Facts: Mother and Father shared equal parenting time with Child via alternating weeks. Mother petitioned to modify the parenting plan after Father was arrested for domestic violence against his girlfriend that occurred in Child’s presence.
The trial court temporarily limited Father’s parenting time to one weekend and one midweek overnight every other week.
Months later, Father was again arrested for burglary and domestic assault on another woman.
This time, the trial court suspended Father’s parenting time altogether. The following month, Father was allowed to start exercising parenting time supervised by his brother during certain days. Father was also ordered to complete an alcohol and drug assessment and seek counseling for his “anger issues and issues involving women.”
After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Father’s history of domestic violence, inability to get along with women, and his refusal to seek expert help justified modifying the parenting plan to limit Father’s parenting time to visitation supervised by his brother during certain days.
Father appealed.
Father argued the change in circumstances was not shown to affect Child because Child was unaware of these events. In other words, Child could not be affected by something she was unaware of.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Tennessee courts must follow a two-step analysis when considering a request to modify a parenting schedule. The threshold inquiry in the analysis is whether a material change in circumstance has occurred. When the trial court finds that a material change in circumstance has occurred, it must then determine whether a change in the parenting schedule is in the child’s best interest.
The Court found no error in the trial court’s analysis:
The statutory standard for determining a material change in circumstance requires the party seeking modification to show a material change of circumstance affecting the child’s best interest. Further, the statute does not require a showing of a substantial risk of harm to the child. Instead, the statute provides a non-inclusive list of occurrences that may include significant changes in the needs of the child over time. This non-inclusive list contemplates, inter alia, changes in either parent’s living or working condition that significantly affect parenting. Notably, the provision concludes with a catchall phrase: “or other circumstances making a change in the residential parenting time in the best interest of the child.”
Here, the trial court listed several changes in circumstance that led it to conclude that a reduction in Father’s coparenting time would be in Child’s best interest. These included Father’s three undisputed incidents of domestic violence between himself and two women, which the trial court determined were escalating in severity; Father’s “controlling behavior”; Father’s capability of “inflicting”; Father’s demonstrated “hostility toward [Child’s] mother and other women”; and Father’s “lack of control, lack of management of his anger,” and other “negative behavior traits” that the trial court deemed “abnormal.” The trial court also noted that Father had failed to comply with the court’s previous orders directing him to seek “help” in the form of a psychiatric evaluation. These facts were sufficient for the trial court to determine that a material change in circumstance had occurred that affected Child’s best interest.
The trial court’s findings above were also sufficient to conclude that a reduction in Father’s parenting time was in the best interest of Child.
* * * * *
Although the trial court did not expressly state why it excluded overnights particularly from Father’s coparenting time, we note that the police reports in the record reflect that Father’s violent incident with [First Woman] began at night and continued into the next morning and that Father’s arrest for domestic assault and burglary at [Second Woman’s] home occurred after 11:00 PM. This evidence, in conjunction with the trial court’s specific finding that Father had committed domestic abuse on more than one occasion, was sufficient for the trial court to reasonably determine that removal of Father’s overnight parenting time was in the best interest of Child.
* * * * *
The trial court acknowledged that a continued relationship with Father was in Child’s best interest but properly balanced this interest against the evidence of Father’s domestic violence to determine that excluding overnight visitation from Father’s coparenting time was in Child’s best interest. Because a residential parenting schedule determination lies peculiarly within the broad discretion of the trial judge, we declined to overturn the trial court’s judgment in limiting Father’s parenting time to exclude overnight visitation.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Source: McDonald v. Coffel (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, January 9, 2024).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.