Tennessee Father Loses Custody Case | No Changed Circumstances

Tennessee law case summary on custody and parenting disputes in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Lindsi Allison Connors v Jeremy Phillip Lawson – Tennessee Custody Law 

In the appeal in this case, a biological father sought to revise the current permanent parenting plan for a child to be named the primary residential parent. The child, who was conceived during what the state considers statutory rape, was allowed by the mother to have a relationship with the father. A trail court determined that the mother, who is living in Florida and married otherwise, was in contempt for failing to cooperate with the co-parenting plan previously put in place. This appeal surrounds an appeal of the father to amend the custody agreement.

Lindsi Connors, Mother, worked under Jeremy Lawson, Father, at a pizza establishment when the child was conceived. The Mother was 17 years old and the Father was 23 years old when the child was born in July of 2002. In February of 2006, the father filed an initial petition to establish parentage and asserted he should be named primary residential parent as the Mother had difficulties with mental health, substance abuse and anger management. Drug screening revealed neither parent had drugs in their system.

In July of 2006, a permanent parenting plan submitted by the Mother was approved by the court and provided co-parenting time to the Father, though the mother was primary residential parent. The Father received 129 days of parenting time. It required the Mother to continue living with her mother and any move out of state will require approval.

In June of 2007, the Father filed an emergency petition to prevent the Mother from taking the child out-of-state. The Father alleged that during a vacation to Florida, the mother met another man and married him. She advised him she was relocating to Florida with the child. Father believed the Mother was emotionally unstable, unable to maintain employment and failed to abide by the previous parental relocation requirement.

The trial court rescinded the previous parenting plan in July of 2007. It provided a second plan that allowed the Mother to relocate to Florida with the child and gave her 280 of co-parenting time.

In July of 2008, the Mother filed pro-se-emergency petition alleging the Father did not allow her to have the Child on July 4 and 5th, per the agreement and she related the Father was residing with a pregnant girlfriend and exercising less than his allotted co-parenting time. The Mother stated the Father was not returning the child to make up for some of the visitation missed previously.

A hearing on September 5, 2008 provided the Father 65 days and the Mother 300 days. The Father was also given one-half of each summer starting the first weekend following the end of school, one week at Christmas and either spring or fall break. He was allotted additional time when he was able to travel to Florida.

In March of 2009, the Father petitioned for contempt and modification of the third plan noting the Mother traveled to Tennessee to visit family but failed to provide him with an effort to visit the child. He claimed the Mother was verbally and mentally abusive to the Child. The Mother failed to answer and the Father filed a motion for default judgment. The Mother refused to appear in court and as such, the trial court granted the default judgment and relief to the Father. The same day, the Mother contacted the court by phone and advised the court she was not contesting jurisdiction and promised to comply with court orders. The default judgment was rescinded.

In February of 2010, the trial court issued an order finding the Mother in contempt for failing to provide summer co-parenting time to the Father. The court did not punish the Mother and a petition to modify the custody was orally denied from the bench. The trial court ordered further proceedings to be filed in Florida. The Father appealed this decision and the appeals court reversed the decision.

The appeals court found that based on the judgment flaws in the Father’s behavior throughout his time with the child, the Father maintains parental responsibility, but that his parental fitness is lacking.

In the appeal, the court found that no material change in circumstance occurred. It affirmed the lower court is ruling as such.

No. E2011-00757-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, buy Miles Mason, Sr.’s book, Tennessee Parent Relocation Law (available on Amazon and Kindle), see Tennessee Parent Relocation Statute Law | Modifying the Parenting Plan, and read our 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 divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, parental relocation, child support modification, alimony modification, and divorces including business valuation and forensic accounting issues. Miles is the author of The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know. A Memphis divorce attorney from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help. Contact the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC at 901-683-1850.