This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.thedailytimes.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Article published Nov 7, 2007 Attorney disputes Times report
Dear Editor: I have recently read two front page articles in The Daily Times about two separate domestic relations cases in Blount County Circuit Court in which I have been involved as legal counsel. The most recent article ran on Sunday, October 28, 2007 and was entitled “Never-ending Saga -- Knox Case drags on for years.” I cannot comment about the specifics of that case at this time for a couple of reasons. First, Mrs. Wright, the Plaintiff, has filed over twenty post-trial matters in Court, some as recently as last month (October, 2007), and some of these matters are presently pending in court. Secondly, legal action is being contemplated against The Daily Times, the author of the article and the principals involved due to the false and defamatory statements contained in the article.
The other article ran on October 10, 2007, and was entitled “Mom’s Religion Dominates Custody Hearing.” I will not repeat the parties’ names in this letter to protect the privacy of my client and his children. Contrary to the information in the article, the hearing on August 14, 2007, was the final divorce hearing in this case, and inasmuch as the case is concluded, I can address some of the facts of the case. This Daily Times article contained several blatant falsehoods. More importantly, by withholding certain important facts the author slants the story to make it appear that the Court’s custody decision was based solely on the mother’s religious beliefs. The article opens by saying the mother was “persecuted because of her religious beliefs at the hands of the Blount County judicial system.” It states that after a detailed discussion of her religious beliefs and a brief recess the judge awarded temporary custody of the mother’s two children to her ex-husband. The author of the article quotes from legal scholars saying it is improper to base custody decisions on the parties’ religious practices. If I had not been in court that day, the article might have convinced me that these statements were true. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
This case was a final divorce hearing between a husband and wife. It involved the custody of two teenage children, sixteen and seventeen years of age, who are both straight A high school students. The case was filed in July, 2006, and was tried on August 14, 2007. During the pendency of the divorce, the children voluntarily chose to live with their father. Both children testified at the trial on August 14, 2007, before Judge Young regarding their preference for custody. The father also testified in the hearing. The Judge’s ruling followed the stated preference of these teenage children and allowed them to continue to live with their father. My purpose in exploring the mother’s fanatical religious practices was to show the Judge the basis for the children’s preference to live with their father. The mother’s unwillingness to answer questions about her conduct and statements she had made to the children prolonged her testimony.
The Times article failed to mention that this case involved the custody of two nearly grown teenage children, that both children testified before the Judge and that the Judge merely followed their preference. I have to wonder why. What was the motive behind this article?
The reporter certainly cannot plead ignorance of the above facts because I carefully explained them to him before the article was printed. I strongly suggested that he should not even do this story because it is not really newsworthy when a trial judge merely follows the custody preference of teenage children.
The reporter and The Times must have agreed that these facts were not newsworthy because they failed to mention them anywhere in the story.
So the question remains, why? At best, it’s tabloid journalism designed to sensationalize and create a story where none exists. At worst, it is a calculated plan to discredit by falsehood and half truths the Blount County judicial system and a fine judge with many years of distinguished service.
Sincerely, Craig L. Garrett Attorney at Law 607 Smithview Drive Maryville, TN 37803