Father Not Entitled to Equal Co-Parenting Time

Tennessee case summary on custody in divorce.

Raquel Agustin Mitchell v. Toney R. Mitchell

The husband and wife in this Bradley County, Tennessee, case met through on online dating website.  At the time, the wife lived in the Philippines, but moved to the U.S. when the couple married in 2004.  They had three children, born in 2005, 2007, and 2015.  The husband worked, and the wife cared for the children and ran her own home business, and later obtained employment outside of the home.

The wife filed for divorce in 2020, and a hearing was held in 2021.  The wife admitted to infidelity, but cited the husband’s anger and lack of intimacy.  The trial court ruled that both parties had grounds for divorce, but found the wife more credible.  Although the husband claimed than an IRA was his separate property, the court held that he had failed to prove this, and divided the account as marital property.  The wife was named primary residential parent, with the husband having 100 days of co-parenting time.  The husband then brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that the trial court erred when it found the wife to be credible, but the husband’s credibility to have been impeached.  But because the appeals court normally defers to the lower court on matters of witness credibility, the Court of Appeals declined to reverse those findings.

The husband next argued that he should have received equal co-parenting time.  The appeals court noted that there is no preference for or against joint custody.  In fact, many courts have looked upon such arrangements with disfavor.

The appeals court examined the record and concluded that the lower court had properly considered the children’s best interest in making its ruling.  The appeals court noted in particular that the wife had been the primary caretaker for the children, with the husband’s participation being “sleepy.”  For these reasons, it affirmed the permanent parenting plan.

The husband also objected to his support obligation being based upon imputed income, rather than actual income.  The husband argued that he had cut his hours to spend more time with the children, but the appeals court held that the lower court properly rejected this explanation.

Finally, the appeals court addressed the classification of the IRA.  The appeals court noted that the only documents in the record originated during the marriage.  Therefore, the husband had not met his burden of establishing that the property was his non-marital property prior to the marriage.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.  It also assessed the costs of appeal against the husband.

No. E2021-01283-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2022).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.