Doctor Has Parenting Time Cut After Unfavorable Psychological Evaluation
Tennessee child custody modification case summary.
Amy (Wiseman) Bowen v. William S. Wiseman, II
The child in this Sumner County, Tennessee, case was born in 2005, and the parents divorced in 2009. The father was a pediatrician who was currently working as an independent contractor for an insurance company. The mother taught first grade at the child’s elementary school. She remarried in 2013 and had another child in 2016.
The mother was initially named the primary residential parent. In 2012, the plan was modified somewhat to grant the mother 216 days of parenting time, with the father having 149 days. The mother had decision-making authority over education, with the parents sharing authority for non-emergency healthcare, religion, and extracurricular activities. Under a 2013 agreement approved by the court, the parents had right of first refusal for child care.
Later that year, the father filed a petition alleging that there had been a material change of circumstances due to the mother trying to distance the child from the father and unilaterally making decisions regarding healthcare and extracurricular activities. He also alleged that the mother had violated the right of first refusal agreement.
In turn, the mother asked for sole decision-making authority and asked for additional parenting time during the summer. She argued that the father had an “unhealthy obsession” with the child. The father then upped the ante in 2016 by filing a contempt petition against the mother.
A trial was held in late 2016 at which ten witnesses testified. The trial court also ordered both parents to undergo psychological evaluations, and the report was not favorable to the father.
After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court concluded that there had been a material change of circumstances, and that a change in the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. The father’s parenting time was reduced to 130 days per year, with the mother receiving 235 days. The court ruled that decision-making authority would remain joint, but that extracurricular activities would be limited to the county, and that the mother could make “routine” medical decisions on her own. The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The father argued that the psychological evaluation was biased, and that it had placed undue weight on a single e-mail as being indicative of the father’s general attitude.
The appeals court agreed that there had been a material change of circumstances, and then looked at the best-interest factors to see if they warranted the changes made. The father argued that the single e-mail was taken out of context, But the appeals court disagreed, and noted that other e-mails were written in a similar tone.
The trial court also found that the child’s school was a long commute from the father’s home, and the appeals court held that the finding was supported by the evidence.
After reviewing all of the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the lower court had not abused its discretion in reaching its ruling. It also affirmed the lower court’s award of attorney fees.
No. M2017-00411-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.
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.
