Sarah H. Richardson v. Benjamin N. Richardson, M2020-00179-COA-R3-CV

Background

Parties divorced in 2015; incorporated parenting plan named Mother primary residential parent and tied Father’s parenting time to his military residence in Clarksville.
Mother received the marital home and mortgage responsibility; foreclosure prompted Mother to move to Texas and shortly thereafter remarry; Father’s parenting time was reduced by the move.
Mother filed to modify the parenting plan (seek to remain primary and reduce Father to ~80 days/year); Father counter-petitioned seeking to be named primary residential parent and filed a proposed parenting plan.
At trial, exhibits included text messages, photographs, a letter from Father’s wife, and an audio recording of a phone call in which Mother used profane, derogatory language about Father with children audible in the background.
Trial court found Father proved a material change, concluded most best‑interest factors favored Father (adopted Father’s parenting plan: Mother 103 days, Father 262 days), held Mother guilty of criminal contempt for derogatory remarks in children’s presence (10 days suspended to 2), and awarded attorney’s fees to Father.
On appeal: Mother raised four issues (Rule 52.01 findings, best‑interest error, contempt, denial of guardian ad litem). No trial transcript or statement of the evidence was filed; appellate court accepted an audio recording and conducted an independent review, affirming the trial court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with Rule 52.01 (findings of fact and conclusions of law)	Mother: order lacked adequate factual findings tied to statutory factors and thus requires reversal/remand	Father: record and oral ruling supplied sufficient basis; errors not prejudicial	Court: order was deficient in places but, given available record and audio of oral ruling, exercised discretion to review merits and affirmed on the merits rather than remand
Whether change of primary residential parent was in children’s best interests	Mother: trial court misapplied §36-6-106, over-weighted single phone call and failed to credit Mother’s role as primary caregiver	Father: Father showed material change and best‑interest factors (alienation, denial of visitation, clothing/necessities, Mother’s emotional fitness) favored him	Court: independent review supports trial court’s findings; several factors (including facilitation of parent-child relationship, provision of necessities, emotional fitness, and evidence of emotional abuse/alienation) favored Father; affirmed change
Whether Mother’s criminal contempt conviction for derogatory remarks in children’s presence was supported	Mother: trial court lacked findings; recording insufficient/suspect; children may not have been present for all comments	Father: parenting plan and statute prohibit unwarranted derogatory remarks in child’s presence; recording shows willful violation	Court: parenting plan clearly prohibited such remarks; recording and other evidence show willful, repeated derogatory comments with children present; contempt conviction and two‑day incarceration affirmed
Whether trial court erred by denying Mother’s late motion to appoint a guardian ad litem (Rule 40A)	Mother: high acrimony and allegations warranted GAL appointment and continuance to allow investigation	Father: appointment unnecessary; motion filed too late; parties adequately represented children’s interests	Court: appointment of GAL is discretionary and intended to be rare; mother’s eleventh‑hour request and lack of demonstrated prejudice mean no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (trial courts afforded broad discretion in custody matters)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate deference and abuse‑of‑discretion principles)
Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 requires findings that disclose the steps by which the court reached conclusions)
Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (threshold for custody modification: material change in circumstances, then best interest analysis)
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga‑Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (four‑element test for contempt: lawful order, clear/ambiguous, violation, willfulness)
Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (burden and review standards for criminal contempt convictions)
Brown v. Christian Bros. Univ., 428 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (absence of transcript leads to conclusive presumption that trial court’s factual findings are supported)