Skip to main content

Ferryl Theresita McClain v. Richard Perry McClain

Tenn. Ct. App.September 21, 2017No. E2016-01843-COA-R3-CVCited 29 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Post-trial settlement - contempt hearing followed by mediated agreement ratified by trial court

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Post-divorce custody modification case where the trial court found the father in technical contempt and ordered payment of expert witness fees as sanction. The parties subsequently reached a settlement modifying the parenting plan, maintaining father as primary residential parent while reducing mother's residential time from 97 to 85 days annually.

Excerpt

This is a post-divorce child custody action involving two children, who were sixteen and seventeen years of age at the time of the most recent trial. The parties were divorced by order of the Sullivan County Law Court ("divorce court") in July 2001. Concomitant with the divorce decree, the divorce court entered a permanent parenting plan designating the father as the primary residential parent. Although the permanent parenting plan was modified in 2003 and 2007, the divorce court had most recently modified the permanent parenting plan in February 2009 ("2009 PPP") upon the parties' stipulation that a material change in circumstance had occurred. The divorce court maintained the father's designation as the primary residential parent and awarded to the father 268 days of annual residential co-parenting time as compared to Mother's 97 days. At some point following entry of the 2009 PPP, the mother relocated to Texas, and the father and the children relocated to Washington County, Tennessee. Upon the mother's request, the case was transferred to the Washington County Circuit Court ("trial court") in April 2014. On March 20, 2015, the mother filed a motion in the trial court to modify custody and child support, as well as a motion for civil and criminal contempt against the father, alleging various violations of the 2009 PPP. Following a hearing regarding the contempt allegations, the trial court entered an order on June 30, 2015, finding the father in "technical contempt" and directing him to pay an expert witness fee as a sanction. Following participation in mediation, the parties announced an agreement, which the trial court ratified in a permanent parenting plan order entered on June 30, 2015 ("2015 PPP"). The 2015 PPP maintained the father's designation as the primary residential parent and provided the mother with 85 days of residential co-parenting time, a great part of which was to be exercised at her residence in Texas. On October 2, 2015, the mother filed an "e

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a divorced couple, Ferryl and Richard McClain, fighting over custody and support arrangements for their two teenage children (ages 16 and 17). The father had been the primary residential parent since their 2001 divorce. The mother went to court seeking to modify their existing custody arrangement and child support payments. She also asked the court to hold the father in contempt for violating court orders. **What the Court Decided:** The court found the father technically in contempt of court and ordered him to pay expert witness fees as a penalty. However, the parents eventually reached a settlement agreement that kept the father as the primary residential parent while reducing the mother's time with the children from 97 days per year to 85 days annually. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this is primarily a family law case, it shows how post-divorce custody disputes can create ongoing legal and financial burdens for working parents. Court proceedings require time away from work, legal fees, and expert witness costs. The contempt finding demonstrates that parents must carefully follow court orders or face financial penalties, which can impact their ability to support their families and maintain stable employment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.