Dad Awarded Custody After Mother Attempted Alienation

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

William Thomas Fiala v. Kelly Lauren Fiala

The mother and father in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case were the parents of one son when they divorced in 2013.  The parties agreed to a permanent parenting plan naming the mother as the primary residential parent, with 261 days parenting time.

The father came back to court in 2015 asking for modification of the parenting plan.  He asked to be named the primary residential parent.  He alleged that the mother was alienating the child from him and his new wife.

Trial was held, and the father offered evidence that the mother had made the child unavailable during scheduled parenting time, was hostile, and used obscene language toward the stepmother in the presence of the child.  The father included video tapes, including one where the mother disrupted a softball game, and one where she enticed the child to abandon his time with the father.

The trial court found that the mother had made “overt refusal to comply with the parenting plan.”  This, along with denigrating and sarcastic behavior constituted a material change of circumstances.  The mother was ordered to participate in therapy sessions, after which she would receive 100 days parenting time, with the father receiving 265 days.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that there is a presumption in favor of maintaining custody arrangements, since children tend to thrive in stable settings.  To modify, there must be a material change of circumstances, and the parent seeking the change has the burden of proof.  This is a factual question which will be reversed only if the evidence preponderates against it.

The appeals court noted that there is no bright line as to whether there has been a material change of circumstances, but it agreed with the father that the test had been met in this case.  The mother argued that she was being punished for a “really bad day at child’s ball game,” but the appellate court agreed with the father that there was much more.  It found that there was not a single incident, but rather a pattern of hostile behavior toward the father when the child was present.  For example, it pointed to evidence of the mother telling the child that the father didn’t love him, and accusing him of “brainwashing” and “kidnapping.”

The appeals court then turned to whether the change made was in the best interests of the child, and held that it was.  It looked at the statutory factors, including the relationship of the child with each parent.  In particular, it agreed with the lower court’s finding that the mother had set upon a course of conduct to denigrate and alienate the child from the father and stepmother.

After addressing the other statutory factors, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had properly applied them, and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, although it denied the father’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

No. M2017-01280-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 21,  2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.

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.