No Change in Parenting Plan for Happy Well Adjusted TN Child
Tennessee child custody case summary on changing custody after divorce.
Matthew Lee Wheeler v. Alethia Danielle Wheeler
The mother and father in this Tennessee case were divorced in 2009, and had one daughter, who was born in 2005. The mother was named the primary residential parent, and each parent was awarded 182.5 days of parenting time per year, to be exercised every other week. The parenting plan provided that neither parent would have a romantically related guest overnight, and the children would not be exposed to alcohol or illegal drugs.
In 2014, the mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan on the grounds that the father lived with his girlfriend and had a severe alcohol problem. After trial, the court held that there had not been a material change of circumstances and refused to modify the parenting plan. Dissatisfied, the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court first noted that in a non-jury case, the lower court’s factual findings had a presumption of correctness, and that they would not be reversed unless the evidence preponderated against them. In this case, there was evidence that there had been a material change of circumstances, so the appeals court turned to the question of whether a change in the parenting plan would be in the child’s best interests.
The lower court had found that the father’s girlfriend had sometimes stayed with him overnight, and that the father had used alcohol in the child’s presence. However, it also found that the child was happy, well adjusted, and thriving. She had a close relationship with her paternal grandparents, and the father spent a great deal of quality time with her. Despite some poor choices, the court had found that the father was getting his life back on track.
After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had correctly applied the relevant factors in making its determination, and held that the evidence supported the finding that a change in the parenting plan was not in the child’s best interests.
Other than merely quoting the relevant part of Tennessee’s custody statute, Section 36–6–106(a), which references “maximum participation possible,” the Court of Appeals mentioned no particular fact or factor in it’s analysis:
While Mother argues that the court should have reached a different result, she does not point to evidence which preponderates against the trial court’s findings relative to the factors at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–6–106. [I]n our review of the record, we have found no evidence that supports another factual conclusion with greater convincing effect. Upon evaluating all the relevant factors, the trial court concluded that modifying the parenting schedule was not in the child’s best interest. The evidence does not preponderate against this finding.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. M2015-00377-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2016).
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 actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
