Tennessee youngster custody modification case abstract.
The mom and father on this case had been divorced in 2014. They had been the mother and father of 1 youngster, who was born in 2007. On the time of their divorce, the trial courtroom of Shelby County, Tennessee, entered a everlasting parenting plan naming the mom as the first residential dad or mum. The mom obtained 205 days of parenting time, and the daddy, 160 days. Each mother and father had joint decision-making obligations.
In 2018, first the daddy, after which the mom, made petitions to change the parenting plan. The daddy requested to be named the first residential dad or mum. He alleged that the mom didn’t make joint choices, didn’t permit the kid to take part at school sports activities, and different allegations. The mom requested for a modification of the parenting schedule, alleging the daddy’s failure to stick to the parenting plan.
A trial was held earlier than Choose Robert Samual Weiss, who granted the daddy’s petition and named him the first residential dad or mum. The trial courtroom’s order said that each mother and father agreed that there had been a fabric change of circumstances. The courtroom discovered the fabric change for that cause. After post-trial motions, the mom appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.
On attraction, the mom argued that the trial courtroom had erred to find a fabric change of circumstances because of this. After discussing the usual of overview, the appeals courtroom tackled this subject.
The appeals courtroom famous that in any custody modification case, the trial courtroom should discover a materials change of circumstances by a preponderance of the proof. It famous {that a} change of custody, as occurred on this case, requires a better exhibiting than a mere modification of the visitation schedule. And on this case, the daddy had the burden of proof.
The mom’s proposed change was a mere change within the visitation schedule, which has a decrease burden of proof. Though each events asserted a fabric change, the appeals courtroom concluded that the trial courtroom erred in holding that this amounted to a stipulation. It held that they didn’t stipulate to something. They merely made related allegations.
For these causes, the appeals courtroom held that the decrease courtroom’s order wanted to be vacated. Step one in any custody modification case is a discovering of fabric change of circumstances, and this had not been correctly achieved within the case.
The appeals courtroom additionally held that neither social gathering was entitled to legal professional’s charges, both for trial or the attraction.
For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals vacated the decrease courtroom’s ruling and remanded the case.
No. W2019-00544-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2020).
See authentic opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Modifying Custody & Parenting Plans.
See additionally Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family that includes examples of parenting plans and youngster help worksheets from actual instances obtainable on Amazon.com.
