Lawyer Father Claimed More Flexible Schedule Gets More Time

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

Courtney P. Brunetz v. Neil A. Brunetz

The mother and father in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2013.  They had two children, who were 5 and 9 years old at the time of the divorce.  The parties agreed to a permanent parenting plan which named the mother the primary residential parent with 245 days parenting time per year.  Under the plan, major decisions required agreement by both parents.

In 2016, citing a material change of circumstances, the father went back to court.  He stated that his work schedule as an attorney had recently become more flexible, and requested more parenting time.  He also alleged that the mother had disparaged him and interfered with his parenting time.  He asked for each parent to be awarded 182.5 days parenting time.

The mother denied these allegations and instead claimed that the father had become belligerent, demanding, and threatening.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court increased the father’s parenting time, but by only ten days per year.  The trial court also gave the mother sole decision maker with respect to education and extracurricular activities.  Specifically, the trial judge noted that joint decision-making was not working out.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that it reviewed factual findings de novo, but with a presumption of correctness.  It then discussed the legal standard surrounding a material change of circumstances.

The father argued that the trial court had improperly applied the statutory factors regarding parenting time.  In particular, he argued that the law favors an equal amount of parenting time.

But the appeals court concluded that the lower court had properly applied the statutory factors.  In particular, the trial court had noted that the parents were unable to facilitate a positive relationship with each other.  It also found that the mother had done a better job of helping the children maintain a relationship with other family members.

After examining the trial court’s analysis of the statutory factors, it found that the evidence supported these conclusions.  For that reason, it affirmed the lower court’s ruling as to the number of days of parenting time.

The appeals court then turned to the issue of decision-making authority. Here, the father argued that neither party had raised this issue in the lower court.  But the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that because the present system was not working, this change was appropriate.  In particular, it noted that much of the trial testimony had focused on issues of making decisions.  For this reason, it held that the trial court was justified in making modifications.  After examining the evidence, it concluded that the trial court had acted properly in ruling as it did.

After addressing the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling in all respects.

No. E2017-01391-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 20,  2018).

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.