Aragon v. Aragon

513 S.W.3d 447 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Cassidy (W) and Reynaldo (H) were married in 2006. In June 2007 a daughter was born. About a year later, the parties separated. Divorce proceedings ensued. The divorce decree incorporated an agreed parenting plan that did not designate a primary residential parent. The parties would equally share parenting time, 182.5 days per year each, and did not require either to pay child support. H pursued an associate's degree in nursing. W spent significant time working overseas as a contractor in human intelligence/targeting analysis. H spent substantially more residential parenting time than did W. H also served as the primary caregiver for W's older daughter from a previous relationship; both girls were raised together. W made between $8,000 and $15,000 per month. W also received $560 per month in child support for her older child from that child's father. W testified that she sent H approximately $2,000 per month during the months she was working overseas. W also claimed that she often also forwarded the child support she received for her older child because H was caring for both children. H characterized W's payment of child support as 'inconsistent.' H sought and was offered a nursing job in Arizona. H notified W that he intended to relocate to Tucson with their child. H filed a petition asking the trial court to modify the parenting plan and permit H to relocate to Tucson. The petition asserted a reasonable purpose and was in Daughter's best interest. H noted that he 'has an extensive family support system in the Tucson including his parents and several aunts, uncles and cousins' and that the relocation could provide many opportunities for the minor child to interact with the Father's family that are otherwise unavailable in Tennessee. H's plan allotted W 90 days of residential parenting time and gave W 275 days of residential parenting time. W opposed the petition. H emphasized the economics and that both W and H have family in and around Tucson. While working outside of the United States, W obtained her bachelor's degree in eighteen months. She believed that leaving the country to 'better herself' was the 'most sensible option.' W felt at the time that the 'sacrifice' of her being abroad while H took care of the children and went to school would be 'worth it because both of us would be educated,' able to 'support ourselves and [the] children and split them 50/50.' H called his parents as witnesses. H called several other witnesses. A childcare worker at Daughter's daycare center testified that H was an exceptionally attentive and caring parent. Another childcare worker at the daycare center testified that H was a 'great dad,' well-informed about the children's needs and 'very patient.' Noting that W's older daughter also attended the same daycare center, the childcare worker agreed that the children had a 'sister-like' relationship but described both as very independent. The court held that H's proposed relocation was not reasonable. It directed the entry of a new parenting plan designating W as the primary residential parent, with alternate residential parenting time for H during the summer and extended school holidays. H appealed. The appeals court vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to consider the child's best interest in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108(e) and to make appropriate findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court entered an order in which it reviewed the factors relative to the child's best interest set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-6-108(e) and 106(a). The trial court restated its earlier holding that Father's relocation did not have a reasonable purpose and then concluded that the evidence on the best interest of the child weighed in favor of naming Mother as the primary residential parent. H appealed. The appeals court affirmed in that H chose not to seek a nursing position in the Clarksville area and that this fact undermined his assertion that he sought to relocate because of better job opportunities in Tucson. The court held that the reasonable purpose of relocating must be substantial when weighed against the gravity of the loss of the non-custodial parent's ability to participate fully in their children's lives. The dissent concluded that W had failed to show H lacked a reasonable purpose for relocating with Daughter. H appealed.