Facts: Father and Mother are the unmarried parents of Child. Their agreed parenting plan had been exchanging Child each week.

When Mother’s fiancé received orders from the Army to move to Alabama, Mother decided to move with him. She notified Father of her intent to move with Child.

Father opposed Mother’s relocation with Child and filed a petition in opposition.

While awaiting trial, Mother and Father agreed to an interim change to the parenting plan that had them exchange Child every two weeks. They also agreed to joint decision-making for nonemergency healthcare.

Nearly two years later, Mother petitioned to have Father held in contempt for obtaining medical care without consulting her and enrolling Child in school without consulting her.

The juvenile court approved Mother’s relocation with Child and declined to find Father in contempt. In determining whether relocation was in Child’s best interest, the juvenile court used the best-interest factors in the child-custody statute. In weighing the factors, the juvenile court was strongly influenced by Father’s decisions to obtain medical care for Child without consulting or informing Mother. The juvenile court found that Father’s actions “stepped over the line.” Father’s parenting time was reduced to 105 days each year.

Father appealed, arguing the juvenile court should have applied the best-interest factors from the parental relocation statute instead of the child custody statute.

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

Both Mother and the Court of Appeals concluded that the juvenile court should have applied the parental-relocation statute. Father argued the application of the wrong statute requires reversal.

Mother argued the best-interest factors in the child-custody statute “parallel and encompass” the factors in the parental-relocation statute such that the application of the wrong statute didn’t matter. The Court agreed:

The best interest of the child standard lies at the heart of both statutes. Under the child-custody statute, in any “proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child,” the court makes its custody “determination . . . on the basis of the best interest of the child” consistent with the factors set out in the statute. Similarly, under the parental-relocation statute, the Court “determine[es] whether relocation is in the best interest of the minor child” using statutory factors. Some of the parental-relocation best-interest factors are unique to that statute. But the court may also use the factors in the child-custody statute in determining whether relocation is in the child’s best interest.

Here, we conclude any error in applying the child-custody statute was harmless. Although it did not reference the parental-relocation statute, the juvenile court considered whether Mother’s relocation was in the child’s best interest. And it fashioned a modified permanent parenting plan using a best-interest-of-the-child standard. So the court fulfilled the essential requirement of the parental-relocation statute.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Source: Calleja v. Bradfield (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, April 17, 2024).

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