Changed Circumstances Warranted Granting Dad Custody

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.  This request was denied, but after the mother made a second request, a hearing was held.  The request was again denied.

The father filed his answer, which also included a request to modify the parenting plan.  He alleged that the mother had used derogatory language in the presence of the child, and had blocked him from school information about the child.

The mother followed up with another motion to block the father’s parenting time, and another hearing was held.  The motion was again denied, and a few months later, the court held a hearing on the motions to amend the parenting plan.

The court found a material change of circumstances, and named the father the primary residential parent.  He was to have 237 days per year with the child, and the mother was to have 128.  The father was to pay child support of $49 per month.  The father was also awarded attorney’s fees of over $4000.  The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The mother argued that the trial court had abused its 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.  In addition, the father had moved, and the parenting plan was not working given the distance.  The trial court had noted that the child was consistently missing 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 had weighed the statutory factors and found that most of them favored the father.  For example, the “stability and strength of relationship” factor was in the father’s favor.

The mother argued that the trial court had given too much weight to this factor, but the appeals court found that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s findings.  Similarly, it found that the lower court had ruled appropriately with respect to the other factors.  Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The father requested his attorney’s fees on appeal, but this request was denied.

No. E2024-00866-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?

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.