Breakdown of Parents’ Relationship Warranted Custody Change

The unmarried parents in this Wilson County, Tennessee, case were parents of two children, who were seven and six years old at the time of trial.  In 2018, the Juvenile Court determined that the father was the father of the older child, but the younger child would not be born for another five months.  The parents were cohabiting at the time, and no child support was ordered.

But just a week later, the father was back in court seeking a temporary order to see the child.  Litigation ensued, and the court granted the mother a temporary restraining order in September 2019, but it was vacated in 2019.

A hearing wasn’t held until 2024.  The court made findings of fact, and made a ruling granting the mother 279 days of parenting time, with the father getting 86.  The plan provided for holidays and school breaks.  The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father first argued that the change in the parenting plan was improper because the lower court had not made written findings of fact and conclusions of law.  But the appeals court noted that this does not automatically require vacating the judgment.  The lower court had apparently noticed its error, and included a statement of the evidence to explain the ruling.  The appeals court agreed that there was a sufficient record to continue the review.

On the merits, the appeals court noted that the case plainly involved a material change of circumstances to warrant a change.  At the time of the original order, the parties were cohabitating, but that relationship had broken down.  In addition, one of the children had not even been born at the time of the original order.  The Court of Appeals held that a material change existed.

The father argued that the lower court should have granted equivalent parenting time to both parents.  But the court reviewed the evidence and determined that the evidence supported granting the mother most of the parenting time.  It noted that the blame for inability to co-parent was correctly placed on the father.  For example, the father had disenrolled the children from daycare without the mother’s knowledge.  His home and yard were littered with trash, and the father had neglected the children’s hygiene.  Under the circumstances, the evidence favored the plan adopted by the lower court.

After considering all of the father’s arguments, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and taxed the costs of appeal upon the father.

No. M2024-01690-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2025).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.