Changed Circumstances Justify Dad Custody
Tennessee child custody case summary on custody modification in divorce and family law.
Dad gets custody of child from 50/50 split after changed circumstances.
Velena Maria Ramirez Stierle v. Laz Ramirez Vallvey
The parents in this Bradley County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2016, and the mother was named the primary residential parent of their six year old, but with equal co-parenting time.
In 2022, the mother requested modification because the father had moved over an hour away. The mother alleged that this rendered the father’s after-school parenting time impossible.
The next month, the mother sought an order of protection against the father and alleged that the father had been abusive. The mother’s first request was denied. However, after a second request from the mother, an hearing was held. The father’s answer included a request for modification of the parenting plan. He claimed that the mother used derogatory words in front of the child and had prevented him from receiving information about the child at school. The court denied the motion again, and held a hearing a few months after that on the motions for amending the parenting plan. He was allowed to spend 237 days a year with the child and the mother 128. The father must pay $49 per month in child support. The father also received attorney’s fees in excess of $4000. The mother appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The mom argued that the trial judge had abused his discretion.
The appeals court began by noting that not every change of circumstances is material for the purposes of custody modification.
But the trial court had found numerous changes, such as the mother’s having moved three times, the mother’s remarriage, and the fact that the child had changed school three times. The father had also moved and the parenting plan did not work because of the distance. The trial court noted that the child had been consistently absent from school. The trial court also found that the mother and child had developed a co-dependent relationship, and there was a conflict between the child and the stepfather.
The mother agreed that there had been a change of circumstances, but argued that the best interest of the child called for her to retain custody. The trial court weighed all the statutory factors, and found that the majority favored the father. The “stability of the relationship” factor, for example, was in favor of the father. It also found that the lower courts had made the right decisions in regard to the other factors. It therefore affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
The appeal was denied.
