Mom Can Relocate with Child to Colorado Despite Viability of New Job

Tennessee parent relocation law case summary.

The mother and father in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2015. They had two children who were seven and fifteen years old at the time of trial. Under the permanent parenting plan, the mother was named as the primary residential parent of one child and the father named primary residential parent of the other.

The mother worked in Chattanooga with a salary of $80,000 until she lost her job in June 2015. In August of that year, she informed the father of her intention to move to Littleton, Colorado, with the child. She had been offered a job there, anticipated another job offer, and would be closer to her family. The father filed a petition in opposition, but the mother moved in September. In October, the court ordered her to return the child to the jurisdiction of the court. She returned the child to Chattanooga in October.

At trial, the father questioned the need for the move, and also argued that the mother’s motive was vindictive.

The trial court disallowed the move. It questioned the new employer’s experience in the proposed line of business, and for this reason, held that the move was not reasonable. It held, however, that vindictiveness was not the motive for the move. Since it went on to hold that the move was not in the child’s best interests, it denied the relocation. The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that the case was governed by the Tennessee parental relocation statute. The decision under that statute first hinges on whether the parents spend substantially equal time with the child. Since they did not, it turned to the portion of the statute which governed the case.

In those cases, the statute gives rise to a presumption in favor of the move, unless the other parent shows that the relocation is unreasonable. The appeals court noted that this determination is fact intensive, especially when it involves career advancement opportunities. In this case, the lower court had focused on the mother’s prospective employer, and noted that there was an implicit requirement of certainty with respect to the entity making the offer. In this case, the company had no proven track record in the proposed line of business, and the compensation was speculative.

The Court of Appeals agreed that job opportunities must be more than “a mere hope or belief.” However, it also noted that they need not be an absolute certainty.

In this case, it noted that the prospective employer had experience with start-up companies, and had already contributed and raised capital.

The appeals court also noted that the father had not shown any job opportunities in the Chattanooga area. For this reason, the Court held that the father had not proven that the move was unreasonable.

The court also examined the evidence regarding vindictive motive, and agreed with the lower court that the reason for the move was not vindictive.

Since the father had not established either of these statutory grounds, the Court of Appeals held that the lower court had erred in denying the move. Therefore, it reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for futher proceedings.

No. E2016-00231-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2016).

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 actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.