Facts: Mother and Father are the parents of two children. The older Child has special needs due to autism and ADHD. During the marriage, the older Child was diagnosed with cancer but made a full recovery.

After Mother filed for divorce, both parents sought to be the primary residential parent. A few months after the divorce filing, the younger Child was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Both parents took leave from work to care for her, though Mother eventually returned to full-time work while Father remained out of work during the litigation.

As the case progressed, Father engaged in concerning behavior that heightened the conflict. Early on, the trial court tried to allow informal additional visitation so each parent could spend extra time with the terminally ill Child on days they were off work. Mother produced photographs showing that during these visits Father would strap a camera to his head (described as looking like a “coal miner’s light”) to record Mother’s interactions with the Child. The trial court found Father had “abused the bounds of good sense” by doing this and entered an order prohibiting either parent from recording the other.

Around the same time, Father was sending Mother hostile emails and texts, leading the court to order that all communications be through the Our Family Wizard co-parenting app.

Father also emailed several of Mother’s nursing school professors, informing them of the divorce and asking for a recording of a lecture Mother was scheduled to give. The trial court noted this was “enormously poor judgment” by Father and “not a good idea to drag yet more people into … the drama.”

Ultimately, the extra-visitation arrangement was deemed “an abysmal failure,” and the trial court ended it, finding it failed primarily because of Father’s behavior. Given the high conflict, the trial court implemented a very structured, a.k.a. micromanaging, temporary parenting plan with detailed rules for the parents. Under this temporary plan, Father had around 80 days of parenting time with the older Child. Mother later testified that the specific and “pretty strict” plan brought “peace” and “extreme clarity” to the situation. She attributed Father’s limited time to “his choices,” noting that he was still barely working, continued to violate the no-recording order, and remained “almost impossible to co-parent with”—in short, “the behavior that got us here hasn’t changed.”

After a trial, the trial court designated Mother the primary residential parent and adopted a parenting plan giving Father 85 days of parenting time. Mother was also given sole decision-making authority for the Children. Like the temporary parenting plan, the trial court plan included several unusual special provisions to minimize parent conflict, such as:

• a rule against either parent giving the Children “random” gifts outside their own parenting time;
• rules to prevent both parents from attending the same children’s events at the same time (to avoid confrontations); and
• a requirement that the Children’s electronic devices have GPS tracking enabled at all times so each parent knows the Children’s whereabouts during visits.

Father appealed the custody and parenting plan decisions.

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

In Tennessee, all custody decisions are governed by the best interests of the child. Tennessee law also directs courts to craft a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the child’s life, consistent with the child’s best interests. In practice, this does guarantee equal time or override the child’s best interests. A court may allocate more time to one parent if it serves the child’s needs. Trial courts have broad discretion in these matters, and an appellate court will not disturb a custody decision absent an abuse of discretion.

Father argued the trial court erred by failing to give him equal parenting time. The Court found ample evidence to support the trial court’s judgment that the children’s best interests were served by a stable routine in Mother’s care:

As an initial matter, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Mother performed the majority of parenting responsibilities insofar as the daily needs of the Children were concerned. It is also clear that Mother was responsible for coordinating the Children’s medical appointments. [The principal] at [the older Child]’s school testified that Mother was the primary contact for [the older Child]’s school and that Mother was a very involved and responsible parent… Conversely, the record shows that Father has difficulty with time management, planning, emotional stability, and the overall ability to consistently and reliably show up and provide for [the older Child]. As noted above, the trial court found that the Parenting Plan provided [the older Child] with more stability, particularly during the school year. Indeed, the record shows that, due to [the older Child]’s autism diagnosis, [the older Child] struggles when his routine or schedule changes, and that he does best with consistency and a known schedule. Accordingly, there is evidence to support the trial court’s unwillingness to order a schedule that requires [the older Child] to frequently change residences during the school year. As Mother testified, the Parenting Plan allows Mother to provide [the older Child] with the stability and consistency he requires while also allowing Father to be present in his life. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s allocation of parenting time.

Father also argued that the trial court overstepped by including the detailed special provisions in the parenting plan, which Father characterized as “overbroad injunctive relief.” The trial court found that Father had used things like surprise gifts and unannounced appearances to interfere with Mother’s parenting time and had a history of not sharing information about the Children’s whereabouts. The special provisions applied equally to both parents and were designed to reduce opportunities for conflict by keeping the parents largely separate in the Children’s lives. Again, the Court found no abuse of discretion:

While the foregoing provisions may be unnecessary in most parenting plans, the specific facts of this case, including Father’s behaviors throughout, make them necessary here. Indeed, the parties operate best under a plan that provides explicit details concerning how the parties are to interact (or not interact) with [the Child] and each other. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in including the foregoing provisions in the Parenting Plan.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and awarded Mother her attorney’s fees on appeal.

K.O.’s Comment: The unique restrictions in this parenting plan, e.g., no off-schedule gifts, divvying up school events, mandatory GPS on devices, etc., might sound extreme, but they underscore a reality in high-conflict cases. When parents can’t get along at even a basic level, courts will step in and micromanage the details to shield the child. Most families never need such provisions; they naturally coordinate school events and do not try to one-up each other with surprise toys. But in this case, every interaction turned into a power struggle or a chance for Father to undermine Mother, so the judge essentially built a wall between the two households. It’s a shame, because these parents must now follow a rigid script for even ordinary parenting situations. So here’s a practice tip: if you find a court considering such unusual measures in your case, it’s a sign that something is seriously wrong with the co-parenting dynamic. It might be time to take a hard look in the mirror (and at your client, if you’re the lawyer) and find ways to address the underlying behavior.

Source: Cali v. Cali (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, December 3, 2025).

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