WPC3 6# UN %] 0(cw44 0l 0DVU@ 0Je$ 0T% 0Dy 0^ 0h 0rI AQ 0D 0|P 0 0R 1u 0dW 0@ D3 D/. U>] B B B) DC AMA U*  v~v`HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($DӀzz!3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0   `(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  (3$ !  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ԃLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  $(C<< C($$   1  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    ++++'dxd**' dxd<  9p`(&Times New RomanP Pd d% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd$-C << G<  9p`(Arial  !)  "  )  / eee FILED/X /"US ,   !  /X CecilCrowson,Jr.     / eee AppellateCourtClerk     X v !)   $       Custodyordersareneithertemporarynorpermanentinthattheyremainunderthecontrolofthecourtandcanbechangeduponapropershowingofmaterialchangeofcircumstances. Dept.ofHumanServicesv.Gouvitsa ,735S.W.2d452(Tenn.App.1987).  !)   $       Grandparentsvisitationrights .(a)Thenaturalorlegalgrandparentsofanunmarriedminorchildmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringsuchchildsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightswouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild....ThecurrentstatuteisT.C.A.366302(a). !)   $       Themotherdidnotappealthetrialcourtsdecisionnottoawardhervisitationrights.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . )  \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) JOHNNYGLENNHILLIARD,  ) WeakleyCountyChanceryCourt ) No.13598̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.02A019609CH00230 ) MISTYLYNNHILLIARD  ) And TERRYMINTON , ) )̀Defendants/Appellees. ) )̜R.0-A1-j|K `@Rߛ______________________________________________________________________________FromtheChanceryCourtofWeakleyCountyatDresden. HonorableWilliamMichaelMaloan,Chancellor JamesH.Bradberry ,BRADBERRY,CROWE&MacLEOD,Dresden,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. LangdonS.Unger,Jr. ,Martin,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendants/Appellees.OPINIONFILED: REMANDED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X JohnnyGlennHilliard(Father)appealsfromtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingvisitationrightstohissonsmaternalgrandmother.FatherandMistyLynnHilliard(nowSchrems)(Mother)marriedin1992.AlexanderGlennHilliard(Alex)wasborninMay1993.TheparentsdivorcedinJanuary,1995andtemporarycustody 1   ׀wasawardedtoTerryMinton,thematernalgrandmother.Atthattime,Motherwaslivingwithhermother,TerryMinton.MothercurrentlyresidesinFloridawithherpresenthusband. FathersubsequentlyfiledapetitionforamodificationofthedecreeaskingthathebeawardedcustodyofAlex.ByorderofMay6,1996,FatherwasawardedcustodyofAlexandthematernalgrandmother,TerryMinton,wasgrantedvisitationwiththechildeveryotherweekendfromFridayat5:00p.m.untilSundayat5:00p.m.ItisfromthisportionofthatorderthatFatherappeals. Fatherstatestheissueonappealas [w]hetherthematernalgrandmotherisentitledtovisitationwithathreeyearoldgrandsonwherethegrandsonisinthecustodyofthefatherandthemotherhasrelocatedtoanotherstate.Fatherreliesupontheauthorityof Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993); Simmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682(Tenn.1995)and Floydv.McNeely ,No.02A019408CH00187(Tenn.App.July5,1995). Hawk concludedthat TennesseeshistoricallystrongprotectionofparentalrightsandthereasoningoffederalconstitutionalcasesconvinceusthatparentalrightsconstituteafundamentallibertyinterestunderArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution. Hawk heldT.C.A.366301 2   ׀tobeanunconstitutionalinvasionofparentsprivacyrightsasaffordedundertheTennesseeConstitutionwhenappliedtothefactspresented.Thatcaseinvolvedapetitionforgrandparentalvisitationfiledbythepaternalgrandparentsagainstmarriedparentswhohadmaintainedcontinuouscustodyoftheirchildrenandwhosefitnessasparentswentunchallenged. Hawk ,855S.W.2dat577,582. Hawk determinedthattheparentspossessedaconstitutionalrightofprivacyinparentingdecisionsnotsubjecttointerferencefromthestateabsentashowingof substantialharmtoachildswelfare. Id .at577. Hawk reasonedthattherewasnocompellingstateinterestjustifyinginterferencewithsuchrightofparentsabsentthisshowing. Id .at582. Hawk statedthatwithoutashowingofsubstantialharmtothechild, acourtmaynotconstitutionallyimposeitsownsubjectivenotionsofthebestinterestsofthechildwhenanintact,nuclearfamilywithfit,marriedparentsisinvolved. Id .at579.Tothisend, Hawk declinedtoproceedwitha bestinterestsofthechildanalysisuntilandaftertherequiredshowingofharmwhichthecourtviewedasthe soleprotectionthatparentshaveagainstpervasivestateinterferenceintheparentingprocess. Id .at58081.Moreover, Hawk ,refusedtoassumethatthegrandparentgrandchildrelationshipalwaysprovesbeneficialtothechildassuchassumption, overlooksthenecessityofathresholdfindingofharm before thestatecaninterveneintheparentchildrelationship. Id .at581.  Simmonsv.Simmons involvedamotherandadoptivefatherofaminorchildwhosoughttoterminatethecourtorderedvisitationprivilegesofthechildspaternalgrandparents.Thecourtrecognizedthat Hawk wasdistinguishableincertainrespects,butreasonedthat therelationshipbetweenanadoptiveparentandchildisnolesssacredthantherelationshipbetweenanaturalparentandchildandisthereforedeservingofthe samelegalprotection. Simmons ,900S.W.2dat685. Simmons concludedthattherecordbeforeitcontainednoevidencethatasubstantialdangerofharmthreatenedthechildandthusfoundnocompellingstateinterestjustifyingcourtintrusionuponthenaturalmothersandadoptivefathersrightsasparentstoprecludearelationshipbetweentheirchildandthepaternalgrandparents. Id .at685. In Floydv.McNeely thefatherdiedshortlyafterheandthemotherweredivorced.Apetitionwasbroughtbythepaternalgrandmotherseekingvisitationwithhergrandchildren.Shetestifiedthatshehadhadacloserelationshipwiththechildrenfromtheirbirthuntilthedeathoftheirfather.ThisCourtsaid:8 Inviewofthereasoningsextendedbyoursupremecourtin Simmons and Hawk ,weareconvincedthatMcNeelysrighttoparentherchildrenassheseesfit,includingadecisionregardingarelationshipbetweenthemandtheirgrandmother,isnolessgreaterthantherightaffordedtothemarriednaturalparentsunder Hawk .Weconcludethattherightsaffordedtotheparentsin Hawk extendequallytoMcNeelydespitethedeathofherchildrensfatherandhersubsequentremarriage.Tothisend,wedonotviewthebreakupofthenuclearfamily,inandofitself,toconstituteasubstantialharmtoachildsufficienttojustifystateinterferencewithafitparentsdecisiontoprecludearelationshipbetweenthatchildandhis/hergrandparents. Floyd ,slipop.at5.Citing Hawk and Simmons ,thiscourtreasonedthattherewasnojustificationforstateinterferencebecausetherewasnoevidenceofasubstantialdangerofharmtothechildren. Id .at5. ThisissuewasmorerecentlyaddressedbythisCourtin McVayv.Blen ,No.02A019508JV00183(Tenn.App.December19,1996),whereinthepaternalgrandparentsfiledapetitionforvisitationwhichwasgrantedinthecourtbelow.Inthatcasetheparentswerenevermarriedand,inreversingthetrialcourt,thisCourtstatedthat mothersunmarriedstatusdoesnotdiminishherfundamentalprivacyinterestinraisingLauren.Therefore,under Hawk ,thetrialcourtcouldnotordervisitationwithGrandparentsintheabsenceofathresholdfindingthatMotherwasunfitorthatthecircumstancespresentedasubstantialdangerofharm. McVay ,slipop.at4. AppelleereliesuponanunreportedcasefromtheMiddleSectionofthisCourt, Vanderpoolv.Boone ,No.01A019508CH00358(Tenn.App.March27,1996),whereinthegrandmotherhadbeenawardedvisitationinthedivorcedecree.Thepaternalgrandmotherfiledapetitionagainstthemotherforenforcementofhervisitationrightsandforcontempt.Thetrialcourtfoundtherehadbeennomaterialchangeofcircumstancestojustifyachangeinthevisitationprovisionsandtheappellatecourtaffirmed.Thecourtnotedinitsopinionthatthesupremecourthassetconstitutionallimitsontheauthorityoftrialcourtstoordergrandparentvisitation,evenwherethecourtmaybelievethatsuchvisitationisinthebestinterestofthechild.Thecourtnotedhowever,thatthecourthasnotdeclaredT.C.A.366302tobeunconstitutional,thereforetrialcourtsmaystillissueandenforcegrandparentvisitationordersunderappropriatecircumstances. Vanderpool ,slipop.at6.Thecourtwentontosaythat:8  ThepresentcasedoesnotinvolvetheonesituationdiscussedbytheSupremeCourt(significantdangerofharmtothechild)wherethecourtsarespecificallyauthorizedtoignorethepreferencesoftheparentsandissueavisitationorderdeemedtobeinthebestinterestsofthechild.However,theorderMrs.VanderpoolnowobjectstodiffersfromthosereversedbytheSupremeCourtintheabovecitedcases,inthatsheherselfsuggestedthatvisitationbegrantedtoMrs.Seat,whilethevisitationordersgrantedbythetrialcourtsinthe Hawk and Simmons caseswereissuedovertheobjectionsoftheparents. Id .at67.Unlikethecustodialparentin Vanderpool ,nothingintherecordinthepresentcaserevealsthatthefathersuggestedthatvisitationbegrantedtoMrs.Mintoninthedivorcedecree.Hisappealfromthetrialcourtsawardofvisitationbeliesthat.The Vanderpool courtfurthernotedthatvisitationordersremainwithinthecontrolofthecourtandaresubjecttomodificationuponappropriateshowingofchangeofcircumstances. However,inthepresentcasethetrialcourtwasapparentlysatisfiedthatFatherhadshownsufficientchangeofcircumstancestosupportachangeofcustodyfromthematernalgrandmothertoFather.Thatrulingisnotappealed.Unlike Vanderpool ,thepresentcasedoesnotinvolveamodificationofgrandmothersvisitation,butratheramodificationofcustody.Althoughthegrandmotherhadcustody,hervisitationwasfirstorderedintheorderwhichisthesubjectofthisappeal,thechangeofcustodyfromhertothefather.Thiscasedoesdifferfromthecasespreviouslycitedinthat Hawk,Simmons,Floyd and McVay wereallpetitionsbroughtbygrandparentsseekingvisitationpursuanttoT.C.A.366301.Nevertheless,webelievethattheunderlyingholdinginthosecases,thatparentspossessaconstitutionalrightofprivacyinparentingdecisionsnotsubjecttointerferencefromthestateabsentashowingofsubstantialharmtothechild,isapplicabletothiscase.Thebestinterestofthechildisnotdetermineduntilandaftertherequiredshowingofharm.Asweinterpretthepriorholdings,onceFatherisgrantedcustody,hehastherighttodecidewhetherthegrandparentsmayhavevisitation.Courtswillnotinterfereabsentathresholdfindingofadangerofsubstantialharmtothechild. Asheretoforenoted,AlexwasbornMarch25,1993.Duringthependencyoftheparentsdivorce,temporarycustodywasawardedtothemother inthehomeofthematernalgrandmother,Mrs.TerryMinton,withreasonablevisitationtothefather.ThefinaldecreeofdivorceawardedtemporarycustodyofAlextoMrs.Minton,whowasthirtysevenyearsold,withvisitationrightstothefather.Novisitationtothemotherwasprovidedforinthisorder. ThestatementoftheevidenceonthehearingonFatherspetitiontomodifythedecreetoawardhimsolecustodyofAlexindicatesthatFatherandMrs.MintonhadsomedisagreementsoverhisvisitationwithAlexaswellaspaymentofchildsupport.TheundisputedtestimonyfromMrs.MintonwasthatAlexhadlivedinherhomesinceinfancy,thatshehadcaredforhimandthatlittlewasdoneforAlexbyhismother.Themother,whohasremarriedandmovedtoFlorida,wasnotawardedanyvisitationwithAlex. 3    TherecordbeforeusdoesnotindicatewhetherthetrialcourtmadeanydeterminationastowhetheradenialofvisitationtoMrs.MintonwithAlexwouldresultinasubstantialdangerofharmtohim.TherecorddoesindicatethatMrs.Mintonhas,ineffect,beenAlexsmothersinceinfancy. WebelievethatthisisanappropriatecasetoberemandedtothetrialcourtpursuanttoT.C.A.273128forthetrialcourttomakeathresholddeterminationofwhethercessationoftherelationshipbetweenAlexandMrs.MintonpresentsasubstantialdangerofharmtoAlexand,ifsuchharmisfound,todeterminewhethervisitationwithMrs.MintonisinAlexsbestinterest. Therefore,thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.ThecostsofthisappealaretaxedonehalftoJohnnyGlennHilliardandonehalftoTerryMinton,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X ______________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)