Judge denies grandmothers bid for court-ordered visitation, citing laws high threshold

A Dixon County chancery judge denied a petition Friday by maternal grandmother Laurie Neblett seeking court-ordered visitation with her granddaughter, saying the record lacked proof the child would likely suffer the “substantial harm” that the statute requires before the court may interfere with parental rights.

Neblett testified that she had a close relationship with the child, Oakland, during the childs early years and that contact had been curtailed in recent years. "I should have visitation because I want Oakland to know me," Neblett testified, describing attempts to maintain contact and saying she had received reports that concerned her about the childs situation.

The grandmothers attorney told the court the mother and father had blocked access and argued the severance of the relationship was damaging. The childs attorney countered that the statutory threshold was not met and asked the court to dismiss the petition for lack of proof.

After taking a short recess to review controlling authority, the judge read from Tennessee and appellate precedent and concluded the statutory threshold for judicial interference had not been satisfied. "Absent substantial harm to the child, the trial court lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for interfering with the parents' parental rights," the judge said, citing the courts review of Hawk v. Hawk and related appellate rulings. The judge said the evidence before the court showed the grandmother loved the child and had had a significant relationship in the past, but that the record did not establish the kind of likely, direct harm the statute and case law demand.

The judge denied the petition and declined to award attorneys fees. He said he hoped the parents would reach an agreement in the future but that, "the father is the one who gets to make those decisions" absent a showing of substantial harm. The court instructed the parties that, as the child ages, the child may choose contact on their own.

Key facts from the hearing: the petition proceeded without the childs biological mother in the courtroom; witnesses described a pattern of visits that had been sporadic and, at times, resumed before being cut off; the grandmother said she had made a welfare check and received information that alarmed her, but the judge ruled that secondhand statements in the record did not meet the admissible proof the statute requires.

The ruling leaves open the possibility of future petitions if new, admissible evidence is developed that shows likely substantial harm. The court said neither side would be assessed fees in this ruling.

The presiding judge closed the record and set the courtroom schedule for remaining matters.