The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently addressed whether the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction to declare a child dependent and neglected.
Kandy Page is the grandmother of three minor children. In February 2022, while the children were in her legal custody, she petitioned the chancery court to terminate parental rights of two of the children, “K” and “M,” and to adopt them. Three months later, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) received a referral that “K” was a victim of sexual abuse, and, a month after that, unaware of the adoption petitions, DCS filed a juvenile court petition to declare all three children, “K,” “M,” and “G,” dependent and neglected. When it learned of the adoption petitions, DCS intervened in chancery court to file a complaint requesting an emergency Ex parte order for custody of “K” and “M,” which Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-116(k) provides it has the right to do. The chancery court entered emergency ex parte orders removing the children from Page’s custody.
After hearing and as agreed by the parties, a juvenile court judge was allowed to hear DCS’s intervening petition for dependency and neglect sitting by interchange. After a multi-day hearing in both chancery court cases, the juvenile judge, sitting by interchange in chancery court, found as a matter of fact that Page’s conduct and behavior exposed “K” to significant threat of harm and death, a cycle of sexual and physical abuse in the home, and concluded as a matter of law that the children were the victims of abuse.
The judge noted that the matter was before the court in an unusual posture, as the court heard the intervention dependency and neglect petition of DCS in the adoption proceeding. Based on the findings of abuse, the court found the children’s best interest weighed against putting them in Page’s custody and dismissed the adoption proceedings. Page appealed, arguing that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in Tennessee to declare the children dependent and neglected.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. The court noted that under Tennessee law, juvenile courts hold exclusive and original jurisdiction over proceedings to determine whether a child is dependent or neglected, and “[w]hen jurisdiction has been acquired [by D&N proceedings], such jurisdiction shall continue until … a petition for adoption is filed….” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103(c) (emphasis added). The appeals court recognized its precedent holding that when a petition for adoption is filed, “jurisdiction over all matters related to the child, other than those regarding delinquency, unruly or truant acts, transfers to the court where the adoption petition is filed.” See In re Carlee A., No. W2020-01256-COAR3-PT, 2022 WL 225640, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2022) (quoting Dawn Coppock, Coppock on Tennessee Adoption Law 43 (2017)). The court cited Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-116(f), which states that upon the filing of the adoption petition the adoption court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the child, and any custody proceedings shall be suspended pending the court’s orders in the adoption proceeding, and jurisdiction of all other pending matters concerning the child shall be transferred to and assumed by the adoption court:
[O]nce an action is filed, the court acquires exclusive jurisdiction until the conclusion of the case. ‘It is the rule in Tennessee that the [c]ourt which first acquires the matter, takes the exclusive jurisdiction to end the matter.’ Wilson v. Grantham, 739 S.W.2d 776, 777 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (citations omitted). This common law rule has been expanded by statute in adoption proceedings. Indeed, once an adoption petition is filed, the adoption court acquires ‘exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the child[,]’ and ‘jurisdiction of all other pending matters concerning the child ... shall be transferred to and assumed by the adoption court[,]’ subject to certain exceptions not present here. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(f). This rule applies even where a dependency and neglect proceeding was ongoing in juvenile court at the time the adoption was filed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103(c).
The court noted that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 37-1-103 was amended in 2019 to clarify that circuit and chancery courts retain jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, even when allegations in such cases might rise to a finding of dependency and neglect. See also Cox v. Lucas, 576 S.W.3d 356, 357-58 (Tenn. 2019).
Thus, the court of appeals held that the chancery court assumed exclusive jurisdiction when Page, who had physical custody, filed petitions to terminate parental rights and adopt the children. Once she filed her adoption and termination petitions, the chancery court acquired exclusive jurisdiction.
______
Kandy Page v. Holly Cikalo, et al., No. M2023-00849-COA-R3-CV (TN Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2024)
コメント