Summary of Bill SB 2539 (Session 114) – Tennessee
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Topic: Child Custody and Support
Status: As introduced and amended (companion HB 2127)
Sponsors: Senate – Tom Hatcher; House – Alexander (HB 2127)
Effective Date: Upon becoming law
Core purpose
- Reforms governing how courts determine the best interests of a child in custody cases.
- Emphasizes consideration of credible evidence of abuse and domestic violence, expands the scope of evidence that can be admitted, and requires specific written findings and protective-services review in custody decisions.
Key provisions and changes
1) Admission of prior conduct evidence in custody determinations
- New subsection added to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(g):
- The doctrine of res judicata does not preclude admission of evidence about a parent’s or caregiver’s conduct that occurred before the most recent parenting plan if it is relevant to the child’s best interests.
- “Evidence” is broadly defined to include sworn testimony, medical/mental health records, psychological evaluations, police reports, CPS records, school/childcare records, audio/video/photographic documentation, expert findings, prior court dockets, and credible reports by mandated reporters.
2) Weight of abuse evidence in best-interest determinations
- Subsection (h): Courts must give the highest weight to credible evidence of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence when determining the child’s best interests.
- This highest-weight standard applies equally to abuse against any member of the child’s household (e.g., the child, siblings, foster or step-siblings, etc.).
3) Consideration of temporary/ permanent custody restrictions
- Subsection (i): When issuing a custody order (temporary or permanent), courts must consider the restrictions in § 36-6-406 (which governs temporary or restricted custody provisions).
4) Presumption against placing a child with an abusing parent; required rebuttal findings and records review
- Subsection (j):
- Creates a presumption that placement with a parent who has been found to have committed physical abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence is not in the child’s best interest.
- If a court places a child with such a parent, the custody order must include written findings detailing why the presumption is rebutted.
- Before issuing such an order, the court must review available protective-services records concerning the child.
5) Clarifying fiscal and procedural notes
- The accompanying fiscal notes indicate a NOT SIGNIFICANT fiscal impact:
- Requiring written findings of fact in custody orders (temporary or permanent) aligns with existing law requiring such findings; the amendment clarifies applicability to both temporary and permanent orders without increasing court expenditures.
- Reviewing protective services records is already a factor courts consider; no significant additional cost anticipated.
Who could be affected
- Parents and caregivers involved in custody determinations across Tennessee.
- Children in custody proceedings, including those in households with abuse, domestic violence, or protective-services involvement.
- Courts and family-law practitioners, who must apply the higher evidentiary weighting and include required written findings.
Timeline and procedural notes
- Effective date: upon becoming law.
- The bill emphasizes written findings in custody orders and requires courts to consider, and in some cases document, abuse-related evidence and protective-services records during custody proceedings.
- Legislative history shows progression through Senate Judiciary Committee with amendments and companion House bill (HB 2127) linking to the same provisions.
Overall impact
- Strengthens protections for children by elevating credible abuse evidence in custody decisions.
- Expands admissible evidence to include pre-existing conduct prior to the most recent parenting plan.
- Imposes a clear presumption against placing children with abusers, while mandating explicit findings when such placement occurs.
- Aims to be implemented without significant new cost to courts, leveraging existing processes and records.
