Judge grants absolute divorce, names mother primary custodian and keeps father—s visitation supervised

A Cheatham County judge on Monday granted an absolute divorce in Butler v. Butler, named the wife as the child—s primary residential parent and kept the father—s parenting time supervised while ordering the marital home sold and proceeds divided.

The judge said the evidence "warrants the awarding [the wife] an absolute divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct" and cited testimony and criminal records describing physical and emotional abuse.

The ruling matters because it sets custody and visitation rules, orders a sale of the family home and allocates specific property that will affect both parents— finances and the child—s living arrangements. The court also left the door open for the father to seek a change once his pending criminal matters are resolved.

In the ruling the judge noted multiple factors the court must weigh in custody cases and said the mother had been the child—s primary caregiver and maintained the household while the father has had repeated run-ins with the criminal justice system that affected his availability. The judge ordered supervised parenting time for the father "every other weekend" as daytime visits (Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), no overnight custody for now, and continued supervision until the father—s criminal cases are resolved. The court also authorized review and potential modification of the schedule after the criminal matters conclude.

The court directed the marital residence be listed for sale; after payment of debts the proceeds are to be divided equally. The judge assigned to the father possession of tools and a car lift so he can continue work as a diesel mechanic, awarded household goods and furnishings in the house to the mother, and said each spouse will keep vehicles in their possession and pay debts in their own names. The judge said requests for attorney fees may be submitted for later consideration but will be offset against each party—s share of the house proceeds.

The court also set child-support procedures: it imputed income for child-support calculations using state guideline assumptions rather than the father—s current erratic earnings, but allowed reviews if the father obtains steady employment. The judge required both parents to complete the court—s parenting seminar within 60 days and to report completion to the court.

Discussion in court included testimony about the father—s criminal history, supervised visitation arrangements through a local agency (the Eaton Center was cited as the site of supervised visits), and drug-testing requirements that had been ordered and partially completed. The judge noted probation and pending violations that could lead to incarceration and said those risks justified continuing supervised visitation now.

The judge told the father he could seek review of the visitation order once his criminal matters were resolved and noted the court—s obligation to protect the child—s best interests.

The court record shows the following immediate directions: the mother to list the home with a realtor and seek court approval for a sale contract below recommended list price; the father to be allowed access to tools and the car lift for work; supervised visitation to continue as ordered; drug-testing and related conditions to remain in place pending further court review.

The case will return to court for implementation details including the final accounting of sale proceeds and any motions for attorney-fee awards.