Mom Entitled to Equal Parenting Time Despite Crowded House

Tennessee child custody case summary on maximum participation possible in divorce.

Travis Daniel Woolbright v. Lee Anna Woolbright

The mother and father in this Putnam County, Tennessee, case were married in 2013, about two months after their child was born.  The mother also had a child from a previous relationship, born in 2011.

The parties separated in 2015 after the mother began an affair, and the father filed for divorce.  During the marriage, the mother worked as a manager at Dollar General, and initially worked late hours.  But at the time of the divorce, she worked the early shift and was home between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.  The father worked for his family garage door business, and usually worked from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Shortly before the hearing in the case, the mother notified the father that she intended to move to Illinois.  The trial court ordered her not to leave with the child, and a few weeks later, she relocated to Illinois without the child.

The father testified that he lived with his parents, that the child had his own room, and that his mother cared for the child when he was at work.  He testified that he provided all of the care after getting home from work, such as feeding, clothing, and bathing.

The mother testified that she had received a better job at Dollar General in Illinois paying $8,000 more per year.  She also admitted to the affair.

The trial judge, Amy V. Hollars, made a final order declaring the parties divorced.  She named the father the primary residential parent, and approved a parenting plan granting both parties equal parenting time.  Because of the distance, the child was to be with each parent for three weeks at a time.  The order stated that it would be reviewed in 2016.

At the 2016 hearing, both parents testified.  The mother had quit her job, moved back to Tennessee with a new baby, and was living with her sister in a four-bedroom house with a total of twelve people.  She testified that this living arrangement was temporary, and she planned to find separate housing with the father of the new baby.

The father’s testimony focused on the greater stability he could provide the child.  He testified that he was in a stable environment, and had been all of his life.

After hearing the testimony, the judge once again granted equal parenting time, but now one week at a time, with the father remaining the primary residential parent.

Believing that he was entitled to greater parenting time, the father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the new parenting plan was inconsistent with the best interests of the child.

The father argued that most of the statutory factors were in his favor.  The appeals court disagreed, but noted that a numerical majority of the factors was not dispositive.  It pointed out that the inquiry is fact intensive, and depends on the discretion of the trial court.

In this case, it noted that the trial court had found that both parents had a strong relationship and demonstrated a disposition to provide the child with the necessities of life.

On the stability factor, the appeals court also ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion.  The statute requires the court to allow both parties to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child, and the appeals court held that this factor was not outweighed by factors such as the crowded living situation.

Specifically, the Court stated:

When making a determination regarding a residential parenting schedule, the court must base its decision on the best interests of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–6–106(a). To determine a child’s best interests, court’s are directed to fashion a custody arrangement that allows “both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child” in accordance with the factors enumerated in subdivisions (a)(1)–(15), “the location of the residences of the parents,” and “the child’s need for stability.” Id.; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–6–401(a) (“The general assembly recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child’s best interests.”). (Emphasis added.)

….

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in devising a residential parenting schedule that allows both parties “to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–6–106(a). The result the trial court reached is not outside the spectrum of rulings that reasonably results from applying the correct legal standards to the evidence. We, therefore, decline to “tweak” the residential parenting schedule “in the hopes of achieving a more reasonable result than the trial court.” (Emphasis added.)

Again, the Court failed to offer any particular commentary on the role of “maximum participation possible” in its analysis.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

No. M2016-02420-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.