Change in Parenting Schedule Remanded Not Supported by Analysis of Factors

Tennessee child custody case summary on custody modification and parental relocation.

John Glen Renken v. Jennifer Marie Renken

The mother and father in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2015.  The final divorce decree included a permanent parenting plan for the parties’ four children.  The father was named primary residential parent, with 234 days per year of parenting time.  The mother was awarded the remaining 131 days.

In 2016, both parties filed criminal contempt petitions based upon alleged violations of the parenting plan.  The mother also asked for a change of custody and permission to relocate with the children to Minnesota.

A hearing was held, at which it was revealed that the parents’ relationship was highly contentious.

A guardian ad litem recommended that each parent should receive equal parenting time.  The trial court accepted the recommendation.  Even though the court found that the evidence did not rise to the level necessary to change custody, it was sufficient to warrant modification of the parenting schedule.  The father was also found in contempt for two violations of the parenting plan.  The court also denied the mother’s petition for permission to relocate.

The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which first noted the standard of review.  The appeals court pointed out that review was de novo, with a presumption of correctness of factual findings.  It then addressed the modification of the parenting plan.  It noted that for the schedule to be modified, there must be a change of circumstances.  The change must be material, but in the case of a mere change in the schedule, the threshold is lower than for an actual change of custodial parent.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that this lower standard had been met.

But the appeals court pointed out that there is another step in the analysis, namely, whether a modification is in the child’s best interest.  In this case, the lower court had concluded in a single paragraph that the change was in the children’s best interest, but did not cite the facts supporting this conclusion.  The appeals court pointed out that the analysis is very fact intensive, and for this reason, that portion of the order must be vacated.

For this reason, the court remanded the case and instructed the lower court to consider the relevant statutory factors.

The appeals court also reviewed the contempt finding and concluded that this had been proper.  Since the mother had apparently not appealed the denial of her request to relocate to Minnesota, the appeals court did not address this issue.

No. M2017-00861-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 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.