TN Dad Claimed Parental Alienation Custody Award Remanded

Tennessee child custody case summary on custody modification.

Angela Michelle Newberry v. Jeremy Mack Newberry

The mother and father in this Tennessee case were divorced in 2010.  The mother was named the primary residential parent, with the father having parenting time every other week from Friday to Tuesday morning, as well as every other Monday night through Tuesday morning, and four days during the summer.  He was ordered to pay child support, and the amount was later modified.  The exact timing of the father’s parenting time was also subsequently modified.

In 2014, the father moved to modify the parenting plan and name him the primary residential parent.  In support of that motion, he alleged that the mother no longer had the ability to run the household and care for the children.  He argued that she was no longer stable, and that he feared for the two youngest children, who were 8 and 10 at the time of the motion.  He alleged that she did not help them with their homework or encourage them to do assignments.  He also alleged that the mother was allowing the older daughter, who was 16, to date an older boy who was permitted in her bedroom.

The father also alleged that the mother was guilty of parental alienation, because she had allegedly told the older daughter about the legal proceedings, and allowed her to read court documents.  This, he alleged, caused the older daughter to become upset with the father.

The trial court heard the evidence and issued its decision.  It first held that the older daughter’s boyfriend was no longer an issue, since she was no longer seeing him.  However, with respect to the younger children’s education, the trial court found that there had been a material change of circumstances, and that a change of custody would be in the children’s best interest.  Therefore, it named the father the primary residential parent.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that a change of primary parent required a two-step analysis.  First, there must be a material change of circumstances.  If there has been, then the children’s best interests need to be considered.

The trial court had based its ruling on whether the change of circumstances was one which could not have been anticipated.  The appeals court noted that this is the proper statutory test for a change to the parenting schedule, and not for a change in primary residential parent.  Since the lower court had based its ruling on this language, the appeals court concluded that the lower court was applying the wrong portion of the statute.  A different part of the statute should have been used for determining change in residential parent.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, and sent the case back for a redetermination, under the correct portion of the statute.  The mother had raised other issues on the appeal, but the Court of Appeals determined that these issues needn’t be addressed at the time.

No. E2015-01801-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 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.