Gooding v. Gooding
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 276
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents (Father Timothy Gooding and Mother Jessika Gooding) share one child born June 2013; divorce trial held June 26, 2014 when child was one year old.
- Court entered temporary parenting plans during 2013–2014; trial court adopted the May 23, 2014 temporary plan (with limited additional summer time for Father) in the final July 22, 2014 order but made no factual findings under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
- Father was the only witness at trial; he testified to active primary caregiving during his parenting time and proposed an alternating-week year‑round schedule; Mother did not testify and presented no evidence.
- Record contained no evidence showing one parent was better suited to have substantially more parenting time; allergy testing results were pending and no diagnosis was in the record.
- Trial court awarded Mother the majority of parenting time during the school year and granted equal alternating-week parenting only during summers beginning summer 2015; child support remained at $259/month.
- The trial court did not state the legal basis or specific factual findings supporting its parenting schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the parenting schedule giving Father limited periodic weekend visitation was unsupported by evidence | Father: record showed only his evidence supporting year‑round equal alternating weeks; trial court should order shared co‑equal parenting | Mother: (through counsel) urged adoption of existing temporary plan; offered no testimony at trial | Court: Reversed and remanded — de novo review found no evidence supporting substantial disparity; trial court must craft schedule maximizing both parents’ participation and make 52.01 findings |
| 2. Whether court erred by giving equal summer time but not year‑round when child not in school | Father: no justification for differing summer/school‑year schedules for a one‑year‑old; year‑round equal time better serves best interests | Mother: advocated keeping temporary schedule (no trial testimony) | Court: Found no evidence to justify seasonal disparity; could not affirm the restrictive school‑year schedule and remanded |
| 3. Whether the trial court implicitly applied the tender‑years doctrine | Father: trial court relied on disfavored presumption that mothers get custody of young children | Mother: no evidence she relied on tender‑years; trial court did not state reasoning | Court: Issue rendered moot by reversal; also noted Tennessee law rejects tender‑years presumption but did not decide further due to remand |
| 4. Whether child support calculation was erroneous given visitation | Father: requested child support be recalculated consistent with shared co‑equal schedule | Mother: maintained existing support order | Court: Child support issue moot on appeal because primary relief was reversal and remand to set parenting time and then calculate support accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (parenting‑plan decisions are within trial court discretion; gender‑based custody presumptions disapproved)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (trial judge best positioned to evaluate witnesses and craft parenting details)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (standard for reversing parenting decisions is abuse of discretion)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion occurs when court applies incorrect legal standard, reaches illogical decision, or bases decision on clearly erroneous evidence; three‑part review explained)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 findings facilitate appellate review; absent findings, appellate court may perform de novo review)
- State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (discretionary choices must be guided by legal principles)