Divorce and Custody: Critical Factors Determining Tennessee Custody Cases in 2026

Robert Jackson
May 1
6 min read

For many parents in Williamson County, time spent commuting to and from work can add up. You live in the quiet suburbs of Brentwood or Franklin, but your career takes you into the heart of Nashville or across town to Lebanon and Gallatin. You have to navigate the I-65 corridor from Brentwood or commute from the Franklin Square to Nashville. On a good day, traffic can turn a 15-minute drive into a 45-minute commute; on a rainy Tuesday, it’s much longer.

While you may have mastered this balance for years, everything changes when you enter a divorce. Suddenly, that commute isn't just a nuisance; it’s a piece of evidence. A recent ruling issued by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville should put every working parent facing a divorce in Middle Tennessee on notice that equal “50/50 custody” is not a default guarantee in contested custody cases, especially when one parent is sacrificing more time for their career, even if that sacrifice is improving their child’s quality of life.

Child Custody Factor 14: Employment Schedules, Commute Times, and Impact on Child

Tennessee Code Annotated 36-6-106 lists multiple factors that a Tennessee court should consider when making a custody determination. According to Factor 14, the court must consider each parent's employment schedule when determining a child's best interest. In some instances, this factor could be the “make or break” for one parent receiving primary or even “50/50” custody.

The Commute as a Liability

In analyzing the application of Factor 14 to each individual case, the court may consider such things as

The commute time between each parent’s home and work;
The commute time required to make a 50/50 parenting plan work;
The drop-off time for school required by a parent to make it to work on time;
The use of before or after school care by a parent;
The time a parent gets home from work relative to a child’s bedtime;
Whether a parent is able to personally drive a child to and from school;
The amount of time a parent can spend with the child after school each afternoon.

For example, a parenting schedule that requires a child to spend 9.5 hours in a day between school and third-party childcare was recently scrutinized as not being child-friendly.

The Court’s Verdict on “Fairness”

It is understandable to think that it isn’t fair for a parent who is working hard to support their child to be seemingly punished by a loss of parenting time. However, the Tennessee Appellate Court has been blunt in its rulings: Fairness to a parent should never come at the expense of the child. Put another way, fairness to a parent is secondary to the best interest of the child. If a parent’s work schedule means that the child must spend the majority of their waking hours in the care of someone other than their parent, that must be considered in the Court’s evaluation of the TCA 36-6-106 factors.

The Takeaway for Tennessee Parents:

If you are a high-earning professional in Franklin or Nashville but your spouse is available to be with the kids after school, you cannot simply demand 50/50 time because you feel you “earned” it. You must show that your schedule is in the best interest of the child compared to the proposed alternatives.

Child Custody Factor 5: The “Primary Caregiver” Legacy

Tennessee courts place immense weight on who has historically “done the work” as it pertains to parenting. This is codified in the law with TCA 36-6-106 Factor 5, which looks at the parent who has taken the greater responsibility for daily parental tasks.

A parent that has been the primary caregiver for the parties’ child for the majority of the years; that knows the name of the child’s medication, their dentist, or their correct clothing size, may find themselves at an advantage in a custody consideration by a Court. This could still be true even if the other parent becomes hyper-engaged and substantially involved with the child after the divorce is filed.

The problem with becoming involved after a divorce is filed is that such sudden engagement or “overdrive” parenting could be viewed by a court as being “for show” and an attempt to influence the judge presiding over the custody case. The parent with a long history of handling school, homework, doctor’s appointments, and/or discipline, could be at an advantage by offering continuity and stability for the child, which outweighs the other parent’s desire for equal parenting time.

The Parental Alienation Trap: Teenage Independence vs. Interference

A common and painful theme in Williamson County divorces is the accusation of parental alienation by one parent against the other. The topic of parental alienation is an extensive one that cannot be properly discussed here, but is worth mentioning here as it was a primary issue in the Appellate Opinion referenced herein. In this case, one parent accused the other of alienating them from their teenager, who refused to see him. In this case, the trial court originally agreed, finding that one parent had caused psychological damage to the children. However, the Court of Appeals found zero evidence to support this, and ultimately reversed the trial court’s determination of custody.

Maintaining A Neutral Position

A parent that maintains a neutral position towards the parent in the presence of the child (i.e., one that is neither encouraging nor discouraging the relationship of the other parent and the child) might not be found to be engaging in parental alienation, even when they feel that they are being harassed by the other parent. However, it is worth noting that TCA 36-6-106 Factor 2 tells a court to consider “the willingness and ability of each of the parents … to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and both of the child's parents, consistent with the best interest of the child.” As such, a neutral stance may be viewed negatively by a court considering a child custody determination.

Regardless, the Tennessee Appellate Court has held that a parent’s neutral stance was not alienation when the parties had a teenager who formed their own opinion and perspective, and where there was no expert testimony finding psychological damage to the child. In this instance, without expert testimony, a judge cannot simply label a child “psychologically damaged” because they side with one parent during a difficult time.

Contested divorces are difficult for all parties involved, and the older children are the more they understand what is going on, even if the parties try their best (as they should) to shield them from conflict. It is important to distinguish between children’s natural emotional reactions to the end of a marriage and actual parental alienation.

Child Custody Factor 8: Consideration of a Parent’s Mental Health

TCA 36-6-106 Factor 8 tells a court to consider the “moral, physical, mental and emotional fitness of each parent as it relates to their ability to parent the child.” In one instance, a parent admitted to suffering from an abnormal trauma response to raised voices, causing them to experience physical sickness; admitted to minor interpersonal conflicts creating a “fight or flight” reaction for exactly three days; and to wishing for their own death and/or the other parent’s death during their marital struggles. Though this parent claimed such mental health struggles did not affect their parenting, the Appellate Court disagreed, finding these issues to be concerning and determining that this factor favored the other parent, who did not have such emotional instability.

Why Experience Matters in Middle Tennessee Divorce and Custody Cases

The circumstances described herein are perfect examples of why you cannot treat a divorce or child custody litigation like a math equation. It is a narrative battle. You are telling the story of your family’s history, your child’s daily routine, and your commitment to their future. The law doesn’t say that if one of these circumstances applies to your situation, you automatically “win” your divorce or custody case. Rather, a court is required to consider all of the factors enumerated in TCA 36-6-106 when making a custody determination. The first 16 are mostly specific. Factor 17 states “Any other factors deemed relevant by the court.” This is the catch-all that allows a court to look at whatever it thinks is relevant in determining the best interest of a child. So your personal situation could have circumstances that aren’t specifically stated in Factors 1-16 but still be relevant for the Court’s consideration in a custody determination.

At Lee Jackson Law, we understand that each case and Tennessee law has nuances that need to be considered. We know that the judges in Williamson and Davidson County are looking for the “alpha and omega” of custody considerations: the child’s best interest.

Whether you are:

The Working Professional: Needing to prove that your Nashville career doesn't make you an “absent” parent.
The Primary Caregiver: Seeking to protect the 20-year legacy of care you’ve provided for your children.
The Spouse in a Long-Term Marriage: Fighting for the alimony you need to maintain your standard of living in Brentwood or Franklin.

If you have to go to court, we endeavor to ensure the court will hear and understand your story.

Contact Lee Jackson Law Today

(615) 376-9933

Lee@LeeJacksonLaw.com

5115 Maryland Way, Suite 301, Brentwood, TN 37027

References:

Brown v. Brown, No. M2024-01179-COA-R3-CV

TCA 36-6-106