Child Starting School Not a Change of Circumstances for TN Custody Law

Tennessee law case summary on custody modification in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) v. Aaron R. Edmonds – Tennessee custody modification law

April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds), the mother and Aaron R. Edmonds, the father, divorced in 2008.   They had one child.    The mother was designated as the primary residential parent with both parents having equal time with the child.  In July 2009, following a petition to the court, the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Ohio.  At the time, the child was under school age and the visitation schedule gave alternating time to each parent on a bi-weekly basis, due to the distances involved.   In 2011, the father proposed a new parenting plan and asked to be designated as the child’s primary residential parent.   The mother filed an answer to the father’s petition, and included her own modified parenting plan.  The Trial Court found in favor of the father and the mother appealed.

According to Tennessee law, child custody may be modified if there is a material change of circumstances and the child’s well-being is impacted by this change.   The father argued that because the child was entering school, the current parenting plan, giving each parent a week with the child, was no longer feasible and required modification.

The father then argued that the child would be better off living with him.  The father (38), worked as a production supervisor and lived near his entire family in Cumberland County.  This gave him extra support for help with the child and provided the child with an extended family, which he would not have in Ohio.   The father also argued that the mother had less time for the child since she was expecting a baby with her second husband, who also had a child of his own with behavioral issues who lived with the couple.

The trial court found that there was a change in circumstances requiring modification of the parenting plan and that the child’s best interests were better served by living with the father.   The court agreed with the father that the child entering school was a material change of circumstances, making it impossible for the parents to continue the visitation schedule agreed upon.   Based on both the mother’s and father’s testimonies, the court believed the father could provide a more stable home with greater assistance from nearby family members.   The court ruled that the father should be designated as the primary residential parent and laid out a schedule that gave the mother visitations during school holidays, long weekends and summer vacation.

No change in circumstances – no question of best interests

The appeals court agreed with the mother that no change in circumstance had occurred that justified a change to the parenting plan.  While the court accepted that there is only a low threshold for establishing that a change has occurred, there are still specific legal criteria that must be met.   A change in the child’s schedule is not enough justification to change the parenting plan.  Because there was a request not only for a change in schedule but also to switch the primary residential parent, the case involves a question of custody.

Generally, courts will consider several factors in order to determine if there was a material change in circumstances that warrants a change in custody.  The court will consider if the change occurred after the initial order was made, if the change was one that was reasonably anticipated at the time the order was made and if the change affects the child’s well-being in a meaningful way.  The trial court held that a change in the parenting plan was required because the child started kindergarten.  The appeals court held that this was not justification enough, based on the three factors listed above, to justify a change of the primary residential parent.   The trial court permitted the mother to move to Ohio.  It was understood and expected at the time the order was given that the child would grow up and need to go to school some day.  This factor alone – a child growing older – cannot be in and of itself considered a change that warrants modification of the primary residential parent.

The appeals court also disputed the lower court claim that the father could provide a more stable home.  The testimony showed that both parents provided positive home environments.  More importantly, this issue was not one of material change but rather what was in the best interests of the child.  Since there was no material change in circumstances, there was no need to address the question of the child’s best interests.   The decision of the lower court was overturned.

No. E2011-02265-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation.  Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.