Mom Allowed to Move One Child, But Other Remains with Dad

The mother and father in this Madison County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2021.  Under their agreed parenting plan, the mother was named the primary residential parent of their children, a daughter born in 2008 and a son born in 2012.  The father was to have 165 days per year of parenting time.

In 2022, the mother made a motion to relocate from Jackson, Tennessee, to Huntsville, Alabama.  The father made an petition in opposition.  While the mother alleged financial reasons for her move, involving her job as an anesthesiologist, the father alleged that the move was motivated by the mother’s desire to live with her boyfriend, who the father alleged served as the children’s caretaker in many respects.

Prior to the 2023 hearing, the mother had changed plans, and intended to relocated to Memphis.  She again asserted that the reasons for the move were job related.  The father’s testimony focused on the fact that he taught in the children’s school.  The trial court found that the daughter was suffering from bullying at the current school, whereas the son was younger and had a closer relationship with friends at school and with father.  Therefore, it concluded that it was in the daughter’s best interest to relocate, but the son was best staying with the father in his current school.  Therefore, it granted the relocation request with respect to the daughter, but not the son.  The father was named the primary residential parent of the son in the event that the mother relocated.  The trial court awarded the father half of his attorney’s fees, and the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that nobody had appealed the lower court’s decision allowing the mother to move with the daughter.  The mother argued that the trial court erred in its ultimate decision, because that separated the siblings.  The mother argued that both parties’ requests were for the children to remain together.  But the appeals court noted that the lower court was not bound by that request.  It pointed out that the lower court had wide discretion to fashion an order in the best interests of the children.

The appeals court agreed that, in general, Tennessee disfavors separating siblings.  But it also pointed out that this preference must give way in appropriate circumstances.

After a thorough review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had acted within its discretion, which often hinges on subtle factors.  In this case, while the lower court found that both proposed schools were excellent, it was not wise to remove the son from his long-term stable environment.  While separation was not ideal, it was supported by the evidence.

The mother also argued that the trial court should not have awarded the father his attorney’s fees, but the appeals court held that the award was proper.  It also awarded the father his attorney’s fees on appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion penned by Judge J. Steven Stafford, affirmed the lower court and remanded the case for calculation of attorney’s fees.

No. W2024-00017-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.