TN Custody Change Requires to Proof of Material Change Affecting Child

Tennessee law case summary on custody modification and post-divorce and family law.

Timothy Lee Kendrick vs. Judy Kendrick Shoemake – Supreme Court of Tennessee on custody modification proof requirements

The Supreme Court of Tennessee stated in its opinion that it took on this case to determine the proper standard for courts to apply to a petition to modify custody between two parents, and it used this decision to set forth the standards that are used to this day.

The people involved in this case were the father, Timothy Lee Kendrick, and the mother, Judy Kendrick Shoemake, along with their two children.  The Parents were married in 1981 and divorced in 1990.  Their divorce included a Marital Dissolution Agreement with terms of custody and visitation.  The Mother was to serve as the primary residential parent.  The Father was to have visitation every other weekend.

In 1998, the Father won temporary custody of the Parties’ son by filing an emergency petition. The Parties’ daughter was already emancipated by virtue of her age, and was not part of these post-divorce modification proceedings.  As soon as the Mother received the papers, she requested an immediate hearing.  Four days after the Father filed the papers, the trial court set aside the award of temporary custody to the Father, and the Parents agreed to attempt mediation.

The Parents spent seven months in mediation and further court proceedings, including a hearing, until finally the trial court issued a ruling changing custody to the Father.  The intermediate appeals court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, reversed the trial court.  The highest court in the state, the Supreme Court, then agreed to review the trial record and it reached a decision that the Child should remain with his Mother.

The Child, who had special needs, was the subject of greatly conflicted testimony between the Father and the Mother.  Each made claims.  Each made criticisms.  One teacher testified on behalf of the Father, but the court found persuasive the Mother’s own testimony as to her involvement in the Child’s school and academics.

In addition to the question of school and academics, the Supreme Court decision lined up the testimony and contradictions on additional issues, including the Child’s home environment, the Mother’s marriage, the Mother’s judgment relative to the Child’s medical care, and the Mother’s attention to the Child’s best interests.  Throughout, the language of the Supreme Court decision comes back to the special needs of the Child.  Indeed, the trial record provided a high level of detail as to the particular needs of the Parties’ Child, and the Supreme Court used this information to fashion its award of continued custody with the Mother.

How the Supreme Court went about its decision was to put into an enumerated framework the questions that all courts in Tennessee should consider and discuss in cases of custody modification.  In what it termed the “proper standard” for a custody modification case, the Supreme Court set out the two primary questions as (1) whether there was a material change in circumstances; and, (2) whether that material change in circumstances affected the child’s best interest.

The Supreme Court made clear that the first question must be answered in the affirmative before a court could proceed to the second question.  In other words, the mere filing of a petition requesting a change in custody would not, by itself, be a sufficient basis for a court to conduct a full examination of the relative fitness of each parent.

In the Kendrick case, the Supreme Court found on the trial record that the Father did not establish a material change in circumstances.  The essential theme of the Supreme Court decision was that one error of judgment by the Mother in more than one type of incident did not rise to the level of seriousness required to trigger judicial involvement.  Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Father’s key witness to his allegations (the Mother’s current husband’s ex-wife) did not provide testimony corresponding to his allegations and other witnesses denied any conduct of the nature he alleged against the Mother.

No. E2000-01318-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. 2002).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

For more information, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans in Tennessee After Divorce.

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.