Casey Renea Jeans and Jonathan Paul Gray are the parents of two minor children, Tyler and Alexia. They have never been married, and a Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP) established that Gray is the primary residential parent, with shared custody arrangements. In April 2010, Jeans filed a motion to modify the PPP, seeking to become the primary residential parent and to relocate with the children, citing concerns for their safety due to an Order of Protection against Gray. After a trial in February 2011, the Circuit Court of Hamblen County denied her requests, and Jeans subsequently appealed the decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining that Jeans would not become the primary residential parent nor be allowed to relocate with the children. The background of the case included allegations by Jeans against Gray, claiming he used physical discipline, failed to provide appropriate medical care, and verbally abused her in front of the children. Additionally, Jeans indicated that she had not worked outside the home since the children’s birth due to a prior injury, relying on disability payments. The trial highlighted details of their shared custody since 2009 under the original PPP.
Mother reported that Father exhibited abusive behavior, including making sexually suggestive comments about her to their child, Alexia. She indicated that during Father's custody of the Children, they sometimes stayed at the home of his friend, Lori Camp. In fall 2010, Mother discovered Tyler had been injured by a pellet gun and later learned that Father had removed warts from Tyler's hand against her wishes. After an Order of Protection was issued, Alexia returned to Mother with a fever. Mother requested primary custody of the Children.
During cross-examination, Mother admitted she did not report Father's alleged abuse to the police during their two years of cohabitation. She acknowledged that Tyler had mostly good grades in school and that Alexia did not receive any unsatisfactory marks. Disagreements about medical decisions for Tyler, particularly regarding his seizures, were noted, including a negative MRI result. Mother also mentioned spending time with Father in 2010.
Witnesses included Christy Dalton, who oversaw supervised visits and noted an incident where Tyler was allegedly unsupervised near a road. Cheryl Jeans, Mother’s mother, testified to witnessing Father strike Tyler and use vulgar language towards Mother in front of the Children. Shanna Matthews, a close friend of Mother’s, corroborated the use of foul language by Father. In contrast, Wanda Gray, Father’s mother, testified that Father was involved in the Children’s education and had not exhibited concerning behavior, although she acknowledged their living situation was crowded.
Father denied allegations of abuse, asserting he never harmed Tyler or forced Mother into sexual acts, admitting only to a past incident where he back-handed her. He also refuted claims of leaving the Children unsupervised.
Father expressed concerns that relocating the Children would negatively impact their well-being, citing their success in Hamblen County schools. He testified about a past incident involving his daughter Ali, noting that she had a temperature of 101 degrees when returned to him, and confirmed he had treated her cold with over-the-counter medicine. Father denied any inappropriate disciplinary actions, stating he disciplines his children but does not abuse them or leave marks from spanking.
Regarding medical decisions, particularly about his son Tyler's seizures, Father acknowledged disagreements with Casey over treatment. He confirmed that they share joint decision-making authority under their Parenting Plan. After learning about Tyler's seizures, Father noted that Casey had taken Tyler to a specialist, where an EEG showed abnormal results, while the MRI was negative. Father missed a crucial appointment due to work obligations but later sought a second opinion, which also indicated abnormal results. Ultimately, after discussing treatment options with Casey, they agreed to start Tyler on the medication Keppra, which he continues to take while in Father’s care.
Father acknowledged using inappropriate language, including answering a phone call as 'Jon Gray’s whore house,' although he claimed this was not in front of the Children. He admitted to cursing around them and leaving them at Lori Camp’s home at least once. Father denied any romantic involvement with Lori Camp and refuted accusations of marking or threatening the Children. James Richard Camp, IV, testified that Father had claimed to have engaged in non-consensual anal sex with Mother and expressed a belief that Father had an affair with Lori Camp. Mother, as a rebuttal witness, presented audio tapes purportedly showing Father cursing and making inappropriate sexual comments about her.
The Trial Court issued an order with several stipulations: (1) both parents must refrain from using profanity or derogatory terms in the presence of the Children; (2) Father is required to respect Mother and avoid negative remarks about her; (3) the parent with the Children must communicate relevant medical information, and mutual agreement is needed for treatment, except in emergencies; (4) the Children are to remain in the Hamblen County School System; (5) the existing Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP) from August 31, 2005, remains in effect, with only specific modifications; (6) Mother’s Petition for Contempt and modification of the PPP was dismissed, except for the adjustments made; (7) costs are divided equally between the parents.
Mother appeals the trial court's decision, raising two primary issues: whether the court erred in not finding a material change of circumstances warranting a change to the PPP, and whether it erred in denying her request to relocate with the Children. The appellate review of the trial court's findings is de novo, with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence suggests otherwise, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo without any presumption. The appeal will first assess if a material change in circumstances justified altering the PPP, emphasizing the importance of stable custody arrangements for children.
A trial court may modify a child custody award if a material change in circumstances has occurred and the modification serves the child's best interests, as established by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Kendrick v. Shoemake. The threshold issue is whether a material change occurred post-initial custody determination, with critical factors including: the change happened after the existing order, was not anticipated at that time, and meaningfully affects the child's well-being. If a material change is proven, the court must then evaluate the modification against the child's best interests as outlined in Tennessee law. If no material change is established, the court need not assess best interests and must deny the modification request.
In the case at hand, the mother sought designation as the primary caretaker, citing medical neglect, father's living arrangements, abuse allegations, and his behavior around the children as evidence of a material change. The court found no error in the trial court's decision not to recognize a material change. Disagreements regarding medical care did not indicate neglect, and the father's living situation was not deemed a material change. Evidence of father’s use of profanity was inconclusive. The mother's multiple engagements were also not seen as a material change. Abuse allegations were noted, but the trial court found conflicting testimonies insufficient to establish abuse, leading to an implicit rejection of the mother's claims. The court emphasized deference to the trial court's credibility assessments of witnesses. Additionally, while depositions from both parties were reviewed, they were not significant enough to impact the court's decision.
Considerable deference is granted to trial courts regarding the credibility of witness testimony, as trial judges can observe demeanor and hear testimony firsthand. An appellate court will only overturn credibility assessments if clear and convincing evidence suggests otherwise. In this case, the trial court's findings, including an implicit conclusion of no material change in circumstances, are affirmed without conducting a best interest analysis.
The trial court's decision to deny Mother's request to relocate with the Children to Middle Tennessee is examined under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-108 (c), applicable when parents share equal time with the children. This statute requires the court to determine the best interests of the child without a presumption for or against relocation, considering various factors such as visitation rights, compliance with visitation arrangements, emotional ties, the ability to provide necessary care, stability in the child’s life, mental health of the parents, the child's community record, the child's reasonable preferences, any evidence of abuse, and the character of other household residents.
The trial court found that the Children are well-established in Hamblen County, and Mother's plans to marry were deemed insufficient to justify relocation, especially given her history of tentative engagements. Stability and continuity in the Children’s lives were given significant weight, leading to the conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the relocation request. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the case is remanded for cost collection, with costs assessed against the Appellant, Casey Renea Jeans, and her surety.
