Parent Relocation Denied | Examples from Tennessee Law
Examples of cases of relocation denied by Court of Appeals for parents seeking to relocate after divorce from Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr.
To learn more, buy Miles Mason, Sr.’s book, Tennessee Parent Relocation Law, available on Amazon and Kindle.
For more information, read the following and check out our blog section on Tennessee parental relocation cases denied.
Note: We built our Tennessee parental relocation section before the blog was created so we will eventually incorporate this information into the MemphisDivorce.com blog under the category of Child Custody. Stay tuned.
Tennessee Relocation Statute Law Resources
David Leslie Mitchell v. Cathy Renae Mitchell – M2004-00849-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Putnam County – Cathy Mitchell, mother and primary residential parent for the parties’ nine-year-old child, sought to relocate with the child to California . Her stated reasons were to live with her new husband and to be near his family, to seek a better job and better education for herself and her child. The father, David Mitchell, opposed the move. The mother spent substantially more time with the child and thus Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(d) applied. The trial court held there was no reasonable purpose for moving to California , such a move would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child, and the move was not in the child’s best interest. Therefore, it denied the requested relocation. Mother appealed. Finding no error, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Elizabeth Diaz Graham vs. Christopher Scott Graham – E2004-02247-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Bradley County -Elizabeth Diaz Graham (“Mother”) and the parties’ two minor children moved to Georgia in early 2000 following Mother’s separation from Christopher Scott Graham (“Father”). When the parties were divorced, the Trial Court expressly sanctioned Mother’s move to Georgia . In June of 2004, Mother abruptly moved to Jacksonville , Florida , without first notifying Father. Father filed a petition objecting to Mother’s relocation. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108 applied, that Mother had no reasonable purpose for relocating to Florida, and that it would be in the best interest of the children for Father to be designated as the primary residential parent. The Court of Appeals concluded that the preponderance of the evidence weighed against the trial court’s conclusion that it would be in the best interest of the children for Father to be designated as the primary residential parent.
Amy Butler v. Michael Butler – M2002-00347-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Davidson County – The mother of a minor child, as custodial parent, appealed the action of the trial court in denying her application to relocate with the child from the Nashville area to the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas area pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108(d). The Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the trial court.
Sandra Helton v. Shaun Helton – M2002-02792-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Davidson County – As part of their 1997 divorce, a husband and wife executed a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) which gave the wife primary physical custody of their child. One section of the agreement contained the wife’s promise to continue to live in Davidson County or adjoining counties and not to move from that area without the husband’s permission. The wife remarried. When her new husband transferred to a job in Jackson, Mississippi, the former husband filed a petition to prevent the wife from relocating. After a hearing, the trial court declared that it would enforce the MDA. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case for a new hearing because Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108 controls relocation determinations.
Thomas Monroe v. Catherine Robinson – M2001-02218-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Davidson County – This appeal arose from the granting of a petition to object to removal of a minor child. The trial court granted the father’s petition and prevented the mother from relocating out of state with the minor child, finding that the parties spent substantially equal time with the child and that the move was not in the child’s best interest. The parties raised multiple issues on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Mary Schremp vs. David Schremp – W1999-01734-COA-R3-CV
View Case (PDF)
Mother, the custodial parent of minor children, desired to relocate out of state to live with her new husband. Father protested the move and filed a petition in opposition. Finding that Mother’s new husband could easily move to Memphis to live with his new family and that dislocating the children was not in their best interest, the trial court granted the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Elpidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia – W1999-01812-COA-R3-CV
View Majority Opinion (PDF)
View Concurring Opinion (PDF)
This was a post-divorce action involving custody and relocation of the parties’ minor child. Father, primary custodial parent, filed a petition to relocate, and Mother filed a petition for change of custody. The trial court awarded custody of the child to Mother, and Father appealed. This Court reversed the custody award and remanded the case to the trial court. Pending application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, Mother filed a petition for stay of execution and a temporary injunction and also requested a change of custody based on changed circumstances. After the Supreme Court denied the application for permission to appeal, the trial court entered its order denying Mother’s request for a hearing on her petition and denying other relief sought. Mother appealed to the Court of Appeals.
