Secret Baptism of Child Does Not Warrant Custody Change

Tennessee child custody modification case summary.

Raymond Cass Ballard v. Gertrude Cayabas

The mother and father in this Dyer County, Tennessee, case had a child born in 2008, and were divorced in 2011.  The permanent parenting plan named the mother as the child’s primary residential parent.  In 2015, the father returned to court asking for a modification to be named primary residential parent.  He also asked for the mother to be held in contempt.

The father based his motion on a number of occurrences which were largely undisputed.  First, mother took the child to New Mexico, where the child was baptized without the father’s knowledge.  Second, the mother obtained dental insurance and made a dental appointment without the father’s knowledge.  He also alleged that she failed to provide an itinerary during out-of-state travel, and failed to pay some medical co-pays.

After the trial court ruled against him, the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  After some initial confusion as to when the notice of appeal was filed, the appeals court considered the case.

The appeals court began by reciting the standard of review in such cases, namely, that factual findings of the trial court are presumed correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.

In order for a court to modify a permanent parenting plan, there must be a material change of circumstances.  If there is, then the court must consider the best interests of the child.

The trial court had found that the baptism was a fairly serious violation by the mother, because the father was precluded from taking part in this significant event.  But the trial court also noted that this had taken place four years before the father filed the petition.  There was no evidence that this had adversely affected the child in the intervening years.  Therefore, the trial court held that this did not warrant a change of custody.

After reviewing the rest of the evidence, the appeals court agreed that the lower court had taken the correct approach.  Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s finding that the parenting plan should not be modified.

Similarly, the appeals court considered the father’s contempt motion.  While the mother should have paid the co-pays, the appeals court found that there was no evidence that she had an ability to pay.  Therefore, contempt was not an appropriate remedy.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. W2016-01913-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2017).

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.