Facts: Mother and Father are the divorced parents of Child. Father’s parenting time was limited to three, six-hour blocks per month for the first four years. After four years, Father’s parenting time increased to 90 days per year. The first summer, Father returned Child to Mother after his summer parenting time. The next day, with no notice to Father, Mother and her husband moved with Child to Delaware.

When Child was scheduled to return to Father, Mother texted Father, stating: “We need to reschedule the visitation for reasons beyond my control. We are out of state and cannot make it to Clarksville.” Four days later, Mother’s lawyer told Father’s lawyer via email that Mother had moved but refused to provide Mother and Child’s location. That same day, Father filed a motion for criminal contempt for Mother’s violations of the parenting plan.

One month later, Father petitioned to change the parenting plan and object to Mother’s relocation with Child.

Three months later, Mother petitioned to relocate with Child and change the parenting plan.

Over one year later, the trial court found Mother’s relocation to Delaware was in Child’s best interest and adopted her proposed parenting plan, which maintained Father’s 90 days of parenting time but required Mother to be responsible for transportation costs, provided for joint decision-making authority, and required Mother to inform Father about various medical, school, and extracurricular matters.

On Father’s criminal contempt motion, the trial court found Mother guilty and sentenced her to serve 30 days in jail, with 10 days suspended contingent on Mother’s complete compliance with the court order for the next five years.

Father appealed, arguing that Child’s relocation was not in Child’s best interest. Specifically, Father argued the trial court applied an improper legal standard because Mother did not comply with the notice requirements of the parental relocation statute.

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

Tennessee’s parental relocation statute requires the relocating parent to send a notice to the other parent at least 60 days before the planned relocation. The notice must state:

• the intent to move;
• the location of the proposed new residence;
• reasons for the proposed relocation; and
• a statement that an objection by the nonrelocating parent must be sent within 30 days absent an agreement of the parents or the relocating parent will be allowed to move.

Father argued that a proper notice from the relocating parent is a prerequisite to approval for relocation under the statute, and the best-interest analysis is only to be conducted after proper notice of the intended relocation is given.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not err in deciding the relocation was in Child’s best interest:

While the parental relocation statute unequivocally requires that the relocating parent get the requisite notice, is not the relocating parent’s notice that spurs the trial court into action. Instead, as clearly stated in [the statute], it is the filing of the petition in opposition to relocation that triggers the action of the trial court. Specifically, the statute provides, “If a petition in opposition to relocation is filed, the court shall determine whether relocation is in the best interest of the minor child.” And it is well-established that “when the word ‘shall’ is used in a statute is construed to be mandatory, not discretionary.”

Even without the specific guidelines of the parental relocation statute, Tennessee courts have long relied upon the best interest of the child in steering child custody and visitation determinations.

*     *     *     *     *

Parental relocation cases are frequently heartbreaking, with profound competing considerations and impact on both parents and the subject children. Delay does not improve them. The legislature has enacted a statute with explicit directions to the courts on the resolution of such cases, and we are required to follow the clear legislative directives in the statute.

Here, due to Mother’s failure to comply with the statute, Father had no choice but to act out of sequence with the instructions of the statute by filing the petition in opposition to relocation, after which Mother filed her belated petition to relocate. Nevertheless, with the filing of Father’s petition in opposition to relocation, it then became mandatory for the trial court, as indicated by the statutory direction “shall” in [the statute], to determine whether relocation was in the best interest of the child.

The trial court determined that the most appropriate approach was to conduct a best-interest analysis. Guided by the parental relocation statute and caselaw that places the best interest of the child above all other interests, we agree with this determination.

*     *     *     *     *

Because a best-interest determination is mandatory after the petition in opposition [to] relocation is filed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a best-interest analysis to determine whether relocation was in the best interest of Child.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

K.O.’s Comment: The Court further observed that Mother’s failure to comply with the parental relocation statute was not without consequence because Mother was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail, with 10 days suspended, “to encourage Mother’s compliance with the parenting plan over the next five years.”

Mother was also charged with the crime of Custodial Interference under TCA § 39-13-306. Mother entered into a plea agreement where she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was given a suspended sentence.

The Court observed:

Mother’s violation of the existing parenting plan and the parental relocation statute resulted in significant consequences for Mother. Any further appropriate recourse for not following the notice requirements under the parental relocation statute is an issue for the legislature to address. Ultimately, however, in parenting plan determinations, the “paramount consideration” of the court is not in punishing the parent, but in maintaining the best interest of the child.

Source: Grace v. Grace (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, March 31, 2025).

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