Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Family Law Custody topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge orders parents not to discuss custody dispute with children, schedules July 18 hearing and discusses guardian ad litem

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Faced with disputed allegations affecting minor children, the court ordered both parents not to discuss the case with their children, encouraged appointment of a guardian ad litem, and set a July 18 hearing in Room 5 of the Justice Center.

The judge presiding in Humphreys County Court ordered both parents involved in a Jones v. Jones custody dispute not to discuss the case with their minor children and set a hearing for July 18 to address the contested motions. The judge said the order was intended to protect the children from becoming involved in the parties' allegations and emotions surrounding the pending litigation.

During the hearing the judge discussed appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the children's interests and named two possible counsel the court often uses—Mickey Furlong Smith and Lang Coffin Berry—asking the parties to confirm availability for the July 18 date. The court said a guardian ad litem would likely require an upfront deposit in a private case and ordered the parties to check the suggested individuals' availability.

The judge emphasized the importance of shielding the children from the litigation and warned that violations of the court's order could carry jail consequences. He instructed attorneys and parties to preserve privacy and not to discuss case details with the children. The hearing will proceed July 18 in Room 5 of the Justice Center in Charlotte, Tennessee; the judge asked counsel to coordinate on guardian-ad-litem availability before that date.

The court also noted that some of the children may require therapeutic services and that the hearing could involve testimony addressing the children's mental-health needs. The judge reiterated that any allegations would need to be proven at hearing and that the court's primary obligation is to protect the minor children's best interests.