Soumya Pandey v. Manish Shrivastava

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; February 21, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Following a four-day trial in a divorce case, the trial court designated the Mother, Soumya Pandey, as the primary residential parent of their minor child, Akul, and granted her permission to relocate to Arkansas. The Father, Manish Shrivastava, appealed the decision due to the trial court's lack of explanation for its ruling, which hindered meaningful appellate review. The Court of Appeals remanded the case, directing the trial court to provide findings and conclusions as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

The factual and procedural background reveals that both parties are citizens of India who married in Ohio in 2005 and subsequently moved to Memphis, Tennessee, in 2007 for the Mother’s medical residency. In July 2008, Mother filed for divorce while both sought primary custody of Akul. A temporary parenting plan was established, allowing Akul to reside with Mother four nights a week and Father three nights.

In early 2011, Mother notified Father of her intention to move to Arkansas for a fellowship upon completion of her residency. Father opposed the move, expressing concerns that Mother might take Akul to India, a country not part of the Hague Convention, complicating his ability to retrieve his son. He requested the court to require Mother to surrender Akul's passport and Indian citizenship documents to mitigate this risk. Mother filed a counter-petition to seek relocation and amend the parenting schedule. 

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement on several issues, leaving only parenting time and child support for trial. They agreed on a stipulation that would govern parenting arrangements contingent upon the trial court's ruling on primary residency. If the court awarded primary custody to Mother, Father would be entitled to 145 days of parenting time.

A bench trial took place over four days in May 2011, resulting in a court order designating Mother as the primary residential parent for five-year-old Akul and allowing her to relocate to Little Rock, Arkansas. The permanent parenting plan allocated 145 days of parenting time to Father, but the actual schedule provided only 131 days. The court ordered both parents to cooperate in renewing Akul's expired passport, declining Father's proposal to keep it in a safe deposit box. Instead, the court mandated that Akul could only travel internationally with the written consent of the other parent or a court order. Father filed a motion to amend the divorce decree, noting the discrepancy in his allotted parenting time and claiming that the Department of State could not issue a passport under the conditions specified in the decree. Mother responded by attributing the parenting schedule error to Father's attorney and alleging 'misrepresentation' on Father's part, arguing he should not receive the originally stipulated 145 days due to 'unclean hands.' The trial court amended the parenting plan to grant Father 140 days, maintaining the restrictions on the passport. Father subsequently appealed, raising issues regarding the designation of the primary residential parent, the reduction of his parenting time, and the denial of his request for the passport's safekeeping. The appellate court remanded the case, instructing the trial court to provide detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

The court must perform a comparative fitness analysis to designate a primary residential parent, particularly in cases of proposed parental relocation. The parental relocation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-108, does not apply to initial custody decisions; instead, a best interest analysis is required. Two statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-106 and 36-6-404, outline non-exclusive factors for determining a child's best interest, with both lists being substantially similar and allowing consideration of other relevant factors. 

Key factors in this analysis include: emotional ties between the child and caregivers, caregivers' ability to provide necessary care, continuity and stability in the child's life, the mental and physical health of caregivers, the child's community and school record, the child's reasonable preference (if over 12 years old), evidence of abuse, the character of others in the caregiver's home, and each caregiver's past and potential future parenting performance. 

The court must also evaluate each caregiver's willingness to encourage a close relationship between the child and both parents, taking into account any history of violating court-ordered parenting arrangements. Ultimately, the parenting decision must prioritize the child's best interest, focusing on meeting the child's needs above those of the parents.

Father contends that the trial court erred by prioritizing Mother's desire to relocate over the best interests of their child, Akul. He argues that Akul would be better off staying in Memphis with him instead of moving to Arkansas for Mother's one-year medical fellowship. The trial court's ruling designated Mother as the primary residential parent but failed to provide any findings of fact to justify this decision or to assess the comparative fitness of the parents. The ruling simply stated that Mother could relocate with Akul for her fellowship and that the Amended Permanent Parenting Plan was sufficient for the child's custody and maintenance.

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 mandates that trial courts make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-jury trials to support their rulings, which facilitates appellate review. The absence of such findings in this case leaves the appellate court unable to understand the basis for the trial court's decision, especially since custody determinations are nuanced and rely on parents' credibility and demeanor. Although the trial judge acknowledged both parents as "worthy" and capable, this does not fulfill the requirement for detailed factual findings. Without these, the appellate court cannot appropriately defer to the trial court's ruling, as the best interest of the child is a complex, fact-intensive issue that cannot be inferred from the limited oral remarks made at trial.

Both parents have actively participated in the care of their child, Akul, contributing to his positive academic performance and strong relationships with both. The trial court's decision to designate Mother as the primary residential parent and permit her to relocate to Arkansas for a job opportunity is not adequately justified, particularly since the judge's comments suggest a preference for parental relocation over the child's established social connections. The court's rationale appears inconsistent with the best interest standard that should govern such decisions, as the needs of the child should take precedence over those of the parents. The absence of a written order incorporating the trial judge's oral statements raises concerns about the validity of the decision, as a court's judgment must be formally documented to have legal force. The appeal reveals a lack of clarity regarding the factors considered by the trial court in its ruling, and the judge's references to applying a best interest analysis alongside another factor further complicate the matter. Consequently, the appellate court is unable to perform a thorough review of the trial court's decision, prompting a remand for a clearer order that adheres to the best interest standard. Additionally, the trial court did not explain its denial of Father's request concerning Akul's passport or the reduction in his parenting time, which also requires attention on remand. The appellate court concludes by remanding the case for further proceedings, with costs assessed equally between the parties involved.