Petition to Modify the Previous Order of the Court to Suspend Father’s
    Parenting Time and For Father to Receive Supervised Parenting Time.” The petition
    alleged that Avery had made recent disclosures of sexual abuse committed by Father and
    expressed general concern for Avery’s welfare. The petition requested that the trial court
    immediately suspend Father’s parenting time or enter an order imposing conditions on his
    parenting time for Avery’s care and protection. The petition also prayed that Father’s
    parenting schedule be modified after a hearing, consistent with Avery’s best interest.
    Father responded to Mother’s emergency petition on December 19, 2013. In his
    response, Father submitted that Mother had a history of making false allegations against
    him regarding his conduct towards Avery. He further stated that DCS had never found
    2
    In order to protect the anonymity of minor children, the Court, in its discretion, may elect to use initials
    for the children, their parents, and others. K.B.J. v. T.J., 
    359 S.W.3d 608
    n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
    2
    any evidence that Avery had been sexually abused. Contemporaneous with the filing of
    his response, Father filed his “Emergency Petition to Modify Parenting Plan, for Criminal
    Contempt, for Injunctive Relief, and for Supervised Parenting Time.” The petition
    recounted Mother’s alleged history of making false allegations against Father and averred
    that Mother’s behavior reflected a pattern of mental instability. The petition stated that
    Mother should be required to seek long-term therapy and requested that her parenting
    time with Avery be supervised. Father contended that it was in Avery’s best interest to
    designate him as the primary residential parent. Moreover, he alleged that Mother should
    be held in criminal contempt for willfully refusing to allow Father to exercise his
    parenting time.
    A hearing on the emergency aspects to the parties’ petitions was held on
    December 19, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the trial court entered an order finding that
    there was insufficient evidence to sustain Mother’s emergency requests for relief. As a
    result, the trial court declined to suspend Father’s parenting time or otherwise require that
    it be supervised. Other matters, however, were reserved for future adjudication.
    A hearing on Father’s petition to modify occurred over three separate dates in May
    and June 2014. The case was taken under advisement following trial. On September 4,
    2014, the parties returned to court at which time the trial judge made an oral ruling that
    Father should be designated as the primary residential parent for Avery. A written order
    memorializing this ruling was subsequently entered on September 9, 2014. In pertinent
    part, the trial court’s order stated as follows:
    2. A substantial and material change in circumstances exist such that it is in
    the best interest of the minor child, [Avery], to be in the care of Father, and
    Father shall be designated as the primary residential parent. The exchange
    of the minor child shall occur immediately.
    3. Mother shall be awarded supervised parenting time. Counsel for the
    parties shall attempt to agree on an appropriate supervisor and schedule, but
    should they be unable, this Honorable Court shall determine the appropriate
    supervisor and schedule for Mother. It is the goal of this Court to award
    Mother standard parenting time after this Honorable Court is satisfied that
    Mother’s long term therapy has appropriately addressed Mother’s
    psychological functioning.
    4. Mother shall immediately engage in intensive long term therapy to
    address those concerns of this Honorable Court regarding Mother’s conduct
    and psychological functioning. The parties shall address this Court in
    ninety (90) days to assess Mother’s compliance with this Court’s
    requirement that Mother receive intensive therapy. Counsel for the parties
    shall contact the Clerk of Court to schedule said hearing.
    3
    5. Mother shall be enjoined from having anyone, including but not limited
    to, law enforcement, doctor, or therapist, evaluate the minor child without
    an Order of this Honorable Court.
    6. Father shall select a therapist/counselor for Avery.
    7. Father’s ongoing child support obligation is terminated immediately.
    This Honorable Court shall address child support when Mother is able to
    exercise unsupervised parenting time.
    On September 15, 2014, Mother filed a notice indicating that she was appealing
    the trial court’s September 9 order. Nearly two months later, on November 4, 2014, the
    trial court entered an order setting a supervised parenting schedule for Mother. The trial
    court’s November 4 order stated that “[t]his schedule shall be reviewed in ninety (90)
    days from the Court’s ruling on September 4, 2014, to assess Mother’s compliance with
    this Court’s order requiring Mother to receive intensive therapy and Counsel for the
    parties shall contact the Clerk of Court to schedule said hearing.” Father’s petition for
    contempt was later “denied” by an order entered on January 7, 2015.
    Discussion
    On appeal, Mother raises three specific issues in challenging the trial court’s
    decision to modify custody. First, Mother contends the trial court erred in holding that
    there was a substantial and material change in circumstances requiring a modification of
    the parties’ permanent parenting plan. Second, Mother asserts the trial court erred in
    holding that it was in Avery’s best interest to change the designation of the primary
    residential parent. Lastly, Mother claims the trial court did not apply the correct best
    interest statute in determining the appropriate custodial parent for Avery. Because we
    conclude that the order appealed from is not a final order, we are without subject matter
    jurisdiction to review Mother’s issues in this appeal.
    As this Court previously stated:
    The concept of subject matter jurisdiction involves a court’s power to
    adjudicate a particular type of controversy. See Meighan v. U.S. Sprint
    Communications Co., 
    924 S.W.2d 632
    , 639 (Tenn.1996); Turpin v. Conner
    Bros. Excavating Co., 
    761 S.W.2d 296
    , 297 (Tenn.1988). Courts derive
    their subject matter jurisdiction from the Constitution of Tennessee or from
    legislative act, see Kane v. Kane, 
    547 S.W.2d 559
    , 560 (Tenn.1977); Brown
    v. Brown, 
    198 Tenn. 600
    , 618–19, 
    281 S.W.2d 492
    , 501 (1955), and cannot
    exercise jurisdictional powers that have not been conferred directly on them
    expressly or by necessary implication. See Hicks v. Hicks, No. 01A01–
    9309–CH–00417, 
    1994 WL 108896
    , at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.30, 1994)
    4
    (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed). A court’s subject matter
    jurisdiction in a particular circumstance depends on the nature of the cause
    of action and the relief sought. See Landers v. Jones, 
    872 S.W.2d 674
    , 675
    (Tenn.1994). It does not depend on the conduct or agreement of the parties,
    see Shelby County v. City of Memphis, 
    211 Tenn. 410
    , 413, 
    365 S.W.2d 291
    , 292 (1963); James v. Kennedy, 
    174 Tenn. 591
    , 595, 
    129 S.W.2d 215
    ,
    216 (1939), and thus the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on
    a trial or an appellate court by appearance, plea, consent, silence, or waiver.
    See Caton v. Pic–Walsh Freight Co., 
    211 Tenn. 334
    , 338, 
    364 S.W.2d 931
    ,
    933 (1963); Brown v. 
    Brown, 198 Tenn. at 618
    –19, 281 S.W.2d at 501.
    Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 
    15 S.W.3d 477
    , 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Except
    as permitted under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure or under Rule 54.02 of
    the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction
    over final orders. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 
    783 S.W.2d 553
    , 557˗59 (Tenn. 1990);
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). The present appeal is not an appeal by permission pursuant to the
    Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the record does not reflect that the trial
    court’s September 9, 2014, order was made final pursuant to the authority in Rule 54.02
    of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, the civil action appealed from must
    resolve all claims, rights, and liabilities of the parties in order for this Court to exercise
    jurisdiction. See Ball v. McDowell, 
    288 S.W.3d 833
    , 836˗37 (Tenn. 2009) (“A final
    judgment . . . is one that resolves all of the parties’ claims and leaves the court with
    nothing to adjudicate.”).
    From our review of the record transmitted to us, we have determined that there is
    an absence of a final judgment. First, we note that the trial court never entered a
    permanent parenting plan following its decision to modify the custodial arrangement.
    The trial court entered a supervised parenting schedule pursuant to its November 4, 2014,
    order, but the trial court’s orders clearly contemplate that the supervised schedule was to
    be only temporary. In its September 9, 2014, order, the trial court stated, “It is the goal of
    this Court to award Mother standard parenting time after this Honorable Court is satisfied
    that Mother’s long term therapy has appropriately addressed Mother’s psychological
    functioning.” In the same order, the trial court went on to state, “The parties shall
    address this Court in ninety (90) days to assess Mother’s compliance with this Court’s
    requirement that Mother receive intensive therapy. Counsel for the parties shall contact
    the Clerk of Court to schedule said hearing.” Moreover, in its November 4, 2014, order,
    the trial court stated that Mother’s supervised parenting schedule “shall be reviewed in
    ninety (90) days from the Court’s ruling on September 4, 2014 . . . and Counsel for the
    parties shall contact the Clerk of Court to schedule said hearing.”
    Because the trial court’s September 9 and November 4 orders contemplate that an
    additional hearing will be held concerning the parenting schedule, it is apparent from a
    clear reading of the orders that they were not final orders for purposes of appeal. Second,
    5
    we observe that the trial court’s orders do not set child support for Avery. In its
    September 9, 2014, order, the trial court stated as follows: “Father’s ongoing child
    support obligation is terminated immediately. This Honorable Court shall address child
    support when Mother is able to exercise unsupervised parenting time.”3
    The trial court’s orders clearly reflect that not all matters in this case have been
    resolved. Because we lack subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a final
    judgment, we hereby dismiss Mother’s appeal. Costs on appeal are assessed against
    Mother, M.K.B., and her surety, for which execution may issue if necessary. This matter
    is remanded to the trial court for the collection of costs, enforcement of the judgment, and
    any further proceedings as may be necessary and consistent with this Opinion.
    _________________________________
    ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE
    3
    We note that after announcing his oral ruling on September 4, 2014, the trial judge stated, “[W]hen the
    Court puts the parenting time in place then we will have the numbers to do the [child support]
    calculation.”
    6