WPC 6As-S<-B<ڈ3(/CY*$uYtJRɢٌíY5n5!Co3VY+)rl"<[|OTT7V"9p%Xlt%r*_  kGgnSzuE~)}~!6 LubirMo?kWf/j9Tl9@А;x_V2f=V#S2T(bDJXOؤI4L"^RJYbmJ\'D׏%p<_sTJ92c 1ӗ^83C>RR H!&, >[1S%J*9/bMP8=Sab#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w@ 4M za    m UN #  u 0D;NpEb 0 B 0 D3p D- 0K ASn 04 0D A\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0mjW/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular KLDMNODPQDRST=.:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xTU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    DPMMICKLESCHADWICKWykoffM.J.S. Gann R)$      1  XBX  _Thebiologicalparentsparentalrightshavebeenterminated.- -(|G2)$ !.8dd8         0  XBX d(|3Gb$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gb$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8BXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @T T SubmittedonBriefs,September15,2003 $ XBX #XXB#  INTHEMATTEROFTHEADOPTIONOFDPMbyDONNARAE " MICKLES,andhusband,PAULEDMICKLES,v.BRENDASUE  6 JOHNSON,andhusband,STEVEJOHNSON,andCHADWICKEARL  J SCHUBERTXBX   ^ @M M  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty ^  @ No.1431981Hon.JohnWeaver,Judge J  _S   `  _   h STFILEDOCTOBER23,_2003T_@*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200202809_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A   TheTrialCourtorderedappellantsincarceratedforviolationoftheCourtsorders,andrefusedto x removetheGuardianadLitemfortheminorchild.Onappeal,weaffirm. d #XXB#XBX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  (x HerschelPickensFranks,J.deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano, < Jr.,J.,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined. ( JohnS.Anderson,Rogersville,Tennessee,forAppellants.   D.VanceMartin,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellees. t"! WayneDecaturWykoff,Knoxville,Tennessee,GuardianAdLitemforDPM.#XXBp#XBX L$# @66' OPINION #XXB#XBXԈ (8$(  X4{XXXB   ` Thiscaseinvolvesanongoingdispute#XBXX X4{ # X4{XXXB# z7X X4{\ # X4{X z7betweenappellants,maternalgrandparents, *&* whowereallowedtoadoptDPMandpaternalgrandparents,whoalsosoughttoadoptthechildand +&+  weregrantedsubstantialvisitationtimewiththechild,withappellantsconsent,intheFinal ,', _JudgmentofAdoption. #  1      ׀IntheFinalJudgment,theCourtheldappellantsincontemptfordenying   visitationtoappellees,andsentencedappellantsto7daysjailtimeeach,butheldthesentencesin  abeyance pendingfurtherordersofthecourtandcontinuingcompliancewiththecourtordersif  furthercourtordersareviolated,thenthosesentencesshallbeservedandotherpunishmentwillbe t addressed.Id.TheCourtfurtherorderedthattheappelleescouldalsobesubjecttocontemptifthe ` CourtfoundtheyfailedtostrictlycomplywiththeCourtsorders.Id. L       ` AppellantsappealedtothisCourt,seekingtohavetheappelleesvisitationrights $ t removedduetothefactthattheirsonsparentalrightshadbeenterminated.ThisCourtaffirmedthe  ` TrialCourtsJudgment.(Inre:TheAdoptionofDPM,No.E200100958_COA_ԄR3CV,July3,  L  2002.)  8     ` Uponremand,appelleesfiledaPetitionforContempt,allegingthattheywerestill   beingdeniedtheirvisitationtimewiththechild.ThepartiesenteredintoanAgreedOrder,wherein   appellantswereagainheldincontemptofcourtandsentencedtotendaysjailtimeeach,tobeheld   inabeyanceontheconditionthattheystrictlycomplywiththecourtsorders.TheCourtfurther   orderedthatifappellantsviolatedanycourtorder,the17daysofjailtimebeingheldinabeyance p wouldbeserved. \    ` AppellantsfiledaMotiontohavetheguardianadlitemremoved,assertingthathe 4 wasbiasedOtowardOPinfavorofthePappellees.TheguardianadlitemthenfiledaMotionforContempt,  p allegingthatappellantshadyetagainfailedtoturnthechildoverforvisitationwithappellees.  \ AppelleesfiledaMotionseekingtohavetheirvisitationtimerestored. H    ` Meanwhile,appellantsfiledaPetitionintheJuvenileCourtseekingtohavethe   appelleesvisitationrightssuspended,andappelleesfiledyetanotherMotionforContempt,andthe   guardianadlitemfiledaMotionforContemptseekingtohavetheFinalJudgmentofAdoptionset  asideforfraud.  Ѐ     ` TheTrialCourtconductedahearingonSeptember9,2002,anddismissedappellants l Motiontoremovetheguardianadlitem,findingthat theproofdoesnotsustaintheremovalofthe X  Guardianadlitem.TheCourtfoundappellantsincontemptby clearandconvincingevidenceand D! beyondareasonabledoubtonseveralcounts,andorderedthemtoservethejailsentences 0"  previouslyset.TheCourtorderedthattheappelleeswouldhavecustodyofthechildduringthe #l! appellantsincarceration.AppellantshaveappealedtheCourtsJudgment. $X"    ` Onappeal,appellantsraiseasomewhatnovelissue,arguingtheyshouldnotbe %0!$ incarceratedforrefusingtoallowtheorderedvisitation,becausetheordersallowingsuchvisitation &"% wereagreed,andthusinthenatureofacontractandtheremedyforbreachofsamewouldbeacivil '#& penaltyonly.However,theyfailtorecognizethatthoseprovisionsweresetforthintheFinal (#' JudgmentofAdoption,whichwasenteredwiththeirconsent.AppellantsGcanGHwillHnotberelievedIfromIJofJa )$( provisioninanagreedjudgmentwhichtheyassentedtoexplicitly.SeeInRe:AdoptionofDPM,  (prioropinionofthisCourt).Moreover,thisCourthaspreviouslyruledthatanyagreementwhich  ismergedintoacourtsorderbecomesadispositionbythecourt,andsaid agreementorstipulation  losesitscontractualnature,anditsprovisionsmaybeenforcedbyacourtorder.Brewerv.Brewer, t 869S.W.2d928,932(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). `      ` Thesentenceswhichappellantscomplainofweremerelyenforcedbythejudgment 8  whichtheyappealedfrominthisappeal,buthadbeenhandeddownintheearlierordersthatwere $ t notappealed.Wefindthisissuetobewithoutmerit.  `      ` AppellantsalsotakeissuewiththeTrialCourtsfailuretoremovetheguardianad  8  litem.Whiletheadoptionstatutesdonotprovideforthemandatoryappointmentofaguardianad $  litemtolookoutforthechildsbestinterests,thisCourthasrecognizedthat thestatutesalsodonot   prohibittheappointmentofaguardianadliteminadoptionproceedings.Inre:adoptionofM.J.S.,   44S.W.3d41,59(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Tenn.R.Civ.P.17alsoprovidesthataguardianadlitem   maybeappointedbythecourttodefendanactionforaninfant, orwheneverjusticerequires.Our   SupremeCourthasstatedthatthedecisionregardingwhethertoappointaguardianadlitemis p  withinthesounddiscretionofthetrialjudgeandrequiresthetrialjudgetoappointtheguardianad \ litemwheneverjusticerequires.Gannv.Burton,511S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1974).Alsosee, H Andersonv.MemphisHousingAuthority,534S.W.2d125,129(Tenn.Ct.App.1975).Accordingly, 4 itisintheTrialCourtsdiscretionastowhetheraguardianadlitemshouldberemoved.  p    ` AppellantsarguethattheguardianinthiscasewasunfairlybiasedQtowardQRinfavorof_theR_ H appellees.NTherecorddoesnotshowthattheTrialCourtsdecisionnottoremovetheguardianwasanabuse 4 ofdiscretion.NNoKevidenceofKunfairbiasbytheguardianappearsintherecord,andclearlytherewas 4 noevidencethattheguardianfailedtorepresentthechildsinterests.WealsofLounLMinMdthisissuewithout   m_erit_.       ` WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt,andremand,withthecostoftheappe#XAiXX X< ##eXXAi #XAiXeal  assessedtotheappellants.  #eXXAi'#XAiXe   `     h     _________________________ $X"    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. $D #