Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (2026)

Decree for custody and support of child - Enforcement - Juvenile court jurisdiction - Presumption of parental fitness - Educational seminars

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 711,s 1, eff. 4/11/2024.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 311, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 520, s 2, eff. 3/6/2020.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 238, s 2, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 617, s 3, eff. 7/1/2014.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 617, s 2, eff. 7/1/2014.

Code 1932, § 8454; Acts 1971, ch. 438, § 1; 1973, ch. 387, § 1; 1979, ch. 187, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 36-828; Acts 1985, ch. 382, §§ 1, 2; 1987, ch. 145, § 9; 1987, ch. 266, § 1; 1994, ch. 818, § 1; 1996, ch. 1046, § 1; 1997 , ch. 208, § 1; 1997 , ch. 351, § 1; 1998, ch. 1059, § 7; 1998, ch. 1095, § 1; 1999, ch. 250, § 1; 2000, ch. 751, § 1; 2000, ch. 885, § 1; 2002, ch. 616, § 1; 2002, ch. 859, § 1; 2003 , ch. 245, § 1; 2004, ch. 759, §§ 1, 2; 2006, ch. 652, § 1; 2006, ch. 979, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 532 cases (63 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013).
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 39× “The 2002 legislation amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101 by adding the following language as new subdivision (a)(2)(B): If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree pertaining to custody or a residential parenting arrangement, the…”
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 17× “However, this court has noted that Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(C) sets “a very low threshold for establishing a material change of circumstances.”
Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “[The] statutory scheme [in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B-C) ] is the result of a 2004 amendment.”
Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 6× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B) (Supp.”
April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) v. Aaron R. Edmonds, 395 S.W.3d 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(B). Scofield v.”
Kesterson v. Varner, 172 S.W.3d 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to make findings of fact underlying the custody determination as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-101. "Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to order the implementation of a Parenting Plan pursuant to § 36 — 6—[401] and by…”
Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 4× “Acts 859 (providing that a material change in circumstances must be shown in order to modify custody)(to be codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)). In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Birch criticizes this standard and expresses his preference for a…”
Taylor v. Taylor, 849 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 8× “This early standard is echoed in T.C.A. § 36-6-101, which requires the courts to determine custody "as the welfare and interest of the child or children may demand.”
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 4× “; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(B)-(C).”
Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B-C). This statutory scheme is the result of a 2004 amendment, which means it was effective at all relevant times in the instant case.”
Cranston v. Combs, 106 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 4× “As the parties have noted, the legislature has enacted Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101 (a)(2)(B) (2001 & Supp.2002), which provides: If the issue before the court is a modification of the court's prior decree pertaining to custody or a residential parenting…”
Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B). Thus, the threshold inquiry for a trial court faced with a petition to modify the parties’ parenting arrangement is whether a material change in circumstance has occurred.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(3)(A) — 2 cases
Anderson v. Anderson, 56 S.W.3d 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Anderson v. Anderson (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(6) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(B) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a) — 28 cases
Rust v. Rust, 864 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Kesterson v. Varner, 172 S.W.3d 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to make findings of fact underlying the custody determination as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-101. "Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to order the implementation of a Parenting Plan pursuant to § 36 — 6—[401] and by…”
Bush v. Bush, 684 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).
McDaniel v. McDaniel, 743 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
Woodard v. Woodard, 783 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(1) — 35 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “The 2002 legislation amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101 by adding the following language as new subdivision (a)(2)(B): If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree pertaining to custody or a residential parenting arrangement, the…”
Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Lee v. Lee, 66 S.W.3d 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “However, this court has noted that Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(C) sets “a very low threshold for establishing a material change of circumstances.”
Bradley James Cox v. Laura Nicole Lucas, 576 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2) — 11 cases
Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B-C). This statutory scheme is the result of a 2004 amendment, which means it was effective at all relevant times in the instant case.”
Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “[The] statutory scheme [in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B-C) ] is the result of a 2004 amendment.”
D. A. Price v. P. C. Price (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(2010) — 1 case
James Eldridge v. Katie Hundley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(i) — 6 cases
In Re Gabby G. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B) — 75 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “The 2002 legislation amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101 by adding the following language as new subdivision (a)(2)(B): If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree pertaining to custody or a residential parenting arrangement, the…”
Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B) (Supp.”
Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002). “Acts 859 (providing that a material change in circumstances must be shown in order to modify custody)(to be codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)). In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Birch criticizes this standard and expresses his preference for a…”
Kesterson v. Varner, 172 S.W.3d 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to make findings of fact underlying the custody determination as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-101. "Whether the Trial Court erred by failing to order the implementation of a Parenting Plan pursuant to § 36 — 6—[401] and by…”
Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B). Thus, the threshold inquiry for a trial court faced with a petition to modify the parties’ parenting arrangement is whether a material change in circumstance has occurred.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(2010) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(C) — 1 case
In Re: Ava B. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(i) — 9 cases
Travis Daniel Freeman v. Wendy Y. Freeman, 579 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Chelsea C. Stewart v. Kyle P. Hester (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
Todd Scot v. Erin Dawn Scot (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(C) — 66 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “The 2002 legislation amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101 by adding the following language as new subdivision (a)(2)(B): If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree pertaining to custody or a residential parenting arrangement, the…”
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “However, this court has noted that Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(C) sets “a very low threshold for establishing a material change of circumstances.”
Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “[The] statutory scheme [in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B-C) ] is the result of a 2004 amendment.”
Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) v. Aaron R. Edmonds, 395 S.W.3d 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(B). Scofield v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(3) — 5 cases
Byars v. Young, 327 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Jaxon W. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
Lawrence Lee Brown v. Kelly Sue Brown (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(3)(A) — 5 cases
Patrick Edward Reeder v. Jo Beth (Curtis) Reeder, 375 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Fatma Adel Sekik v. Nehad Abdelnabi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Fatma Adel Sekik v. Nehad Abdelnabi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(3)(A)(vi) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(3)(A)(viii) — 1 case
In Re Braylin D. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(3)(B) — 4 cases
Fatma Adel Sekik v. Nehad Abdelnabi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Fatma Adel Sekik v. Nehad Abdelnabi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(B) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(l) — 5 cases
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014).
Brumit v. Brumit, 948 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Lee v. Lee, 66 S.W.3d 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Placencia v. Placencia, 48 S.W.3d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Rubin v. Kirshner, 948 S.W.2d 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(b) — 1 case
Rowland v. Tate, 797 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(c) — 1 case
Barri Green v. Lanny George (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(d) — 12 cases
Taylor v. Taylor, 849 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn. 1993). “This early standard is echoed in T.C.A. § 36-6-101, which requires the courts to determine custody "as the welfare and interest of the child or children may demand.”
Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Ruyle v. Ruyle, 928 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(e) — 1 case
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 152 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(e)(1) — 2 cases
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.