Per UCCJEA, Jurisdiction Remained in TN Even Though Child Lived in IN

Tennessee law case summary on child custody jurisdiction in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals. Note this is the second article on this case in the blog.

In Re: Marquise T.G. – TN Court has Jurisdiction Although Child Lived in Indiana for Almost Three Years – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act “UCCJEA”

This case raises the question of a court’s jurisdiction over child custody issues.  Amber N. Newton, the mother and Bryant E. Gilbert, the father, are the biological parents of Marquise T.G., the child, who was born in May, 2004, in Indiana.  The mother’s mother, Kimberli Stacey (the grandmother), also lived in Indiana.   The parents were never married.  The mother lived in Indiana after the child was born and the father lived in Tennessee.  The mother returned to Tennessee when the child was 18 months old and filed a Petition to Establish Paternity in the Juvenile courts.  The father was ordered to pay child support and the mother was named the primary residential parent.

In June 2008, following the mother’s request for help with Marquise, the grandmother brought the child to live with her in Indiana.  He lived there for 30 months and the grandmother was his primary caregiver.  She saw to all of his needs, including registering him for school, bringing him to after school activities and taking care of medical issues, which included allergy problems and surgery for the removal of tonsils and adenoids.  During this time, the grandmother brought the child to Tennessee about 10 times to see the mother, and the mother visited him in Indiana twice.  The father never went to Indiana and spoke to the child once or twice during this time.

In October 2010 the father filed a petition asking to be named the primary residential parent and requesting the mother be found in contempt of court for disobeying the court’s order and removing the child from Tennessee.  The grandmother contested the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the trial should take place in Indiana since this was now the child’s home state.

The trial court ruled that the court in Tennessee had jurisdiction to decide the custody issue, holding that the residence of the child is not “necessarily the determination of a court’s jurisdiction.”  The court held that, Marquise maintained a significant connection to the state of Tennessee because his mother lived there and still had legal custody of him.   Following this decision, another trial was held and a new parenting order given, making the mother the primary residential parent, allowing the father 135 days of visitation and permitting the grandmother to see the child two weeks in July each year.

Jurisdiction Remains in Tennessee

The grandmother appealed the parenting order, claiming the court did not have jurisdiction to modify its earlier order.  The appeals court held that since she has no legal standing because she is not a parent or other legal guardian, she has no claim to make regarding jurisdiction.  The court, however, chose to consider the matter of jurisdiction anyway.

The applicable law here is the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”).  The UCCJEA gives the original court that made the custody determination the right to decide if has continued, exclusive jurisdiction.  The court must, according to the law, take into consideration the child’s and the parents’ connection to the state and whether or not the parents reside in the state.  While the court recognized that the child may have acquired a new “home state,” this was not the only consideration for the court.  So long as one parent remained in Tennessee and there was substantial evidence in the state regarding the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships, jurisdiction remained in Tennessee.

The court also rejected the grandmother’s comparison to another case, Graham.  There, the court of appeals held that the court in the state in which the children lived (Florida) had jurisdiction over custody.  This followed the father’s petition to the Tennessee courts to modify custody due to a change in circumstances (abuse) and make him the primary parent.  The appeals court in the current case held that Graham was different because there the changes in circumstances all took place in Florida, all evidence would be brought there and the Tennessee court would have no jurisdiction there.  In this case, there was no change in circumstance in Indiana and the relevant parties regarding custody, the mother and father, both lived in Tennessee.  Also, in Graham, the parties involved were the parents, living in two separate states.  In the current case, the grandmother is not a party to the case and both parents live in Tennessee.

Since only the parents were involved in the question of custody, and both lived in Tennessee and the Tennessee courts decided custody initially, the Tennessee courts had jurisdiction to decide on modification of custody.

No. M2011-00809-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation.  Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.