Child Custody and the Tie-Breaker Statute
When seeking to determine who should have custody of a child, Tennessee Courts will use what is known as a “best interest” analysis to decide who should serve as the child’s guardian. Under the best interest analysis, the court will look at a number of factors including love and affection for the child, ability to meet the child’s needs, stability of the family unit, and the prospective guardian’s parenting ability or potential. Tennessee child custody law also contains a statute mandating that certain persons be given greater consideration by the court in making the guardianship determination because of their relationship to the child. T.C.A. section 34-2-103 lists these parties in the following priority, from greatest priority to least: the parent(s) of the minor; the person(s) designated by the parent(s) in a will or other document; adult siblings of the minor; closest relative(s) of the minor; and everyone else. This is a sensible ordering emphasizing what is more than likely what is in the best interest of the child. However, this ordering is not determinative as to the issue of custody. In fact, this ordering will only be referred to in the event that the court’s own best interest determination results in a tie.
A recent case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals involved a custody dispute between a child’s maternal grandmother and paternal aunt. After the child’s father and legal custodian died, the mother was granted temporary custody. The paternal aunt then filed for custody based on the mother’s having mental health issues and the paternal aunt was awarded temporary custody. The aunt’s custody was then challenged by the maternal grandmother who alleged that the aunt had been traveling on business and left the child in the care of other people, and a custody hearing ensued. At trial, the Court found that the although both parties had performed well when caring for the child, the aunt was a person of great achievement and character who had been successful at raising her own children and could provide many opportunities for the child in this case. The Court also looked favorably upon the aunt’s willingness to transport the child to Florida to visit its biological mother and encouragement of the child in maintaining constant contact with its biological mother. The Court ruled that the aunt was clearly favored in the best interest analysis, and thus there was no need to resort to the “tiebreaker” statute of T.C.A. section 34-2-103.
Many people in Tennessee are under the perception that biological parents are always favored in custody disputes regardless of the circumstances, or that parents can automatically determine who the guardian of their child or children will be via a will or some other document in the event of their death. This is not the case in Tennessee. In any custody dispute in Tennessee, the controlling factor will always be what is in the best interest of the child, which may or may not be best served by placing the child under the supervision of a biological parent. It may be true that biological parents are favored in some aspects of the best interest analysis, but their status as biological parents alone will not be determinative of the custody issue. For example, although T.C.A. section 34-2-103 favors biological parents over all other parties in a custody determination, it will only come into play after the court has done a best interest analysis that results in a tie between the interested parties. While the existence of some factors such as love and affection will always favor biological parents under normal circumstances, they can be overcome if the rest of the best interest analysis favors the other party to a greater degree. Thus, parental status is not as controlling in custody determinations as is commonly thought.
Sources: In re T.H., 34 TAM 39-16, 8/27/09, ES, Franks, 7 pages; T.C.A. section 34-2-103.
