WPC fbG ;7_"!jMh^noO:#9yTOOw55&(j:5Eo+?MH st:`_I :%c9d] V+Q8eɜ]#3v 2,q=D׵aP%6g}%oӬq,{ͮ#0V#0Ć31#: vqZe\^w+qE˚gn57.bkO;S4#_G)`1CCtOmrb)L`HH Gx@+>L 20;f>lh*1},re>?oz?vL  n;ƓmܛȌ||b %\ 0Db 0U:.UNhU@ z I  UN ^ 4 w@ D  4\NprE m#UN]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]b 0 B 0 D3_ D- 0K AS ] 0# 0D A (#$  0  (`$.8dd8    ,cAZ"Arial Regular("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman  R$      1     _Ԁ  JoeWilliamsdiedpriortothetrialofthecase. 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.wpt  R$      2     _Therecordinthiscasedoesnotreflectwhatgroundsthe_Williamses_petitionalleged.Forpurposesofthis  opinion,weassumethepetitionalleged dependantandneglectedgroundsunderRule8oftheTennesseeRulesof t JuvenileProcedure.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regulard[) Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5QX)Ӧk2i3|xUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8YLd d 8         0  < d(|3$ !.8YLd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8YLd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8YLd d8     _  8) XXdd 8  @ +INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#+ #Ԉ &   August28,2000Session L XA X # XXA#SHIRLEYWILLIAMSv.DONALDG._THRAILKILL_XA X  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheJuvenileCourtfor_Tipton_ԀCounty  J @@No.J80638587TheHonorableWilliamA.Peeler,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901032_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober23,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thiscaseinvolvesvisitationrightsforanauntoftheminorchild.In1992,theauntandherhusband x  weregrantedvisitationrightsbytheShelbyCountyJuvenileCourt.In1997,afterthechildsfather d hadmovedwiththechildto_Tipton_ԀCounty,theauntandherhusbandfiledapetitioninthe_Tipton_ P CountyJuvenileCourttoholdfatherincontemptforfailingtoabidebythevisitationorder,to < changecustody,andalternativelytoenforcevisitation.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,the_Tipton_ (x CountyJuvenileCourtheldthatthepriorShelbyCountyJuvenileCourtordergrantingvisitationto d auntwasinfullforceandeffectandincorporatedtheShelbyCountyorderanditsorderbyreference. P Fatherhasappealed.# XXA#XA X <  _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheJuvenileCourtVacatedand  Remanded     # XA#XA X.W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,  J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. t HarrietThompson;Bolivar,ForAppellant,DonaldG._Thrailkill_ L  T.D.Forrester;Covington,ForAppellee,ShirleyWilliams $"t!   OPINION # XXA #XA X #L# # XXA #XA X  8JkX XdXXd8XA X XXA  Respondent,DanielG.Thrailkill(hereinafterFather),appealstheorderoftheTiptonCounty %$!% JuvenileCourtenforcingapriororderoftheShelbyCountyJuvenileCourtgrantingvisitationrights &"& topetitioners,JoeWilliamsandShirleyWilliams. #  1      #XA X XXA # '"'   Respondentschild,DanielThrailkill,wasbornonApril22,1988.Theeventssurrounding )$) Danielsbirthareundeniablytragic.OnMay9,1988,Danielsmother(Fathersfirstwife),Pam p*%* Leonard,diedfromcomplicationsrelatingtoDanielsbirth.Followinghismothersdeath, \+&+ PetitionersShirleyandJoeWilliams,offeredtocareforDaniel.Fathertestifiedthathedidntknow  whattodowithhissonfollowinghiswifesdeath,soheacceptedthe_Williamses_offertocarefor  Daniel.The_Williamses_ԀbroughtDanielhomefromthehospitalfollowinghismothersfuneraland  caredforhimforthenexteightyearsofhislife. t   Duringthetimethe_Williamses_ԀcaredforDaniel,Fatheradmittedthatheengagedinillegal L  behavior,culminatinginmisdemeanorchargesformarijuanapossessionandsolicitationofa 8  prostitutein1991.Fatherattendedadrugandalcoholtreatmentprogramfollowingthe1991 $ t incidentsandcontinuedtoattendgroupmeetingsforayearafterhecompletedthetreatment  ` program.Fatherclaimsthathehasnotuseddrugssince1992,andPetitionerpresentednoevidence  L  tothecontrary.  8    In1991,the_Williamses_ԀpetitionedtheShelbyCountyJuvenileCourttoawardthemcustody   ofDaniel._  #  2      _ԀOnFebruary3,1992,thatcourtorderedthatFatherbegrantedlegalandphysicalcustody   ofDaniel.Thedecreealsograntedthe_Williamses_ԀvisitationwithDanieloneveryotherweekend   duringtheschoolyearandfortwo,twoweekperiodsinthesummer.Afterthe1992order,Daniel   livedwithhisfatherforashorttime,then,withFatherspermission,hereturnedtolivewiththe p _Williamses_. \   In1996,Fatherremarried.Hiswife,KarenThrailkill,hasachildfromapreviousmarriage 4 whoisthesameageasDaniel.Followingthecouplesmarriage,FatherbroughtDanieltolivewith  p himandhisnewwife.In1997,Ms.ThrailkillgavebirthtoDerek,Danielshalfbrother.  \   OnMay29,1997,Fatherandhisfamilywerelivingin_Tipton_ԀCounty,andonthatdatethe 4 _Williamses_ԀfiledaPetitionforContemptandtheEnforcementofVisitationinthe_Tipton_ԀCounty   JuvenileCourt,seekingtoenforcethetermsofthe1992visitationorderfromShelbyCounty   JuvenileCourt.OnJune19,1997,theTiptonCountyJuvenileCourtenteredaninterlocutoryorder  thatFatherabidebythetermsoftheShelbyCountyorder.OnFebruary3,1998,Respondentfiled  acounterpetitiontoterminateormodifytheShelbyCounty1992visitationorder.Thecasewas  triedonAugust5,1999,andonAugust24,1999,thecourtentereditsorderthattheoriginalorder l remainedinfullforceandeffectandincorporatedtheorderbyreference.Fatherappealsthejuvenile X  courtruling. D!   Thepartiesdisagreeastotheissuesonappeal.Petitionerarguesthatthedisputeover #l! visitationinthiscaseisanissueofresjudicata.Fatherassertsthatthetrialcourterredbyfailing $X" toapplythedecisionin Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993),retroactivelytothiscase. $D # Althoughweaddresstheseconcernsbelow,webelievetheissueinthiscaseiswhetheracourtcan %0!$ enforceanorderwhichgrantsvisitationrightstoanonparentintheabsenceofanyshowingof &"% substantialharm.Weholdthatthereisnolegalbasistoenforcesuchanorder. '#& Ї   X) X XXAThepresumptionofcorrectnessapplicabletoatrialcourtsfindingsoffactpursuanttoTenn.  R.App.P.13(d)appliesinchildcustodycases. See_Hass_Ԁv._Knighton_ ,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.  1984); Whitaker ,957S.W.2d834,838(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).#XA XX X) e #ԀUnlesstheevidencepreponderates  againstthefindings,wemustaffirm,absenterroroflaw. See _Tenn.R.App.P._ 13(d).  r    Tennesseehaslongrecognizedtherightsofnaturalparentstoraisetheirchildrenwithout J  interferencefromthestate.In Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourt 6  reaffirmedTennesseesstrongcommitmenttoprotectingparentalrightsinholdingthataparents " r righttoraisehisorherchildwithoutstateinterferenceissubjectonlytoashowingthattheparents  ^ decisionspresentariskofsubstantialharmtothechild.Inholdingthatparentalrightsarea  J  fundamentallibertyinterestunderArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution,the Hawk Court  6  notedthat therighttorearoneschildrenissofirmlyrootedinourculturethattheUnitedStates "  SupremeCourthasheldittobeafundamentallibertyinterestprotectedbytheFourteenth   AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution. Id. at578.     Tennesseescommitmenttoparentalrightsislongstanding.Overonehundredyearsago,   theTennesseeSupremeCourtwrotethat: n 8  8`   [A]parentisentitledtothecustody,companionship,andcareofthe F child,andshouldnotbedeprivedthereofexceptbydueprocessof 2 law.Itisanaturalright,butnotaninalienableone.Theparentsare n trustedwiththecustodyofthechildupontheideathatunderthe  Z instinctsofparentaldevotionitisbestforthechild.F` x` x  Stateexrel.Bethellv.Kilvington ,45S.W.433,434(Tenn.1898).Inalatercaseinwhichthe  naturalfatherofachildchallengedthechildsadoption,theCourtnotedthat:   8  8`   Therelationswhichexistbetweentheparentandchildaresacred  onesandhavetheirfoundationinnature,andtheaffectionexisting ~ betweenthemisstrongerandmorepotent,andaffordsagreater j protectiontothechild,thananyrelationwhichcouldbecreatedby V  associationmerely.Therighttothesocietyofthechildexistsinits B! parents;therighttorearit,toitscustody,toits_tutorage_,theshaping ."~  ofitsdestiny,andalloftheconsequencesthatnaturallyfollowfrom #j! therelationshipareinherentlyinthenaturalparents,andtheycannot $V" bedeprivedoftheserightswithoutnotice,anduponsomeground $B # whichaffectsmateriallythefutureofthechild.%.!$` x` x  Inre_Knott_ ,197_S.W._Ԁ1097,(Tenn.1917).ThisCourthasrecognizedthattherelationshipbetween '#& aparentandchild occupiesauniqueplaceinourlegalculture,andthatthefundamentalinterests (#' naturalparentshaveintheirchildren aremorepreciousthanpropertyrightsandmoresignificant )$( thanthelibertiesderivedfromshiftingeconomicarrangements. _Neely_Ԁv._Neely_ ,737S.W.2d539, z*%) 542(Tenn.Ct.App.1987). f+&* Ї  GivenTennesseeshistoricalprotectionofparentalrights,aswellasfederalrecognitionof  thefundamentalrighttoprivacy,wefinditunnecessarytoaddresstheissueofwhetherthetrialcourt  shouldhaveappliedthedecisionin Hawk retroactively.Thelawasitstoodbefore Hawk is  sufficienttosupportourholdinginthiscase.Wenotethatthe Hawk decisionitselfsupportsthis t conclusion.In Hawk ,ourSupremeCourtheldthattheTennesseeConstitutionprotectsparents `  privacyinterest...intheirchildrearingdecisions,solongastheirdecisionsdonotsubstantially L  endangerthewelfareoftheirchildren.855S.W.2dat582.TheCourtwentontosaythat, 8   althoughthisCourthasnotpreviouslydeterminedthatthestateconstitutionprotectsaparentsright $ t torearachild, therighthaslongbeenprotectedfromstateinterference,exceptwherethechilds  ` welfareismateriallyjeopardized . Id. at578(emphasisadded).Itisthisrightwhichweseek  L  toprotectinthecaseatbar.  8    UnderTennesseelaw,therefore,theholdinginthiscaseturnsonwhethertheoriginal1992   visitationorderwasbasedonanyfindingofsubstantialharm.Wefindnoevidenceintherecordto   indicatethatitwas.Atnotimeinanyoftheproceedingsinvolvingthe_Williamses_visitationwith   Danieldidthe_Williamses_ԀpresentanyevidencethatDanielswelfarewouldbematerially   jeopardizedifthecourtfailedtoawardvisitation.Failuretomakesuchafindinginanorder p grantingcustodyofachildtoanonparentisanabridgmentofaparentsfundamentalrightto \ privacy. SeeInreAskew, 993S.W.2d1,5(Tenn.1999).Consideringtheparentalrightsguaranteed H byArticleI,Section8,oftheTennesseeConstitution,thesameruleshouldapplytononparental 4 visitation.  p   Petitionerscontentionisthatthedisputebetweenthepartiestothisactionisresjudicata, H andthatRespondenthastheburdenofshowingalackofsubstantialriskofharmtoDanielinorder 4 toterminateormodifythevisitationorder.Wedisagree.In _In_ԀreAskew ,theTennesseeSupreme   Courtaddressedthisissueinthecontextofacustodydispute  . Seeid. Inthatcase,theCourtheld   thattheoriginalordergrantingcustodytothenonparentwasinvalidbecauseitdidnotmentiona  basisforthegrantofcustody. Seeid. at5.TheCourtwentontoexplainthat, [_i]n_Ԁtheabsenceof  suchavalidinitialorder,webelieveitwouldbeunconstitutionalforthenaturalmothertobearthe  burdenofprovingtheabsenceofsubstantialharm. Id.  l   Thissamereasoningshallapplytoanordergrantingvisitationtoanonparent.Acourtmay D! notawardanonparentvisitationunlessthenonparentcanshowthatdenialofvisitationpresents 0"  ariskofsubstantialharmtothechild. SeeSimmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682,685(Tenn. #l! 1995).Ifanordergrantingvisitationdoesnotincludeafindingontheissueofsubstantialharm,that $X" orderisinvalid. SeeInRe:Askew ,993S.W.2dat4.Thisholdingisconsistentwithwell $D # establishedprivacyrightsundertheTennesseeConstitution. %0!$   Wehavesaidthatthereisnoendtothedifficultieswhicharisewhencourtstellparentshow '#& toraisetheirchildren. See_Neely_ ,737S.W.2dat543.Thiscaseisapainfulreminderofthattruism. (#' WhiletherecorddoesnotindicatethatDanielisatriskofsubstantialharmifMs.Williams )$( visitationceases,itisimportanttonotethattherecorddoescontainarecommendationbythecourt |*%) appointedpsychologist,Dr.JohnHutson.Dr.Hutsonwritesthatitis clearlyinDanielsbest h+&* interesttomaintainarelationshipwithMs.Williams,andthatthepartiesshouldworktogetherto   reducethediscordinordertoassistDanielineliminatinghisconfusionasto whomandwhat  constitutesamotherforhim.XA X XXADanielisindeedfortunatetohaveanauntwithsuchamagnitudeof  loveandaffection.Fathershouldfeelblessedthathissonhassuchadevotedrelative.Forhissons t sake,heshoulddoeverythinginhispowertofosterandexpandthisrelationship.#XA X XXAVE#If,asDr.Hutson ` believes,theadultsinthiscaseare genuinelyinterestedinthebestinterestofDaniel,wewould L  encouragethemtoworktogetherinreachinganagreementwhichwouldbestservethatinterest. 8    XA X XXAThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuch  ` furtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainstthepetitioner,  L  ShirleyWilliams#XA X XXAG#.# XXAW #XA X  8     `     h   __________________________________________      `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,_W.S_   .