Facts: Mother and Father divorced after a 15-year marriage. Mother was designated the primary residential parent for their two young daughters (“the Children”), while Father received around 80 days of parenting time.

Father remarried and settled in a five-bedroom home with Stepmother and her children. He also retired from military service to avoid deployments and took a more stable job flying medevac helicopters.

Mother enrolled in nursing school, worked part-time, and later became a pediatric nurse working night shifts. She and the Children continued living with the Children’s maternal grandfather.

A year after the divorce, Father sought more time with the Children, and parents agreed to increase Father’s parenting days from 80 to 107 days per year.

Soon after, Mother remarried. Her new husband—Stepfather—lived in Texas, so Mother moved her belongings to his home there. After marrying Stepfather, Mother effectively split her home life between Tennessee and Texas. She had moved her belongings to Texas and set up bedrooms for the Children there, and she was flying back and forth at least twice a month with the Children in tow.

Stepfather visited Tennessee frequently but had no intention of moving to Tennessee, meaning Mother’s multi-state living arrangement was likely to continue. When in Tennessee, Mother and the Children still stayed at the grandfather’s house rather than establishing a home of their own.

In 2024, Mother filed a petition to relocate permanently with the Children to Texas to live with Stepfather. Father opposed the move and counter-petitioned to be named the primary residential parent, arguing that his improved circumstances, i.e., retirement and a big home, meant he had more availability and stability for the Children, although he sometimes worked shifts out of town.

The trial court also had concerns about how Stepfather’s presence was affecting the Children’s home environment. Stepfather had an extremely contentious co-parenting relationship with his own ex-wife.

After a trial, the trial court denied Mother’s relocation request and granted Father’s request to change custody, naming Father as the primary residential parent and giving Mother substantial visitation of over 120 days. Even after Mother soon announced she would not move to Texas after all, Father maintained that the change in custody was warranted by the new circumstances.

The trial court entered an order keeping Father as the primary residential parent. The trial court found that Mother’s circumstances—particularly her lack of a stable home in Tennessee and her constant out-of-state travel following remarriage—amounted to a material change affecting the Children, and that making Father the primary parent was in the Children’s best interests.

Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding a material change of circumstances sufficient to justify changing the primary residential parent.

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

Under Tennessee law, a parent seeking to modify a custody arrangement must first prove a material change in circumstances. The applicable standard depends on the type of modification sought. If the parent seeks only to adjust the residential parenting schedule, the standard is relatively low; any change that affects the child’s well-being in a meaningful way may suffice. But when the parent seeks to change the designation of the primary residential parent, a higher standard applies. In that case, the change must have occurred after the entry of the last custody order, must not have been reasonably anticipated when the order was entered, and must affect the child’s well-being in a significant way. Only after meeting this threshold may the court consider whether the proposed change is in the child’s best interests.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Mother’s remarriage and frequent travel to Texas constituted a material change in circumstances that affected the Children’s well-being in a meaningful way. It explained:

A marriage of either parent does not, in and of itself, constitute a material change of circumstances warranting a change in custody. It may, however, be a factor where the new spouse changes the home environment of the child.

Mother argues that her remarriage did not change the Children’s home environment because [Stepfather] lives in Texas. Be that as it may, Mother testified that—since getting remarried in 2023—she moved her belongings to [Stepfather]’s house, set up bedrooms for the Children in [Stepfather]’s house, and took the Children to [Stepfather]’s house once per month. [Stepfather] also testified that he came to Tennessee 15 to 20 times per year. Further, the trial court found that [Stepfather] had no plans to move to Tennessee; thus, it was reasonably foreseeable that Mother’s interstate commutes would continue and that [Stepfather] would be a regular fixture in the Children’s “home environment.”

The trial court also expressed serious concerns about the Children’s exposure to [Stepfather]. The court found that [Stepfather] had an “extremely contentious coparenting relationship with his ex-wife” and that he was “unable to put aside angst he holds for his ex-wife for the betterment of his own children.” Thus, the court was not persuaded that he would be there for [the Children] when he struggles with doing so for his own children. The court further concluded that the relationship between [Stepfather] and his ex-wife did not present itself as a healthy scenario for [the Children] to be exposed to. The court heard testimony from [Stepfather]’s ex-wife, who said that [Stepfather] had been physically and verbally abusive during their marriage, and the court found that [Stepfather] made concerning statements during his own testimony which caused the Court to question his temperament. The court also found that Mother’s frequent travel with the Children to visit [Stepfather] in Texas was significant, given that the Children expressed a dislike for the shuttling back and forth.

Concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against these findings or the trial court’s conclusion that Mother’s remarriage was a material change in circumstances that affected the Children in a meaningful way, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Importantly, Mother did not appeal the trial court’s best-interest determination. As a result, the Court of Appeals did not need to review the trial court’s findings regarding the best-interest factors. That part of the judgment was not challenged and remained in place. With the material-change issue resolved in Father’s favor, the change of custody was affirmed.

K.O.’s Comment: This case highlights how stability (or lack thereof) can tip the scales in a custody dispute. Tennessee courts won’t change a primary residential parent on a whim. The parent asking for a change must clear the hurdle of showing that something new and significant has happened. Here, Mother tried to maintain a life in Tennessee while also starting a new life in Texas with her new husband. From the trial court’s perspective, that looked understandably chaotic for the children. Uprooting kids for frequent trips halfway across the country, not having a permanent home base for them in Tennessee, and introducing a new stepparent figure with his own baggage combined to create an unstable environment. It wasn’t that Mother had ill intentions. Instead, it seems she didn’t fully consider how her choices might affect the Children. The core question is always the same: what arrangement best serves the child’s stability, continuity, and overall well-being?

Source: Bowman v. Smith (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, December 8, 2025).

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