No Custody Jurisdiction Over Case First Filed in Scotland By Wife

Tennessee child custody case summary on international jursidiction in divorce.

Roger Chase Hagans v. Rachel Wallock Hagans

The mother and father were married in California in 2011, and their son was born that same year.  The father was a member of the Marine Corps and was deployed for six months shortly after the birth.  In 2013, they moved to Tennessee, where the father completed a college degree in 2015.  He was accepted into a masters degree program in Scotland.  The parents separated in 2016, and the parents lived separately in Scotland.  The mother went to court in Scotland to obtain an order allowing her to return to California.  A few days later, the father filed for divorce in Franklin County, Tennessee, and alleged irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.  He asked for, and was given, an order requiring the mother to return the child to him and not leave the jurisdiction of the court.

After a hearing, the trial court held that Tennessee had home state status under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and scheduled a telephone conference with the appropriate official in Scotland.  The mother then made an immediate appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  While the appeal was pending, the court in Scotland first held that Tennessee was a more appropriate forum.  But a few days before the appeal was heard in Tennessee, a higher Scottish court reversed that decision.  On appeal, the mother argued that the Scottish court had jurisdiction, since the custody matter had been filed there first, and that the finding of Tennessee being the child’s home state was erroneous.

The appeals court looked first at domicile, and whether the father was a bona fide resident of Tennessee when the case was filed.  It agreed with the lower court that the father was a resident of Tennessee.  It noted that they had lived in Tennessee longer than any other place, and that the move to Scotland was temporary and for the purpose of studies.  In particular, there was no evidence that either of them intended to remain in Scotland permanently.

The court then turned to the UCCJEA issue, and began by looking at the nature of the proceedings in Scotland.  It noted that she had sought a “residence order” in that case, and had sought a specific order regarding the move to California.  It also pointed out that the father had sought an order from the Scottish court for an order allowing relocation to Tennessee.

Based upon these findings, the Court of Appeals held that the court in Scotland had jurisdiction, and that Tennessee would have jurisdiction only if ceded by the Scottish court.

For these reasons, even though the court affirmed other parts of the lower court’s ruling, it reversed the parenting plan and remanded the case.

No. M2017-00174-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.