WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1255

Civil Procedure - As enacted, requires, in a child custody order, the court to include written findings of fact as to whether the limitations in present law relative to restrictions in temporary or permanent parenting plans apply; makes other changes relative to child court proceedings; clarifies, for purposes of domestic abuse law, that "abuse" includes acts inflicted directly by the offending party or indirectly through a third party, including, but not limited to, a family member, friend, significant other, or coworker, on behalf of the offending party. - Amends TCA Title 36 and Title 37.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Becky Jo Alexander

Tennessee law now requires courts to document custody restrictions in writing and expands domestic abuse protections to include indirect harm through third parties acting on behalf of offenders.

Comp. became Pub. Ch. 265
#civilprocedure
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1255

Legislative bill overview

HB 1255 modifies Tennessee child custody and domestic abuse law by requiring courts to include written findings of fact when applying parenting plan restrictions in custody orders. The bill also expands the definition of domestic abuse to include acts committed indirectly through third parties acting on behalf of an abuser, such as family members, friends, coworkers, or others.

Why is this important

The written findings requirement increases judicial transparency and creates a clearer record for appeals in custody cases. The expanded domestic abuse definition addresses patterns where abusers use intermediaries to harass or harm victims—a common tactic in controlling relationships—potentially protecting more abuse survivors by broadening legal recourse and documentation.

Potential points of contention

  • Increased litigation costs: Requiring detailed written findings may lengthen custody proceedings and increase legal expenses for families already in conflict
  • Evidentiary burden: Proving indirect abuse "on behalf of" an offender could be challenging and lead to disputes over whether a third party's actions were truly coordinated with the abuser
  • Scope ambiguity: The phrase "on behalf of the offending party" lacks precise definition, potentially creating inconsistent application across courts and encouraging expansive interpretations

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.