Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401 (2026)
Findings
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Parents have the responsibility to make decisions and perform other parental duties necessary for the care and growth of their minor children. In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties' parental responsibilities. The general assembly recognizes the detrimental effect of divorce on many children and that divorce, by its nature, means that neither parent will have the same access to the child as would have been possible had they been able to maintain an intact family. The general assembly finds the need for stability and consistency in children's lives. The general assembly also has an interest in educating parents concerning the impact of divorce on children. The general assembly recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests. The best interests of the child are served by a parenting arrangement that best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care.
- (b) The general assembly finds that mothers and fathers in families are the backbone of this state and this nation. They teach children right from wrong, respect for others, and the value of working hard to make a good life for themselves and for their future families. Most children do best when they receive the emotional and financial support of both parents. The general assembly finds that a different approach to dispute resolution in child custody and visitation matters is useful.
Acts 1997, ch. 557, § 1; 1998, ch. 1098, §§ 71, 74; 2000, ch. 889, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · 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). “§ 36-6-401 (2010)(emphasis added). In facilitating this different approach, more recently enacted parenting statutes have generally replaced the terms “custody” and “visitation” with the terms “[pjarenting responsibilities,” “[pjerma-nent parenting plan,” “[pjrimary residential…”
Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-401.” 5 Hop *909 kins v.”
Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401 (a) (2010); see also TenmCode Ann.”
Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). “With respect to parenting plans, like the one at issue in this case, the General Assembly has stated that “the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties’ parental responsibilities.”
Angelia Lynette Maupin v. Paul Wayne Maupin, 420 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Before dealing with the merits of the parties’ respective arguments, we will first identify the standard for reviewing the permanent parenting plan entered by the trial court.”
Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 36-6-401(b), -404(c) (2005).”
Shofner v. Shofner, 181 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-401(a) (2001); Aaby v.”
Katie J. Rountree v. Joshua Rountree, 369 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “In fashioning parenting plans, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-401 advises courts that: The general assembly recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and the relationship between the child and each parent should be…”
Desiree M. Beyer v. Erik A. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “§ 36-6-106 and Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-401.” Hopkins v. Hopkins, No.”
Anderson v. Anderson, 56 S.W.3d 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “If and when the concepts embodied in T.C.A. § 36-6-401, et seq., are accorded statewide application, the problem presented by the divorce judgment in this case may be rectified.”
In Re: Jada C.H., a minor child (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-401 et. seq. “As a result, traditional terms such as custody, visitation, custodial parent, and noncustodial parent have given way to new terms, e.”
Christen Nicole Pankratz v. Dion Pankratz (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-402 (2) (“ʽParenting responsibilities’ means those aspects of the parent- child relationship in which the parent makes decisions and performs duties necessary for the care and growth of the child.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401(a): 14 cases
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 36-6-401 (2010)(emphasis added). In facilitating this different approach, more recently enacted parenting statutes have generally replaced the terms “custody” and “visitation” with the terms “[pjarenting responsibilities,” “[pjerma-nent parenting plan,” “[pjrimary residential…”
Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). “With respect to parenting plans, like the one at issue in this case, the General Assembly has stated that “the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties’ parental responsibilities.”
Angelia Lynette Maupin v. Paul Wayne Maupin, 420 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Before dealing with the merits of the parties’ respective arguments, we will first identify the standard for reviewing the permanent parenting plan entered by the trial court.”
Shofner v. Shofner, 181 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-401(a) (2001); Aaby v.”
Kim Renae Nelson v. Loring E. Just. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401(a)(2): 1 case
Deborah Ann hansen v. Ole Hansen (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401(b): 2 cases
Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 36-6-401(b), -404(c) (2005).”
In Re Ayden K.m, 382 S.W.3d 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401(b)(7): 1 case
Deborah Ann hansen v. Ole Hansen (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
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.