Mother motion in Tennessee

2025See Bean, 40 S.W.3d at 55 ; Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d at 492 ; DiNovo, 706 S.W.3d. at 337 (including among those situations where a party’s argument has been waived, errors “significantly frustrat[ing] the court’s ability to decide an appeal”).

2019This court was confronted with a similar situation in Lykins v. Key Bank USA, NA, and held: In Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), this Court was confronted with similar deficiencies in a brief, including the failure to comply with Tenn. R.

2025In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 525–26 (“[T]he Court of Appeals must review the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.”). -6- A. As indicated above, the trial court granted the termination petition based upon the statutory grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) the persistence of conditions which led to removal. 1.

2024Although Mother’s brief does not address any of the termination grounds found by the trial court specifically, we are cognizant of our Supreme Court’s directive in In re Carrington H., and we will address each of the grounds for termination individually. 483 S.W.3d at 525-26 (“[I]n an appeal from an order terminating parental rights the Court of Appeals must review the trial court’s findings as to each ground for termination and as to whether termination is in the child’s best interests, regardless of whether the parent challenges these findings on appeal.”). -8- a.

2024See Childress v. Union Realty Co., 97 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (“We consider an issue waived where it is argued in the brief but not designated as an issue.”).

2022See Childress v. Union Realty Co., Ltd., 97 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 3 Rule 6(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides: No complaint of or reliance upon action by the trial court will be considered on appeal unless the argument contains a specific reference to the page or pages of the record where such action is recorded.

2020In denying Mother’s motion, the trial court stated that it would “not yield to Truancy Court in Colorado.” Further, the trial court explained that, because of the Children’s tenure in DCS custody, it wanted to move forward with the trial to give the Children some necessary stability. “[W]hether to grant a continuance is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the [trial] court abused its discretion and that the party seeking a continuance has been prejudiced.” Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Ten

2000See Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

2018Wine v. Wine, 245 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Turner v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 340, 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)). 3 words, “a parent must prove (1) the amount of his or her current net income and (2) the existence of a ‘significant variance’ between his or her current child support obligation and the obligation that would be required by the Child Support Guidelines based on his or her current income.” Chorost v. Chorost, No. M2000-00251-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21392065 , at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2003) (footnotes omitted).

2006See Turner v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 340, 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (noting our inability to determine whether a significant variance existed due to the lack of any evidence in the record to conduct such an analysis).

2016In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. Ct. 2 In multiple instances in Mother’s brief, she references “children” when discussing the termination of her parental rights.

2014See In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 863 (“In the statutes governing the termination of parental rights . . . . [w]illful conduct consists of acts or failures to act that are intentional or voluntary rather than accidental or inadvertent.”) (citations omitted).

2015Mother’s brief contains no language from Rule 40A and no analysis as to how its provisions support Mother’s arguments in this case. 14 We note that the appellate record in this case consists of forty-three volumes of technical (Continued....) -13- briefs, and both parties’ reply briefs in this appeal, we remind litigants that “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).

2015Mother’s brief contains no language from Rule 40A and no analysis as to how its provisions support Mother’s arguments in this case. 14 We note that the appellate record in this case consists of forty-three volumes of technical (Continued....) -13- briefs, and both parties’ reply briefs in this appeal, we remind litigants that “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).

2013However, “[c]ourts should give effect to the sub stance of motions rather than their form or title.” State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., 403 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn.2013) (citing Brundage v. Cumberland Cnty., 357 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn.2011)).

2013However, “[c]ourts should give effect to the substance of motions rather than their form or title.” State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., --- S.W.3d ----, 2013 WL 1248285 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Brundage v. Cumberland Cnty., 357 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn.2011)).

2012See The Alison Group, Inc. v. Ericson, 181 S.W.3d 670 , 676 n.6 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that a motion for discretionary costs filed prior to “a final order on Appellants’ [motion for new trial]” was timely filed.), app. perm. appeal denied Oct. 24, 2005; Dulin v. Dulin, No. W2001-02969-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 22071454 , at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2003) (stating: “Thus, in accordance with our decision in Ashford, we find Mother's motion [for discretionary costs] was timely filed.”), no app. perm. appeal filed.

2006See The Alison Group, Inc. v. Ericson, No. W2003-02973-COA-R3-CV, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 , at *13 n.6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2005) (finding that a motion for discretionary costs filed prior to “a final order on Appellants’ [motion for new trial]” was timely filed.), appl. perm. appeal denied Oct. 24, 2005; Dulin v. Dulin, No. W2001-02969-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 628 , at *21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2003) (stating: “Thus, in accordance with our decision in Ashford, we find Mother’s motion [for discretionary costs] was timely filed.”), no appl. perm. appeal filed; Ashford v. Benjami

2026“Once a permanent parenting plan has been [established,] the parties are required to comply with it unless and until it is modified as permitted by law.” Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 697 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 ).

2025Our Supreme Court has explained “the limited scope of review to be employed by an appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s factual determinations in matters involving child custody and parenting plan developments.” C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tenn. 2017) (citing Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 , 692–93 (Tenn. 2013)).

2025See Bean, 40 S.W.3d at 55 ; Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d at 492 ; DiNovo, 706 S.W.3d. at 337 (including among those situations where a party’s argument has been waived, errors “significantly frustrat[ing] the court’s ability to decide an appeal”).

2021See Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482, 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (stating appellate courts routinely hold that failure to cite relevant authority in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) constitutes waiver); Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (stating that the failure to cite authority on appeal may constitute wavier of the issues).

2020See Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524-25 .

2012The standards applicable to this Court’s review of lower courts’ determination of discovery matters was set forth in Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) as follows: Because decisions regarding pretrial discovery are inherently discretionary, they are reviewed using the “abuse of discretion” standard of review.

2025See, e.g., Shelby v. Shelby, 696 S.W.3d 360 , 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (“We do not review the Court’s oral statements, unless incorporated in a decree, but review the Court’s order and judgments for that is how a Court speaks.”); Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Kelton, 595 S.W.2d 88, 93 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) (“[N]o oral pronouncement is of any effect unless and until made a part of a written judgment duly entered.”). -3- reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with Mother’s motion to alter or amend in the amount of $4,333.50.

2025Our Supreme Court has explained “the limited scope of review to be employed by an appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s factual determinations in matters involving child custody and parenting plan developments.” C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tenn. 2017) (citing Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 , 692–93 (Tenn. 2013)).

2025Resp. of Sup. Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010) (“It is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or 7 At worst, the veracity of computer-generated research was not verified prior to its inclusion in Mother’s brief, or else these inaccurate citations were knowingly included in the hopes that we would not look beyond the superficial presence of citation to legal authority.

2025The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated: “As a general proposition, we agree that in an appropriate case a trial court may impose restrictions on a child’s overnight visitation in the presence of non-spouses.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Tenn. 2001).

2024On September 20, 2024, after Petitioners failed to timely file their appellees’ brief, the clerk entered an administrative order requiring the appellees either “to file a brief within ten days or else to show cause why the appeal should not be submitted to the Court for a decision on the record and the appellant’s brief.” After petitioners failed to timely comply, this court ordered that “this appeal be submitted to the Court for a decision on the record and the appellant’s brief.” Consequently, this appeal was submitted to the Court for a decision on the record and Mother’s brief. 4 The final

2022See Pickard v. Ferrell, 325 S.W.2d 288 , 292–93 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959) (noting that motions should be judged by their content, rather than their caption). 7 In its final order, the trial court awarded Mother attorney’s fees expended in connection with her effort to secure child support.

2022Schmittou v. City of Nashville, 345 S.W.2d 874, 883 ([Tenn.] 1961). “[It] is generally defined as a judge’s utilization of knowledge other than that derived from formal evidentiary proof in the pending case.” Counts v. Bryan, 182 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) . . . .

2022Schmittou v. City of Nashville, 345 S.W.2d 874, 883 ([Tenn.] 1961). “[It] is generally defined as a judge’s utilization of knowledge other than that derived from formal evidentiary proof in the pending case.” Counts v. Bryan, 182 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) . . . .

2022Suffice it to say, the vast majority of Mother’s arguments are unsupported by references to legal authority and the record. -5- We are mindful, however, that the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this court “should be interpreted and applied in a way that enables appeals to be considered on their merits.” Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162, 171 (Tenn. 2009).

2022But Mother’s brief on this factor fails to point to any proof presented on these issues. “‘[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in’ the record.” Flowers, 314 S.W.3d at 899 - 15 - (quoting Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2002)).