Facts: Mother and Father had a brief relationship that produced one child, born in October 2020. Father was not significantly involved in the child’s early life until Mother filed for child support in May 2021. Father responded by filing his own petition for custody and visitation in December 2021.

The juvenile court initially established a parenting plan. Mother was named the primary residential parent, and Father received 80 days of parenting time per year. Father was also ordered to pay child support.

Mother was dissatisfied with this arrangement. She failed to bring the child to several of Father’s scheduled visits, thereby denying him his parenting time. Father had to return to court repeatedly when Mother withheld the child.

Mother then made serious allegations against Father. She took the child to Children’s Hospital multiple times in June 2022, accusing Father of sexually abusing the child. The child, not even two years old at the time, underwent invasive medical examinations because of Mother’s claims. Each time, doctors found no signs of sexual abuse. Mother even subjected the child to testing for sexually transmitted diseases, which required a painful catheterization to collect a urine sample. All results were negative. In other words, there was no medical evidence to support Mother’s accusations against Father.

Citing Mother’s refusal to follow the parenting plan and the unfounded abuse allegations, Father asked for temporary custody of the child. The court granted Father temporary custody of the child.

Despite this, Mother continued to ignore court orders. Father later filed to formally change custody, seeking to be the primary residential parent due to Mother’s continued non-compliance and disruptive actions.

The situation took an even more alarming turn in July 2024. During Mother’s parenting time, the child suffered a severe burn on her ankle. When Father’s wife picked up the child from a visit with Mother, she noticed the injury and immediately took the child for medical treatment. At the hospital, the child, who was not yet four years old, spontaneously told the doctor, “Mommy hurt my ankle because I peed on myself.”

Upon hearing of this incident, the trial court removed the child from Mother’s custody and placed the child under the protective jurisdiction of the court. The child was placed with Father, and Mother was allowed only supervised visitation for the time being. A dependency and neglect action was opened to investigate the circumstances while Father’s petition to modify custody was still pending.

In September 2024, the trial court held a combined hearing on the dependency and neglect allegations and Father’s request to modify the parenting plan. Father testified about the extreme difficulties he’d had co-parenting with Mother. He recounted how Mother often failed to appear for custody exchanges or would show up accompanied by a group of her relatives who would film the exchanges of the child. In the early stages of the case, one exchange turned into chaos when Mother and her family followed Father back to his home, leading to a confrontation that required police intervention. Although Mother’s behavior at exchanges improved somewhat over time (she stopped following him home), Father noted that she still insisted on recording every exchange and bringing relatives as “witnesses,” which kept the atmosphere tense.

Father also described the fallout from Mother’s repeated accusations. He testified that multiple reports were made to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) accusing him of sexually abusing the child. Every time, DCS investigated and dismissed the claims as unfounded. Father also observed that the child had a speech delay. Mother told him the child was receiving speech therapy, but she refused to give Father any contact information for a therapist. Mother later admitted the child never actually received the speech therapy she claimed. Father took the initiative to enroll the child in daycare, which he believed helped improve the child’s speech and social development.

Father painted a picture of the stable life he could provide. He lived with his wife and their two young children (the child’s half-siblings) in a three-bedroom home. The child had her own bed and shared a bedroom with her half-sister. Father had steady employment and was financially able to care for the child. Importantly, he testified that he was willing to cooperate with Mother and foster the child’s relationship with her, despite all the conflict.

Mother claimed her actions were driven by concern for the child and fear of Father. Mother said she kept the child at home with her as much as possible to strengthen their mother-child bond. She did seek help for the child’s speech development through Tennessee’s Early Intervention Service, but the child was found ineligible for those services because the program determined the speech delay was not severe enough to qualify. Mother and the child at that time lived in a small studio apartment with Maternal Grandmother. Mother was in the process of buying a house with her mother to have more space for the child. Mother had stable employment and the financial ability to care for the child’s basic needs.

Mother acknowledged some past mistakes. She also complied with the court’s order for a psychological evaluation. That evaluation resulted in diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, moderate major depression, and an “anxious avoidance personality disorder.” Mother testified that she was attending therapy as recommended by the evaluator.

Despite these steps, Mother’s attitude toward Father remained largely unchanged. She explained that she brought relatives to every custody exchange and filmed the interactions because she believed Father had been abusive toward her in the past, and she didn’t feel safe around him alone. Mother insisted that, for the child’s safety, Father’s parenting time should be supervised going forward, despite the fact that multiple investigations found no abuse by Father. Mother still believed Father had sexually abused the child, and she was not prepared to trust him unsupervised. When asked whether she thought Father should have a relationship with the child at all, Mother responded that it was “hard to say.” She claimed she was willing to work with Father, but her behavior indicated she could not or would not facilitate a healthy co-parenting relationship with him.

After the hearing, the trial court dismissed the dependency and neglect proceeding and found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last parenting plan. Specifically, the trial court found that Mother’s persistent refusal to follow the parenting plan, her serious and unfounded abuse allegations, and the incident where the child was burned in Mother’s care constituted a material change affecting the child’s well-being.

The trial court designated Father as the primary residential parent going forward. Mother, who had previously been the primary parent, was now limited to supervised co-parenting time. The court ordered that Mother would remain on supervised visitation until she could demonstrate that she would no longer physically harm the child or subject the child to unnecessary medical procedures based on unfounded accusations against Father. In other words, Mother’s parenting time would stay supervised until she proves she can responsibly exercise unsupervised time without putting the child at risk.

Mother appealed the trial court’s decision, seeking to overturn the change in custody and the requirement that her parenting time be supervised.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to designate Father as the primary residential parent and require that Mother’s visitation be supervised.

To modify custody, Tennessee law requires a court to first determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the last parenting plan. Material changes can include a parent’s failure to follow the parenting plan or any circumstance that makes the current plan no longer in the child’s best interest.

If a material change is found, the court must determine whether modifying custody or the parenting schedule is in the child’s best interest, considering the factors listed in TCA § 36-6-106(a). These factors cover everything from each parent’s relationship with the child and willingness to facilitate the other parent’s role, to the child’s need for stability, any evidence of abuse, the child’s preference (if old enough), and more. The trial court does not simply count factors; it weighs them, considering the unique facts of the case.

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeals found ample evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Mother’s conduct necessitated a change and that the modified plan was in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion and properly changed the child’s primary residential parent and restricted Mother to supervised visitation:

Here, the record confirms that Mother failed to adhere to the residential schedule; submitted the child for repeated, invasive medical examinations based upon an unfounded belief that Father had sexually abused the child; and physically harmed the child. Based on the foregoing, as well as our review of the entire record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of a material change in circumstance sufficient to modify the residential schedule and the designation of the primary residential parent.

After agreeing that a material change in circumstances had been shown, the Court of Appeals turned to the best-interest analysis. It observed that the trial court had methodically weighed the statutory best-interest factors and found that nearly all the factors sharply favored Father. The Court of Appeals agreed with that assessment, noting the overwhelming proof of Mother’s detrimental behavior and Father’s comparative stability:

[T]he [trial] court held that the factors overwhelmingly favored Father. We agree. The record is replete with evidence establishing Mother’s refusal to follow the residential schedule, Mother’s contempt for Father that resulted in unnecessary and invasive medical exams for the child, Mother’s involvement of family members in her dispute with Father, and Mother’s physical abuse of the child that led to the initial transfer of custody. Further, Mother failed to address the child’s developmental needs and lied to Father as to her efforts in addressing the same. We agree with the trial court that Father has shown himself to be far more responsible and responsive to the child’s needs.

In light of these findings, the Court of Appeals had no difficulty affirming the change of custody. The opinion made it clear that Mother’s own actions, e.g., flouting court orders, making false allegations, and even harming the child, were the cause of this outcome. The Court also specifically addressed the issue of Mother’s parenting time being supervised. Given Mother’s history, the Court found this restriction entirely appropriate for the child’s protection:

We likewise affirm the trial court’s adjustment of the residential schedule and requirement of supervision until such time as Mother [has] established that she would no longer physically harm the child or cause further unnecessary medical examinations based upon an unfounded belief that Father was abusing the child.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full.

K.O.’s Comment:  Tennessee courts talk a lot about each parent facilitating a close relationship between the child and the other parent. Here, Mother was doing the polar opposite. Repeatedly denying visitation, making unfounded abuse accusations, dragging the child to the ER to subject her to unnecessary and painful tests—these are extreme actions. The Court of Appeals affirmed that such behavior constituted a material change in circumstances and justified flipping custody to Father. In other words, if you continuously defy court orders and put your child through trauma to undermine the other parent, don’t be surprised when a judge changes custody.

Family law attorneys sometimes see a parent who is absolutely convinced of the other parent’s supposed evil, and nothing—not evidence, not expert opinions, not court findings—will change that mindset. When a parent gets stuck in that kind of loop, it’s almost guaranteed to wreck their case. Judges know the difference between a concerned parent and a parent engaged in a vendetta.

Source: In re Taylor G. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, January 6, 2026).

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