Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child. Once parentage was established, a parenting plan was entered that gave Father 120 days of parenting time.

Six years later, Father petitioned to change custody. He alleged that Mother has repeatedly denied Father his parenting time, and Mother has “distanced, isolated, and worked to alienate” Child from Father.

Mother admitted she would either keep Child home from school or check Child out early on days Father was supposed to pick Child up from school. She also admitted she did not bring Child to the agreed-upon location for exchange with Father on several occasions. Mother explained that she avoided following the parenting plan because Child was allegedly experiencing anxiety and various anxiety-related physical symptoms related to visitation with Father.

The trial court found that the anxiety experienced by Child was due to the “animosity” Mother felt towards Father. It also found that Mother’s violations of the parenting plan are a material change of circumstances. The trial court found that Mother did not foster an environment where Father and Child could have a relationship, stating that Mother “puts her desires or interests ahead of her child and his relationship with his father.” The trial court concluded it was in Child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent.

Mother appealed.

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

Mother argued the trial court erred in failing to weigh the relative need for stability in Child’s life, noting that she has always been Child’s primary caregiver since birth.

Observing that the trial court considered and weighed the statutory best-interest factors, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment:

[I]t is apparent to us that Mother’s repeated and willful violations of the visitation schedule drove the Juvenile Court’s decision to make Father the primary residential parent.

When considering matters of custody and visitation, we favor and protect the right of a noncustodial parent to reasonable visitation. In pertinent part, the Juvenile Court found that Mother had denied Father visitation numerous times before he filed his petition for modification. Notably, the Juvenile Court found that Mother continued to refuse Father visitation even after he filed the instant modification proceeding. Indeed, Mother admitted to multiple different violations of the original parenting plan.

Upon our review of the record, Mother has demonstrated continuous contempt for the parenting plan and Father’s rights to visitation. Although Mother argues that she offers better stability for Child than Father, this argument fails muster when the record shows Mother cannot, or will not, maintain a regular visitation schedule. Conversely, Father has demonstrated compliance with the parenting plan. In light of Mother’s continuous efforts to prevent Father from visiting with Child, we conclude that the Juvenile Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in Child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s change of custody.

Source: Anderson v. Marshall (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, December 19, 2024).

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