TN Mom Can Move to NJ for New Job Only if In Child’s Best Interest
Tennessee child custody case summary on parent relocation.
Quentin Elliott Lawrence v. Jessica Marcel Broadnax
The child in this Tennessee parental relocation case was born in 2009, and the parents divorced in 2012. Under the parenting plan, the mother was named the primary residential parent, with the father receiving 104 days per year of co-parenting time. In October 2014, the mother notified the father that she intended to relocate with the child to Philadelphia, stating that she had a possible employment opportunity there. She later amended that notice to include Trenton, New Jersey, citing another job opportunity there. The father filed a petition in opposition to the proposed move, and argued that the move was not in the child’s best interest. The father noted that he had an extended family in Tennessee, and that the mother had an unstable work history. He said that he feared for the child’s safety if the mother was allowed to move. The father also argued that the move was not for a reasonable purpose, was vindictive, and would cause irreparable harm to the child.
A hearing was held in December 2014. The mother testified that she had an education degree, and detailed her employment history. Most recently, she had worked for the Chattanooga Public Library with a salary of about $50,000, but that position had ended. When her job search in Tennessee and Georgia failed to land any interviews, she applied for positions in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and was still in discussions regarding the job in New Jersey. Shortly after the trial concluded, she was offered the New Jersey job, with a salary of $60,000. After weighing all of the evidence, the trial court sided with the father, holding that the move was not for a reasonable purpose. The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
As an initial matter, the appeals court considered the father’s argument that the trial court should not have even considered the post-trial job offer. But the appeals court held that the trial court had acted within its discretion in considering this evidence. The court then turned to the Tennessee parental relocation statute. The critical issue under the statute in this case was whether the move was for a reasonable purpose. The trial court had noted that the mother had made no effort to look for jobs paying $40,000 or less. The court also noted that the New Jersey job was for ten months only, with no indication of whether it would be renewed for the following school year. The mother also admitted that the cost of living was higher in New Jersey. After examining all of the evidence, the appeals court agreed that the evidence supported the trial court’s ultimate finding on the issue of reasonableness.
However, the Court of Appeals agreed with the mother that the trial court should have gone on to look specifically at whether the move was in the best interests of the child. For that reason, it remanded the case to the lower court to make this determination.
No. E2015-00214-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2015).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law.
