Equal Parenting Time Schedule Changed After Problems After Tennessee Divorce

Tennessee law case summary on changing parenting time in family law from the Court of Appeals.

Joshua Wayne Taylor v. Mary Katherine Taylor – Tennessee custody modification

The mother and father in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 2008 and had one daughter, born in 2009.  They separated in 2010 and agreed to a permanent parenting plan.  They were granted a divorce in 2011, and the parenting plan was incorporated into the decree.  Under that plan, the mother was granted 183 parenting days per year, and the father was granted 182.  The schedule provided that the father had the daughter every other weekend and every Monday and Tuesday, along with 26 days vacation time.

A month after the divorce, the father married his college girlfriend.  Upon learning this, the mother was “absolutely livid.”  She moved to modify the parenting plan on the grounds of changed circumstances.  The father also moved to modify the agreement on the grounds that the mother was not providing a safe environment for the daughter.  He pointed to the mother’s other son, who had a history of drug and alcohol abuse.  Both sides filed contempt motions, both of which were ultimately dismissed.

A trial was held, which mostly focused on the problems both parties had experienced with the schedule.  There had been thousands of text messages pointing to these problems regarding pick-up schedules.  The father pointed out that the mother was sometimes flexible, but when she was angry, she demanded strict compliance with the 8:00 AM pickup times.

After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court granted the mother’s motion to modify the visitation schedule.  The net result was that the mother was granted more parenting time.  Dissatisfied with this outcome, the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals first noted the correct standard of review.  Review of such cases is de novo, but with a presumption that the lower court’s findings are correct.  It also noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to child custody determinations, and appellate courts should not interfere unless there is a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.

The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence, and noted that the trial court had essentially rejected some of the father’s evidence, the ones that the father had pointed to as changes of circumstance in his favor.  The appeals court agreed that the facts cited by the father did not rise to the level of a material change of circumstances.

The court then looked at the factors relied upon by the mother in support of her claim of material change of circumstances.  In particular, they pointed to how problematic and difficult the earlier schedule had been to put into effect.  The appeals court quoted the trial court’s language about the futility of trying to have equal parenting time, and how it rarely worked well for the children.

Based upon its review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had not erred in adjusting the parenting schedule.  Accordingly, it affirmed.

The court also reviewed the contempt motions and child support order, and concluded that these rulings should also be affirmed.

No. E2013-01734-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Child Custody Law.  See also Miles Mason’s book available on Amazon.com Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases.