Facts: Father and Mother are the unmarried parents of two children. In 2016, the trial court approved a parenting plan allowing Mother to move to Virginia with the children. The parenting plan made Mother the primary residential parent while giving Father parenting time, including summers in Tennessee and some holidays during the school year.

Shortly thereafter, both parents began filing motions to modify the parenting plan, each seeking changes to the schedule and accusing the other of not following the plan.

In late 2024, the trial court held a three-day hearing to resolve all pending matters. By that time, the parents’ relationship had become increasingly contentious, with poor communication and ongoing mutual accusations. Each parent sought to modify the parenting plan in their favor.

Mother argued that changes in the children’s school schedule and their growing involvement in activities in Virginia made the existing arrangement unworkable.

Father argued that Mother’s continual interference with his scheduled parenting time was harming his relationship with the children and warranted more time with him.

The trial court found a material change in circumstance had occurred, but not for the reasons Mother claimed. It determined that normal changes like the children getting older, having different school calendars, or more activities did not justify changing the schedule. Instead, the court found that the real problem was the parents’ inability to work together.

The trial court also found a material change caused by Mother’s repeated failures to follow the existing parenting plan. Evidence showed Mother had, among other things, denied Father some of his weekend visitation, failed to share the children’s passports, and enrolled the children in activities without consulting Father. Concluding that Mother’s noncompliance had harmed Father’s parenting opportunities, the trial court modified the parenting plan to give Father additional co-parenting time and to clarify the schedule going forward.

The trial court also found Mother in civil contempt for two specific violations of the parenting plan. First, Mother kept the children an extra eight hours at the end of her week-long summer 2024 vacation, returning them to Father at 11:00 p.m. instead of 3:00 p.m., as Father believed the order required. Second, in October 2023, Mother refused to give Father a four-day “long weekend” with the children when they had Friday and Monday off from school. The parenting plan promised Father one long weekend each month, when the children’s school schedule allowed, but it did not explicitly list that October weekend as Father’s time. Mother took the children out of town that weekend, believing it was not Father’s designated time. Father insisted it should have been his weekend and filed for contempt.

Agreeing with Father’s interpretation, the trial court held Mother in contempt on both counts, i.e., the late summer return and the missed October weekend, and fined her $100 as punishment. The court also ordered Mother to pay $15,000 of Father’s attorney’s fees because of her role in prolonging the litigation and violating court orders.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decisions except it vacated the two civil contempt findings and the $100 fine.

In Tennessee, a parent seeking to modify a parenting plan’s residential schedule must prove a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interest. Such changes can include significant changes in the child’s needs (for example, changes related to age or schedule), a parent’s failure to adhere to the parenting plan, or other circumstances making a change in residential parenting time in the child’s best interests.

For a party to be held in civil contempt for violating a parenting order, four elements must be proven:

• the order is lawful;
• the order is clear, specific, and unambiguous;
• the person actually disobeyed or resisted the order; and
• the violation was willful.

Even without ill intent, a deliberate act that violates a clear requirement can be deemed willful. However, if an order is ambiguous or subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it cannot support a contempt finding. Any ambiguities must be interpreted in favor of the person facing the contempt charge. In other words, courts can punish a parent for contempt only when the parenting order was definite and the violation was clear-cut.

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeals reached a mixed result in this case. It approved the new parenting plan but erased the contempt penalties:

Additionally, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change of circumstance had occurred by reason of Mother’s failure to adhere to the PPP [permanent parenting plan]. Testimony revealed that Mother had violated the PPP on several occasions by, inter alia, refusing to give Father the Children’s passports, registering the Children for extra-curricular activities without consulting with Father, and denying Father his allotted co-parenting time on certain times during the school year. In consideration of the entire record, we conclude that the trial court’s ruling was logical, based on a correct assessment of the evidence, and consistent with [Tennessee law].

*     *     *     *     *

Because the PPP contained no specified time of day marking the beginning or end of Mother’s chosen week of summer vacation with the Children, the PPP was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation and therefore cannot support a finding of civil contempt. Ambiguities in an order alleged to have been violated should be interpreted in favor of the person facing the contempt charge. We therefore vacate the portion of the trial court’s order finding Mother in contempt for “not returning the [C]hildren to Father on time so that he could begin his 2024 summer co-parenting time.”

The Court similarly found that the parenting plan lacked clarity regarding Father’s rights to the October 20-23, 2023 long weekend, so it vacated the second contempt finding as well.

Thus, the Court affirmed in part (as to the modification of the parenting plan and the attorney’s fee award to Father) and reversed in part (as to Mother’s civil contempt of court).

K.O.’s Comment: This case is a cautionary tale about ambiguous parenting plans. The parents here spent nearly a decade in and out of court fighting over every detail. If a parenting plan has vague language, one parent (or both) may eventually exploit those gray areas. When an order can be read in two different ways, judges aren’t going to jail or fine someone for guessing wrong. The fix is to get the plan clarified before problems occur. In high-conflict cases, it’s wise to nail down specific times, dates, and rules in the parenting plan (even for things like when a vacation week starts and what counts as a “long weekend”) so neither parent can play the “well, it didn’t say I couldn’t” game later.

Source: Pinner v. Connatser (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, February 18, 2026).

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