Mom’s Moving Kids To New School Turned Change of Custody

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

Timothy Wayne Masse v. Mandy Jo Masse Cottar

The parents in this Tennessee divorce case had been married for eight years and had three children at the time of their 2009 divorce.  The mother was named the primary residential parent, with both parents sharing equal parenting time.  When the mother moved with the children from Maury County to Robertson County, the father went to court to modify the parenting plan and name him as primary residential parent.  The trial court agreed, since it found that the parties’ failure to follow the parenting plan constituted a material change of circumstances warranting a change in residential parent.

In making its ruling, the trial court had relied primarily on the fact that the change of schools made the father’s exercise of parenting time more problematic, since the children would be going to school close to where the mother moved, rather than his residence.  The trial court had noted that the mother had relocated “in an apparent attempt to maintain two failed relationships with other men in her life.”  It noted that the net result was that the father had less parenting time than he was entitled.  After weighing all of the factors, the court held that the proper remedy was to name the father the primary residential parent.  It noted that he had played a greater role and had been the primary caregiver.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that there is a presumption of correctness in a trial court’s factual findings, and that they will be upheld unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.  It noted that custody determinations are among the most important decisions faced by courts.

The appeals court first looked at whether there had been a material change of circumstances.  It agreed with the lower court that there had been.  In this case, one of the most compelling factors was the number of hours the children had to spend in their father’s car on weeks he lived with him, as he shuttled them back and forth to school in another county.  It also noted that at the time of the original order, both parents lived in the same school system, and this was not an issue.  Therefore, it was a material change of circumstances.

Next, the appeals court looked at whether the best interests of the children mandated a change.  Again, it agreed with the trial court that it did.  It noted that the children were doing well in the old school district, were involved in extra-curricular activities, and that there was no reason to relocate them to the new district.  Since the mother failed to show that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s findings, the appeals court affirmed.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, and assessed the costs of the appeal against the mother.

No. M2015-00822-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.