Facts: Father and Mother had two Children. Mother died in 2023. While Mother was ill and nearing the end of her life, Father voluntarily relinquished custody of the Children to Aunt and Uncle, who moved the Children from Colorado to Tennessee.
After Mother’s death, Aunt and Uncle petitioned for custody in the Coffee County Juvenile Court. Father initiated separate proceedings in Colorado, alleging that the Children had been “abducted” by Aunt and Uncle.
The juvenile court found that although Father was not abusive, he “was not a very attentive parent” and “did not have the motivation or wherewithal to take care of two small children.” The juvenile court continued custody with Aunt and Uncle until September 15, 2024, or until the Colorado court assumed jurisdiction.
One week later, Aunt and Uncle filed a petition in the Coffee County Chancery Court to terminate Father’s parental rights and adopt the Children. They alleged that Father abandoned the Children by failing to visit and support them. Aunt and Uncle also moved to Colorado to stay Father’s case there, and the Colorado court granted the stay.
After a two-day trial, the trial court orally ruled that Aunt and Uncle had failed to prove grounds for terminating Father’s parental rights. The written order dismissed the petition and ordered the Children returned to Father’s custody that day.
Before the written order was entered, Aunt and Uncle moved for weekly telephone contact with the Children. The trial court ordered telephone contact and later allowed Grandmother to participate in those calls.
Meanwhile, Aunt and Uncle returned to Colorado and asked the Colorado court to award them primary parenting and decision-making responsibility for the Children. The Colorado court found that, because Tennessee had not entered a permanent custody or parental-responsibilities order that considered the Children’s best interests, Colorado had authority to decide custody.
The Colorado court later found that it was in the Children’s best interests for Aunt and Uncle to have primary custody and sole decision-making authority. The court ordered Father to return the Children to Aunt and Uncle. Father complied, and the Children have lived with Aunt and Uncle since then.
Father appealed the Tennessee court’s telephone-contact orders. He also challenged the trial court’s refusal to award him attorney’s fees.
On Appeal: The Court of Appeals dismissed Father’s challenges to the telephone-contact orders as moot.
Justiciability is a threshold question that must be addressed before reaching the merits. Tennessee courts decide only justiciable controversies, meaning disputes involving a real interest, not “theoretical or abstract” questions. A justiciable issue must involve “a genuine, existing controversy requiring the adjudication of presently existing rights.”
A case becomes moot when events after the lawsuit begins extinguish the legal controversy or prevent the prevailing party from obtaining meaningful relief. As the Court explained, “[m]ootness results when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief.”
Tennessee recognizes limited exceptions to mootness, including issues of great public importance, conduct capable of repetition yet evading review, collateral consequences, and voluntary cessation of challenged conduct. None of these applied here.
The Court held that the Colorado custody order rendered Father’s challenge to the Tennessee telephone-contact orders moot:
As noted above, after [Father] filed his notice of appeal to this Court on June 25, 2025, the Colorado court entered an order on November 16, 2025. The Colorado order awarded custody to the [Aunt and Uncle] and further ordered that the children would remain in Tennessee, where Father’s visitation would occur. In addition to in-person visitation in Tennessee, the Colorado court also granted Father telephone visitation. As the Colorado court noted in its order, it took jurisdiction over the case based on its findings that, although the Tennessee court had entered orders in the case, it had not entered “a permanent custody or parental responsibilities order that considered the children’s best interest.” We agree. In the absence of a permanent custody order, the Tennessee court did not have continuing exclusive jurisdiction over this case, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a), and the Colorado court’s permanent custody order takes precedence over the Tennessee court’s telephone visitation order.
Because the Colorado court had entered a permanent custody order, the Tennessee Court of Appeals could not provide Father with meaningful relief:
From its order, the Colorado court settled the custody issue in favor of [Aunt and Uncle]. This ruling rendered [Father’s] issues regarding the Tennessee order granting [Aunt and Uncle’s] telephone visitation moot. In other words, the Colorado custody order extinguished the legal controversy regarding [Aunt and Uncle’s] visitation rights.
Father also sought attorney’s fees under the UCCJEA. The Court rejected that claim as well. TCA § 36-6-236 authorizes fees only in certain UCCJEA enforcement proceedings. This appeal arose from a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, not a UCCJEA enforcement proceeding.
The Court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees.
K.O.’s Comment: Father had a Tennessee order returning the Children to him. But Tennessee had not entered a permanent custody order determining the Children’s best interests. That mattered. Without a permanent custody determination, Tennessee lacked continuing exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Colorado filled that gap by entering a permanent order awarding custody to Aunt and Uncle.
In a multistate custody dispute, temporary victories are not enough. If jurisdiction matters, obtain a permanent custody order that determines best interests. Without one, another state may still have authority to act.
Source: In re Jordan A. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, May 22, 2026).
If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.