Michael Joseph Crew Hensley v. Shellie Nicole Bouma Hensley
E2017-00354-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2009; Twins were primary subjects of a permanent parenting plan. Mother initially primary residential parent (June 2010 PPP) with 215 days; parties later agreed to invert residential designation (December 2010 PPP) making Father primary and Mother with 150 annual days.
- Mother lived in New Mexico; Father lived in Tennessee; parenting plans allocated interstate travel and apportioned travel costs. Child support was set in the 2010 PPP (Mother paid Father monthly).
- Mother filed a petition to modify the December 2010 PPP in 2015 alleging a material change in circumstances (including safety and supervision concerns). After a multi-day bench trial (2015–2016) the trial court found a material change and entered a January 24, 2017 permanent parenting plan (2017 PPP) reducing Mother’s annual days from 150 to 90 (actually 91) and revising travel arrangements.
- The 2017 PPP did not set a child support amount, did not attach a child support worksheet, and did not explicitly state whether child support would remain as previously ordered; the trial court did not certify the order as final.
- Father argued on appeal that child support must be recalculated to reflect the changed residential schedule; Mother appealed the reduction in her parenting time. The appellate court raised sua sponte the question of finality because child support was not addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in reducing Mother’s annual co-parenting days from 150 to 90 | Reduction was improper; trial court abused discretion (Mother challenges modification) | Reduction reflects actual exercised days and is appropriate; for support purposes days should match reality | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s order modifying parenting time did not resolve child support and thus was not a final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments unless interlocutory appeal is authorized)
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (standard for appellate review of bench findings; presumption of correctness for factual findings)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012) (child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000) (Child Support Guidelines limit trial court discretion and are binding)
- Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (Child Support Guidelines have the force of law)
- State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (child support statutes and regulations promote consistent awards and require guideline use)