Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child. Eight months after Child’s birth, Father petitioned to determine a parenting plan. A temporary parenting plan was ordered, but the parties failed to comply with it for reasons that are in dispute.
When Child was 13 months old, Father was deployed to Kuwait as a member of the Tennessee National Guard. The parties entered into an agreed order, which provided Father with three scheduled telephone and video visits each week. Again, the parties failed to comply with the agreed-upon order, and each blamed the other for the noncompliance.
At trial, each continued to blame the other for the visitation difficulties. Mother testified Father failed to pay child support. Father testified he provided some payments and would have provided more but he was unable to find a secure means of getting funds to Mother. Father did not supply documentation to support his testimony about child support.
The trial court found that neither party was “very credible.” Analyzing the best-interest factors, the trial court found most factors weighed equally between the parties, some favored Mother, and none favored Father. Specifically, Mother had been Child’s primary caregiver and provided for Child’s daily needs. The trial court designated Mother as the primary residential parent and gave her more parenting time than Father received.
Father appealed, arguing that (1) the trial court ignored the evidence that Mother prevented Father from meaningful participation in Child’s life and (2) failed to maximize his participation in Child’s life.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
The Court found no error in the trial court’s actions:
The trial court’s best interest findings reveal that some factors favored Mother, several factors favored both parents equally, some were not applicable, but only a portion of one factor solely favored Father.
* * * * *
Having reviewed the record, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s best interest findings. And it was based on these findings that the trial court awarded the parents joint custody and decision-making, named Mother the primary residential parent, and awarded her more parenting time than Father.
* * * * *
Here, we have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s best interest findings; thus, there is a factual basis for the trial court’s decision. Further, the record reveals that the trial court applied the correct legal standard in making its parenting plan decisions. And its decision to name Mother as the primary residential parent and to award her more parenting time than Father was within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions.
As it pertains to Father’s argument that the trial court failed to maximize his parenting time, we note that the General Assembly established the aspirational goal for the courts to craft custody arrangements that permit both parents to “enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the appropriate factors and circumstances.” However, this goal is aspirational, not mandatory. Considering the appropriate best interest factors and circumstances applicable to this case, we find no abuse of discretion with the parenting schedule crafted by the trial court or its decision to name Mother the primary residential parent.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
K.O.’s Comment: This is the last reminder that this Thursday, June 26, I’ll present a CLE for the Tennessee Bar Association called “The Art of the Family Law Consultation.” Many lawyers lose potential clients during the consultation. Learn how not to be one of those lawyers. Click here for more info. It’s a good ‘un!
Source: In re Adalynn B. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, June 11 June 11, 2025).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.