### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE D ec em be r 7, 200 4 S es sio n
I N RE 

### : Z . M . B
. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for K nox Coun ty No. D-0297 C arey G arre tt, Judge

No. E2004-00380-COA- R3-JV F ILED JANUARY 11, 2005

This case prese nts the rec urring issue of subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. The child, nine y ear s old, was born out of we dlock. P aternity was adjudicated in the juvenile court, toge ther
w i t h t h e i s s u e s o f su p p o rt an d v i s i t at i o n

. Ye ar s l at er , fa t h er fi l ed a pe t i t i o n i n t h e cas e al l egi n g a chang e o f c ir c u ms ta n c e s a n d s e e k in g c u s to d y o f th e c h il d

. T h e ju v e n il e c o u r t f o u n d a c hang e of
c ir c ums ta nc e s a nd a wa

rd e d c us tod y

of the c hil d to he r f

a the r. Mo the r a

pp e a ls, ins ist ing that a juvenile court is not vested with jurisdiction to chang e custody of a child beca use of a chang e in the circ umstances. The judgme nt is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed

W I L L I AM H. I NMAN , S R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P. J. and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.
Doug las J . Toppenbe rg , Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or appe llant, Eliz abeth Anne Be rry Br owand.

L ori Fa rris F leishman and Samuel W. B rown, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, for a ppellees, Randa ll Euge ne Be dard a nd Carey

Be dard.
Shannon M. Holland, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, Gua rdian Ad Litem

. OP IN ION

The issue be fore us is whether the J uvenile Court had the requisite s ubject matter jurisdiction to a dju dic a te a c ha ng e of c us tod y of Z .M .B . - a ni ne -y e ar- oldg ir l, w ho se pa re nts we re ne ve r w e d to
e a c h o the r - fr om h e r mot he r to he r fathe r. Mo the r ins ist s that the Juve nil e Cou rt of Kn ox Cou nty la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n a nd that its judg me nt aw ard ing c us tod y of Z .M .B . to he r f

a the r i s in va lid , o r, in the alte rn at i v e, that if the J uvenile Court had the r equisite jurisdiction pursuant to alleg ations and proof that Z .M.B. wa s a neg lected and depende nt c hild, the proper appea l from the judg ment of the Juve nil e Cou rt

wa s to the Cir c uit

Cou rt

.-2-

A judg ment of pate rnity

was e ntere d October

7, 1996. The appellee was declare d to be the natura l father

of Z .M.B., whose custody was a ward ed t o her mother . Support was orde red f or Z .M .B . a ndthe fathe r w a s a wa rd e d v isi ta tio n p ri vil e g e s. All was appa

rently well for f our y ear s when the appellant informed t he appe llee of he r intent to relocate, with Z .M.B., to Jackson, Tenne s s ee

. T h i s t rig g ere d the filing by the appe llant of a Petition i n Opposition to the Removal of Child. A g uardia n ad litem was a ppointed for Z .M.B., but no action of r ecor d ensued until J uly , 2002 when the g uardia n ad litem filed a Motion for Review alleg ing g rossly

improper c onduct on the part of the m other whic h require d immediate cor rec tive action. The appellee there upon filed a pe tition s eeking custody of Z .M.B. a nd alleg ing a

chang e of
c ir c ums ta nc e s. A protra cted tr i al re s ulted in a judg ment awa rding custody

of Z .M.B. to her

fathe r, the
app e lle e

. A no tic e of app e a l wa s fi le d F e br ua ry 19 , 20 03 se e kin g a tr a ns fe r to the Fou rt h C ir c uit Court of Knox C ounty

. The Juvenile Court denied a tra nsfer , and on Mar ch 10, 2003, appe llant filed a petition pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of J uvenile Proce dure to modify the Orde r and a lleg ing la c k o f s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n. Th is p e tit ion wa s d e nie d, a ndthe mothe r a pp e a ls.

Ana lys is

J uvenile Courts have limit ed jurisdiction. Stam baugh v. Price , 532 S.W .2d 932 (Tenn. 1976). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be c onfer red or enlar g ed by ag ree ment and its lack may be ra ised at any

stag e of th e p ro ce ed i ng

. See, Turpin e v. Conner Bros. Excavating. C o. , 761 S.W .2d 296 (Tenn. 1988)

.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 37 -1-10 3 defin e s th e jurisd ic tio n o f the Juve nil e Cou rt s in Te nn e sse e . It pr ov ide s: (a) The juvenile c ourt h as ex cl usive orig inal jurisdiction of the following pr oc e e din g s, wh ic h a

re g ov e rn e d b y

thi s p art : (1) Proc eeding s in which a child is a lleg ed to be de linquent, unruly or depe ndent and neg lected, or to have committed a juvenile tra ffic of fense as def

ined in § 37-1-146; (2) All ca ses to e stablish paternity of children born out of lawful we dlock; to provide for the support and educ ation of such c hildren, and to e nforc e its order ; (3) Proc eeding s arising under §§ 37- 1-141 - 37- 1-144; (4 ) P ro c e e din g s a

ri sin g un de r § 37 -1 -1 37 fo r the pu rp os e s o f t e rm inatio n o f a ho me pla c e me nt; (5 ) P ro se c uti on s u nd e r § 37 -1 -4 12 or § 3 9- 15 -4 01 un le ss the c a se is b ou nd ov e r t o the g rand jury

by the juvenile court or the def endant is orig inally

char g ed with a g reater off

ense of which violation of § 37-1- 412 or § 39-15-401 is a lesser inc luded offe nse. (6) Proc eeding s arising under § 49- 5-5209(e ); and-3-

(7) Proc eeding s in which a pa ren t o r l egal g uardia n is alleg ed to have violated pare ntal responsibilities pursuant to § 37-1-174. (b) The juv en i l e co urt also has e x clusive orig inal jurisdiction of the following proce eding s, which ar e g overne d by the laws re lating the reto wit h o u t reg ard to the oth e r p ro vis ion s o f this pa rt ; (1) Procee dings to obtain judicial c onsent to employ ment, or enlistment in the arme d service s of a c hild, if consent is require d by law; (2) Proc eeding s under the I nterstate J uvenile Compact, compiled as cha pter 4, pa rt 1 of this titl e; and (3) Proc eeding s under the Interst ate Co mp a c t o nth e Place ment of Children, compiled as cha pter 4, pa rt 2 of this titl e. (c) When jurisdiction has been a cquire d under the provisions of t h i s p art, such jurisdiction shall continue until t he ca se has be en dismissed, or until the custody determination is t ransf

err ed to another juvenile, circuit, chanc ery or g ener al sessions
c ou rt e xer c isi ng do mes ti c re la tio ns jurisd ic tio n, or un til a pe tit ion fo r a do pti on is filed re g arding the child in question as set out in § 36-1-116(f ). Howe ver, the juvenile court shall r etain jurisdiction to the extent nee ded to c omplete any revie ws or permanenc y

hearings for c hildren in foster c are as may be mandated by

fede ral or state law. This provision does not esta blish concurr ent jurisdicti o n for a ny other court to hear juvenile cases, but mere ly permits courts exerc ising domestic r elations jurisd ic tio n t o mak e cu sto dy de te rm inatio ns in a c c or da nc e wi th this pa rt

. Notwithstanding a ny

other law to the contra

ry , transfe rs under

this provision shall be
a t the so le dis c re tio n of the juv e nil e c ou rt a nd in ac c or da nc e wi th § 37- 1- 10 2. I n a ll other c ases, jurisdiction shall continue unti l a per son rea ches the ag e of e ighte en (18) , except that the court may extend jurisdiction for the limited purposes set out in § 37- 1-102(b) (4)( B) until the person re ache s the ag e of nine teen ( 19). (d ) Th e c ou rt is a uth or ize d to re qu ir e a ny pa re nt or le g a l g ua

rd ia n of a c hil d w ith in the j urisdiction of t he court to participa te i n any counseling or treatment prog ram the court may deem a ppropriate and in the best intere st of the child.

The suc ce ed i n g s t at u t e, T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 7 -1 -1 0 4 , p ro v i d es fo r t h e e x er ci s e o f j u ri s d i ct i on c on c ur re nt w ith a no the r c ou rt , a s f oll ow s: (a) The juvenile c ourt has conc urre nt jurisdiction with t he probate court of proce eding s to: (1) Tr eat or

commit a developmenta lly disabled or menta lly

ill child; (2) De termine the c ustody or appoint a g uardian of the pe rson of a child; and (3) Give judicial consent to the mar riag e of a child if consent is re quired by law. (b) The juvenile court has concurre nt jurisdiction with the ge nera l sessions court for the offe nse of c ontributing to the de linquency or unruly conduct of

a minor as de fined in § 37-1-156. (c ) T he juv e nil e , c ir c uit

a ndc ha nc e ry

c ou r ts h a ve c on c ur

re nt j ur isd ic tio n to te rm inate pare ntal or g uardia n rig hts pursuant to the provisions of title 36, chapter 1, part 1.-4-

(d)( 1)(A) The juvenile c ourt has conc urre nt jurisd i ct ion and statewide jurisdiction wi th o the r c ou rt s h a vin g the jurisd ic tio n to or de r s up po rt fo r m ino r c hil dr e n a ndsh a ll have sta tewide jurisdiction over the parties involved in the case

. (B ) I n intrastate c ases, jurisdiction to modify , alter or enfor ce order s or dec ree s for the su pp ort of

c hil dr e n s ha ll be de te rm ine d in ac c or da nc e wi th the pr ov isi on s of t itl e 36, chapte r 5, parts 30 and 31. (C) I n any

political subd i v ision or judicial district of the state in which a court by
c on tr a c t is the a g e nc y de sig na te d to pro vid e c hil d sup po rt e nf or c e me nt p ur su a nt t o Title I V-D of

the Social Security Act, and if a judg e with child support jurisdiction in that politi cal subdivision or judicial district ag ree s, the contra cting court shall have jurisdiction in any

case in such judg e’s c ourt in which an a pplicatio n is made for assistance in obta ining support under provisions of this pa rt. Upon application being made f or child support enf

orce ment assistance as provided by law, the c ontrac ting court shall assume jurisdiction a n d i t i s the duty of the c ourt cler

k to so notify

the cler k of any court having prior jurisdiction. The contracting court shall then pr ocee d to make and e nforc e such order s of support as it de ems proper within its jurisdiction pursuant to the ag ree ment. The contra cting court shall not ha ve jurisdiction in any
case in w hich an absent pare nt is in f ull c ompliance with a support order of another
c ou rt

. (2) In any case in which the court has exclusive or concur rent jurisdiction to order

the pay ment of child support, the court may issue a child support order when r equeste d by a pa rt y

. Al l pr ov isi on s of tit le 36 , c ha pte r 5 a nd re la te to c hil d sup po rt or chi ld
su pport ord e rs that in c lud e a n o rd e r o f s po us a l su pp ort a nd§ 5 0- 2- 10 5 a pp ly to
su pp ort or de rs iss ue d in the se pr oc e e din g s. (e) The juvenile court has concur rent jurisdi ction with circ uit and chance ry court of pr o c e e d in g s ar is in g f

r o m 1 9 8 0 H a g u e Co n v e n ti o n o n th e Ci v il A s p e cts of I nterna tional Chil d Abduction.

The a ppellant ar g ues that the filing by the fa ther of a petition opposing the mother’s intent to r e loc a te was th e co mme nc e me nt o f this lit ig a tio n, a ndthat th e pe tit ion wa s f ile d p ur su a nt t o Pare nta l Re loc a tio n A c t, T e nn. Co de An n. § 3 6- 5- 10 8, wh ic h d oe s n ot g ra nt j uv e nil e c ou rt s jurisdiction to hear such disputes. This ar g ument has no re levanc y beca use the filing by

the fa ther of a pe tition for a cha ng e in the custody of Z .M.B. is t he pre dicative plea ding a nd the finding s and jud g me nt w e re c on c e rn e d w ith the be st i nte re sts a ndwe lf are of Z .M .B

.. Th e se fi nd ing s a re mark e dly spe c if ic a n d n e e d n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d h e r e ; th e y ar e n o t c o n te s te d o n ap p e a l. T h e juvenile cour t
mere ly entertained a petition to chang e the c ustody of Z .M.B. f

rom her mother

to her father ba sed upon best inte re s t ’s co n siderations, much the sa me as the ini tia l aw ar d of custody

to the mother. I f this chang e of custody action was bey ond the re ach of the juvenile court, so was the initial awar d. The pa rties wer e the sa me and no a dditional issue was adjudica ted.

Th e app e lla nt e sse nti a lly arg ue s that the juv e nil e c ou rt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n b e c a us e no statut e expre s s ly p r o v id e s th a t a ju v e n il e c o u r t may e n te r ta in a p e ti ti o n f o r c h a n g e o f c u s to d y . The
un re po rt e d ca se s re lie d upo n ar e ina pp os ite : one inv olv e d the iss ue of g ra nd pa re nta l vi sit a tio n, wh ileIn Bal t z v . Kni ght , N o. 01A 01

- 96 06

- JV

- 00 26 3, ( T enn

. Ct

. Ap p. 199 8) t he part i es were m ar r i ed i n Ar kan s as 1
in 1 9 7 2 , a n d d ivo rc e d th e re in 1 9 8 9 . M s. K n igh t wa s a w a rd e d c u sto d y o f t w o c h ild re n . S h e a n d the c h ild re n m o v e d to T enn es s ee i n 1990 , an d M r

. B at l z m oved t o G eorg i a. I n 19 95 , M r

. B al t z f i l ed a p et i t i on i n t he M aur y Co un t y , T enn es s ee Ju v en i l e Cour t , s ee k i n g c u s t ody ow i n g t o a ch an g e of ci r cu ms t an ce s

. W e h el d t h at i n l i g h t of t h e l i mi t ed j u r i s di ct i on of juveni l e co urt s “none o f t hese s t at ut es expl i ci t l y gi ve juveni l e co urt s co ncurrent juri sdi ct i o n to m o d i f y cust o d y ord ers
e n te re d in the c o n te x t o f d ivo rc e p ro c e e d ing s” : B la tz i s cl ear l y i nappl i cabl e.
-5- the oth er involved post-divorce proce eding s. The a ppellee dir ects our attention to several 1

un repo rt ed d e c isi on s w he re in j uv e nil e c ou rt s in Te nn e sse e , e xer c isi ng or ig ina l ju ri sd ic tio n to establish paternity

of a c hild born out of wedlock, ha ve adjudicated custody of the c hild and later determined issues pertaining to cont inued custody

. Searle v. Pf ister , 2 00 WL 18 67 84 1 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cro we ll v . Br own , 2 00 0 WL 33 75 06 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; In r e P a rlow , 2001 WL 687226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). We a g ree with the trial judg e that T en n

. C ode Ann. § 37- 1- 103(c) [“when jurisdiction has been acquir ed . . . such jurisdiction shall continue until the ca se has be e n d ism iss e d, or

un til the c us tod y de te rm inatio n is tra ns fe rr e d .

. . ” ] co ntr ols the dis po sit ion of thi s case

. Finally , we hold ag ain that except for c ases involving a delinquent, unruly , or depe ndent and
ne g le c te d c hil d, a n app e a l fr om the fi na l jud g me nt of a juv e nil e c ou rt is to this c ou rt , n ot the c ir c uit
c ou rt . T e nn . Co de An n. § 3 7- 1- 15 9: see, Searle, Crowell, Parlow , supra.
Th e jud g me nt i s a ff

ir me d w ith c os ts a sse sse d to the app e lla nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE