Mom Cannot Relocate Child When Dad Spending Substantially Equal TIme

Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets book by Miles Mason, Sr. available on Amazon

Tennessee child custody case summary on parental relocation.

Lindsey Bailey Harmon (Jean) v. Richard Bradley Harmon

The mother and father in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were the parents of a 2-1/2 year old child at the time of their 2013 divorce.  The mother was named the primary residential parent with 209 days annual parenting time.  The father was allocated 156 days per year.  Bothe parents lived in Memphis and worked well together with parenting arrangements.  They frequently deviated from the schedule due to accommodate each other’s schedule.

Both parents remarried and both step-parents had a healthy relationship with the children.  In 2017, the mother informed the father that her new husband, a surgeon, had been offered a job in Chattanooga.  She informed the father that she intended to move with the child.  The father filed a petition in opposition to the move, which was heard by Judge Mary L. Wagner.  He alleged that the move would cause harm to the child by ending the day-to-day interaction with the father.

The mother responded that she would encourage the relationship with the father.  A hearing was held at which the parents and other family friends testified.  Judge Wagner held that the child had been spending substantially equal amounts of time with each parent.  This is the first decision that must be made, since it determines which section of the parental relocation statute applies.  The court went on to find that the move was not in the child’s best interest and prohibited the mother from moving with the child.  The court’s order also speified that if the mother moved, then the father would be named primary residential parent.  Disappointed with this outcome, the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The mother first argued that the lower court had erred in finding that the child had spent substantially equal time with each parent.  After reviewing the parental relocation statute, the appeals court turned to that issue.  It noted that there is no bright line as to what constitutes “substantially equal,” but noted that the key factor was time actually spent with the child.

Here, the parties generally followed the parenting plan, which called for a 57%/43% split.  But both parties introduced calendars to show time actually spent over the year.  The trial court found that the differences were negligible, and that the split shown in the parenting plan could constitute substantially equal time.  It cited an earlier case with the same split, which held that the amounts of time needn’t be exactly equal.

After reviewing the evidence and later caselaw, the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the times spent were substantially equal.  It then turned to the issue of whether the move was in the child’s best interest.  It noted that the lower court had made extensive factual findings, and after reviewing the evidence and the statutory standards, it agreed with the lower court’s ruling.

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

No. W2017-02452-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.

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.