Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (2026)
Priority of persons to be considered
✓ current as of May 2026
Subject to the court's determination of what is in the best interests of the minor, the court shall consider the following persons in the order listed for appointment of the guardian:
- (1) The parent or parents of the minor;
- (2) The person or persons designated by the parent or parents in a will or other written document;
- (3) Adult siblings of the minor;
- (4) Closest relative or relatives of the minor; and
- (5) Other person or persons.
Acts 1992, ch. 794, § 36; T.C.A. § 34-12-103.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: In re the Guardianship of R.D.M., 306 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
In re the Guardianship of R.D.M., 306 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “The Court explained that Tenn.Code Ann. § 34-2-103 established a priority of persons to be considered as guardians, and provided that the order of consideration would be (1) parents, (2) persons designated by the parents in a will or other document, (3) adult siblings of the…”
In Re Rdm, 306 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “The Court explained that Tenn.Code Ann. § 34-2-103 established a priority of persons to be considered as guardians, and provided that the order of consideration would be (1) parents, (2) persons designated by the parents in a will or other document, (3) adult siblings of the…”
In Re Guardianship of Taylour L. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “The court emphasized that the proceeding was “not a custody hearing” and went on to apply Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 . The court concluded: [I]t is not to the best interest of these four (4) children for their father, Darius L[.”
In Re: Shiann Horner (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “It also considered the Father’s preference for the Greeneville couple, relying on the language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (2001) (“the guardianship statute”).”
In RE: T.H. A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age Karen Riley v. Frankie Summeour (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “The Court stated that its decision was based upon Tenn. Code Ann. §34-2-103 (priority of persons to be considered), and Tenn.”
In Re Danely C. (2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (2015) provides as follows: Subject to the court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the minor, the court shall consider the following persons in the order listed for appointment of the guardian: (1) The parent or parents of the minor;…”
Donna Sharon Presley v. Clavin Herman Shadrick . (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 , sets forth the priority of persons to be considered by the court when determining a guardianship petition, as follows: Subject to the court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the minor, the court shall consider the following persons…”
In Re Alexis S. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (providing that juvenile court decisions in actions for guardianship are “[s]ubject to the court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the minor”); In re R.”
In Re Jose A. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (2021). The petition also requested that the court make special findings to enable Jose to apply for special immigrant juvenile status.”
In Re: Adoption of AMH, a minor Jerry L. Baker & wife, Louise K. Baker v. Shao-Qiang (Jack) He & wife, Qin (Casey) Luo (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-2-103 (2003). Next, Mother asserts that the juvenile court’s order fails to comply with the following statutory provision: The petition for the appointment of a guardian, which shall be sworn, should contain the following: .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.