Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade

05/21/2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 1, 2025 SARAH CHAPMAN v. CHRIS WADE Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Williamson County No. 39316 Sharon Guffee, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2025-00129-COA-R3-JV ___________________________________ The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed; Case Remanded JEFFREY USMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., C.J., and VALERIE L. SMITH, J., joined. Marjorie A. Bristol, Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sarah Chapman. Kristen J. Johnson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Chris Wade. OPINION I. In issuing its ruling, the trial court observed that this case is “the most difficult case the Court has heard in twenty years.” Sarah Chapman (Mother) and Chris Wade (Father), who were not married and lived in different cities, conceived Preston, the child who is the subject of the custody dispute, in 2015. Mother almost immediately determined that she wished to place the child for adoption with Kelly and Pamela H. (collectively, the Guardians), but Father from the beginning expressed concern about giving up his child. He proposed having sole custody of the child, and he took all available steps to parent the child, including registering with the Ohio putative father registry, preparing a space in his home for the child, offering Mother financial support, and filing a petition to establish paternity. The Guardians were aware prior to Preston’s birth that Father sought custody of the child and that he did not want his child to be adopted. They emailed Father prior to the birth, using a fictitious name, asking him to “reconsider” and to allow the adoption to proceed. After Preston’s birth, Mother and the Guardians sought to terminate Father’s parental rights in Ohio. Following an initial lower court decision unfavorable to Father, the litigation stretched over the course of two years, during which Father was not permitted contact with the child. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, ultimately ruled in Father’s favor and denied termination. Mother and the Guardians immediately shifted litigation to a new forum. Mother, who lived in Florida, and the Guardians, who lived in Tennessee with Preston, sought to terminate Father’s parental rights in Florida only days after the Ohio courts determined that there was no basis to terminate Father’s parental rights. Meanwhile, Father was first permitted visitation with Preston in September 2018. However, prior to permitting visitation, Mother and the Guardians required Father to undergo extensive psychological testing at significant expense to him despite the lack of evidence of any psychological deficiency. In 2019, when Preston was three years old, the Florida court denied termination, finding, among other things, that Mother and the Guardians had continuously frustrated Father’s attempts to parent his child, while Father had “jumped over every hurdle put in front of him.” The Florida court declined to credit Mother or the Guardians when they represented that they had wanted the birth father involved, noting that they “purposefully avoided” keeping Father involved. Additionally, the Florida trial court found that, after the Ohio decision, Mother “had no intention to negotiate a parenting plan” with Father and that she made no attempt to assume custody. The Florida trial court found that, during the pendency of the Florida proceedings, Mother and the Guardians had “thwarted [Father’s] attempts to know his son and did not attempt to diminish any potential harm or trauma . . . by fostering a relationship” between Preston and Father. The court found Father “took every action within his control to assume a parental role and responsibilities for” Preston and that he “was prevented from enjoying more communication and visitation by the actions of the [Guardians] and [Mother].” Of Father, the Florida trial court noted that he had “expended considerable resources for the right to assume all parental duties.” The Florida court concluded that “[t]his is a person who desperately wishes to parent his child.” Alternatively, the Florida trial court concluded that Mother “has done everything in her power to ensure that did not happen because of her belief that [Preston] should be raised in her chosen two-parent household.” Accordingly, the trial court appointed an expert to assist in Preston’s reunification. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial of -2- termination. At this juncture, the Guardians represented to Father that they would no longer pursue adoption. Furthermore, Mother sought permission from the Florida court to relocate to Tennessee, falsely representing to the Florida court that the change in residency would “allow Mother to parent [Preston] in a more meaningful manner as [Preston] transitions into the primary care of Mother.” Based on this misrepresentation, instead the Florida court granted Mother permission to move, and two weeks later, the Guardians filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in Tennessee, attaching Mother’s written consent to the adoption. For a brief period of time, the Florida court continued to exercise jurisdiction in an effort to transition Preston to the custody of his biological parents at the same time that the termination proceedings went forward in Tennessee. After assuming jurisdiction, the Tennessee trial court ultimately denied the petition to terminate, finding that Father had established that his failure to send child support for a period of time after the Florida court had ruled in his favor was not willful failure to support. Father had been adjudicated as Preston’s legal and biological father in Florida in July 2020. After the Williamson County Juvenile Court’s ruling denying termination in 2022, Father immediately sought to establish parenting time. Mother and the Guardians sought to avoid granting Father parenting time by filing a motion to stay any ruling on Father’s motions while they appealed the denial of termination.1 The trial court denied the stay but permitted interlocutory appeal; however, this court denied permission to appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Father filed another motion to set parenting time in September 2022, and Mother and the Guardians filed a response asking the court to order only supervised parenting time because Father had called the child “son” and himself “daddy” during zoom calls. The trial court stated it would grant transitional parenting time and set a hearing in September 2022. Mother and the Guardians then sought a different route to prevent Father from exercising parenting time by filing another petition for termination in chancery court, while the prior denial of termination was pending on appeal. On the day before the scheduled hearing on Father’s transitional parenting time, Mother and the Guardians requested a stay based on this new termination petition, which alleged failure to support. The juvenile court concluded that Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-1-113(d)(4) and 116(f)(2) required it to stay the custody proceedings while this second Tennessee termination proceeding was pending. 1 In the motion for interlocutory appeal, Mother and the Guardians represented that the irrevocable injury required by Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 was that Father would have contact with Preston: “If the stay is not granted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 3G-1-116(f)(2) and the Court begins to increase the visitation between the child and the father, further confusion will befall the child.” -3-  Meanwhile, the first Tennessee termination proceeded on appeal, and this court affirmed the denial of termination, concluding that Father’s failure to support was not willful based on the jurisdictional complexity of the case, on the proceedings to transition custody of the child to Mother and Father that were contemporaneously taking place in Florida, on the differences between Tennessee and Florida law, on the misrepresentations made by Mother and the Guardians regarding their intention to discontinue efforts at adoption, and on Father’s expenditures on necessities in his preparation to receive the child into his custody. In re Preston H., No. M2022-00786-COA-R3-PT, 2023 WL 6793215, at *13-16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2023). This court also identified potential due process concerns with any termination of Father’s parental rights under the circumstances presented but concluded that it was unnecessary to reach the issue, having already found that the trial court had properly concluded that any failure to support had not been willful. Id. at *16. When this court issued its decision affirming the denial of termination in October 2023, Preston was almost eight years old, and all parties recognized the difficulty inherent in effecting a change in custody under these circumstances. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied review in January 2024. The Guardians voluntarily dismissed the second Tennessee termination petition after the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review of the first. An order of dismissal was entered as to the second Tennessee termination petition on August 12, 2024, in which the court noted that the petitioners had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in July. On August 12, 2024, the same day the second Tennessee termination was dismissed by the court, the Guardians filed a petition for dependency and neglect and for guardianship.2 Father moved to dismiss and again requested guardianship, describing the Guardians’ motion as abusive and attaching documentation tending to show that the Guardians in January 2024 had provided Preston’s school with the overturned Ohio trial court order in an attempt to convince the school that Father’s parental rights had been terminated. The petition for dependency and neglect was voluntarily dismissed at a hearing on September 4, 2024, with the court reserving ruling on the guardianship issue. The court reappointed the guardian ad litem (GAL) from the first termination proceeding. On August 12, 2024, Father, joined by Preston’s GAL, filed an Emergency Motion to Place Minor Child in Father’s Custody. In this motion, they noted that the Guardians’ attorney had withdrawn pursuant to Rule 3.3(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,3 and 2 This petition is not contained in the record on appeal. 3 Rule 3.3(f) provides: If a lawyer, after discussion with the client as required by paragraph (e), knows that the -4- they detailed the numerous motions the Guardians had filed seeking to disqualify the GAL.4 Father and the GAL attached a sworn declaration from Dr. Katie Spirko, the court- appointed psychologist, who opined that Preston “has consistently presented as a bright, cheerful, considerate, neurotypical child” when with Father outside the proximity of the Guardians and that he “presents in a regressed and emotionally distressed manner while in the care of” the Guardians. Dr. Spirko noted that the guardian Pamela H. “described the child as aggressive, out of control, and devoid of a conscience when having him evaluated for an autism spectrum diagnosis.” Dr. Spirko, however, concluded that Preston was “neurodevelopmentally normal, if not intellectually advanced” and that the symptoms observed by the Guardians “appear to be a mix of misrepresentation by [the Guardians] for purposes of gaining a litigious advantage, and the child exhibiting situationally-dependent anxiety and stress responses to [the Guardians’] manipulative behavior towards this child in an effort to portray the child as traumatized by his interactions with [Father].” She further stated that she had observed the child in multiple settings on multiple occasions and that she only saw him exhibit distress with the Guardians, adding that she observed them contribute to his distress by interacting “in ways that have been in direct violation of the Court’s orders.” Dr. Spirko concluded that the child was “being significantly psychologically abused by [the Guardians]” and that their continued custody would cause him substantial harm. Father and the GAL attached an earlier declaration from Dr. Spirko noting that Preston had refused to participate in a video call with Father based on guardian Kelly H.’s statements to Preston that Father would take Preston away and Preston would never see his family again. Preston also reported to Dr. Spirko that the Guardians laid financial difficulties at Father’s door due to litigation costs and hid Father’s presents to Preston in the garage because Pamela H. felt they were “dirty.” Mother opposed the request for custody, instead proposing that she would arrive in Tennessee the next day and remove Preston to Florida. Mother also sought to transfer the case to Florida, which the trial court declined to do. The trial court entered an order preventing the Guardians from leaving the jurisdiction with Preston and scheduling a hearing. Mother and the Guardians sought and were denied appellate review under Rule 10, challenging the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction in the case and of an order regarding client still intends to perpetrate the crime or fraud, or refuses or is unable to disclose or otherwise rectify the crime or fraud, the lawyer shall seek permission of the tribunal to withdraw from the representation of the client and shall inform the tribunal, without further disclosure of information protected by RPC 1.6, that the lawyer’s request to withdraw is required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 8, RPC 3.3(f). 4 Mother and Guardians sought to appeal the denial of the GAL’s disqualification to this court pursuant to Rule 10, but the petition was denied. -5- virtual appearances. On September 12, 2024, the trial court entered an order in which it determined that a transitional period would be necessary for the child, based on testimony from Father, the Guardians, the court-appointed psychologist Dr. Katie Spirko, and Dr. Jana Hunsley, a psychologist hired by the Guardians to treat Preston. The trial court heard the case in December 2024. Father testified that, in the prior year and a half, he had been permitted to have more contact with Preston, including unsupervised overnight visits, and that he had been able to bond with Preston, forming a “really strong emotional connection.” Preston had visited with Father overnight in Tennessee, had made two extended visits to Father’s home in Michigan, had visited Louisiana to see Father’s extended family, and had met Father’s girlfriend and Father’s girlfriend’s daughter, who is close to Preston’s age. Father introduced numerous photographs of Preston smiling and enjoying visitation while engaging in age-appropriate activities such as riding go-karts, catching frogs, building wooden machines, cooking, and doing chores. Preston wanted to wear matching shirts with Father and wanted to wear Father’s necklace during visitation. Father participated in a fun run at Preston’s school and met his teachers prior to taking Preston to Michigan for fall break. Father stated that there were no issues during the visits, other than a bed-wetting incident the third or fourth day of the visit with Father’s family in Louisiana over Thanksgiving. This occurred after Preston, during a call with Mother, referred to Kelly H. as “Kelly” and Mother responded by asserting that Preston should refer to Kelly H. as his father. Father testified that he had not asked Preston to call him “Dad” but that Preston had begun to do so. Asked if he had ever sent Preston home with urine-soaked clothes in a bag, Father adamantly denied doing so. Father testified that, for the past four years, he has had a room set up for Preston. Father owns his home and has lived there for five or six years. Father has family support in Michigan, including a nearby cousin who is married to a teacher and has three young children. Father’s girlfriend of four years and her daughter, who is Preston’s age, also have family nearby. Father had explored schools near his home, and he had identified a dentist and pediatrician for Preston. Father planned to have Preston attend counseling if he were awarded custody, and he stated he would follow professional recommendations. For the past three years, Father has been employed as a buyer of parts for an automobile company, and he is eligible to obtain health insurance for Preston. His salary was $113,000 plus a bonus in 2023 and $108,000 in 2022.5 Father worked from home twice a week, and his work schedule would generally allow him to take Preston to and from school. Father 5 Father’s attorney sought to have Father identify the first page of his 2023 tax return, but the Guardians’ attorney objected to its introduction under the doctrine of completeness. The court noted that it could simply rely on testimony of income, and Father then testified to his income without consulting the document. There was no objection to the court’s stated intention to rely on the testimony. -6- indicated that he wished to have custody of Preston and to have Preston live with him most of the time. Father’s parenting plan proposed minimal time with Mother, which Father testified was based on Mother’s lack of willingness to be a parent. Father testified that he was awarded weekly zoom calls with Preston but that the Guardians were interfering with those calls. He testified that they would, for instance, turn the screen so that Preston could not see him. Father also introduced an order from the chancery court from August 2024 that found the Guardians were impeding zoom visits and that ordered an expansion of Father’s overnight visitation. Father testified that zoom calls were moved to Dr. Spirko’s office for a few months, but the Guardians would occasionally not bring Preston on time. The Guardians proposed having more frequent and shorter calls from their home in September 2024, noting that the calls could happen organically as Preston did his normal activities, and Father agreed. However, Father testified that the Guardians failed to facilitate these calls during October. According to Father, the Guardians also failed to follow the parameters set by Dr. Spirko for custody exchanges. For instance, Father was scheduled to have parenting time after attending Preston’s school fun run, and the Guardians were instructed to drop Preston’s belongings at the school office. However, Kelly H. did not drop off the belongings at the office; rather, he kept the belongings in his car, “lingered” around the office, wanted Father and Preston to retrieve the belongings from the car, and followed Father and Preston in the parking lot. Father also testified that when he attempted to contact Preston’s school in September 2024, he was initially denied information because the school believed he was not Preston’s parent. Father stated that he facilitated three calls between Preston and the Guardians during the Thanksgiving visit and that he had “never denied a call or a FaceTime that [Preston was] willing to have.” Father acknowledged that Preston had a close relationship with the Guardians, and he testified he would not purposely diminish that relationship. Father averred he would follow the recommendations of therapists, counselors, or experts regarding Preston’s relationships, and he affirmed he would follow all court orders. Father acknowledged he had previously identified himself to Preston as Preston’s father although the Florida-appointed transition specialist had at the time told him not to do so. Father acknowledged that he had not attempted to contact Preston’s school prior to the fall, but he explained that he had asked for, and not been given, school information in the past. Father had not come to Preston’s soccer games. He noted that in 2021, when the Florida transition expert had awarded him parenting time, he had arrived early for his parenting time and watched Preston at a golf camp from his car in the parking lot. Father’s car was suddenly surrounded by the police, who had been called by Kelly H. Father feared this could happen again if he were to try to attend his son’s extracurricular events. He had not attempted to contact Dr. Hunsley but had provided her with his contact information. He was in contact with Dr. Spirko, who communicated with Dr. Hunsley and informed Father of developments. Father testified that he had never declined visits offered by the Guardians. -7-  The Guardians submitted two undated letters in which they essentially urged Father not to try to remove Preston from their care, offering in exchange to give him some sort of role in Preston’s life. Father testified that any visitation offered in the letters was not with him in a parental role but with the Guardians supervising and gatekeeping interactions and for the purpose of facilitating the adoption. He also testified that he believed Preston and Mother had a good relationship but that he did not believe Preston saw her as a parent. Preston never referred to Mother as “mom,” and he did not speak about Mother to Father. Father nevertheless stated that he believed it was important for Preston to have a relationship with Mother. He averred he would keep Mother informed of Preston’s activities, schooling, and health. Father testified that two days prior to the first day of trial, he received a call from police in Louisiana indicating that Mother had made allegations that Preston was actually conceived as a result of sexual assault that allegedly occurred more than nine years earlier in Louisiana. In addition to Father speaking with law enforcement to address this matter, Dr. Spirko also communicated twice with law enforcement in Louisiana. She indicated that based upon those conversations she had no concerns about Father’s character or ability to parent in relation to this matter. Dr. Spirko observed that parents will make allegations for strategic advantage in contentious litigation over custody. The trial court did not find credible Mother’s assertion that these allegations were not made to influence the proceedings. The trial court concluded that Mother made the allegations in “an attempt to keep Father away from” Preston. Regarding a birthday party for Preston that became a focus of concern for the Guardians, Father testified that Preston had asked him to host a birthday party and that Preston decided on the type of party and guest list. Invitations were sent out to a character- themed party held at a local venue during Father’s parenting time. The Guardians and their biological child, Preston’s little brother, were invited to the party. The Guardians ultimately stayed an hour after the party had concluded, after all other guests had left, and they lingered in the parking lot after leaving the event space. Father acknowledged he did not consult the Guardians prior to planning the party, noting that he had intended to discuss it during a call but that the Guardians had withheld zoom contact during the entire month of October prior to the party. Father’s mother testified as to the positive relationship between her son and Preston. She indicated that Preston seemed relaxed and affectionate around Father and that she observed no behavioral problems during the time she had spent with him. The GAL presented the testimony of Stephanie Dunn, Preston’s teacher, who testified that Preston was happy, engaged, and respectful, with no disciplinary problems and good grades. He worked well with other children and with adults. Preston had -8- educational accommodations such as promptings and reminders per a 504 plan, but his teacher had not had to use them. She had observed no difficulties at school. Preston had been dismissed early from school often, though, approximately fourteen times during the semester. The assistant principal at Preston’s school, Leslie Beasley, also testified that Preston was generally happy, smiling, and willing to have a conversation at school. He had no behavioral issues or problems interacting with peers. Ms. Beasley was made aware that birthday invitations for Preston’s party had been brought to the school office, and she called Father to tell him the school policy that invitations delivered at school could go only to one of three groups: the whole class, all the boys, or all the girls. Ms. Beasley and Father consulted with Preston about the guest list, and Preston was given the invitations to take to the boys in his class. Ms. Beasley confirmed that Preston knew about the party and was very excited about his themed costume. Ms. Beasley identified school records reflecting that Preston had 24 early dismissals in second grade and 26 in first grade. She stated that the school typically asked parents to let it know about recurring appointments necessitating absences, but to her knowledge, that had not occurred with Preston. Ms. Beasley indicated that she had never had any interaction with Mother. Ms. Beasley was present during the above-discussed fall break fun run custody exchange. She testified that Kelly H. was supposed to bring the bag into the school but had not followed that procedure and had instead left it in the car, making it necessary for Preston and Father to walk out with Kelly H. She observed Preston looking confused and “a little lost” when he saw both Father and Kelly H. at pickup. Dr. Spirko testified that she began working with Preston in early 2024. She had observed Father’s parenting time with Preston and concluded Preston had fun, was affectionate, and was engaged. Preston showed no distress. Dr. Spirko observed that Father had more of a parent-child bond with Preston than Mother did. According to Dr. Spirko, the Guardians failed to follow her instructions. At one point, during a time when visitation was regularly scheduled in Dr. Spirko’s office, Mother and the Guardians requested to be allowed to coordinate calls from the Guardians’ home, representing that the calls could be spontaneous and could include sharing Preston’s activities. Dr. Spirko thought this would be beneficial. However, the Guardians subsequently refused to facilitate the calls; “there were no attempts at any point to make any calls to [Father] with Preston.” Regarding the fun run exchange, Dr. Spirko also testified that she specifically instructed the Guardians to drop Preston’s luggage in the office for the fall break exchange “to avoid the exact situation that occurred,” i.e., Preston suffering confusion when he saw both Father and Kelly H. at pickup. She testified that the Guardians did not follow the instructions that they had been provided. The Guardians also did not follow court orders. The chancery court had ordered -9- that the sessions with Dr. Spirko not be recorded.6 Nevertheless, at one session in Dr. Spirko’s office, a recording device fell out of Preston’s pants. Dr. Spirko testified Preston had been told that the device was tracking his steps and that the information would be put onto his grandfather’s computer. Dr. Spirko concluded that this incident reflected on the Guardians’ willingness and ability to abide by court orders. Dr. Spirko observed that, when the Guardians were not present, Preston was a “developmentally typical, healthy, social, happy young child.” The Guardians enrolled Preston in neurofeedback sessions, which Dr. Spirko described as “where they hook people up to EEGs and then pretend that it has some interpretable basis.” Dr. Spirko deemed the treatments “trendy” and a “pseudoscience” which was not scientifically valid. The sessions were meant to address bedwetting, but Dr. Spirko testified that the micturition inhibition center controlling urination was in the medial frontal lobe, out of reach of the devices used. Dr. Spirko asked about the neurofeedback after Preston told her he had an appointment to get his brain checked and fixed, raising her concern that the therapy made Preston think that something was wrong with his brain. Dr. Spirko testified that the Guardians had a history of doctor shopping. For instance, Preston’s medical history did not indicate autism, and both the school he attends and a separate, private school evaluated him and found he did not have autism. The Guardians nevertheless obtained an autism diagnosis by taking him to third evaluator, to whom they did not provide the prior evaluations. Dr. Spirko also observed that Preston was frequently dysregulated when seeing the Guardians’ chosen therapist, Dr. Hunsley, and that Pamela H. frequently had to be involved in the sessions, which to her indicated that Preston’s relationship with Dr. Hunsley was not a successful therapeutic dynamic. Regarding the above-discussed birthday party, Dr. Spirko indicated that she had participated in deciding how to distribute invitations. She testified that she was concerned from her observation of Mother and the Guardians that “the invitations would be sabotaged” and that Preston would suffer resulting stress. She advised Father to mail her the invitations so that she could arrange to have them distributed at school. Dr. Spirko testified that Father sent an invitation for Preston’s little brother and the Guardians, which was meant to be brought home by Preston from school. After the invitations were distributed, the Guardians contacted Dr. Spirko, asserting that Preston was distressed by the idea of having the party and worried the Guardians and his brother wouldn’t be able to come, “as though this birthday party was being thrust upon [Preston] by [Father] in some manner that was causing him distress.” Mother emailed Dr. Spirko that a “strange man” had delivered invitations, and Dr. Spirko felt the email mischaracterized the invitations as a “mystery” and was manipulative. Dr. Spirko attended the party and confirmed that the Guardians were “lurking” well after the party had ended. 6 The chancery court order entered August 1, 2024, stated, “All parties remain prohibited from recording the sessions, whether in Dr. Spirko’s office or elsewhere.” - 10 -  Dr. Spirko testified that she had observed Kelly H., both on zoom and in person, and had seen him “get up and smack the computer and stomp off.” Kelly H. was “cackling or laughing” when Father made statements that he was Preston’s dad. She was concerned that Kelly H. was not behaving appropriately in front of Preston regarding Father, given that he was unable to control his behavior in a formal setting among adults. Regarding Mother, Dr. Spirko received “a series of emails from [Mother] that concerned [Dr. Spirko] in terms of [Mother’s] genuineness in the process.” Dr. Spirko observed Preston after his visits with Father because Mother and the Guardians would report to her that Preston was dysregulated, stressed out, and wetting the bed. From observing Preston after his visits with Father, Dr. Spirko believed that Mother “was making up stories.” Dr. Spirko testified that Mother and the Guardians were presenting a narrative that was contradicted by Dr. Spirko’s observations of Preston at school and with Father. In particular, she observed that Mother and the Guardians attempted “to disrupt, dysregulate and terrorize Preston so that they can present a narrative that he is being upset by [Father].” Preston had never mentioned Mother to Dr. Spirko. When Mother was brought up, Preston had no negative feelings; he liked Mother. However, Preston did not display any sort of parent-child bond with her. Dr. Spirko observed Preston and Mother at a horse ranch, and there was only minimal interaction between them. Preston told Dr. Spirko that he preferred to call the Guardians “Kelly and Pam” when he was with Father and “Mom and Dad” when he was with the Guardians. She testified that Preston specifically told her that he was not prompted to do so by Father and that her observations confirmed this. On the other hand, Dr. Spirko had overheard Preston refer to Father as both “Chris” and “Dad,” but Preston denied calling him “Dad,” which she interpreted as Preston exhibiting concern that he would get in trouble. She testified Preston was having to “code-switch” depending on his environment. Dr. Spirko indicated that Mother had on multiple occasions conveyed a situation “as though Preston was traumatized by” Father. Dr. Spirko testified that Mother emailed her that Preston was distressed regarding the Thanksgiving call where Preston referred to Kelly H. as “Kelly.” Mother told Dr. Spirko that Preston was being pressured to refer to his Guardians by their first names. Dr. Spirko spoke to Preston and concluded that “it was clear to me that [Mother] was not being accurate in her appraisal.” Dr. Spirko opined that Mother was engaging in “blatant parental alienation.” Father, on the other hand, was in Dr. Spirko’s opinion the best suited to provide primary care for Preston. She testified that Mother and the Guardians were “doing everything they can think of to interfere with Preston having a relationship with” Father as a result of “narcissistic and borderline personality traits,” and that their actions were not in Preston’s best interest. She believed Father would be able to provide Mother with - 11 - information about and access to the child. She recommended a transfer in custody at the semester break. She concluded, “Preston would be most well suited to spend his time like a normal little boy, playing sports and playing with his friends and going to school, and being shielded from adults who should be in therapy.” Dr. Spirko stated that she could not clinically recommend that Preston have contact with Mother and the Guardians because “there is significant parental alienation behavior that has gone on and . . . intensifies when . . . they are unhappy” and that “it would be inappropriate for me to recommend anything other than contact be substantially limited.” Dr. Spirko opined that, due to the extent of parental alienation in the case, her recommendation would be for Preston not to have contact with the Guardians for some time, according to the clinical consensus on the treatment of alienation. Dr. Spirko acknowledged she spent more than 30 hours observing Father interact with Preston but only spent one hour observing Mother interact with Preston. She testified that she did not have to intervene or redirect Father during visitation and that she was “impressed” with him as a parent. She recalled meeting with Mother and acknowledged that Mother suggested that Mother, Father, and the Guardians should all spend time together as a group. Dr. Spirko thought this was a good suggestion. Mother suggested a joint birthday party. Dr. Spirko later facilitated the party without contacting Mother because she was concerned by that time that Mother would sabotage the party, as Mother continued to assert “that Preston is fearful and distressed by his interactions with [Father] when that’s not consistent with how Preston . . . is acting or behaving.” Dr. Spirko testified that Mother spent enough time with Preston “to create an impression that she wants to be his parent so that she can align with” the Guardians in seeking custody. She agreed that Mother emailed her about urine-soaked clothes in Preston’s bag after a visit with Father. Mother facilitated one call with Father after her meeting with Dr. Spirko. Dr. Spirko acknowledged that, when first appointed, she told Preston no one wanted to take him from his family with the Guardians, although Father was in fact seeking custody. She explained that Father was not seeking to deny all contact, which was what Kelly H. had told Preston. She acknowledged that Preston had told her he did not want to be pulled from his family and live with Father, but she did not think Preston should “be tasked with” deciding what was in his best interest. She acknowledged that Preston exhibited distress before some zoom calls with Father at the Guardians’ home; the calls were moved to her office with the same result. Dr. Spirko asked the Guardians stay outside the building and there was improvement. Father called Mother as a witness. Mother has degrees in engineering and business. She testified that she moved to Tennessee in January 2021 purportedly to provide primary care for Preston. However, she never actually provided primary care, noting that she did not have a living situation that would have accommodated him at the time. Mother secured employment when she moved in 2021 but was terminated in the fall. She was at a new job for three or four months, then in early 2022, began a job with a company out of Florida. She worked partially remotely until she moved back to Florida in the summer of 2022. - 12 - Mother did not recall that the termination petition filed in September 2022 represented to the court that she resided in Tennessee but agreed that such an assertion would not be accurate. She agreed that she signed a lease in Florida about two months after the first attempted Tennessee termination was denied by the trial court. Mother testified that her move to Florida had “a negative impact” on Preston but acknowledged she had said at her deposition “he didn’t seem to have any negative impact.” She testified, “I think both statements are true.” She agreed she did not have a parent-child relationship with him at the time she moved and agreed that she does not have one now. Mother’s base salary is around $97,000 to $100,000, and she is eligible for a monthly bonus. Her income in 2023 was around $100,000. Mother also sometimes does house-sitting. Mother lives with her sister in a three-bedroom home that her sister owns. She pays $500 per month in rent, although her lease reflects a rent of $1,200 per month. Mother’s hours vary “somewhat wildly.” However, she testified she would be available to care for Preston, as her schedule was also “somewhat flexible.” Although she “fa