TN Dad Can’t Relocate to WI After Evasive Answers
Tennessee child custody case summary on denial of parent relocation.
Jonathan Mackey v. Elizabeth Anne Mayfield
The father in this Tennessee parental relocation case and his current wife decided in 2013 to move to Wisconsin. The wife’s mother lived in Wisconsin, and the stated purpose of the move was to take care of her. There was a dispute as to whether the father had sent the mother the required notice of relocation. The mother admitted receiving documents and signing for them, but she claimed that those documents did not relate to the proposed relocation.
In addition to caring for the father’s wife’s mother, the father and his wife testified that the wife was unemployed, and believed that better opportunities were available in Wisconsin.
After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court determined that the relocation did not have a reasonable purpose and was not in the best interest of the child. The trial court found that the father and his wife had “serious credibility issues” and that the wife had evaded questions about her mother’s health, which was purportedly one of the reasons for relocating.
The trial court also found that the move to Wisconsin would not be in the child’s best interests due to lack of stability, especially since the child had relationships with both the mother’s and father’s families in Tennessee.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He first argued that the mother’s objection to the move should have been barred because she waited more than 30 days after he allegedly sent the notice of the move. But the appeals court quickly dealt with this argument. It agreed with the trial court that the father had mailed something to the mother, but that it was not the notice of relocation. In addition to the mother’s testimony, this finding was supported by an e-mail exchange tending to show that the notice had not been sent.
It then turned to the merits of the case and whether there was a reasonable purpose for the move. Once again, it agreed with the lower court’s holding. It pointed out that there are no bright-line rules, and that such determinations depend on the facts of the case. Here, there were serious credibility issues undermining the father’s position. His wife had been evasive as to why her mother needed care, and there was no evidence of any greater economic opportunities in Wisconsin. After examining the evidence, the trial court agreed with the lower court that there was no a reasonable purpose for the move.
The appeals court also examined the child’s history in Tennessee, and agreed that the move to Wisconsin and away from Tennessee family would not be in the child’s best interest.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the move.
No. E2014-02052-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2015).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.
