Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2024)

Child custody

✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(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).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 28× “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). · cites it 23× “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). · cites it 36× “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). · cites it 16× “" 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). · cites it 12× “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). · cites it 21× “; 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). · cites it 15× ““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). · cites it 13× “Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a), with Tenn.”

Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “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). · cites it 4× “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2001) (divorce and other proceedings); Tenn.”

Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 6× “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.”

Show all 783 citing cases →

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, No. 02101-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2002).

Dayne O 'Bannon v. Stephanie O'Bannon, No. E2002-02553-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2003).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(13): 1 case

Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang, No. M2024-00815-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2026).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(15): 1 case

Megan Arndts Woody v. Jeremy Brice Woody, No. E2020-01200-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 678976 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 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, No. M2011-01949-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(4): 3 cases

Tammy Kemp v. Thomas Michael Hale, No. 03A01-9809-PB-00284 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 1999).

Daniel J. Velez v. Christy M. Velez, No. M2011-01949-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2012).

Dayne O 'Bannon v. Stephanie O'Bannon, No. E2002-02553-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2003).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(5): 1 case

Nicole Lynn Colvard v. Wayne Eric Colvard, No. E2020-01066-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2021).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(6): 1 case

Ruthie Curbow v. James Stucki, No. M2001-02908-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 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, No. M2001-02908-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2003).

Lorrie Barnes v. Richard Barnes, No. W2000-01285-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2001).

Christopher v. Sockwell, No. 01A01-9511-CH-00505 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 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, No. E1999-02634-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1424809 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 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…”

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, 704 S.W.3d 784 (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, No. W2017-02452-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 6192233 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018).

Kristina Collins Ramsey v. Austin A. Ramsey, No. E2022-01295-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2024).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(11): 8 cases

C.D.B. v. A.B., No. M2018-00532-COA-T10B-CV, 2018 WL 1976119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

In re Jonathan S., No. M2021-00370-COA-R3-JV, 2022 WL 3695066 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022).

Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson, No. M2023-00572-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024).

Joseph Martin Colley v. Alisha Dale McBee, No. M2014-02296-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2017).

Michael Charles Smallbone v. Jennifer Elizabeth Smallbone, No. M2020-01556-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1405655 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2022).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(12): 4 cases

In re McKenzie Z., No. M2017-00484-COA-R3-JV, 2018 WL 1508574 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2018).

Samuel Randall Friedsam, III v. Frankie Michelle Krisle, No. M2021-00530-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3654658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022).

Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson, No. M2023-00572-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(13): 3 cases

In re Aiden W.-L., No. W2021-01187-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2022).

In re Lyric N., No. E2021-00578-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2022).

Benjamin Boatman v. Karuna Chaudhary Odziana, No. M2024-00677-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2025).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(14): 5 cases

William Michael Grissom v. Nicole Xiomara Grissom, 586 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).

In re A'Jayi A., No. W2022-01617-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2024).

Delvon Paden v. Kyrstyen Davison, No. M2023-00240-COA-R3-JV, 2024 WL 3159510 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2024).

Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper, No. M2022-01050-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024).

Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson, No. M2023-00572-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(15): 2 cases

Bruce Gillam v. Destiny Ballew, No. E2018-01782-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2020).

Rosalynn Addis v. Ryan Keith Addis, No. M2024-00668-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2025).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(16): 1 case

In re Brayleigh C., No. W2021-00910-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2022).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2): 20 cases

Brian Patrick Henry v. Jennifer Kay McCormack, No. M2019-02065-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).

Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson, No. M2023-00572-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024).

In re Autumn B., No. E2017-00019-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017).

April R. Burchfield v. D. Ryan Burchfield, No. M2017-01326-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2185513 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(3): 8 cases

In re Sidney J., 313 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2010).

David Larkin Wall v. Amy Ballesteros Wall, No. W2010-01069-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2732269 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2011).

Shannon Wayne Brown v. Lisa Denise Brown (Church), No. E2011-00421-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 1267872 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012).

Delvon Paden v. Kyrstyen Davison, No. M2023-00240-COA-R3-JV, 2024 WL 3159510 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2024).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(4): 10 cases

In re Lennon R., No. M2018-00541-COA-R3-JV, 2019 WL 2226007 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2019).

Monica White Mueller v. David Edmond Mueller, No. W2004-00482-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 2609197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2004).

Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston, No. M2001-02697-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2002).

Edna Gergel v. James Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1222945 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 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.”

In re Lennon R., No. M2018-00541-COA-R3-JV, 2019 WL 2226007 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2019).

Hollie Cherry v. Lori Christine Moss, No. W2023-00146-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2024).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(6): 12 cases

Will P. Cotten v. Elizabeth Austin Cotten, No. M2023-01282-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2025).

Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston, No. M2001-02697-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2002).

Michael A. Roberts v. Xaviera C. Forrest, No. M2015-00230-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2016).

In re McKenzie Z., No. M2017-00484-COA-R3-JV, 2018 WL 1508574 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2018).

In re Gracelyn H., No. W2021-00141-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 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).

Angie Renee Larsen v. George Giannakoulias, No. M2017-00428-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(8): 24 cases

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

Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson, No. M2023-00572-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024).

Alexis Danielle Rapp v. Christopher George Rapp, No. M2023-01671-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2024).

Lorrie Lisa Crowe v. Kyle Eric Crowe, No. W2003-02864-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2005).

Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston, No. M2001-02697-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2002).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(l): 5 cases

In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005).

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, No. M2019-01512-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2021).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(b)(1)(a): 1 case

In re Christian S., No. M2018-00128-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 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.

Your account

Appearance

Create a free account

You’re in.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (2024)

Child custody