TN Dad Relocation Denied Since Job Didn’t Require Relocation
Tennessee law case summary on parental relocation in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In re Spencer E – Tennessee Parental Relocation Denied
In the case of Spencer E, the father filed a petition to relocate with the parties’ minor child. The trial court denied this request. The father appealed the decision. Heather W, mother and Christopher E, father, were divorced in 2004 and agreed to a parenting plan. The father was named primary residential parent of the two minor children. Mother was given parenting time on Wednesdays after school and every other weekend. She was required to make child support payments.
In October of 2007, the mother filed a dependency and neglect petition regarding Spencer. The mother stated the child had made threats against some playmates and to discipline him, the father got out a gun and told the child to point it at the father. A social worker found that Spencer was dependent and neglected. It ruled that for counseling and ordered the securing of all weapons.
In August of 2009, the father filed a petition to relocate and for criminal contempt for failure to pay check support against the mother. The father stated that he and his new wife were offered positions in Atlanta. The mother opposed the petition to relocate. In October of 2009, the mother filed an amended petition for dependency and neglect claiming several instances of misconduct by the father, including tell the boy to find a ride to school after missing the bus, telling the child that the mother did not love the child and making derogatory comments about the mother.
The hearing occurred in October of 209. During it, the judge talked to Spencer in chambers without a court reporter but with counsel present. The father filed a motion that the trial judge recuse herself because of not allowing the court reporter to be present. The trial court ruled that there was no clear and convincing evidence of dependency and neglect and therefore dismissed the mother’s amended petition. It also ruled that there was no reasonable purpose for the move to Atlanta since both the father and his wife testified that their employment does not require relocation. Additional factors considered where the lack of family in the Atlanta area, no specific plans for after school care for the child and a strange location. The lower court also noted that the father testified that his work prevents him from spending a lot of recreational time with the child.
It also noted that the child was taking medications and getting therapy for ADHD. It noted the child was in a stable school environment with friends and extended family. The trial court also considered that the father believed the move would put distance between the father and mother which he believed would be better for the child. With all of this, the trial court determined that the relocation was not in the best interest of the child.
The father appealed the decision of the lower court for various reasons, including that the move was not for reasonable purpose. He argued that the move did not provide for a pay raise but would allow his new wife to apply to be a partner. The father stated that being closer to the company’s executives could help him. The appeals court did not find this to be reasonable purpose to require a relocation of the child. Due to numerous factors listed here, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. M2009-02572-COA-R3-JV, Filed January 20, 2011.
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.
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 divorce, child support, alimony, prenuptial agreements, child custody, parental relocation, child support modification, alimony modification, and divorces including business valuation and forensic accounting issues.
