//WQ?CO/ g//oc> 7710~ f cr)¢l-/Qt¢> /CJ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF _... _, ,…, § E"’"‘“""”"MW FoR THE MIDDLE l)IvlsioN lM §§ U AT NASHVILLE PHILIP FonELL BERG, ) lth 9 g ma ) cerk or the A late Courts Father/Respondent, ) Recd By 1 _ 7 . V' ) NO. MZOlS-U(WZO~COA-§£QCV ) KEIKO SHIGEN() BERG, ) On Rule 10 application from the ) Circuit Court of Davidson County, Mother/Petitioner. Tenness€e NG_ 121)_575 RESPONSE TO RULE 10 APPLICATION Comes now the Father/Respondent, Philip Foxwell Berg (“Father”), by and through counsel and pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure l(), and files this Response to the Application for Perrnission for Appeal filed by the Mother/Petitioner, Keiko Shigeno Berg (“Mother”), on Apri124, 2018. I. INTRODUCTION A review of Mother’s Application reveals that, at best, Mother has inadvertently omitted material facts and misinterprets certain facts or, at worst, misleads the Court.l Father will address the issues raised by -Mother in turn and asks the Court to deny the Rule 10 Application. Father asks for his fees incurred in defending the Rule l() Application. l As will be discussed in detail throughout this Response, l/lother represents to the Court that (l) the Rule 35 Report was not admitted to evidence and (2) the March 13, 2018 Order states that “[i]n approximately 60 days, the Court shall set a status conference to determine Whether the terms of this Order should be modified and to determine whether ajz`nal order should be sez‘.” (Rule 10 Application at p. 7) (emphasis in Application). Both of these assertions are incorrect Of even more concern than these misstatements is a material omission made by Mother. Specitically, the main thrust of Mother’s Application is that she first learned on the morning of March l3, 2018 that “she was at risk to lose all contact with her children[;]” (Rule 10 Application at p 10), however, Mother fails to apprise the Court that Father filed a Proposed Parenting Plan over a month before the final hearing was to resume advising Mother of exactly this request These misstatements and omissions will be discussed at length in this Response. l5868N.'08040l 21281073.'2.‘NASHVILLE 1 This Brief is in response to the l/lother’s contention that the trial court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review by this Court. Mother’s argument to support this conclusion can be distilled to four distinct arguments: (1) that as “[Mother] was given no notice that she was at risk to lose all contact with her children[,]” (Rule 10 Application at p 10.), her due process was violated based on insufficient notice; (2) that the facts did not support a finding that the children would be subject to a likelihood of substantial harm absent a temporary modification of the parties’ Permanent Parenting Plan; (3) the trial court erred in suspending her rights of parents as enumerated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36- 6-101; and (4) that the trial court’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals