This article focuses on parents who already have a Tennessee parenting plan or custody order. The language of the controlling order is the starting point in any school-choice dispute.
Start With the Educational Decision-Making Section of the Parenting Plan
Tennessee law treats the child’s residential schedule and major decision-making authority as separate parts of a permanent parenting plan.
Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-404, a permanent parenting plan allocates decision-making authority to one or both parents for major subjects that include education, health care, extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing. The same statute separately provides that each parent may make day-to-day decisions concerning the child while the child is residing with that parent.
That distinction matters. Routine choices during a parent’s residential time are not the same as a major decision about school placement.
Before either parent assumes they have the final say, review the current parenting plan for joint or sole educational authority, final or tie-breaking authority, consultation requirements, school-specific provisions, transportation terms, and the dispute-resolution method selected in the plan.
Parents with broader questions about custody and residential schedules can review The Cassell Firm’s Nashville child custody page. This article stays focused on school-choice authority.
Can the Primary Residential Parent Choose the Child’s School?
Not automatically.
Tennessee’s parenting-plan form identifies the primary residential parent for certain legal purposes while separately addressing major decision-making authority. The form also states that the primary residential parent designation does not change either parent’s rights or responsibilities under the parenting plan.
A 2022 Tennessee Court of Appeals case, Heather Anne (Coats) Emch v. Edward Glen Emch, III, illustrates this distinction. The mother was the primary residential parent, but the parenting plan gave the parents joint authority over educational decisions. The parents disagreed about where their daughter should attend school. The trial court selected a Williamson County school while leaving joint educational decision-making authority in place, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The case supports a narrow point: primary residential parent status did not, by itself, resolve the school-placement dispute.
What If the Parents Share Educational Decision-Making Authority?
Joint educational authority generally calls for both parents to participate in major educational decisions.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-404 distinguishes major educational decisions from day-to-day care. A change from one school to another can therefore raise an issue under the major-decision provisions of a parenting plan.
Joint authority does not mean every classroom, homework, or routine school matter requires agreement. The focus is on major educational decisions governed by the order.
If mutual decision-making breaks down, the disagreement does not automatically give either parent sole authority. The dispute-resolution language in the current plan becomes important.
Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-404(a)(4), a permanent parenting plan generally provides for dispute resolution before court action unless that process is precluded or limited by § 36-6-406. Tennessee parenting-plan materials also call for a good-faith effort to use the selected process before returning to court, subject to the terms and exceptions in the order and statute.
What If One Parent Already Enrolled the Child in Another School?
Enrollment paperwork does not, by itself, amend a Tennessee parenting plan or change the allocation of educational decision-making authority.
That does not mean unilateral enrollment automatically requires the child to be removed from the new school.
Kimber Keplinger Bastone v. James Michael Bastone shows why the distinction matters. In that case, the parents shared educational decision-making authority, and the mother unilaterally enrolled a child at Baylor School. The trial court found that the mother had acted unilaterally, but it also determined that remaining at Baylor was in the child’s best interest and kept joint decision-making authority in place. The appellate court affirmed the relevant judgment.
The case does not give parents permission to disregard joint-decision provisions. It shows that a Tennessee court may separately examine the enrollment, the child’s interests, the existing parenting plan, and the relief requested.
For a school-specific dispute, useful records may include the current parenting plan, later orders affecting educational authority, enrollment or withdrawal documents, communications about the proposed school, transportation information, and school records tied to the reason for the proposed change.
What If One Parent Has Sole Educational Decision-Making Authority?
When a parenting plan gives one parent sole educational decision-making authority, that parent generally has authority over major educational decisions, including school selection, subject to the exact language and any special provisions in the court order.
The full order still matters. A school change may affect transportation, exchanges, after-school activities, or another part of the residential schedule. The plan may also require consultation, notice, or compliance with school-specific terms.
Some orders do not fit neatly into a simple joint-or-sole description. A court order may require consultation with the other parent while giving one parent final or tie-breaking authority. Parents should look for that language before treating a disagreement as resolved.
Sole authority over education also does not necessarily give that parent sole authority over health care, extracurricular activities, religious upbringing, or other major decisions.
What Happens When Parents Cannot Agree About the Child’s School?
A court can resolve a school-placement dispute, and a court can allocate or later modify educational decision-making authority when Tennessee law permits it.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-407 lists criteria for allocating decision-making authority. Among them are limits imposed under § 36-6-406, each parent’s history of participation in decisions concerning areas that include education, the parents’ demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate in decision-making, and geographic proximity to the extent it affects timely mutual decisions.
A school-choice dispute can expose a larger problem with joint decision-making, but disagreement over one school does not automatically require a court to give one parent sole educational authority. Emch illustrates that a court can resolve the specific school-placement issue while leaving joint educational authority intact.
A 2026 Tennessee Decision Addressed Sole Educational Authority
In Yonas M. Teshale v. Fanchaisavanh Lanexang, filed January 6, 2026, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a modified parenting plan that gave the mother sole decision-making authority over educational and non-emergency health-care decisions.
The father challenged the modified allocation of decision-making authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Teshale does not create a rule that ordinary disagreement over school selection leads to sole educational authority. It confirms that educational decision-making can be modified when the governing legal standards and case record support that change.
Can Educational Decision-Making Authority Be Changed Later?
Yes. Educational decision-making authority can be part of a later request to modify a permanent parenting plan.
A school disagreement alone does not automatically change the existing order. Until the parties obtain an approved agreement or the court modifies the plan, the current order remains the governing document.
Tennessee appellate decisions have affirmed modifications from joint decision-making to sole educational authority when the applicable modification and best-interest standards were satisfied.
The Cassell Firm addresses the broader rules for changing existing family-court orders on its post-divorce modification page, so this article does not repeat that general analysis.
Private School Choice and Tuition Can Be Separate Questions
A private-school dispute can involve two different issues:
- Who has authority to make the educational decision?
- What financial obligation, if any, does the existing order impose for private-school tuition?
The answer to the first question does not automatically decide the second.
Bastone is useful on this point because the litigation involved both educational decision-making and private-school tuition. The court addressed the child’s attendance at Baylor and the father’s financial responsibility under the facts and orders involved in that case.
In another family’s case, financial responsibility may depend on the parenting plan, marital dissolution agreement, child-support order, or another court order.
Authority to select a private school does not automatically create a duty for the other parent to pay tuition. An educational-expense provision also does not automatically give either parent unrestricted school-selection authority.
When a School Change Affects the Parenting Schedule
A proposed school can create practical consequences beyond the educational decision itself.
A new school may affect morning travel, pickup arrangements, after-school care, extracurricular transportation, distance from each parent’s home, or weekday parenting exchanges.
Those effects do not mean every school change requires a different residential schedule. They may become relevant if school placement makes the existing schedule difficult to carry out or becomes part of a request to modify the parenting plan.
School-selection authority and the residential schedule should still be analyzed as separate parts of the order.
What Should a Parent Review Before a School Disagreement Escalates?
Start with the most recent parenting plan and any later orders. Focus on provisions addressing educational authority, final or tie-breaking authority, consultation or notice, dispute resolution, school placement, transportation, and educational expenses.
Then compare those terms with enrollment documents and communications showing what has already happened.
This focused review helps identify the actual school-choice issue without repeating broader custody questions addressed elsewhere.
Frequently Asked Questions About Changing a Child’s School in Tennessee
Can the primary residential parent change a child’s school in Tennessee?
Primary residential parent status does not automatically give that parent sole educational decision-making authority. The current parenting plan should be reviewed to determine how major educational decisions are allocated.
What if both parents share educational decision-making authority?
Both parents generally participate in major educational decisions under a joint-decision provision. If they cannot agree, the parenting plan’s dispute-resolution terms and exact language become important. A unilateral decision does not automatically change the existing allocation of authority.
Can one parent enroll the child in a new school before the other parent agrees?
Enrollment itself does not amend the parenting plan. If the parents share educational authority, unilateral action can become part of a later dispute. Tennessee cases also show that unilateral enrollment does not create an automatic rule requiring removal from the new school.
Can a Tennessee court decide which school a child will attend?
Yes. Emch shows that a Tennessee court can resolve a specific school-placement dispute between parents who share educational decision-making authority without necessarily reallocating that authority.
Can a Tennessee court give one parent sole authority over school decisions?
Yes. Tennessee law permits educational decision-making authority to be allocated to one parent or both parents. Section 36-6-407 directs courts to consider statutory criteria that include the parents’ history of participation in decisions and their demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate.
Does choosing a private school automatically decide who pays tuition?
No. School-selection authority and financial responsibility for private-school tuition can be governed by different provisions and orders.
School-Choice Disputes Start With the Existing Tennessee Court Order
A Tennessee school-choice dispute usually begins with the current parenting plan.
The primary residential parent designation does not automatically give one parent control over school selection. Joint educational authority does not disappear because one parent enrolls the child first. At the same time, Tennessee cases show that unilateral enrollment does not create an automatic remedy or predetermined result.
The educational decision-making provision, dispute-resolution terms, final or tie-breaking authority, school-specific language, and practical effect of the proposed change can all matter.
If a school change has already occurred or the parents have reached an impasse, a Nashville family lawyer can review the governing order and explain how Tennessee law applies to the particular school dispute. The available legal options depend on the terms of the order, the relief requested, and the facts presented.