Facts: When Mother and Father divorced, their agreed parenting plan provided for Father to have 155 days of parenting time.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties agreed to deviate from the court-ordered schedule and follow an alternating-week schedule (week on, week off) during the 2020-21 school year while the child engaged in “distance-learning.”

The following school year, Father petitioned to change the parenting plan because the parties had been exercising equal time. Mother countered that she exercised parenting time during school hours every weekday and oversaw the child’s “distance learning” while Father was at work.

The trial court found enough evidence for a material change of circumstances such that modification of the day-to-day schedule to an equal-time schedule was in the child’s best interest.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

To change a parenting plan, the moving party must prove a material change of circumstances and that the change is in the child’s best interest.

To change the parenting schedule, Tennessee law only requires a “very low threshold” for establishing a material change. The moving party must show the change affects the child’s well-being in a meaningful way.

The Court found this “very low threshold” was satisfied:

The trial court’s stated reasoning for its finding of a material change in circumstance is predicated upon the parties’ mutual agreement to modify the parenting plan and their approximately 16-month-long deviation from the parenting plan’s coparenting schedule. In addition, the court determined that the success of this alternative schedule, as well as Father’s demonstrated parenting skills and willingness to spend as much coparenting time with Child as possible, established that this altered schedule was in Child’s best interest. Apparently, the court determined that a new status quo had been established and that the success of this new residential schedule routine justified formalizing the change with a modification to the parenting plan.

Again, we emphasize that Father needed to prove a material change of circumstance affecting Child’s best interest only by a preponderance of the evidence and that this has been described as a “very low threshold.” Certainly, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, Child’s “distance-learning,” and the impact these two factors had on this family’s routine, to the degree that the residential coparenting schedule was not followed from April 2020 to August 2021, would suffice as material changes to the parties’ circumstances.

Furthermore, we do not agree with Mother that the trial court failed to make a finding that the material change in circumstance affected Child’s best interest or her well-being in a meaningful way. The court specifically found that the deviation had worked well for Child…. The court’s best interest finding was based upon Father’s demonstrated dedication to Child during the 16 months that the family lived by a modified schedule, as well as his role in providing Child with educational assistance and other facets of life in his home. We therefore determine Mother’s argument that the court made no finding that the material change in circumstance affected Child’s best interest to be unavailing.

*    *    *    *    *

Despite our holding that the trial court did not err by finding that a material change in circumstance had occurred, we certainly do not wish to signal to parents that an agreement to deviate from a residential coparenting schedule will invariably constitute a material change in circumstances justifying a court-ordered modification of the residential coparenting schedule. Nor do we wish to communicate that a parent who cooperatively agrees to accommodate another parent’s schedule or adjust to circumstances that arise from life’s unpredictability should risk losing coparenting time by a court-ordered modification to the residential coparenting schedule simply because he or she was flexible or amenable to proposed deviations. The facts of the present case are unique in that they involve a significant alteration to the parenting plan that continued for a significant duration of time and that the trial court determined that this new status quo was a success for Child and parents.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment to change the day-to-day schedule to provide for equal parenting time.

Source: Edwards v. Edwards (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, June 30, 2023).

If you found this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.