APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a construction case. The defendant owner hired the plaintiff contractor to build a movie theater. The contract contained an arbitration clause. The owner terminated the contractor before the construction was completed. The contractor filed suit against the owner regarding an amount of money required to be held in escrow pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-11-144, which permits the contractor to seek “any remedy in a court of proper jurisdiction . . . .” The trial court stayed the proceedings and ordered the parties to arbitration. We reverse and remand.

This case involves a petition for termination of parental rights. The Respondent/Appellant, James Bostick Osborne, appeals from an order of the Juvenile Court of Davidson County terminating his parental rights as the biological father of Sherry Money Hendren. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This case originated as a paternity action. Shannon Rea Roberts (“Ms.  Roberts”) sought to establish that Creig McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”) was the father of her child, Dylan Daniels Roberts (“Dylan”) (DOB: February 14, 1997). The part of the case now before us concerns the petition to  intervene filed in that proceeding by Janice Roberts (“Grandmother”), who is the mother of Shannon Rea Roberts and the grandmother of Dylan. In her petition, Grandmother seeks court-ordered “reasonable visitation  rights” with Dylan. McLaughlin moved to dismiss Grandmother’s petition, relying on Rule 12.02(6), Tenn.R.Civ.P., and asserting that the petition  “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”¹ Id. The trial court granted McLaughlin’s motion, finding² that T.C.A. § 36-6-306 (Supp. 1998) does not authorize an award of grandparents’ visitation under the undisputed material facts of this case. Grandmother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition.  We affirm.

I concur i themajority opinion. I agree that the majority's approach to determining gross income for current child support is correct in this case. I write separately to express my view that the two-year-average approach utilized by the majority in this case may not be appropriate in all cases.