James Ryan Skelton v. Jenna Marie Skelton
M2015-01426-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Parents had an agreed permanent parenting plan naming both as primary residential parents, splitting custody 182.5 days each; plan required Davin to attend Lewis County schools and prohibited removal or relocation outside Lewis County without court approval.
- Father filed to modify custody alleging Mother relocated to Lawrenceburg (outside Lewis County) in violation of the plan, neglected Davin’s educational needs, and engaged in detrimental behavior; Father sought primary custody.
- Mother later filed a cross-petition alleging Father’s new long‑distance truck-driving job (weekly trips to Florida) was a material change because it reduced his weekday parenting.
- Evidence at the hearing: Mother’s move increased Davin’s commute (30–45 minutes each way), correlated with tardies/detention in third grade, limited Mother’s attendance at school events and IEP meetings, and impeded consistent homework supervision; Davin had an IEP and needed stability.
- The chancery court found both Mother’s move and Father’s employment change were material changes, conducted a best‑interest analysis, awarded Father primary residential parent status, granted Mother liberal visitation, and dismissed Mother’s modification petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s move constituted a "material change in circumstance" warranting custody modification | Mother: Move did not meaningfully harm Davin; Father failed to prove adverse effect | Father: Move breached the schooling provision and materially impaired the joint plan’s workability and Davin’s education | Court: Move was a material change because it undermined the parenting plan and affected Davin’s well‑being |
| Whether Father’s job change constituted a material change | Father: Job change limited weekday parenting and was a material change | Mother: Father’s travel reduced his parenting time, supporting her petition | Court: Father’s employment change was a material change (Mother did not contest this finding) |
| Whether the court erred in re‑examining custody and awarding primary custody to Father | Mother: Court improperly relied on move alone and should not have modified custody | Father: Material changes required best‑interest re‑evaluation and Father was comparatively more fit | Court: After finding material changes, best‑interest analysis supported naming Father primary residential parent; modification affirmed |
| Whether the chancery court erred in dismissing Mother’s modification petition | Mother: Her petition should not have been dismissed because her move wasn’t material | Father: Both material changes supported denying Mother’s petition and awarding Father custody | Court: Dismissal proper—evidence did not preponderate against findings and Mother’s petition was correctly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (trial courts given deference on custody/visitation findings)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for modification findings)
- Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (material change threshold for custody modification)
- Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (factors to evaluate material change: timing, foreseeability, effect on child)
- In re T.C.D., 261 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (change must be significant and best‑interest re‑evaluation required after material change)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (deference to trial court credibility findings; standard for overturning such findings)