Facts: Mother and Father, the parents of two children, were getting divorced.
Father first proposed a parenting plan where Mother had 80 days of parenting time. He later proposed a parenting plan in which they shared equal parenting time.
A few months later, Father moved for and received a default judgment.
At the next hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment that required the parties to “abide by the terms and conditions of the Permanent Parenting Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.” That was the extent of the trial court’s ruling as to parenting issues.
The parenting plan limited Mother to 280 days of parenting time and required that her parenting time be supervised by third parties at Father’s home.
Mother appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order as to the parenting plan.
Tennessee courts must consider many factors when making parenting decisions. In such cases, the welfare and best interests of the child are the primary concerns, and determining the child’s best interests must depend on the particular facts of each case.
While default judgments are allowed in cases involving custody and parenting issues, trial courts must be precise in making child custody findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review.
The Court found the trial court erred by making no findings related to parenting:
Even in cases where a trial court has entered a default judgment, a trial court has a duty to consider the relevant best-interest factors and make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its custody decision…. From our review of [Mother’s] pro se brief, her argument, as we perceive it, is that the trial court failed to properly apply the best interest factors and failed to hear any proof from the parties.
* * * * *
[Mother] correctly asserts that “Tennessee courts are required to consider the best interests of the child when making custody determinations.” [Father] suggests in his brief that the trial court “made a determination about the best interest of the minor children” before entering the parenting plan, but there is simply nothing in the limited record before us to confirm this assertion. The final decree of divorce spans only two pages and merely states, regarding parenting issues, “The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the Permanent Parenting Plan Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.” … A parenting plan is attached, but there is no mention of the best interest of the child or the statutory factors, nor is there any explanation as to why the trial court limited [Mother] to only supervised visitation. Thus, we agree with [Mother] that the trial court failed to properly apply the best interest factors.
* * * * *
The trial court had a duty to make a best interest finding even after the entry of default judgment.
* * * * *
In conclusion, the trial court in this case made no finding as to best interest, nor does its order reflect that it considered any of the applicable factors in ruling that [Father] should be named primary residential parent, and this Court has held that “[t]his omission is in clear contravention of the trial court’s duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52.01, as well as its duty to consider all the applicable factors when making a best-interest determination.”
The Court vacated the trial court’s judgment as to the parenting plan and remanded the case for the necessary findings and conclusions regarding the children’s best interests.
K.O.’s Comment: This is a rare appellate victory for an unrepresented party. One doesn’t see that often.
Source: Gamble v. Gamble (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, May 15, 2025).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.