Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2026)
Child custody
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In a suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, the determination shall be made on the basis of the best interest of the child. In taking into account the child's best interest, the court shall order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the factors set out in this subsection (a), the location of the residences of the parents, the child's need for stability and all other relevant factors. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following, where applicable:
- (1) The strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, including whether one (1) parent has performed the majority of parenting responsibilities relating to the daily needs of the child;
- (2) Each parent's or caregiver's past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities, including the willingness and ability of each of the parents and caregivers to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and both of the child's parents, consistent with the best interest of the child. In determining the willingness of each of the parents and caregivers to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and both of the child's parents, the court shall consider the likelihood of each parent and caregiver to honor and facilitate court ordered parenting arrangements and rights, and the court shall further consider any history of either parent or any caregiver denying parenting time to either parent in violation of a court order;
- (3) Refusal to attend a court ordered parent education seminar may be considered by the court as a lack of good faith effort in these proceedings;
- (4) The disposition of each parent to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education and other necessary care;
- (5) The degree to which a parent has been the primary caregiver, defined as the parent who has taken the greater responsibility for performing parental responsibilities;
- (6) The love, affection, and emotional ties existing between each parent and the child;
- (7) The emotional needs and developmental level of the child;
- (8) The moral, physical, mental and emotional fitness of each parent as it relates to their ability to parent the child. The court may order an examination of a party under Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and, if necessary for the conduct of the proceedings, order the disclosure of confidential mental health information of a party under § 33-3-105(3). The court order required by § 33-3-105(3) must contain a qualified protective order that limits the dissemination of confidential protected mental health information to the purpose of the litigation pending before the court and provides for the return or destruction of the confidential protected mental health information at the conclusion of the proceedings;
- (9) The child's interaction and interrelationships with siblings, other relatives and step-relatives, and mentors, as well as the child's involvement with the child's physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities;
- (10) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment;
- (11) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent, or to any other person, including the child's siblings. The court may, where appropriate, refer any issues of abuse to juvenile court for further proceedings;
- (12) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and such person's interactions with the child;
- (13) The reasonable preference of the child if twelve (12) years of age or older. The court may hear the preference of a younger child upon request. The preference of older children should normally be given greater weight than those of younger children;
- (14) Each parent's employment schedule, and the court may make accommodations consistent with those schedules;
- (15) Any other factors deemed relevant by the court; and
- (16) Whether a parent has failed to pay court-ordered child support for a period of three (3) years or more.
- (b) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination regarding a minor child or may modify a prior order of child custody upon finding that the custodial parent has been convicted of or found civilly liable for the intentional and wrongful death of the child's other parent or legal guardian.
- (c) As used in this section, "caregiver" has the meaning ascribed to that term in § 37-5-501.
- (d) Nothing in subsections (a) and (c) shall be construed to affect or diminish the constitutional rights of parents that may arise during and are inherent in custody proceedings.
- (e) The disability of a parent alone shall not be considered for or against awarding custody to such a party unless the disability impacts the parent's ability to meet the needs of the child.
- (f) If the petitioner knows whether a child has ever been adjudicated by a court as a dependent and neglected or abused child or whether any party to the action has ever been adjudicated by a court as the perpetrator of dependency and neglect or abuse of a minor child, any petition regarding child custody shall include an affirmative statement setting out all applicable adjudications. If an adjudication has occurred as a result of a child protective services investigation, the court may order the department of children's services to disclose information regarding the investigation to protect the child from abuse or neglect consistent with § 37-1-612(h). The court shall consider any such information as a factor in determining the child's best interest.
- (g) As required by § 36-6-404(b), only if the limitations of § 36-6-406 are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule, then the court shall consider the factors found in subdivisions (a)(1)-(15).
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 799,s 2, eff. 4/23/2024.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 799,s 1, eff. 4/23/2024.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 671, s 1, eff. 3/18/2022.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 235, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1074, s 1, eff. 7/1/2016.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 617, s 4, eff. 7/1/2014.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 220, s 1, eff. 7/1/2013.
Acts 1995, ch. 428, § 2; 1998, ch. 1003, § 1; 1998, ch. 1095, §§ 2, 3; 2000, ch. 683, § 2; 2007 , ch. 245, §§ 1 - 3; 2011 , ch. 433, § 1; 2012 , ch. 897, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 783
cases (128 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017).
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “2007) (recognizing that the statutory criteria relevant to the residential schedule overlap with, and somewhat expand upon, the factors set out in section 36-6-106 relevant to determining custody); Dobbs v.”
In Re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(1)–(15). This statutory language reflects a recent amendment to section 36-6-106(a) that took effect on July 1, 2014.”
Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002). “" A majority of this Court has concluded that a best interests analysis, including the factors set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106, should be used to determine the propriety of a modification of child custody.”
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014). “In making its decision, the trial court explicitly relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 . The trial court found six of the ten TenmCode Ann.”
Hannah Ann Culbertson v. Randall Eric Culbertson, 455 S.W.3d 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(5). The concept of limited waiver was also discussed in a post-divorce California case, Trepeck v.”
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). ““The determination of custody should always be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child, and in accordance with the factors set out in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
Courtney P. Brunetz v. Neil A. Brunetz, 573 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a), with Tenn.”
Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “The relevant factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 have been considered at length.”
In Re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2001) (divorce and other proceedings); Tenn.”
Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2001). Blair offers a loving, stable home, and the bonds between him and his daughter have increased substantially in the years since Joy's birth.”
Cranston v. Combs, 106 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2003). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106. In short, the statutory scheme and our decision in Kendrick provide a flexible framework within which a trial court may consider a number of factors in determining whether to modify a custody decree.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(1) — 1 case
Hardin v. Hardin, 979 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(10) — 9 cases
Placencia v. Placencia, 3 S.W.3d 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
In re T.C.D., 261 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Tcd, 261 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Melissa Combs Cranston v. Edward Scott Combs (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Dayne O 'Bannon v. Stephanie O'Bannon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(13) — 1 case
Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(15) — 1 case
Megan Arndts Woody v. Jeremy Brice Woody (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(2) — 2 cases
Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Daniel J. Velez v. Christy M. Velez (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(4) — 3 cases
Tammy Kemp v. Thomas Michael Hale (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Daniel J. Velez v. Christy M. Velez (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Dayne O 'Bannon v. Stephanie O'Bannon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(5) — 1 case
Nicole Lynn Colvard v. Wayne Eric Colvard (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(6) — 1 case
Ruthie Curbow v. James Stucki (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(7) — 5 cases
Hardin v. Hardin, 979 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Ruthie Curbow v. James Stucki (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Lorrie Barnes v. Richard Barnes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Christopher v. Sockwell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(8) — 35 cases
Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “The relevant factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 have been considered at length.”
Chaffin v. Ellis, 211 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Steen v. Steen, 61 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(9) — 2 cases
Marlow v. Parkinson, 236 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Jerry Wayne Killion v. Sandra Faye Sweat (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) — 267 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “2007) (recognizing that the statutory criteria relevant to the residential schedule overlap with, and somewhat expand upon, the factors set out in section 36-6-106 relevant to determining custody); Dobbs v.”
In Re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(1)–(15). This statutory language reflects a recent amendment to section 36-6-106(a) that took effect on July 1, 2014.”
In Re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2001) (divorce and other proceedings); Tenn.”
Courtney P. Brunetz v. Neil A. Brunetz, 573 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a), with Tenn.”
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). ““The determination of custody should always be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child, and in accordance with the factors set out in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(1) — 57 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “2007) (recognizing that the statutory criteria relevant to the residential schedule overlap with, and somewhat expand upon, the factors set out in section 36-6-106 relevant to determining custody); Dobbs v.”
In Re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(1)–(15). This statutory language reflects a recent amendment to section 36-6-106(a) that took effect on July 1, 2014.”
In Re Ckg, 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005).
Jamie M. Cooper v. Bradley Cooper (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(10) — 19 cases
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014). “In making its decision, the trial court explicitly relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 . The trial court found six of the ten TenmCode Ann.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 165 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Byars v. Young, 327 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Lindsey Bailey Harmon (Jean) v. Richard Bradley Harmon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Kristina Collins Ramsey v. Austin A. Ramsey (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(11) — 8 cases
C.D.B. v. A.B. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
In Re Jonathan S. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Joseph Martin Colley v. Alisha Dale McBee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
Michael Charles Smallbone v. Jennifer Elizabeth Smallbone (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(12) — 4 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
In Re McKenzie Z. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Samuel Randall Friedsam, III v. Frankie Michelle Krisle (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(13) — 3 cases
In Re Aiden W.-L. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re Lyric N. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Benjamin Boatman v. Karuna Chaudhary Odziana (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(14) — 5 cases
William Michael Grissom v. Nicole Xiomara Grissom (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
In Re A'Jayi A. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Delvon Paden v. Kyrstyen Davison (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(15) — 2 cases
Bruce Gillam v. Destiny Ballew (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Rosalynn Addis v. Ryan Keith Addis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(16) — 1 case
In Re Brayleigh C. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2) — 20 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Brian Patrick Henry v. Jennifer Kay McCormack (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
In Re: Autumn B. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
April R. Burchfield v. D. Ryan Burchfield (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(3) — 8 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “2007) (recognizing that the statutory criteria relevant to the residential schedule overlap with, and somewhat expand upon, the factors set out in section 36-6-106 relevant to determining custody); Dobbs v.”
In Re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2010).
David Larkin Wall v. Amy Ballesteros Wall (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
Shannon Wayne Brown v. Lisa Denise Brown (Church) (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Delvon Paden v. Kyrstyen Davison (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(4) — 10 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
In Re Lennon R. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
Monica White Mueller v. David Edmond Mueller (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Edna Gergel v. James Gergel (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(5) — 15 cases
Hannah Ann Culbertson v. Randall Eric Culbertson, 455 S.W.3d 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(5). The concept of limited waiver was also discussed in a post-divorce California case, Trepeck v.”
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). ““The determination of custody should always be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child, and in accordance with the factors set out in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
In Re Lennon R. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
Hollie Cherry v. Lori Christine Moss (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(6) — 12 cases
Will P. Cotten v. Elizabeth Austin Cotten (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Michael A. Roberts v. Xaviera C. Forrest (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re McKenzie Z. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
In Re Gracelyn H. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(7) — 16 cases
Shofner v. Shofner, 181 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014). “In making its decision, the trial court explicitly relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 . The trial court found six of the ten TenmCode Ann.”
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Angie Renee Larsen v. George Giannakoulias (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(8) — 24 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). ““The determination of custody should always be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child, and in accordance with the factors set out in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
Marlow v. Parkinson, 236 S.W.3d 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
In Re Caleb L.C., 362 S.W.3d 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(9) — 12 cases
C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). “2013) ; that the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect version of the statute governing the requisite best interest analysis, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 ; and that the appellate court erred in mandating an immediate change of custody without allowing Father an opportunity…”
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Alexis Danielle Rapp v. Christopher George Rapp (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Lorrie Lisa Crowe v. Kyle Eric Crowe (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(l) — 5 cases
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014). “In making its decision, the trial court explicitly relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 . The trial court found six of the ten TenmCode Ann.”
In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005).
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). ““The determination of custody should always be made upon the basis of the best interest of the child, and in accordance with the factors set out in Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann.”
In Re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a)(1)–(15). This statutory language reflects a recent amendment to section 36-6-106(a) that took effect on July 1, 2014.”
McDonough v. McDonough, 499 S.W.3d 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(b) — 3 cases
In re S.L.M., 207 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Slm, 207 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Alice Faye Powers v. Stephen Edwin Powers (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(b)(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re Christian S. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
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.