NASHVILLE, Tenn. (CLARKSVILLENOW) – The Tennessee Supreme Court has made a decision that could make it easier for a divorced parent to move out of state with the kids, even if the other parent objects to the children relocating.
This decision applies in cases where one parent has more time with the kids than the other.
In a case involving divorced parents in Clarksville, the Court held that the mother, who opposed the father’s request to move to Arizona with their daughter, had not met the high standard of proof that the law requires.
When the mother and father were married, the family lived in Clarksville, Tenn. They divorced in 2010, when their daughter was very young. After the divorce, the father spent more time taking care of the parties’ daughter, and the mother sent the father financial support for the benefit of the daughter.
In March 2012, the father notified the mother that he planned to relocate with the daughter to Tucson, Ariz., to accept a job. He had family in Arizona, and cited their support as an incentive for the move. The mother also had extended family in Arizona. However, the mother objected to the father’s proposed move.
The father filed a petition in court and moved to Arizona shortly before the trial. At trial, the mother argued the father’s move did not have a “reasonable purpose.” After the trial, the chancery court in Montgomery County denied the father’s request to move with the daughter.
The court named the mother, still residing in Tennessee, as the daughter’s primary residential parent. The father appealed.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and said the father had to show that his proposed move to Arizona was for a “reasonable purpose.”
The father appealed and the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed. The Court explained that, under Tennessee’s Parental Relocation Statute, the trial court must allow the parent who spends the greater amount of time with the child to relocate with the child unless the parent who opposes the move proves one of three grounds for denying permission: (1) that the proposed move would pose a threat of serious harm to the child; (2) that the relocating parent’s motive is vindictive; or (3) that the move does not have a reasonable purpose.
The Court held that the mother had not proven that the purpose of the father’s move in this case, to accept a job near his extended family, was not a “reasonable purpose.”
The decision was unanimous.