Dad Prevents Mom from Moving at Trial But Loses on Appeal
Tennessee parental relocation law case summary in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Mother allowed to relocate with children.
Mann v. Mann, 299 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
Deborah Jennings Mann and Randall Edgar Mann, III, had been married for thirteen years. They were the parents of two minor children, who were two and seven years old at the time of their July, 2005, divorce. The mother was designated the primary residential parent, and she continued to live in the Nashville area, in Davidson County, for the next three years. The parties agreed that the mother spent substantially more time with the children.
In Marcy 2008, the mother became engaged to marry Douglas Kurt Duren, a civil engineer who lived and worked in Knoxville,Tennessee. She notified the father, as required by the Parental Relocation Statute whenever the parent seeks to relocate more than one hundred miles. The father filed a petition in opposition to the relocation. The trial court denied the mother’s request to relocate. According to the trial court, there was not a reasonable purpose for the move, the move posed a threat to the children, and relocation was not in the children’s best interest. The mother then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Since the mother was the parent spending substantially more time with the children, the Parental Relocation Statute allowed her to move, unless the father could establish one of the grounds in the statute. The father alleged that the move did not have a reasonable purpose, and that it would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the children. Therefore, he argued that the move was not in the best interest of the children. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and reversed the trial court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals first held that the purpose for the move was reasonable. The Court first noted that the mother’s new husband had a salary as a civil engineer of $84,000 per year, which was substantially higher than her income. It also pointed out that as a state employee, the mother was able to transfer to Knoxville and keep her present job and salary, but that her new husband would not be able to move to Nashville and keep his same job and salary. Her new husband had only modest prospects of obtaining a comparable job in Nashville. For these reasons, the Court concluded that the father had not established that the purpose of the move was unreasonable.
The Court then went on to discuss whether the move would result in serious and specific harm to the children. It held that the mere fact that the children were attached to their father, to their baseball and basketball teams, and friends in the Nashville area, did not constitute a serious and specific harm. The court classified these as part of the general “upheaval of moving”, which it previously held did not constitute serious harm.
Since the father did not establish either of these grounds, the Court of Appeals allowed the move, and reversed the trial court’s ruling.
Mann v. Mann, 299 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, buy Miles Mason, Sr.’s book, Tennessee Parent Relocation Law, available on Amazon and Kindle and read Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law | Modifying the Parenting Plan and the MemphisDivorce.com Tennessee Family Law Blog with more detailed cases sorted by relocation cases granted and denied.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including contested relocation matters.
