Serious Harm to Child Proven by Expert Witness in TN Relocation Case
Tennessee parental relocation law case summary in family law from the Court of Appeals. Mother prevented from relocating with children.
Nicolle M. Johnson v. Brian Keith Johnson – Parent relocation denied
Nicolle M. Johnson (“mother”) and Brian Keith Johnson (“father”) were married for 16 years and had three children together when mother filed for divorce in May 2009, citing irreconcilable differences. Mother was named the primary residential parent of their three children. Mother remarried and wanted to relocate to California. Father opposed the relocation and sought to be named the primary residential parent. Mother’s stated purpose for relocating to California was to attend a school to become a marine biologist. Mother married a man she had been dating who lived in California, and there was evidence that he was working for a company he helped to start. It was unlikely he would find a similar job in Tennessee that paid as well as his job in California.
By the time of hearing, relocation of only one child was at issue. Father introduced expert testimony that the relocation would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child that outweighed the threat of harm to the child from a change of custody, as set forth in the Tennessee Code. Relying on the expert’s testimony, the trial court denied mother the opportunity to relocate with the child to California.
The trial court held a hearing in February 2012 to determine whether mother should be allowed to relocate with the parties’ 11-year-old daughter 2000 miles away to live in California.
Expert Testimony was Compelling
Father introduced an expert during the hearing who testified that moving to California would cause the daughter to suffer substantial emotional harm. The expert gave her was an adjustment disorder.
Following the hearing, the trial court sustained father’s opposition to mother’s relocation to California with their daughter. The court determined that the parties did not spend substantially equal time with the children and that, in this situation the guidelines of the Tennessee Code Annotated would apply. The court found that mother’s relocating to California to go to school to become a Marine Biologist was not supported by the evidence and did not support a finding of a reasonable purpose; however, mother’s recent marriage did support a reasonable purpose for relocation. Also, the court did not see that mother’s proposed relocation was for any vindictive purpose. Finally, the court considered whether the relocation would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the minor daughter that outweighed the threat of harm to the child of a change of custody, part of which was the testimony of Elysse Beasley, an expert in the fields of mood, anxiety, adjustment, personality, and eating disorders. The court found that Ms. Beasley specifically stated that the minor daughter would suffer a specific and serious harm as a result of the relocation, which was significantly more serious than the normal temporary unhappiness and adjustment trouble associated with most moves for children.
The court found that the testimony of Ms. Beasley was credible and offered within the legal standards as required by law. As a result, the trial court held that it was not in the daughter’s best interest to relocate as a result of the specific threat of serious harm. Mother also admitted that it was not proper for the oldest son who was to graduate in May of 2012 to be forced to relocate.
Mother appealed the trial court’s order and claimed that the trial court erred by finding her relocation to California posed a threat of specific and serious harm to her child that outweighed the threat of harm from a change of custody and that it was not in the child’s best interest to relocate with mother.
Mother did not dispute the qualifications of father’s expert, but instead said that the expert provided insufficient evidence to support her testimony. Ms. Beasley testified she had met with the child nine times and they had spoken about the possibility of moving to California, and that it was difficult for the child to discuss moving to California because it was too painful to consider. Father testified that the child broke down when she learned about mother’s letter notifying him of her intent to relocate to California. There was also evidence that the child broke down in church the following day and that she broke down again at school. Father testified that whenever he tried to discuss the possible move, his daughter “locks up and breaks down.”
Mother did not retain an expert to testify that relocating to California would not pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child, as she could have done.
The trial court said that from the expert’s testimony, it was in the best interest of the child to change custody rather than relocate, which the court believed to be an important factor. In its review of all the evidence before the trial court, the court of appeals did not believe the evidence preponderated against that court’s decision, and it affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
No. M2012-00900-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 411467 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Miles Mason, Sr. is the author of Tennessee Parent Relocation Law available on Amazon and Kindle. To learn more, see 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.
