Facts: Mother and Father are the divorced parents of two children. Mother was the primary residential parent under the original parenting plan. The parents’ postdivorce relationship remained high-conflict, with disputes over religion, medical decisions, and travel.

Mother requested permission to obtain passports for the children so she could take them to India to visit her mother. Father opposed the request, expressing concern that Mother might take the children to India and not return. He pointed out that Mother’s sister also lives in India and that Mother’s mother visits the U.S. regularly.

The trial court denied Mother’s request and barred both parents from obtaining passports or taking the children out of the country.

In the trial court’s modified parenting plan, Father was named the primary residential parent, and both parents were granted equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off schedule. Even though both parents submitted proposed holiday schedules, the trial court did not adopt any of them, instead stating the regular weekly rotation would control holidays (“the chips will fall where they may”).

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s restriction on international travel and vacated the parenting schedule for failing to designate holiday parenting time.

Travel/passport bans. Tennessee’s Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA), TCA § 36-6-601, et seq., governs restrictions on international travel. The Act requires a finding of a “credible risk of abduction” and specific procedural safeguards before restrictions can be imposed.

The Court found the trial court committed reversible error in failing to follow the UCAPA:

The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (“the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-601—612, applies here, and the trial court’s order does not comply with the requirements of the Act….

The trial court’s order does not cite the Act or comply with its provisions concerning abduction prevention orders, including a determination of “a credible risk of abduction.”

We conclude that the trial court erred in prohibiting the parties from obtaining passports or traveling with the children outside the country without complying with the Act and reverse that portion of the trial court’s decision.

Holiday schedule. Tennessee law—specifically TCA § 36-6-402(5)—requires parenting plans to include provisions for holidays, birthdays, vacations, and other special occasions. This means that a parenting plan must explicitly state how holidays will be divided or alternated between the parents. The goal is to provide clarity and avoid disputes during emotionally significant times like Thanksgiving, Christmas, or religious holidays.

The Court found legal error in the trial court’s failure to address holidays:

A parenting plan must include provisions for holidays. In this case, both parents submitted proposed parenting plans with their preferences concerning parenting time on holidays, including Christian and Hindu holidays. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to follow the statutory requirement of designating the parenting time for holidays. Therefore, we vacate the parenting schedule and remand for the limited purpose of designating the parenting time for holidays.

The Court vacated the parenting schedule and remanded it back to the trial court for the limited purpose of designating the parenting time for holidays.

K.O.’s Comment: It appears the trial court was understandably worried about the children being taken out of the country, but there is a right way to address that concern: follow the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, TCA § 36-6-601, et seq.

Tennessee adopted that Act to provide a framework for these exact situations. Suppose a parent genuinely fears the other parent might abduct the children overseas. In that case, the Act allows the court to impose preventive measures (such as holding passports or requiring travel bonds), but only after making specific findings that there’s a credible risk.

Tennessee family law attorneys should raise the UCAPA whenever international travel is at issue. If you represent the concerned parent, be prepared to present evidence of risk factors listed in the statute, e.g., a parent’s ties to another country, history of hiding the child, etc., so the court can make the necessary findings.

Children traveling abroad with a parent is common, and outright bans won’t stick unless the strict legal requirements are met. In practice, Tennessee courts typically allow international travel when precautions such as itineraries, advance notice, or guarantees of return are in place. A knee-jerk denial of passports, as occurred here, is likely to be reversed.

Source: Boatman v. Odziana, No. M2024-00677-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2025).

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