Mom’s Move Approved But Cost Her Parenting Time
Tennessee child custody modification case summary.
Heather Anne (Coats) Emch v. Edward Glen Emch
The mother planned to move to Williamson County with her fiancé, and wanted the girl to attend school there. But the father had built a new house with his new wife in Wilson County, and wanted the girl to go to school there.
The mother and father in this case moved to Wilson County, Tennessee, shortly before the birth of their daughter. A year later, they entered into a marital dissolution agreement and permanent parenting plan. Under that plan, the parents had alternating weeks of residential time, with the mother named the primary residential parent. However, both parents had joint authority over major decisions such as education. Specifically, the plan stated that there would be no changes to schooling without both parents’ consent.
Things went well with the child in preschool. But when the daughter was ready to start kindergarten, they reached an impasse. The mother planned to move to Williamson County with her fiancé, and wanted the girl to attend school there. But the father had built a new house with his new wife in Wilson County, and wanted the girl to go to school there.
The father then went back to court and made a petition to modify the parenting plan. He asserted that the mother’s move was a material change. He asked to be named primary residential parent, with his address used for the school location.
Trial was held before Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr., and it was clear that there would be a lo9ng commute either way.
The court held that there was no material change of circumstances to warrant change of residential parent. Therefore, Judge Hagan ordered the child to attend school at the mother’s new home address. However, he did find that there was a material change of circumstances warranting modification to the residential schedule. Therefore, the court modified the residential schedule. There was then an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The mother argued that the parenting schedule should not have been changed, since it reduced the mother’s parenting time.
The father first argued that the mother had waived most of her issues by failing to properly designate them in her brief. The appeals court agreed that her brief was somewhat lacking, but did not find that the deficiencies precluded proper review. It therefore turned to the question of whether there was a material change warranting change of schedule.
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that there was a material change of circumstances. It zeroed in on the language of the statute noting that changes must affect parenting, and held that they did.
It then turned to the next prong of whether a change was warranted in order to achieve the goal of maximum participation possible by each parent.
After examining the evidence, particularly the increased commute time to the daughter’s school, the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the change of schedule was warranted. In particular, it noted that the prior schedule was just not workable under the new circumstances, and that the new schedule was in the child’s best interests.
The lower court had denied attorney’s fees to both parents, and the Court of Appeals also affirmed this ruling.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, and assessed the costs of appeal against the mother.
No.M2021-00139-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2022).
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.
