Judge continues supervised parenting for Daryl Duffy, adds Sunday hours and appoints guardian ad litem

Judge David D. Wolfe on Wednesday continued supervised parenting time for Daryl Allen Duffy but expanded his supervised Sunday hours and appointed a guardian ad litem, saying the father has completed required programming but remains a concern on decision-making.

The order grows out of a domestic case in which the court had earlier entered an agreed order requiring supervised weekend parenting and psychological evaluation. At a hearing, the father sought every weekend except the last of the month from Friday to Sunday unsupervised. The mother opposed the change, citing incidents she said showed risk to the children.

The court relied on testimony from court-appointed evaluator and board‑certified psychologist George Davis, who told the court he had evaluated Duffy, reviewed program work at Main Street Interventions and, after follow‑up meetings, found Duffy had learned de‑escalation strategies. “He was able to articulate to me his strategies that he learned for how you deescalate,” Davis testified. Davis said the father had completed an initial 8‑session anger management class followed by a combined domestic‑violence curriculum and a 12‑hour parenting program and that, based on that work, he had no professional objection to expanding parenting time if safety conditions were met.

But Judge Wolfe said the record also contained facts that raised continuing concern about Duffy’s choices — notably, the mother’s testimony that older children had at times been left home late at night while Duffy worked, reports of unbuckled children during a FaceTime while the car was moving, repeated claims about inadequate diaper changes, and the father’s hiring of a babysitter identified in court as “Nikki Shumate,” whom the mother and one witness said had lost custody of her own children and had other allegations in her background. The court also heard disputed testimony about an incident Duffy described as retrieving a client’s phone; Duffy said he had gone to a Franklin address with older children in the car and later was asked for money by a person who handed him the phone and wallet.

Wolfe said he accepted that Duffy had completed the classes recommended by Davis but that the father’s recent choices — especially leaving older children alone overnight and hiring a babysitter whose background raised questions — meant the court needed independent oversight. The judge appointed Mickey Furlong Smith as guardian ad litem to represent the minors’ interests and ordered that supervised visits continue while giving Duffy more time on Sundays: "I am going to continue the supervision, but I am going to increase the amount of time that he has on Sundays to 8 hours," the judge said.

The court ordered that the Sunday visits be extended so Duffy can demonstrate caregiving including feeding and hygiene. The judge also emphasized that all child transports must use proper child‑restraint devices and set a case review date in mid‑May for the court to reassess custody and visitation in light of the guardian ad litem’s work. The court directed that the cost of the guardian ad litem be addressed in court filings and noted that any further problems could be raised before the review date.

The mother, Britney Ann Duffy, told the court she remains worried about the children’s safety: she described diaper rashes on return from visits, episodes when the older children described dangerous nighttime drives, and continuing use of coarse language. The father, Daryl Allen Duffy, testified he has completed the required programs and said he wants more time with the children and that he believes his parenting has improved.

The judge said the order was temporary and designed to move the parties toward a more normal parent‑child relationship while protecting the children. The appointment of the guardian ad litem and the added Sunday hours are intended to let Duffy show, in a structured way, that he can meet daily caregiving responsibilities without compromising safety.

The court set a review in May; compensation and administrative details for the guardian ad litem and follow‑up tasks were left to subsequent filings.