Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of two children, a 13-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son. For about three years, they followed an agreed parenting plan that gave each parent equal parenting time with the children and did not designate either parent as the primary residential parent.

Mother petitioned the juvenile court to modify the parenting plan, asserting that the existing 50/50 schedule was no longer in the children’s best interest. She claimed there had been multiple material changes in circumstances affecting the children’s well-being.

According to Mother, Father repeatedly failed to properly care for the children’s medical needs during his parenting time. For example, the daughter fell out of a tree and injured her arm during Father’s time, but Father neither sought medical treatment nor informed Mother; Mother later discovered the child’s arm was fractured when she took her to the doctor. Another time, the daughter fell from monkey bars and complained of wrist pain; again, Father did not seek care or notify Mother, and a subsequent exam arranged by Mother revealed a fracture. Mother also alleged Father had been slow to address the children’s illnesses (such as a case of strep throat) while they were in his care, causing delays in treatment.

Mother further expressed concern about the children’s mental and emotional health in Father’s custody. She reported that their daughter had engaged in self-harm and talked about suicide, yet Father was reluctant to pursue appropriate mental health treatment for her. She claimed Father often left the children with his girlfriend when he traveled for work or on hunting trips, even though the girlfriend had been identified as a source of the daughter’s anxiety. Mother also noted that Father sometimes failed to administer the children’s prescribed medications (something Father admitted on more than one occasion), and he allowed a problem with the children’s health insurance to remain unresolved for an extended period, potentially jeopardizing their care. Communication between Mother and Father had deteriorated to the point where, according to Mother, Father would refer to her with expletives.

Father opposed the petition, denied most of Mother’s allegations, and countered with his own request to reduce his child support obligation (arguing that Mother was voluntarily underemployed).

After hearing testimony from both parents and their witnesses, the Magistrate found all witnesses to be credible but ultimately ruled that Mother “did not meet her burden” of proving a material change in circumstances. The Magistrate’s order left the original equal-time parenting plan in place.

In the Magistrate’s view, the parents’ situation mostly reflected two different parenting styles. The trial court’s order spent more time commenting generally on the parents’ mutual dislike for each other and Father’s “agree-to-disagree” approach to the children’s healthcare than on addressing each allegation in detail. The court observed that the issues raised by Mother were not “profound or striking” changes but rather the kind of “common encounters” one might expect when raising children. Thus, the trial court concluded that the changes cited by Mother (the children’s medical and mental health developments and the breakdown in communication) did not amount to a material change in circumstances. Mother’s petition to modify the parenting plan was denied, and the agreed parenting plan remained in effect.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Mother’s modification request, concluding that Mother had proven a material change in circumstances.

Once a permanent parenting plan is in place, Tennessee law requires parents to follow it unless and until it is modified by the court. To modify a parenting plan (whether changing the primary residential parent or just the residential schedule), courts apply a two-step analysis.

Step one is the “material change in circumstances” test: the parent seeking a change must prove that, since the last order, there has been a material and substantial change in the situation affecting the child’s well-being. The change must be meaningful to the child’s life, but it need not be an emergency or a danger.

Only if that threshold is met will the court proceed to step two, the best-interest analysis, to decide whether the requested modification is in the child’s best interest.

Importantly, the legal standard for what constitutes a material change is less demanding when a parent seeks to adjust the parenting schedule (i.e., the day-to-day time split) than when seeking to change the primary residential parent (custody).

Here, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence did preponderate against the trial court’s conclusion that nothing had materially changed. The appellate court noted that the trial court’s order was sparse on details and largely sidestepped many of Mother’s specific allegations. After carefully reviewing the entire record, the Court of Appeals concluded that Mother had shown significant changes affecting the children, sufficient to meet the threshold and require the trial court to conduct a best-interest analysis. In other words, the appellate court held that the trial court should have proceeded to step two.

After a thorough and independent review of the record, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence in this case reflects that there has been a material change in circumstances since the entry of the Agreed Parenting Plan. TCA § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that a material change of circumstance may include, but is not limited to, failures to adhere to the parenting plan or an order of custody and visitation or circumstances that make the parenting plan no longer in the best interest of the child. The proof in the record is that: (1) Father repeatedly failed to timely care for the Children when they were injured during his parenting time; (2) Father repeatedly failed to timely and appropriately address the Children’s illnesses during his parenting time; (3) [the parties’] daughter had begun engaging in self-harm and suicidal ideations; (4) Father often left the Children in the care of his girlfriend during his parenting time when he traveled for work or hunting trips, despite his girlfriend being a source of the daughter’s anxiety; (5) Father admitted that he, on more than one occasion, did not provide the Children with their prescribed medications; (6) Father interfered with Mother’s parenting time; (7) Father failed to follow the notification requirement for out-of-state travel; and (8) Father denied Mother her right to telephone calls with the Children. In light thereof, we conclude that Mother has carried her burden of proving that a material change in circumstances has occurred in order for the trial court to consider whether a modification of the agreed parenting plan is warranted.

The Court of Appeals viewed the combination of factors itemized above as well beyond the realm of everyday parenting ups and downs.

Because Mother cleared the first hurdle by demonstrating a material change, the law mandates that the analysis proceed to whether changing the parenting plan is in the children’s best interest. The case was remanded to the trial court to perform that best-interest analysis based on the factors in TCA § 36-6-106(a).

K.O.’s Comment: Tennessee courts have repeatedly held that ordinary variations in parenting approaches (the minor conflicts any two parents might have) are not sufficient to revisit a custody arrangement. Here, the mother’s claims went beyond minor disagreements—they raised significant concerns about the children’s health and welfare, and a pattern of one parent not complying with the existing plan. That crossed the threshold. Had her complaints been limited to, for example, disagreements over diet or screen time, the outcome likely would have been different.

Parents and attorneys should be prepared to articulate (and prove!) why the status quo isn’t working for the child. Gather concrete examples and evidence of changes that significantly affect the child’s well-being or parenting arrangements. Also, connect the dots to explain why those changes make the current plan unworkable or not in the child’s best interest. On the other hand, a parent opposing a modification should highlight anything suggesting the changes are exaggerated or haven’t actually affected the child negatively.

Source: Stewart v. Hester (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, February 2, 2026).

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