Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (2026)
Allocation of parenting responsibilities
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The court shall approve agreements of the parties allocating parenting responsibilities, or specifying rules, if it finds that:
- (1) The agreement is consistent with any limitations on a parent's decision-making authority mandated by § 36-6-406;
- (2) The agreement is knowing and voluntary; and
- (3) The agreement is in the best interest of the child.
- (b) The court may consider a parent's refusal, without just cause, to attend a court-ordered parental educational seminar in making an award of sole decision-making authority to the other parent. The court shall order sole decision making to one (1) parent when it finds that:
- (1) A limitation on the other parent's decision-making authority is mandated by § 36-6-406;
- (2) Both parents are opposed to mutual decision making; or
- (3) One (1) parent is opposed to mutual decision making, and such opposition is reasonable in light of the parties' inability to satisfy the criteria for mutual decision-making authority.
- (c) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b), the court shall consider the following criteria in allocating decision-making authority:
- (1) The existence of a limitation under § 36-6-406;
- (2) The history of participation of each parent in decision making in each of the following areas: physical care, emotional stability, intellectual and moral development, health, education, extracurricular activities, and religion; and whether each parent attended a court-ordered parent education seminar;
- (3) Whether the parents have demonstrated the ability and desire to cooperate with one another in decision making regarding the child in each of the following areas: physical care, emotional stability, intellectual and moral development, health, education, extracurricular activities, and religion; and
- (4) The parents' geographic proximity to one another, to the extent that it affects their ability to make timely mutual decisions.
- (d) When determining whether an agreement allocating parenting responsibilities is in the best interest of the child pursuant to subdivision (a)(3), the court may consider any evidence submitted by a guardian ad litem appointed for the child, if one has been appointed by the court, subject to the Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court relative to guidelines for guardians ad litem appointed for minor children in divorce proceedings and the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
- (e) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the requirements of subsection (a) and Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are conclusively satisfied upon the court's approval of the parties' agreement allocating parenting responsibilities, or specifying rules, and written findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court are not required.
Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 520, s 5, eff. 3/6/2020.
Acts 1997 , ch. 557, § 1; 1998, ch. 1098, § 71; T.C.A., § 36-6-411; Acts 2000, ch. 889, § 1; 2009 , ch. 563, §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Although Father suggests that the June 3 order ran afoul of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-407(a) by failing to find that the parties’ agreement was “knowing and voluntary,” 7 we reject his contention.”
Edna Gergel v. James Gergel (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). “‘The child’s best interests will be served if these decisions can be made without undue delay and stress.”
Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). And in its best-interests analysis, the magistrate found that “Father delayed dental care for [Taliyah] without justification.”
Larry Daniel Cantey v. Alyson Lindsay Cantey (Violette) (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c)(1)-(4). Our role on appeal is to review the specific findings of the trial court against the evidence in the record.”
Brittany Sharayah Lehmann v. Jerry Scott Wilson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). Here, the Magistrate vested sole decision-making authority with Mother, stating that “Mother shall have exclusive decision-making authority regarding educational decisions, -6- non-emergency health care, religious upbringing, and [extra]curricular…”
Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (b)(1). If the basis of limitation is not mandatory under section 406, then the trial court must consider certain criteria: (c) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b), the court shall consider the following criteria in allocating…”
William Lane Lanier v. Corie J. Lanier (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c)(1)-(4). Mother argues that, of the four factors, the only factor upon which proof was presented was factor (3).”
Benjamin Boatman v. Karuna Chaudhary Odziana (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). Mother correctly asserts that, historically, “Father participated very little in comparison to Mother as to both the educational and health related categories.”
Joshua Matthew Brown v. Kimberly Higginbotham Brown (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-407(c) provides factors for consideration in making such a determination.”
Jason Richard Madden v. Jill Cara Madden (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (b) (“The court shall order sole decision-making to one (1) parent when .”
In Re Lennon R. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “- 17 - Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). Both parties requested joint decision-making, except as to decisions regarding the Child’s education—Mother asked for sole-decision making authority in this area.”
Alexander A. Rogin v. Joelle L. Rogin (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c) 3 Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-406 allows the court to eliminate the requirement of mediation or limit parenting time if there is “reliable evidence” of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or if one parent lives with an individual who…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407(a) — 1 case
Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Although Father suggests that the June 3 order ran afoul of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-407(a) by failing to find that the parties’ agreement was “knowing and voluntary,” 7 we reject his contention.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407(a)(2) — 1 case
Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin, 490 S.W.3d 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Although Father suggests that the June 3 order ran afoul of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-407(a) by failing to find that the parties’ agreement was “knowing and voluntary,” 7 we reject his contention.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407(b) — 7 cases
Larry Daniel Cantey v. Alyson Lindsay Cantey (Violette) (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c)(1)-(4). Our role on appeal is to review the specific findings of the trial court against the evidence in the record.”
Randy Arnold v. Kamilah Sanders (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
Jason Richard Madden v. Jill Cara Madden (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (b) (“The court shall order sole decision-making to one (1) parent when .”
Michael Charles Smallbone v. Jennifer Elizabeth Smallbone (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022).
Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). And in its best-interests analysis, the magistrate found that “Father delayed dental care for [Taliyah] without justification.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407(b)(1) — 1 case
Julie Duff Petty v. Randy Neal Petty (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407(c) — 9 cases
Edna Gergel v. James Gergel (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). “‘The child’s best interests will be served if these decisions can be made without undue delay and stress.”
Joshua Matthew Brown v. Kimberly Higginbotham Brown (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-407(c) provides factors for consideration in making such a determination.”
Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c). And in its best-interests analysis, the magistrate found that “Father delayed dental care for [Taliyah] without justification.”
Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, III (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
William Lane Lanier v. Corie J. Lanier (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-407 (c)(1)-(4). Mother argues that, of the four factors, the only factor upon which proof was presented was factor (3).”
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.