Father motion in Tennessee

2023Tennessee law requires that, in cases challenging a judge’s impartiality, “‘a party must complain and seek relief immediately after the occurrence of a prejudicial event and may not silently preserve the event as an “ace in the hole” to be used in the event of an adverse decision.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Gotwald v. Gotwald, 768 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)).

2021In the absence of any substantive evidence from which we might conclude that the trial judge showed prejudice of a personal character directed at Father, see In re Samuel P., 2016 WL 4547543 , at *2; Watson, 448 S.W.3d at 929 ; Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d at 7 ; Alley, 882 S.W.2d at 821 , there is no basis for reversal of the trial court’s denial of Father’s motion for recusal.

2022We also recognize, however, that this Court has previously instructed that an issue may be deemed waived “where it is simply raised without any argument regarding its merits.” See Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); see also Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (explaining that the failure of a party to cite to authority or to construct an argument regarding his or her position on appeal constitutes waiver of that issue).

2013The failure “to cite to any authority . . . regarding [a] position on appeal” constitutes a waiver of the issue.” Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).“Courts have routinely held that the failure . . . to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by Rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 , 55–56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2019As a result, we deem the issue waived. “[W]here a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of Sup. Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

2013Multiple times in Father’s brief, he couches his interpretation of Mother’s behavior as “silence,” “inaction,” “passive non-cooperation,” “non-disclosure,” and “failure to disclose.” Husband even admits that Wife did not “lie to [] Husband or make [an] overt misrepresentation about her sexual affair and adultery.” “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 . . . .” -3- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Sup.Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

2024The notice must be “‘reasonably calculated[,] under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. (quoting Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374, 377 (Tenn. 2002)).

2022Our Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is imperative . . . that a party from whom custody will be removed, even temporarily, be provided with notice sufficient to meet due process requirements.” Keisling, 92 S.W.3d at 380 .5 In Keisling, the trial court temporarily changed custody from mother to father when only an oral motion seeking that result had been made by the father at a hearing.

2022We also recognize, however, that this Court has previously instructed that an issue may be deemed waived “where it is simply raised without any argument regarding its merits.” See Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); see also Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (explaining that the failure of a party to cite to authority or to construct an argument regarding his or her position on appeal constitutes waiver of that issue).

2013The failure “to cite to any authority . . . regarding [a] position on appeal” constitutes a waiver of the issue.” Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).“Courts have routinely held that the failure . . . to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by Rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 , 55–56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2016“Clear and convincing evidence is evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 Twice in Father’s brief, he asserts that the trial court erred in terminating Mother’s parental rights.

2015In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 546 ; In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2026Whether the trial court erred by entering its contempt order in violation of Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303, 314 (Tenn. 2014). 3.

2026Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 80 (Tenn. 2000). -7- Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2024) (citing Johnston v. Johnston, No. E2015-00213-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 739606 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015) and Elliott v. Elliott, No. E2012- 02448-COA-10B-CV, 2012 WL 5990268 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2012))).

2024Father’s challenge to the court’s denial of a continuance Father first argues that the trial court erred when, on the second day of the hearing, it denied his request for a continuance based on lack of notice.4 “Due process requires that ‘all parties to litigation . . . receive notice of important hearings and other proceedings.’” In re A.W., No. M2020-00892-COA-R3-PT, 2021 WL 4075102 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2021) (quoting Bryant v. Edwards, 707 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tenn. 1986)).

2024The notice must be “‘reasonably calculated[,] under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. (quoting Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374, 377 (Tenn. 2002)).

2023Tennessee law requires that, in cases challenging a judge’s impartiality, “‘a party must complain and seek relief immediately after the occurrence of a prejudicial event and may not silently preserve the event as an “ace in the hole” to be used in the event of an adverse decision.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Gotwald v. Gotwald, 768 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)).

2022The court granted Father’s motion, set aside its order, and reentered the order on October 27, 2020. 6 We review the trial court’s findings of fact “de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 112 (Tenn. 2013); TENN.

2020Newly discovered evidence is evidence that “was not known to the moving party prior to or during trial and . . . could not have been known to him through exercise of reasonable diligence.” Seay v. City of Knoxville, 654 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2020See In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 511 (Tenn. 2016) (holding that “appellate courts must review a trial court’s findings regarding all grounds for termination and whether termination is in a child’s best interests, even if a parent fails to challenge these findings on appeal”);3 see, e.g., In re Heaven J., No. W2016- 00782-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 7421381 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016) (reviewing and reversing all grounds for termination even though the father did not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding the various grounds).

2020Previous cases from the Supreme Court as well as in this court have found that “[t]he nature and substance of a proceeding cannot be transformed simply by the filing of a petition with a different caption.” State Dept. of Children’s Servs. v. Owens, 129 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tenn. 2004); see Clark v. Cooper, No. E2012-00684-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 1097773 , at *1, *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013).

2020See generally Eberbach v. Eberbach, 535 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2017).

2020Cf. In re Keara J., 376 S.W.3d 86, 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that credibility findings “will not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary”).

2020See In re Anthony R., M2014- 01753-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 3611244 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015); In re C.T.S., 156 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2019In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must “assume that the record, had it been preserved, would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings.” Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

2019“Just as the Henry [C]ourt concluded [that] the defendants’ having to proceed to trial did not constitute prejudice in that case, we conclude [Mother’s] having to prove her case against [Father] in a trial where both sides are provided the opportunity to present evidence in his or her favor does not constitute prejudice.” Id. (citing Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 868 (where defendant’s counsel withdrew from case and defendant did not receive notice of trial date, court concluded plaintiff was not prejudiced by having to try its case on the merits)).

2018Tenn. Code Ann. § 47–14–122 provides that “[i]nterest shall be computed on every judgment from the day on which the jury or the court, sitting without a jury, returned the verdict without regard to a motion for a new trial.” (Emphasis added.) “Courts do not have discretion about whether to award interest on judgments; it is required by the statute.” Cardle v. Cardle, No. M2016-00862-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2188534 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2017); see also Vooys v. Turner, 49 S.W.3d 318 , 321–22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)(stating that statute requires courts to add post-judgment interest to judgmen

2018Duncan v. Duncan, 672 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tenn. 1984). 4 On September 11, 2018, this Court entered an order acknowledging father’s July 31, 2018 motion, and stating that the motion and response in opposition thereto would be considered by the panel assigned to this case along with the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs. -6- Father’s motion indicates that post-trial, on July 21, 2018, R.L.’s stepfather was arrested for aggravated criminal sodomy with a mentally-deficient person and rape/sexual intercourse with a mentally-deficient person.

2018Father’s brief also states that at trial, 10 We also note that Father, as the appellant, had the “burden to supply a complete and accurate record on appeal.” Church v. Church, 346 S.W.3d 474, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

2017See Long v. Long, 957 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that “where a party in its brief on appeal has advanced certain arguments or has set forth what he or she alleged to be facts without any citation to the record, this court is not under a duty to minutely search the record to verify these unsupported allegations”) (citing Schoen v. J.C.

2017To clarify, the 2004 amendment of the child custody statute “resulted in Tennessee having a different set of criteria for determining whether a material change in circumstances exists for modification of a ‘residential parenting schedule’ as compared to the standard that applies for modification of ‘custody’—a statutory term the Court of Appeals has equated to the designation of a ‘primary residential parent.’ Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 703 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2017“A parent’s obligation to support his or her child exists regardless of a court order requiring the parent to pay support.” In re Jacob M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted).