Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of two children. After Father’s paternity was established, the juvenile court approved an agreed parenting plan providing for equal time and joint decision-making authority.

One week later, the parents split up. Mother moved out.

Father filed a petition to change the parenting plan, alleging that the end of their cohabitation was a material change of circumstances. Father proposed that Mother receive zero days of parenting time.

After their second child was born, Mother counter-petitioned to change the parenting plan to add the second child. Mother also alleged that the end of their cohabitation and Father’s “increasingly bizarre, unstable behavior” regarding parenting also constituted material changes that justified reconsideration of the parenting plan. She alleged Father had subjected her to “vindictive, vile verbal and behavioral assaults” and “vituperative tirades” in the children’s presence. [KO: How vivid and vibrant!] After exhausting the “V” section of her thesaurus, she alleged that Father sent the children to school in dirty clothes, called the police to have them perform a baseless welfare check on the children while in Mother’s custody, unilaterally ended the children’s day care, and had to involve law enforcement before the children were returned to her.

Mother’s proposed parenting plan gave Father 86 days of parenting time, with Mother having sole decision-making authority.

The case languished for several years, while the parties continued to exercise equal parenting time.

Before trial, Father’s fourth attorney withdrew. All four attorneys withdrew because of “communication issues and disagreements” about the proper way to handle Father’s representation.

The trial court adopted Mother’s parenting plan.

After obtaining a fifth attorney after the trial, Father appealed. He argued the trial court erred by failing to grant equal parenting time.

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

Father argued that a proposed law creating a presumption that equal parenting time is in the children’s best interest—which law was never enacted—required reversal of the trial court’s decision.

Tennessee law recognizes neither a preference nor a presumption for or against equal parenting time. Courts are given the widest discretion to order a custody arrangement in the best interest of the child.

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

Here, the trial court concluded that the allocation of time provided in Mother’s proposed parenting plan was in the children’s best interest. The trial court noted that “[t]he parties have a volatile relationship and have not been able to amicably coparent. The trial court’s findings plainly place responsibility for the inability to coparent amicably upon Father. The trial court noted “multiple instances” of Father refusing to disclose his address where the children would be residing while they were in his care. The trial court also noted Father’s false claim to law enforcement that Mother was interfering with his custody rights and his baseless request for a welfare check at Mother’s residence. Father also disenrolled the children from daycare without Mother’s consent and made payment to the daycare with a bad check, and then disenrolled the children again after Maternal Grandmother paid the outstanding balance. In terms of sanitary and hygienic conditions for the children, the trial court noted Father’s home and yard were littered with trash and that Father’s neglected the children’s hygiene, returning them unbathed and in dirty clothes. Father was also disruptive in one of [the oldest child’s] IEP meetings, which was being conducted to establish an IEP for the [oldest child] in connection with his autism diagnosis. Additionally, Mother is also the one that takes responsibility for the dental and medical appointments of the children. Furthermore, “[w]hile the parties have been exercising an equal parenting schedule, the proof adduced is that Mother has been the primary caregiver.” Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court concluded that the plan that is adopted was in the best interest of the children.

Beyond his objection to deficient factual findings in the trial court’s orders and reliance upon proposed legislation that has not been adopted into Tennessee law and that runs contrary to existing Tennessee law, Father has not developed any argument that the trial court abused its discretion. It is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her. Considered in light of the arguments advanced by Father, we find no error by the trial court in concluding that deviation from an even split in parenting time is in the best interests of the children.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

K.O.’s Comment: Seeing four attorneys withdraw because of “communication issues” is a red flag for judges and lawyers. It tells us that the problem is the client, not the lawyers. In consultations, I always recommend that potential clients consult with other lawyers. They need to find the person who’s the right fit for them, i.e., the person they will listen to and whose advice they will follow. No lawyer is the right lawyer for every client (me included). Clients who listen to their lawyers and do what their lawyers recommend dramatically increase their chance of a good outcome.

Source: Ricketts v. Bennett (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, August 7, 2025).

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