### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON N O V E MB E R 2 9, 200 5 S es sio n


### IN T HE MAT TE R O F D ESHU NDR A Y VON NE HU NT

SHEL LY BR YAN T v. JUAN HU NT

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. C-04- 445 Roy B. Morgan, Judge

No. W2005-00684-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Fe bruary 7, 2006

This appea l stems from a custo dy dispute betwee n a mother and fathe r over their minor daug hter. I n this appeal, we are asked to de termine whe ther the c ircuit court erre d when it dismissed the appea l of t wo j uvenile court orders de ny ing the mother’s pe tition for permane nt custody and the mother ’s amended petition to reconsider . The mother a rg ues that both order s wererelated to an orig inal depende ncy and neg lect proce eding that transfe rre d custody of her minor daug hter fr om her to the daug hter’s f

ather

. The circuit court found that both orders we re not re lated to the depe ndency and neg lect proc eeding s and dismissed the mother’s a ppeal. Also on a

ppeal, the mother

asserts that the circ uit court err ed whe n it dism issed her appea l of t he order reg arding the original dependenc y and
ne g le c t pr oc e e din g s a s n ot b e ing tim e ly fi le d. Th e mothe r ha s a lso re qu e ste d th a t th is C ou rt va c a te theorig ina l or de r r e g ard ing thede pe nd e nc y a ndne g le c t pr oc e e din g s b e c aus e of se ve ra l due pr oc e ss violations that occurr ed during the hearing. We dismiss the appea l of the issue re questing that we
vacate the orig inal order

from the de pendenc y and neg lect proce eding s and aff irm the portion of the circ uit court’s orde r dismissing the appeal of the order stemming fr om the orig inal depende ncy and neg lect proc eeding s. We vacate portion of the order dismiss ing the appea l of the two juvenile c ourt order s filed September 24, 2004 and rema nd to the trial court f or the e ntry

of an or der transfer

ring the appe al of the two or ders to the Court of A ppeals for proce ssing and dispositi on.
Te nn . R
. A pp . P
. 3 ; A pp e a l a s o f R ig ht ; A pp e a l o f J uv e ni leC o ur t Or de rfr o mOr ig inal De pe nde nc y a nd N e gle c t P r oc e e ding Di sm iss e d; Judg m e nt of th e Ci r c uit Co ur t A ffirm e d in P art, V acate d in P art and Rem anded

A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.C o nsist en t wit h thi s C o urt’ s p o l i cy, we re fer to ch i l d ren i n sen si t i ve ca ses b y t he i r i nit i als. 1

-2- J eanie M. Todd, J ackson, TN , for Appe llant
Bob C. Hoope r, Jackson, TN, for A ppellee

OP IN ION

I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY On April 7, 1999, Juan Hunt (“F ather ” or “ Appellee ”) f iled a petition for tempor ary custody of his daug hte r, D. Y. H. (“ Daug hte r” ) i n th e juv e nil e c ou rt fo r M a dis on Cou nty . F a the r b a se d th is 1 pe tit ionon de pe ndency and neg le c t. O n M a y 18 , 1 99 9, thejuv e nil e c ou rt fo r M a dis on Cou nty g rante d Father’s pe tition. On August 12, 1999, the juvenile c ourt relieve d Father from paying any more c hild support to the mother, ShellyBry ant (“ Mother or “ Appellant”)

.
I n an attempt to reg ain custody of Daug hter, Mother filed a pe tition for permane nt custody on J uly 22, 2002. On J uly

29, 2002, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on Mothe r’s pe tition for perma nent custody

and rende red an oral judgme nt on the matter denying the petition. There afte r, B ry a nt f ile d a pe tit ionto re c on sid e r anda n a me nd me nt t o th e pe tit ionto re c on sid e r. Th e juv e nil e court de nied this amended pe tition t o rec onsider as w ell. Bo t h o rders werenot entere d with the juvenile court until S eptember 24, 2004. The orde r denying Mothe r’s pe tition for permane nt custody , howeve r, wa s entere d nunc pro tunc for July 29, 2002.
Mother then soug ht an appe al of both j udg ments to the circuit court pursuant to section 37-1- 15 9 of th e Te nn e sse e Cod e . M oth e r a lso fi le d a mot ionfo r s umm ary

jud g me nt anda

mot ionto appoint a g uardia n ad li tem for her m inor child. The circuit court dism issed Mother’s a ppeal stating that the Court of Appe al s wa s t h e proper court to appe al from the juve nile court’s de nial of her pe tit ionfo r p e rm a ne nt c us tod y a ndhe r p e tit ionto r e c on sid e r. Th e cir c uit c ou rt a lso fo un d th a t it could not entertain an appe al on the orig inal order awa rding temporary

custody to Fathe r base d on depende ncy

and neg lect bec ause the ten day statutory period for

filing an appea l had expired. The
c ir c uit c ou rt did not r uleon theme ri ts o f B ry a nt’ s mo tio n f or su mma ry jud g me nt andmot ionto appoint a g uardia n ad litem.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED Appellant has timely

filed a notice of appe al and pr esents the f ollowing issues for

revie w:
1. Whether the c ircuit court e rre d when it dismissed Appellant’s appe al of a n order from juvenile court from a de pendenc y and neg lect proc eeding as not being timely filed; 2

. Whe th e r

th e c ir c u it

c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it

d is mi s s e d A p p e ll a n t’ s ap p e a l o f a n o r d e r f r om juvenile court reg arding Appellee ’s petition for permanent custody beca use it was appe aled to the wr on g c ou rt ;In this ca se , the ju v e n ile co u rt fil e d its o rd e r d isp o sin g o f A p p e llan t’s p e tit io n fo r p e rm a n e n t cu sto d y nunc 2 pro t un c fo r Ju ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 o n S e p te m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . F o r p u rp o se s o f ap p e a l o f a nun c pr o t un c or de r , a l i t i g a n t ’ s t i me for f i l i ng an appeal begi ns t o ru n f r om t he dat e t he nu nc pro t un c o rd e r is filed w ith the c o u rt c le rk ra the r th a n the d a te
o f t h e p rio r v e rb a l o rd e r. Tev i s v. Pr oct or & G am bl e D i s tr i b. Co. , 1 1 3 S .W .2 d 6 4 , 6 7 ( T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 3 7 ), over r ul ed

on ot her gr ou nd s by N .J . Z in c C o . v. C o le , 5 3 2 S .W .2 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 4 (T e n n . 1 9 7 5 ); se e a lso N e e ly v . S ta te , 356 S. W

. 2d 401, 403 ( T en n

. Cr i m. App. 1962) ( f i n di n g t h at a j u dg men t “ cann ot be e n t er ed nu nc pro t un c s o a s t o c u t of f t h e r i g h t of ap p eal ” (ci t i ng J a c k so n v . Ja rra tt , 5 2 S .W .2 d 1 3 7 (T e n n . 1 9 3 2 )) ).
-3- 3. Whether the c ircuit court erre d when it dismissed Appellant’s appe al of a n order from juvenile court reg ardin g an am ended pe tition t o rec onsider bec ause it wa s appea led to the wrong court; and 4. Whether the c ircuit court e rre d when it fa iled to rule on Appe lla n t ’s m o t i o n for summary jud g me nt andhe r m oti on fo r a pp oin tme nt o f a

Gu ard ia n A d Lite m.

For the following rea sons, w e dismiss the appea l of the issue reque sting that we va cate the orig inal order from the de pendenc y

and neg lect proce eding s and af firm the portion of the c ircuit court’ s order dis mis sin g theapp e a l of theor de r s te mmi ng fr om the orig ina l de pe nd e nc y a ndne g le c t pr oc e e din g s. We vacate the portion of the c ircuit court’ s order di s m i s s i n g the appe al of the two or ders f iled September 24, 2004 and remand for the entry of an or der to provide that the appe al of the or ders f iled September 24, 2004 by the juvenile court be transfe rre d to the Court of Appea ls f or proce ssing and dispositi on.

III
. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW

T h i s C ourt revie ws finding s of fa ct by a trial c ourt sitting without a jury under a de n ovo s tan d ar d o f

r e v ie w w ith a

p r e s u mp ti o n o f c o rr e c tn e s s f o r th e f in d in g s

. T e n n

. R. A p p

. P. 1 3 ( d )

. We revie w a tria l co u rt ’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 8 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g Es tate of A dk ins v . W hite Consol. Indus., Inc. , 788 S.W .2d 815, 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989))

. IV. D I S CUS S I ON A. Origin al Order on Dependency and Neglect Proc eedings
Appellant has a

rg ued that the c ircuit court e rre d when it found that Appe llant had not p ro p er l y p er fe ct ed h erap p ea l o f t h e o rd erfr o mth e o ri gi n al d e l i n q u e n cyan d n egl ec tp ro ce ed i n g. Specifica lly , Appellant conte nds that a sec ond hearing oc curr ed on Jul y 29, 2002 reg arding the orig inal depende ncy

and neg lect proc eeding s, which a n o rd er w as ente red nunc pro tunc on September 24, 2004, and that she properly perf ecte d an appeal of that order to the circ uit court on Aug ust 1, 2002 and September 30, 2004. 2

Howeve r, this assertion i s in error . The he aring on J uly 29, 2002 dealt with Appellant’ s petition for permanent custody . Appellant has attempted to construe he r petitio n for pe rmane nt custody as a pe tition for relief f

rom judg ment based on due proce ss violations t hat occ urre d in theA p p el l ant has al so a rg u ed on ap p eal t hat t he o ri gi nal ord er f rom t he d ep end ency and negl ect pro ceed i ng 3 changi ng cust o d y of D aught er f rom M o t her t o Father s ho ul d be vacat ed be cause of t he d ue p roce ss viol at i o ns t hat s he

a lleg e s o c c u rr e d a t t h e d e p e n d e n c y a n d ne g le c t p ro c e e d ing s. P ur s uan t t o s ect i on 37- 1- 10 3 of t he T enn es s ee C od e, t he j uv eni l e co urt h as exc l us i ve j ur i s di ct i on over dependency and neg l ect procee di ng s

. T enn

. Co de Ann. § 37

- 1- 10 3(a) ( 1) ( 19 99 )

. Sect i on 37- 1- 15 9 of t he T enn es s ee C od e s t at es t hat “ any appeal f r om any f

i nal order or j udgment i n a n u nr ul y ch i l d proceedi ng or dependent an d neg l ect p roce ed i ng, f

i l ed unde r t hi s chap t er, m ay b e m ad e t o t he ci rcui t co urt t hat shal l hear t he t est i m o ny of wi t ness es and t ry t he case de no vo

. ” T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 7

- 1

- 1 5 9 (1 9 9 9 ). T hus, the pro p er venue fo r app eal i ng a juveni l e co urt judgm ent f r om a de pen den cy a n d n eg l ec t pr oce edi n g i s t o t h e ci r cu i t c ou r t

. Ac cor di n g l y , t h e appe al of t h i s i s s u e i s di s mi s s ed.

-4- orig ina l he ari ng . How e ve r, a ft e r re vie wi ng he r pe tit ion , it is not a pe tit ion fo r re lie f f ro m ju dg me nt. Ra the r, it is a

pe tit ionfo r c ha ng e of

c us tod y ba se d o n c ha ng e d c ir c ums ta nc e s a ndin the be st i nte re sts of the c hild. Nowhere in the petition does Appellant re quest relief from the ea rl i er j u d g ment or addre ss any

alleg ed proc edura l due proc ess violations of the juvenile court. Appellant’s pe tition for perma nent custody

was a new action and wholly separ ate f rom the orig inal delinquency and neg lect proce eding . Thus, we a ffirm the de cision of the cir cuit court a s to this i ssue. 3

B. Petition s Filed after 1999
On appe al, Appellant asserts that the circ uit c ourt err ed when it dismissed her appea l finding that a ll p e tit ion s a nda me nd e d p e tit ion s a ft e r 1 99 9 w e repr op e rl y app e a la ble to the Cou rt

of Ap pe a ls. Specifica lly , Appellant con t en d s that her pe titions wer e re lated to the orig inal depende ncy and
ne g le c t pr oc e e din g s so that a n a pp e a l w a s p ro pe rl y

be fo rethec ir c uit

c ou rt

.
I n her brief on a

ppeal, Appe llant relies on State of Tennessee De partm ent o

f C hildr en’s Se rv ic e s v . O we ns , 129 S.W .3d 50 (Tenn. 2004), to support her pr oposition. However, A ppellant’s relianc e on this case is mispl ace d.

I n Owens , th e Te nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ TD CS ” ) f ile d a pe tit ionto decla re an adopted ch i l d a d ep en d en t and neg lected c hild. Ow e ns , 1 29 S.W. 3da t 52 . Wh ile thi s petition was pending , the adopted c hild’s aunt and uncle filed a pe tition t o inte rv en e an d for temporary custody

. Id. Subsequent to that filing, the TDCS filed a petition to terminate the adoptive pare nts’ pare ntal rig hts as to the adopted c hild. Id. Be fore considering the aunt’s and uncle’ s petition to int erve ne and f or t em p o ra rycustody , the juvenile court considere d the TDCS’ petition to terminate the a doptive p are nts’ pare ntal rig hts. Id. at 52-53. In its order, the juve nile court te rm inate d th e a do pti ve pa re nts ’ p are nta l rig hts a nda wa rd e d g ua rd ia ns hip of the a do pte d c hil d to the TDCS. Id. at 53. Over one mont h later, the juvenile court entere d an orde r dec laring the aunt’s and uncle ’s petition to intervene and for tempor ary custody moo t b eca

use its earlier termination order deprive d the j uvenile court of j urisdiction. Id. There afte r, the aunt and uncle filed a notice of appea l to the circ uit court. Id. Th e TD CS fi le d a mot ion to dis mis s ba sin g its mot ionon moo tne ss g rounds and that the termination order superse ded the aunt’s and uncle ’s petition. Id. Th e c ir c uit court g rante d the TDCS’ motion to di smiss. Id.-5-

On appe al, this Court aff

irmed the decision but for a differ ent re ason. Id. This Court found that th e pro ceed ing be c a me a te rm inatio n o f p are nta l rig hts pr oc e e din g on c e theTD CS f ile d it s petition to term i n at e par ental rig hts. Id. Further, this Court found that the petition to intervene be c a me pa

rt of that pr oc e e din g be c aus e it w a s st ill pe nd ing wh e n th e TD CS f ile d it s p e tit ionto terminate parenta l rig hts. Id. This Court also found that the circ uit court had the authority to transfe r the ca se to this Court, and we modified the order to transfe r the a

ppeal to us for

proce ssing and dispositi on. Id.

The Te nnessee Supreme Court re verse d and re manded beca u s e it found that the order appea led was c onnecte d to the dep en d ency and neg lect proc eeding beca use (1) “[t] he natur e and substance of

the proc eeding cannot be transformed simplyby the filing of a pe tition wit h a diffe rent caption” and (2) the intervening petition was prope rly befor e the juvenile c ourt in the depe ndency and neg lect proc eeding

. Id. at 54-55.

I n th is c a se , F a the r f

ile d h is p e tit ion fo r c us tod y ba se d on de pe nd e nc y a nd ne g le c t on Ap ri l 7, 1999. The juvenile c ourt conducte d a hearing on this motion and enter ed a f inal order on May 18, 1999. The juvenile c ourt enter ed anothe r orde r o n Aug ust 12, 1999 relieving Father fr om pay ing ch i ld support to Mother. When the juvenile court rende red its orde r, the re cord r efle cts that there
wer e no other

petitions brought in the de pendenc y and neg lec t p ro cee dings. O ver 3 y ear s after a final order was enter ed in the depende ncy and neg lect proce eding s in which a f inal order was issued chang ing c ustody

of Daug hter from Mother to Father, Mother initiated a new a ction when she filed a petition for pe rmane nt custody in juvenile court. Althoug h Appellant has c laimed on appe al that this petiti on was in substance a petition for r elief fr o m judgment, Appe llant’s petition made no ref ere nce to any

alleg ed er

rors in the depende ncy and neg lect proc eeding s. This petition requested a chang e of custody based on c hang ed cir cumstance s and in the best intere sts of the child. Thus, the circ uit court properly

acte d when it found that it lacke d jurisdiction to hear the a ppeal of Appellant’s pe tit ionfo r p e rm a ne nt c us tod y be c aus e th is Co urt wa s th e pr op e r v e nu e fo r an a pp e a l f ro m th is order

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-159 (2004)

.
Like wi se , th e c ir c uit

c ou rt a c te d p ro pe rl y

wh e n it fo un d that it la c ke d jurisd ic tio n to e nte rt a in
an ap p ea l o f t h e j u v en i l e co u rt ’s o rd er d en y i n g Ap p el l an t ’s am en d ed p et i t i o n t o re h ea r. Al t h o u gh this amended pe tition m akes some refe renc es t o alleg ed due proce ss violations that occurr ed in the delinquency

and neg lect proce eding s, it a sked for a rehe aring of the order disposing of A ppellant’s petition for permanent custody only

. Like t he original pe tition for permane nt custody , this amended petition was not relate d to the delinquency and neg lect procee d i n gs

. R ather, it was related to the pe tit ion fo r pe rm a ne nt c us tod y

. Ac c or din g ly , we a ff irm th e c ir c uit

c ou rt ’s de c isi on fi nd ing that it lacke d jurisdiction to entertain an appea l of the juvenile court’s order denying A ppellant’s ame nded petition to rehea

r. Thus, the issue reg arding Appellant’s motion for summary judgme nt and motion for the a ppointment of a Gua

rdian Ad Litem are prete rmitted.

Howeve r, the c ircuit court e rr ed when it dismissed the appea l of the orde r denying Ap pe llant’ s pe tit ion fo r pe rm a ne nt c us tod y a nd the or de r de nying Ap pe llant’ s a me nd e d p e tit ionto rehe ar. “ When a ca s e h as b ee n appealed to the wr ong appellate court, Te nn. Code Ann. § 16-4--6-

108(a) (2) p ro v ides that it should be ‘transfe rre d to the court ha ving jurisdiction thereof.’ ” In re Est ate of Whit e , 77 S.W .3d 765, 769 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) ( quot i n g T en n

. C o d e Ann. § 16- 4- 108(a) (2)) (re quiring chanc ery court to ente r an or der transfer ring an appe al petitioned to chanc ery court to the Court of Appe als). Ac cording ly , we va cate the circ u it court’s orde r to dismissi ng the appea l of both of the orde rs filed Septembe r 24, 2004 and re m and for the entry of an or der transfe rring the appe al of both orde rs filed Septembe r 24, 2004 t o t h e C o u rt of Appe als for proce ssing and dispositi on.
V. C ONCL US I ON

For the forego ing r easons, wedismiss the appe al of the or der stemming from the origina l depende ncy

and neg lect proc eeding s and aff irm the portion of the c ircuit court’ s order dismiss ing the appe al from the orig inal order stemming from the depe ndency and neg lect proc eeding s. Furthe r, we va cate the portion of the c ircuit court’ s order dismiss ing the appea ls fr o m the orde rs filed September 24, 2004 by the juvenile court. We remand to the c ircuit court f or the e ntry

of an or der providing that the appe al o f t h e o rders filed September 24, 2004 be tra nsfer

red to the Court of Appea ls for proc essing and dispositi on. The date of the f iling of this orde r shall be c onsidered the date of the fi lin g of

a n a me nd e d N oti c e of

Ap pe a l a ndtheapp e a l, i nc lud ing a ll t ime re qu ir e me nts , wi ll b e g ov e rn e d by the Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du re . Co sts of thi s a pp e a l areta xedto A pp e llant, S h e l l y B r ya n t , a n d h e r

s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

____________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE