Tennessee Parenting Plan Kept In Place Despite Dad’s Allegations 

Tennessee child custody case law summary on modifying custody.

In re Jordin M. – Tennessee custody modification

Jordin was born in April 2008, and in August of that year, his mother filed a petition to establish parentage in the father and name her primary residential parent.  The father was named as the biological father and he was granted parenting time three weekends a month, but the ruling was not memorialized in a formal order for over a year.

In 2010, the order was finally entered which included some minor corrections.  In addition, the mother was awarded a judgment of $1100 for retroactive child support.  She was, however, cautioned to improve her behavior toward the father and to act like a civilized human being.

A few months later, the father was back in court alleging that the mother hadn’t taken this advice.  The court agreed and modified the parenting schedule to give both parents equal parenting time on alternating weeks.

A hearing was held in 2013, and both parties stipulated that there had been a material change in circumstances.  The only issue was the best interests of the child.  The father called a clinical social worker that the child had been seeing.  She stated that the child was afraid to say certain things in her mother’s presence.

After a long hearing involving many witnesses, the lower court magistrate made a decision.  He noted that the mother had made great strides over her earlier behavior.  After considering all of the evidence, the trial court named the mother as the primary residential parent with 255 days of parenting time.  The father was awarded 110 days of parenting time.  Disappointed with that decision, the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that custody determinations of a lower court enjoy a presumption of correctness and will not be set aside unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.  The father argued that the trial court had not properly weighed the expert testimony, since both sides had called experts.  For example, the court had commented on the fact that the father’s witness had referred to parties by their first names, but the appeals court noted that this one factor did not amount to an abuse of discretion.

The father also argued that the court had not properly weighed the mother’s bad behavior, but the appeals court again held that the lower court had given this testimony the proper weight.

After carefully examining all of the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s ruling.  Therefore, it affirmed the judgment.

No. M2013-02275-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.  See also Miles Mason’s book available on Amazon.com Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases.