The Court Decides on Custody but Can’t Pass Jurisdiction
Tennessee case summary on custody jurisdiction in divorce and family law.
Court resolves bitter custody battle, but can’t escape future jurisdiction.
Kenneth Dale Carter v. Jessica Jones Fay
The unmarried parties in this Greene County, Tennessee, case were the parents of two children, born in 2016 and 2021. The older child, born in Tennessee, lived with his parents there until 2021 when the mother moved back to Florida. She left Tennessee when she learned that her father, a trucker, had been having an affair with men on the road. When she left Tennessee, she was pregnant with the younger child, who was born in Florida.
The father filed a petition to establish parentage of the younger child in Tennessee.
The case was bitterly litigated, with many allegations being made. For examp0le, the father accused the mother of using drugs while breastfeeding.
While the case was pending, a Florida court heard a petition under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), but held that Florida had no jurisdiction over the case.
Various contempt motions were heard, and the case went to hearing in late 2021. The trial court issued a permanent parenting order in February 2022. The trial court found that the mother was performing most of the parenting duties, but admonished her for “sneaking off” to Florida to give birth to the younger child. The trial court found the mother to be performing the majority of parenting duties but admonished for “sneaking away” to Florida to deliver the younger child. A USB drive that was removed by the mother from the father’s mobile phone was presented as evidence. A sheriff deputy testified in court that the images on the USB drive were child sexual abuse. However, it was impossible for the deputy to prosecute the father, as it was not possible to link the USB to him. It found that, while the father’s interests were questionable, it did not constitute a material change in circumstances. It also held that his sexual preferences were not a bar to visitation.
The trial court also ruled that it would decline to exercise jurisdiction going forward, and that if there were any further litigation, it should take place in Florida. The father appealed the Tennessee Court of Appeals after a few more motions.
He first claimed that he should’ve been granted greater parental rights. The trial court ruled that this issue was not properly preserved and that the father had no right to appeal. The appeals court agreed that this was “overly lenient” but noted that the best way to handle the issue was by the trial court. The appeals court agreed that the pictures on a USB drive were not admissible and should not be considered. But due to the outcome of the case, it held that the error was harmless.
Finally, the father appealed the trial court’s declining further jurisdiction. The trial court noted that the majority of witnesses were located in Florida, the state where the children now reside. It cited factors in the UCCJEA. It pointed out, in particular, that the Tennessee court did not consult the Florida court prior to making its decision. It instructed the lower court to follow the factors outlined by UCCJEA. It instructed the lower courts to follow the UCCJEA.
For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed, in part, but vacated, in part, lower court’s decision, and remanded.
