Facts: Father and Mother, the parents of one child, lived in Morristown. After they bought some land in Claiborne County, they separated. Mother returned to Morristown, where her job and parents are, while Father remained in Claiborne County. Father sued for divorce.

Although a temporary parenting plan provided relatively equal parenting time, each parent sought to be the primary residential parent.

Father is an airline pilot whose job requires that he be away from home for 140 days each year. When asked by the trial court who would care for the child 140 days each year while Father was away from home, Father said he would hire an au pair or a nanny.

The trial court made Mother the primary residential parent and gave her sole decision-making authority. Father received 145 days of parenting time every other weekend and most of the school holidays and summer.

Father appealed, arguing that the trial court did not maximize his parenting time and did not consider that he had been Child’s primary caregiver for the 225 days of the year when he was off work.

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

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

While Father is correct that TCA § 36-6-106 provides for maximizing both parents’ involvement in their child’s life, that is subject to the child’s best interest. A major consideration in this case is Father’s variable work schedule as a commercial airline pilot. Father is away flying for a significant part of the year. That Father is gainfully employed in a high-earning job is a good thing for Child. All the same, the nature of Father’s schedule is such that it creates an issue of what to do with Child while Father is away flying. Father testified to possibly hiring a nanny. Clearly, the trial court was unsatisfied with Father’s answer. By contrast, Mother works a more conventional schedule. That does not make Mother’s job any better than Father’s. It was, however, a relevant consideration for the trial court in its custody determination. It is evident that the trial court tried to devise a workable parenting schedule in light of Father’s variable schedule.

*     *     *     *     *

The record shows that both Mother and Father are fit parents who love Child. The most pressing issue is which parent is better able to be on the scene with Child in her day-to-day life. Principally owing to career and geography, the trial court determined Mother was more suited for that role. That again does not reflect any unfitness on Father’s part. It was merely a recognition of the realities of the case. The trial court’s custody decision was a discretionary one. It is not to be tweaked or changed because an alternate plan might also have worked. It is sufficient that the trial court’s plan was one such reasonable alternative among other possible outcomes. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s designation of Mother as primary residential parent.

The Court also found that the factors relevant to selecting the primary residential parent applied to major decision-making authority: time and availability favor Mother.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Source: Ronning v. Ronning (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, May 19, 2025).

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