Sherry Lynn Dalrymple v. Shawn Patrick Dalrymple
M2016-01905-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Nov 14, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother Sherry Dalrymple; Father Shawn Dalrymple) divorced in 2015; the original agreed parenting plan named Father primary residential parent with equal week-on/week-off parenting time for two sons (ages 10 and 8).
- Father (active-duty military) was reassigned from Fort Campbell, TN to Huntsville, AL and filed to modify the parenting plan in 2016 seeking to preserve his status as primary residential parent and a proposed schedule favoring him; Mother counter-petitioned seeking designation as primary residential parent.
- The parties agreed to a residential schedule (Mother 265 days, Father 100 days) via mediation but disagreed on who should be the primary residential parent; the court held evidence hearings and received party-submitted proposed findings.
- The trial court applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) best-interest factors, found Mother should be primary residential parent, kept the children in Tennessee, and ordered child support; Father appealed claiming errors in factual findings, procedure, and weight assigned to factors.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo as to facts with a presumption of correctness and affirmed, finding the trial court’s factual findings supported by evidence (except one minor misstatement about grandmother/addiction history) and no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden and sequencing of proposed findings | Mother argued Father, having filed the modification petition, bore the burden and court could require he file proposed findings first | Father argued requiring him to file findings first unfairly shifted or tainted burden and decision | Court: Requiring Father to submit proposed findings first was a permissible docket control; Father still bore the substantive burden as petitioner; no reversible error |
| Use of party-prepared findings and independence of the court | Mother: party-prepared findings are acceptable if they reflect the court’s independent decision-making | Father: court “adopted Mother’s findings verbatim” so judgment was tainted and not the court’s own | Court: Although court used Mother’s format, it edited and incorporated both parties’ submissions; record shows independent judicial deliberation; practice permissible if court independently rules |
| Application/weight of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) best-interest factors | Mother: trial court’s factor-by-factor findings were supported by testimony, documents, and credibility assessments favoring Mother on most factors | Father: evidence preponderates against many factor findings (anger issues, grandmother’s fitness, scheduling, alleged withholding of relocation info); trial court misweighed evidence | Court: Except for one minor factual error about maternal grandmother/addiction, the evidence does not preponderate against the court’s findings; credibility and weight are for trial court; no abuse of discretion |
| Relocation and designation of primary residential parent | Mother: change in circumstances warranted redesignation to protect children’s stability in Tennessee and because Mother offered more stable daily care | Father: reassignment justified modification favoring him; court penalized him for anticipated move and mischaracterized his disclosure | Court: Parties agreed material change; court properly focused on best-interest factors (the proper analysis) and did not penalize Father in outcome; affirmed Mother as primary residential parent |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Watson, 196 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of appellate review for bench-tried factual findings)
- Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014) (permitting use of party-prepared findings if they reflect the court’s independent decision)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 165 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (trial courts have wide discretion in custody matters; appellate courts defer absent abuse)
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court’s docket-control authority and discretionary case management)