TN Dad Loses Fight to Stop Mom Relocating Kids to Las Vegas

Tennessee parental relocation law case summary in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  Mother allowed to relocate with children over father’s objection. To learn more, buy Miles Mason, Sr.’s book, Tennessee Parent Relocation Law, available on Amazon and Kindle.

Lima v. Lima – Tennessee Parental Relocation Case – Mother Allowed to Relocate with Children to Las Vegas

The father and mother, Jared and Marcia Lima, moved from New York to Tennessee in 2005.  At the time of their divorce in 2009, they had two daughters, ages nine and six.  The mother was named the primary residential parent and given 230 days of residential parenting time.  The father was given the remaining 135 days, which consisted of his two days per week off from work, certain holidays, and four weeks during the summer.

In June 2010, the mother’s employer offered her a new position in Las Vegas, Nevada.  She wrote to the father and explained that she was taking the position and would be moving with the children to Las Vegas.

The father filed a complaint in the Chancery Court in Madison County.  He alleged that there had been a change of circumstances since the divorce, that he had been exercising more parenting time than called for by the original divorce, and that he should be named the primary residential parent.  The trial court granted a temporary injunction preventing the mother from taking the children to Las Vegas.  The mother proceeded with the move, and the daughters resided with the father pending a hearing.

After hearing from eight witnesses, the trial court agreed with the mother that she should be allowed to proceed with the move to Las Vegas.  The trial court found that the two parents had not been spending substantially equal time with the children and that there was a reasonable purpose for mother’s relocation.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  Under the relocation statute, the court must determine whether the parents are actually spending equal amounts of time with the children.  If they are, then there is no presumption one way or another, and the court must decide based upon the best interests of the children.

But if the parents are spending substantially equal time, then there is a presumption in favor of relocating the child with the parent who is spending the most time.  To overcome this presumption, the other parent must show that the move does not have a reasonable purpose, that it poses a specific threat of harm to the child, or that it is based upon a vindictive motive of the parent who proposes to relocate.

The Court of Appeals first noted that the mother’s letter was sufficient to put the issue before the court, and that she was not required to file a petition requesting permission to relocate.  Since the father filed a petition, this gave him opportunity to present his evidence to the court.  And even though the mother’s letter was sent only a few days before the proposed relocation, the Court of Appeals held that the father was not prejudiced by the short notice.

The father’s main argument on appeal was that both parents had spent “substantially equal time” with the children.  Even though he had the girls only 135 days, compared with mother’s 230 days, the father testified that he often kept the girls longer than the two days per week allocated to him.  But since this was a factual dispute, the Court of Appeals deferred to the trial court’s ruling that the girls spent considerably more time with their mother.

The Court of Appeals also agreed with the trial court that the purpose for the move to Las Vegas was reasonable.  The mother pointed out that she would receive a pay raise from $33,000 to $35,000 after the move, and that she had the potential to receive higher bonuses and possibly a promotion.  She also pointed out that the work schedule in Las Vegas would be more family friendly.  In Tennessee, she was required to work Saturdays and Sundays, and her schedule during the week varied from day to day.  In Las Vegas, she would be working only five days per week, and the hours each day were more consistent.

The father pointed out that there was no evidence as to the bonuses and possible promotion.  However, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the burden of proof was on him to show that the move was unreasonable.  The mother was not required to prove the bonuses and promotion, since she did not have the burden of proof.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and allowed the mother to relocate.

Lima v. Lima, No. W2010-02027-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2011).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law | Modifying the Parenting Plan and our MemphisDivorce.com Tennessee Family Law Blog with more detailed cases sorted by relocation cases granted and denied.

Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including contested and uncontested parental relocation matters.