Mom is allowed to move one child, but the other remains with dad
Rachel Poyner Hight and Billy Hugh Hight were divorced 2021. In their parenting plan, they named the mother as the primary residential parent for their two children, a girl born in 2008 and son born 2012. The father would have 165 days of parenting time per year. The father filed a petition to oppose the move. While the mother alleged financial reasons for her move, involving her job as an anesthesiologist, the father alleged that the move was motivated by the mother’s desire to live with her boyfriend, who the father alleged served as the children’s caretaker in many respects.
Prior to the 2023 hearing, the mother had changed plans, and intended to relocated to Memphis. She reiterated that her move was motivated by her job. The father’s evidence focused on the fact he was a teacher at the children’s school. The trial court determined that the daughter suffered from bullying in her current school, while the son was younger and enjoyed a close relationship with his father and friends. It concluded that relocating the daughter was in her best interest, but keeping the son with his father at his current school was best for the son. It granted the request for relocation of the daughter but denied the request for the son. In the event of a mother’s relocation, the father was designated as the primary resident parent for the son. The mother appealed this decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The court noted first that no one had appealed a lower court’s ruling allowing the mother and daughter to move together. The mother argued the trial court made a mistake in its final decision because it separated the siblings. The mother argued both parties wanted the children to stay together. The appeals court pointed out that the lower court had wide discretion to make an order in the best interests of the children. The appeals court agreed with the Tennessee legislature that separating siblings is not a good idea. But it also pointed out that this preference must give way in appropriate circumstances.
After a thorough review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had acted within its discretion, which often hinges on subtle factors. In this case, the lower court determined that both schools were excellent but it was not wise for the son to be removed from his stable environment. The evidence supported separation, even though it was not ideal. It also awarded his attorney’s fee on appeal.
