Custody Order Tossed for Internal Inconsistency as to Number of Days Awarded

Tennessee child custody case summary on parenting time in divorce.

Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett

The court acted properly in granting the father 90 days parenting time per year.

The husband and wife in this Anderson County, Tennessee, case were married in 2010 and had three children.  They were divorced in 2020, at which time the court entered its permanent parenting plan, which was the plan submitted by the wife.  Under that plan, the wife was named the primary residential parent, with the husband granted 90 days per year of co-parenting time.  The day-to-day schedule in the plan, however, only provided about 63 days per year.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, raising various issues, including the permanent parenting plan.  After addressing the property and alimony issues, the appeals court turned to the permanent parenting plan.  The court listed the statutory factors regarding custody, and turned to the lower court’s application of those factors.  In particular, the lower court noted that the wife had performed the majority of parenting responsibilities.  In fact, the lower court had gone further and noted that the husband had previously shown an inability or unwillingness to provide, such as withholding access to marital funds for groceries and clothing.

The lower court also cited the husband’s use of cocaine during the marriage.  The appeals court reviewed the evidence and concluded that it supported the lower court’s findings.  Therefore, it held that the lower court acted properly in granting the father 90 days parenting time per year.

But the appeals court did agree with the husband that the order was inconsistent, since the day-to-day schedule granted only 63 days.  Because of this inconsistency, the appeals court vacated the schedule and remanded the case.

At one point, the husband had been found guilty of criminal contempt for allegedly discussing the case with a witness.  The wife conceded that this ruling was erroneous, after the husband pointed out that the alleged conversation with a witness took place before he was told not to.  Accordingly, the appeals court reversed this finding.

The Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the lower court.

No. E2021-00900-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?

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.