Facts: Father and Mother divorced in 2018 when their child was two years old. Their agreed permanent parenting plan made Mother the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority. Father was limited to 29 guaranteed days of parenting time per year, with any additional time allowed only at Mother’s discretion. This arrangement addressed Mother’s concerns about Father’s living conditions and his then-girlfriend’s background. Father also agreed to pay $1,200 per month in child support, which was a downward deviation from the guideline amount.

Over the next several years, circumstances changed significantly. Father married his girlfriend (now Stepmother), who became a positive presence in the child’s life. Father moved into a new, safe home with Stepmother and her children. Mother acknowledged that her earlier concerns about Stepmother’s character and Father’s home were no longer relevant.

In practice, the parents cooperated well: Mother regularly allowed Father far more parenting time than the plan provided. By the time the child was eight years old, he was spending every other weekend, part of the holidays, and a week each summer with Father. The child thrived under this informal arrangement, enjoying time with Father, Stepmother, and his stepsiblings.

Father eventually petitioned to modify the parenting plan and reduce his child support, For material changes in circumstances, he pointed to his remarriage, improved living situation, and the fact that he had been exercising substantially more parenting time with Mother’s blessing. He also alleged that changes in both parents’ incomes created a significant variance warranting a child support adjustment.

Mother opposed any changes to the parenting plan or support. Instead, she filed a counter-petition for civil contempt, alleging that Father willfully violated the parenting plan. Specifically, Mother claimed that Father failed to pay his share of the child’s uninsured medical expenses and failed to obtain a life insurance policy for the child’s benefit as required by the plan.

At trial, both parents testified, and much of the evidence was undisputed. Father admitted he never paid any of the child’s uncovered medical bills, though he insisted Mother never provided the actual invoices (only notifications of amounts due). Mother conceded she eventually stopped providing documentation after receiving no reimbursement. Regarding life insurance, the parenting plan’s provision was conditional, i.e., it stated that Father “shall” carry a $50,000 policy for the child if agreed upon by the parties. Mother testified they agreed to this, but she never received proof that Father obtained the insurance and was “not sure” he had done so. Notably, no one at trial directly asked Father whether he had acquired the policy.

The trial court denied Father’s petition in full, finding no basis to modify the parenting schedule or child support. It concluded there was no material change in circumstances sufficient to revisit the residential schedule, reasoning that the changes in Father’s life were anticipated when the original plan was made. The court also found Father’s proof of income too unreliable to justify modifying child support. On Mother’s counter-petition, the court found Father in civil contempt. It held that Father willfully failed to pay his share of uninsured medical expenses and willfully failed to maintain the required life insurance. The court ordered Father to comply with those obligations and awarded Mother her attorney’s fees for bringing the enforcement action.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s denial of Father’s petition to modify the parenting plan, reversed the finding that Father was in contempt for failing to obtain life insurance, and affirmed the trial court’s child support ruling.

Modifying a Parenting Plan. To modify a parenting plan, Tennessee law requires a two-step analysis. First, the petitioning parent must prove a material change in circumstances occurring after the prior order. This is usually a relatively low bar. A material change can include significant changes in the child’s needs, major changes in a parent’s living or working conditions that affect parenting, a parent’s failure to adhere to the existing plan, or other factors affecting the child’s best interest. The change must have occurred after entry of the last plan and must affect the child’s well-being in a meaningful way. If this requirement is satisfied, the court then considers whether modifying the plan is in the child’s best interest.

After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that Father had proven a material change in circumstances and that the trial court erred in finding otherwise:

[W]hether the change was reasonably anticipated when the prior plan was entered is irrelevant if the change affects the child’s best interest.

The greater convincing effect of the evidence is that a material change of circumstance has occurred. Six years have passed since entry of the prior plan, which suggests the possibility for changes.… The child is now an active young boy. Father has remarried, and Stepmother plays a positive role in the child’s life.  Mother no longer has any concerns about Stepmother’s character or Father’s living arrangements. Mother and Stepmother have a good co-parent relationship. Over time, Mother and Father modified the parenting schedule, giving Father significantly more parenting time than specified in the plan. By all accounts, this modified arrangement has been working smoothly for several years. These changes have had a positive impact on the child’s wellbeing.

Because the proven facts convincingly established a material change of circumstance under the lower threshold applicable to a petition to modify the residential parenting schedule, we remand this case to determine whether modification to the residential parenting schedule is in the child’s best interest.

Civil Contempt. To hold someone in civil contempt for violating a parenting plan or other court order, the court must find four elements:

• the order violated was lawful,
• the order’s terms were clear, specific, and unambiguous,
• the person actually disobeyed the order, and
• the violation was willful.

Even if an order is clear, the accused party cannot be held in contempt without proof that they actually violated it and did so willfully. In other words, the party alleging contempt (here, Mother) must present evidence that the other party failed to comply with the order’s requirements. Tennessee law also allows the prevailing party in a contempt proceeding to enforce a parenting plan or child support to recover attorney’s fees.

The Court also concluded that Mother failed to prove that Father violated the life insurance requirement:

Father insists that Mother failed to prove that he disobeyed this requirement. The court faulted Father for “offer[ing] no proof” on this issue. But it was Mother’s burden to show that Father violated the parenting plan, not Father’s. The only evidence offered to support this element was Mother’s testimony that she “was not sure” whether Father had the required insurance coverage. Although Father also testified, she never asked him whether he had obtained the agreed coverage. This was plainly insufficient to support a finding of actual disobedience.…

In sum, the record only supports holding Father in civil contempt for his failure to pay half of the child’s “uncovered reasonable and necessary medical expenses” over $75.

The denial of Father’s petition to modify the parenting plan was vacated, meaning the trial court must reconsider Father’s request and now determine whether a changed residential schedule would be in the child’s best interest.

The finding of contempt for failing to maintain life insurance was reversed and dismissed for lack of evidence. Because Mother was no longer the “prevailing party,” the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Mother was also vacated.

On remand, the trial court will decide whether to modify the parenting schedule and revisit the issue of attorney’s fees in light of the new outcome. The trial court’s other decisions were affirmed, including the contempt finding against Father for failing to pay uninsured medical expenses and the decision not to reduce Father’s child support for lack of sufficient evidence of Father’s current income.

K.O.’s Comment: If a parent paying child support dies, the child’s financial support doesn’t end with the parent. In many cases, the child may be eligible for Social Security survivor’s benefits based on the deceased parent’s earnings record. However, those benefits don’t always match the amount of child support the parent was ordered to pay. That’s where life insurance can fill the gap.

When should you insist on a life insurance requirement? A good rule of thumb is this: if the Social Security survivor’s benefit the child would receive upon the paying parent’s death is less than the amount of child support owed under the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, then a life insurance policy should be required to cover the difference. This ensures the child’s financial needs continue to be met, even in the event of a parent’s untimely death.

This is another reason Tennessee family-law attorneys should request a copy of the obligor’s most recent Social Security statement.

Source: Roper v. Roper (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 23, 2026).

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