Tennessee youngster custody case abstract on parental rights in divorce.
Darla Jo Adams Audirsch v. Griffin Lynn Audirsch
The husband and spouse on this Moore County, Tennessee, case had been married when the mom gave beginning to a toddler. However each events acknowledged, and a DNA take a look at established, that the husband was not the daddy of the kid. The trial courtroom denied the husband any parenting time, and he appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.
The mom didn’t file a quick with the appeals courtroom or in any other case take part within the attraction.
The husband argued that, regardless of the organic proof, that he was the “authorized mum or dad” of the kid. He primarily based this upon a Tennessee Statute which creates a presumption that when a toddler is born throughout a wedding, that the person married to the mom is the kid’s father.
However the appeals courtroom famous that whereas this statute creates a presumption that the person is the daddy, that presumption might be rebutted by the proof. On this case, the DNA take a look at (which the courtroom identified had been requested by the husband) mentioned that there was a zero p.c likelihood that he was the organic father.
On this case, the courtroom held that the presumption had been rebutted, and the statute offered that when the presumption had been rebutted, the person was not the authorized mum or dad.
For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom and remanded the case for any obligatory proceedings. The courtroom’s unanimous opinion was authored by Choose Arnold B. Goldin.
No. M2020-00279-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).
See authentic opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.
