Facts: Mother and Father, the parents of three children, divorced in 2015. Their agreed parenting plan provided for equal parenting time and no child support.
Shortly thereafter, Mother’s finances worsened, so the parties agreed the children would reside primarily with Father until Mother’s situation improved.
Over a year later, Mother petitioned to modify the parenting plan, alleging that Father has engaged in abusive behavior toward the children.
After two days of trial, the trial court found Father abused the children and adopted Mother’s parenting plan.
Thirty days later, Father moved to dismiss Mother’s petition as lacking subject-matter jurisdiction, alleging that juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over dependency and neglect matters.
The trial court denied Father’s motion.
Father appealed.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-103(g) provides that while the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over dependency and neglect matters, that does not prevent the divorce court from exercising its domestic relations jurisdiction, regardless of the allegations, until relief is sought in a juvenile court invoking its exclusive original jurisdiction.
The Court made quick work of Father’s argument:
Mother invoked the subject-matter jurisdiction of the [trial] court when she filed her petition to modify pursuant to § 36-6-101. . . . We hold that § 37-1-103 [] applies in this case and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Father’s motion to dismiss the petition. Father argued that he was denied certain substantive due process rights that he would have been entitled to in juvenile court, such as the right to have counsel appointed, an additional opportunity to appeal, and the right to a heightened standard of proof. Father, however, did not file a pleading in juvenile court invoking its original jurisdiction or seeking relief therein; consequently, there is not error to assign in this regard to the ruling of the [trial] court.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
K.O.’s Comment: Father tried to assert the argument from Cox v. Lucas without having sought relief in juvenile court and having the juvenile court agree to assert its jurisdiction.
Is it too late for Father to file a petition in juvenile court? Could the juvenile court still assert exclusive original jurisdiction and declare the trial court’s ruling void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?
Massey v. Massey (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, April 17, 2020).