Dad Failed to Prove Changed Circumstances Warranting Custody Change

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

Ballard v. Ballard

The mother and father in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were the parents of a four-year-old daughter at the time of their 2016 divorce.  The mother was named the primary residential parent under a parenting plan that was modified by the parties in 2017.    Under that plan, the father was granted 131 days per year of parenting time, as long as the parties lived within 100 miles.

The father was in the military, and was subject to deployment with little advance notice.  For example, he was deployed for 177 days from October 2017 through May 2018, and again in July and August 2018.  The 2017 parenting plan anticipated possible deployment, and allowed the child to visit the home of the father’s fiancée according to a schedule.

In 2018, the mother filed a petition to increase child support on the grounds that the father was not exercising all of his parenting time.  The father filed a counter petition asking to be named the primary residential parent.  He pointed to alleged cases of the mother failing to follow through on his parenting decisions, and an allegation that the girl was falling behind in school.

A hearing was held before Judge Ted A. Crozier, Jr., who denied both petitions.  Specifically, the court held that the father had failed to establish a material change of circumstances.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that a parent seeking to change a permanent parenting plan must show a material change of circumstances.  It noted that not every change in a child’s life rises to this standard, and that the burden of proof is on the party seeking the change.

The trial court’s order did not include detailed findings of fact, but the appeals court concluded that it could review the evidence even in the absence of findings.

It reviewed the evidence and the father’s allegations and agreed with the lower court that there had been no material change.  For that reason, it held that the lower court’s order should be affirmed.

For these reasons, it did affirm the judgment and remanded the case to the lower court.  It also assessed the costs of the appeal against the father.

No. M2019-00990-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.

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.