Mom Can Relocate to AR, Despite Dad’s Objection

Tennessee parent relocation case summary.

Chris Schaeffer v. Amanda Patterson

The mother and father in this Shelby County, Tennessee, parental relocation case were never married but had a daughter born in 2015.  Under the 2017 permanent parenting plan, the mother was granted 60% of the parenting time, with the father receiving the other 40%.

In 2017, the mother gave notice that she planned to relocate to Blytheville, Arkansas.  The father filed a petition to oppose the relocation.  Trial was held, but neither the father nor his attorney showed up.  The court therefore dismissed the petition.  The father filed a request for rehearing before a juvenile judge, and the case eventually went to trial in 2018.

Prior to the relocation, the mother worked as a hair stylist.  She married, and her new husband lived in Blytheville, Arkansas, about 94 miles away from the father’s home.  He worked at a factory in Blytheville and earned over $100,000 per year.  The mother also had extended family there.

The parties offered much contentious testimony, and the father also called an expert psychologist, Dr. John Ciocca.  He testified that a child’s best interests are served by being able to interact with both parents on a regular basis, and that a long-distance move was detrimental.

The trial court ruled that relocation was in the child’s best interests.  The mother was also awarded over $14,000 in attorney fees.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court noted that the case was governed by the Tennessee parental relocation statute, and turned to an analysis of its terms.  That statute was amended in 2018, and the court found that the case came under the new version of the statute.  The appeals court first examined the relationship of the child with each parent, and held that under the circumstances of this case, that factor was properly found in the mother’s favor.  It noted that much of the mother’s family and support structure was in Arkansas, and that family in Tennessee was sparse in comparison.

The appeals court also looked at the child’s proposed school in Arkansas, and concluded that this factor supported relocation.  It noted that the case might be different in the case of an older child who was already in school.

One important factor was the fact that the mother had promoted the child’s relationship with the father, and that the father had not lost any parenting time called for under the original orders.  It went on to find that the relocation would improve the general quality of life for both the child and mother.

After examining the evidence in detail, the Court of Appeals concluded that the lower court had correctly applied the relocation statute, and affirmed.

The father also appealed the award of attorney’s fees to the mother.  The father argued that there was no finding that the mother was economically disadvantaged.  But the appeals court noted that the mother was the prevailing party, and that under the circumstances of the case, the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding the fees.  It therefore affirmed the award in the trial court.  However, the mother requested attorney fees for the appeal, and this request was denied.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

No. W2018-02097-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.