Mom Loses Custody After New Stepdad Whips Girl With Belt
Tennessee child custody modification case summary.
Joshua Aaron Bradley v. Jennifer Racheal Bradley (Odom)
Corporal punishment was not, by itself, the reason for finding a material change.
The parents in this Hickman County, Tennessee, case divorced in 2017. Under their agreed parenting plan, the mother was named primary residential parent, with the father having 148 days per year parenting time. Three years later, the father filed an emergency petition in juvenile court, in which he alleged that the mother’s new husband whipped the child with a belt for small infractions.
He brought a similar petition in the divorce court, and that court, like the juvenile court, prohibited the stepfather from physically disciplining the child. The father also alleged that the mother had unilaterally made educational decisions and failed to provide an appropriate home environment.
A hearing was held, and the evidence showed that the father now lived with his fiancée and her sons, and the child had a good relationship with them. The father testified that the child’s demeanor had changed after the mother remarried, and she disclosed the whippings. The father contacted the mother, who was fully aware of the stepfather’s actions.
While the whipping stopped after the court ordered them to stop, the stepfather still walked around with a belt in his hand. The father was also concerned about the mother’s plans to change school districts.
A therapist testified about therapy sessions that had been conducted over Zoom. The therapist testified that the child seemed very concerned about confidentiality when she was at her mother’s house, but was much more open when she participated in the sessions from the father’s house.
The mother testified that she saw no harm in the stepfather’s behavior. She also testified that both she and the father sometimes used corporal punishment. The stepfather also testified that he saw strong discipline as an essential child-rearing tool, and that he would not hesitate to use corporal punishment if the ban were lifted. He noted that he never whipped the girl until after she agreed that she deserved it.
After the first hearing, the father discovered on the child’s iPad a disturbing search history, and that she had been whipped again. The therapist was of the opinion that the search in question had been made by the child’s older half sister. But she did confirm that she had been whipped with a belt again, but that the whipping had been done by the mother’s 14-year-old niece.
After hearing the evidence, the court determined that there had been a material change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. In particular, the court found that the mother had failed to grasp the reality of the child’s emotional turmoil. The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court looked first at whether there had been a material change of circumstances. It focused on the fact that the mother had condoned the stepfather’s actions, which had caused the daughter to withdraw and develop anxiety and depression.
The mother argued that the corporal punishment issues had been rectified, and that she was being punished “for past bad acts.” But the appeals court pointed out that the corporal punishment was not, by itself, the reason for finding a material change. It pointed out that the child was still in need of therapy.
For these reasons, the appeals court agreed that there had been a material change of circumstances.
It then turned to whether the change of custody was warranted. This requires a finding that the other parent is comparatively more fit. After reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the lower court. One particularly crucial factor was the mother’s decision to move to a different school district. It found that the continuity in the girl’s life was critical, because she would remain in the same school in her father’s custody. It also noted that the father provided emotional support during a stressful time in her life.
After reviewing all of the factors, the appeals court agreed that the lower court had not erred in naming the father the primary residential parent. For these reasons, it affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. M2022-00259-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 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.
