Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Custody Relocation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Custody and relocation dispute in Blue v. Blue continued; guardian ad litem reappointed and therapeutic evaluation ordered

Stewart County Chancery Court · April 11, 2026
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

A Stewart County judge continued the custody/relocation hearing in Blue v. Blue because the transferred file from Montgomery County was incomplete, reappointed Charles Parks as guardian ad litem, ordered therapeutic counseling with an evaluator (Dr. Eric) and set the next chancery date for Aug. 4.

A chancery judge in Stewart County continued the custody and relocation dispute between Lisa Blue and Timothy (Mr.) Blue after determining the court file lacked necessary transferred documents from Montgomery County.

Counsel outlined a complex procedural history: a final divorce order from 2020, juvenile-court involvement through December 2024, and at least one order of protection issued in March 2025 (with one such order later described as expired on March 3, 2026). The judge said he could not rule on matters not properly in the local file and ordered a short recess so counsel could certify and produce the missing records.

To ensure the children's interests are represented while the record is assembled, the judge reappointed Charles Parks, who had served as guardian ad litem in juvenile court, to the same role in chancery court. The judge also ordered "therapeutic counseling" (described in the transcript as therapeutic visitation and evaluation) with an evaluator identified as Dr. Eric / Dr. Erie, instructing that the evaluator may conduct interviews, review background materials and, if needed, perform a Rule 35 mental-health evaluation if a party files the appropriate motion.

The judge emphasized protecting the children from coaching or influence and said the evaluator should assess what is in the children's best interest. The matter was reset for the court's next available chancery day, August 4; counsel was directed to prepare an order summarizing the court's rulings and next steps.