In Re Gunner F.
M2016-01650-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Parents entered an agreed permanent parenting plan in 2012 naming Mother primary residential parent and equal parenting time; no child support was set.
- In May 2014 Mother moved with the child from Maury County to Lewis County (≈30 miles away).
- Father filed to enroll the child in Maury County school in July 2015; juvenile court left enrollment in Maury County pending further order.
- Mother petitioned in July 2015 to modify the plan to increase her parenting time and enroll the child in Lewis County; Father counter-petitioned to be named primary residential parent while keeping equal parenting time.
- After a July 29, 2016 hearing, the juvenile court found a changed circumstance (child starting school and Mother’s relocation), blamed Mother’s move, and amended the parenting plan naming Father primary residential parent who may enroll the child in Maury County.
- Mother appealed; appellate court reviewed whether the order was final and whether required factual findings (especially best-interest analysis) were made.
Issues
| Issue | Lewis's Argument | Jeffrey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 2, 2016 order is a final, appealable order | Order is final; child support and fees were not pleaded or requested at hearing | Order is not final because it omitted child support and attorney fees | Order is final; issues of child support/fees were not part of the petition on appeal, so appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Whether the trial court made required findings of fact, including best-interest analysis, when changing primary residential parent | Trial court failed to make required best-interest findings; remand required | Trial court’s findings about relocation and foreseeability suffice | Vacated and remanded: court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing best-interest factors per Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cranston v. Combs, 106 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2003) (framework for material-change analysis in custody modifications)
- Rigsby v. Edmonds, 395 S.W.3d 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (not every life change is a material change of circumstances)
- Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (two-step inquiry: material change then best-interest analysis)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (factual nature of material-change and best-interest determinations)