Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106

Section 36-6-106 makes evidence of abuse and the character and behavior of people who frequent a parent’s home relevant to a custody decision.

Burrell v. Burrell · filed 1999-03-24(8)-(9)

T he father o ffered ev idence on factors set fo rth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106(8)-(9), which are: ... (9) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and such person’s interactions with the child. The Trial Judge concluded the evidence was compelling enough to warrant a change of custod y, and we co nclude the evidence does not p reponde rate against h is determination.

Section 36-6-106(10) makes a parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent one of several custody factors; alleged interference alone does not justify changing custody.

Patterson v. Patterson · filed 1995-09-11(10)

The aformentioned statutory section is only one of several considerations. Our consideration of all the factors in T.C.A. § 36-6-106 leads us to conclude that Ms. Patterson ’s allegations, eve n if true, do not j ustify the extreme remedy allo wed by the tria l court.

Section 36-6-106 lists factors courts must consider when comparing parents’ fitness to determine child custody.

Winchester v. Winchester · filed 1997-02-12

The court shall then conduct an analysis of the comparative fitness of each parent, taking into account the factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-101(d) and 36-6-106 and any other relevant factors.

Section 36-6-106 sets out factors courts consider when deciding child custody.

Pritchett v. Pritchett · filed 1998-04-28

We have carefully considered all of the evidence in light of the factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106 and the comparative fitness test first pronounced as such in Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn.App. 1993). On balance, we find more than sufficient evidence to justify the trial court’s decree.

Section 36-6-106 governs custody awards through factors including emotional ties, primary caregiving, continuity, stability, abuse, and the character of people associated with the parents.

Huang v. Gates v. Huang · filed 1998-04-29

Award of custody is governed by T.C.A. § 36-6-106, which sets out the determinative factors: (1) emotional ties, (2) who is the primary care giver, (3) continuity, (4) stability, (5) parental health, (6) home, school and community records, (7) child’s preference (if older), (8) evidence of physical or emotional abuse, and (9) character and behavior of other persons associated with parents. ... We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s custody order.

Section 36-6-106 permits a custody decision to favor the parent who offers greater continuity and family stability for the child.

Black v. Black · filed 1998-07-10(3), (4)

It was her inconstancy and willingness to give her own convenience and satisfaction a higher priority which served the double purpose of providing a change of circumstances and showing that in the ultimate evaluation of two custodians, the father represented the preferable choice.

Section 36-6-106 requires consideration of relevant custody factors; an appellate court may presume the trial court considered them when the record contains sufficient evidence to determine the children’s best interests.

Rayburn v. Rayburn · filed 1998-10-16

If, as the appellant insists, the trial court did not consider the factors that were relevant in reaching its decision, that would be abuse of its discretion. However we can presume such consideration if the record contains evidence sufficient for the trial court to determine where the best interest of the children would lie.

Section 36-6-106 permits a court to consider each parent’s commitment to being the custodial parent alongside its other custody factors.

Young v. Young · filed 1998-10-21

The trial court’s decision appears to be driven by its assessment of which of these two parents had demonstrated a stronger commitment to be the custodial parent. While this consideration is factually driven and inherently subjective, we find that it is proper and that it is consistent with the other factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding child custody to consider its listed factors, including continuity in the children’s lives.

Grover v. Grover · filed 1999-04-30

The trial court in this case stated expressly that it had considered the statutory factors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 and had compared the fitness of the two parents. The record supports this statement; the trial court’s oral ruling includes a discussion of several of the listed factors.

Section 36-6-106(a) lists factors that guide a court’s assessment of parental fitness in custody decisions.

David Swett, Sr. v. Grace Z. Aleman Swett · filed 1999-06-15(a)

It would serve little purpose in this case to recite the lengthy litany of the factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)2 that guide a trial court’s discretion when assessing parental fitness. Our review of the record satisfies us that many of these factors do not favor either parent, and some actually favor Mr. Swett.

Section 36-6-106 identifies factors for comparing parents’ fitness for custody; being the primary caregiver does not prevent the court from considering parental behavior, alleged abuse, and emotional stability.

Lewis v. Lewis · filed 1999-07-27

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 sets forth some of the factors to be considered in performing a comparative fitness analysis. ... However, even assuming that Wife had been Jaylin’s primary caregiver during the marriage, the trial court appropriately considered the evidence on the parties’ behavior, alleged abuse, and emotional stability.

Section 36-6-106 does not require a trial court to recite every statutory custody factor; it is sufficient to discuss the factors most relevant to the decision.

White (Deerman) v. White · filed 1999-12-10

Mr. White argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider all of the factors outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, as evidenced by its emphasis on one factor, a parent’s facilitation and encouragement of the child’s relationship with the other parent. The trial court need not recite the list of statutory factors each time it resolves a custody dispute. It is sufficient to discuss those factors bearing most heavily on the decision.

Section 36-6-106 calls for courts to weigh the children’s best-interest factors when comparing prospective custodians.

Turner v. Turner · filed 1997-03-27

The trial courts employ the comparative fitness analysis to weigh these considerations and, by so doing, determine which of the available custodians is comparatively more fit than the other. ... Based on our independent review of the record, we cannot say that the proof fails to support the trial court’s decision to place these two children with Ms. Turner.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider the child's best interest and all relevant factors.

Whitaker v. Whitaker · filed 1997-04-22

The trial court must also consider the factors as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106 (1996): ... The trial court considered carefully all the relevant factors and the testimony of the witnesses and gave their testimony the weight, faith, and credit that the court felt the testimony deserved.

Section 36-6-106 makes the child’s best interest the overriding consideration in custody decisions, even when a custody order separates siblings.

Rice v. Rice · filed 1998-03-26

The best interest of a child is the overriding consideration in all custody determinations. T.C.A. § 36-6-106; Luke v. Luke, 651 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. 1983).

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best-interest factors a court applies when deciding whether to modify custody after a material change in circumstances.

Thrapp v. Thrapp · filed 1998-05-31(a)

Second, if the court determines that a material change of circumstances has occurred, the court must determine whether modification is in the child’s best interest in accordance with the factors listed in T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to assess the parents’ comparative fitness under its child custody criteria.

Yvette Porter Caira v. Caira · filed 1998-08-05

The true benchmark for awarding child custody is the comparative fitness of the parties in view of the criteria set out in our state code, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996).

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interests, considering relevant factors including which parent has been the primary caregiver.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1998-09-30

With the foregoing in mind, we consider the following proof that was before the trial court on this issue. ... The record indicates that Wife has primarily cared for Justin during his life. ... We conclude that custody of Justin was properly awarded to Wife.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to consider all relevant factors when deciding which custody arrangement serves a child’s best interests.

Woolsey v. McPherson · filed 1998-11-02

In matters of initial child custody, the trial court seeks to determine what would be in the best interest of the child. See, e.g., Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 665 (Tenn. App. 1996)(citing Koch v. Koch, 874 S.W.2d 571, 575 (Tenn. App. 1993)); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996). ... If the trial court finds that there has, in fact, been a material change in circumstances, it will then consider the petition to modify custody using a best interests standard. ... We therefore uphold the order of the trial court granting McPherson’s petition to change custody.

Section 36-6-106 makes the child’s best interest the primary consideration in a custody decision.

Dix v. Carson · filed 1998-12-17

In child custody cases, of course, the child’s best interest is the primary consideration. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996); Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tenn. App. 1983). ... On the whole, while both parties have significant virtues and vices, we must conclude that McKenzie’s best interest would be served by awarding custody to Wife rather than Husband.

Section 36-6-106 allowed courts to consider the factors later added in subsection (10) when deciding a child's best interests under the prior version of the statute.

Gilliam v. Jones · filed 1998-12-22(10)

We recognize that subsection ten was not a part of the statute when the trial court ruled on Jones’ petition to modify custody. We nevertheless discuss the factors contained in subsection ten because we find that they are among the many relevant factors that, even under the prior version of the statute, may be considered when determining what is in the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interests, considering the relevant factors and the parents’ comparative fitness.

Lurie v. Manning · filed 1999-09-21

In any proceedings requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, such determination shall be made upon the basis of the best interest of the minor child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider multiple factors and decide custody based on the children's best interests.

Cole v. Cole · filed 1999-11-17

The court must consider many factors 1 and make a custody determination based on the best interest of the children. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999).

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child's best interests by considering the child's physical and emotional needs and the relevant custody factors.

Moore v. Moore · filed 1999-12-10

In any award of custody, the needs of the child are paramount and every effort is made to promote the child's interest by placing him or her in an environment that will best serve his or her physical and emotional needs. Parker v. Parker, 986 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. 1999); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1998). ... Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision awarding the mother sole custody of the children.

Section 36-6-106 calls for consideration of multiple factors when comparing parental fitness in a custody decision.

James O. Wright, Jr. v. Kathy Wright (Stovall) · filed 1997-10-03

Many factors are taken into account in making the comparative fitness analysis. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. In this case, Daniel clearly loves both parents. Both parents have provided him with necessities. During Daniel’s infancy, Mother was clearly the primary care giver.

Section 36-6-106 treats a parent's role as primary caregiver as one factor in determining the child's best interest in a custody decision.

Martin v. Martin · filed 1998-03-26(2)

While it does appear that Wife was the primary caregiver, this is only one of the factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to consider its listed factors when determining a child’s best interests in a custody decision.

Gillenwaters v. James E. W. Gillenwaters III · filed 1999-10-13

To determine what is in the child’s best interests, courts are instructed to look at numerous factors, set forth in T.C.A. §36-6-106. ... After considering these factors and comparing the fitness of the parties, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Judge’s award of custody to the father.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider each parent’s ability to provide necessary care and the degree to which each has been the child’s primary caregiver.

Brooks v. Carter · filed 1999-02-02(2)

Despite the fact that both parties may have demonstrated themselves to be fit parents, we nevertheless conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s award of primary custody to the Father, rather than to the Mother, in this case. The undisputed evidence revealed that the Mother had demonstrated the greater disposition to provide the children with food, clothing, medical care, education, and other necessary care and that the Mother was the children’s primary caregiver during the parties’ marriage.

Section 36-6-106(4) makes the stability of each parent’s family unit a factor in deciding custody.

Kemp v. Hale · filed 1999-08-24(4)

While expressing that it had considered all of the factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106, the trial court focused its primary attention on “[t]he stability of the family unit of the parents.” T.C.A. § 36-6-106(4). ... The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination that Father is the more stable of the two parents.

Section 36-6-106(10) requires courts deciding custody to consider each parent’s willingness to encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.

Burlew v. Burlew · filed 1999-07-23(10)

In addition to considering which parent was the child’s primary caregiver during the marriage, the trial court must consider the willingness of each parent to encourage a close and continuing relationship with the other parent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(10) (Supp. 1998).

Section 36-6-106 directs courts deciding a child’s best interests to consider all relevant factors, including stability, the child’s preference, and evidence of abuse.

Anderton v. Amari · filed 2000-06-27

If there has been a material change in circumstances, the court must then determine whether a change of custody is in the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 665-66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)(quoting Koch v. Koch, 874 S.W.2d 571, 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999). When determining what is in the child’s best interest, the court will consider all relevant factors, including as follows: ... Given this safeguard, as well as the proof as a whole, we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding the it is in the best interests of Vincent to remain in the custody of Mrs. Anderton.

Section 36-6-106 supplies factors for assessing a child’s best interests when deciding custody.

Michelle Baker Pisano v. Gerry Baker · filed 2000-09-15

This assessment involves consideration of all relevant factors. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (listing statutory factors); Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d at 630 (quoting Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983))(listing additional factors). A comparative fitness analysis in the present case leaves little doubt that Joshua’s best interests would be served by changing the present custody arrangement.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to be based on the child’s best interests after considering relevant factors.

Mahan v. Mahan · filed 2000-11-15

The trial court had to judge the credibility of the witnesses and balance the many factors when making the custody decision. Upon reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that custody with Wife is in the children’s best interest.

Children’s welfare and best interests are paramount in custody decisions, and a parent’s conduct toward the children bears on that determination.

Clifton v. Acosta-Delgado · filed 2000-11-15

In child custody cases, the welfare and best interests of the children are the paramount concerns. Whitaker, 957 S.W.2d at 837; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996). ... This does not outweigh the many instances in which Father demonstrated flagrant disregard for the well-being of his children. ... Consequently, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to award custody to Mother.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody judges to consider the relevant best-interest factors but does not require them to address each factor separately.

Price-Luttrell v. Luttrell · filed 1999-12-17

In a custody decision, the law does not require trial judges to iterate one by one their determinations of the relevant statutory factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106, but rather it requires that they shall consider such factors in determining what is in the best interest of the minor child.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider multiple factors and base the arrangement on the children's best interests.

Watson v. Lynn Rose Watson · filed 2000-02-01

When called upon to order a custody arrangement, a court must consider many factors and make a custody determination based on the best interest of the children. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999) (listing the factors for the court to consider).

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interest and directs courts to consider all relevant factors where applicable.

Byrne v. Byrne · filed 2000-03-31

The trial court must also consider the factors as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106 (1996): ... Bearing in mind the mandate of the comparative fitness test and after a review of the entire record in this case, we have reached the conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding by the trial court that the award of custody to the Wife is in the best interest of the children.

Section 36-6-106 makes continuity of placement a factor in deciding a child's best interests in a custody case.

Sweat v. Sweat · filed 2000-04-13

These arrangements provide “continuity of placement”, a consideration stressed by factors two and three of the statute, by maintaining the schedule to which the minor children have become accustomed.

Section 36-6-106 calls for a fact-specific custody decision that weighs multiple considerations.

Earls v. Earls · filed 2000-05-31

No hard and fast rules exist for determining which custody and visitation arrangement will best serve a child’s needs. See Taylor v. Taylor, 849 S.W.2d 319, 327 (Tenn. 1993); Dantzler v. Dantzler, 665 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). The inquiry is factually driven and requires the courts to carefully weigh numerous considerations. See Nichols v. Nichols, 792 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Tenn. 1990); Rogero v. Pitt, 759 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tenn. 1988); Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (1996).

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child's best interest, considering relevant factors including caregiving and continuity of the child's home.

Cline v. Cline · filed 2000-06-16

Viewing the record as a whole, we reach the conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding by the trial court that the award of joint custody with primary physical custody to Mother is in the best interest of the children.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court deciding child custody to consider the listed best-interest factors, including when modifying a custody order.

Wilson v. Tittle · filed 2000-08-25

The trial court must also consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999).

Section 36-6-106 makes the child’s welfare and best interest the primary concerns in custody decisions and requires the court to consider its listed factors.

Baggett v. Baggett · filed 2000-08-25

The welfare and best interest of the child are the primary concerns in child custody proceedings. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999); Whitaker v. Whitaker, 957 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. Ct. App.1997).

Section 36-6-106 requires a court awarding custody to consider the child’s best interest factors based on evidence.

Castleman v. Castleman · filed 2000-12-21

The trial court herein did not base its award on any of the factors it is required to consider by the terms of Tenn Code Ann. § 36-6-106 or by the long line of cases requiring a determination of the child’s best interest. In making what is a “particularly fact-driven” decision, the trial court heard no evidence, considered no facts, and made no findings of fact. This situation requires us to find that the trial court’s award of custody by default was outside the range of alternatives available to the court and not within its discretion.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider multiple factors and decide custody according to the children’s best interests.

Muirhead v. Muirhead · filed 2001-01-22

When considering child custody, a court must consider many factors and make a custody determination based upon the best interest of the children. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (listing the factors to be taken into consideration).

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to weigh the listed considerations when deciding which custody arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2001-01-30

The inquiry is factually driven and requires the courts to carefully weigh numerous considerations, including those identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 2000). ... The record in this case, developed through eight days of trial spread over a six month period, reflects that the trial judge was faced with an analysis of comparative unfitness rather than comparative fitness. He chose the least objectionable of his alternatives and the evidence does not preponderate against that choice.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court deciding a child’s best interest to consider its statutory custody factors.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 2001-02-16

Additionally, the trial court must also consider the statutory factors as set forth in T.C.A. 36- 6-106.

Section 36-6-106 does not require courts to list all ten best interest factors in their findings or consider every factor in every case.

Barnes v. Barnes · filed 2001-02-20

The statute does not require that courts enumerate each of the ten factors in court findings or even consider each of the ten factors in every case.

Section 36-6-106 lists factors courts consider when comparing parents’ fitness for child custody.

Farien v. Farien · filed 2001-02-20

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 sets forth some of the factors to be considered in performing a comparative fitness analysis. ... According appropriate deference to the trial court’s assessment of the parties’ credibility and demeanor, we cannot conclude that the evidence preponderates against the award of custody to Mother.

Section 36-6-106(a)(10) requires the court to consider each parent's willingness to encourage a close and continuing relationship with the other parent when deciding a child's best interest.

Donna Roxbury Breeding (Henson) v. Breeding · filed 2001-04-05(a)(10)

As part of this determination, the trial court must consider the willingness of each parent to encourage a close and continuing relationship with the other parent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 106(a)(10)(Supp. 2000).

Section 36-6-106 directs courts making custody decisions to consider the relevant best-interest factors, including when modifying an existing custody award.

George v. Misty George Mullican · filed 2001-06-18

Section 36-6-106 of the Tennessee Code gives the factors that should be considered by the trial court. ... In the case currently before this court, it is clear that the trial court carefully considered all of the above factors in its custody determination. The trial court specifically cited the above provisions in its March 10, 2000 initial ruling.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts deciding custody to consider multiple factors in the child’s best interests, including each parent’s mental health.

State ex rel Elizabeth Durrant v. Howard · filed 2001-07-11

To determine what is in the child’s best interests, courts are instructed to look at numerous factors, as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider the child’s continuity of care, each parent’s caregiving and family stability, evidence of abuse, and past parenting responsibilities.

Carr v. Carr · filed 2001-08-27(a)

In making a custody decision, the court must consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106, including the importance of continuity in the child’s life, the degree to which a parent has been the primary caregiver, the stability of each parent’s family unit, evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child or the other parent, and each parent’s past performance of parenting responsibilities.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to consider its listed factors when determining a child’s best interests in a custody case.

Vincent v. Vincent · filed 2001-08-30

To determine what is in the child’s best interests, courts are instructed to consider the issue in light of the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 provides the factors for comparing parents’ fitness when deciding custody between them.

Holland v. Holland · filed 2000-03-31

The Trial Court should apply the factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106 to determine which of the two parents is comparatively more fit to have custody of Dylan.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody, including a modification, to compare the parents’ fitness using the relevant best interest factors.

Ward v. Valarie Ward · filed 2001-02-20(a)

Thus, a court must determine, in light of the factors in section 36-6-106 of the Tennessee Code, which parent is more or less fit to care for a minor child.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to weigh the custody factors under a comparative fitness analysis; awarding custody to one parent does not require finding the other unfit.

Lee v. Lee · filed 2001-06-21

With regard to child custody determinations, T.C.A. § 36-6-106 lists factors that a trial court is to consider in making a “comparative fitness” analysis as follows: ... Furthermore, although there is no evidence to support that Husband is an unfit parent, such a finding is not necessary to award custody to Wife. ... Weighing all relevant factors and considering the evidence in the record, we cannot disagree with the trial court’s award of custody to Wife and therefore affirm the trial court in its decision.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody courts to consider each parent’s ability to provide necessary care and each parent’s mental and physical health.

Abernathy v. Abernathy · filed 2000-06-27(2), (5)

As we previously indicated, in making its custody decision, the trial court was required to consider, among other factors, the disposition of the parents to provide the child with medical and other necessary care and the mental and physical health of the parents. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(2), (5) (Supp. 1999). The foregoing evidence directly related to both of these factors. As indicated by the Father’s own testimony, the Father was less willing than the Mother to seek professional guidance in dealing with the son’s behavioral problems. In fact, the Father appeared reluctant to admit that the son had any significant behavioral problems. Additionally, although the Father contended that his alcohol and drug use did not adversely impact the child, we believe that the trial court properly considered this evidence when the court evaluated the parties’ comparative fitness to have custody of this child.

Section 36-6-106(a) identifies factors trial courts should consider when deciding custody.

Rice v. Rice · filed 2001-07-19(a)

The Tennessee General Assembly and the courts ... have identified the factors that trial courts should consider. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (Supp. 2000); Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Section 36-6-106 permits a custody court to consider a child’s relationship with grandparents without first finding substantial harm.

Bailey v. Bailey · filed 2000-08-29

The factors to be considered in making this decision are set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1999). ... Hawk does not mandate a threshold finding of substantial harm before the trial court can consider the minor child’s relationship with grandparents as one of the factors in its comparative fitness analysis.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies factors for deciding a child’s best interest, including each parent’s care, home stability, the child’s school record, and support for the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Roache v. Bourisaw · filed 2001-10-10(a)

If a material change in circumstances is found, then the court seeks to devise a custody arrangement that is in the best interest of the child. ... Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (Supp. 1998). ... We find the evidence does not preponderate against the court’s finding that the child’s best interests are served by the modified custody arrangement ordered by the court. Therefore, change of custody is affirmed.

Section 36-6-106’s custody factors aid the court in deciding what is in a child’s best interests.

Barrett v. Barrett · filed 2001-10-12

But, we think that argument overlooks the fact that the factors listed in the statute are only aids in arriving at the ultimate fact of what is in the best interests of the children.

Section 36-6-106 sets out the factors courts consider when deciding custody based on a child’s best interests.

Strickland v. Franklin · filed 2001-11-02

The various factors to consider in custody determinations are set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106. ... Upon careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s ruling and affirms the award of custody to the appellee.

Section 36-6-106 requires a custody decision based on evidence of the child's best interests; a parent's refusal to obey evaluation orders may be considered as a custody factor.

Mays v. Mays · filed 2001-11-27

In the present case, the trial court erred when it failed to permit Mr. Mays to present proof on the child custody issue before awarding custody to Ms. Mays. The court should have considered Mr. Mays failures to comply with court orders as a factor in making its custody decision.

Section 36-6-106 lists factors courts consider when deciding child custody.

Arnold v. Arnold · filed 2001-12-12

Considering the factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106 (as the Trial Court expressly did in its custody determination), the evidence supports the Trial Court’s grant of custody to the wife.

Section 36-6-106 identifies considerations courts must weigh when deciding a child's best interests in custody and visitation matters.

Mason v. Charles Mason, Jr. · filed 2002-02-13

The inquiry is factually driven and requires the courts to carefully weigh numerous considerations, including those identified in T.C.A. 36-6-106 (2001).

Section 36-6-106 guides custody decisions through best interest factors that courts weigh together, including stability and continuity in the child’s life.

Keeler v. Keeler · filed 2002-02-22

We agree that these factors militate in her favor, but we are not sure they are sufficient to overcome the factors that favor Mr. Keeler. ... We have read the transcript of the trial in its entirety, and although this case presents a close question, we do not believe the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decision.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the factors for comparing parents’ fitness when deciding a child’s best interests in a custody modification.

McEvoy v. Brewer · filed 2002-05-31(a)

This is a particularly fact-intensive process shaped by the factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2001). ... This record contains ample evidence with regard to four specific matters that support the general sessions court’s conclusion that Mr. McEvoy was comparatively more fit than Ms. Spears to be Chelsea’s primary physical custodian.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to be based on the child’s best interest.

Holeman v. Holeman · filed 2002-10-24(a)

A court’s determination regarding custody must be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106 supplies the best interests factors for deciding whether to modify custody after a material change in circumstances.

Kendrick v. Shoemake · filed 2002-11-01

A majority of this Court has concluded that a best interests analysis, including the factors set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106, should be used to determine the propriety of a modification of child custody.

Section 36-6-106 permits a court to consider a parent’s stability and honesty when deciding which custody arrangement serves the children’s best interests.

Staggs v. Staggs · filed 2002-12-11

The trial court found that Mr. Staggs had proven himself the more stable of the two parents, and the evidence certainly did not preponderate against that finding. ... Honesty is an important factor in all human relationships, but perhaps especially so in the struggle to overcome alcoholism. We do not believe the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that it is in the best interest of the two children that their custody be placed with their father.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to consider the child’s best interests under its listed factors, using current evidence.

Dougherty v. Parry · filed 2003-02-26

We accordingly remand this case to the trial court for consideration of Jessica’s best interest in light of the factors set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.2 We note that the court’s analysis must take “new evidence” into account. It is not sufficient to revisit the situation of the parties at the time of the court’s last hearing, since the most current circumstances of the parents and of the child are also the most relevant for determination of the child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106 supplies the best interest factors used to decide whether to modify custody after a material change in circumstances.

Cranston v. Combs · filed 2003-06-03

Second, after finding that a material change in circumstances has occurred, the trial court must determine whether modification of custody is in the child’s best interests using the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 (2001).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider every applicable custody factor, but does not require written findings on each factor.

Burnett v. Burnett · filed 2003-06-20(a)

This statute does require a trial court to consider all of the listed factors which are applicable. However, the statute does not require a trial court, when issuing a memorandum opinion or final judgment, to list every applicable factor along with its conclusion as to how that particular factor impacted the overall custody determination.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a best interests determination before custody changes, but a trial court need not analyze every listed factor if its decision serves the child’s best interests.

Oliver v. Oliver · filed 2003-06-26(a)

A finding of the existence of a material change of circumstances does not end the matter. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2001) also requires a determination that changing a child’s custody is in the best interests of the child. ... It follows that the failure of the trial court to undergo a factor-by-factor analysis according to the statute is not reversible error per se, as long as the trial court reached a result that is in the child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to compare the parents’ fitness by weighing factors relevant to the child’s best interest.

April Price v. Price · filed 2001-09-18

The Tennessee Code requires the trial court to engage in a “comparative fitness” analysis of the parents.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider applicable best-interest factors through a comparative fitness analysis.

Barnes v. Barnes · filed 2002-09-17

We are of the opinion that the trial judge’s findings pertaining to the above cited statutory provisions indicate that the trial court undertook the required comparative fitness analysis.

Section 36-6-106 provides the factors for comparing parents’ fitness in a child custody decision.

Curbow v. Stucki · filed 2003-10-28

The second issue on appeal concerns the court’s comparative fitness determination under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106. ... Reviewing the record before us we find that the evidence presented to the trial court and preserved in the record does not preponderate against the court’s finding of fact.

Section 36-6-106 calls for a comparative fitness analysis in an initial custody determination, focused on the child’s best interest and present circumstances.

Roy v. Smith, II v. Grace Hutchison (Blair) · filed 2004-02-25

It is clear from the judgment of the court that the court viewed this case as the initial determination of custody and used the comparative fitness analysis in determining what was in the best interest of the child. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. ... Accordingly, the court did not err in its legal analysis.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant custody factors; when the parents are otherwise comparably fit, one supported factor may determine the outcome.

Bauer v. Bauer · filed 2002-02-22(a)

In applying the balancing fitness test, where both parents’ relative fitness as to most factors is equal, the finding of a factor in favor of one parent, if supported by the evidence, may determine the outcome.

Section 36-6-106 provides factors courts use to assess parents’ comparative fitness when deciding a child’s best interests.

Bunker v. Finks · filed 2002-04-16(a)

While there is no bright line comparative fitness test, the statutory factors provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 are used by courts in making this comparative fitness determination.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding child custody to consider the statutory factors as part of a comparative fitness analysis of the parents.

Williams v. Williams · filed 2002-05-22

In so doing, it must consider the factors outlined by the legislature as codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.1 Id.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to rest on the child’s best interests after consideration of all relevant factors.

Livingston v. Livingston · filed 2002-06-27(a)

After evaluating the proof in the record and independently reviewing the evidence presented in light of the foregoing factors, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of an award of custody to Father. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding custody to Father.

Section 36-6-106 supplies factors for deciding a child's best interests in a custody award, including continuity in the child's life.

Rakestraw v. Rakestraw · filed 2002-11-14

We have reviewed the record with the above standard in mind and find that the Trial Court properly considered the appropriate statutory factors found at T.C.A. 36-6-106, and that the evidence does not preponderate against its ruling.

Section 36-6-106 provides factors for comparing parents’ fitness and determining a child’s best interests in an initial custody decision.

Anthony v. Rodgers · filed 2003-01-23(a)

Given that Father need not show a "material change in circumstances," we find it was proper for the trial court to engage in a "comparative fitness" analysis using the factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 to determine what was in Child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to rest on the child’s best interest, considering relevant factors such as continuity in the child’s life.

In Re: Shiann Horner · filed 2003-03-21(a)

The trial court’s discussion of the child’s best interest clearly indicates that it properly considered the best interest standards set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. The child’s best interest was the linchpin of the trial court’s custody award.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to follow the child’s best interests and its statutory factors, which can support equal physical custody.

Hopkins v. Hopkins · filed 2003-06-25(a)

While there is no proof that the trial judge was acting out of an improper motive, we think that the relevant statutory factors support an equal division of custody between the parties.

Section 36-6-106 permits a court to consider the parents’ work schedules when the listed custody factors are fairly equal.

Maria Louise Bernhard Kollasch Krahn v. Michael · filed 2003-11-17(a)

Because we find that the trial court properly considered all of the relevant factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106, which appeared to be fairly equal between the parties, the parties’ respective work schedules is an appropriate factor for consideration.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider its listed best interest factors when deciding child custody.

Willcutts v. Willcutts · filed 2004-03-04(a)

The trial court must also consider factors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-106. ... The evidence in the record does not preponderate against the chancery court’s designation of Mother as the primary residential parent for the children based upon the above-cited factors.

Section 36-6-106 provides factors for deciding custody in the child’s best interests, including emotional ties, continuity of care, and family stability.

Reed v. Kidd · filed 2004-04-01(a)

In looking at the factors in section 36-6-106, we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against leaving custody with Ms. Reed.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider the statutory best interest factors in comparing the parents’ fitness.

Stevenson v. Tracy Dawn Stevenson · filed 2004-04-14

The trial court reached its custody determination based upon the comparative fitness analysis prescribed by the Tennessee Code, and we cannot say this determination was an abuse of discretion in light of the record.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest, including the parents’ stability and conduct.

Fuller v. Nicholson · filed 2004-05-12(a)

Moreover, while Mother’s behavior is far from blameless, in that she violated the trial court’s orders granting Father emergency temporary custody and restraining her from encumbering the property, her record pales in comparison with Father’s, whose substantial criminal history includes numerous arrests, citations, and warrants for offenses ranging from speeding and driving on a revoked driver’s license to reckless endangerment and criminal impersonation. Under these circumstances, and according due deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations, we cannot conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s award of primary custody to Mother.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider the statutory best interest factors, including which parent has been the child’s primary caregiver.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2004-06-14

In so doing, it must consider the factors outlined by the legislature as codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.1 Id.

Section 36-6-106 supplies best-interest factors for deciding child custody, including parental bonds, caregiving, continuity, stability, and parenting responsibilities.

In Re: C.K.G., C.A.G., C.L.G. · filed 2004-06-22

While the evidence was controverted as to the qualifications of the parents to have primary custody, there was more than ample evidence before the trial judge to sustain his ruling that Pepper should have primary custody under these factors. Therefore, we find that the trial judge’s ruling that Pepper should have primary custody should not be disturbed.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to decide custody based on the child’s best interests after considering the relevant statutory factors.

J.E.B. v. J.C.W. · filed 2004-08-10(a)

In cases involving a custody dispute, courts are guided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. ... Bearing the above in mind, and having considered the pertinent statutory factors and the record as a whole, we do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the child’s best interests are served by awarding Father primary residential custody.

Section 36-6-106’s best-interest analysis considers a parent’s method of discipline and risks posed to the children by someone in that parent’s home.

Clarneau v. Angela Dawn Clarneau · filed 2005-06-02

This finding is based on two circumstances that are of great significant to the best interest of the children analysis required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. They are Father’s disturbing “method of discipline” and the risk of harm to the girls posed by his step-son.

Section 36-6-106(a) makes the child’s best interests the paramount consideration in custody decisions and requires consideration of applicable factors when comparing parents’ fitness.

In Re CKG · filed 2005-10-06(a)

The paramount consideration in child custody cases is the child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody determination in a divorce proceeding to be based on the child’s best interests.

Townsend v. Townsend · filed 2005-12-14(a)

The trial court’s responsibility is to make a designation of primary residential parent based on the trial court’s determination of the child’s best interests. ... This is mandated by statute. See T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a) (2005) (requiring that when a court determines custody in a divorce proceeding “such determination shall be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child”). ... With appropriate deference to the trial court’s implicit findings on the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s designation of Wife as primary residential parent.

After a material change in custody circumstances, the court must compare each parent's fitness before deciding which custody arrangement serves the children's best interests.

Hartman v. Hartman · filed 2004-06-15

We agree with the Appellant that after finding the circumstances of the children and their custody had changed in a material way the trial court should have carefully compared the fitness of each parent.

A parent's willingness to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent is considered with the other statutory best interest factors when deciding custody.

McGehee v. McGehee · filed 2004-08-12(a)(10)

Based on our review of the record as a whole and the applicable statutory factors, we do not find that the Trial Court abused its broad discretion in this case regarding child custody.

Section 36-6-106 makes a parent’s health and willingness to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent relevant to a custody decision.

B.M.M. v. P.R.M. · filed 2004-08-18

These factors include the parents’ mental and physical health and the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a relationship with the other parent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2001). ... Overall, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the trial court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent, and it is affirmed.

Section 36-6-106’s custody factors remain relevant when courts determine a child’s residential placement under the parenting plan legislation.

Hines v. Simms · filed 2004-08-24

The factors set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 are still relevant as are factors established by the courts.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider the applicable best-interest factors and compare the parents' fitness.

Golightly v. Golightly · filed 2004-09-14(a)

Based on our review of the record below, the trial court properly considered the statutory factors listed in section 36-6-106(a) of the Tennessee Code and engaged in a comparative fitness analysis of both parents.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides the factors for deciding a child's best interest in a custody modification.

Roy Hugh Rushing, II v. Rushing · filed 2004-10-27(a)

Thus, considering all of the circumstances and the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a), we conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that a material change in circumstances has occurred, and that modifying the original decree to give Father residential parenting time with the children for a full week on alternating weeks is in the best interest of the children.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to consider best interest factors in custody decisions, including emotional abuse and each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Neves v. Erica Regan Neves (Arrell) · filed 2004-12-13(a)

In determining the best interests of the child, we turn to factors set out by the legislature in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a) (2001): ... The factors that tip the best interest analysis in the direction of Mother are (1) the evidence of emotional abuse, in that Daughter was evidently subjected to some type of coercion to either convince her that she was sexually molested by her stepfather and grandfather or to convince her that she should lie regarding such molestation, and (2) Father’s insistence on interfering with Mother’s visitation and relationship with Daughter.

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to rest on the child’s best interests, with courts considering all relevant factors where applicable.

A.B.C. v. A.H. · filed 2005-01-13(a)

It further appears that the trial court properly considered and applied the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court deciding custody to consider the statutory factors when comparing the parents’ fitness.

Owens v. Owens · filed 2005-01-21

In making a custody determination, the trial court must engage in a comparative fitness analysis of the parents. Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 630 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996). In so doing, it must consider the factors outlined by the legislature as codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Custody decisions must account for the statutory factors to the extent the facts implicate them.

Scaife v. Scaife · filed 2005-02-08

However, that discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the statutory factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2001), to the extent that the listed factors are implicated by the facts of a given case.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts making custody decisions to consider all relevant factors, with the child’s best interest foremost.

Cantrell v. Cantrell · filed 2005-03-28

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 sets forth factors to be considered when the court is to make a custody determination regarding a minor child. The statute instructs the courts to consider all relevant factors, the most important of which is the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider the applicable best-interest factors when deciding child custody.

Christine Pamela Schoof Goforth v. Goforth · filed 2005-07-12

We now turn to the specific facts in this case and view them in light of the best interests of these children and the criteria set forth in T.C.A. §36-6-106, supra. ... Given the respective work schedules of these parties, the childrens’ schedules, and the specific facts of this case as discussed above, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in naming Mr. Goforth as the primary residential parent or in dividing the parenting time as set out in the Permanent Parenting Plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) lists factors courts consider when deciding which custody arrangement serves a child’s best interests.

Darvarmanesh v. Gharacholou · filed 2005-07-19(a)

The legislature has codified many of the factors a court should consider in making a custody decision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2003); ... First, the relevant statutory factors weigh in favor of granting Wife primary custody of Cameron.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court deciding custody to consider the statutory factors when comparing the parents’ fitness.

Penny Carol Fletcher Morgan v. Morgan · filed 2005-07-20

In making a custody determination, the trial court must engage in a comparative fitness analysis of the parents. Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 630 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996). In so doing, it must consider the factors outlined by the legislature as codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding whether to modify custody after a material change in circumstances to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child's best interest.

Maroney v. Maroney · filed 2005-08-03(a)

If a material change in circumstances has been found, then a trial court next must determine whether custody modification is in the child's best interest utilizing the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. ... When considering these and the other relevant factors, we again conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s decision that it is in the best interest of the child for Father to be designated the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider the custody factors together; continuity of placement does not necessarily outweigh the other factors.

Newman v. Myatt · filed 2005-08-22

While continuity of placement is one of the factors to be considered, as the mother argues, this does not outweigh all of the other factors, especially where the proof regarding the child’s struggles in school is so persuasive. We conclude the Trial Court properly analyzed the appropriate statutory factors, and this issue is without merit.

A trial court must consider the best-interest factors in § 36-6-106 when deciding child custody.

Ouyang v. Chen · filed 2005-08-26

The trial court must also consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides custody factors to consider when determining a child’s best interest.

Sandra E. Fox (Gwirtsman) v. Gwirtsman · filed 2005-09-06(a)

Best interest is determined by considering all relevant factors, including those set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (factors to consider in a custody determination) or § 36-6-404(b) (factors to consider in establishing a residential schedule).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant best interest factors when deciding custody, including conduct affecting the children’s safety.

Benson v. Watkinson · filed 2005-09-09(a)

The Trial Court did consider all relevant evidence when making the custody determination. We find no error in the Trial Court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent with Mother’s visitation being restricted because of her alcohol abuse.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts making custody decisions to consider its listed best interest factors.

Malone v. Lynettte Diane Berger Malone · filed 2005-10-10

The parties concede that a substantial and material change of circumstances has occurred, and in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must give proper consideration to the statutory factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106 regarding custody decisions. ... The Trial Court properly considered each of these factors, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Court’s findings of fact with regard to these factors.

Section 36-6-106 does not require a trial court to list and discuss every best interest factor when deciding whether to modify custody.

Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling v. Francisco (Frank) Huberto Guzman & wife, Billie Ann Guzman · filed 2005-11-29(a)

Mother correctly notes that the trial court did not list and discuss each factor in Section 36-6-106. However, the trial court was not required to do so, and the absence of an explicit discussion of each factor does not mean that they were not considered.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a trial court to consider the applicable best-interest factors, but does not require a separate written finding on each factor.

In Re: D.A.J. · filed 2005-12-09(a)

Even if we give Mother the benefit of the doubt and proceed as if she argues that the Juvenile Court erred when it failed to detail its findings with regard to the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), as opposed to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b), her argument still fails. ... We again emphasize that a trial court should be as detailed as possible when rendering a decision in a custody case. Nevertheless, we believe the Juvenile Court’s findings in the present case are sufficiently detailed for us to conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s findings that there was a material change in circumstances and that designating Father as the primary residential parent was in the child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider applicable best-interest factors when assessing the parents’ comparative fitness.

Dunn v. Silvers · filed 2005-12-20(a)

In assessing the comparative fitness of the parties, courts are instructed to look at numerous factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), which are as follows: ... After careful review, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision regarding custody and visitation.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider its listed factors when comparing parents’ fitness for custody.

Ort v. Ort · filed 2006-01-05

In so doing, it must consider the factors outlined by the legislature as codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) identifies the factors courts weigh when comparing parents’ fitness for custody.

Cantrell v. Cantrell · filed 2006-01-27(a)

The factors that courts weigh are identified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2005). ... After reviewing the record, we have concluded that the evidence does not preponderate against this designation. We therefore affirm the trial court’s designation of Mr. Cantrell as the children’s primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to decide custody based on the child’s best interest, considering the relevant statutory factors.

Caldwell v. Davina Kay Duke Caldwell · filed 2006-01-31(a)

Therefore, we will proceed to consider the issue of the best interest of the child under the rubric of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to name Mother as primary residential parent of the child and we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s award of custody of the child to her.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding custody to consider all relevant factors, including each parent’s ability to care for the child and support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Keith v. Surratt · filed 2006-01-31

As provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, a court is required to consider “all relevant factors” in making a custody determination, including the following which we find to be pertinent in this case: ... (10) Each parent’s past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities, including the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, consistent with the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to consider the relevant best interest factors when choosing a child’s primary residential parent.

Monica White Mueller v. Mueller · filed 2004-11-17(a)

As the chancellor correctly noted, however, the legislature instructs the courts of this state to evaluate the evidence presented in order to determine which parent should be designated the primary residential parent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b) (2003); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2003). Our review of the record reveals that the evidence before the trial court does not preponderate against the finding that Wife should be Daughter’s primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106 supplies the best-interest factors a court must consider when deciding whether to change custody after finding a material change of circumstances.

Lyons v. Lyons · filed 2006-03-21

Second, if it finds a material change of circumstances, the court must utilize the factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 to determine whether a change of custody is in the best interests of the child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding which parent should be the primary residential parent to consider its custody factors.

Chaffin v. Ellis · filed 2006-03-24(a)

In engaging in this analysis, the court must consider the factors set out in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts assessing a child’s best interests to consider the listed factors, including each parent’s ability to encourage a relationship with the other parent.

Kellett v. Stuart · filed 2006-03-30(a)

The factors to be considered in making a best interests analysis are set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), ... A factor which clearly favors Mother is her ability to facilitate and encourage a good relationship between the children and Father.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts making custody decisions to consider the listed factors bearing on the child's best interest.

Russ v. Russ · filed 2006-06-06(a)

In doing so, the court must consider the factors enumerated in section 36-6-106 of the Tennessee Code.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts making custody determinations to consider all relevant factors, subject to certain exceptions.

Means v. Ashby · filed 2006-06-12(a)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 provides the analysis for child custody determinations. The statute provides that “all relevant factors” are to be considered in child custody determinations, subject to certain exceptions.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider the custody factors, but failing to discuss them individually does not itself show that the court failed to consider them.

Lyles v. Lyles · filed 2008-01-18

Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106 sets forth the factors which the court is to consider in making a custody determination, which are: ... It is true the Trial Court did not specifically discuss these factors, but there is no indication that the Court did not consider them.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts deciding child custody to treat the child’s best interests as their primary concern.

Burnett v. Burnett · filed 2008-03-19(a)

Determinations of child custody are to be made in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106. In making this determination, the trial court should take the child’s best interests as its primary concern.

Section 36-6-106's best interest analysis considers a child's stable home, school ties, and close sibling relationships when choosing a guardian.

In Re Rdm · filed 2009-08-18

The proof in this case, however, demonstrates that the Werners were clearly favored in the best interest analysis. Of great significance was the fact that the Werners lived in an area that would allow the child to remain close to his siblings, and it was shown that he was very close to them. He had many friends in school and in the neighborhood, and was thriving with the Werners.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court changing custody after a material change in circumstances to assess the child’s best interests under its factors and make an express finding.

Robert Henry Robinson, Jr. v. Ann Prevatt Robinson Irons · filed 2010-10-07(a)

Therefore, we vacate the Trial Court’s judgment transferring primary residential custody to Mother and remand this case to the Trial Court to make an express finding as to the children’s best interest consistent with the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

A parent’s willingness to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent is considered alongside all other relevant custody factors; past interference does not automatically bar an award of primary custody.

Hodson v. Griffin · filed 2006-06-13(a)(10)

Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court gave careful attention to the proof presented and reached its decision after appropriate analysis of such proof in the context of all relevant factors, including those set forth at T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a). The trial court found that, while both Mother and Father are comparatively fit, Kyler has resided with Mother since he was born, and Mother has provided a stable and satisfactory environment for the child and he has thrived in her home. The trial court further noted that Mother is older than Father and has two other children, the necessary implication being that she is more experienced in caring for children than Father. While we have no reason to question Father’s ability to care for his child, the factors considered by the trial court in awarding primary parenting responsibility to Mother are relevant and sufficient to support that decision. There is no indication that the trial court’s decision in this case constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 36-6-106 lists the factors a court considers when deciding child custody.

Fongnaly v. Fongnaly · filed 2006-09-27

The factors to be considered by the court are those listed in Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106, previously quoted.

After a material change in circumstances, a court deciding whether to modify custody must determine the child’s best interest using the statutory factors.

Long v. Holli Colleen Hartsell Harbin · filed 2006-10-04(a)

Once a material change of circumstances has been shown to have occurred, the trial court is required to determine whether a change of custody is in the child’s best interest using the factors set forth at T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a). ... Based upon all of these factors and our review of the record as a whole, we cannot agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s conclusion that it is in the best interest of the child that custody be changed from Mother to Father.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts assessing a child's best interests to consider the conduct of a person living in a parent's home and each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent.

Marlow v. Parkinson · filed 2007-04-23(9)-(10)

Although the alienation here was promoted by Mrs. Parkinson, not Father, she resides in the home where the children also reside. Accordingly, her presence is a factor to be considered. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(9)-(10).

Custody turns on the child’s best interest, considering applicable factors such as emotional ties, caregiving, and the stability of the home.

In Re J.C.J. and J.E.J. · filed 2007-04-25(a)

The maternal grandparents have nurtured a bond with the children and wish to adopt them. See T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a)(1). Since October 2004, they have provided food, clothing, medical care, and all other necessary care for the children. See id. at (a)(2). The maternal grandmother has a steady income and can provide excellent healthcare coverage for the children. See id. The maternal grandfather does not work and is able to care for the children during the day. See id. The maternal grandparents have been married for 30 years, and the evidence is that they have provided a safe and stable home for the children. See id. at (a)(3), (4). ... After evaluating the evidence before us, we do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s award of temporary custody of the children to the maternal grandparents.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding a change of custody to consider the listed best interest factors, including each parent's caregiving and the child's stability.

Melton v. Jennifer Shannon Profitt (Melton) Johnson · filed 2007-05-03(a)

Similarly, when considering a change of custody and what is in the children’s best interests, the trial court is to consider the following factors: ... Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106(a). ... The evidence established that the father had taken greater responsibility for performing parenting responsibilities relating to the daily needs of the children, and was equipped to provide for their needs.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a child custody determination to be based on the child's best interest.

Shanette Collier Chandler v. Kylan Chandler · filed 2007-06-28(a)

In a proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, the determination is to be made upon the best interest of the child. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 106(a) (2001).

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to decide custody based on the child’s best interest after considering all relevant factors.

Thomas R. Jones, Jr. v. Rusch-Jones · filed 2007-07-19(a)

The Trial Court properly considered the pertinent statutory factors. Given the evidence contained in the extensive record before us, we conclude that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that, overall, the relevant factors favored Father and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) allows a court to consider a parent’s educational abilities when they affect the parent’s support for the child’s education.

Nina Louise James Bumpus v. Bumpus · filed 2008-03-25(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(10)

In making the best interest determination, some of the factors to consider include “[t]he disposition of the parents to provide the child with . . . education,” the child’s school record, and “[e]ach parent’s past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2),(6),(10) (2005). ... We find that Mother’s educational background and abilities were relevant to the best interest analysis to the extent that they affected her willingness to encourage and support Carter and Brandon in their education.

A court may consider the character and behavior of a person living in a parent’s home even if the custody petition did not specifically raise that factor.

Robertson v. Mayes · filed 2008-06-03(a)(9)

In fact, one of the statutory factors to be considered in custody determinations is “[t]he character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent or caregiver and the person’s interactions with the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(9). Mother cites no authority for the notion that a trial court can only consider each of the statutory factors if the parent petitioning for custody addressed that factor in his or her petition for custody.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides the best-interest factors courts consider when deciding whether to modify custody after finding a material change in circumstances.

Skinner v. Thomas · filed 2008-12-11(a)

That determination requires consideration of a number of factors, including those set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (factors to consider in custody determination).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires residential parenting decisions to serve the child’s best interest, so a local rule cannot make an overnight paramour restriction mandatory.

Barker v. Chandler · filed 2009-09-18(a)

Thus, while a rule such as Local Rule 23 can be instructive, it is subordinate to Tennessee public policy mandating that trial judges make decisions regarding residential parenting of children “upon the basis of the best interest of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

After a material change in circumstances, a court deciding custody considers the relevant statutory best interest factors, including emotional ties, continuity, and family stability.

In Re Madison N.J.M. · filed 2010-06-28(a)

To determine what is in a child’s best interest, the court considers the relevant factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. ... On our review, the evidence does not preponderate against the referee’s findings, as adopted by the trial court, regarding the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, including a parent’s violation of a custody order.

In Re Drake L. · filed 2010-07-13(a)

Mother’s violation of a court order is pertinent to the best interest determination, under which the court is to consider “all relevant factors.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best-interest factors used to decide whether to change a child’s primary residential parent.

In Re Isaiah S. · filed 2010-08-11(a)

The second step in assessing whether the primary residential parent should be changed is the best interest analysis, which uses the factors found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision that it is in Isaiah’s best interest for Father to be named the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a)(10) permits a court to give substantial weight to a parent’s interference with parenting time and failure to meet a child’s educational and counseling needs when deciding the child’s best interest.

In Re Tyrus V. · filed 2010-08-18(a)(10)

In this instance, the court properly weighed factor 10 the most heavily in making its best interest determination, and we conclude that that factor is sufficient to uphold the court’s decision.