Davina Ruth Hart v. Gabriel Carse Hart
W2016-01616-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Mother and Father divorced in 2008; the final decree adopted an agreed parenting plan. Mother moved to Texas before the decree; child born in 2007.
- May 2013: parties entered a mediated agreed parenting plan (consent order) allocating 280 days to Mother and 85 days to Father, with specified Texas visitations, monthly extra weekend option, shared major holidays, phone/webcam contact, and joint decision-making for major decisions.
- November 2015: Father filed a petition to modify the May 2013 plan (and a contempt motion), seeking more parenting time (proposed 113 days) and permission to give the child a cell phone to facilitate contact; Father filed a proposed plan two days before trial. Mother did not file a proposed parenting plan or a counter-petition.
- At the February 2016 hearing both parents testified about cooperation problems under the May 2013 plan; Father emphasized a close relationship and the child’s expressed desire for more time with him; Mother testified she wanted a more rigid schedule so she could have time with the child during school breaks.
- Trial court (June 30, 2016) found a material change in circumstances and reduced Father’s parenting time from 85 to 68 days (eliminating certain spring/fall/Texas visitations and reducing monthly Texas weekends to four times per year), increased phone contact, denied the cell‑phone request, and gave Mother authority for major life decisions.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the trial court’s reduction of Father’s parenting time was unsupported by the evidence (Mother never sought increased time or filed a proposed plan), reversed the reduction, and reinstated the May 2013 parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reducing Father’s parenting time | Mother argued a more structured schedule giving her more time during school breaks was in the child’s best interest | Father argued the reduction was unsupported by evidence, Mother hadn’t plead for increased time or filed a plan, and the May 2013 schedule should remain | Court held the reduction was unsupported by the record and reversed the reduction, reinstating the May 2013 plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (standard for appellate review of custody findings and deference to trial court)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and limits on appellate reweighing of custody determinations)
- Massey‑Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishing standards for modifying parenting schedule vs. primary custody)
- Hogue v. Hogue, 147 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court must base custody decisions on proof and proper legal principles)
- Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002) (due‑process requirement that custody changes be pleaded)