Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-4-213 (2026)
State appropriations to child advocacy centers
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), on and after July 1, 1998, no state funds appropriated specifically for child advocacy centers shall be allocated or paid to any such center unless the center clearly demonstrates that it:
- (1) Is a nonprofit corporation which has received a determination of exemption from the internal revenue service under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3);
- (2) Employs an executive director who is answerable to the board of directors and who is not the salaried employee of any governmental entity signing the memorandum of understanding and working protocol identified in subdivision (a)(3);
- (3) Has a signed memorandum of understanding and working protocol executed among:
- (A) The department of children's services;
- (B) All county and municipal law enforcement agencies within the geographical area served by the center;
- (C) All district attorneys general offices within the geographical area served by the center; and
- (D) Any other governmental entity which participates in child abuse investigations or offers services to child abuse victims within the geographical area served by the center;
- (4) Facilitates the use of a multidisciplinary team (representing prosecution, law enforcement, mental health, medical, child protective and social services professionals and the juvenile court) which jointly:
- (A) Assess victims of child abuse and their families; and
- (B) Determine the need for services;
- (5) Provides a facility that is child-focused, neutral, comfortable, private, and safe, where the multidisciplinary team can meet to coordinate the efficient and appropriate disposition of child abuse cases through the civil and criminal justice systems;
- (6) Provides for the provision of needed services, referral to such services, and case tracking;
- (7) Has written policies and procedures consistent with the standards established by the National Children's Alliance; and
- (8) Agrees to accurately collect and report key outcome data and information relative to each center's operations to the Tennessee chapter of children's advocacy centers, which is the statewide membership organization. The Tennessee chapter of children's advocacy centers shall compile and report such data annually to the chairs of the judiciary committee of the senate, civil justice committee of the house of representatives, health and welfare committee of the senate, and health committee of the house of representatives. The data and information collected pursuant to this subdivision (a)(8) shall include, at a minimum, the following:
- (A) Number and demographic profiles of cases served by age, gender, race, type of abuse, and treatment thereof, including mental health and medical services rendered;
- (B) Demographic profiles of perpetrators of abuse by age, gender, race, relationship to victim, and the outcome of any legal action taken against such perpetrators;
- (C) Nature of services and support provided by or through the center; and
- (D) Data and information relative to community investment in and community support of the center.
- (b)
- (1) On and after July 1, 1998, no state funds appropriated specifically for one-time, start-up assistance for new child advocacy centers shall be allocated or paid to any such center unless the center clearly demonstrates that it:
- (A) Has a signed memorandum of understanding and working protocol executed among:
- (i) The department of children's services;
- (ii) All county and municipal law enforcement agencies within the area served by the center;
- (iii) All district attorneys general offices within the area served by the center; and
- (iv) Any other governmental entity which participates in child abuse investigations or offers services to child abuse victims within the area served by the center; and
- (B) Has formally filed an application for a determination of exemption from the internal revenue service under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
- (A) Has a signed memorandum of understanding and working protocol executed among:
- (2) After receiving any such start-up assistance, no additional state funds appropriated specifically for child advocacy centers shall be allocated or paid to such center unless the center clearly demonstrates that it complies with the enumerated requirements set forth in subsection (a).
- (1) On and after July 1, 1998, no state funds appropriated specifically for one-time, start-up assistance for new child advocacy centers shall be allocated or paid to any such center unless the center clearly demonstrates that it:
- (c) In those geographical areas in which a child advocacy center meets the requirements of subsection (a) or (b), child advocacy center directors or their designees shall be members of the child protective multi-disciplinary teams under title 37, chapter 1, parts 4 and 6, for purposes of provision of services and functions established by this section or delegated pursuant to this section. In such event, child advocacy center directors or their designees may access and generate all necessary information, which shall retain its confidential status, consistent with § 37-1-612.
- (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, the department of children's services, or any other department administering state funds specially appropriated for child advocacy centers, shall continue to allocate and/or pay such funds to existing child advocacy centers with active applications on file with the department, if such centers demonstrate satisfactory progress in efforts to achieve compliance with this section.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 64, s 10, eff. 3/29/2021.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 345, s 17, eff. 5/10/2019.
Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 678, Secs.s 2, s 3 eff. 7/1/2018.
Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 678, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 236, s 21, eff. 4/19/2013.
Acts 1998, ch. 988, § 1; T.C.A. § 9-6-123; Acts 1999, ch. 453, § 3; 2011 , ch. 410, § 3(a).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Travis Ruzicka (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Travis Ruzicka (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 9-4-213 (setting forth the requirements for child advocacy centers to receive state appropriations), 24-7-123(b)(3)(A) (generally requiring a forensic interviewer to be employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of section 9-4-213).”
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Benton testified that she was a forensic interviewer at the CAC in Rutherford County, which was compliant with the criteria in Code section 9-4-213. She confirmed that she conducted forensic interviews with A.”
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “Lewis was employed by the Memphis Child Advocacy center, a non-profit corporation that meets the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-4-213(a) and provides a neutral, child-friendly environment to conduct the forensic interview.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lee Clymer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “The requirements for the interviewer are that the interviewer: (A) Was employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b); provided, however, that an interview shall not be inadmissible solely because the interviewer is employed by a child…”
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Worley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The trial court further found that the interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer employed by a child advocacy center meeting the statutory requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-4-213 and that Ms. Fuller had satisfied all of the necessary education and…”
State of Tennessee v. Clinton Austin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “Roberts testified that she was familiar with Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-4-213 regarding the statutory requirements for child advocacy centers and that she had previously testified in other hearings regarding the Center’s status as a nonprofit organization.”
Josh W. Newell v. Jeff Maitland (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “In those geographical areas in which a child advocacy center meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b), child advocacy center directors, or their designees, shall be members of the teams under this part and part 4 of this chapter for the purposes of provision of services and…”
State of Tennessee v. Justin Tyler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Jacque Bouvier Bennett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Victor Gordon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “The Memphis Child Advocacy Center meets the statutory requirements of T.C.A. 9-4-213; -3- 3. Considering all of the factors in T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-4-213(a) — 11 cases
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “Lewis was employed by the Memphis Child Advocacy center, a non-profit corporation that meets the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-4-213(a) and provides a neutral, child-friendly environment to conduct the forensic interview.”
State of Tennessee v. Justin Tyler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lee Clymer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “The requirements for the interviewer are that the interviewer: (A) Was employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b); provided, however, that an interview shall not be inadmissible solely because the interviewer is employed by a child…”
State of Tennessee v. Philip Michael Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-4-213(a)(2) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Lee Clymer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “was used to make the video recording was capable of making an accurate recording; and (K) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the court; (3) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the following qualifications at the time the video recording was made, as…”
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lester Haven (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “The requirements for the interviewer are that the interviewer: (A) Was employed by a child advocacy center that meets the requirements of § 9-4-213(a) or (b); provided, however, that an interview shall not be inadmissible solely because the interviewer is employed by a child…”
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Benton testified that she was a forensic interviewer at the CAC in Rutherford County, which was compliant with the criteria in Code section 9-4-213. She confirmed that she conducted forensic interviews with A.”
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.