Tennessee's rule on child custody and parenting time turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Tennessee uses Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody under a permanent parenting plan.. Courts apply best-interests factors under § 36-6-106, including the child’s relationships, parental capacity, stability, and any history of domestic violence. Joint custody / shared parenting is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests. The controlling authority is Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-101 to 36-6-112. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate must follow § 36-6-108 notice procedures; the court may permit or deny relocation based on statutory factors. Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan.
Key takeaways
- Best-interests standard: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 36-6-106, including the child’s relationships, parental capacity, stability, and any history of domestic violence.
- Labels used in Tennessee: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody under a permanent parenting plan..
- Parenting-time posture: Joint custody / shared parenting is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests.
- Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate must follow § 36-6-108 notice procedures; the court may permit or deny relocation based on statutory factors.
- Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan.
- Primary authority: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-101 to 36-6-112.
Worked example under Tennessee law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Tennessee. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
Two parents in Tennessee disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.
- Use the labels Tennessee actually uses: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody under a permanent parenting plan..
- Apply the best-interests factors: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 36-6-106, including the child’s relationships, parental capacity, stability, and any history of domestic violence.
- Check any parenting presumption: Joint custody / shared parenting is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests.
- If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate must follow § 36-6-108 notice procedures; the court may permit or deny relocation based on statutory factors. Later changes follow: A material change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan.
Permanent parenting plans are mandatory in most cases with minor children. Mediation is often required. Final decrees adopt a detailed parenting plan under title 36 chapter 6.
Best-interests factors in Tennessee
Courts apply best-interests factors under § 36-6-106, including the child’s relationships, parental capacity, stability, and any history of domestic violence.
Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody under a permanent parenting plan.
Joint custody / shared parenting is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests.
Relocation with a child
A parent seeking to relocate must follow § 36-6-108 notice procedures; the court may permit or deny relocation based on statutory factors.
Modifying a Tennessee custody order
A material change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan.
How custody cases typically move in Tennessee
Permanent parenting plans are mandatory in most cases with minor children. Mediation is often required. Final decrees adopt a detailed parenting plan under title 36 chapter 6.
Related Tennessee guides
Case law: custody and parenting time in Tennessee
Deborah Anne TAYLOR (Mitten), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Steve TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellee
…fendant-appellee. OPINION DAUGHTREY, Justice. In this child custody dispute, we are asked to reverse an order by the trial court prohibiting the custodial parent in this case, Deborah Taylor Mitten, from moving out of state with her three-year-old daughter, Brittney, over the objection of the non-custodial parent, David Steve Taylor. The resolution of this dispute requires a re…
On child custody, Deborah Anne TAYLOR (Mitten), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Steve TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellee speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Deborah Taylor Mitten, from moving out of state with her three-year-old daughter, Brittney, over the objection of the non-custodial parent, David Steve Taylor." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Gene v. AABY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judy E. Aaby STRANGE, Defendant-Appellant
OPINION DROWOTA, Justice. In this child custody dispute, Judy E. Strange, the custodial parent, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial *624court’s order denying her permission to move out-of-state with her child. The sole issue for our determination is whether the lower courts properly interpreted the principles enunciated in Taylor v. Ta…
Gene v. AABY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judy E. Aaby STRANGE, Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Tennessee child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "OPINION DROWOTA, Justice. In this child custody dispute, Judy E. Strange, the custodial parent, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial *624court’s order denying her permission to move out-of-state with her child." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Leslieann Lee SEESSEL, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Richard Arthur SEESSEL, Defendant/Appellant
…ntiff-appellee, who was also granted the divorce, was given custody of the two-year-old child of the parties, Dustin Arthur Seessel. On 21 January 1987 the custodial parent filed a petition seeking approval of the court to move with the child from Shelby County, Tennessee, to Denver, Colorado. After a hearing of the matter, in which the petitioner was afforded the opportunity t…
On child custody, Leslieann Lee SEESSEL, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Richard Arthur SEESSEL, Defendant/Appellant speaks to the Tennessee dispute in this passage: "Dustin Arthur Seessel. On 21 January 1987 the custodial parent filed a petition seeking approval of the court to move with the child from Shelby County, Tennessee, to Denver, Colorado." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In Re ADOPTION OF M.J.S.
In Re ADOPTION OF M.J.S., 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (2000)
…ter, Christine L. Snyder, previously had delivered physical custody of the child to Langston and had executed a surrender of her parental rights in favor of Langston. Both the Snyders and Langston filed petitions seeking to adopt the child, and the petitions were consolidated in one action. The trial court permitted the Snyders to participate in the adoption proceedings for the…
In Re ADOPTION OF M.J.S. is worth reading on Tennessee child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Christine L. Snyder, previously had delivered physical custody of the child to Langston and had executed a surrender of her parental rights in favor of Langston." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re R.S.M.
In Re R.S.M., 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (2015)
…ngton County Juvenile Court 2 seeking an ex parte order and custody. At an initial hearing in that proceeding, they learned, for the first time, that Mother had executed on January 29, 2013, a consent to adoption under North Carolina law. On February 11, 2013, Grandparents filed a complaint in the trial court pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36 — 1—111 (u)(2) (2014), which, in rele…
Practitioners open In Re R.S.M. when Tennessee child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "County Juvenile Court 2 seeking an ex parte order and custody. At an initial hearing in that proceeding, they learned, for the first time, that Mother had executed on January 29, 2013, a consent to adoption under North Carolina law." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Gene v. Aaby
…PINION COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. DROWOTA, J. In this child custody dispute, Judy E. Strange, the custodial parent, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s order denying her permission to move out-of-state with her child. The sole issue for our determination is whether the lower courts properly interpreted the principles enunciated in Taylor v. Taylor…
Tennessee opinions such as Gene v. Aaby are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "PINION COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. DROWOTA, J. In this child custody dispute, Judy E. Strange, the custodial parent, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s order denying her permission to move out-of-state with her child." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Frequently asked questions
What does Tennessee call “custody”?
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody under a permanent parenting plan.
Can I move out of state with my child?
A parent seeking to relocate must follow § 36-6-108 notice procedures; the court may permit or deny relocation based on statutory factors.
How do I change an existing custody order in Tennessee?
A material change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan.
This guide covers Tennessee custody law as of 2026. Verify the live statute and any local parenting-time guidelines before relying on this summary.