Facts: Mother and Father are the parents of Child.
A month before Child was born, Mother married her partner, Stepmother, and took her surname. Stepmother was listed as Child’s father on his birth certificate, and Child took Stepmother’s surname.
Father first learned of the birth two months after it happened. He asked for a DNA paternity test, which established his paternity. Thereafter, Father began paying Mother $250 monthly to help support Child. Father, who lives in Texas, began traveling to Tennessee to visit Child several weekends each month. That continued until Child’s first birthday, after which Father alleged Mother stopped allowing him contact with Child.
When Child was eight months old, Mother and Stepmother petitioned the Chancery Court to terminate Father’s parental rights and for Stepmother to adopt Child. Two days later, Father petitioned the Juvenile Court to establish parentage and a parenting plan. Father’s petition was transferred to Chancery Court, where the cases were consolidated.
After a hearing on January 27, 2021, the trial court awarded Father some overnight parenting time while the case was pending.
Two months later, Mother voluntarily dismissed her termination petition on the morning of the trial. The trial moved forward on Father’s petition.
During Father’s cross-examination, Mother’s counsel tried to play a recording of a telephone call between Mother and Father. The trial court disallowed the recording because it predated the hearing on January 27 regarding temporary parenting time.
For the rest of the trial, the trial court limited the proof to facts that occurred after the January 27, 2021, hearing. When Mother tried to introduce evidence of things that happened before the January 27 hearing, the trial court disallowed it, noting that Mother “had a chance to present it” at the January 27 hearing.
When the proof ended, the trial court ruled that Father is Child’s biological parent and Child would have only Father’s surname. It also broadly adopted Father’s proposed parenting plan with some changes and set child support. Father was also awarded $45,000 in attorney’s fees because of the “vindictive nature” of Mother’s opposition to the petition to establish paternity.
Mother appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
Tennessee’s appellate courts review a trial court’s exclusion of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by
- applying an incorrect legal standard,
- reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or
- basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
When applying the abuse of discretion standard to evidentiary decisions, the appellate courts also consider
- whether the decision has a sufficient evidentiary foundation,
- whether the trial court correctly identified and properly applied the appropriate legal principles, and
- whether the decision is within the range of acceptable alternatives.
Mother argued she was denied a fair hearing because she could not adequately present her case by being limited to evidence occurring during the 47 days preceding the final hearing.
The Court found the trial court exceeded its discretion when it excluded substantial and relevant evidence and that this ruling affected the substantial rights of both Mother and Child, whose best interest was at the heart of this inquiry:
The only rationale given for the court’s decision to exclude the evidence was that Mother “had an opportunity to present [the evidence]” at the January 27 hearing. It is important to note that the prior hearing, which the court stated gave Mother the chance to present evidence, only concerned whether Father should be given overnight pendente lite parenting time with the child…. The subject matter of the January 27 hearing was substantially more limited than the final hearing. Because of the more limited subject matter of the previous hearing, there was less of a focus on the long-term implications for the child compared to the final hearing at which a permanent parenting plan was to be entered.
At the time of the trial, the child was just over three years old and had several ongoing health problems that required various therapies to treat. It is apparent from the transcript that Mother and Father had strong disagreements regarding the necessity and scope of these treatments…. The court’s ruling limiting the evidence came in the context of Mother trying to play audio of Father’s speaking to Mother regarding the medication the child had been prescribed. Father’s ability to provide care for the child, including medical care he has disagreements with, was of central importance to the best interests of the child…. The court limiting evidence in such a drastic manner substantially impaired the trial court’s ability to make an informed custody decision based on the best interest of the child.
* * * * *
The record before us contains numerous instances where the court limited evidence simply based on the time limitation, including Mother attempting to question Father regarding whether Mother had limited parenting time, why Father did not pay child support prior to January 27, 2021, why Father moved to Texas; and Mother questioning other witnesses if they had experience with the child’s behavior after being returned from parenting time with Father. All of this evidence would have been directly related to the child’s best interests, and the court should have heard this evidence. We, therefore, believe the inability of Mother to present her best case likely affected the outcome of the trial.
The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.
K.O.’s Comment: Notably, Mother did not make an offer of proof for the excluded evidence. This failure is typically fatal to appellate review of evidentiary decisions. Mother got lucky here because the Court of Appeals found the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the questions. Thus, the Court of Appeals was able to proceed with its analysis. Trial lawyers should not count on this stroke of luck happening to them. An offer of proof is typically required to obtain relief on an evidentiary issue.
Source: In re Remington G. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 13, 2025).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.