Tennessee

Best interests, Divorce grounds, Parental relocation in one jurisdiction reference.

Research dates are shown separately in each topic.

Recent developments

Tennessee · April 16, 2026

Tennessee adds parenting-schedule consideration to best-interest statute

Public Chapter 683 adds a consideration concerning meaningful opportunities for each parent while expressly stating that it creates no parenting-time presumption.

Best interests

Tennessee

Statutory framework; 18 numbered subdivisions including catch-all for actions within 2025 Chapter 265.

Authority

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-106(a), (e); 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

18 numbered subdivisions including catch-all, for actions within 2025 Chapter 265

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble and (a)(18), last, for actions within Chapter 265

Presumptions in the original survey

Joint custody presumed when parents agree, subject to clear and convincing contrary evidence; specified child-sex-offense presumption against custody

Scope, exceptions and safeguards

Child's voice / age rule

Factor count, parenting time and custody presumptions

Public Chapter 683, effective July 1, 2026, makes the child’s best interest paramount in the factor lead-in and inserts subdivision (17) on meaningful opportunities in a proposed or ordered parenting schedule. It expressly creates no parenting-time presumption. Public Chapter 265 of 2025 substituted subdivisions (15)–(17), with the catch-all at (17), and applies to actions filed on or after July 1, 2025. For actions within Chapter 265, applying Chapter 683’s insertion and redesignation yields 18 numbered subdivisions including the catch-all at (18). For an action filed before July 1, 2025, Chapter 265 does not apply by its own terms; the enacted text is the list substituted by 2025 Public Chapter 321 (effective on becoming law in May 2025): sixteen numbered subdivisions with the catch-all at (16). Chapter 683 (effective July 1, 2026) has no application clause and is drafted against the Chapter 265 numbering, so how its new factor applies to a pending earlier-filed action is not stated in any act; no decision or codification note read resolves it. Before Chapter 321, the 2025 Code Bill shows sixteen subdivisions with the catch-all at (15).

For actions within Public Chapter 265, its section 1 directs consideration of the factors only if the limitations in § 36-6-406(a)–(d) are not dispositive of the residential schedule, and requires written findings on whether those limitations apply. Public Chapter 758 extends the specified findings language to temporary as well as permanent custody orders. This summary does not describe the substance of the limitations.

Separately, § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(i) establishes a joint-custody presumption where the parents agree to joint custody, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Subdivisions (ii)–(iii) provide a distinct presumption against custody for a parent convicted of specified sexual offenses against a child under 18, unless the court finds clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; it applies to convictions on or after July 1, 2006, and allowed visitation must be supervised. Other statutory safety restrictions may apply.

Section 36-6-106(e), in the 2025 Code Bill and 2025 code reproduction, says a parent’s disability alone is not considered for or against custody unless it affects the parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. This differs from a general presumption.

Sources (7)

Research date: August 16, 2026

Related reviewed developments

Tennessee adds parenting-schedule consideration to best-interest statute · November 3, 2026

Divorce grounds

Tennessee

Irreconcilable differences under § 36-4-103 requires adequate provision by written agreement for the specified child and property issues. Section 36-4-101(a)(15) separately allows two years apart in separate residences if there are no minor children. Section 36-4-102(b) also permits conversion after more than two years under legal separation, without reconciliation.

Authority: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-4-101 to -103. Current code reproductions, checked against the legislature’s August 27, 2026 enacted-law abstracts.
Grounds without a misconduct showing: Irreconcilable differences under § 36-4-103 requires adequate provision by written agreement for the specified child and property issues. Section 36-4-101(a)(15) separately allows two years apart in separate residences if there are no minor children. Section 36-4-102(b) also permits conversion after more than two years under legal separation, without reconciliation.
Other grounds and proof conditions: (a)(1) to (a)(13): impotence, bigamy, adultery, desertion one year, infamous crime, felony with penitentiary sentence, attempt on spouse's life, refusal to move to Tennessee two years, pregnancy by another at marriage, habitual drunkenness or narcotics, cruel and inhuman treatment (inappropriate marital conduct), indignities, abandonment or turning out of doors (13)
Separation: The ordinary separation ground requires two years in separate residences and no minor children. The separate-decree conversion route has its own conditions and no equivalent minor-child exclusion in § 36-4-102(b).
Timing: Section 36-4-101(b) requires the complaint on file 60 days without an unmarried child under 18, or 90 days with one. Its text applies to divorce grounds generally, not only irreconcilable differences.
Relief without dissolution: Yes, § 36-4-102

Sources (7)

Research date: September 8, 2026

Parental relocation

Tennessee

Statutory relocation factors. No general post-2018 burden allocation identified. Notice is ordinarily 60 days; the petition and response procedure remains separate.

Authority: Tenn. Code Ann. 36-6-108
Court test: statutory relocation factors
Burden classification: no general post-2018 allocation identified
Notice classification: yes
Trigger classification: mileage threshold
Effect of silence: yes
What the court weighs: If an opposition is timely filed, the court decides whether relocation is in the child's best interest using eight statutory factors: (1) nature, quality, extent and duration of the child's relationships with both parents, siblings and significant persons. (2) age, developmental stage and needs, and likely impact on physical, educational and emotional development. (3) feasibility of preserving the non-relocating parent's relationship through suitable visitation, considering logistics and finances. (4) child's preference at 12 or older (younger child on request). (5) whether the relocating parent has an established pattern of promoting or thwarting the other parent's relationship. (6) whether the move enhances general quality of life for both relocating parent and child. (7) each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing. (8) any other best-interest factor, including § 36-6-106(a). If approved, the court modifies the plan for the distance. If denied, it enters a modified plan effective only if the parent moves anyway. Court must consider alternative arrangements, transport costs and a possible child-support deviation. Either parent may recover reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses in the court's discretion. The 2018 amendment removed the former presumption toward relocation and the equal-time and reasonable-purpose analysis (2018 Pub. Ch. 853 § 2; Grace v. Grace (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025), n.3; Dungey v. Dungey (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020), as quoted in Mosby v. Meachem (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026)). The amended statute states no presumption and no burden allocation.
Who carries the burden: Section 36-6-108 does not expressly allocate the burden of proof. No 2019–2026 opinion identified resolves a general post-2018 burden allocation. Grace v. Grace (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025), n.3, states that the 2018 revision removed the presumption toward relocation and abrogated much of the earlier case law; Dungey v. Dungey (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020), as quoted in Mosby, states that the equal-time and reasonable-purpose concepts were removed. Neither opinion allocates a burden under the amended statute. The pre-2018 framework was replaced by the 2018 amendment.
Notice and safety exceptions: Yes. Not later than 60 days before the move (unless excused by the court for exigent circumstances). To the other parent at the last known address by registered or certified mail. Notice must state intent to move, the new location, the reasons, and that absent agreement or objection within 30 days of the mailing the move will be permitted. § 36-6-108(a)
Which moves trigger the rule: After custody or co-parenting is set by a permanent parenting plan or final order, a parent 'spending intervals of time' with the child who desires to relocate outside the state, or more than 50 miles from the other parent within the state. The same procedure and best-interest standard apply to a parent under an injunction under § 36-6-116(a)(4) or § 36-4-106(d)(1)(E). § 36-6-108
Objections and the effect of silence: Objection or agreement window is 30 days from the date the notice is sent. Absent agreement on a new schedule or on a timely objection, the relocating parent files a petition seeking approval. The other parent then has 30 days to file a response in opposition. If no response is filed within 30 days the relocating parent 'shall be permitted' to move. Silence authorizes the move. Mosby v. Meachem (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2026) holds the 30-day response period remains mandatory after the 2018 amendment, applies it to parents with equal parenting time, and finds no good cause for a Rule 6.02 extension. Grace v. Grace (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025) holds the filing of the opposition, not the notice, triggers the court's best-interest duty. § 36-6-108(b)
The modification threshold: A relocation petition under § 36-6-108 does not require a separate material-change threshold before the court applies the relocation procedure and best-interest factors. A request to change custody or the parenting plan raises a distinct modification question. This reference does not rely on the noncitable memorandum opinion Hight or its account of Sanko.
Other qualifications: Silence for 30 days after a relocation petition authorizes the move, and the response deadline is treated as mandatory even for a parent with equal parenting time (Mosby, 2026).
Burden summary: No general allocation identified
Notice summary: 60 days; exceptions apply
Trigger summary: out of state, or more than 50 miles in state

Sources (8)

Research date: September 29, 2026

From research to organized records.

Explore Steadycase’s case-organization tools and jurisdiction source guides.

Explore Steadycase tools

Tennessee organization guide
Explore Steadycase Compass

Publisher’s products · Separate from sponsorship and editorial research