Facts: After seven years of marriage, Husband and Wife began divorce proceedings. Both sought a parenting plan for their two minor children born during the marriage. Husband also requested visitation with Wife’s older son from a previous relationship, i.e., Husband’s stepson. Wife opposed Husband’s involvement with her son and also sought alimony.

The proof at trial revealed a tumultuous marriage marked by conflict. Husband and Wife each described volatile incidents involving Wife’s behavior.

• According to Husband, Wife resented his relationship with his daughter from a previous marriage and even demanded that he choose between Wife and his daughter.
• Wife’s anger led to destructive outbursts: she once told Husband she was “going to have [his] funeral,” burned half of his clothes, and, on another occasion, smashed his truck with an iron skillet and a sledgehammer, causing extensive damage. Wife admitted to burning some of Husband’s belongings (calling it a symbolic “bye-bye” to him) and damaging the truck.
• Husband’s father testified that Wife struck him in the face during a child exchange, and Husband’s mother described Wife pushing and attacking her to force her way into Husband’s apartment.

Wife generally denied or minimized these incidents, describing them as misunderstandings or “passionate” reactions.

The trial court entered an order of protection for Husband arising from Wife’s conduct during the divorce proceedings.

Despite marital discord, Husband had built a close parental bond with Wife’s teenage son from her prior relationship. Husband had been a father figure to the boy for years, and the stepson testified that he considered Husband his “Pop” or “Papa.” The stepson expressed a desire to have both Wife and Husband in his life, but stated he would prefer to live with Husband if forced to choose.

At trial, Husband emphasized the strong sibling bond between the stepson and the parties’ two younger children and his wish to keep all three children together.

Wife had her mother living with her to help with childcare and had begun therapy and parenting classes to improve her behavior.

Citing Tennessee’s stepparent visitation statute, the trial court decided to consider the best interests of all three children together. Husband was named the primary residential parent for all three children, including the stepson, with 285 days of parenting time compared to Wife’s 80 days. Husband was also given sole decision-making authority for the children’s education and nonemergency healthcare. Wife was ordered to pay child support for all three children, and her request for alimony was denied.

Wife appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals held that the decision giving Husband primary custody of the stepson was moot because the stepson reached the age of 18 during the appeal. Otherwise, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s parenting plan.

Mootness. Under Tennessee law, an issue on appeal becomes moot when events occurring during the case remove the need for a decision. An issue is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy that a court can remedy. Tennessee courts routinely apply the mootness doctrine to parenting disputes once a child reaches adulthood because a court can no longer grant meaningful custody or visitation relief for an 18-year-old.

Here, Wife’s son turned 18 shortly after the appellate arguments. Because he was no longer a minor, any decision about which parent should have custody of him would have no practical legal effect. As the Court of Appeals explained, “a case must remain justiciable from the time it is filed until the moment of final appellate disposition,” and “[a] case will be considered moot if it no longer serves as a means to provide some sort of judicial relief to the prevailing party.”

Once the stepson became an adult, the question of the trial court’s authority to award Husband custody of him ceased to be a live controversy. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Wife’s challenge to the custody of the now-adult stepson was moot and did not address it on the merits.

Parenting Plan. Determining the details of a parenting plan is a fact-intensive inquiry, and trial courts are given broad discretion in these decisions. The Court found no abuse of discretion here:

The trial court’s ruling ultimately plainly reflects the trial court’s concern with Mother’s volatility and the negative impact of that volatility on the children. Given the discretion afforded to the trial court, having considered the arguments and reviewed the record, we simply cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in the allocation of parenting time or in the designation of the primary residential parent in the present case.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to the parties’ two minor children.

K.O.’s Comment: We just saw a Tennessee trial court effectively give custody of a child to a non-parent over the child’s biological parent without a finding of dependency and neglect. Had the issue not been rendered moot by the stepson’s 18^th birthday, the Court of Appeals almost certainly would’ve reversed the trial court with an epic smackdown.

Under our state and federal constitutions, a fit biological parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of their child that is superior to the rights of all third parties, i.e., all non-parents. A non-parent ordinarily cannot be awarded custody of a child over a parent without a finding that the parent is unfit. This is sometimes called the “superior parental rights” doctrine, under which a parent’s right trumps a third party’s claim absent extraordinary circumstances.

Here, the trial court cited Tennessee’s stepparent visitation statute, TCA § 36-6-303, which only speaks to visitation rights—not custody—in “extraordinary cases.” Tennessee law does not allow a court to award custody to a stepparent in a divorce. If a stepparent wants formal parental rights, they’d need to adopt the child. Short of adoption, a stepparent remains a “legal stranger” to the child for custody purposes. Notably, Wife was never found to be unfit; the trial court gave her 80 days of parenting time and decision-making authority on some issues.

While the trial court’s goal of keeping the siblings together and maintaining stability for the stepson is admirable, its legal authority for doing so is dubious, at best.

Source: Ewald v. Ewald (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, February 3, 2026).

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