TN Legislator and Attorney Mother Face Custody Modification

Tennessee child custody modification case summary post-divorce.

The mother and father in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 2009. They had one daughter together, and the father had one daughter from a prior marriage. During most of the marriage, the mother operated a law firm, and the father was in the Tennessee Legislature as a representative for Greene County. At some point, there was a physical altercation, and the father filed for divorce, alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. The mother filed a counter-petition alleging the same grounds. The divorce was granted in 2013. Subsequently, the father, whose visitation had been limited because of the altercation, was convicted of misdemeanor reckless endangerment, but his visitation was gradually reinstated.

The parties finally agreed to a permanent parenting plan, with both of them sharing the designation of primary residential parenting. The plan provided the father with 155 days of parenting time, exercised mostly during the summer when the legislature was not in session. Despite agreeing to the plan and modifications, the situation continued to deteriorate. The trial court ordered both parents to undergo psychological evaluations. The mother’s evaluation recommended “brief therapy,” and the father’s recommended family therapy.

After a hearing at which must testimony was presented, the trial court concluded that neither party was a credible witness. Based upon the parties’ inability or unwillingness to effectively communicate, it found that there had been a material change of circumstances warranting modification of custody. The day count of parenting time remained the same, but the court set a more strict schedule. It also ordered both parents to undergo the recommended therapy and parenting classes. The mother brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. She argued that the trial court should not have modified the parenting plan.

The appeals court noted that the lower court’s factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness and cannot be set aside unless the evidence preponderates against them. It noted that whether or not there had been a change of circumstances was a factual question to be reviewed under this standard.

The appeals court quickly agreed with the lower court that there had been a material change of circumstances. It noted that both parties had admitted that there had been a breakdown in communication. It agreed with the lower court that this change significantly impacted the child.

The appeals court then looked at the lower court’s order to see whether these concerns were addressed. It noted that the new visitation schedule did its best to minimize the amount of contact between the parents. Given the parents’ inability to communicated, it determined that this was an appropriate use of the trial court’s discretion.

The appeals court did find fault with the requirement to attend parenting classes. The lower court’s order had made this attendance a prerequisite to future court motions, which the appeals court found to be inappropriate.

For these reasons, the appeals court reversed the portion of the order regarding parenting classes, but otherwise affirmed.

No. E2015-01333-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.