Kimberlie Edmonson v. Jeremy James McCosh et al. (Concurring)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2012 Session KIMBERLIE EDMONSON v. JEREMY JAMES McCOSH ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for McMinn County No. 23964 Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor No. E2010-01588-COA-R3-CV-FILED-SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., Judge, concurring in result. I concur completely in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my disagreement with the following dicta in the majority opinion: While the wording of [Tennessee Supreme Court] Rule 13 [§1(d)(2)(B)] indicates that Grandmother may have had a statutory right to an attorney during the termination proceeding, ... (Emphasis in original.) As relevant to the facts of this case, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 §1(d)(2)(B) provides as follows: In the following proceedings, . . . the court . . . shall advise any party without counsel of the right to be represented throughout the case by counsel and that counsel will be appointed if the party is indigent and, . . . requests appointment of counsel. . . . (B) Cases under Titles 36 and 37 of the Tennessee Code Annotated involving allegations against parents that could result in finding a child dependent or neglected or in terminating parental rights; In my opinion, this provision does not apply to Kimberlie Edmonson because she is not a party to the termination case and is not a parent[] of the child at issue in Father and Stepmother s petition to terminate Mother s parental rights. Accordingly, I would hold that Ms. Edmonson was not entitled to the appointment of counsel in the termination action of which she was not a party; and that, based upon well-established precedent cited in the majority opinion, she has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in the custody case of which she is a party. _______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
