Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106

Section 36-6-106(a) sets out the factors courts apply to determine a child’s best interest in custody decisions.

Shannon Wright Clement v. Clement · filed 2010-09-28(a)

Our legislature has set out the relevant factors for courts to apply in such situations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (factors to consider in a custody determination); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b) (factors to consider in establishing a residential schedule). The trial court in this case did not refer directly to the statutory factors, so we must conduct our own independent review of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a trial court to consider all applicable best interest factors, but does not require it to list each factor and explain its effect on the custody decision.

Murray v. Murray · filed 2010-09-28(a)

Nonetheless, while the statute requires the trial court to consider all the applicable factors, there is no statutory requirement that the court list every applicable factor along with its conclusion as to how that particular factor impacted the overall custody determination.

Section 36-6-106(a)(5) requires a court to consider a parent’s mental health when relevant to custody, including its effects on the child.

Burden v. Burden · filed 2007-09-26(a)(5)

These statements cannot be squared with the statutory mandates of §§ 36-6-106(a) and 36-6-404(b) that the court “shall” consider the parents’ mental health and emotional fitness.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to designate the primary residential parent based on the child’s best interests, considering the relevant factors for both parents.

McDaniel v. McDaniel · filed 2008-12-18(a)

When the trial court must designate the primary residential parent for a minor child, it is required to make the determination “on the basis of the best interest of the child.” T.C.A. § 36-6- 106(a) (2005 & Supp. 2008). ... We agree with the trial court’s finding that Meagan’s best interests are served by designating Wife as the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to weigh the statutory best interest factors when deciding which parent should be the child's primary custodian.

In Re Alexandra J.D. · filed 2010-12-10(a)

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court that the statutory factors favor Father as the primary custodian of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to evaluate the listed factors in light of the evidence when choosing a primary residential parent.

Gentry v. Jerica Renae Gentry · filed 2010-12-28(a)

Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-106(a) lists the factors to consider when determining which parent should be named primary residential parent, as follows: ... Essentially, the Trial Court properly evaluated the various factors in light of the evidence.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court making an initial custody decision to consider a parent's relocation in its best interest analysis.

Melany Faye (Ellett) Morris v. Johnny Edward Morris, II · filed 2011-02-08

This Court has held that, where the trial court considers the relocation of the parent seeking to be designated as the primary residential parent, it is to consider the parent’s relocation in making its best interest analysis under T.C.A. § 36-6-106. ... Under all of the circumstances in this case, however, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in designating Wife as the primary residential parent, and in declining Husband’s request to require her to return to Tennessee.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides the best interest factors for custody decisions; findings about parental stability and fitness can support a change of custody.

In Re Faith F. · filed 2011-02-17(a)

Many of the court’s factual findings quoted above are relevant to the statutory best interest factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).2 ... The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s best interest determination.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant custody factors, but does not require them to list or explain each factor in their orders.

In Re: Skyler J. H. · filed 2011-02-28(a)

While the trial court is obligated to consider all the relevant factors in reaching its decision, it is not required to list in its opinions or orders each of those factors, nor is it required to explain how each factor affected its overall determination.

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

Malmquist v. Malmquist · filed 2011-03-25(a)

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

After a material change in circumstances, a court must use the best-interest factors in § 36-6-106 to decide whether to modify custody.

Merlina Elijah (Williams) Draper v. Williams · filed 2012-10-02(a)

Second, if a material change in circumstances has occurred, the trial court must utilize the factors in section 36-6-106 to determine whether the modification of custody is in the child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interest, with parental abuse among the factors considered.

Mayfield v. Mayfield · filed 2012-01-17(a)

The trial court must make its decision regarding the custody of a child in accordance with the best interest of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Recognizing the court’s broad discretion on this matter, we believe that the record supports the trial court’s decision on the designation of Wife as the primary residential parent and on the setting of the visitation schedule.

Section 36-6-106 provides the factors for determining a child’s best interests when deciding custody.

In Re Nathan A-W · filed 2012-06-26

With respect to the best interest of the child, the court set forth its findings as to the factors at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106,6 and held that it was in the best interest of the child to be placed in the joint custody of Mother and Father with Father designated as the primary residential parent. We have likewise reviewed the evidence relative to the child’s best interest and conclude that the court’s determination of the best interest of the child is supported by the evidence.

Section 36-6-106(a) favors giving parents the maximum possible time with their children when a court fashions a parenting plan.

Rountree v. Rountree · filed 2012-02-01(a)

As discussed above, there was no basis for the trial court to restrict Mr. Rountree’s parenting time so as to accommodate preschool, especially given the express legislative preference that parents receive the maximum time possible with their children.

Section 36-6-106 calls for consideration of parents’ and caregivers’ mental health in custody decisions, but it does not override statutory privileges protecting mental health records.

Herman v. Herman · filed 2012-05-09

Father also argues that the records must be produced so the court can fulfill its obligation to consider the mental health of the parents and caregivers as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, which lists factors for the court to consider in determining the child’s best interest in the course of a custody proceeding. Courts should and do consider this factor when one or both parties provide evidence relating to the mental health of the parents or caregivers. It is not, however, a license to disregard statutory privileges from disclosure.

Section 36-6-106 governs juvenile court custody proceedings arising from an agreed paternity order and requires the court to consider the child’s best interests when naming a primary residential parent.

In Re: Jada C.H., a minor child · filed 2012-09-18(a)

Custody proceedings in juvenile court that arise out of an agreed order of paternity are governed by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-106. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-106 requires the court to take into account a number of factors regarding the best interests of the child in deciding which parent should be designated the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) bases custody decisions on the child’s best interest and calls for the maximum possible participation of both parents; an equal-time schedule can satisfy those directives.

Van Erps v. Jackson · filed 2012-09-25(a)

The court’s statement that the child’s best interest would be served by a 50/50 residential parenting schedule is consistent with the language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 106(a) that custody and visitation decisions are to be made “on the basis of the best interest of the child” and that the court “shall order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.”

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to apply the applicable best interest factors after finding a material change in circumstances before changing custody.

Susan Ellen Calfee Muhonen v. Muhonen · filed 2015-02-20(a)

Having found that a material change in circumstance had occurred, the trial court was then required to apply the statutory “best interest” factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 to determine whether a change in custody was in the best interest of the Children.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to determine independently whether an agreed parenting arrangement is in the child’s best interests.

Stricklin v. Stricklin · filed 2015-09-21(a)

Although parties may agree to a given parenting arrangement, such an agreement does not obviate the trial court‟s duty to ensure that it is in the children‟s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) does not require courts to give a parent's encouragement of the child's relationship with the other parent greater weight than the other best-interest factors.

In Re Preston C. G. · filed 2012-11-15(a)

However, courts are not required to elevate this policy concern over the other factors enumerated at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

In choosing a primary residential parent, courts consider each parent’s ability to provide for the child, family stability, and the character of people living in the home.

Agee v. Jason Forest Agee · filed 2012-11-19(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(9)

While some of the statutory factors do not weigh in either Mother’s or Father’s favor, the trial court properly reviewed them and found that those at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2), (4), and (9) favor Mother. The evidence shows that Mother is more disposed to provide for her child and financially more stable than Father, and that Mother’s and her husband’s home offers the child greater stability.

Section 36-6-106(a) lists nonexclusive best interest factors for child custody decisions and permits courts to consider other relevant factors.

Irvin v. Ernest J. Irvin, II · filed 2012-11-30(a)

The list of factors in Section 36-6-404(b) for the court to consider in determining a parenting plan and residential schedule are substantially similar to the best- interest factors set out in Section 36-6-106(a), and both statutes allow for consideration of any other factors the court deems relevant.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies nonexclusive best interest factors for child custody decisions; the court may uphold a parenting plan change when those factors and the factors in section 36-6-404(b) lead to the same result.

Lawrence Taylor, Jr. v. Knott · filed 2012-12-12(a)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 enumerates factors relevant to the best interest of the child in divorce cases and other child custody determinations; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b) enumerates factors relevant to the court’s designation of a primary residential parent and the division of parenting time. ... Such is true in this case; the conclusion that a change to the parenting plan is in the best interest of the children would be reached under either statute.

Section 36-6-106’s best interest factors do not apply when a valid surrogacy agreement leaves no custody dispute.

In Re Baby · filed 2013-01-22

This is not a custody dispute, and the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 do not apply.

Section 36-6-106(a)'s best interest factors permit a court to consider a parent's frequent absence during parenting time when deciding custody.

Matthew Beck Ramsey v. Michelle Min Ramsey · filed 2013-01-25(a)

In the case at bar, as was the case in Thompson, the trial court’s analysis focused on the factors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a).2 Accordingly, our discussion will focus on the same set of factors. ... The testimony in the record clearly shows that Father was frequently absent throughout most of the weeks in which he was responsible for the child. ... Instead, we conclude only that the present record does not support Father’s assertions that the trial court’s determination is not in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision naming Mother the primary residential parent and awarding Father one hundred and eight (108) days of annual parenting time.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts making an initial custody decision to consider the applicable factors bearing on the child’s best interest.

Pandey v. Shrivastava · filed 2013-02-22(a)

There were no factual findings regarding the comparative fitness of the parents, and there was no mention of the best interest of Akul or the statutory “best interest” factors that should have controlled the trial court’s decision.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider its best-interest factors, including the child's need for stability.

Adkisson v. Adkisson · filed 2013-03-11(a)

Considering the ten factors set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), it appears that factors (1)(2)(4)(6) and (9) do not favor one parent over the other.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides factors for deciding a child’s best interest when modifying custody, including continuity and each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Sandy Jane Smart v. Smart · filed 2013-07-31(a)

The trial court reviewed the factors set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) and concluded Mother should be named the primary residential parent. ... The evidence presented at the hearing supports the trial court’s comparative fitness analysis and decision to modify the parenting plan and name Mother the primary residential parent. ... We affirm the trial court’s judgment that it is in Child’s best interest that the parenting plan be modified and that Mother be named the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding whether to change the primary residential parent to consider all applicable best interest factors, including primary caregiving and continuity of placement.

Williams v. Singler · filed 2013-07-31(a)

The evidence also does not support the trial court’s holding that all of the other statutory factors that must be considered in making a best interest determination “are essentially equal.” Specifically, this holding fails to take into consideration the factors set forth in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3), “the degree to which a parent or caregiver has been the primary caregiver,” and “[t]he importance of continuity in the child’s life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment. . . .” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2) and (3).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interest, considering factors such as the child’s preference, parental relationships, and stability.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 2013-08-06(a)

We find that the evidence clearly preponderates against the Trial Court’s best interest finding as to Will. We reverse the Trial Court in its award of custody of Will to Wife.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all applicable best interest factors but does not require them to list each factor and explain its effect on the custody decision.

Bradford Stahr Fakes v. Zahorik · filed 2013-09-11(a)

Nonetheless, while the statute requires the trial court to consider all the applicable factors, there is no statutory requirement that the court list every applicable factor along with its conclusion as to how that particular factor impacted the overall custody determination.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies factors for evaluating a child’s best interests in a custody decision.

Sitz v. William Grant Sitz · filed 2013-09-30(a)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2010) sets out factors relevant to a court’s custody determination. ... On our review of the evidence in light of the factors, however, we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s custody determination.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court modifying a residential parenting schedule to determine the child’s best interests using its listed factors.

Armbrister v. Armbrister · filed 2013-10-21(a)

The second step of the court’s analysis entails a determination of the child’s best interests, utilizing the factors in section 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) provides factors for determining a child’s best interest in a custody decision.

Mezo v. Jennifer (Peterson) Marker · filed 2013-12-19(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) or Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b) (factors to consider in establishing a residential schedule).

After a material change in circumstances, a court deciding whether to change the primary residential parent must consider the applicable best-interest factors.

In the Matter of: T.R.Y. · filed 2014-02-12(a)

If the trial court finds a material change in circumstances, it is then tasked with ascertaining whether a change in the designation of primary residential parent is in the child’s best interest, considering the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a). ... Considering all of the evidence, we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence did not support designating Mother as Daughter’s primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106’s best-interest factors guide custody and parenting-time decisions, including consideration of a child’s need for stability.

Richard Jeremiah Garrett, Jr. v. Elmore · filed 2014-07-29(a)(2), (3), (4) and (6)

We would be remiss not to state that Father seems well-intentioned and obviously loves the child, but we find the evidence does not preponderate against the factors in both Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and § 36-6-404 weighing in Mother’s favor.

Section 36-6-106 supplies the factors for evaluating a child’s best interests when appointing a guardian.

In Re Guardianship of Taylour L. · filed 2015-01-29

We have reviewed the record and the trial court’s decision, and we find that the trial court did not err in determining that appointing Father as the guardian of Xaria was not in her best interests; however, we are not convinced that the trial court thoroughly applied the best interest factors when appointing Grandfather as her guardian.

After finding a material change affecting a child's residential schedule, a court must apply Section 36-6-106(a)'s best interest factors before modifying the schedule.

In Re Jesslyn C. · filed 2015-03-31(a)

Having found that a material change in circumstance had occurred that affected the Child in regard to the residential schedule, the trial court was then required to apply the statutory “best interest” factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6- 106(a) to determine whether a modification of the residential co-parenting schedule was in the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts setting parenting time to consider best interest factors including the child's primary caregiver and continuity of care.

In re Jake S. · filed 2015-04-29(a)

The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding regarding the child’s best interest. Factor two weighs in Mother’s favor because she has been Jake’s primary caregiver throughout his life. Likewise, factor three weighs in Mother’s favor because Jake has thrived in her home since birth.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider every applicable best interest factor, but does not require them to discuss each factor in the written decision.

Whitten v. Dana Nichole Willis Whitten · filed 2015-06-18(a)

The statute requires the court to consider all of the listed factors that are applicable. However, the statute does not require the court, in its memorandum opinion or final judgment, to list each applicable factor along with its conclusion as to how that particular factor impacted the overall judgment.

In choosing a primary residential parent, the court considers each parent’s past and future parenting responsibilities, including willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

In re Gabriel V. · filed 2015-06-24(a)(10)

The third factor the trial court found favored Mother is factor (10), which considers the parents‟ past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities, including the willingness to facilitate and encourage a relationship between the child and the other parent. ... Based on the evidence presented at trial, we do not believe the evidence preponderates against the trial court‟s determination that factor (10) favors Mother and that it is in Gabriel‟s best interest that Mother be his primary residential parent.

Courts must consider each listed best interest factor but need not explain how each factor affects the custody decision.

Jordan Leanne (Parker) Roland v. Roland · filed 2015-09-29(a)

Courts are required to consider each of the factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), but they are not required to list each factor and explain how each factor impacts its ultimate determination, as Mother suggests.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody decision based on the child’s best interests and relevant factors; the court need not adopt either parent’s proposed plan.

Charlotte Ann Goad Human v. Human · filed 2013-09-23(a)

The Trial Court was not required to adopt wholesale one of the plans proposed by the parties. Rather, the Trial Court was required to make a custody determination based upon the best interests of the Children considering all of the relevant factors. Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-106(a) (Supp. 2012). Wife’s argument that the Trial Court erred by not adopting one of the parties’ proposed plans is without merit.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court modifying a permanent parenting plan to apply the best interest factors; a custody ruling made without that analysis must be vacated.

Hendricks v. Smith · filed 2015-01-08(a)

Our Supreme Court has stated: “In assessing a petition to modify a permanent parenting plan, the court must first determine if a material change in circumstances has occurred and then apply the ‘best interest’ factors of section 36-6-106(a).” Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 697-98 (Tenn. 2013). ... Instead, we vacate the Juvenile Court’s judgment and remand this case for the Juvenile Court to enter a permanent parenting plan after considering all relevant factors and making a best interest analysis.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to consider the statutory best interest factors in a comparative fitness analysis before naming a primary residential parent.

Stella May Welch v. Welch · filed 2014-01-10(a)

We vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to naming Husband primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarding the parties equal parenting time, and remand the matter to the trial court to engage in a comparative fitness analysis as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106, and for findings as required by Rule 52 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Section 36-6-106(a) permits substantially unequal parenting time when the children’s best interests, including a parent’s emotionally abusive behavior, support it.

Nita v. Nita · filed 2014-01-31(a)

In light of the contentious relationship of the parties and the court’s findings regarding Husband’s emotionally abusive behavior toward the children, we cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that it was in the best interest of the children for Wife to have substantially more time with them than Husband.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the child’s best-interest factors when setting custody and parenting time.

In Re: John H. B. · filed 2014-04-17(a)

In light of the totality of findings of the trial court, and specifically the trial court’s findings with respect to the factors set-forth by section 36-6-106, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by granting Mother sole custody and awarding Father 116 days of alternate parenting time/visitation.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding a child’s best interest to consider where the parents live.

Kathryne B.F. v. Michael David B. · filed 2015-07-16(a)

The statute explicitly requires consideration of “the location of the residences of the parents,” see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), and the trial court found that Mother was proposing to move Caleb “to the other side of the planet.”

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts considering a change in primary residential parent to assess the child’s best interest using its listed factors.

Watson v. Myers · filed 2015-10-07(a)

The second step in the analysis regarding whether there should be a change in the primary residential parent is to determine whether such a change would be in the best interest of the child. Tennessee Code Annotated 36-6-106(a) sets out factors to be considered by the court in determining the best interest of the child. ... We cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the trial court‘s decision to keep Mother as the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider the best interest factors applicable to the case.

Mackey v. Mayfield · filed 2015-10-08(a)

Although it is important for trial courts to be as detailed as possible, the relevant statutes only require the trial court to consider factors that are applicable to the case before it.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to use its listed best interest factors when deciding whether to change a child’s primary residential parent after a material change in circumstances.

Masse v. Mandy Joe Masse Cottar · filed 2016-03-21(a)

After finding a material change in circumstances has occurred, the trial court must determine whether changing the primary residential parent is in the children’s best interest using the factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Based on the totality of evidence in the record and the deferential treatment we are to accord the trial court’s decision, we conclude that Mother has not established that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings that (a) Father proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a material change of circumstances or that (b) it is in the children’s best interest that the primary residential parent designation change from Mother to Father.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the child’s best interest when deciding custody, including each parent’s stability and the child’s well-being.

Harrell v. Harrell · filed 2016-04-04(a)

Mother, unfortunately, has engaged in illicit drug activity and shown a marked instability in her moving both herself and, to a resulting extent, the children between boyfriends, facts which have obvious and significant negative bearing on the children‘s well-being and best interest. ... Nevertheless, the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court‘s findings regarding best interest, and we find that the best interest of the children is served by the modification of the permanent parenting plan as so found and implemented by the Trial Court.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the statutory best-interest factors when deciding custody and visitation, but does not require a separate finding on each factor.

Mashburn v. Mashburn · filed 2016-06-30(a)

While the trial court is directed to consider the appropriate factors in reaching its decision, it is not required to list each factor with the court’s conclusion about how that factor impacted the custody decision.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts making custody decisions to consider the child’s best interest and all relevant factors, including the fifteen listed factors.

Dayhoff v. Cathey · filed 2016-08-25(a)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 states that, when conducting a best interest analysis, the trial court shall consider ―all relevant factors, including the following, where applicable[.]‖ Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). It then lists fifteen factors for consideration.

The best-interest factors added to section 36-6-106(a) effective July 1, 2014 are remedial and may be applied retroactively.

William Lane Lanier v. Lanier · filed 2016-12-09(a)

We consider the factors added to the statute effective July 1, 2014 to be remedial in nature; thus, the statute can be applied retroactively.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts determining a child’s best interest to consider a non-exclusive list of factors.

Colley v. McBee · filed 2017-02-02(a)

In determining a child‟s best interest, courts must consider a non-exclusive list of factors found at Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) lists factors courts may consider when deciding a child’s best interest in a custody dispute.

Holley v. Ortiz · filed 2017-02-24(a)

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) (2014)9 lists several factors that courts may consider in making a best interest determination. ... The trial court made detailed findings as to the best interest factors, and the evidence does not preponderate against any of the findings relative to this issue.

Section 36-6-106 supplies best interest factors for custody decisions, but a court need not list and discuss each factor.

In Re Ashton V. · filed 2017-03-22

The juvenile court was not required to “list and discuss each factor[,]” and “the absence of an explicit discussion of each factor does not mean that they were not considered.”

Section 36-6-106(a)’s best-interest factors guide the choice of primary residential parent and whether visitation should be supervised.

Jade C. Nunnally v. Nunnally · filed 2017-04-28(a)

The court may also award supervised or unsupervised visitation after considering the best-interest factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a), as the trial court did here. ... Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing Wife unsupervised visitation.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider applicable best-interest factors, but sufficient findings need not identify or discuss each factor expressly.

Bell v. Bell · filed 2017-05-18(a)

Mother points out that the Trial Court did not identify the statutory factors correlative to its findings. However, this is not a fatal error. This Court has stated that “the absence of an explicit discussion of each factor does not mean that they were not considered.”

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant factors when deciding which parent should be a child’s primary residential parent.

Paschedag v. Paschedag · filed 2017-05-31(a)

Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 directs courts to consider “all relevant factors,” including a non-exclusive list of fifteen factors, when determining the best interests of a child in a primary residential parent determination. ... The trial court conducted a proper best interest analysis pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a), and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts considering a change to a child’s primary residential parent to consider its best interest factors.

In Re Gunner F. · filed 2017-06-06(a)

The best interest analysis requires the court to consider the factors outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... In this case, the trial court did not mention best interests at all in its order.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant best interest factors in context rather than count how many favor each parent.

Broadnax v. Lawrence · filed 2017-06-08(a)

Determining best interest is not a mathematical formula wherein one can find that certain factors favor one parent over another and then somehow add up the factors to determine the end result. Rather, a court must consider all of the relevant factors in light of all of the facts and the entire situation when determining the best interest of a child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts modifying a residential parenting schedule to consider the child’s best interest factors, with the child’s welfare taking priority over a parent’s interests.

In Re Emmett D. · filed 2017-07-07(a)

While we agree with the juvenile court’s finding that it is in the child’s best interest to allow Father to remain actively involved in the child’s life, we conclude that, in fashioning the residential parenting schedule, the court erred in placing its focus on the interests of Father.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider all relevant best interest factors, including each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

In Re Wyatt B. · filed 2017-07-26(a)

This next step in the analysis is determining whether changing the Child’s primary residential parent from Mother to Father is in the Child’s best interest. The Juvenile Court properly considered all the relevant best interest factors. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s findings relative to the Child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant factors when deciding a child’s best interest and allows the weight of each factor to depend on the facts.

Williams v. Williams · filed 2017-08-17(a)

The trial court conducted a proper best interest analysis pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6- 106(a), and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.

Section 36-6-106’s best-interest factors guide review of a child custody decision.

Morelock v. Ruth Ellen Mick Morelock · filed 2017-08-18

We have reviewed the evidence in the record and the trial court’s extensive findings of fact in light of the applicable statutory factors, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2014), and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision regarding child custody.

Courts must consider the best interest factors in § 36-6-106(a) when setting a new parenting schedule on remand.

In Re Grace N. · filed 2017-09-08(a)

At the outset, we reject Mother’s suggestion that the trial court’s fashioning of a new parenting schedule was to be divorced from a consideration of the best interest factors codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts fashioning a parenting schedule to consider the child’s best interest factors.

In Re Grace N. · filed 2017-09-27(a)

At the outset, we reject Mother’s suggestion that the trial court’s fashioning of a new parenting schedule was to be divorced from a consideration of the best interest factors codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) provides a non-exclusive list of best interest factors that courts consider when setting a child’s residential schedule.

In Re Briley R. · filed 2017-10-31(a)

Unless certain limiting factors are “dispositive of the child’s residential schedule,” the court determines the schedule on the basis of the child’s ... best interest, relying on a non-exclusive list of factors found at Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court deciding a child’s best interest in a custody modification to consider the applicable statutory factors.

Dalrymple v. Dalrymple · filed 2017-11-14(a)

The findings made by the court address the statutory factors it is obliged to consider and, as noted, are supported by the evidence.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts modifying a parenting plan to consider the applicable best interest factors, though they need not make a separate finding for each factor.

In Re Caleb F. · filed 2017-11-28(a)

Although the court need not list every applicable statutory factor and an accompanying conclusion for each factor, the trial court is required to “consider all applicable factors.”

Section 36-6-106 governs the best interest analysis in custody cases; because it is procedural, the version in effect when the court rules applies to a pending case.

C.W.H. v. L.A.S. · filed 2017-12-19

It merely governed the mechanism by which a trial court should conduct a best interest analysis. As such, the statute is procedural in nature, and the version in effect at the time of the juvenile court’s 2015 order should have been applied. ... The juvenile court properly applied the 2014 version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides fifteen nonexclusive factors for determining a child’s best interest, and a single factor may control depending on the facts.

Steakin v. Steakin · filed 2018-01-09(a)

A non-exclusive list of fifteen factors to be considered, to the extent relevant, is set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). Determining a child’s best interest is a fact-sensitive inquiry, and, depending upon the significance of certain facts, a single factor can control the outcome of this determination. ... The evidence preponderates in favor of the foregoing best interest findings. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that a modification of the permanent parenting plan was in the best interest of the minor child.

A trial court need not list and discuss each best interest factor in § 36-6-106 when deciding custody.

Potts v. Potts · filed 2018-02-08(a)

The trial court is not required to list and discuss each factor enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a)(4) permits courts to consider a parent’s motivation to work and ability to provide for the child when assessing the parent’s disposition to meet the child’s needs.

Jennifer Rebecca Creswell Henegar v. Henegar · filed 2016-06-29(a)(4)

The statute requires consideration of Wife‟s disposition to provide the child with food, clothing, education, medical care, and other necessary care. Thus, Wife‟s motivation to secure employment and her ability to provide for Son are appropriate factors for consideration.

Section 36-6-106(a)(8) directs courts assessing a child‟s best interest to consider each parent‟s moral, physical, mental and emotional fitness as it relates to their ability to parent the child.

Eric L. Tate Davis v. Kristin A. Hood · filed 2016-06-30(a)(8)

The court based its determination of best interest primarily on Father‟s “mental and physical health.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(8) (directing the court to consider “[t]he moral, physical, mental and emotional fitness of each parent as it relates to their ability to parent the child”). ... Upon review of the record, we conclude the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court‟s findings and modification of the residential parenting schedule is in the child‟s best interest.

A child’s need for stability can favor the primary caregiver under § 36-6-106 even when most best interest factors favor both parents equally.

Madden v. Madden · filed 2016-07-28

We would be remiss not to state that Father appears well-intentioned and obviously loves the child, but the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 weigh in Mother’s favor.

Section 36-6-106 requires a comparative fitness analysis using applicable best interest factors when choosing a primary residential parent.

Pack v. Rothchild · filed 2017-07-21(a)

When choosing which parent should be designated as the primary residential parent, the trial court must conduct a comparative fitness analysis under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for consideration of the relevant best-interest factors when setting a parenting schedule.

Howell v. Smithwick · filed 2017-02-01(a)

The trial court considered all of the relevant statutory factors and entered a parenting plan that does not “‘fall[ ] outside the spectrum of rulings that might reasonably result from an application of the correct legal standards to the evidence found in the record.’” Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 693 (quoting Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d at 88).

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to consider the child's best interests and allow both parents the maximum participation possible consistent with the relevant factors and circumstances.

Watts v. Watts · filed 2017-07-11(a)

In taking the best interests of the child into account, the court should strive to craft a custody arrangement that allows both parents to “enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child” consistent with other factors and circumstances. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (listing 15 factors a court should consider in fashioning a parenting arrangement).

Section 36-6-106(a)(9) permits a court to consider an isolated injury caused by a sibling when assessing a child’s best interests.

In Re: Autumn B. · filed 2017-12-19(a)(9)

The juvenile court properly considered this incident under a statutory factor that requires a court to examine the Child’s “interactions and interrelationships with siblings.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(9).

Section 36-6-106 requires courts making an initial custody determination to consider the applicable best-interest factors before setting a residential parenting schedule.

In Re Carter K. · filed 2018-02-14

When making an initial custody determination, juvenile courts must consider a variety of statutorily enumerated factors before establishing a residential parenting schedule. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

A numerical majority of best interest factors favoring one parent does not, by itself, preclude equal parenting time.

Woolbright v. Woolbright · filed 2018-02-16(a)

Even if a majority of the factors did weigh clearly in favor of Father, that would not necessarily mean that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding an equal amount of parenting time to each parent.

Section 36-6-106’s best interest factors are those in effect when the custody case is tried, even if an amendment takes effect before the court rules.

In Re Avery B. · filed 2018-06-04

Although the trial court’s ruling was not announced until after the amendment went into effect, we have determined that the trial court did not err in applying the pre-amendment factors, that being those stated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2013).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court making a custody determination to apply the statutory best interest factors.

Dishon v. Dishon · filed 2018-07-20(a)

The court is required to apply statutory “best interest” factors enumerated in Tennessee Code ... Annotated § 36-6-106(a) to determine a custody arrangement in the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106 lists fourteen custody factors that a trial court should consider and weigh against the facts when deciding a child’s custody arrangement.

Jason Garner Williams v. Stacy Brown Williams · filed 2018-07-23

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106 lists fourteen (14) specific factors, which the trial court should consider in designating a child’s custody arrangement. The trial court’s order recites certain facts but does not weigh those facts against the statutory factors.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to consider the applicable custody factors but does not require it to list each factor and its effect on the decision.

Robin Leah Louise Farnham Carter v. Carter · filed 2018-08-07(a)

Although the court was obligated to consider the applicable statutory factors, “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 courts making custody determinations to consider the child’s best interest and the relevant statutory factors.

Robbins v. Robbins · filed 2018-08-16(a)

When making a determination in a divorce proceeding regarding custody of a minor child, a court is to consider the factors contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, which provides, in pertinent part: ... We affirm the Trial Court in its formulation and entry of the permanent parenting plan as being in the best interest of the Children.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts allocating decision-making authority in a parenting plan to consider the relevant best interest factors.

King v. Daily · filed 2018-11-30(a)

The court’s decision must be guided by the relevant best interest factors found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a)(1)-(15).

Section 36-6-106(a) lists nonexclusive best-interest factors; under factor (1), the court weighs each parent’s relationship with the child and performance of daily parenting responsibilities.

Haak v. Haak · filed 2018-12-17(a)(1)

The factors contained in section 36-6-106(a) are non-exclusive. ... While not strongly slanted toward either parent, we conclude that this factor favors Father.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts fashioning a parenting plan to consider the listed best-interest factors.

Nelson v. Loring E. Justice · filed 2019-01-25(a)

A court tasked with fashioning a parenting plan should consider the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

A parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent is a factor in determining the child’s best interest.

In Re L.T. · filed 2019-02-20(a)(2)

The above discussion elucidates the fact that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusion that father is the parent who most demonstrates the willingness to continue to facilitate and encourage a healthy relationship between the child and the other parent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2). In addition, the record supports the trial court’s findings as to the additional factors favoring father. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that designating father as the primary residential parent is in the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies a non-exclusive list of best-interest factors for determining a child’s residential schedule.

Eckley v. Eckley · filed 2019-02-28(a)

Unless certain limiting factors found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406 are “dispositive of the child’s residential schedule,” which are not applicable here, the court determines the schedule on the basis of the child’s best interest, relying on a non-exclusive list of factors found at Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider all relevant best-interest factors when designating a primary residential parent; not every listed factor applies in every case.

Stokes v. Stokes · filed 2019-03-07(a)

The court is to consider “all relevant factors” set forth in the statute to the extent they are applicable. Id. Not all factors are relevant in every case, and there may be factors in some cases that are not included in the statute.

Section 36-6-106(a) makes the child’s best interest the controlling consideration in a parenting plan and calls for maximum participation by both parents consistent with the relevant factors.

April H. v. Scott H. · filed 2019-05-13(a)

As set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a), the child’s best interest is the cardinal concern in setting a parenting plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the relevant best-interest factors when setting a residential parenting schedule, but does not require an explanation of each factor.

Wightman v. Wightman · filed 2019-05-21(a)

Courts are required to consider each of the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a), but they are not required to list each factor and explain how each factor impacts its ultimate determination.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best interest factors used to decide whether to modify a residential parenting schedule after a material change in circumstances.

Burchfield v. Burchfield · filed 2019-05-21(a)

If a material change in circumstances is established, the trial court must then “determine whether modification of the schedule is in the best interest of the child, utilizing the factors at § 36-6-106(a) and, where applicable, § 36-6-406.” ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the residential parenting schedule by reducing Father’s parenting time to 104 days per year.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding whether to modify a parenting plan to consider the applicable best-interest factors.

In Re Makinna B. · filed 2019-06-05(a)

The factors relevant to the best interest analysis are set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). ... Aside from this reference, however, the trial court did not mention or analyze any other statutory factor in its best interest analysis. ... Because of the lack of findings regarding the best interest of the child, we must vacate the order of the trial court and remand the case for the trial court to make additional findings of fact in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best interest factors for custody decisions; using the wrong version is harmless when the court sufficiently considers the factors in effect when it rules and makes findings supporting the result.

In Re M.M. · filed 2019-06-11(a)

In the present matter, it is unclear which version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 the trial court used when making its child-custody determination, because the court’s citation is incomplete and its listing of factors is, at times, unspecific. However, if the court erred by applying an incorrect version of the statute, we hold that its error is not outcome-determinative and therefore harmless, because the court sufficiently considered factors that are enumerated in the version in effect at the time of the court’s order; the court enumerated sufficient factual findings to support a conclusion that its holding is in the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a parenting plan to allow each parent the maximum possible participation in the child’s life consistent with the best-interest factors.

Sullivan v. Sullivan · filed 2019-10-04(a)

In determining a child’s best interest, it is incumbent upon the court to fashion a parenting plan that allows each parent to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the applicable statutory factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts making custody decisions to consider the applicable best interest factors; check marks without supporting findings do not demonstrate that consideration.

Nelvis v. Lafayette Baptist, Jr. · filed 2019-10-29(a)

Section 36-6-106(a) contains the applicable legal principles at issue in this case and mandates that the trial court consider specific factors in making best interest determinations. Rule 52.01 further directs the trial court to enter a written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision. Respectfully, we cannot conclude that the use a standardized, almost form-like document in which the only judicial analysis as to the vast majority of factors includes checking a box in favor of one parent or the other fulfills either the letter or the spirit of these requirements.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider applicable best interest factors, including parenting responsibilities, the primary caregiver’s role, and continuity in the child’s life.

Deaton v. Williams · filed 2020-02-21(a)

Next, we note that the court also failed to consider at least two factors that weigh in favor of Mother, namely her performance of the majority of the parenting responsibilities and her status as the primary caregiver. ... Lastly, we believe the court failed to consider the importance of continuity in the Child’s life and the length of time in which he has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the applicable best-interest factors when developing a parenting plan.

Gillam v. Destiny Ballew · filed 2020-05-21(a)

When developing a parenting plan, the court should consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). ... Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in conducting its best interest analysis, and we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings on any of the factors the court considered.

Section 36-6-106 requires a court modifying a parenting plan to consider the applicable best interest factors, but its order need not discuss each factor explicitly when its findings show that it considered them.

Rawson v. Monroe · filed 2020-06-24(a)

We acknowledge that the trial court’s order did not specifically mention the best interest factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106. ... We reach the same conclusion here. The trial court’s findings substantively addressed many of the best interest factors.

Section 36-6-106(a)(4) focuses on each parent’s disposition to provide for the child, including past conduct and future intentions, rather than financial circumstances alone.

Kincade v. Kincade · filed 2018-04-04(a)(4)

While a parent’s financial ability to provide for the child may be relevant, this factor is not to be judged solely on an assessment of the parents’ respective incomes, assets, and/or liabilities. Instead, the focus should be on each parent’s disposition to provide, which may hinge on each parent’s track record of providing and each parent’s present intention to provide for the child in the future.

Financial problems do not automatically bear on a parent’s fitness under subsection (a)(8), but may matter when they reveal a broader disposition affecting parenting.

Larsen v. Giannakoulias · filed 2018-10-26(a)(8)

While a parent’s financial problems do not, ipso facto, bear on his or her ability to parent, this is a special case. Here, Husband’s financial shortcomings are indicative of his general disposition to thwart authority.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a primary residential parent designation to account for the child’s best interest and the listed custody factors; the trial court’s weighing of those factors is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

England v. Amber Leigh Lowry · filed 2020-07-29(a)

When divorcing parties have a minor child, the trial court must determine who will be the child’s primary residential parent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Wife failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Husband should be Child’s primary residential parent. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling designating Husband as Child’s primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court to apply its best-interest factors when deciding whether to modify custody after a material change in circumstance.

Bastone v. Bastone · filed 2021-04-30(a)

Having found that a material change in circumstance had occurred, the trial court was then required to apply the statutory “best interest” factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) (2017) to determine whether Father’s requested change to the primary residential parent and the other requested modifications to the 2016 PPP were in the best interest of the Children.

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

In Re Jonathan S. · filed 2022-08-26(a)

However, based on the current stability the Child has with his Father, and in view of the Child’s age, there is simply no evidence to support a change of the primary residential parent or to suggest that it would be in the Child’s best interest to move to Tennessee with Mother. ... Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Mother’s petition to modify the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a)(1) considers each parent’s relationship with the child and share of daily parenting responsibilities; past primary caregiving may weigh only slightly when both parents have recently shared those responsibilities equally.

In Re Brayleigh C. · filed 2022-10-19(a)(1)

The testimony indicated that historically Mother was the primary caregiver for the Child when the parties were together. ... Consequently, from June 2020 until the hearing in June 2021, both of them have equally shared in parenting responsibilities related to the daily needs of the Child. For these reasons, we find that this factor only slightly favors Mother.

When one child reaches adulthood, the best-interest analysis for a revised parenting plan must focus on the remaining minor child.

Gaby v. Gaby · filed 2022-11-17(a)

With these considerations in mind, we hold that remand, once again, is appropriate for the trial court to solely consider the best interest of A., the only remaining minor child subject to the parameters of a permanent parenting plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to consider the child's best interest and allow both parents the maximum participation possible consistent with the relevant factors.

Edwards v. Edwards · filed 2023-06-30(a)

In addition, the modification achieves the statutory goal of enabling both parents to enjoy the “maximum participation possible” in the life of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider fifteen best interest factors when setting a residential schedule.

Ramsey v. Ramsey · filed 2024-02-07(a)

When determining the residential schedule between parties in a divorce case, trial courts must consider the fifteen factors set forth by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best-interest factors for deciding whether to modify a residential parenting schedule.

In Re Justus P. · filed 2024-05-09(a)

We next turn to whether a modification of the residential parenting schedule is in the Child’s best interest. In so doing, we review the factors set out at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). ... From our review, the evidence supports the trial court’s findings concerning the Child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court making a custody determination to assess the child’s best interest using the statutory factors.

Moore v. Heilbrunn · filed 2024-10-11(a)

Because the trial court did not engage in a best-interest analysis as required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106, and because the trial court’s orders are too vague to allow this Court to conduct a meaningful review of its decisions, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody court to consider the applicable best interest factors and make findings on the factors most relevant to the case.

Cali v. Cali · filed 2025-12-03(a)

As shown above, the trial court clearly considered the best interest factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a) and made findings as to the factors it found most relevant to the case.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a best-interest analysis when a court considers modifying a parenting plan after finding a material change in circumstances.

Stewart v. Hester · filed 2026-02-02(a)

With this threshold determination being met, we remand this matter to the trial court to conduct a statutory best interest analysis in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a) and determine whether a modification of the Agreed Parenting Plan is in the children’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding a child’s best interest to consider relevant factors, including parental fitness, abuse, and the behavior of others in the home.

Leath v. Flowers · filed 2025-04-22(a)(8)–(9), (11)–(12)

Regarding factors nine (9), eleven (11), and twelve (12), an important consideration is the character and behavior of other people who reside in the home and who interact with the child. ... The trial court concluded, and the record supports, Mr. Bryan’s behavior and Mother’s attitude in response thereto created an environment where modification of the Parenting Plan is in K.L.’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106 requires courts to consider the applicable best interest factors when deciding custody, even after a default judgment.

Gamble v. Madison Darlene Gamble · filed 2025-05-15(a)

These cases demonstrate that, even in cases where a trial court has entered a default judgment, a trial court has a duty to consider the relevant best interest factors and make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its custody decision.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court deciding primary residential custody to consider all relevant, applicable best-interest factors.

Bailey v. Bailey · filed 2025-05-28(a)

The seventh, twelfth, and thirteenth factors do not appear to be addressed specifically, and in light of the testimony, it is not clear why at least the seventh and twelfth factors are not relevant and applicable in the present case.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to rest on the child’s best interest, with that interest taking priority over maximizing each parent’s participation.

KELLY BROOKE MARTIN v. NGHIA TRONG VAN · filed 2025-08-12(a)

The trial court appropriately considered the factors of section 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the child’s best interest and the listed factors when setting a permanent parenting plan.

Will P. Cotten v. Cotten · filed 2025-09-02(a)

Based on our review, the court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning an equal parenting plan. The court determined that most of the relevant factors weighed equally between the parents.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to compare the parents on each best interest factor when deciding whether to modify custody.

Boatman v. Odziana · filed 2025-10-03(a)

However, the best interest analysis necessarily requires the court to compare the parents on each factor, and the court determined that, overall, Father provided the more stable environment for the children.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a court deciding custody to consider all applicable best interest factors and make findings showing that it did so.

Reese v. Reese · filed 2025-12-11(a)

In this case, the Trial Court did not provide sufficient findings of fact and did not demonstrate that it had considered all applicable factors pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106.

Section 36-6-106(a) supplies the best interest factors a court must consider when modifying a parenting plan, and the court’s findings should show consideration of the relevant factors.

Hibdon v. Goynes · filed 2025-12-18(a)

Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) lists sixteen factors that courts may consider in making a best interest determination. ... But the court’s findings should demonstrate consideration of the relevant factors. As Father admits, that is not the case here. So we vacate the court’s adoption of Father’s proposed parenting plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts modifying custody to assess the child’s best interest under its factors, giving each relevant factor weight according to the case’s facts.

In Re Taylor G. · filed 2026-01-06(a)

Once the trial court determines that there has been a material change in circumstance sufficient to modify the residential schedule or the designation of the primary residential parent, the second step in the modification analysis requires the court to determine whether any such modifications are in the child’s best interest under the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). ... With these considerations in mind, we affirm the trial ... court’s finding that modification of the primary residential parent was in the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts modifying a residential schedule to consider the child’s best interest under its factors, with each factor’s weight depending on the case’s facts.

In Re Ellie C. · filed 2026-04-30(a)

Once the trial court determines that there has been a material change in circumstance sufficient to modify the residential schedule, the second step in the modification analysis requires the court to determine whether any such modifications are in the child’s best interest under the factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). ... The record is replete with evidence establishing Mother’s inability to facilitate and encourage a healthy parent-child relationship between the Child and Father, who established his ability to provide a stable, satisfactory environment free from domestic violence. With these considerations in mind, we affirm the trial court’s adjustment of the residential schedule as in the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider its best interest factors when choosing a primary residential parent, but does not require findings on every applicable factor.

Chapman v. Wade · filed 2026-05-21(a)

In making the determination regarding the primary residential parent, the court must consider the factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... While the statute does not require the court to list every appliable factor along with its conclusion regarding how the factor affected the custody determination, id. at 393, the trial court here in fact did so. We have reviewed above the trial court’s extensive findings regarding these factors, and we find no merit in the contention that the findings are deficient. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination to award primary residential parent status to Father.

Section 36-6-106(a)(8) permits consideration of a parent’s moral fitness only when the conduct relates to the parent’s ability to care for the child.

Livingston v. Logue · filed 2026-05-06(a)(8)

In determining the child’s best interest, the court may consider a parent’s moral fitness “as it relates to their ability to parent the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 106(a)(8). ... But the misconduct must have some relationship with parenting. ... While we do not condone Father’s behavior, it did not relate to his parenting ability.

Section 36-6-106(7) allows a court to hear the custody preference of a child younger than twelve upon request, but older children’s preferences should normally receive greater weight.

Christopher v. Sockwell · filed 1996-06-19(7)

The court may hear the preference of the younger child upon request but the preferences of older children should normally be given greater weight. T.C.A. § 36-6-106(7).

Section 36-6-106 requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interests and consideration of a child’s custodial preference when the child is at least 12.

Spruell v. Spruell · filed 1997-08-27

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 requires that a custody determination ‘shall be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child,’ and mandates a litany of factors to be considered. One of these factors is the preference of the child if he is 12 years of age or older.

Section 36-6-106 permits a court to consider the reasonable preference of a child who is at least twelve years old when deciding custody.

Haren v. Haren · filed 1998-01-13

Under T.C.A. §36-6-106, the court may consider the reasonab le preference of a ch ild twelve years of age or older.

Section 36-6-106(7) requires courts to consider the reasonable preference of a child age twelve or older, but that preference does not control the custody decision.

Hardin v. Hardin · filed 1998-05-19(7)

In making its custody determination, the trial court was required to consider, among other factors, the reasonable preferences of the parties’ children, inasmuch as both children were over the age of twelve years. ... The fact that the trial court’s ultimate custody determination is not in accordance with a child’s expressed wishes, by itself, does not constitute grounds for reversal.

Section 36-6-106(7) permits a court to hear a younger child’s custody preference and consider it as one factor in determining the child’s best interest.

Haywood v. Haywood · filed 1999-09-29(7)

Thus, while the court may hear a young child’s preference as to custody, it is only one of several factors to be considered in determining the best interest of that child.

Section 36-6-106(7) permits a court to hear the custody preference of a child under twelve upon request; an unrequested interview conducted without a reviewable record can require reversal.

Rutherford v. Rutherford · filed 1997-11-26(7)

The record does not indicate that the parties requested the Judge to interview the child, and the interview, as conducted, constitutes reversible error.

A child's preference is only one factor in a custody decision under § 36-6-106.

Hoalcraft v. Smithson · filed 1999-12-17

The child's preference is only one factor to be considered in deciding which parent acquires custody of the child. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 4; Wilson v. Wilson, 987 S.W.2d 555, 564 (Tenn. App.1998); Helson v. Cyrus, 989 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. App. 1998). ... Instead, from our reading of the record, it appears that the trial court used the children’s preferences as the overwhelming factor in his decision to change custody.

A child’s custody preference is one factor the court considers and does not bind the court.

Judy Hall Travis v. Kenneth D. Travis, Jr. · filed 2001-03-16(7)

However, a child’s preference is not binding upon the trial court, but is just one factor to be considered.

Section 36-6-106(7) calls for consulting a thirteen-year-old child about a custodial preference and weighing any preference with other relevant best-interest factors.

Richardson v. Richardson · filed 2001-06-14(7)

It is the opinion of this Court that a child thirteen years of age, Ashley’s age at the time of this trial, should be consulted to determine whether that child has a preference as to the custodial parent. If a preference does exist, such preference should be weighed along with other relevant factors in making a determination of the child’s best interest. T.C.A. § 36-6-106 (7) (2000 Supp.)

A child’s reasonable custody preference is a best-interest factor, but equivocal testimony favoring both parents need not support a custody change.

Jameson v. Redmund · filed 2002-03-20(7)

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 36-6-106 (7) (Supp. 1998) is applicable to the testimony of the three minor sons at the last hearing. A review of the record does not reflect that the two older sons asked the court to change custody. While the youngest son does equivocate on the desire for change of custody, the two older sons do not, and we find no error in the trial judge’s findings of fact to the effect that all three sons tend to say favorable things about each parent.

A child's reasonable preference at age twelve or older is a custody factor, but it does not control the custody decision.

Houston v. Houston · filed 2002-03-31(7)

We note that although the “reasonable preference” of a child, aged twelve years or older, is a factor to be considered by the court under T.C.A. § 36-6-106, such preference is not controlling or binding upon the court, or the controlling factor.

In deciding custody, courts must consider the reasonable preference of a child who is at least twelve years old.

Layne v. Layne · filed 2003-01-28(7)

We note that among the factors the court is directed to consider when making a custody determination is “the reasonable preference of the child if twelve (12) years of age or older.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (7).

Section 36-6-106 treats a child’s custody preference as one factor in deciding custody.

Kenneth A. Brasel, Sr. v. John Stanley Brasel, Sr. · filed 2004-08-24

The child’s preference is only one factor to be considered in deciding custody. See T.C.A. § 36-6-106 (2001); Wilson v. Wilson, 987 S.W.2d 555, 564 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998); Helson v. Cyrus, 989 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998).

In a custody modification, a court considers the child’s preference under § 36-6-106(a)(7) only after finding a material change in circumstances.

Rebecca Paige Mulkey (Hurd) v. Mulkey · filed 2004-10-28(a)(7)

Absent a material change in circumstances, we do not reach the statutory factors to be used in making the best interest analysis, including the stated preference of the children.

Section 36-6-106(a)(7) permits a court to hear a younger child’s custodial preference upon request when determining the child’s best interest.

Jeannette Cutrer Day Siniard v. Siniard · filed 2004-11-29(a)(7)

Despite Father’s contention that “the trial courts should be loathe to interview children unless an interview is critical to the outcome of the case,” we find that the trial court acted well within its discretion when it interviewed Caroline. As discussed above, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(7) provides that, in making its determination as to what is in the best interest of the child, a trial court “may hear the preference of a younger child upon request.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(7) (emphasis added).

A court may consider an eight-year-old child’s residential preference alongside other factors when devising a parenting plan.

Shofner v. Shofner · filed 2005-01-11(a)(7)

Although he is only eight years old, Andrew has expressed a preference to live with Dr. Shofner. It was appropriate for the trial court to consider Andrew’s preference along with the other factors relevant to devising a parenting plan.

Section 36-6-106(a)(7)(B) permits, but does not require, a trial court to hear the custody preference of a child under twelve.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2006-01-23(a)(7)(B)

While a trial court is not required to consider the testimony of children under the age of twelve, it may exercise its discretion to permit a child under the age of twelve to state his or her custody preference. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(7)(B) (2005). At the conclusion of the final hearing, the trial court noted that it had considered the child’s preference to live primarily with his father but then stated clearly that this factor was not controlling in its decision to award Mr. Smith primary residential custody of the child. Ms. Smith’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the child to testify or somehow accorded improper weight to the child’s preference is wholly unsupported by the record.

A court need not consider the custody preference of a child younger than twelve and must give greater weight to the preferences of older children.

In Re: A.N.F. (d/o/b 10/24/99), a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age · filed 2008-09-24(a)(7)

Even then, however, the court is not required to consider the preference of a child younger than twelve, and courts are instructed to give “greater weight” to the preferences of older children.