Amy Ausenbaugh Sturdivant v. William Eugene Sturdivant, M2016-00976-COA-R3-CV

Mother filed for divorce (June 3, 2015) alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences; Father admitted irreconcilable differences but alleged Mother’s inappropriate conduct and sought equal parenting time for three daughters (ages 4, 9, 15).
Parties mediated and divided marital property; trial on outstanding issues occurred March 8, 2016. Trial evidence addressed parenting roles, substance use, work schedules, and Mother’s post-separation affair.
Mother testified she primarily cared for the children after losing prior job and now works from home; she alleged Father used alcohol and marijuana and isolated himself with video games, sometimes with children present.
Father testified he had been primary caregiver while Mother traveled previously, planned a career change to increase parenting availability, denied wrongdoing, and sought equal residential time to repair relationship with eldest child.
Trial court initially named Mother primary residential parent, later modified visitation via letter: weekly one night, every other weekend, alternating summer weeks, and counseling for Father and eldest child; final decree entered April 4, 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father should receive equal parenting time	Mother argued schedule awarding her primary residential time served children’s best interests	Sturdivant argued trial court erred and should have awarded him equal time given statutory direction to maximize both parents’ participation	Court affirmed trial court — no abuse of discretion; equal time not required where not in child’s best interest
Whether court erred by not granting father a fault-based divorce for mother’s infidelity	Mother sought divorce (pleaded inappropriate conduct and irreconcilable differences) and did not concede fault allocation	Father argued Mother’s affair warranted a fault-based divorce in his favor	Court affirmed trial court’s use of divorce declaration under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129 — evidence showed fault by both parties; no prejudice shown

Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (trial court’s parenting-schedule decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate courts should not modify parenting schedules absent abuse of discretion)
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (defines abuse of discretion standards)
Massey-Holt v. Holt, 255 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (trial judges are better positioned to assess parenting credibility and facts)
Brumit v. Brumit, 948 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (parenting decisions are factually driven)