CHRIS ERIC STRICKLAND v. PENNYE DANIELLE STRICKLAND - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Brittany Sims on Dec 26, 2012

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Henry D. Fincher, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Pennye Danielle Strickland.

Attorneys 2:

Charlene Robin Vance, Watertown, Tennessee, for the appellee, Chris Eric Strickland

Judge(s): CLEMENT

Divorce action in which Mother raises numerous issues, including the designation of Father as the primary residential parent, the parenting plan in which Mother’s parenting time was limited to 120 days a year, child support, and the classification and division of marital property. Mother also challenges the trial court’s decisions to admit the testimony of two witnesses and to exclude the testimony of two other witnesses. We have concluded that the trial court erred in excluding two of Mother’s expert witnesses and in admitting testimony regarding child abuse allegations that should have been excluded based upon Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-409. Having considered the record, including the testimony of Mother’s two experts and excluding the testimony that must be excluded pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-409, we find the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent; however, the evidence does preponderate against the parenting schedule which greatly limits Mother’s parenting time. We affirm the trial court’s classification and division of the marital estate in all respects. Because we have concluded that the evidence preponderates against the parenting schedule, we remand this issue to the trial court to adopt a parenting schedule that affords Mother additional parenting time, although not equal parenting time, and to modify the child support award to comport with Mother’s income and the new parenting schedule.

Attachments: