Narrative Opinion Summary
Before changing an existing custody determination, a trial court must establish that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that the change serves the best interest of the minor child, as per the precedents set in Blair v. Badenhope and Kendrick v. Shoemake. The trial court in this case failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the material change in circumstances, as mandated by T.C.A. 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(I), which requires courts to detail the reasons and facts supporting custody decisions. Furthermore, the trial court did not conduct the necessary best interest analysis, which should adhere to the factors outlined in T.C.A. 36-6-106. The dissent emphasizes that procedural and substantive requirements established by the legislature and the Tennessee Supreme Court must be strictly followed in custody cases. The judge advocates for remanding the case to the trial court to ensure proper findings and a comprehensive best interest analysis are performed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Best Interest of the Child Analysissubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court did not conduct the necessary best interest analysis, which should adhere to statutory factors.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the trial court did not conduct the necessary best interest analysis, which should adhere to the factors outlined in T.C.A. 36-6-106.
Modification of Custody Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court is required to establish a material change in circumstances and determine that such change is in the best interest of the minor child before modifying an existing custody arrangement.
Reasoning: Before changing an existing custody determination, a trial court must establish that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that the change serves the best interest of the minor child, as per the precedents set in Blair v. Badenhope and Kendrick v. Shoemake.
Procedural and Substantive Compliance in Custody Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dissent highlights the necessity of strict adherence to procedural and substantive requirements set by the legislature and the Tennessee Supreme Court in custody cases.
Reasoning: The dissent emphasizes that procedural and substantive requirements established by the legislature and the Tennessee Supreme Court must be strictly followed in custody cases.
Remand for Proper Findings and Analysissubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judge advocates for remanding the case to ensure proper findings and a comprehensive best interest analysis are performed.
Reasoning: The judge advocates for remanding the case to the trial court to ensure proper findings and a comprehensive best interest analysis are performed.
Requirement for Specific Findings of Factsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the material change in circumstances as required by T.C.A. 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(I).
Reasoning: The trial court in this case failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the material change in circumstances, as mandated by T.C.A. 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(I), which requires courts to detail the reasons and facts supporting custody decisions.