Session: September 7, 2016
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No.
MCCCCVDV102199 Laurence M. McMillan, Jr., Chancellor Sitting
Maria Deboe Howard Sisco ("Mother") appeals the
March 31, 2015 order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County ("the Trial Court") modifying the Permanent
Parenting Plan entered when Mother and Robert Glynn Howard
("Father") divorced. Mother raises issues regarding
whether a material change in circumstances justifying a
modification had occurred and, if so, whether a modification
was in the best interest of the parties' minor children.
We find and hold that the March 31, 2015 order fails to
comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. We, therefore, vacate the
March 31, 2015 order and remand this case to the Trial Court
to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in
compliance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Vacated Case Remanded
A. Wall, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jana
Marie Deboe Howard Sisco.
Christopher J. Pittman and Zachary L. Talbot, Clarksville,
Tennessee, for the appellee, Robert Glynn Howard.
Michael Swiney, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Andy D. Bennett and W. Neal McBrayer, JJ., joined.
MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE
and Father were divorced in March of 2011. Pursuant to the
Permanent Parenting Plan incorporated in the Final Decree of
Divorce, Mother was granted 244 days per year with the
parties' two minor children ("the Children")
with Father having 121 days.
of 2014, Father filed a Petition to Modify Parenting Plan
alleging, in pertinent part, that there had been a material
change in circumstances as a result of several factors
including Father's relocation to Kentucky and the
parties' alleged failure to adhere to the Permanent
Parenting Plan. Father's proposed modifications to the
Permanent Parenting Plan would result in Mother having 255
days per year with the Children and Father having 110 days.
Mother responded to Father's petition to modify opposing
the petition and stating, in part, that "the disputes
which have arisen between these parties do warrant a minor
revision to the existing Parenting Plan, so as to prevent
disputes and unpleasant differences regarding interpretations
of the parties' Parenting Plan in the future."
Mother attached a proposed parenting plan to her response to
case was tried without a jury in March of 2015. After trial
the Trial Court entered its order on March 31, 2015 stating:
This cause is before the court upon the Father's Petition
to Modify the Parenting Plan entered on March 21, 2011 in
connection with the parties' divorce. The parties
attended mediation and were able to resolve numerous issues
in this case; however, seventeen questions were presented to
this court for resolution. Upon the testimony of the parties,
the statements of counsel ...