Mom Can Relocate to TX, Despite Court Not Believing Her Testimony
Tennessee child custody case summary on parent relocation.
Ronald Stringer v. Alecia Stringer
The mother and father in this Tennessee parental relocation case were married in 1998, and moved often due to the father’s job as a preacher. Their daughter was born in 2006, and they separated in 2013. They were divorced in Texas in 2014, and in 2015, the divorce was domesticated in Tennessee, where both were living. The mother was named the primary residential parent, with the father being the alternate residential parent.
In 2015, the mother went to Texas to visit an old high school friend who became her boyfriend. She notified the father of her intent to relocate to Houston in order to accept a job. The father than made an opposition to the move in the Davidson County Circuit Court. He alleged that the move was vindictive and not in the child’s best interest. The mother answered that she had an opportunity to teach music and use her music education degree.
Initially, the mother testified that she did not have a romantic relationship with the boyfriend in Texas, but after conferring with her lawyer, she admitted that she did have sex with him and had a relationship at that time. The court found her in criminal contempt, and stated that it would have difficulty believing the rest of her testimony.
The trial court fined the mother $50 for criminal contempt, and denied her request to move. Specifically, the trial court found that there was no reasonable purpose for the move, a finding bolstered by the finding of perjury.
The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which noted that the lower court’s findings have a presumption of correctness and would not be reversed unless the mother showed that the evidence preponderated against them.
The court also cited the Tennessee Parental Relocation Statute. In cases where the parties do not spend equal time with the child, that statute holds that the move should be allowed unless the other spouse shows that the move had an unreasonable purpose. Therefore, in this case, the father had the burden of proof to show that the move was unreasonable.
The trial court had based its ruling on the grounds that the mother’s testimony was not worthy of belief. However, the father’s only evidence was the mother’s testimony. In other words, even though the mother might not have had any evidence as to the move’s reasonable purpose, the fact remained that the father had not offered any evidence that the move was unreasonable.
Since the father had the burden of proof, the Court of Appeals held that he had not proven his case. Therefore, under the statute, the move should have been allowed.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case for entry of an order allowing the relocation.
No. M2016-01314-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2017).
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.
