TN Parent Relocation Decision Must Include Best Interests

Tennessee law case summary on parent relocation family law from the Court of Appeals.

Cassidy Aragon v. Reynaldo Aragon  – Tennessee parent relocation law

Cassidy  and Reynaldo Aragon  were married in 2006 and had one daughter, who was born in 2007.  They divorced in 2010, and a parenting plan specified that each parent would spend 182.5 days per year with the child.  But the parties reached an agreement where the mother would work overseas and the father would care for the daughter along with his former stepdaughter.  As a result, the father was spending substantially more time with the daughter.

When the father graduated from nursing school, he informed the mother that he had obtained a job in Tuscon, Arizona, and wanted to relocate from Tennessee.  He did not search for similar jobs in Tennessee, but believed he had better prospects in Arizona.  His family also lived in the area.

The mother filed a petition to oppose the relocation and asked to be named the primary residential parent.  She argued that the move didn’t have a reasonable purpose, and it was in the child’s best interest to stay in Tennessee.  The parties agreed to temporary relocation pending the hearing, and the father returned to Tennessee for the hearing.

The hearing took longer than expected, and it was adjourned until a later day.  It did not, however, enter any further temporary order.  After the hearing, the father attempted to return with the child to Arizona, but was arrested at the airport for custodial interference.  He was released on bond while the matter was sorted out.

The mother had purchased a house in Nashville, but lived with her boyfriend who was recently transferred to North Carolina.  She had also applied to law school in New Hampshire.  The mother also introduced evidence that hospitals in Tennessee were hiring due to a nursing shortage.

The trial court, Judge Ross H. Hicks, ruled that the move was not reasonable under the circumstances.  The new parenting plan named the mother the primary residential parent, giving only 80 days to the father.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed because the trial court had never made a determination of what was in the best interests of the child.  Under the Tennessee parental relocation law, if a parent is spending substantially more time with the child, then they are entitled to relocate unless the other parent proves that the purpose of the move was unreasonable.  From its reading of the record, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had found the mother to have met this burden.  However, the statute then requires the court to determine the best interests of the child, which was not done in this case.

For this reason, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. M2013-01962-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law | Modifying the Parenting Plan.