LESLIE ANN CREMEENS V. ERIC SCOTT CREMEENS - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Apr 30, 2015

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

D. Michael Kress, II, Sparta, Tennessee, for the appellant, Leslie Ann Cremeens.

Attorneys 2:

Mark E. Tribble, Cookeville, Tennessee for the appellee, Eric Scott Cremeens.

Jason F. Hicks, Cookeville, Tennessee, Guardian Ad Litem.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

Mother challenges the modification of the parenting plan, specifically the designation of Father as the primary residential parent and the new parenting schedule. Mother contends that the trial court’s best interest determination was flawed because the trial court failed to consider the expert testimony of a psychologist who examined the child in Tennessee. She also contends the court erred by failing to require the guardian ad litem to investigate the records of a psychologist who examined the child in Georgia. Because Mother failed to provide a transcript of the evidence or a statement of the evidence, we must assume there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual determinations. We find no error with the investigation by the guardian ad litem because he was not required to investigate the records of every medical professional that examined the child; instead, by rule, the guardian ad litem is to “conduct an investigation to the extent that the guardian ad litem considers necessary to determine the best interests of the child. . . .” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 40A, § 8(b)(1). Further, Mother failed to proffer a summary of the Georgia psychologist’s records or testimony; therefore, there is no factual basis for us to conclude that testimony of the Georgia psychologist would have affected the court’s decision. As for the Tennessee psychologist, the record reveals that the trial court did consider the expert’s testimony. As a result, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We also declare this a frivolous appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122.

Attachments: