Facts: Grandmother is Child’s paternal grandmother. Mother and Father initially involved Grandmother in Child’s life, and Child sometimes stayed with Grandmother on weekends and for extended periods. Their relationship later deteriorated, and Mother and Father stopped allowing Grandmother to see Child.

Grandmother petitioned the juvenile court for temporary custody, alleging Child was dependent and neglected. She accused Mother and Father of exposing Child to drug use, physically abusing Child, failing to provide adequate food and medical care, making daily threats, and forcing Child to wear shoes that were too small.

Grandmother later petitioned for grandparent visitation, and the juvenile court consolidated the petitions.

The juvenile court referred Grandmother’s allegations to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). After investigating, DCS recommended that Child remain with Mother and Father because it found no evidence supporting Grandmother’s allegations.

At the hearing, two DCS caseworkers contradicted Grandmother’s claims. One caseworker visited Child at home and school, interviewed school personnel, and reported no concerns about Child or the parents’ home. Another caseworker visited the home, met with the family, and spoke with Child’s medical provider. She testified that Child was well dressed, the home was clean and orderly, and Child was receiving routine medical care.

The magistrate found the DCS caseworkers credible. Their testimony rebutted Grandmother’s allegations because the investigation revealed no marks or disclosures of abuse, Mother and Father passed drug screens, Child had medical providers, and the home had food, water, and electricity.

The magistrate found Grandmother less credible because of her acrimonious relationship with Mother and Father. The magistrate also found that Grandmother failed to prove that Child would suffer substantial harm without grandparent visitation and that visitation was not in Child’s best interest because of Grandmother’s hostile behavior and extremely acrimonious relationship with Mother and Father. Both petitions were dismissed.

Grandmother sought review by the juvenile-court judge, who adopted the magistrate’s order as the juvenile court’s final order. Grandmother appealed, and the case was transferred to the circuit court for a de novo hearing.

There was no transcript of the circuit-court hearing, so the circuit court prepared a statement of the evidence under TRAP 24(c). Grandmother relied on her testimony. Mother, Father, and Child’s guardian ad litem also testified.

Father testified that Mother and Father provided Child with a stable home, met Child’s needs, and ensured that Child attended school. Mother testified that she did not believe Child was safe with Grandmother, Grandmother was not a good influence, and Child’s behavior worsened after staying with Grandmother. Mother also described Grandmother’s behavior toward Mother and Father as harassing.

The circuit court dismissed both petitions. It found that Grandmother presented insufficient evidence and concluded there was “no evidence at all of any dependency and neglect concerns.” Although the circuit court had “no doubt” that Grandmother loved Child, it found that the hostility between Grandmother and Mother and Father was not in Child’s best interest. The circuit court concluded that the “level of hostility exhibited outweighs all other best interest factors.”

Grandmother appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by dismissing her dependency-and-neglect petition and her petition for grandparent visitation.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision.

Dependency and Neglect. In Tennessee, a finding that a child is dependent and neglected must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

The person alleging dependency and neglect bears the burden of proof. Grandmother argued that Mother and Father had not proven that Child was safe, but that argument placed the burden on the wrong parties. Grandmother had to prove dependency and neglect by clear and convincing evidence.

Grandmother relied on her testimony. The circuit court, however, credited the testimony of Mother, Father, and the guardian ad litem and did not believe Grandmother’s allegations.

Appellate courts give considerable deference to a trial court’s credibility findings because the trial court observes the witnesses’ demeanor and conduct. Appellate courts do not second-guess or reevaluate those credibility determinations unless clear and convincing evidence requires a different result.

The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the circuit court’s credibility findings. Because Grandmother’s factual allegations were inconsistent with the evidence credited by the circuit court, she failed to prove dependency and neglect by clear and convincing evidence.

Grandparent Visitation. Grandmother’s grandparent-visitation claim presented a different problem.

Tennessee’s Grandparent Visitation Statute first requires proof that the cessation or severe reduction of the grandparent-grandchild relationship presents a danger of substantial harm to the child. That threshold may be satisfied by proof that the child had a significant existing relationship with the grandparent and would likely suffer severe emotional harm from its loss, that the grandparent functioned as a primary caregiver and interruption of that care would harm the child, or that the loss of a significant existing relationship presents some other direct and substantial harm.

The petitioning grandparent bears the burden of proving a likelihood of severe emotional harm from the loss of the relationship. Only after the grandparent proves a danger of substantial harm does the court determine whether visitation is in the child’s best interest.

The circuit court found that Grandmother loved Child, but it did not find that Child would likely suffer substantial harm without visitation. The circuit court also found that visitation was not in Child’s best interest because Grandmother’s hostility toward Mother and Father outweighed the other best-interest factors.

On appeal, however, Grandmother did not present a developed argument identifying any reversible error in the dismissal of her grandparent-visitation petition. Her brief had no table of contents, table of authorities, statement of the issues, statement of the case, citations to the record, or citations to legal authority.

The Court of Appeals could determine Grandmother’s argument concerning dependency and neglect despite the deficiencies in her brief. Her fact-based challenge to that ruling was sufficiently apparent, the record was limited, and Mother and Father understood and responded to it.

The Court of Appeals could not discern Grandmother’s argument concerning grandparent visitation. Deciding that issue would have required the court to develop an argument for her. The court declined to do so.

The Court of Appeals found Grandmother’s appeal to be frivolous and assessed the costs of the appeal against her.

K.O.’s Comment: A grandparent-visitation case is a proof case, not a sympathy case. A loving relationship does not establish that its loss will cause the child substantial harm.

Compare Coleman v. Olson, where the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that a grandparent need not prove actual emotional harm before obtaining relief because requiring the child to suffer harm before the court could act would defeat the statute’s protective purpose. Still, the grandparent must present evidence from which the court can find that substantial harm is likely. A prior relationship and the grandparent’s love for the child are relevant, but they do not automatically satisfy that burden.

Grandparents seeking court-ordered visitation must also treat their behavior toward the parents as evidence. TCA § 36-6-307 expressly makes relevant both hostility manifested before the child and the grandparent’s willingness to encourage the parent-child relationship. Courtroom conduct, communications with the parents, and unsubstantiated accusations may affect the outcome.

Source: Sherrod v. Keanna R. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, August 14, 2026). 

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.