Judge: relocation‑notice statute not triggered without permanent parenting plan; mother may move while visitation disputes proceed

Counsel argued whether the parental‑relocation statute (T.C.A. § 36‑6‑108) required a 60‑day registered‑mail notice before a parent moved out of state. The father’s counsel argued procedural defects and sought a temporary parenting‑schedule order; the mother’s counsel said the father had actual notice.

The court concluded the statute's notice trigger is a permanent parenting plan or final custody order, which does not exist in the current file (there is a child‑support order but no adopted parenting plan). Based on that interpretation the judge ruled the statutory notice provision did not apply, allowing the mother to relocate while preserving the father's right to seek temporary visitation or modification remedies.

The judge offered July dates for short‑term hearings and allowed counsel to pursue interlocutory appellate relief if they wished. The court declined to issue an emergency restraining order to prevent relocation absent a filed motion showing irreparable harm.