Priscilla Brooke Wilson v. Patrick Shane Phillips
M2017-00097-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Parents (Father Patrick Phillips; Mother Priscilla Wilson) share three daughters; final divorce decree (2007) awarded Father primary custody and an incorporated parenting plan; plan modified in 2009 reducing Mother’s parenting time.
- Mother petitioned in 2016 seeking primary residential custody, contempt, and a restraining order, alleging material changes: her remarriage and relocation to Georgia, parents’ changed work schedules, exclusion from decision-making, medical neglect, and emotional/physical mistreatment by Father and Stepmother.
- Trial occurred over multiple days; witnesses included both parents, Stepfather, paternal grandmother, and all three children; evidence included testimony, school/medical forms, and exhibits showing Mother’s exclusion from school/medical records and gaps in dental/vision care.
- Trial court found a material change but declined to change primary custody, denied contempt, and dissolved restraining orders; Mother appealed.
- Court of Appeals found the trial court applied the wrong statutory standard for a custody change, reviewed de novo given insufficient factual findings, concluded the evidence established a material change and that modification was in the children’s best interests, reversed and awarded Mother primary residential custody; trial and appellate attorney fees to Mother granted; restraining orders to remain in effect until further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother proved a material change in circumstances to justify changing primary residential parent | Wilson: Parents’ work schedules changed, Mother’s availability increased, Father excluded Mother from decision-making, and Father neglected children’s medical/dental/vision needs | Phillips: Continuity and Father’s long-standing primary care, children’s established life in Marion County support keeping custody with Father | Court: Found multiple meaningful changes (schedules, failures to adhere to plan, medical neglect); material change proven under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑6‑101(a)(2)(B) — reversal for Mother |
| Whether modification is in children’s best interests under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑6‑106(a) factors | Wilson: Best‑interest factors (relationship with Mother/Stepfather, oldest child preference, medical care, facilitation of contact) favor Mother | Phillips: Continuity, Father’s history as primary caregiver, school/community stability favor Father | Court: Weighed all factors, found several (facilitation of relationship, medical care, children’s stress with Stepmother, oldest child’s preference, employment schedules) favored Mother; reversed trial court and awarded primary custody to Mother |
| Whether Father should be held in contempt for violating parenting plan (access, decision‑making, medical consents) | Wilson: Father unilaterally made medical/extracurricular decisions, withheld records and communications, denied access in violation of plan | Phillips: Denied contempt allegations; disputed some claimed exclusions; argued no sufficient proof for criminal contempt and trial court followed proper contempt standards | Court: Affirmed trial court’s refusal to impose civil or criminal contempt (no abuse of discretion; criminal contempt notice requirements not met) |
| Whether Mother is entitled to attorney fees | Wilson: Requested fees under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑5‑103(c) due to custody litigation | Phillips: Opposed | Court: Granted Mother reasonable attorney fees for trial and appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in parenting determinations)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard and when a court misapplies legal standards)
- Cranston v. Combs, 106 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2003) (material change requires effect on child’s well‑being in a meaningful way)
- Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (two‑step analysis for custody modification: material change then best interest)
- Massey‑Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (distinction between modification of primary residential parent and modification of parenting schedule)