Mom Denied Return to Canada With Child After Divorce & No Alimony

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 10 years married.

Geoffrey Cale Vermilyea v. Jessica Lynn Vermilyea

The husband and wife in this Dickson County, Tennessee, case met in 2002 in the wife’s native Ontario, Canada.  In 2007, the wife lived with her aunt and uncle in Tennessee, and the couple were married later that year.  When the wife completed school in 2008, she went to work in a dental office, where she worked until the parties’ son was born in 2013.  The husband also had custody of a son from a previous marriage.  The wife was primarily responsible for both children, and they both did well under her care.

The husband later filed for divorce, and requested half of the parenting time with the son.  The wife requested to relocate to Canada with the son so that the her family could assist with child care.  She had been to Canada with him while the divorce was pending, and the evidence showed that this had interfered with the father’s parenting time and that these times were not fully made up.

The wife testified that she was able to work, but had continued to be a stay at home mom while the divorce was pending, although she did purchase items to resell on eBay.  However, she did not show any income on her tax return, as she did not consider this a business.

The trial court, Judge Suzanne M. Lockert-Mash, denied the wife’s request to move to Canada, but named her primary residential parent.  The husband was given parenting time every other weekend and during certain vacation times.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that the trial court should have granted the relocation to Canada, and that she should have been awarded alimony.

On the relocation question, the appeals court first noted that such decisions are fact driven, and the trial judge is in the best position to make credibility determinations.

The trial court had mentioned the Tennessee parental relocation statute.  However, the mother pointed out that this statute applies only to changes in an existing parenting plan, and not to the initial order.  But when the appeals court reviewed the factors applied by the court, it was evident that the lower court had been applying the correct factors, even though the other statute was cited.

The trial court had also stated its belief that the move to Canada might not be indicated because of the wife’s “control issues.”  The wife argued that this was not the case.  However, the appeals court disagreed with her, and pointed out that the last visit to Canada had resulted in the husband’s loss of visitation time, and that this was likely to happen again.

For these reasons, the appeals court agreed that the evidence had supported the trial court’s findings, and affirmed the denial of the request to relocate.

The appeals court next turned to the wife’s request for alimony.  The wife argued that she should have been granted rehabilitative or transitional alimony.  However, the appeals court pointed out that she had introduced no evidence that she needed additional training or job skills following the divorce.  After examining the evidence, the appeals court concluded that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding to deny alimony.

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

No. M2017-01318-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.