Facts: Father and Mother are the unmarried parents of two children. Their son was born in 2009, and their daughter was born in 2020. A permanent parenting plan for the son was entered in 2013 by the juvenile court. That plan established Father’s parenting time (131 days) and joint decision-making over major decisions regarding the children.

After the daughter’s birth in 2020, Father petitioned to modify the 2013 plan for the son and to establish a plan for the daughter. Mother opposed changing the son’s schedule and asked the court to keep a similar schedule for the daughter as had existed for the son. Both parents testified, as did the 14-year-old son, who expressed a desire to spend more time with Father.

The magistrate found a material change in circumstances (due to the son becoming a teenager and the birth of the second child) and eliminated Father’s bi-weekly Wednesday night visitation. The magistrate found the midweek overnight was not beneficial because Father only had a few evening hours before the children’s bedtime and had difficulty getting the son to school on Thursday mornings.

The magistrate also expanded Father’s weekend parenting time. Instead of alternating weekends, Father would have parenting time on three weekends each month. The magistrate also changed the summer schedule to give Father parenting time every other week in the summer (rather than just two weeks).

Regarding decision-making, Mother testified that she and Father couldn’t agree on a dentist for the children. Father wanted them to see his dentist, but Mother wanted Daughter to see a pediatric dentist. Then, once Mother got Father to agree on a dentist, Father opposed the dentist’s recommendation that Daughter get a cavity filled.

At trial, Father was unable to explain why he opposed this routine procedure, other than saying he wanted to wait until Daughter turned five to revisit the matter.

Mother testified that, because of Father’s stalling, Daughter’s cavity had grown to the point that she needed a crown.

Mother also testified that she and Father disagreed on whether Daughter would get a COVID-19 vaccination, and Father testified that he and Mother could not agree on whether to quarantine Son after an out-of-state trip during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The magistrate concluded the parents could not cooperate on important decisions. The magistrate awarded Mother sole decision-making authority over the children’s education and non-emergency health care.

Father appealed the magistrate’s ruling to the Court of Appeals.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s modifications to the parenting plan in all respects.

Tennessee courts must ensure 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. This does not mean each parent is guaranteed equal time. Trial judges have broad discretion in fashioning parenting schedules and will be affirmed so long as they apply the proper law and their decisions are supported by evidence.

When a material change in circumstances is shown, the court must consider the statutory best-interest factors in TCA § 36-6-106(a) to determine the appropriate schedule.

Similarly, TCA §§ 36-6-404 and 36-6-407 require the court to allocate decision-making authority in the parenting plan. If the parents cannot work together to make joint decisions, the court can and should grant one parent sole decision-making authority, especially when that failure results in delayed care or other harm to the child.

The Court of Appeals found the magistrate’s rulings were supported by the evidence, including the trial court’s conclusion that the parents “could not cooperate when making” decisions. 

Finally, because Mother was the prevailing party on appeal, the Court of Appeals held she was entitled by statute to recover her attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine a reasonable amount for that award.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) This case reinforces something I tell clients: if you can’t work together with the other parent, you risk losing joint decision-making rights. Here, the parents simply couldn’t get along well enough to make decisions together. One parent (Mother) was taking the children’s healthcare seriously, and the other (Father) was dragging his feet, even on something as routine as filling a cavity for a four-year-old. If you give the court a good reason to think joint decision-making isn’t working because of you, expect the other parent to get sole authority.

(2) In my experience, judges have always followed the recommendations of the subject-matter experts, e.g., doctors, dentists, teachers, etc. If your client objects to the recommendation of a subject-matter expert, expect an uphill battle.

Source: Teshale v. Lanexang (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 6, 2026)

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