Judge finds father in contempt over alcohol around children, imposes suspended 30‑day jail term

A Cheatham County judge found respondent Brian Keith Phelps in criminal contempt after concluding that the plaintiff had proven three willful violations of a court order prohibiting alcohol in the home during Phelps’s residential parenting time and related restrictions that followed his DUI conviction.

"I find by the credible proof in this court that you have violated this court's orders on 3 different occasions," the judge said, announcing a 30‑day aggregate sentence made up of three consecutive 10‑day terms and then suspending that sentence pending future compliance.

The contempt petition alleged multiple incidents: that Phelps was intoxicated with his minor son in the car (an event for which he previously pleaded guilty in Robertson County), that photographs taken by the daughter showed alcoholic beverages in the home during scheduled residential time, and that other post‑judgment events indicated repeated noncompliance. The plaintiff introduced photographic exhibits and testimony from both children and the mother, who said the images and prior court testimony established violations of the parenting plan and the court’s later order.

Plaintiff's counsel argued the parenting plan and the court’s November order specifically restrained Phelps "from consuming, possessing, or in any way subjecting the parties’ minor children to any type of alcohol during his residential time," and asked the court to impose sentences of 10 days for each proven violation. The mother testified that her daughter had photographed beer in the respondent’s refrigerator on dates that coincided with his residential time and that the children had seen the father arrested following the DUI incident.

Phelps denied the ongoing allegations, testified he does not keep alcohol around the children and said he had changed his behavior since the prior proceedings. He acknowledged the prior DUI and admitted he had consumed alcohol at earlier times, but disputed the timing and interpretation of several photographic exhibits. On the stand he said, "I've learned my lesson" and repeatedly stated he did not keep alcohol accessible when the children were present.

After listening to testimony, reviewing exhibits and assessing credibility, the judge described the decision as painful but necessary to protect the children and to enforce the court’s orders. "You can have alcohol anytime you want to as long as it's not in violation of your probation ... but you can’t have it where the children see it," the judge said. The court suspended the 30‑day sentence for the next year (11 months, 29 days), warning that any future violation will result in immediate execution of the suspended time and potential additional penalties.

The court also admonished the parties to co‑parent and communicate in the children's best interests and said it would act if it learned either child was punished for testifying. The judge closed the hearing with the suspended sentence on the record and set no immediate jail time, leaving the order enforceable if the respondent again violates the terms.

Next steps: the suspension will remain in effect while monitored by the court; future violations may trigger the suspended sentence and additional sanctions or criminal referrals for probation violations.