Facts: Husband and Wife are the parents of Child.

During their divorce, Wife first proposed that Husband receive 120 days of parenting time. Wife later changed her proposal to give Husband 80 days of parenting time and vest her with sole decision-making authority.

Husband first proposed that he and Wife share equal parenting time and joint decision-making. Later, Husband changed his proposal to give him sole decision-making authority. Husband then changed his proposal a third time to give Mother no days of parenting time.

After a four-day trial, the trial court stated it had “no concerns” about Child being in Husband’s care but had “some concerns” about Wife’s conduct. The trial court expressed grave concerns about her ability to provide for the emotional and developmental needs of Child. The trial court also questioned Wife’s credibility. Specifically, the trial court found:

Child does have a close relationship with both parents, and he wants to be with both parents. Based on his comments to Ms. Hall, Child seems to be more comfortable with Husband, but stated if he had one wish it would be for his parents to remain together, and that he lived with both of them. Wife certainly loves Child, and is protective of him, in fact she is overprotective but him, replacing the judgment of medical experts with her own which has prevented Child from being able to engage in activities he enjoys. For these reasons, the Court finds it is appropriate for Child to have maximized coparenting time with both parents, but all decisions should be made by Husband with regard to medical, education, extracurricular, mental, and religion.

The trial court entered a parenting plan designating Husband as the primary residential parent, granting the parties equal parenting time, and giving Husband sole decision-making authority.

Wife appealed, but all her issues raised on appeal were considered waived for failure to follow the rules of appellate procedure. Husband argued the trial court was wrong to order equal parenting time because Wife has unresolved mental health issues that impact her ability to parent and has consistently tried to undermine Child’s relationship with Husband.

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

The Court found no error with the trial court’s reasoning:

Husband argues that “equal time parenting plans are inherently unworkable and high conflict cases like the case at bar where the parents have demonstrated an inability to cooperate with one another. However, Husband does not point to any evidence in the record to show that the parties have been unable to cooperate with one another when it comes to following the various court-ordered temporary parenting plans. Although a child’s best interest generally requires a harmonious and cooperative relationship between parents, Tennessee law does not require that equal coparenting time be awarded only when the parents are on friendly terms. Unfortunately, conflicts between divorced parents are not unusual nor unique to this case. Fortunately, the animosity between the parties in this case is not so severe as to absolutely militate against an award of equal coparenting time. However, we caution the parties that if at any time they cannot maintain a harmonious and cooperative relationship such that the current parenting plan is no longer in [Child’s] best interest, the trial court retains jurisdiction to modify the plan. It therefore behooves both parents to strive mightily to make the current parenting plan work.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Source: Martin v. Van (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, August 12, 2025).

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