Skip to main content

Jessica Hartmann v. Brian Hartmann

Tenn. Ct. App.September 4, 2019No. M2018-00891-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This is an appeal in a proceeding to modify an agreed parenting plan, which was incorporated into a decree when Mother and Father finalized their divorce in Arizona in 2016. Prior to the entry of the decree, the Mother and their three minor children moved to Montgomery County, Tennessee, with Father's consent when he obtained temporary employment in Kuwait. The agreed parenting plan provided that by July 15, 2017, Mother, Father, and the children would relocate to a mutually agreed upon location or, in the event a location could not be agreed upon, to either Raleigh, North Carolina, Norfolk, Virginia, or Augusta, Georgia. Upon his return from Kuwait in June 2017, Father moved to Augusta, Georgia. Mother petitioned the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to modify custody in October 2017 Father counter-petitioned for contempt and enforcement of the Arizona decree. After a hearing, the court enrolled the Arizona decree, found that there was a material change of circumstance requiring modification of the decree, adopted a parenting plan submitted by Mother, and modified Father's child support. Father appeals upon our review we have determined that the evidence does not support the court's a finding of a material change of circumstance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for entry of an order that the children be relocated in accordance with the final decree.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a divorced couple, Jessica and Brian Hartmann, who were fighting over changes to their child custody agreement. The couple had divorced in Arizona in 2016 with an agreed parenting plan. Jessica had moved to Tennessee with their three children when Brian took a temporary job in Kuwait. Their original agreement said that by July 2017, the whole family would move to a location they both agreed on. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further review. The court didn't make a final decision about the custody arrangement but determined that more proceedings were needed to properly resolve the dispute. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this appears to be primarily a family law case rather than an employment law matter, it highlights how work-related relocations can create complex legal situations for employees with families. When workers accept jobs that require moving to different states or countries, it can significantly impact existing custody arrangements and family agreements. Employees considering job relocations should be aware that such moves may require court approval or modifications to existing family court orders, especially when children are involved.

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.