Tennessee Senate Bill SB1690

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 6, relative to child custody determinations.

Impact

The implications of SB1690 are significant in the context of family law in Tennessee. By establishing joint legal custody as the norm, the bill aligns with contemporary views that emphasize the roles of both parents in a child's upbringing. However, it also introduces a layer of legal complexity as courts must provide detailed written findings should they choose to deviate from this presumption, thus safeguarding the child's best interest. Furthermore, if there are existing orders related to child welfare against a party, this presumption does not apply, thereby allowing courts to make more tailored decisions based on individual circumstances.

Summary

Senate Bill 1690 seeks to amend Tennessee's child custody laws, specifically TCA Title 36, Chapter 6, to create a presumption in favor of joint legal custody and equally shared parenting time as a standard in custody determinations. This presumption is rebuttable, meaning that it can be challenged and overturned within a court of law based on a preponderance of evidence. The bill aims to clearly establish joint legal custody as advantageous for children, reinforcing the importance of shared parental involvement post-separation or divorce.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB1690 appears to be cautiously optimistic amongst advocates for child welfare and family law reform. Proponents argue that the bill will lead to better outcomes for children by promoting active participation from both parents. However, there are concerns regarding the practicality of implementing such changes and ensuring that all custody determinations truly reflect what is in the best interest of the child. Opponents may also worry about situations where shared custody could be detrimental, adding further precedent for litigation in custody cases.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between presuming joint custody versus recognizing special circumstances that may warrant different arrangements. Critics of the bill fear that strict adherence to the joint custody presumption may undermine the judicial discretion necessary in sensitive cases where a child's safety or welfare is at risk. They argue that while the intention of the bill is to improve outcomes for children, there needs to be an adequate mechanism for addressing cases where joint custody may not be in the child's best interest.