COVID-19 Distance Learning Warranted Custody Change
Tennessee child custody modification case summary.
Eric Emory Edwards v. Dallis Leeann Edwards
COVID-19 Distance Learning Warranted Custody Change
The parties in this Rutherford County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2016, at which time they agreed to a permanent parenting plan for their daughter who was about 8 years old. The mother was named primary residential parent with 210 parenting days per year. The father was assigned 155 parenting days.
In 2021, the father made a petition to modify the parenting plan. He based this petition on two grounds.
First of all, he noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, they had agreed to a week on, week off plan, since the daughter was engaged in distance learning. He also asserted that the mother’s home was listed for sale, which he alleged would uproot the child from her school. The mother had notified the father of the pending listing, but had changed those plans and removed the home from the market.
The trial court found that the father had established a material change of circumstances, and modified the parenting schedule to allow for a 50-50 split of parenting time. The mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court pointed out that in such cases, there was a two-step analysis, under which the court must first determine if there was a material change of circumstances. The appeals court reviewed the lower court’s rationale, and noted that there is a very low threshold for determining material change of circumstances. And in this case, it found that distance learning and the parties’ deviation during COVID-19 was sufficient to support this finding.
The second step is determining whether a change in custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court listed the relevant statutory factors.
The lower court had addressed all of these factors, and the appeals court agreed that it had acted properly in making the change. While most of the factors were evenly balanced, the lower court found that the child needed the care and love of both parents “as much as she possibly can get.” The appeals court affirmed this ruling.
Both parties requested attorney’s fees for the appeal, but both requests were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling and assessed the costs of appeal upon the mother.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals was authored by Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II, and Judges Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer concurred.
No. M2022-00614-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2023).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
