Facts: Mother and Father divorced in 2020 and agreed to a permanent parenting plan that gave them equal parenting time with their minor child. In September 2023, Mother accepted a position in Atlanta, Georgia, and notified Father of her intent to relocate, first through a co-parenting app and then by certified letter delivered on September 11, 2023.

On September 25, 2023, Father’s counsel emailed an objection to Mother’s counsel.

On October 12, 2023, Mother filed a petition in the trial court seeking approval to relocate with the child. Under TCA § 36-6-108(b), Father had thirty days from the filing of the petition to file his response in opposition. Father did not do so. Instead, 104 days later, on January 25, 2024, he filed his response noting his opposition. The next day, Mother moved to strike the response as untimely.

At a hearing a few days later, Father, represented by new counsel, argued that his prior attorney’s September 25 email satisfied the statutory objection requirement. New counsel could not explain why Father had failed to file a formal opposition in court by the statutory deadline.

The trial court granted Mother’s petition, struck Father’s untimely opposition, and permitted Mother to relocate with the Child without conducting a best-interest hearing. The trial court found Father was required to file any opposition “within 30 days of Mother’s Petition” and “offered no good cause for failing to timely respond.”

Father moved to alter or amend the trial court’s decision. He argued that his prior attorney’s neglect caused the late filing, that the 2018 amendment to Tennessee’s parental relocation statute made the 30-day deadline directory rather than mandatory, and that Rule 6.02 allowed the trial court to extend the deadline for excusable neglect. The trial court disagreed and denied Father’s motion.

The court entered a final order designating Mother as the child’s primary residential parent, allocating 265 days of parenting time to Mother and 100 to Father, and awarding Mother $15,000 in attorney’s fees.

Father appealed.

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

Tennessee’s parental relocation statute requires a parent seeking to relocate outside Tennessee or more than 50 miles from the other parent to give at least 60 days’ written notice by registered or certified mail. If the parents cannot agree on a new parenting schedule within 30 days of the notice, or if the other parent timely objects to the notice, the relocating parent must file a petition seeking court approval of the relocation.

After the relocation petition is filed, the nonrelocating parent has 30 days to file a response in opposition. If no response in opposition is filed within 30 days, “the parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so.” If a timely opposition is filed, the trial court must decide whether relocation is in the child’s best interest.

Father argued the 2018 amendment to the relocation statute gave trial courts more discretion and made the 30-day deadline flexible. The Court rejected that argument. Although the 2018 amendment changed how courts analyze relocation when the issue is properly before them, the Court found that nothing changed the deadline that triggers the trial court’s duty to conduct a best-interest hearing.

Thus, the Court held that the trial court properly struck the untimely opposition:

Prior to the 2018 amendment [of the relocation statute], this Court rendered the 30-day filing provision mandatory because of the use of the word “shall” and the remedy for failure to timely file an opposition petition. After the 2018 amendment, the legislature left intact the language prescribing the time to file and the remedy for failure to file. There is no indication that the amendment shifts the provision from mandatory to directory or creates any ambiguity….

Because the language at issue is unambiguous, we must apply the ordinary, plain meaning of the text so long as that meaning aligns with the statute’s general purpose. The Rutherford court found the 30-day filing period to be mandatory in the scheme of the Parental Relocation Statute. Since that holding, there’ve been no changes to the statute that would allow us to find that the filing period is to be directory or that the provision is ambiguous. We discern no error in the trial court’s decision to strike Father’s opposition to Mother’s Petition as untimely.

Father also argued Rule 6.02 should allow the deadline to be extended because his prior attorney’s neglect caused the late filing.

The Court was not persuaded. Even assuming Rule 6.02 could apply to the statutory relocation deadline, the trial court found Father failed to show good cause for missing the deadline. Without good cause or excusable neglect, Father was not entitled to relief from the statutory deadline.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow Mother’s relocation and strike Father’s untimely opposition.

K.O.’s Comment: This is a harsh result, but not a surprising one.

Tennessee’s parental relocation statute has two deadlines that matter. First, the nonrelocating parent must object to the relocation notice within 30 days of the notice. Second, after the relocating parent files a petition, the nonrelocating parent must file with the court a response in opposition within 30 days of the petition.

Father did the first thing. He did not do the second.

That distinction made all the difference. An email from counsel may communicate an objection, but it is not the court filing required by the statute after the relocation petition is filed. Without that filing, the trial court never reaches the best-interest factors.

Source: Mosby v. Meachem (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, June 23, 2026).

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