Judge denies mother's request to relocate 7-year-old; court alters parenting plan if she moves

Judge David D. Wolfe denied a mother’s petition to relocate her 7-year-old daughter from Alexander City, Ala., to a new home in Alberta (and later Fairhope), finding the proposed move would not be in the child’s best interest and would undercut the father’s ability to maintain an active role.

The judge said the move would substantially increase travel time between the parents and would make routine visitation and attendance at school events unrealistic. “I found that this move is not on the best interest of this child,” Judge Wolfe said from the bench as he announced his ruling and the court’s steps to modify the parenting plan should the mother relocate despite the denial.

The ruling resolved a contested relocation petition in Smith v. Smith. The mother, identified in court as Miss Smith, asked to remain in Alabama with her new husband and the child; the father, identified as Mister Smith, opposed the relocation and sought to preserve the existing access arrangements centered on exchanges at Priceville, Ala.

In a detailed oral ruling, Judge Wolfe listed the statutorily required factors the court considered under Tennessee relocation law, noting that both parents have an established, affectionate relationship with the child but that the move would increase the logistical barrier to the father’s involvement. The judge referenced the child’s medical history — ulcerative colitis — and observed that the child previously had ready access to specialist care in Birmingham and that the father’s home is closer to Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital. The judge concluded the relocation would have a negative effect on medical and educational continuity.

The court also found that routine visitation would be impractical if the mother moved. Judge Wolfe described the frequency of flight cancellations and delays, the unpredictability of unaccompanied minor travel, and the prospect that the child would be removed from school early every other Friday to meet the father as major concerns. The judge noted prior parenting-plan terms that already placed the child some distance from the father and said the proposed move would roughly double travel time.

Miss Smith testified about living arrangements, school enrollment decisions and efforts to preserve the father’s time, and she said she was “concerned” the father might not continue to make sacrifices to maintain the relationship. She told the court she did not think it was fair for the judge to impute income to her if she remained a stay-at-home parent. “I do not think that’s fair,” Miss Smith said when asked whether imputing minimum-wage income to her would be equitable.

Judge Wolfe criticized gaps in the evidentiary record about the new household. He said the mother’s new husband, who the mother described as a teacher, coach and pastor, did not appear to testify; the judge said the absence of that testimony limited the court’s ability to evaluate the new home environment and weigh whether the relocation would “enhance the general quality of life” for the child.

Because the court determined the relocation was not in the child’s best interest, Judge Wolfe denied the petition for approval of relocation. He also stated the court would modify the permanent parenting plan as needed to account for the increased distance if the mother elected to move anyway; under the statutory framework he described, the court will not automatically approve a new parenting plan but will prepare one that would take effect only if the mother proceeds with the move. The judge additionally said the father is entitled to seek reasonable attorney’s fees and instructed him to submit an affidavit for consideration.

Courtroom questioning showed contested factual claims about how often the father had attended school events and whether offered additional parenting time had been accepted; the judge urged improved parental communication and noted those factual disputes as part of his overall assessment. He also emphasized the child’s ties to extended family in Alexander City and Pleasant View, Tenn., saying the current arrangement allows ongoing contact with both sides of the family.

The judge recessed to consider the record before announcing his ruling and adjourned the hearing after issuing findings and directions for post-hearing procedure.

Outcome: The petition for approval of parental relocation was denied; the court will (1) prepare a modified parenting plan to address the distance if the mother relocates despite the denial, and (2) consider the father’s request for attorney’s fees upon submission of an affidavit.