˙WPCõ …# VU:a %› 0(Ąb Éw@Õ4 ) n­8 å 0Jå 0T/ 0^ƒ 0há 0rI 0|ģ 0†7 0Ŋ 1uM U, 0dî U,RU*~B)¨DCŅ AMa Bov~ŒvĶ  D3Ũ 0@ AOPƟ 0De D/Š BؘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĀĖĀääĀĀĖ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($ĄĄ- ų - +E,-U.P/E01P23Ķ€=Gav TTTTTT3|x=Ģ<ū6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxū6X@ÉDQX@2 ˙˙0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ˙˙0Indent2ā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ˙˙0Indent3ā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ˙˙0Indent4ā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ˙˙0Indent5ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ˙˙0Indent6ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ˙˙0Indent7ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ˙˙0Indent8ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ˙˙?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ˙˙8Mac DefaultMac DefaultĶ ` °šXĶ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cū˙ << G˙˙ Ũ ƒ!ŨŅ  ŅŅ#€d#ŅÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔŨ  ŨÔ€ ÔĶ  Ķō ōÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔĖĖMarch€27,€1996ĖĖCecil€W.€CrowsonĖAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôķ ķ dPtPtHHÚ(˙á˙âųFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃĐ ĐĐHHĐĐ  ĐĐ2ĐĐ˙˙¸æ$˙ĐĐHHĐĐĐĐĐĐĐĐ  ĐĐ ĐĐ ĐŅŅŅGenevaŅŅ ŅŅ € ŅŅ<Px–ČŅŌŌŌ443!#4ŌŌ$ *$ŌŌ$*$ŌŌ ˙KK ŌŌ  Geneva ŌŌ  Geneva ŌĶ.,ĶĶĶĶ6ĶĶ ĶßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŅMonacoŅŅ ŅŌ  BA: T Monaco ŌŌ  BA: T Monaco Ō%%%%'˙˙dxd("˙˙$ŖŖŌ  ŌŌ  Ō€-‚ƒCū˙<< C˙˙ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ō ōÚ  Ú1Ú  Úķ ķ„„'÷˙ dxdü˙P PdŨ ƒ!ŨÔ . ÔÔ€ÔĶ&€X„d&ĶŅ#€Xd#ŅÔ€ ÔŨ  ŨŌ € ŌŌ „ ŌŅ  ŅŅ\R AØ'\ŅŅ€ŅŅ7€÷ĶXXdædČ7ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅĖCHRISTIE€SHONDELLE€ELDERā āā ā)ĖBOONE€VANDERPOOL,ā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āRespondent/Appellant,ā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āAppeal€No.ĖVS.ā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā ā01„A„01„9508„CH„00358Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āĖDOUGLAS€CLINTON€BOONE,ā āā ā)ā āCheatham€Chanceryā āĖā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āNo.€5583ĖŲ€€ŲßL€#$";+'h|ĩB` į `€€Lßā āDefendant,ā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ĖVS.ā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ĖANN€SEAT,ā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āPetitioner/Appellee.ā āā ā)ĖĖĖĖā@ āCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĖā@ āMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĖĖĖĖAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€CHEATHAM€COUNTYĖAT€ASHLAND€CITY,€TENNESSEEĖĖTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€CHANCELLORĖĖĖĖJAMES€L.€CURTISĖWashington€Square,€Suite€204Ė214€Second€Avenue€NorthĖNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ėā āAttorney€for€Respondent/AppellantĖĖJERRY€W.€HAMLINĖ110€Frey€StreetĖAshland€City,€Tennessee€37015Ėā āAttorney€for€Petitioner/AppelleeĖĖĖĖĖā@ āAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;Ėā@ āAND€REMANDEDĖĖĖĖĖā āā āā āā āā āā āā āBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĖĖĖCONCUR:ĖTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ĖLEWIS,€J.ĖĖĶ  ĶĶĶā@ āō ōōōÔ€ „ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nķ ķķķÔ€ XÔĖĖā āā āThe€paternal€grandmother€of€an€eight€year€old€girl€filed€a€petitionĪagainst€the€girlđđs€mother€for€enforcement€of€her€visitation€rights€and€for€contempt.€ĪThe€mother€counter„petitioned€to€terminate€the€grandmotherđđs€visitation€rights.€ĪThe€proof€showed€that€the€mother€had€agreed€to€include€regular€visitation€by€theĪgrandmother€in€the€final€decree€of€divorce,€that€the€grandmother€had€exercisedĪher€visitation€for€about€four€years,€without€objection€by€the€mother,€but€that€someĪtime€after€the€mother€remarried,€she€refused€to€allow€further€visitation€in€theĪgrandmotherđđs€home.ĖĖā āā āThe€trial€court€found€that€there€had€been€no€material€change€ofĪcircumstance€adequate€to€justify€a€change€in€the€visitation€provisions€of€theÍoriginal€decree,€and€that€the€mother€was€in€willful€contempt€of€its€orders.€€TheĪcourt€penalized€the€mother€for€her€contempt€by€ordering€her€to€pay€theĪgrandmotherđđs€attorney€fees,€in€the€amount€of€$500.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court,€butĪreverse€the€award€of€attorney€fees,€having€found€no€precedent€for€such€an€awardĪunder€these€circumstances.ĖĖā@ āō ōI.ķ ķĖĖā āā āOn€December€14,€1989,€the€Chancery€Court€of€Cheatham€CountyĪgranted€Christie€Boone€an€absolute€divorce€from€Douglas€Boone€on€the€groundĪof€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment.€€Mr.€Boone€did€not€contest€the€divorce,€and€didĪnot€appear€at€trial.€€Christie€Boone€was€granted€custody€of€the€couple's€18€monthĪold€daughter,€Jessica,€and€the€father€was€ordered€to€pay€$40/week€child€support.€ĪNo€visitation€was€granted€to€Mr.€Boone.€ĖĖā āā āChristie€Boone€had€enjoyed€a€good€relationship€throughout€theĪmarriage€with€the€appellee€Ann€Seat,€Mr.€Booneđđs€mother.€€They€had€discussedĪthe€Booneđđs€marital€problems€during€the€marriage.€€During€the€divorceĪproceedings,€Christie€Boone€suggested€that€Mrs.€Seat€be€granted€visitationĪprivileges,€in€lieu€of€those€that€Douglas€Boone€might€have€enjoyed.€€The€finalĪdecree€granted€Mrs.€Seat€the€right€to€visit€with€Jessica€and€take€the€child€into€herĪhome€every€other€weekend.€ĖĖā āā āMrs.€Seat€was€frequently€unable€to€exercise€full€visitation€with€herĪgranddaughter,€as€she€was€obligated€to€work€on€many€weekends.€€Because€Mrs.ĪSeat€felt€it€was€important€for€Jessica€to€know€her€cousins,€many€of€the€childđđs€visitsĪto€her€grandmother€were€also€passed€in€the€company€of€Mrs.€SeatđđsĪgrandchildren€by€her€other€four€children.€€Jessicađđs€mother€was€going€to€school€atĪthe€time€of€the€divorce,€and€on€some€occasions€Mrs.€Seat€accommodated€theĪneeds€of€her€schedule€by€babysitting€Jessica€during€the€week€rather€thanĪexercising€weekend€visitation.€€ĖĖā āā āMrs.€Seat€had€acceded€to€her€former€daughter„in„lawđđs€request€thatĪthere€be€no€contact€between€Jessica€and€her€father.€€On€one€occasion€in€1993,ĪDouglas€Boone€dropped€by€his€motherđđs€house€when€Jessica€was€present.€€Mrs.ĪSeat€sent€him€away,€telling€him€that€he€could€not€be€on€the€premises€at€the€sameĪtime€as€Jessica.€€Mrs.€Seat€promptly€informed€Jessicađđs€mother€of€what€hadĪtranspired.Ė€€Ėā āā āBy€that€time,€Christie€Boone€had€remarried,€and€taken€the€nameĪChristie€Vanderpool.€€After€the€incident€described€above,€Christie€VanderpoolĪdecided€she€did€not€want€her€daughter€visiting€her€grandmother€any€more,€andĪtold€Mrs.€Seat€that€if€she€wanted€to€see€Jessica,€she€had€to€visit€her€in€theĪVanderpool€home.€€Mrs.€Seat€did€not€feel€comfortable€with€that€situation,€and€theÍtwo€women€reached€an€impasse,€with€Christie€Vanderpool€insisting€that€if€Mrs.ĪSeat€wanted€any€contact€with€her€granddaughter,€it€could€only€be€in€accordanceĪwith€the€motherđđs€conditions,€and€Ann€Seat€insisting€on€her€right€to€exerciseĪvisitation€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€the€divorce€decree.€ĖĖā āā āOn€April€19,€1995,€Ann€Seat€filed€a€Petition€for€Contempt,€and€forĪenforcement€of€the€previously€ordered€visitation.€€Christie€Vanderpoolđđs€counter„petition€claimed€that€Mrs.€Seat€was€herself€in€contempt€for€failing€to€exercise€herĪvisitation€every€weekend,€and€asked€the€court€to€terminate€the€earlier€visitationĪorder.€After€a€hearing€on€August€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€granted€Mrs.€SeatđđsĪpetition,€and€denied€the€counter„petition.€€Mrs.€Vanderpool€was€ordered€to€payĪ$500€to€Mrs.€Seatđđs€attorney€for€reasonable€attorney€fees.€€No€further€punishmentĪwas€imposed€for€the€contempt.€ĖĖā@ āō ōII.ķ ķĖĖā āā āAlthough€the€common€law€did€not€recognize€the€right€ofĪgrandparents€to€visit€their€grandchildren€over€the€objections€of€the€childđđs€parents,Īthe€Tennessee€Legislature€acknowledged€its€belief€in€the€importance€of€the€roleĪof€grandparents€in€child„rearing€by€enacting,€in€1971,€the€Grandparentsđđ€VisitationĪAct.€€The€scope€of€the€Act€was€expanded€by€amendments€enacted€in€1975€andÍ1985.€€See€ōōClark€v.€Evansķķ,€778€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.App.€1989),€for€a€history€of€theĪstatute.€€The€relevant€portion€of€the€current€version€of€the€Act€reads€as€follows:ĖĖŌ 0 ŌŌ  ŌĶĶō ō36„6„302.€Grandparentsđđ€visitation€rights.€„„ķ ķ€(a)ĪThe€natural€or€legal€grandparents€of€an€unmarried€minorĪchild€may€be€granted€reasonable€visitation€rights€to€theĪchild€during€such€childđđs€minority€by€a€court€of€competentĪjurisdiction€upon€a€finding€that€such€visitation€rights€wouldĪbe€in€the€best€interests€of€the€minor€child.€.€.€.€ōō(Tenn.€CodeĪAnn.€1995€Supplement)ķķĖŌ € ŌŌ „ ŌĖĖĖĶĶā āā āIn€a€series€of€recent€cases,€our€Supreme€Court€has€examined€theĪconstitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€đđ€36„6„302,€and€determined€that€court„ordered€imposition€of€grandparent€visitation€in€accordance€with€the€statute€may€inĪsome€cases€violate€the€parentsđđ€right,€derived€by€implication€from€Article€I,€SectionĪ8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€to€raise€their€children€as€they€see€fit.ĖĖā āā āIn€the€seminal€case€of€ōōHawk€v.€Hawkķķ,€855€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€1993),Īthe€Court€reversed€court„ordered€visitation€by€the€grandparents,€who€had€soughtĪand€were€granted€such€visitation€over€the€strenuous€objections€of€the€parents:€€€€€€ĖŌ 0 ŌŌ ° ŌĶĶĖĖŌ 0 ŌŌ  Ōđ đIn€this€case,€the€paternal€grandparents€directly€challengeĪthis€fundamental€privacy€interest€by€seeking€court„orderedĪvisitation€.€.€.€.€€€They€insist€that€a€judicially€determinedĪfinding€that€visitation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€the€childrenĪis€a€sufficiently€compelling€justification€to€override€theĪparents'€united€opposition,€regardless€of€the€fact€that€theÍparents'€fitness€is€not€challenged€and€that€the€parents'Īdomestic€situation€has€never€been€the€subject€of€judicialĪconcern.€€€We€find,€however,€that€without€a€substantialĪdanger€of€harm€to€the€child,€a€court€may€notĪconstitutionally€impose€its€own€subjective€notions€of€theĪđđbest€interests€of€the€childđđ€when€an€intact,€nuclear€familyĪwith€fit,€married€parents€is€involved.đđĖ855€S.W.2d€at€579.ĖĖĖŌ € ŌŌ „ Ōā āĖĶĶā āā āIn€subsequent€cases,€the€Court€broadened€its€ruling€in€ōōHawkķķ,€toĪextend€the€same€constitutional€protections€to€parents€in€other€types€of€families.€ōōĪSimmons€v.€Simmonsķķ,€900€S.W.2d€682€(1995),€was€a€case€similar€in€manyĪrespects€to€the€present€one.€€In€ōōSimmonsķķ,€the€fatherđđs€parental€rights€wereĪterminated€on€the€ground€of€abandonment,€in€the€same€proceeding€in€which€theĪpaternal€grandparents€petitioned€for€and€were€granted€visitation€privileges.€€TheĪmother€remarried,€and€her€new€husband€adopted€the€child.€€She€subsequentlyĪrefused€to€allow€visitation€by€the€grandparents.€€They€filed€a€contempt€petitionĪagainst€the€mother€and€the€adoptive€father.€€The€parents€responded€with€aĪpetition€that€the€visitation€privileges€be€terminated.€€The€trial€court€enteredĪjudgment€for€the€grandparents,€which€the€Eastern€Section€of€this€court€affirmed€inĪa€Memorandum€Opinion.ĖĖā āā āThe€Supreme€Court€reversed,€restating€its€earlier€ruling€in€the€ōōHawkķķĪcase€that€the€intervention€of€the€court€into€the€constitutionally€protected€child„rearing€rights€of€the€parents€was€only€permitted€if€such€intervention€was€requiredÍto€protect€the€child€from€a€substantial€danger€of€harm.€€The€Court€also€ruled€thatĪthe€constitutional€protection€of€parental€rights€applied€with€the€same€force€whetherĪthe€rights€involved€were€those€of€natural€parents€or€of€adoptive€parents.ĖĖā āā āThe€appellant€has€also€directed€our€attention€to€an€unreported€caseĪfrom€the€Western€Section€of€this€court,€ōōFloyd€v.€Neelyķķ,€20€TAM€30„15,€to€furtherĪbolster€her€position.€€In€that€case,€the€original€family€unit€had€been€broken€by€theĪdivorce€of€the€parents€and€the€subsequent€death€of€the€father.€€The€court€held€thatĪthe€breakup€of€the€nuclear€family€did€not,€in€and€of€itself,€amount€to€the€sort€ofĪsubstantial€harm€to€the€child€that€would€justify€state€interference€with€the€motherđđsĪchild„rearing€decision€to€cut€off€all€contact€between€the€child€and€his€paternalĪgrandparents.€Ė€Ėā@ āō ōIII.ķ ķĖĖā āā āBy€its€opinions€in€the€above„cited€cases,€the€Supreme€Court€has€setĪconstitutional€limits€on€the€authority€of€trial€courts€to€order€grandparent€visitation,Īeven€where€the€court€may€believe€that€such€visitation€is€in€the€best€interest€of€theĪchild.€€But€we€note€that€the€Court€has€not€declared€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€đđ€36„6„302€toĪbe€unconstitutional,€and€it€thus€follows€that€the€trial€courts€may€still€issue€andĪenforce€grandparent€visitation€orders€under€appropriate€circumstances.ĖĖā āā āThe€present€case€does€not€involve€the€one€situation€discussed€byĪthe€Supreme€Court€(significant€danger€of€harm€to€the€child)€where€the€courts€areĪspecifically€authorized€to€ignore€the€preferences€of€the€parents€and€issue€aĪvisitation€order€deemed€to€be€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child.€€However,€the€orderĪMrs.€Vanderpool€now€objects€to€differs€from€those€reversed€by€the€Supreme€CourtĪin€the€above„cited€cases,€in€that€she€herself€suggested€that€visitation€be€grantedĪto€Mrs.€Seat,€while€the€visitation€orders€granted€by€the€trial€courts€in€the€ōōHawkķķ€andĪōōSimmonsķķ€cases€were€issued€over€the€objections€of€the€parents.ĖĖā āā āThough€the€Supreme€Court€may€not€have€specifically€said€so,€itĪfollows€from€their€analysis€that€the€visitation€orders€they€reversed€were€invalidĪwhen€issued,€because€they€violated€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€objectingĪparents.€€The€visitation€order€in€the€present€case€suffered€no€such€constitutionalĪinfirmity,€and€thus€Mrs.€Vanderpool€could€only€ignore€it€at€peril€of€being€found€inĪcontempt€of€the€issuing€court.€€We€thus€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€findingĪMrs.€Vanderpool€in€contempt.€€€However€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€erred€inĪawarding€attorney€fees€to€Mrs.€Seat,€as€the€statute€which€authorizes€punishmentĪfor€contempt€does€not€mention€such€a€sanction.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€đđ€39„9„103Īreads:ĖĖŌ 0 ŌŌ  ŌĶĶō ōPunishment.„„ķ ķ(a)€The€punishment€for€contempt€may€beĪby€fine€or€by€imprisonment€or€both.Ėā ā(b)€Where€not€otherwise€specially€provided,€theĪcircuit,€chancery€and€appellate€courts€are€limited€to€a€fineĪof€fifty€dollars€($50.00),€and€imprisonment€not€exceedingĪten€(10)€days,€and€all€other€courts€are€limited€to€a€fine€ofĪten€dollars€($10.00).ĖĖĖŌ € ŌŌ „ ŌĖā@ āō ōIV.ķ ķĖĖĶĶĖā āā āLike€custody€and€child€support€orders€in€divorce€cases,€€visitationĪorders€remain€within€the€control€of€the€court,€and€are€subject€to€modification€uponĪan€appropriate€showing€of€change€of€circumstances.€€See€ōōSutton€v.€Suttonķķ,€220ĪTenn.€410,€417€S.W.2d€786€(1967),€ōōDillow€v.€Dillowķķ,€575€S.W.2d€289€(Tenn.Ct.ĪApp.€1978).€Despite€the€considerable€constitutional€protection€afforded€parentalĪrights,€parents€do€not€have€the€right€to€ignore€lawful€orders€of€the€court,€or€toĪchange€those€orders€unilaterally;€to€permit€them€to€do€so€would€damage€theĪauthority€of€the€courts€and€turn€enforceable€orders€into€mere€suggestions.ĖĖā āā āThe€trial€court€found€that€Mrs.€Vanderpool€did€not€prove€such€aĪchange€of€circumstances€as€would€warrant€a€termination€of€the€visitationĪprivileges€of€Mrs.€Seat.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€evidence€preponderatesĪagainst€this€finding.€€See€€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.ĖĖā āā āWe€feel,€however,€that€we€would€be€remiss€if€we€did€not€note€withĪapproval€the€way€in€which€Mrs.€Vanderpool€and€Mrs.€Seat€had€been€able€toĪmaintain€their€friendly€relationship€after€the€divorce,€and€our€regret€that€that€theyĪultimately€found€it€necessary€to€resort€to€the€courts€to€resolve€their€differences.€ĪThe€strains€and€bitterness€that€almost€inevitably€embroil€the€family€members€ofĪdivorcing€parties€tend€to€deepen€the€pain€of€the€divorce€for€the€children,€and€it€isĪto€the€credit€of€both€of€these€women€that€they€were€able€to€avoid€subjectingĪJessica€to€much€unnecessary€strife.€€Despite€their€adversarial€positions,€bothĪwomen€continued€to€express€at€trial€their€high€regard€for€each€other.€€It€is€our€hopeĪthat€for€the€sake€of€the€child€they€both€love,€they€repair€whatever€damage€to€theirĪrelationship€that€their€roles€in€these€proceedings€may€have€caused.€€€ĖĖā@ āō ōV.ķ ķĖĖā āā āThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€except€that€the€order€forĪpayment€of€attorney€fees€is€reversed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€ofĪCheatham€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€theĪcosts€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ĖĖĶĶā āā āā āā āā āā ā_____________________________Ėā āā āā āā āā āā āBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĖĖCONCUR:ĖĖĖĖĖ_______________________________ĖHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEĖMIDDLE€SECTIONĖĖĖĖĖ_______________________________ĖSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĖĖĖĖĖĮŅ  ŅŅ ° ŅŅ X Ņ