N o ne o f t he f i l i ngs f rom t he p arent age acti o n are i ncl ud ed i n t he reco rd o n ap p eal

. T h e c o nt ent s o f t he 1 Fe br u ar y 2004 or der w er e s u mmar i ze d by t h e Ro b ert son Coun t y J u v en i l e Cour t i n a n or der e n t er ed on J u l y 14, 2004
r ega r di ng t he i ns t ant cu s t od y di s put e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ugus t 8, 200 8 S es sio n
I N RE 

### C.M.C. MIC HELLE MA RIE C HAF FIN v. C HER YL LEA THER S ET AL 

### . Appeal f rom the Juvenile Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 00071992 Bett y Adam s Gr een, Judge

No. M2008- 00329-COA-R 3-JV - F iled Septem ber 30, 2008

Mother of minor child appea ls a juvenile cour

t order r ejec ting he r cha lleng e to the validity of a 2004 or de r a wa rd ingc us tod

y of the c hil d to mate rn a l g ra nd pa re nts

. Mo the r argue s that the 20 04 or de r i s void beca use she did not re ceive notice of the proce eding s and the orde r does not conta in nece ssary f in d in g s
. M o th e r

f urth e r ar g u e s th at t

h e juv e n il e c o urt e r

r e d in f a il in gto g iv e h e r

a f u ll h e ar in g
. We have deter

mined that the appea led order arose out of depende ncy and neg lect proceed i n gs an d, there fore , must be appea led to the circ uit court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Transf

err ed to Circ uit Court
ANDY D. B E NN E TT , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R . and R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J J ., joined. Mary B. L ang ford, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Michelle Ma

rie Chaf fin.
Jame s C. B ra ds ha

w I I I , N a sh vil le , Te nn e sse e , for the a pp e lle e s, Che ry

l L e athe rs and Roy

L e athe rs
. L ind a Mo rg an A nd e rs on , Gua

rd ian A d L ite m.

OP IN ION
Michelle Mar ie Chaff

in (“Mother ”) is the mother of a minor child born in October 2001. A pater nity action was filed in the Juvenile Court for Robertson County , and in Fe bruar y 2004, an orde r wa s e nte re d e sta

bli sh ingpate rn ity

and se tti ngthe fathe r’ s c hil d s up po rt

. 1T he chi l d ’ s f at her app eared at t he heari ng and had no o p p o si t i o n t o G randp arent s’ pe t i t i o n f o r cus t o d y
. T he 2

co urt ’ s o rder set vi si t at i o n and chi l d s up p o rt f o r t he f at her. -2- In May 2004, Cheryl L eathe rs and Roy L eathe rs, the child’s mater nal g randmother

and g randf ather (“G randpa

rents”) , filed a Petition for Custody reg ardingthe minor child. In an Amende d Petition for Custody

filed on June 29, 2004, Grandpa rents alleg ed that “the re ha s been a substantial and mater ial chang e of circumstanc es affec ting the minor child” and that “the mother of the minor child has aba

ndoned t h e ch i l d [ at] the home of the Petitioners.” On September 10, 2004, the Juve n i l e C o u

rt of Rob e rt so n Co un ty

e nte re d a n o rd e r a wa rd ingc us tod

y of the c hil d to Gr and

pa re nts

. 2 M o th er d i d n o tap p ea r a tth e h ea ri n g. T h e c o urt ’s fi n d i n gs o f f ac ti n cl u d edth e f

o l l o wi n g:
B oth of the min or

c hil d’ s n atur a l pa

re nts

. . . h ave be e n ser

ve d w ithpr oc e ss and are pr op e rl y

be fo re the Court

.

. . . . [Grandpar ents] have ca red f or the mi nor child since the Mother’s a ba nd onme nt o n M ay 26 , 2004 and have pr ov ide d h e r w itha sta ble ho me environment since her birth.
In Apr il 2 00 7, the c hil d’ s fathe r re qu e ste d that the c a se be tr ans fe rr e d to D avid so n Co un ty ba se d u po n a lle g atio ns that ne ith e r he , no r the c hil d, no r G ra nd pa re nts re sid e d in

Rob e rt so n Co un ty and that the child and Grandpar ents lived in Davidson County . The Juvenile Court for Robertson C o un ty o r d e r e d

th atth e c a s e b e tr an s f

e r r e d t o th e J u v e n i l e C o urtf

o r D av i d s o nC o un ty.
In May 2007, Mother filed a

petition for tempora

ry custody alleg ing that the minor child was a depe ndent and ne g lected c hi l d an dreque sting that Mother be g rante d sole custody

of the c hild. Gra ndpare nt s o p p o sed Mother’ s petition. At an initi al appe ara nce be fore a juvenile c ourt ref ere e in J une 2007, Refe ree O’Ne il transfer red the case to Refer ee Carlton L ewis. In his order , Refer ee O’Ne il made the followingnotation:
This Court has revie wed the filing and finds that the initial order of custody placing the child with the g randmother failed to find that the c hild wa s [i n] i mminent risk of harm. The re was no alleg ation of abuse or neg lect or pr ay er that the child be found ne g le c te d o r d e pe nd e nt.
Mother ther eaf

ter filed a M o t i on to Deter mine Validity

of Orde r asse rting that Mother wa s not pr op e rl y se rv e d w iththe Gr and

pa re nts ’ p e tit ion

and ha d n o a c tua l no tic e of

the he ari ngin Augus t 2004, and that the Robertson County order did not find the child to be depe ndent and ne g lected or at risk o f s u b s tantial harm. The motion was hear d on August 3, 2007. I n an orde r ente red on Se pte mbe r 5 , 2 00 7, Re fe re e L e wi s state d th at “ the Da vid so n Co un ty

Juve nil e Court

ha s p re vio us ly he ld that the ini tia l or de r of c us tod y fa ile d to make sp e c if

ic fi nd ing s of de pe nd e nc y , n e g le c t, o r a ri sk of substantial ha

rm.” Refer ee L ewis order ed that custody of the child be place d wi t h Mother. Gra ndpare nts filed a re quest for r ehea ringby the juvenile cour

t judge pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-107( 1)(e ).A l t ho ugh i t i s no t ent i rel y cl ear f rom t he reco rd, i t ap p ears t hat C h e ryl L e a the rs and R o y Leathers were 3 d ivo rc e d a t t h e ti m e o f t h is o rd e r. M r. a n d M s. L e a the rs fi le d a jo int b rie f as a p p e llee s in th is a p p e a l. -3- The juvenile c ourt judg e hea rd the c ase on January 24, 2008. The court’s order enter ed on Janu ary 25 , 2 00 8, inc lud e s th e fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s: The Court . . . finds that th e S ep t em ber 10, 2004, Custody Orde r of the Robe rtson County J uvenile Court placingcustody of the minor child .

. . with the Respondent Cheryl L eathe rs [gra

ndmother] is valid and is in ful l fo rc e and ef fec t, for the fo llo wi ngre a so ns : (a) Although a pater

nity action wa s commence d in Robertson County . . . and an O rd e r of Pate rn ity wa s e nte re d on F e br ua ry 17 , 2 00 4 in

that a c tio n, the Or de r d id not addre ss custody

or visitation. Theref

ore, Judge Fa g an’s Or der of September 10, 2004, was a valid custody deter mination in the init ial pare ntag e ac tion in R obertson County , Tenne ssee. (b ) T he Court

fu rt he r f ind s th at J ud g e F a g an cle arl y fo un d th at th e 31 month old child had bee n left without pare ntal supervision and a bandoned by

her Mother , Michelle Chaf

fin, and that Michelle Chaffin knew about the custody hear ing and had been se rved w ith process . . . .
Th e c ourt or de re d that Re fe re e L e wi s’ s o rd e r b e va c ate d a nd that c us tod

y of the min or

c hil d b e wi th he r gra ndmot he r, Ms. L e athe rs
. Mo the r f ile d a no tic e of a pp e a l to thi s c ourt

. 3
J urisdiction over a

ppeal
Al tho ug h n ot r a ise d b y

the pa rt ie s in the ir br ie fs , w e have de te rm ine d th at the re is a thr e sh old issue as to the appr opriate c ourt to hear this appeal. The resolution of this issue depends upon the basi s f o r th e juv e n il e c o urt’ s ju

r is d ic ti o nto e n te r

th e o r ig in a l S e p te mb e r

2 0 0 4 o r d e r

awarding custody to Grandpa

rents.
J uvenile cour

ts are c ourts of l imited jurisdiction. In re D.Y.H. , 226 S.W .3d 327, 330 (Tenn. 2007). As discussed by

the Davidson County

J uvenile Court in its order of January 2008, there are two possible jurisdictional bases for the Robertson Co u nty Juv e n ile Court’s September 2004 c ustody deter mination: a continuation of its paternity jurisdiction, or dependen cy an dneg lect jurisdiction. Cases dec ided under

the juvenile court’s pare ntag e jurisdi ction are appea lable to this court, wher eas order s arising o u t o f dependenc y and neg lect ca ses ar e appe alable to the c ircuit court. See Tenn. Cod e Ann. §§ 37 -1 -1 59 (a ), (g ); 36 -2 -3 15 ; Dept. of Children’s Servs. v . Owens , 129 S.W .3d 50, 55 (Tenn. 2004) (any

custo d y decision ar ising out of de pendenc y and neg lect proc eeding s must be a pp e a le d to c ir c uit

c ourt ); In re Z.M.B. , No. E2004-00380-COA- R3-J V, 2005 WL94466, * 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. J an. 11, 2005) (with the e x ception of de pendenc y and neg lect and de linquency case s, an appea l from juvenile cour t is to t he Court of Appe als).T en n
. Code An n
. § 37- 1- 103( c) s t at es , i n pa r t : “ W h en j u r i s di ct i on h as be en ac qu i r ed u n der t h e pr ov i s i on s of 4 this p a rt, su c h ju risd ic tio n sh a ll c o n tinu e un til the c a se ha s b e e n d ism isse d , o r u n ti l th e c u sto d y d e te rm ina tio n is t r an s f er r ed t o a n ot h er j u v en i l e, ci r cu i t , ch an ce r y or g en er al s es s i on s cou r t ex er ci s i n g domes t i c r el at i on s j u r i s di ct i on , or un t i l a pet i t i on f

or a do pt i on i s f

i l ed r ega r di ng t he chi l d i n que s t i on as s et out i n § 36- 1- 11 6(f )

. ”

Pri or t o J u l y 1, 2003, T en n
. Code An n
. § 37- 1- 103( a) ( 2) g av e t h e j u v en i l e cou r t e x cl u s i v e or i g i n al j u r i s di ct i on 5

ov er a l l pa t er n i t y c as es
. Ef f ec t i v e Ju l y 1, 2003, t h e pr ov i s i on of s u bs ec t i on ( a) ( 2) of

T en n
. Code An n
. § 37- 1- 103 est ab l i shi ng jur i sdi ct i o n ove r pat erni t y cases was delet ed , a nd T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 7

- 1

- 1 0 4 (f ) was am end ed t o ad d t he l anguage at i ss ue here: “ N o t wi t hst and i ng any pr o v isio n o f l aw t o t he co nt rary , t he juveni l e co urt has co ncurrent j ur i s di ct i on wi t h t he ci r cui t an d cha nce r y cour t of procee di ng s t o es t abl i s h t he pat er ni t y of ch i l dren born out of

wedl ock and t o det er mi ne any cu s t od y , vi s i t at i on, s uppo r t , educ at i on or ot her i s s ues r ega r di ng t he car e and c ont r ol of ch i l dren bo r n out of

wedl ock. ”

T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 6

- 6

- 3 0 6 (a). 6
-4- Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-104(f ) provides that “the juvenile court has concur rent jurisdiction with the circ uit and chanc ery courts of proce eding s to e stablish the paternity of childre n born out of lawful we dlock and to determine any custody, v isitat ion, support, education o r other issues regarding the careand control of children born out of wedlock. ” (Empha sis added). Prior to the enac tment of t his provision in Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104( f), whe n juvenile cour ts had exclusive or ig ina l juri sd ic tio n o ve r p ate rn ity c a se s, thi s c ourt

int e rp re te d T e nn . Code Ann. § 37- 1- 10 3( c ) to 4 g ive the juvenile c ourt s co n t inuing jurisdiction to decide later c ustody issues arisingbetwee n the c hil d’ s p are nts

. In re Z.M.B. , 2 00 5 WL 94 46 6, at *4. Th e c ur

re nt c a se , h ow e ve r, pr e se nts a 5 dif fe re nt s itu atio n. He re , we are de a lin g wi th a cu sto dy dis pute inv olv ing the c hil d’ s g ra nd pa re nts

. I n Smallwood v. Mann , 2 0 5 S. W. 3 d 3 5 8 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 6 ) , o ur Su p r e me Co urt dealt with the iss ue of a juv e nil e c ourt ’s a uth or ity to ad

jud ic ate a pe tit ion fo r g ra nd pa re nt vis itatio n. Th e juv e nil e court ha d established the f ather ’s pater

nity in Augu s t 2 0 0 1

. Smallwood , 2 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d at3 6 0

. In Fe bruar y 2003, the g randpa

rents of the minor child at issue filed a pe tition requesting visitation for themselves as w ell as for the father (who had g iven the g randmother a g ener al power

of attorne y

). Id. The c ourt set out the juvenile cour t jurisdictional provision in effec t at t h e t ime the visitation petition was filed in Fe bruar y 2003 as well as the languag e of Te nn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 104(f) , which took effe ct on J uly

1, 2003. Id. at 364. The c ourt then stated: “A t i s s u e is whether this provision e xten ds the c on c ur

re nt j ur isd ic tio n o f t

he juv e nil e c ourt

be y on d e sta

bli sh ingvis itatio n f

or pa re nts , g uardia ns, and leg al custodians.” Id. Be cause the g randpa rent visitation statute had bee n amende d 6 to provide that petitions under the statute w ere to be f i l ed i n circ uit or chanc ery court, the c ourt conclude d that the juvenile cour t lacked jur isdiction. Id. at 365.
In a previous decision of this court c onsistent with the result rea ched by the Supreme Court in Smallwood , this court rea soned:
I t is unnecessa

ry and illogic al for the juvenile cour t to maintain jurisdiction over such p er s o n s [ th o s e b ro u gh t i n t o c o u rtfo r t h e p urp o s es o f l egi t i m at i o np ro ce ed i n gs without any

question of depende ncy or neg lect] f or the deter

mination of

Gra ndpare nt Visitation Rig hts, which is an issue independe nt of the pate rnity proce edingand oneT he s i t uat i on bef ore t hi s cour t i s di s t i ng ui s habl e f r om a par ent age ac t i on broug ht by t he gr andpar ent s un der 7 T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -2 -3 0 5 (b )( 1 )( B ) & ( C ), w h e re th e p a re n ts o f t h e m o the r m a y fi le a c o m p la int to e sta b lish p a te rn ity
o f t h e c h ild if

the m o the r is a m ino r o r w h e re the p a re n ts o f the m a le c la im ing to b e the fath e r m a y fil e a c o m p la int to est ab l i sh p at erni t y i f

t he p urpo rt ed f

at her i s a m i no r.

I n a Ju l y 200 4 order ex t endi ng an emer gen cy order gi vi ng G r andpar ent s t emp orar y cu s t od y , t he cour t mo di f i ed 8 the o rd e r o f p a te rn ity re g a rd ing the fath e r’s c h ild su p p o rt o b liga tio n
. -5- that is betwee n adults. . . . Even thoug h the children a re the hear

t of the lawsuit [for g randpa rent visitation] , the par ties actua lly

involved are adults, as it is the constitutional rights of the pa rents potentially b ei n gaff ecte d, not those of the children.
Te rry v . B ott s , No. 2000-01288-COA -R3-CV, 2001 W L 173207, *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. F eb. 22, 2001).
Gra ndpare nt custody , even mor e than grandpa rent visitation, impli cate s the constitutional rig hts o f t h e p ar ents. Our Supre me Court has held that “ a natur al par ent may only be depr ived of custody of a c hild upon a showing of substantial harm to the c hild.” In re Ask ew , 993 S.W .2d 1, 4 (T en n
. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Bo nd v . M c Ke nz ie , 896 S.W .2d 546, 548 (Tenn. 1995) ). Based upon the rea soning applied by

the Supreme Court in Smallwood and the natur e of

the pa re nta g e pr oc e e din g s, we ha ve conc luded that a j u v en i l e court’s continuing pa renta g e jurisdiction would not apply to a pe tit ion fo r c us tod

y by g ra nd pa re nts

. Mo re ov e r, the Se pte mbe r 2 00 4 o rd e r o f t he Rob e rt so n Co un ty 7 J uvenile Court in this case doe s not make any ref ere nce to the previous par entag e dete rmination or to a modification of a

ny previous order

. I t a

ppear s, theref

ore, that the juvenile cour

t was not rely

ing 8 up on its e xer c ise of

jur isd ic tio n in

the pa re nta g e a c tio n to g ive c us tod y to G ra nd pa re nts

. In a wa rd ingc us tod

y of the min or

c hil d to Gr and

pa re nts , th e Rob e rt so n Co un ty Juve nil e Cou rt found t hat Mother ha d abandone d the child. The statutory definition of a de pendent a nd neg lected c hild includes a child “who is wit hout a par ent, guardia n, or leg al custodian.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 3 7- 1- 10 2( b) (1 2) (A ). Gi ve n th e re a so nin g us e d by the Rob e rt so n County Juve nil e Court to g ive Gra ndpare nts custody

and the a bsence of any

other ba sis for jurisdiction, w e have conclude d that the juvenile cour

t w as exercising its a

uthority to de termine depende ncy and neg lect matters. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-103(a )(1) . Mother’s c urre nt depende ncy and neg lect peti t i o n an d the Davidson County

J uvenile Court orde r rulingupon Mother’s c halleng e to the validity of the September 2004 or der a rise out of the juve nile court’s c ontinuing depe ndency and neg lect jurisdiction. See I

n re D.Y .H. , 226 S.W .3d at 331 (juvenile c ourt reta ins continuing jurisdiction over subsequent modification of custody order from dependenc y and neg lect ac tion). I t follows, then, that Mo the r’ s a

pp e a l of the Da vid so n Co un ty

Juve nil e Court

de c isi on sh ou ld h ave be e n to the Cir c uit Court for Davidson County

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-4-108( a)( 2) provides that, when a case has been appea led to the wrong appellate court, it should be “tra nsfer red to the court having jur isdiction thereof.” Se e In reEs tate-6-

of W hite , 7 7 S.W. 3d 76 5, 76 9 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 1) . T he re fo re , th is a pp e a l sh a ll b e tr ans fe rr e d to the C ircuit Court for Davidson County . Costs of this appea l are taxed equally ag ainst appellant a

nd appellee s.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BEN

NETT, JUDGE