Tennessee Mom Can’t Move Away with Son to Australia

Tennessee parent relocation case summary.

Kathryne B.F. v. Michael David B. – Tennessee divorce relocation denied & custody modification

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were divorced in 2008, at which time the wife was named the primary residential parent of their one-year-old son.  When she remarried, she sought permission to move to Australia with the child.  In 2011, the court denied her request to relocate, and instead named the father the primary residential parent.  The wife moved to Australia and began this case in 2013, in which she argued that a material change of circumstances had taken place, and it was in the child’s best interest to move with her to Australia.  After hearing four days of testimony, the trial court dismissed her petition.  She then appealed a first time to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  In that first appeal, the appeals court held that more detailed findings were required by the lower court, and sent the case back.

After remand, the trial court made no changes, but issued a lengthy opinion explaining its decision.  The mother then filed a second appeal.

The mother had based her petition on the grounds that during the time the father was exercising parenting time, the child actually spent most of his time with his paternal grandparents.  In short, she took the position that the husband was not fulfilling his obligations as primary residential parent.  She argued that this constituted a material change of circumstances, and that it would be in his best interests to live with her in Australia.

The father testified that the son stayed at his grandparents’ house most school nights because he believed it was best for him to stay in one home all the time, rather than moving from house to house.  At one point, the mother had written that she approved of this decision.  The father testified that he woke the son up most mornings and helped him get ready for school.

After reviewing the evidence and the trial court’s opinion, the appeals court turned to the issues of the case.  It noted that custody determinations are fact-intensive.  It first turned to the issue of whether there had been a material change of circumstance.  It held that there had been, based upon the fact that the child started school and had a different living arrangement as a result.

Then, the appeals court addressed the issue of the best interests of the child.  The trial court had noted that the father encouraged the child to have contact with his mother, such as facilitating Skype sessions.  The trial judge had found, however, that the mother had not been as proactive in facilitating contact with the father.  Another important factor to the trial court considered had been the fact that both sets of grandparents lived in Tennessee, and that the child had a strong relationship with both.

After closely examining these factors and all of the other relevant factors in the case, the appeals court was convinced that the trial court had applied the correct legal standards, and that the custody ruling was well within its discretion.  Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s order in this regard.

While some issues were reversed, the overall parenting plan was affirmed, and the costs of the appeal were assessed against the wife.

No. W2014-01863-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.