In re Braylee B., E2020-01408-COA-R3-PT
Decision Date | 18 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. E2020-01408-COA-R3-PT,E2020-01408-COA-R3-PT |
Parties | IN RE BRAYLEE B. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Scott County
Elizabeth C. Asbury, Chancellor
John B. ("Father") appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child, Braylee B. ("the Child"). In September 2019, Brook W. ("Mother") and Charles W. ("Stepfather") filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights in the Scott County Chancery Court ("Trial Court"). Father filed a motion to compel discovery and continue the trial, which was denied by the Trial Court. Following a trial, the Trial Court terminated Father's parental rights on two grounds of abandonment due to Father's failure to support the Child and his wanton disregard for the Child's welfare. The Trial Court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights was in the Child's best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.
Timothy P. Webb, Duff, Tennessee, for the appellant, John B.
Charles W. and Brook W., Oneida, Tennessee, Pro Se.
OPINIONBackground
Mother and Father were married in 2014. The Child was born in December 2015.1 The Trial Court found that Mother and Father had resided together intermittently until his most recent incarceration in May 2018. Mother and Father were divorced in January 2019 by order of the Scott County General Sessions Court. Father was incarcerated during the entirety of the divorce proceedings. Mother was designated the primary residential parent of the Child with Father having no contact with the Child "until such time as the father makes the appropriate application to the Court; and Court approval of parenting rights are established." Father remained incarcerated at the time of trial in the termination of parental rights proceeding.
Mother married Stepfather in June 2019. At the time of trial, the Child had resided with Mother and Stepfather for two or three years. In September 2019, Mother and Stepfather (collectively, "Petitioners") filed a petition in the Trial Court, seeking to terminate Father's parental rights to the Child and to allow Stepfather to adopt the Child. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for default judgment, alleging that Father was served with process but that he had failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise defend against the petition. Petitioners requested that their motion for default judgment be granted and that a final hearing be scheduled. In February 2020, Father filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Petitioners failed to include a statement in the petition that "there is a parent/child relationship between any child and [Father] and for that reason [the petition] is fatally defective." An amended petition was filed in March 2020 with the same grounds for termination, adding the additional language at issue. Father filed a response to the petition denying that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights and that termination of his parental rights was in the Child's best interest. Discovery commenced between the parties.
In July 2020, Father filed a "Request for Production of Documents & Things," which requested Petitioners to "[p]roduce copies of all social media, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, and/or Snapchat posts, pictures and messages from January, 2016 to present." In his request, Father provided directions for obtaining the requested information from Facebook. In their response, Petitioners objected to the request as being overly broad and "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." According to Petitioners, "this is a fish finding expedition with no basis and [Father's] instructions do not work."
In August 2020, Father filed a "Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery and/or Motion to Continue," in which he argued that Petitioners had "refused to participate in discovery." The Trial Court addressed the motion during a telephone conference during the week prior to trial and again during trial.2 At trial, Father argued that he had requested visitation from Mother through Facebook but that he no longer had access to his account. He was, therefore, seeking the messages/posts through discovery. The Trial Court denied the motion for continuance but allowed ten days following trial for Petitioners to attempt to access and provide the "Facebook communication between [Father] and [Petitioners] where he's making inquiry about visiting his child during that relevant time period" from January 2018 through May 2018.
The Trial Court conducted a trial in August 2020, wherein the following witnesses testified: (1) Father, (2) Paula B. ("Paternal Aunt"), (3) Stepfather, (4) Mother, and (5) Judy B. ("Paternal Grandmother"). In September 2020, the Trial Court entered its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opinion of the Court," which provided as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial