Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (2026)

Modification of permanent parenting plans

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) In a proceeding for a modification of a permanent parenting plan, a proposed parenting plan shall be filed and served with the petition for modification and with the response to the petition for modification. Such plan is not required if the modification pertains only to child support. The obligor parent's proposed parenting plan shall be accompanied by a verified statement of that party's income pursuant to the child support guidelines and related provisions contained in chapter 5 of this title. If the parties cannot agree to a modification of a permanent parenting plan, the process established by § 36-6-404(b) shall be used to establish an amended permanent parenting plan or final decree or judgment.

(b) In a proceeding for a modification of a permanent parenting plan, the existing residential schedule shall not be modified prior to a final hearing unless the parents agree to the modification or the court finds that the child will be subject to a likelihood of substantial harm absent the temporary modification. If a temporary modification of the existing residential schedule is granted ex parte, the respondent shall be entitled to an expedited hearing within fifteen (15) days of the entry of the temporary modification order.

(c) Title IV-D child support cases involving the department of human services or any of its public or private contractors shall be bifurcated from the remaining parental responsibility issues. Separate orders shall be issued concerning Title IV-D issues, which shall not be contained in, or part of, temporary, permanent or modified parenting plans. The department and its public or private contractors shall not be required to participate in mediation or dispute resolution pursuant to this part.

(d) If the parties agree to a modification of an existing permanent parenting plan, and the parties announce to the court and place on the record an agreement specifying the terms of modification, or if the parties execute a permanent parenting plan which modifies a prior order of the court with respect to either custody or residential parenting schedule which is approved through entry of an agreed order, then the court is not required to inquire further and make an independent determination as to whether the modification is in the best interest of the child. An order of the court approving the agreement and stating that the modification is made by agreement of the parties satisfies the requirements of Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The court is not required to accept an agreement of the parties modifying a permanent parenting plan, and this subsection (d) does not diminish the authority of the court to make inquiry and ensure that the modification of the permanent parenting plan is in the best interest of the child, is entered into freely and voluntarily by both parents, and is not the product of duress, coercion, or undue influence.

Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 520, Secs.s3, s4 eff. 3/6/2020.

Acts 1997 , ch. 557, § 1; T.C.A., § 36-6-409; Acts 2000, ch. 889, § 1; 2010 , ch. 956, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 8× “Modification of a Residential Schedule Once a permanent parenting plan has been incorporated in a final divorce decree, the parties are required to comply with it unless and until it is modified as permitted by law.”

Travis Daniel Freeman v. Wendy Y. Freeman, 579 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 23× “About one year after the parties’ divorce, Travis Freeman (father) filed a petition to modify the court-ordered custody arrangement and attached a proposed permanent parenting plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (a) (2017).1 Wendy Freeman (mother) opposed the requested…”

Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “” In light of the nature of modification proceedings under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-405, we conclude that the commencement of proceedings under that section should be treated as the filing of an independent action.”

Courtney P. Brunetz v. Neil A. Brunetz, 573 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (2010). In assessing a petition to modify a permanent parenting plan, the court must first determine if a material change in circumstances has occurred and then apply the “best interest” factors of section 36-6-106(a).”

C.W.H. v. L.A.S., 538 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d at 697 ; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 . "In assessing a petition to modify a permanent parenting plan, the court must first determine if a material change in circumstances has occurred and then apply the 'best interest' factors of section 36-6-106(a).”

Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “His failure to do so violates Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a), which requires that “[i]n a proceeding for a modification of a permanent parenting plan, a proposed parenting plan shall be filed and served with the petition for modification.”

Bradley James Cox v. Laura Nicole Lucas, 576 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2019). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (b) (2017) (authorizing this process).”

Misty Oliver Allen v. Mario Pryor Allen (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 17× “Absence of Proposed Permanent Parenting Plan or Best Interest Analysis Father contends that the trial court erred by permitting Mother’s “Petition Requesting Injunctive Relief and Modification of the Parenting Plan” to go forward despite Mother’s failure to include a proposed…”

Leslie Kay Johnson v. Darren Tracy Johnson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “Father, in arguing that Mother’s petition should be dismissed, cited the fact that Mother failed to file a proposed parenting plan with her petition as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 . On September 5, 2012, Mother filed a proposed permanent parenting plan.”

William Edward Hargrove v. Merriellen Hargrove A/K/A Merriellen Warstler (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “Wife appeals pro se, arguing that the modification of the residential schedule found in the parenting plan is void because the court did not follow Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (a). Wife also argues that the parties’ intent was that she was to receive half the annuity along with…”

Kendra C. Killian v. Aubrey D. Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “However, since the decision in Keisling was rendered in 2002, the Legislature added the following provision to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 in 2010, which deals with modification of permanent parenting plans: In a proceeding for a modification of a permanent parenting plan, the…”

Gregory Charles Hoppe v. Susan Lynn Hoppe (2021). · cites it 5× “” The court also held that the November 2018 and January 2019 restraining orders were void because they violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (b) by temporarily modifying the residential schedule without a finding that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial risk of harm…”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a) — 13 cases

Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “” In light of the nature of modification proceedings under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-405, we conclude that the commencement of proceedings under that section should be treated as the filing of an independent action.”

Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). “Modification of a Residential Schedule Once a permanent parenting plan has been incorporated in a final divorce decree, the parties are required to comply with it unless and until it is modified as permitted by law.”

Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “His failure to do so violates Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a), which requires that “[i]n a proceeding for a modification of a permanent parenting plan, a proposed parenting plan shall be filed and served with the petition for modification.”

Courtney P. Brunetz v. Neil A. Brunetz, 573 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (2010). In assessing a petition to modify a permanent parenting plan, the court must first determine if a material change in circumstances has occurred and then apply the “best interest” factors of section 36-6-106(a).”

Travis Daniel Freeman v. Wendy Y. Freeman, 579 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “About one year after the parties’ divorce, Travis Freeman (father) filed a petition to modify the court-ordered custody arrangement and attached a proposed permanent parenting plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405 (a) (2017).1 Wendy Freeman (mother) opposed the requested…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405(b) — 6 cases

Nicole Aquino Williamson v. Paul Landon Lamm (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).

Marsha Ann Null v. Kenneth Andrew Cummins (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).

John Glen Renken v. Jennifer Marie Renken (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).

Brent H. Moore v. Karen R. Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).

Jesse Clay King v. Brittany Bourgeois Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).

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.