Facts: Mother and Father are the divorced parents of Child. They agreed Mother would be the primary residential parent and Father would have 124 days of parenting time. They also agreed to joint decision-making regarding educational and extracurricular activities, with Mother having sole decision-making authority over nonemergency healthcare and religious upbringing.

In October 2022, Mother, Maternal Grandmother, and Stepfather began encouraging and coaching Child to refuse to visit Father. When Mother brought Child to Father, Child became hysterical and refused to get out of the car. Mother then turned her car around and took Child back to her home. This scenario occurred 71 times in the year that followed.

Mother also reported Father three times to the Department of Children’s Services for claims of abuse, which were investigated and determined to be unfounded.

In January 2023, Mother petitioned to modify the parenting plan. She alleged that Child developed severe anxiety surrounding visitation with Father and suffered panic attacks during the exchange. She further claimed that Child had accused Father and Stepmother of physical abuse, including locking him in his room. Mother asked for her to receive full custody, sole decision-making authority, and that Father’s parenting time be suspended.

Father then petitioned to change the parenting plan to designate him as the primary residential parent. He also petitioned for Mother to be held in criminal contempt for willfully violating the parenting plan.

The trial court made these findings:

What is occurring in this case is clear. Mother is systematically alienating the child from Father. She has done this by not making the child visit with Father…. She has done this by allowing people in her circle to tell the child that whether the child visits with Father is always the child’s choice. Her approach to laying all of this on the child is problematic. She doesn’t say you have to go with your Father. She allows the child to throw fits, refuse to go with Father, and then have no negative consequences for his inappropriate behavior. Amidst all of this she wants to argue the excuse of “I just can’t make him.”

This portrait of inappropriate enabling and alienation of affection has repeated itself for over a year at the exchange point, all the while empowering the child in reinforcing his belief that he is in control of the situation…. The Court finds Father’s testimony credible. The Court further finds Mother’s excuses unavailing and incredible.

Early records from [Child’s previous counseling center] revealed that this child has been the subject of long-term coaching. This hypothesis is bolstered by the child’s own testimony when he revealed that members of Mother’s household told him what to say, it if he said certain things that he would never have to see Father again. This Court believes that the child was coached in this way and can logically infer that this was accomplished with Mother’s full acquiescence. In its time on the bench, this Court has never seen such a clear-cut case of parental alienation. Mother never made the child visit with Father. She turned him into DCS three times without any real reason. She refuses to believe that there has not been abuse at Father’s house, when there has clearly never been abuse at Father’s house. She has never imposed any consequences on the child for his refusal to go…. Mother has shut Father out from the doctor and the counselors. When a counselor figured out that the child was being coached, [Mother] switched counselors.

Mother has a demonstrated ability to parent Child, which is what she desires to do alone. She is incapable of coparenting the child. She will not and has not for over a year promoted or facilitated a close and continuing relationship between Father and Child…. Father, to his credit, has never given up on Child…. This factor heavily favors Father. The Court gives it great weight. The actions of Mother to thwart the present parenting plan, and her disobedience of the Court’s orders, and her attitude toward ever cooperating with Father, show her true intentions.

The trial court found that Mother’s parental alienation had skewed several of the best-interest factors and that the factors as a whole supported drastically changing the parenting plan in Father’s favor.

The trial court granted Father’s petition to modify the parenting plan, designated Father as the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority, and reduced Mother’s parenting time to what Father had been awarded in the previous order provided that Child have no contact with the members of her family that coached him for his testimony, and limiting Mother’s parenting time to supervised visitation pending a Rule 35 psychological evaluation.

The trial court also found Mother guilty of 71 counts of criminal contempt for willfully violating the parenting plan. She was sentenced to serve 60 days in jail, but that sentence was suspended except for three weekends on the condition that Mother strictly follow the court’s orders in the future. Mother was also ordered to pay Father’s attorney’s fees related to the contempt issues.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

A petition to change custody requires a two-step process. As a threshold issue, trial courts must determine whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the entry of the previous order. Material changes may include failures to follow the parenting plan.

If a material change of circumstances has occurred, a trial court must then apply the statutory best-interest factors to determine whether modification is in the child’s best interest.

Mother argued the trial court improperly weighed the best-interest factors by discounting the factors it found were skewed by parental alienation but that otherwise would’ve weighed in her favor. She also argued that the change of custody was “too drastic a remedy” and a more appropriate remedy would’ve been increased counseling and visitation with Father.

The Court found the trial court properly analyzed the best-interest factors given the unique circumstances of this case and concluded that a change of custody was necessary to make sure Mother did not continue withholding Child from Father:

While the court found that Child had a stronger relationship with Mother (factor one), that Mother was the primary caregiver (factor five), and that Child has greater love and affection towards Mother (factor six), it determined these factors had been skewed by Mother’s alienation of Child from Father and declined to accord them any weight.

*     *     *     *     *

Father has cleared his name three times and Mother still believes he has done something to Child. She has withheld him from Father for a year without cause under the excuse of “I can’t do it anymore.” … With respect to the recommendations of the guardian ad litem, the court found that increased visitation and counseling with Father would not work due to mother’s “complete inability to coparent” given the “poisonous” environment created by the maternal grandmother and Mother’s husband toward Father.

*     *     *     *     *

Despite a complete lack of evidence that Child was ever harmed at Father’s, Mother continually testified that she would not comply with the court’s orders.

*     *     *     *     *

As the trial court correctly found, such severe alienation of Child from Father has caused harm to Child. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s findings, which fully support its conclusion on this issue.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to change the parenting plan. It further affirmed the trial court’s contempt ruling and sentencing. Finally, the Court awarded Father his attorney’s fees on appeal.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) This opinion lists the child’s full name despite the mandate in TCA § 20-6-102 that children be identified only by their initials and the Tennessee Supreme Court’s statement in New v. Dumitrache that minor children should be identified by their initials to protect the child’s privacy. While appellate courts have improved on this issue over recent years, they aren’t as consistent as they could be. Too much personally identifying information is revealed in appellate opinions.

(2) I was shocked to read that there was no court reporter at this trial, so the parties had to submit their own statements of the evidence. Given today’s inexpensive technology, I can think of no reason this should occur. If you don’t have a court reporter, it is easy (and cheap) to make an audio recording of the hearing. Is it as good as a court reporter? No. Is it good enough to prevent you from relying on a statement of the evidence? Yes. You can use an AI transcription service like Rev.com to give you a nearly accurate transcript you can correct as needed.

Source: Taylor v. Taylor (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, March 24, 2025).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.