Facts: Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced in 2018. Father received 144 days of parenting time.
Three years later, Father petitioned to change the parenting plan because he had a new job that let him spend more time with the children. Father proposed equal time.
While that matter was pending, Mother notified Father that she intended to move with the children to Germany to be near her family. Father filed a petition opposing the move.
According to Mother, Father used their joint decision-making to “veto” decisions related to the children’s healthcare. Father wanted a “second opinion” before he would agree to a child getting tonsils removed, getting glasses, or going to a consultation about braces. Despite insisting on a second opinion, Father did not follow through with taking the child to medical professionals to get a second opinion himself. Because of the difficulty in obtaining Father’s approval, Mother could not follow through on many recommendations of the children’s doctors.
This conflict extended to other matters, including extracurricular activities and educational decisions. For example, the parents could not agree on enrolling the younger child in prekindergarten. The impasse resulted in the younger child spending another year in daycare.
Mother said she wanted to move to Germany to be near her family. The children had dual citizenship, and according to Mother, they spoke German at her house. They had visited Germany on several extended trips. Mother had a contract guaranteeing employment upon relocation. She expected fewer expenses because the children would get universal healthcare, and her family could help with childcare.
Mother testified that she would bring the children to the United States during school breaks and encourage weekly calls with Father.
Father and the paternal grandmother testified that they did not know if Mother was a good mother. Father did not believe the children were fluent in German. He also testified he did not know if Mother loved the children.
The trial court found that Mother had consistently tried to co-parent with Father, but Father made it more difficult. The trial court determined it was against the children’s best interest to be continually exposed to Father’s and the paternal grandmother’s efforts to thwart Mother’s parenting.
The trial court approved Mother’s relocation and changed the parenting plan to vest Mother with sole decision-making authority and substantially reduce Father’s parenting time. Father was granted parenting time during the summer, half of Christmas break, and all of fall break, with Mother responsible for the children’s travel expenses. He was also awarded at least four weekly telephone calls with the children.
Father appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Under Tennessee’s parental relocation statute, if relocation by one parent outside the state or over 50 miles from the other parent within the state is opposed by the other parent, the court must determine whether relocation is in the child’s best interest.
The Court found the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings:
The [trial] court found that Mother “has a stronger relationship with the children Dan [Father] does.” And it found that Father exhibited a “bias against Mother, which has been modeled in front of the children in Father’s household [and] has had a negative effect upon them….”
Father “often stalled Mother” in decision-making, “condone his mother speaking negatively about Mother in front of the children,” and “had attempted to get Mother fired from her job….”
The [trial] court also made several findings related to the move to Germany. Among those, it determined that Mother’s “family is willing and available to assist Mother should the [trial] court allow the relocation.” It found that the children speak German in Mother’s home. And they “could cope with the changes that German schooling might bring” and would have greater opportunity to engage in extracurricular activities in Germany.
* * * * *
In Father’s view, the trial court overlooked evidence that reflected negatively on Mother. But the [trial] court did address Mother’s faults: it found that both parents could not effectively co-parent. Still, it determined that there was “a pattern of conduct by Mother to make sure that Father maintains a relationship with the children.” She “always went to [Father] for input about decisions and if no agreement was reached did not go forward with the decision….”
Father claims that the record contains no proof that the relocation would benefit the children “in any meaningful way.” But the [trial] court found that, in Germany, Mother would have family support, free healthcare for the children, and a place to live in her brother’s house. And the children would have “a greater opportunity to be fully bilingual and be exposed to more extended family.”
* * * * *
Although Father’s concerns surrounding the children’s move are legitimate, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings or its ultimate determination of the children’s best interest.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Source: Whitaker v. Moor (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 9, 2025).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.