Mom Allowed to Relocate After Getting TX Job Offer
Tennessee child custody and relocation granted case in divorce.
Stefani Franklin v. Jimmy Franklin
Mom Allowed to Relocate After Getting TX Job Offer
When the parents in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2014, their child was two years old. The mother was named the primary residential parent, and the child resided with her most of the year. The father exercised visitation every other weekend, and the parents alternated holidays.
In 2019, the mother was offered a position at Houston Medical Center in Texas. She notified the father of her intent to relocate with the child, and the father objected. She filed a petition to relocate, and the case was heard before Judge Valerie L. Smith in early 2020. The trial court granted the petition, and the father brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
After stating the standard of review, the court noted that the General Assembly had amended the parental relocation statute in 2018, and only two prior cases had been decided under the amended statute.
The statute had previously required the court to determine whether or not the parents had been spending substantially equal amounts of time with the child. In addition, the previous statute required the court to determine whether there was a reasonable purpose for the proposed move. Both of those criteria were removed from the statute, and the court noted that the amended statute allows the courts more discretion when making this important determination. In particular, the new statute has no presumption either in favor of or against relocation.
After one parent gives notice of relocation and the other parent objects, the relocating parent must file a petition, and the court is called upon to make a determination in the best interest of the child. The appeals court went on to review the factors used in making that determination.
The first factor is the child’s relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant persons. The trial court had found that the father was continually present in the child’s life, but that the mother had performed the majority of parenting responsibilities. The court had also noted that the child had no relationship with the father’s child by another relationship.
The mother’s parents also testified that they intended to move to Texas as well, and the trial court considered this factor. The father argued that this was speculative, but the appeals court noted that the trial court was in the best position to weigh witness credibility. Overall, with regard to this first factor, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had acted within its discretion.
The next factor considered was the needs of the child and the likely impact of the relocation. The mother presented evidence that the child had ADHD, and the father argued that continuity of treatment in Tennessee would be beneficial. The mother introduced evidence of the quality of schools in Texas, and the appeals court once agreed that the lower court had acted within its discretion.
The next factor considered was the feasibility of preserving the relationship with the non-relocating parent. Here, both courts agreed that the factor did favor the father’s position.
In some cases, the next factor to be considered would be the child’s preference, but this is applicable only in cases where the child is 12 years of age or older. Therefore, this factor did not apply in the case.
The next factor was whether there was any pattern of conduct by the relocating parent to either promote or thwart the relationship with the other parent. Here, the trial court had found the mother’s testimony credible, and the appeals court affirmed the ruling.
The next factor is the extent to which the relocation would enhance the quality of life of both the parent and child. Here, the trial court had found that there was a great financial benefit to the new position, particularly since the grandparents had expressed their intention to relocate as well. The appeals court held that the evidence supported this finding.
Finally, the court should consider both parents’ reasons for seeking or opposing relocation. There was only limited evidence on this factor, but the lower court held that it favored the father’s position.
The statute also allows the court to consider any other relevant factor. In this case, after extensively reviewing the lower court’s findings, the appeals court agreed that the disposition had been proper, and that the mother had established that the relocation was in the child’s best interest. Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
No. W2020–00285-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?
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.
