Facts: Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced with an agreed parenting plan that made Mother the primary residential parent while giving Father 156 days of parenting time.

In April, Mother alleged that Father physically assaulted and seriously injured her. Despite her injuries, Mother did not report the incident to the police or seek judicial relief.

Four months later, in August, Father texted Mother: “Lol I guess you ain’t learned from being knocked down before uhhh?” Mother interpreted this as a threat. Without telling Father, Mother moved with the children to Connecticut. Months later, she petitioned to change the parenting plan, alleging that Father’s physical assault in April caused her to “flee” to her family in Connecticut in August.

Mother proposed that Father’s parenting time be reduced to 69 days.

Father admitted an altercation occurred, but he insisted Mother was the aggressor, and her injuries were accidental.

Father filed a counterpetition to change the parenting plan, asking that his parenting time be increased to 309 days if Mother remained in Connecticut.

The case was tried over one and a half years later. After moving to Connecticut, the children had little contact with their Father, and their mother only allowed sporadic phone contact.

The trial court found the current parenting plan was unworkable because of the geographical distance between the parties. It further found that both parents had a good relationship with the children, and the children, then ages 6 and 4, needed both parents to be involved in their lives to the maximum extent possible. The trial court found that Mother moved to be near her family, not because she feared for her safety. It also found that her actions since moving showed her unwillingness to encourage a good relationship between Father and the children.

The trial court designated Father the primary residential parent and created two new parenting plans, depending on whether Mother chose to remain in Connecticut or return to Tennessee. If Mother returned to Tennessee, the trial court found it was in the children’s best interest for the parents to have equal parenting time.

Mother returned to Tennessee, and the trial court entered the new parenting plan.

Mother appealed, arguing the trial court improperly reviewed Mother’s petition to change the parenting plan as a request for approval of her relocation. She also questioned the trial court’s best-interest findings.

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

First, the Court observed that the trial court did not treat Mother’s filing as a petition seeking approval of a relocation. The trial court expressly stated that it applied “the legal standard for modifying a parenting plan.”

We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to analyze Mother’s petition as a request to modify the permanent parenting plan. Trial courts have discretion to treat pleadings “according to the relief sought.” Here, Mother never asked for permission to relocate. She asked the Court to modify the parenting plan schedule given the changed circumstances. So Mother’s arguments based on the application of the parental relocation statute must fail.

Mother then argued the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s best-interest findings. The Court disagreed:

Mother also contends that the [trial] court’s ruling “is not well grounded upon the statutory factors.” We disagree. In the [trial] court’s view, the children needed the involvement of both parents “to the maximum extent possible.” Mother and Father were both “good, active, and involved parents.” Although Mother was the children’s primary caregiver, the [trial] court did not place much weight on that factor. The [trial] court attached more weight to the differences in the two parents’ willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the children and both of the children’s parents. For well over a year, Mother thwarted Father’s efforts to spend time with his children. She even limited his phone contact.

The best-interest analysis is particularly fact-intensive. These decisions often hinge on subtle factors, including the parents’ demeanor and credibility during the proceedings. The record indicates that Mother and Father are both good parents. And the trial court had the difficult task of determining which parent was comparatively more fit based on the evidence presented. The [trial] court applied the correct law, the factual basis for the decision is properly supported, and the decision is within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to make Father the primary residential parent while returning the parties to the previous equal-time schedule.

K.O.’s Comment: Mother’s conduct in moving without notice and denying Father’s parenting time was a significant factor in the trial court’s decision to change the parenting plan to make Father the primary residential parent.

Source: Tankard v. Tankard (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, August 28, 2024).

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