At long last, here is the post that draws the most attention each year: the “Legislative Update” post.

Longtime readers of this 16-year-old (!!!) blog will recall my longstanding advice to pause, draw the blinds, put on some relaxing music, and imbibe your favorite inebriant before proceeding any further. New readers would be wise to heed this advice. Proceed at your own risk.

Let’s start with the good news—the fruits of the TBA’s labor.

This past year, I served as Chair of the TBA’s Family Law section. The Family Law section works hard to promote sound public policy for Tennessee family law, draft proposed legislation, and lobby for its passage. The lawyers and judges who serve on the Family Law section’s Executive Council work to promote the best interests of children and parents in Tennessee.

Public Chapter 730 was the TBA Family Law section’s omnibus bill. It was approved by the TBA’s House of Delegates and Board of Governors, sponsored by prominent legislators, and passed with overwhelming support. One of our priorities this year was to achieve parity for children of unmarried parents with children of married parents.

When the proposals in PC 730 were drafted, the most recent data indicated that 40% of U.S. births were to unmarried mothers. Tennessee’s rate of 42.5% was higher than the national average. Our goal was to ensure that Tennessee law protects and benefits children of unmarried parents in the same way it does for children of married parents.

Parent Education Seminars in Juvenile Court. Public Chapter 730, § 4 creates a new TCA § 37-1-194 that requires parent education seminars in juvenile court cases involving custody or parenting schedules for children born to unmarried parents, as occurs when married parents separate. It also gives juvenile courts the discretion to use this process in dependency and neglect cases. This creates parity between married and unmarried parents, promotes co-parenting skills and conflict reduction, and expands the use of educational tools in D&N cases. This takes effect on July 1, 2026.

Attorney’s Fees in Juvenile Court. Public Chapter 730, § 2 creates a new TCA § 37-1-193 that gives juvenile courts discretion to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in cases involving custody, visitation, relocation, child support, and dependency and neglect. Note that fees may not be awarded for or against the Department of Children’s Services. This takes effect on July 1, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: In Tennessee divorces, TCA § 36-5-103 already authorizes attorney’s fee awards. PC 730 now extends that authority to juvenile cases.

Temporary Suspension of Child Support in Dependency & Neglect Cases. Public Chapter 730 § 3 creates a new subsection (4) to TCA § 37-1-103(d) that allows child support courts to temporarily suspend child support when (1) a child is alleged to be dependent and neglected and (2) the child is removed from the custodial parent’s physical custody during the pendency of the D&N case. This was brought to us by a group of Child Support Magistrates frustrated by their inability to suspend child support when a child has been temporarily removed from the custodial parent’s physical custody. This solves that problem. This becomes effective on July 1, 2026.

Court Authority Clarification. Public Chapter 730, § 5 creates a new subsection (h) in TCA § 36-8-103, clarifying that the Families’ Rights & Responsibilities Act does not override other statutes, court rules, or case law, nor does it limit courts’ authority to issue or enforce orders. This prevents the misuse of parental-rights arguments to challenge routine court authority. It does not substantively change the courts’ daily practice. It becomes effective on July 1, 2026.

Now let’s look at new legislation that did not originate in the TBA’s Family Law section.

Expanding Lifetime Orders of Protection. Public Chapter 1118 expands Tennessee’s lifetime order of protection statute to allow certain qualifying felony offenses committed in another state to support a Tennessee lifetime order of protection if the out-of-state offense matches one of the listed Tennessee offenses or has elements identical to those of the comparable Tennessee offense. This law took effect on May 22, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: House sponsor Rep. Lamberth argued, “A violent abuser’s record should count whether the assault happened in Memphis or Mississippi. Survivors deserve protection without borders.” This law closes the interstate gap by ensuring that a qualifying violent felony from another state still counts toward a Tennessee lifetime order of protection.

*     *     *     *     *

Parental Rights Protection Act. A Giles County case in which a criminal bond condition barred a father’s contact with his children (who were not victims of the crime) and offered no timely way to challenge it prompted Public Chapter 732. The law creates a new subsection (h) in TCA § 36-8-103 that addresses scenarios where criminal defendants have bond conditions that restrict contact with their children even though the children are not alleged victims. Specifically, it establishes expedited hearing procedures and heightened burdens of proof for criminal bond conditions that restrict a defendant’s parental contact with minor children who are not victims of the charged crime. The law triggers an automatic, expedited hearing within 15 calendar days whenever any criminal bond condition affects parental contact, custody, or visitation. Courts must find, by clear and convincing evidence and with specific findings of fact, that:

• a threat of harm exists to the child,
• less restrictive alternatives are insufficient, and
• the restriction is in the child’s best interest.

Thus, criminal court judges unaccustomed to family law must now make detailed best-interest findings supported by specific facts. This law took effect on April 16, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) Notably, the higher “clear and convincing” standard in criminal court differs from the lower “preponderance” standard in order of protection cases. This creates the real possibility that a criminal court might find insufficient evidence under the “clear and convincing” standard to restrict contact through a bond condition, while a family court might simultaneously find, by a preponderance, that contact should be restricted through a parenting plan or an order of protection. This inconsistency creates potential conflict and public safety risks.

(2) The law mandates a hearing within 15 days or the restriction “is void.” In practice, overloaded criminal dockets might miss that window, automatically lifting conditions on potentially dangerous defendants. Criminal judges and clerks will need to scramble to avoid unintended lapses in protection.

(3) Criminal court judges must now conduct a full best-interest analysis with specific findings, a task outside their routine experience. Defense attorneys might use the expedited hearing as an early mini-custody trial, calling witnesses about parenting, a scenario for which criminal courts are ill-suited.

*     *     *     *     *

Child Support Through High School Graduation. Public Chapter 870 amends TCA § 34-102(b) to clarify that child support continues if a child:

• reaches age 18 while enrolled in high school,
• support continues until the child graduates or until the class of which the child was a member when turning 18 graduates, whichever occurs first,
• but in no event past age 19.

The third bullet point introduces the new provision. Previously, the law required support through high school graduation but was ambiguous about students who turned 18 mid-year and then failed to graduate with their class. The new language clarifies that support terminates when the child’s original class graduates, even if the child has not yet graduated. The law took effect on April 27, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: Lawyers drafting parenting plans should consider specifying the anticipated graduation date for the child’s class. This could help avoid confusion or disputes over when the support obligation ends.

*     *     *     *     *

Tennessee Indian Child Welfare Act. Public Chapter 682 enacts a comprehensive state-level Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that would govern foster care placement, adoption, and termination of parental rights for Indian children in Tennessee. It closely mirrors the Federal ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., and would only take effect 30 days after (1) Congress repeals the federal ICWA, or (2) the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the federal ICWA in whole or in part. Unless and until that happens, this act will remain dormant. Right now, it has no practical effect.

K.O.’s Comment: This law operates as an insurance policy. Should the federal ICWA ever be struck down, Tennessee’s version would spring into effect to continue the same standards and safeguards that currently apply under federal law.

*     *     *     *     *

Foster Parent Notice of Termination Petitions. Public Chapter 802 requires DCS to provide long-term foster parents with copies of termination-of-parental-rights petitions within seven days in specific circumstances. Previously, foster parents had no statutory right to receive termination petitions, even for children in their care for extended periods. This law codifies foster parents’ notice rights and establishes a nine-month threshold for triggering the obligation. Notably, the law does not grant foster parents standing to intervene in termination proceedings, party status, or the right to counsel at public expense. However, receiving the termination petition provides foster parents with the information needed to consult with counsel about seeking intervention or to contact adoption attorneys if they want to adopt. This law takes effect on July 1, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: As of 2024, Tennessee had approximately 8,000 children in foster care, many of whom are placed with relatives or foster families for extended periods. Many of these children remain with a single foster family for months or years, often forming strong attachments. Before this law, foster parents had no statutory right to know when a termination of parental rights proceeding began, even if the child had lived with them for years.

*     *     *     *     *

Parental Access to Children’s Healthcare Records. Public Chapter 883 expands parental access to their children’s healthcare records and creates a new mandatory reporting obligation for mental health professionals treating minors with suicidal ideation. A 2023 report found that one in four Tennessee high schoolers had seriously considered suicide, and more than one in 10 had attempted it in the past year. The law allows parents to access their children’s prescription and rehabilitation records. However, parental access is denied if the treating professional is required to report abuse and believes that granting access would endanger the child’s life or physical safety.

Another section creates an affirmative duty to notify the parent, guardian, or legal custodian if the child communicates suicidal ideation and the treating professional determines that the child has the apparent ability and likelihood of attempting suicide. It also extends parental access to medical records for treatment provided without parental consent, such as sexually transmitted disease treatment and substance abuse services. This law became effective on May 5, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: Parents in high-conflict custody cases can subpoena or obtain a child’s counseling and medication records as a matter of right. Litigators will undoubtedly mine these records for any advantage in court. Given this, a savvy teenager might avoid therapy or withhold information, fearing that it will be exposed to their parents and used against them.

Mental health professionals report that confidentiality is crucial to effective treatment, especially for victims of sexual abuse, LGBTQ+ youth, and teens dealing with parental conflict or family dysfunction. This broad parental access risks chilling frank disclosure to therapists about sensitive topics. On paper, more information for parents helps protect kids. In practice, it could push troubled teens to retreat further.

*     *     *     *     *

Relative Caregiver Bedroom Requirements. Public Chapter 703 prohibits courts and DCS from requiring relative caregivers to provide children with their own bedrooms unless there are “specific safety or medical reasons that would make placement of the child with another child unsafe.” This took effect on April 14, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: Research shows children in kinship foster placements experience fewer disruptions and better well-being than those placed with non-relatives. Over 40% of Tennessee’s foster children are placed with relatives. Previously, DCS policy and some court orders required that children placed with relatives have their own bedrooms, consistent with general foster care licensing standards. This requirement sometimes prevented placement with willing relatives who had adequate housing but not enough bedrooms for each child to have a separate room. This new statute eliminates the blanket bedroom requirement and establishes an exception-based standard: separate bedrooms are required only when child-specific safety or medical needs make shared rooms unsafe. Thus, guardians ad litem and DCS must now justify any bedroom requirement by demonstrating child-specific safety or medical needs.

*     *     *     *     *

Address Confidentiality Program Expansion. Public Chapter 582 makes a few adjustments to Tennessee’s “Safe at Home” Address Confidentiality Program, which allows victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking to use a government-provided substitute address to keep their actual location confidential. The law expands eligibility to siblings of protected persons and requires the state’s Domestic Violence Offender Registry to accept Safe at Home addresses from participants. The law took effect on March 6, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: I’m including this primarily to remind lawyers representing domestic violence victims of their clients’ eligibility for the “Safe at Home” protections, which make it harder for abusers to locate victims. Despite being on the books, the program is underutilized due to a lack of awareness. If you didn’t already know about it, you do now.

*     *     *     *     *

Changes to Best-Interest Factors. As always (unfortunately), our legislators continued to tinker with the best-interest factors to respond to individual, fact-specific outcomes they (or their vocal constituents) opposed.

Public Chapter 758 amends TCA § 36-6-106(a) to state that the best-interest factors apply to both “temporary or permanent” custody orders, as if that were ever in question (it has never been an issue). The law took effect on April 16, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: This bill began as an “equal parenting time” presumption bill, but after significant pushback from the TBA’s Family Law Section, it was reduced to a narrow clarification of existing law. This means that even emergency or pendente lite custody decisions require a full best-interest analysis, not a lesser showing such as maintaining the status quo.

Public Chapter 683 shares the same history as PC 758 above. It started as an equal-time presumption bill, but after fierce opposition and consultation with the TBA’s Family Law section, this is what survived:

• TCA 36-5-106(a) now says the court “shall consider all relevant factors with the best interest of the child always being paramount, including the following, where applicable:”
• This law also adds a new best-interest factor 17: “Without creating any presumption as to parenting time, the extent to which the parenting schedule proposed or ordered provides each parent with meaningful opportunities to participate in the child’s life, consistent with the child’s best interest.”

This law takes effect July 1, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: Tennessee law already requires maximizing each parent’s participation consistent with the child’s best interest. Best-interest factors are meant to be child-centered. But Factor 17 introduces a more parent-centric consideration. It carries the side effect of more to fight over in custody cases. Expect to litigate the meaning of “meaningful opportunities” in case after case. Does “meaningful” imply a quantitative threshold (e.g., closer to equal time) or a qualitative one (e.g., being present at key events)?

*     *     *     *     *

I saved the worst for last.

Parenting Decisions Based on Biological Sex. Public Chapter 846 creates protections for parents who raise their children “consistent with the child’s biological sex.” This law prohibits dependency and neglect findings, custody removals, DCS petitions, and termination of parental rights based on parenting decisions consistent with the child’s biological sex, such as using pronouns consistent with the child’s biological sex, making mental health or medical decisions aligned with biological sex, and declining gender transition services (which Tennessee banned and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2025). It also prohibits a court from treating biologically sex-consistent parenting as a “negative factor” in best-interest determinations. In criminal law, it creates a defense to child abuse charges for such parenting decisions. This law took effect on April 27, 2026.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) This law addresses an imaginary threat. Nationally, approximately 1.4% of youth (ages 13-17) identify as transgender. The legislative debates revealed no specific instance of a Tennessee parent losing parenting time solely for “raising a child consistent with their biological sex,” making this a solution in search of a problem. This new law is largely a performative political statement that ties the hands of courts under the guise of “parents’ rights.”

(2) By painting with such a broad brush, the law preempts nuanced, child-specific judgments. It bars DCS or judges from treating a parent’s non-affirmation of a child’s gender identity as a negative factor, even if the child is suffering as a result. It effectively prevents courts from fully considering a child’s emotional well-being in these cases, even though the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry warns that youth with gender dysphoria who lack parental support face an increased risk of depression and suicide, and that “failure to affirm a transgendered child’s identity can contribute to serious psychological distress.” The law doesn’t say what happens if a child is actually harmed by a parent’s “biological sex” approach.

(3) It also raises many other questions, such as:

• Can a parent opposing gender transition affirmatively argue that this enhances their best-interest case?
• Does documented psychological harm to a gender-dysphoric child constitute independent grounds for judicial intervention?
• Does harm resulting from non-affirmation constitute abuse independent of the parenting decision itself?

*     *     *     *     *

Congratulations! You made it to the end of another legislative update post. You have a full year before you must endure this again.

If you share my belief that an informed family law bar is essential to protecting Tennessee’s families, take a moment to share this post using the buttons below. Doing so will raise awareness among lawyers, judges, legislators, journalists, and parents about these changes.