Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child. After their separation, they agreed on a parenting schedule.

One year later, Father petitioned to establish a parenting plan. He proposed equal parenting time via alternating weeks. Mother responded by requesting most of the parenting time.

Father testified about his difficulty communicating with Mother, demonstrating that Mother had a pattern of not responding to his messages. For example, his repeated request for Child’s Social Security number to enroll Child on his health insurance went unanswered. He also showed that Mother enrolled Child in preschool without Father’s involvement or knowledge and did not allow Father to speak with Child on his fourth birthday.

Father also expressed concern about Mother’s ability to provide care for Child, one of her six children residing in her studio apartment. He questioned her stability, noting that she had moved three times since Child’s birth, resulting in her older children changing schools.

Father testified that Child was his only child, his work schedule was flexible, and his mother and sister were available to assist him in caring for Child while he was at work. He also said he would transport Child to the current preschool but would prefer to enroll him in a school near his home.

The proof also established that Mother petitioned for an order of protection after Father said he intended to establish a permanent parenting plan. Father denied the allegations, and the order of protection was dismissed.

Mother testified she lives on a 62-acre farm with another family. She assists with the farm and resides in a studio apartment with her children. She separated the apartment with track dividers to provide each child with some privacy. Each child has their own bed, and her current partner sleeps on the couch when he is home at the same time as the children. Mother’s income is dependent on child support, freelance work, and social media commissions. She is also a certified Reiki master and intends to pursue employment as a “spiritual healer.”

Mother testified that her proposed schedule was in Child’s best interest because it mirrored her other children’s schedules. She was concerned that Child would “feel left out” if he spent more time with Father and did not follow the same schedule as his siblings.

Mother acknowledged that she enrolled Child in preschool without Father’s involvement, explaining that she enrolled all her children in preschool and assumed Father understood that Child would follow the same educational schedule as her other children.

The trial court found Father’s testimony credible but did not find Mother’s testimony credible given the substance of her testimony and her demeanor while testifying.

The trial court designated Father the primary residential parent and gave him sole decision-making authority over Child’s education. Mother was awarded 100 days of parenting time.

Mother appealed.

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

Tennessee courts must conduct a “comparative fitness” analysis when choosing which parent to designate as the primary residential parent. The court must determine which of the available parents would be comparatively more fit than the other.

The child’s best interests are the paramount concern, and the goal is to place the child in an environment that will best serve their needs.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s analysis:

While many of the factors were equally weighted or inapplicable, the trial court’s overall balancing of the factors favored Father and are in harmony with the court’s determination that Father should be designated as the Child’s primary residential parent and have decision-making authority over his education. The trial court found that Father was “significantly more likely” to facilitate the parent-child relationship with Mother. The court noted that Mother failed to respond to Father’s efforts to communicate, moved with the Child and enrolled him in school without Father’s knowledge, and now sought to find a counselor for the Child without Father’s involvement. Mother also filed an order of protection when she learned of Father’s intent to set a permanent parenting plan.

The court opined that the Child’s behavior indicated his need for attention and stability, something he could not adequately receive in a studio apartment with five other children and at times, two adults. Mother’s frequent moves and living environment evidenced signs of instability, while Father has resided in the same residence and has maintained longstanding employment. While we acknowledge that Mother’s living situation is not inherently unsatisfactory and has not warranted attention from the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, we, like the trial court, are concerned with the best interest of the Child and placing him in the most stable environment that is more likely to support his emotional needs and developmental level. The evidence suggests that placement with Father is the more stable choice in this required comparative fitness analysis.

The geographical distance between the parties also supports the court’s setting of the residential schedule. While the parties indicated their ability to take the Child to school outside of their county, we, like the trial court, are concerned with the amount of time the Child would have to spend traveling to facilitate an equal residential schedule. Father is also more suited to make decisions concerning the Child’s education in his locality.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

K.O.’s Comment: Courts must be careful not to penalize a child or parent because the parent is poor or lacks the financial resources of the other parent. Tennessee courts recognize that a parent’s financial problems do not necessarily affect their ability to parent. However, instability in a parent’s ability to earn income can adversely affect the child’s living situation. The focus must not be solely on an assessment of the parents’ respective incomes but should focus on their disposition to provide for the child. Here, the Court did a good job of walking that fine line.

Source: Mejia v. Leone (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, March 25, 2025).

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