Tennessee Mom Allowed to Relocate to Pennsylvania to Pursue Counseling Degree
Tennessee parent relocation case summary.
Katherine Sanko v. Clinton Sanko
The husband and wife in this Tennessee parental relocation case were the parents of four children. At the time of their 2014 divorce, they lived in Chattanooga. During the marriage, the wife was a stay-at-home mother, while the husband pursued his legal career. The mother was named the primary residential parent, and the father awarded 125 days per year of parenting time.
In May 2014, the mother notified the father that she intended to move with the children to Butler, Pennsylvania, because of an educational opportunity and proximity to her relatives. The father objected, and asserted that the relocation was vindictive and unreasonable. He pointed out that the mother had intentionally left her family in Pennsylvania, and that the relatives were not involved with the children. The mother denied these allegations, and offered a parenting plan that would allow him 108 days per year of parenting time.
After hearing considerable testimony, the trial court agreed with the father that the move did not have a reasonable purpose and that the motive was vindictive. Furthermore, the court found that the relocation would not be in the children’s best interests. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court first noted that this was a case in which the parents did not spend substantially equal amounts of time with the children. This is the first determination that a court must make when considering the Tennessee parental relocation statute, since it determines which test the court must apply. Since the parents did not spend equal amounts of time, the move should be allowed unless the objecting parent proves that the move did not have a reasonable purpose, that it could cause specific harm to the child, or that the motive is vindictive. Since the lower court found both unreasonableness and vindictiveness, the appeals court looked at the evidence for both of those factors.
The mother first argued that the move was reasonable. She pointed out that the counseling program in which she had been accepted would allow her to attend classes while the children were in school. She could get a dual degree in two years, and the college was fully accredited. She also stressed the importance that the school she chose was faith-based, and that it was near her relatives in Pennsylvania.
The appeals court noted that these determinations are always fact intensive, and it is always necessary to look at the unique circumstances of the case. The appeals court carefully considered all of the evidence, and concluded that the relocation was reasonable under the circumstances. It then moved to the question of whether the mother had a vindictive motive.
On the issue of vindictiveness, the lower court had focused on the timing of the request and concluded that it was evidence of a vindictive motive. The trial court had also considered the mother’s attempts to gain property from the divorce, but the appeals court held that this kind of vindictiveness was not relevant to the issue of parental relocation. But there was no evidence that the move itself was for vindictive reasons. Therefore, it also reversed this finding of the trial court.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings.
No. E2014-01816-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 16, 2015).
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.
