Mom Loses Custody After Moving Out of State Without Notice

Tennessee child custody case summary on relocation.

Robert John Skowronski v. Donna Rae Wade

The mother and father in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, divorce case had one child, who was born in 2001.  In 2003, they divorced, and the mother was named the primary residential parent.  In 2007, they agreed that the mother could move to Oklahoma.

In 2013, she moved to Texas with the child without giving any notice.  After learning of the move, he went back to court asking to be named the primary residential parent.  He alleged that the move, without notice, was a material change of circumstances.  The mother admitted that she didn’t give the required notice, because of a short time on a new job offer.  However, she also testified that she ultimately didn’t take the job.  Instead, she found another job in Texas, but she was terminated for excessive absences.  The father testified that he learned of the move only after trying to log into the child’s school website to check his grades.  When he was unable to do so, he called the school, and they told him that he had moved.

The trial court found that there had been a material change of circumstances.  In addition, it went on to find that continuing to live with the mother was not in the child’s best interests.  While he was doing well in school in Texas, the trial court found that the mother’s home situation was unstable.  After weighing all of the facts, the trial court named the father the primary residential parent.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the mother argued that there had been no material change of circumstances, and that the change of custody was not in the child’s best interests.  The appeals court noted that the trial court’s factual findings enjoy a presumption of correctness, and that they will not be set aside unless the evidence preponderates against them.  It then turned to the change of circumstances, and pointed out that not every change of circumstances is necessarily material.  The test is whether the change affects the child’s well being in a meaningful way.

The appeals court noted that the mere lack of notice might not have been enough to warrant a finding of material change of circumstances.  But there was more in this case.  There had been multiple moves, and those moves had directly impacted the child.  After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed that there had been a material change of circumstances.

The appeals court then turned to the issue of whether a change of custody was in the child’s best interest.

One factor considered by the trial court was that it found that the mother was not as well suited to care for the child’s material needs.  The appeals court found that the father had not met his burden of proof on this issue, and that this factor did not weigh in his favor.  But the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s other findings, particularly as they related to the stability of the mother’s home environment.  The appeals court concluded that these factors favored the father, and that they were enough for him to meet the burden of proof, despite the one finding being reversed.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

No. M2014-01501-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 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.