Mom Gets Custody Because of Stronger Bond With Child

Tennessee child custody case summary in divorce.

Bettina Luise Lippert Engh v. Daniel James Engh

The mother and father in this Tennessee case were married in 2007 and had one child in 2011.  Shortly after the birth of the child, the father lost his job at Vanderbilt University.  The parties agreed that he would be a stay-at-home parent while the mother worked as a nurse practitioner.  This continued for about a year until the father decided to return to work, and the mother began looking for daycare.  The father worked only for about one week until 2014 when he relocated to South Dakota where his parents lived to accept a job.  Ten days after the father moved, the mother filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.

The main issue at trial was custody.  The father argued that he had been the primary caretaker while unemployed.  But the mother argued that even though he was at home, he dropped the child off at her workplace, with a nanny, or at daycare.  The trial court found that the mother’s testimony was more credible, and named her the primary residential parent.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that in non-jury cases, there is a presumption that the trial court’s factual findings are correct, unless the evidence preponderates against them.  It also noted that in custody cases, the overriding factor is the welfare and best interest of the child.  The appeals court pointed out that trial courts are usually in a better position to make those determinations, since they can view the witnesses and weigh credibility.  Accordingly, an appellate court will not reverse an order regarding a parenting schedule in the absence of an abuse of discretion.

The appeals court then turned to the relevant Tennessee statute, which sets forth the factors that a court should consider in determining custody.  It focused on how the lower court had applied these factors, and made special note that the trial court had found the mother’s testimony to be “appropriate” and “truthful,” whereas it had found the father’s testimony to be “problematic” and “self-serving.”

After assessing the parties’ credibility, the trial court had properly applied the relevant factors, the appeals court held.  In particular, both courts had focused in on the fact that the mother had formed a stronger and more stable bond with the child, since she took primary responsibility for providing for the child’s daily needs.  For example, the father admitted that he had never talked to the child’s daycare director, dentist, or doctor.  The mother had done most tasks such as changing diapers and feeding the child.  Both the mother and her co-workers testified that the father often left the child at the mother’s place of work for long periods of time.

The appeals court thoroughly reviewed the record and determined that the trial court’s findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, and assessed the costs of the appeal against the father.

No. M2016-00595-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws 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.