![]() ![]() The Court found the trial court properly evaluated and weighed these two factors: (4) The disposition of each parent to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education, and other necessary care. (2) Each parent’s … past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities, including the willingness and ability of each of the parents … to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and both of the child’s parents, consistent with the best interest of the child. Once a material change is established, Tennessee courts must consider the factors at Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) to conduct the best-interest analysis. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that Father’s repeated failure to follow the parenting plan’s long-distance travel cost-sharing provisions while repeatedly asking Mother to waive child support to offset his expenses established the material change necessary to change the primary residential parent designation. To modify an existing parenting plan, a Tennessee court must first determine whether a material change of circumstances has occurred. On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Father’s child-support obligation increased to $955 per month. Father received 100 days of parenting time plus holidays. The trial court found Child’s best interest was served by naming Mother the primary residential parent and adopting her proposed parenting schedule. ![]() The second theme was that both parents agreed the alternating-year schedule was unworkable and not in Child’s best interest. I provided with everything she needs financially, yet you try to earn a quick buck off my hard work.” For example, he sent her this text message during the year when Child lived with him: “I actually tried to maintain a civil relationship between us, and you basically destroyed that seeking child support that you don’t need and don’t deserve. The first was Father’s resentment toward paying child support to Mother. Mother sought a new parenting plan naming her as the primary residential parent with Father having reasonable parenting time during school holidays. Since starting the alternating-year schedule, Father’s “unrealistic and uncooperative behavior” made that schedule unworkable and not in Child’s best interest.Father’s use of Child as an intermediary between the parents and.Father’s inability to communicate with Mother.Father’s questioning of Child about Mother’s care.Father’s interference and micromanaging of Mother’s parenting.Father’s daily demands about Child’s school.In the second year of this arrangement, when Child was primarily living with Mother in Tennessee, Mother petitioned to modify the parenting plan, citing these problems and others: Father was ordered to pay monthly child support of $208 based on each parent having a two-year average of 182.5 days. Once Child started school, the trial court ordered equal parenting time via alternating years with liberal visitation. The parties continued equal time via alternating months because Child was not yet school-aged. Shortly after that, Father moved to Delaware for a better job. Facts: When Mother and Father divorced, they lived in Clarksville and agreed to equal parenting time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |