[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6355951,"mediaKeyId","2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa","parentId",2217254,"title","Order of protection remains in effect until Feb. 24; court to end livestream for upcoming child‑testimony hearing","audioSeconds",118,"startMs",5942000,"endMs",6060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa&start=5942&end=6060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa/thumbnail_5942000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6355951/Tennessee/Order-of-protection-remains-in-effect-until-Feb-24-court-to-end-livestream-for-upcoming-childtestimony-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355951-4a74725e9fa19445889fb6bc0950356f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775610820&Signature=T1wmoM3-EVhDypPXKR7MKP7p8iOF37eZvxujAQ8HjrRHwomSP87qN0cMs6zGnXzDyjVzXARvYZ3OPSn8eV7lMHHWpaRQyTXSjaZ-NEw~ezFE1ITb9hxW46ZDR~w7d07OgvEWvwDgFkCZCEzNIj4yksLR4dBXFy1virESdBqskt1TD3u8JdG8Tm9~6REvjtvXSwd14v6e0TAMxnGdyYCko~mAywR~PfPqo0NPBljdZWSIkylm-0q-YsqcanBKg6Kf5vZX-H7TPpvLpBMgr31OuFqJA9oXWYhh3Z3IKLQCNhPBUJN7gir5xc1GGNkUquwFWiFIR5fs11X4XUSW76K7-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Judge David D. Wolfe","date","2025-02-04T04:54:48Z","article","The court continued a matter involving an order of protection and said the protective order would remain in full force until a hearing set for Feb. 24. Separately, the court ended a live YouTube stream for an upcoming hearing in which children are expected to testify.

Clerk and counsel told the court that attorney Jake Lacher had been retained to represent one party in the Dela Baker matter and requested a continuance; the judge granted the continuance and said the order of protection issued earlier will remain in effect until Feb. 24. \"That hearing date that was given him is February 24th. So that matter of the order of protection that was issued will be enforced until the February 24th day,\" the presiding judge said.

On a separate family matter involving the Jones parties, counsel asked that testimony involving children not be streamed because the hearing will include testimony about children's best interests and school attendance. The presiding judge agreed and directed the live stream to be ended. \"Then we will end the, live stream based on that,\" the judge said.

The continuance and the decision to end the livestream are administrative case‑management rulings; the court did not resolve underlying merits or modify the substance of the protective order during the docket call. Counsel were advised to seek an agreed order if they wished to alter the protective order before the Feb. 24 hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2-3-25 Humphreys 9 AM Cir Civ/10:30 AM Chancery","oneSentenceSummary","The court continued a matter involving an order of protection through Feb. 24 and stopped the live stream for a separate child‑custody hearing that will involve testimony from minors.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355956,"Judge approves sale of Johnny Baker Jr.'s structured‑settlement increase in exchange for $17,000 lump sum",246,950000,1196000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa&start=950&end=1196","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa/thumbnail_950000.jpg","/articles/6355956/Tennessee/Judge-approves-sale-of-Johnny-Baker-Jrs-structuredsettlement-increase-in-exchange-for-17000-lump-sum","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355956-2b2e37a22b7ffac38bddb9666a91d33e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775610820&Signature=G-3R2yn6Z0mdgZk5iF42ybxAHjbnGVQELaVQzqVyZoEfTkmDAJspc1qsjqsK59PuXz05oYO4mlQi3BJhiz3pdZag2h38OjiBXSIIruz8BCRZHnMBg5ge-l~W1~hCHzJExK1sLxsE86Sv9-lDYw8-bqxav6zzOJjsNzwj70h8gJohIggjdrGSe9AU9h8fRuNWgbDW1xwMVDKSZoG6GiJX3aJBjf0f2R8reOMcwYoDlxKljIwdAz0260Kd8pMFtwkfnTk5vAKFAFDUeSenVVegmt5pI0yOq9RLj92um8eDXSYrnxKXWcfvWapWjxMiws-Ap8sRKBp9eE-0FapKFAnOAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge approved Johnny Baker Jr.'s petition to sell future structured‑settlement payments in exchange for a lump sum, after questioning Baker on the payment schedule and confirming he understood the consequences.

The court recorded that Baker had been awarded a structured settlement providing 11 monthly payments of $386.64 beginning June 19, 2030, followed by 156 monthly payments of $398.23 adjusted annually at 3 percent. The judge said, by his calculation, \"without including any sort of increase, we come to around $66,376,\" and asked Baker whether he understood that trading away future increases meant exchanging a larger stream of payments for a smaller lump sum now.

Baker confirmed he was currently receiving about $1,000 a month and said the lump‑sum sale was intended to cover immediate needs including \"purchasing a car and moving.\" The presiding judge repeatedly asked Baker whether he wished to trade future payments for an immediate $17,000 and whether he understood the risk; Baker answered, \"At this point in time, yes, sir.\"

After ensuring Baker understood the terms and that counsel representing the transfer would carve out future $300‑plus increases so Baker would continue to receive roughly $1,000 per month, the judge said, \"Alright. I will approve this agreement. It's your money to do with what you want. So we will you if you'll submit an order, mister Kittle, I'll sign off on it.\"

The judge approved the application on the record and directed counsel to submit a formal order for signature. The court did not independently recalculate the present‑value offer beyond the figures discussed on the record; the approval was conditioned on submission of the signed order.

No creditor objections or competing claims were recorded in the docket call; the court's ruling was limited to the petition before it and did not address any collateral matters.","The judge approved Johnny Baker Jr.'s petition to sell future annuity payments for a lump‑sum payment after concluding Baker understood the trade‑off and consented to the transaction.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355961,"Judge gives Navy servicemember 30 days to file response in parental‑rights case under Soldiers and Sailors Act",352,5485000,5837000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa&start=5485&end=5837","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa/thumbnail_5485000.jpg","/articles/6355961/Tennessee/Judge-gives-Navy-servicemember-30-days-to-file-response-in-parentalrights-case-under-Soldiers-and-Sailors-Act","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355961-208038ae630a38be22fcfb38faae787b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775610820&Signature=P0Mi3mTSEah5bMoQ8sZPR7yRFrFikHflpS9SLlytrVpY4p3V2rM6rb~az2oOCCrd2bj~JXjuH65Aix5ChIvYwvbfCsYuwUGpjbgkVrzsUo0mncppIUYXQf6cvaTF~LttUv~eqEl-s14Tf62J3q2BmBv7H0XiDyiJcQsDqZSJA66sELLnRbm05s~~nfEkrnDkNhIUM1GH5TCe~pV9AZxLd2ddTSs9wM6eaWZUAeaMpGkGVGsr8F6VRGHnPyI8KYrFtmpUnmYPt4NQYieCi9ehfY5adycbGZVPU5uRCPOH6I3RwqMFjvDUQS2f3NoSYnxLcrtfNecBMN8RgA7A-2IweA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a civil docket call the presiding judge told Antoine Mills, a servicemember participating by Zoom, that the court has determined it is the proper jurisdiction for a petition to terminate parental rights and granted him 30 days to file a formal answer and retain counsel if desired.

The judge explained that because Mills is on active duty the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act applies and prevents entry of a default judgment while the servicemember has adequate opportunity to retain counsel. \"Since he is on active duty with the navy, then we have the soldiers and sailors civil relief act that would, prevent the entry of a default judgment until the court signs and sees he's had adequate opportunity to retain counsel,\" the presiding judge said.

The judge told Mills that the document the court had received was not a proper answer under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and that an answer contesting specific petition allegations must be filed. \"I'm going to...give you a 30 day period to file a proper response, and that's gonna give you time to hire a lawyer,\" the judge said. The judge directed plaintiff counsel to draft an order recording the court's rulings and provide Mills with a copy.

Mills told the court he had emailed a response while underway and later faxed a response; the judge said the filing did not comply with procedural rules and emphasized that the protection from default judgment under the Soldiers and Sailors Act applies only if the servicemember shows that service materially prevents litigation. The judge said if Mills did not file a compliant answer within 30 days plaintiff counsel could renew a motion for default judgment.

The court also noted that the parties had conferred with a Virginia judge and that both judges had agreed this court is the appropriate forum. The judge instructed counsel that the clerk would mail Mills a copy of the signed order documenting jurisdiction and the 30‑day deadline.

No final adjudication of the merits was made; the court's action was an administrative scheduling and procedural direction to allow the servicemember an opportunity to respond under statutory protections.","The court found it has jurisdiction in a parental‑rights petition and granted Antoine Mills 30 days to file a proper answer, noting protections under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6355966,"Circuit court juggling calendar; judge offers October start for multi‑day jury trials",493,222000,715000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa&start=222&end=715","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2217254-80e42cc1f598d01ce9468ee7f24118fa/thumbnail_222000.jpg","/articles/6355966/Tennessee/Circuit-court-juggling-calendar-judge-offers-October-start-for-multiday-jury-trials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6355966-6006036b3b2c665a9f194d73ceda6a88/orig.mp4?Expires=1775610820&Signature=ErDhAyeUBof1mAiUb05SwMyjdaFLlyCxPCzebrlDaGt4f6mD4gzKG~PwLRQi~ScZRcZxRjllPoFaBFk4oC70nTmipqqDYCWNeH9-SqZjEWSPS-H65h0eobBOtWXoPVuIoypdqKEMRdi3BOrczN6suwHazSc4pck8Zzy8XfhRo0rJieOm-dW5EJGzlHpKuwlfKISKBeYpEAahnkifsz5zZYHXygkgjKF1nZrV0s2EesmlbGRNo8LmcSolocjd~NQ3Q15nQy1IWZO8HCVuCfkNcITupZNcCzy~fx4tDVwTzJxPpG6B3Pcqt~ukayZCW3XF9xwaeLiqUmIR3l279mgqcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge said the court must reschedule several matters because of limited jury‑trial capacity and a rotating judge calendar, and proposed starting a multi‑day jury trial the week of Oct. 20, with a tentative start on Oct. 21.

The judge told attorneys the court has only one courtroom equipped for jury trials and that rotation of visiting judges and criminal‑docket demands constrained available dates. \"We're gonna have to take away the 26 of the criminal trial and move it to the 19th,\" the presiding judge said when offering alternatives, and later: \"We'll start it on 21st. Alright. That should be something we can confirm for you in short order.\"

The court discussed several candidate windows. The judge initially offered June 26–27 for a two‑day bench trial, then explored August and October dates for a four‑day jury trial. After several back‑and‑forths about conflicts, the judge proposed October 20–23 and, after counsel asked to begin on Tuesday, said the court would aim to start on Oct. 21 and confirm availability after consulting the district attorney and court calendar.

Attorneys told the court some earlier dates conflicted with other matters and with an existing trial calendar. The judge noted additional constraints: a newly implemented judge rotation that places a different judge in the courthouse monthly, judicial conferences in October, and criminal docket calls that occupy trial weeks. \"We only have 1 courtroom in this courthouse that's set up for a jury trial,\" the presiding judge said when explaining the scheduling limits.

The judge instructed counsel that clerks would prepare orders once dates are finalized and said the court would follow up later in the morning after checking calendars. No formal motion or vote was recorded; the calendar changes were set as scheduling directions subject to confirmation.

The calendar discussion also included a separate scheduling note that the court would move some criminal matters and probation hearings to accommodate civil trials if feasible. The judge said he would notify attorneys and the clerk would prepare any required orders to document confirmed dates.

The court did not enter a final, signed scheduling order during the docket call; the judge repeatedly emphasized the dates were tentative \"subject to my being able to confirm that I can move all of these things.\"","During a civil docket call the presiding judge described limited jury‑trial capacity and proposed October trial dates, tentatively setting a multi‑day jury trial to start Oct. 21 pending confirmation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Order of protection remains in effect until Feb. 24; court to end livestream for upcoming child‑testimony hearing

Judge approves sale of Johnny Baker Jr.'s structured‑settlement increase in exchange for $17,000 lump sum

Judge gives Navy servicemember 30 days to file response in parental‑rights case under Soldiers and Sailors Act

Circuit court juggling calendar; judge offers October start for multi‑day jury trials