[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6163193,"mediaKeyId","5436406-7562b37f9f3e642247400ba9178f861c","parentId",5436406,"title","Judge sets every-other-weekend visitation and bars parents from discussing case with children","audioSeconds",945,"startMs",4391000,"endMs",5336000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436406-7562b37f9f3e642247400ba9178f861c&start=4391&end=5336","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436406-7562b37f9f3e642247400ba9178f861c/thumbnail_4391000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6163193/Tennessee/Judge-sets-every-other-weekend-visitation-and-bars-parents-from-discussing-case-with-children","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163193-d24195e78de6cc7b5e1998b0b9464d08/orig.mp4?Expires=1775527510&Signature=YVxno0ULsUv0VBKBsIdG-5asmTekKbaa6EFrPkOR32hRdRkjxeXgND1kCsSsjTHxYlxHZad~QHfzzy22H097Bk6C-2vYduWoRDMg0rA3jdLlcVpzDo30FdHMlmxKZiqqd4JkImKOqIdEgQZmLEVCCJVxO8rkVm1PQRCDWVEpNXiQqv-eQ44Kj4r6RhSLAvputJJcXnuwNwkf75fWb0QL~Ne6rVmvxsBjWT0OmQuk7hle4WAh7SF0Kn3rnrCuBJMqwiHr1t6Wb0ri~O8xvq4KdZ-8~rFHKTKGTXPqCDsVoTRd822iEQI2fhjQ0wTWrV5OSn6N2j0GTIF0s3WVlhDyeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-21T15:32:45Z","article","A Dixon County judge ordered a temporary parenting schedule during a family-court hearing and issued a directive forbidding either parent from discussing the divorce or making derogatory remarks about the other parent to the children.

The judge set father David Dixon's visitation at every other weekend, from Friday at 6 p.m. to Sunday at 6 p.m., and said the court will not force a child to attend visitation if the child resists; refusing to send a child under those circumstances \"shall not be used against him in any future proceeding,\" the judge said. The order addresses two children, ages 15 and 12, and reflects testimony about one child's sensitivity: \"Our daughter is borderline autistic, and she can't handle this much stress,\" petitioner Sabrina Smithson told the court.

Why it matters: The court weighed the children's ages and preferences and sought to balance parental access with the children
nd family's well-being. The judge emphasized that the children
re entitled to two parents but that the court must protect minors from being drawn into adult disputes.

The judge also issued a strict prohibition against either parent discussing the case or making derogatory comments to the children. He announced a direct enforcement mechanism: proven violations of that prohibition will be treated as contempt of court with a 10-day jail term per contempt finding. \"I am putting an order down that specifically and explicitly prohibits either 1 of these parties from discussing this case with the minor children and from making any derogatory remark about the other parent to the children,\" the judge said. \"Violation of this order will be dealt with as contempt of court. That means I will put you in jail ... you will serve 10 days in jail, and that goes for both of it.\"

Testimony at the hearing described sustained contact and communications after the petitioner left the marital residence. Counsel pointed to messaging records presented in court: the judge referenced approximately 263 text messages from Dixon to Smithson in one seven-day span and testimony that Dixon called and texted dozens of times after she told him to stop.

Smithson said she feared that Dixon's communications and statements could reach and affect the children, and she asked the court to prohibit him from interfering with the family and the business. Dixon acknowledged sending many messages and said he would not harm the children; he also apologized in court for the messages and said he would own that behavior.

The judge emphasized enforcement and future process: he ordered the temporary visitation schedule, prohibited both parents from disparaging the other to the children, and warned that future violations will be sanctioned. He also said the issue of a parenting plan and final custody will be determined later in the divorce proceedings after discovery and mediation. \"If he is awarded some court order visitation, ... if she has a choice, she won't go,\" Smithson said of one child's likely preference; the judge noted that a child 12 or older may express preferences that the court will consider when setting longer-term parenting arrangements.

Ending: The court\u000balanced parental access and child welfare by issuing a short-term schedule for visitation while imposing strict limits on parental communication about the case with the children; the matter of final custody and any longer-term parenting plan remains subject to discovery and later hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7-21-25 Dickson Chancery","oneSentenceSummary","A Dixon County judge ordered every-other-weekend visitation for the father and prohibited either parent from speaking about the case or making derogatory comments to the couple's children; violations will be treated as contempt with a 10-day jail sanction for proven breaches.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6163199,"Judge extends order of protection, bars husband from job sites and orders key equipment returned to Dixon Tree Services",4347,1337000,5684000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436406-7562b37f9f3e642247400ba9178f861c&start=1337&end=5684","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436406-7562b37f9f3e642247400ba9178f861c/thumbnail_1337000.jpg","/articles/6163199/Tennessee/Judge-extends-order-of-protection-bars-husband-from-job-sites-and-orders-key-equipment-returned-to-Dixon-Tree-Services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163199-41a3f04f78fc9a655fada02d039d59a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775527510&Signature=Fc~nC-8ZNmss~JnvZf8bsV3YP4m6mMtvPZjarLV40gNXzg7vbGtdOOGU5b3MUPMEmLDvtXLmQAFD5m19JTbqgyOjozqy~fNPOlen8b~iS2tz7inDd6jKcaTrZyj-OyzWgUmXxfAssaIGOLhjyadRP0KMsKmh3pPFhlUUboiBPuuOmN-Y9EUZ~euzkLzgHKg08vUFwZs60IyZb5EXJKA5CnqYNsOw1SvC3vtZx3~24juTI1MxrQhhQjiclXPlduLeaGbwlJjD0~Tfb9Y2N7FCcWhL7HCRBMNxKJrPiRRlXGp7p0ZhPyGfVXBtLQogQb9f3M~VQgUe7sRUOFa6J1eocw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Dixon County judge extended an order of protection on July 11 and ordered temporary limits on how David Dixon may interact with Dixon Tree Services LLC, including a ban on going to job sites and a requirement that a rented bucket truck and chipper be returned to the company within five days.

The order aims to preserve the business as a marital asset while the divorce and property division proceed. The judge said he would not resolve ownership or valuation now but that immediate steps were necessary to prevent further damage to the company. \"Bucket truck and the chipper will go back to Dixon Tree Service on a temporary basis. His ownership interest in it will be preserved. He'll have it returned to them within 5 days,\" the judge said.

Why it matters: Both parties testified that equipment and invoices are tied to the business and to personal names, but the judge cited Tennessee law that property acquired during the marriage is marital property and therefore belongs to both spouses in interest until the court divides assets. He said the court\u000found a factual basis to extend an order of protection to stop conduct that could \"torpedo\" the business while discovery and any further asset valuation proceed.

The hearing included detailed testimony about equipment invoices and ownership. The court admitted invoices into evidence that list purchases addressed to David Dixon and \"David Dixon and Sabrina Smithson, d/b/a.\" Dixon identified multiple pieces of equipment by invoice and cost in court, including a 1,500 BC XL chipper with winch for $92,500 and a 2019 BC 1,800 XL chipper for $56,500; the parties also discussed other chippers and bucket trucks. The judge repeatedly told both sides that whose name appears on an invoice does not by itself determine ownership: \"Any property that's acquired during the marriage from the date of the marriage forward constitutes marital property,\" the judge said.

Petitioner Sabrina Smithson testified that Dixon had taken keys and registrations from trucks, and that he had come to multiple storm contracts and sometimes disrupted crews. She told the court that when Dixon removed registrations and filed lost-title paperwork, a circuit court clerk later reversed those filings. \"He apologized to everybody, and gave the keys back,\" Smithson said of one episode; she also testified that Dixon took registrations and attempted to gift titles to himself.

Dixon testified that some equipment is in his name, that he bought trailers and chippers, and that police allowed him to leave a job site with a bucket truck. He also acknowledged sending numerous texts and making threatening statements to his wife during the dispute. \"I did threaten her to do that a dozen times because I was pissed. I did do that,\" Dixon told the court.

The court\reclared a temporary directive to maintain the status quo for equipment: neither party may remove equipment in the other's possession, and Dixon is prohibited from going to Dixon Tree Services job sites absent court permission. The judge also noted that any party who believes items in the marital residence should be removed must file a motion or work with counsel to obtain relief; he said Smithson currently occupies the tree-service equipment needed to operate the business and that the F-350 truck and other items would be dealt with to preserve operations in the short term.

The judge instructed both parties to conduct discovery on business assets and to participate in mediation before a final hearing. He said he would prefer to hear the property division himself rather than appoint a special master but did not foreclose that option later. He also recognized an earlier amended ex parte order of protection entered by Judge Lockhart Mahesh and extended protective measures in this hearing.

The judge emphasized that temporary restrictions do not negate Dixon's ownership claims and that valuation and distribution will be decided later: \"What I'm being asked to do today is ... to keep the peace between these parties and make some sort of a temporary division of personal property,\" he said.

Ending: The court\rirected return of the bucket truck and chipper within five days and warned both sides that discovery, mediation and a later property hearing will be required to resolve ownership, valuation and any requests for a special master.","A Dixon County judge extended an order of protection in a divorce hearing and temporarily restricted David Dixon\u000from accessing job sites and removing equipment, ordering a rented bucket truck and chipper returned to Dixon Tree Services within five days while preserving Dixon's ownership claims for later proceedings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge sets every-other-weekend visitation and bars parents from discussing case with children

Judge extends order of protection, bars husband from job sites and orders key equipment returned to Dixon Tree Services