Skip to main content

Sarah Nichole Neveau v. Adam Paul Neveau

Tenn. Ct. App.June 7, 2017No. E2015-02221-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge John W. McClarty
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This is an appeal from a divorce. The trial court granted the parties an absolute divorce and named the mother the primary residential parent of the parties' minor child. The father filed this appeal challenging the designation of the mother as the primary residential parent and questioning the number of days of parenting time he received in the parenting plan. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's designation of the mother as the primary residential parent however, the evidence does preponderate against the parenting plan that greatly limits the parenting time awarded to the father. Because we have concluded that the evidence preponderates against the parenting plan, we remand this issue to the trial court to adopt a plan that affords the father additional parenting time and to modify the child support award to comport with the new parenting plan. We also conclude that the tax exemption should be awarded to the father until such time as the mother becomes employed, at which time the issue can be revisited.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involves a divorced couple, Sarah and Adam Neveau, who disagreed about child custody arrangements after their divorce. Adam challenged the court's decision to name Sarah as the primary residential parent (the parent the child lives with most of the time) and disputed how many days he would get to spend with their minor child under the parenting plan. **What the court decided:** The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision to make Sarah the primary residential parent. The court found that the evidence supported this arrangement and that Adam's arguments against it were not strong enough to overturn the original ruling. The case was remanded (sent back) to the lower court for further proceedings on other aspects. **Why this matters for workers:** While this appears to be primarily a family law case rather than an employment law matter, it demonstrates how workplace considerations can intersect with family responsibilities. Child custody arrangements often affect workers' schedules, availability, and need for flexible work arrangements. Parents going through custody disputes may need time off for court proceedings and should understand their rights regarding family leave and workplace accommodations during these challenging times.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.