Judge Improperly Applied “Tender Years” Doctrine Rather Than Maximizing Dad’s Parenting Time

Tennessee child custody case summary on maximizing parenting time in divorce.

Megan Arndts Woody v. Jeremy Brice Woody

Judge Improperly Applied “Tender Years” Doctrine Rather Than Maximizing Dad’s Parenting Time

The mother and father in this Meigs County, Tennessee, case were married in 2015 and had one child, born in 2017.  They separated later in 2017, and the wife filed for divorce in 2019.  The mother asked to be named primary residential parent and for 285 days of parenting time.  The father, on the other hand, asked for equal parenting time.

After hearing extensive testimony, the trial court entered a temporary parenting plan that amounted to essentially equal time for both parents.  After the final hearing, the trial court granted the mother a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct, due to the father’s situation with respect to pornography.  The trial court set alimony at five hundred dollars per month for two years.

The trial court then granted a “traditional custody visitation situation,” with the father having visitation every other weekend.  The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which heard the case after some post-trial motions.

The father argued on appeal that the parenting plan failed to maximize co-parenting time, as required by a Tennessee statute.

The appeals court first noted that trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to custody decisions, but the order must be made with due regard for the controlling law and based upon proven facts.

The trial court had relied primarily upon the “tender years” doctrine, namely, that the order was appropriate due to the age of the child and her being a little girl.  The appeals court, citing a 2015 case, pointed out that Tennessee does not recognize a “tender years” doctrine.  For this reason, the trial court’s reliance on age and gender was inappropriate.  The trial court had stated other grounds for its ruling, but these were incorporated verbatim from the mother’s proposed findings, and the appeals court cautioned that this practice was not favored, since the court’s decisions must be its own judgment, and must appear to be so.

In this case, the trial court had not given any guidance for the preparation of the findings of fact, other than its comment about the child’s age and gender.

The trial court examined the findings, and noted that the evidence did not fully support all of them.  For example, the findings included one that the father was unable to articulate his activities and responsibilities, but this was contradicted by the evidence.

Also, the parents had essentially agreed that they exercised equal parenting responsibilities since the separation, by their own practice, and under the temporary order.

After carefully analyzing the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the father that the trial court had erred in its analysis of the child’s best interest, and that the parenting plan was “notably lop-sided.”  The court was unable to conclude that the father was able to enjoy the maximum participation possible, as required by the statute.  For these reasons, it set aside the parenting plan and remanded the case for the trial court to formulate one that allowed for more equal parenting time.

The father also appealed the alimony award, and the court vacated these due to insufficient supporting findings.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case.

No. E2020-01200-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar 8,  2022).

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.