Facts: After 20 years of marriage, Husband and Wife divorced. They had three children: a 17-year-old son, a 15-year-old daughter, and an eight-year-old daughter whom they had adopted after fostering her as an infant.
Wife had been a stay-at-home parent throughout most of the marriage. Husband worked in educational administration. The parents agreed to separate residential schedules for the two teenagers, with Son primarily living with Husband and Daughter primarily living with Wife. They also agreed to let the teenagers have flexibility in deciding how much time to spend with each parent.
The contested parenting issue concerned the youngest Child.
Husband wanted the trial court to designate him as the primary residential parent and adopt an equal parenting schedule in which Child alternated weeks between the parents. Wife wanted to be named the primary residential parent, with Husband having parenting time every other weekend and one overnight each week.
Husband testified that Wife had not encouraged a healthy relationship between him and the older children, particularly Daughter. He feared Wife might do the same with Child if Wife were named the primary residential parent. Husband described his close bond with Child and the activities they enjoyed together. He planned to move closer to Child’s school if he received equal parenting time.
Husband had also enrolled Child in after-school care to cover his work schedule. He testified that the program would provide tutoring because Child had struggled academically.
Wife testified that Child had lived in the same home with both parents and siblings for nearly her entire life. Wife described herself as the children’s primary caregiver throughout the marriage, responsible for their daily routines, schooling, medical care, transportation, and other needs.
Wife acknowledged Child had a loving relationship with Husband and said she supported that relationship. Wife opposed Husband’s plan for daily after-school care because she was available to pick Child up from school. She said the after-school program would unnecessarily lengthen Child’s day.
The trial court designated Husband as primary residential parent, adopted Husband’s alternating-week schedule, ordered joint decision-making, imputed income to Wife for the purpose of calculating child support, denied Wife’s request for alimony in futuro, awarded Wife five months of transitional alimony, and ordered Husband to pay $6000 toward Wife’s attorney’s fees.
Wife appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the parenting plan for Child and held Wife should be designated the primary residential parent.
TCA § 36-6-106 requires courts to determine parenting arrangements based on the child’s best interest. Courts must consider the statutory best-interest factors, including each parent’s relationship with the child, each parent’s caregiving role, continuity and stability, sibling relationships, each parent’s willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent, and each parent’s employment schedule.
Tennessee law also directs courts to fashion custody arrangements allowing both parents maximum participation in the child’s life, but only to the extent consistent with the child’s best interest. Maximum participation does not mean equal parenting time when equal time is not in the child’s best interests.
The Court of Appeals found the trial court gave too much weight to Husband’s speculative concern that Wife might damage his relationship with Child. The trial court focused on Wife’s relationship with the older children, especially Daughter, and used that concern to justify naming Husband as the primary residential parent of Child.
The Court of Appeals found several of the trial court’s findings unsupported by the evidence. Wife testified she encouraged Child’s relationship with Husband. She said she did not interfere with Husband’s parenting time. There was no history of Wife denying Husband parenting time in violation of a court order. There was no expert proof that Wife caused psychological harm to the children.
The Court also found the trial court overlooked important facts favoring Wife. Wife had been Child’s primary caregiver. Wife’s work schedule allowed her to take Child to and from school without after-school care. Husband’s work schedule required Child to be dropped off early, remain in after-school care, and spend more of her waking hours away from a parent.
The Court explained:
Given [Mother’s] long history as primary caregiver since [Child’s] adoption and her flexible work schedule that would permit her to take [Child] to and from school without the need for after-school care, we conclude that it is in [Child’s] best interest to designate [Mother] as primary residential parent.
The Court reversed the designation of Husband as primary residential parent and remanded for entry of a parenting plan consistent with Wife’s proposal, with Wife named primary residential parent and Husband receiving liberal, but not equal, parenting time.
The Court added that circumstances may have changed during the appeal, so the trial court could consider additional evidence on remand to ensure the new parenting plan reflects the parties’ actual circumstances.
Because the primary-residential-parent designation changed, the Court also vacated the child support and alimony rulings and remanded those issues for reconsideration. Wife was awarded her reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.
K.O.’s Comment: Tennessee’s parenting statutes encourage both parents to remain involved in a child’s life, but the child’s best interest remains the alpha and omega. If one parent’s work schedule requires extended third-party care while the other parent is available, that fact matters. The court is not punishing the working parent by considering it. The court is focusing on the child.
The case also shows the danger of letting speculation drive a custody decision. Tennessee courts have affirmed parenting decisions based on one parent’s unwillingness to facilitate the other parent’s relationship with the child, but those cases usually involve concrete proof, such as denied parenting time, violations of court orders, false abuse claims, contempt findings, or direct interference. Mere concern that a parent might alienate a child is not enough.
That is particularly true when the concern comes mostly from the parent’s relationship with a different child. The best-interest analysis must focus on the child whose parenting schedule is being decided.
Source: Brown v. Brown (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, April 29, 2026).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.