Jennifer Steakin v. Daniel Steakin, M2017-00115-COA-R3-CV

Background

Parents divorced in 2010; original permanent parenting plan awarded equal parenting time (Father 3 days one week/4 days next).
When the child started school in 2012 parents informally shifted to Father having every-other-weekend parenting time, summer alternate weeks, and shared holidays; they followed that schedule for ~3 years without court approval.
Mother filed to modify the parenting plan in April 2015 to approve and memorialize the informal schedule, to adjust child support, and to obtain sole decision-making for education and non-emergency healthcare.
At trial Mother proposed a plan allocating 277 days/year to her and 88 days/year to Father; Father did not offer an alternative plan and did not contest the day-count at trial but argued for reinstating equal parenting time and opposed sole decision-making for Mother.
The trial court adopted Mother’s proposed plan, found a material change of circumstances and that modification was in the child’s best interest, awarded Mother sole authority for education/non-emergency healthcare, ordered Father to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees, and applied 5.5% post-judgment interest.
On appeal Father raised multiple challenges (insufficient Rule 52.01 findings, material-change analysis, best-interest analysis, calculation of Father’s days, sole decision-making, holiday/division details, attorney’s fee award/interest). The Court of Appeals affirmed in full and awarded Mother attorney’s fees on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court made sufficient findings under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01	Findings plus uncontested testimony provide an adequate basis for review	Trial court failed to make specific subsidiary findings, warranting remand	Affirmed — record and limited disputed facts let appellate court "soldier on" and review de novo where necessary
Whether a material change in circumstances was shown	Failure to follow plan since 2012, Father’s relocation and work changes satisfy low statutory threshold	Argued trial court failed to consider other factors	Affirmed — evidence undisputed; statute’s low threshold met (including failure to adhere to plan)
Whether modification was in child’s best interest	Continuity, Mother as primary caregiver, stable school/childcare arrangement justify plan and decision-making authority	Father urged return to equal time and joint decision-making	Affirmed — court reasonably relied on continuity, Mother’s caregiving role, and best-interest factors; no abuse of discretion
Whether awarding Mother sole education and non-emergency healthcare decision-making was proper	Mother as primary caregiver and more involved in education/health allows prompt, informed decisions in child’s best interest	Father argued decisions should remain joint per original plan	Affirmed — evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s decision
Whether calculation of Father’s parenting days and child-support allocation was erroneous	Mother’s counting consistent with proposed plan	Father asserted calculation understated his days (claimed 101 days)	Affirmed — appellate court recalculated and agreed with trial court’s 88 days figure
Whether awarding attorney’s fees and 5.5% interest was proper	Fees authorized under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103(c); statutory post-judgment interest mandatory	Father objected to fee award and the 5.5% statutory rate	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion on fees; post-judgment interest rate dictated by statute and AOC publication; Mother awarded appellate fees and remand for amount determination

Key Cases Cited

Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (two-step test for modifying residential parenting schedule; low threshold for material change when altering schedule)
Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 requirement that findings show steps leading to ultimate conclusions)
Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate de novo review when trial court fails to make adequate findings)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate standard for reviewing custody determinations; trial court discretion)
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained for family-law factual findings)
Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (applying Armbrister standards to primary-residential-parent decisions)
In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26 (Tenn. 2001) ("the court speaks through its order, not through the transcript")