Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child. Father lived in North Carolina. In 2014, Mother was named the primary residential parent and Father was awarded parenting time in Tennessee one weekend each month, four weeks in the summer, and alternating time during Child’s school vacations.

Six years later, Father petitioned to change the parenting plan and change custody. He alleged that Mother prevented him from exercising his parenting time during school breaks, refused to meet him, did not inform him about Child’s medical diagnoses, and did not list him as Child’s father on any educational or medical records.

After Father learned that Mother was regularly leaving Child alone to care for other children, the trial court temporarily changed custody and awarded Mother parenting time of one weekend per month in North Carolina.

After a trial, the trial court found Father proved his allegations and that Mother showed a general unwillingness to coparent with Father. The trial court entered a new parenting plan changing custody and giving Father significantly more parenting time than Mother.

Mother appealed.

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

To change a parenting plan, a parent must first prove a change of circumstances after the entry of the parenting plan that affects the child’s well-being in a material way. Modification of custody requires a higher threshold than that required to change the parenting schedule.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s decision:

Although the trial court found that there had been a material change in circumstances, the Court failed to expressly state what constituted the material change in circumstances. From the factual findings given, it is clear from the final order, however, that the trial court considered the material change in circumstances to be Mother’s failure to coparent and her unwillingness to facilitate a relationship between the child and Father. The evidence in the record before us does not preponderate against this finding. Mother did not assist Father in ensuring the child had adequate health insurance, failed to meet Father at the halfway point for visitation exchanges, and signed the child up for afterschool care under Mother’s new married name instead of Father’s name. Through these actions, Mother failed to adhere to the 2014 Parenting Plan in a manner that affected the child’s well-being.

Because of the trial court’s failure to make detailed factual findings of the best-interest analysis, the Court decided to conduct its own best-interest analysis because the trial court addressed the necessary facts and made adequate credibility findings:

Mother failed to adequately inform Father about the child’s medical condition including the child’s seizure, autism diagnosis, and orthotics despite repeated requests from Father for such information. Mother also denied Father, despite his requests, important medical insurance information and information about the child’s education. Father testified that Mother moved the child without informing him and registered the child for afterschool care under Mother’s married name instead of Father’s surname. Based upon the text messages presented to the court, Mother also regularly left the child alone to care for a younger step sibling. Although Mother testified that she did not do this, the trial court found Mother not credible. Thus, we conclude that Mother left the child alone on numerous occasions.

*     *     *     *     *

From the record, we can say that Father has provided a stable, satisfactory environment for almost two years at this point in the case.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that changing the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest.

Source: Paden v. Davison (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, June 25, 2024).

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