CompFox AI Summary
Bruce Varner (Father) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Petition to Modify Custody of his son, J.V. The original custody was awarded to Judy Kesterson (Mother) in a 1990 divorce. Varner sought modification in 2002, citing J.V.'s serious mental health issues, including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as a material change in circumstances. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding Varner failed to prove a material change in circumstances or that a custody change was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that while a material change in circumstances was established due to J.V.'s mental health, Varner did not meet the burden of proof that changing custody to him would be in J.V.'s best interest, especially given expert testimony on J.V.'s manipulative behavior and the guardian ad litem's recommendation for J.V. to remain with the mother. The court also affirmed the allocation of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees to Varner.
Kesterson v. Varner is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Bruce Varner (Father) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Petition to Modify Custody of his son, J.V. The original custody was awarded to Judy Kesterson (Mother) in a 1990 divorce. Varner sought modification in 2002, citing J.V.'s serious mental health issues, including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as a material change in circumstances. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding Varner failed to prove a material change in circumstances or that a custody change was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that while a material change in circumstances was established due to J.V.'s mental health, Varner did not meet the burden of proof that changing custody to him would be in J.V.'s best interest, especially given expert testimony on J.V.'s manipulative behavior and the guardian ad litem's recommendation for J.V. to remain with the mother. The court also affirmed the allocation of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees to Varner.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.