 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Bannon v. O'Bannon11/20/2003
n despite the fact that, as Wife and Mr. Riddle were aware, the dog had previously attacked two other children. Although Amy was not physically injured as a result of the attack she was in close proximity and witnessed the attack on her sister. It is self evident that this event affected the well being of these children in a meaningful way.
Second, evidence fully credited by the Chancellor was presented showing that Wife stated to others that Husband was a pedophile and that he had raped her. These statements were made after the divorce decree which awarded Wife custody and at that time it could not have been reasonably anticipated that she would make such statements. Wife does not dispute the falsity of these statements and Husband testified that when he asked her why she made them she responded that it was because of her hatred for Husband. We agree with the Chancellor's analysis that "if her feelings about the father were this great, it would be very difficult for that not to spill over to the children." Furthermore, false allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly pedophelia, will cause serious damage to an individual's reputation in the community and have an undeniable negative affect upon a parent's relationship with his or her child. Accordingly, we find that the making of these vicious statements by Wife adversely affected the well being of the parties' children in a meaningful way, and revealed her relative unsuitability to have primary custody of the children.
The marriage of Wife to her present husband, Paul Riddle, had its foundation in an affair between Wife and Mr. Riddle [who was married to Tina Riddle] which began after Wife's divorce from Husband. After their marriage Wife and Mr. Riddle have separated twice - once for two months - and they were in marriage counseling as recently as five to six months prior to trial. The instability of Wife's current marriage is directly related to T.C.A. 36-6-106(4) - " he stability of the family unit of the parents" - and is a proper ground for modification of custody. The Chancellor found "that an affair with a married person is sign of instability in your relationships, and she [Wife] appeared to blame that on the father in this case, and as the terrible marriage she had with him as the reason she was having an affair with someone else."
We take note of the Chancellor's findings with regard to the circumstances of the dog attack on the parties' older child heretofore referenced. The Court found this to be evidence of Wife's poor judgment and this finding is pertinent to T.C.A. 36-6-106(10) - " ach parent's past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities...." The Chancellor also found with respect to the dog bite incident that Wife did not notify Husband that his daughter had been attacked and injured until she had returned home from the hospital. Wife's failure to notify Husband as soon as practicable that his child had sustained injuries requiring emergency medical treatment is further directly related to another factor set forth at T.C.A. 36-6-106(10) -"the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent consistent with the best interest of the child." The evidence does not preponderate against these findings which are supportive of the Court's determination that a modification of custody is in the best interest of the children.
As primary caregiver since the divorce, Wife emphasizes the importance of continuity of placement in the lives of the children. We acknowledge the importance of continuity of placement and the stability it brings. However, as we stated in Gaskill, ib
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|