TN Mom’s Move to Florida Changed Circumstances But Best Interests Still Count
Tennessee law case summary on custody and jurisdiction in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.
Willard Harrison Iman, Jr. v. Megan Blanchfield Iman – Tennessee custody and jurisdiction issues
The mother and father of one child were divorced in 2011 in Tennessee based upon the mother’s extramarital affair and the fact that she brought the child around a registered sex offender. While the divorce was pending, the father moved to Florida for his military job, and the mother was named the temporary residential parent. They shared equal visitation. In the permanent parenting plan, the father was named the primary residential parent, and he was allowed to move to Florida with the child after the conclusion of that school year. After the child moved to Florida, the mother was to have parenting time on all three-day weekends.
After the final order was made, the mother also decided to move to Florida. She made a motion to the Tennessee court to modify the parenting plan for equal parenting time and to be named the primary residential parent. She still resided in Tennessee when the motion was filed, but she promptly moved to Florida.
The father moved to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction, and because Tennessee was an inconvenient forum, now that the parties and witnesses now lived in Florida. The court denied this motion, and a trial was held in Tennessee. There was live testimony from the child’s Tennessee babysitter, and telephone deposition testimony from the child’s counselor. The counselor testified that the child missed the mother, and that she believed it was in the child’s best interest to spend equal time with both parents.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds or under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It found that the mother’s move to Florida was a material change of circumstances, and modified the parenting plan to call for equal parenting time. The father remained the primary residential parent. Dissatisfied, the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The father first argued that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction because of the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Under that law, the Tennessee Court lost jurisdiction because the parents and the child now lived outside Tennessee. The Court of Appeals, however, pointed out that the critical time was when the proceeding was commenced. She filed her motion to modify when both she and the child lived in Tennessee. Therefore, the Tennessee court still had jurisdiction to consider that motion. The Court of Appeals also noted that Tennessee still had a connection with the case, since the Tennessee babysitter was one of the witnesses.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not apply. Under that doctrine, a court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate. However, the Court of Appeals noted that this doctrine is a drastic remedy and was not appropriate in this case. The Court noted that despite the distance, both parties were able to appear at trial and mediation. The father pointed out that the school records were in Florida, but the Court noted that if relevant, they still could have been produced at trial.
The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the Tennessee court was more familiar with the parties and the child, and that the court could decide the case expeditiously. In short, there was no clear advantage to having the case heard in Florida.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that there had been a material change in circumstances. There was some evidence at the original trial that the mother intended to stay in Tennessee, or possibly move to New York. There had been no suggestion that she actually intended to move to Florida. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of a material change of circumstances. Therefore, it affirmed that finding.
Despite this holding, the Court of Appeals did remand the case. The trial court had made not findings specifically on whether the change of parenting plan was in the child’s best interests. Specific factual findings are required, and there were none in this case. It made clear that this requirement is “not a mere technicality.” The requirement serves the important purpose of allowing the Court of Appeals to make a meaningful review. Therefore, it remanded the case to the trial court to make those findings.
No. M2012-02388-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
