April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) v. Aaron R. Edmonds
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Divorce of Mother and Father in 2008; Mother designated primary residential parent with equal parenting time.
- Mother obtained relocation to Ohio with the child; relocation order entered February 2010.
- March 2011 Father petitioned to modify, proposing to designate him as primary parent; Mother countered with her own plan.
- Trial in August 2011; court found a material change of circumstances to modify the schedule and designated Father as primary.
- Court ultimately reversed the designation of Father as primary residential parent but found a material change under the school schedule and remanded for a new permanent parenting plan; child support issue reserved/continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change justifies altering the primary residential parent | Rigsby argues no material change under §36-6-101(a)(2)(B) justifies change | Edmonds argues change warranted under §36-6-101(a)(2)(B)/(C) due to school and stability needs | No material change under (B); but schedule changed under (C); remand for new plan |
| Whether the child support order was proper | Mother contends support should not be awarded given lack of prior support | Father argues support appropriate and remains valid until new plan. | Support affirmed pending remand for new plan; not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (material change in circumstances and best interests standard for custody modification)
- Blair v. Badenhop, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002) (determinative framework for material change and best interests)
- Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (stability of custody environment favored; res judicata considerations)
- Caudill v. Foley, 21 S.W.3d 203 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (best interests analysis when no material change proven)