### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON June 22, 200 6 S es sio n IN TH E M A TT ER

OF E. J. M
. , d
. o. b. 10/31/ 1994
LE E T
. M Y ER S v. S A N D R A BR OW N
A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. CT-002027-05 The Honorable John McCarr oll, Jud ge

No. W2005-02520-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jul y 25, 2006

This is a child custody case which orig inated in juve nile court. On Marc h 24, 2005, the court enter ed an or der w hich, inte r a lia , awa rded joint custody

to the parties, with the mothe r being the prima ry c us tod ia n. Re ly ing on L oc a l Ru le 15 of the She lb yCou nty

Juve nil e Cou rt , f

a the r t ime ly appea led to the Circuit Court of Shelby County . By order enter ed October 11, 2005, the circuit court dismiss ed the a

ppeal f or lac k of subject matter

jurisdiction. On October 28, 2005, fa t h er filed a notice of a

ppeal in the circuit court, appealing the final judgme nt of di smissal in the circ uit court and the final judg ment of the juvenile c ourt enter ed on Ma rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 5. We vacate the orde r of the circ uit court dismissi ng the ca se and r emand the c ase to the t ri al co u rt wi th directions to enter an or de r t rans fe rring thi s a

pp e a l to the Cou rt

of Ap pe a ls.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Order of Circ uit Court Vacat ed and Rem anded

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Mitchell D. Moskovitz and Ada m N. Cohen of Memphis, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, L ee T . My ers No Appea

ranc e by Appellee
OP IN ION
P et i t ioner/Appe llant, L ee T . My ers ( “F ather ”), and Respondent/Appellee , Sandra B rown (“ Mo the r” ), are the natur a l pa re nts of the min or c hil d, E. J.M., bo rn Oc tob e r 3 1, 19 94 . T he pa re nts w e r e n e v e r m arr i e d

. In J u n e 1 9 9 5 , p u r s u a n t t o a v o l u n t ary a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f F a t h e r ’ s p a t e r n i t y, the juvenile court entere d an orde r of leg itimation.-2-

Wit h only

short periods of pe ace , a p rotrac ted and c ontentious atmosphere pr evailed, primarily conce rning custody , visitation, and decision making for the ch i l d ’s welfa re. N umerous pe tit ion s w e re fi le d b y

e a c h o f the pa

rt ie s d e a lin g wi th the a lle g e d s ho rt c omi ng s o f the oth e r p arty in those are as. The c ase ha s been be fore this Court on m ore tha n one occa sion, and it appear s from state me nts of

c ou ns e l, the re is pr e se ntl y a no the r c a se pe nd ing in this Cou rt inv olv ing the se pa

rt ie s. This appea l involves the Marc h 24, 2005 order o f t he juvenile c ourt that confirmed as the de c re e of the c ou rt fi nd ing s a nd

re c omm e nd a tio ns of

the re fe re e , w hic h s ta te s:
F IN DI NG S AN D R EC OM M EN DA TIO NS O F RE F ER EE
Th is c aus e c a me on to be he ard be fo re the Ho no ra ble Cary C. Wo od s, R e f e r e e o f t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r to f

M e m p h i s a n d S h e l b y C o u n t y, Tenne s s e e ; a ll p ar ti e s o f

in te r e s t w e r e b e f

o r e th e Co u r t, a n d upon pr oo f i ntr od uc e d a ndthe e nti re re c or d, the Re fe re e fi nd s th a t:
1. The Petition for C o n t em p t and To Modify Chid S upport Orde r filed in this Court on Februa ry 25, 2004 should be dismissed.
2. Th e Pe tit ionfo r C on te mpt ; T o Mo dif y Pr ima ry Re sid e nti a l Status ; or in the Al te rn a tiv e fo r Inju nc tiv e Re lie f fi le d in thi s Cou rt on Ap ri l 30, 2004 should be sustained.
3. The Guardian Ad L item’s Petition for Cont empt Ag ainst Mother, Sa n d ra Br own, filed in this Court on Febr uary 1, 2005 should be sustained. 4. The Petition to ModifyP ri m ar yResidential Status and For Contempt filed in this Court on Febr u ar y 1 , 2 005 should be dismiss ed.
5. The defenda nt, Sandra Brow n, was and is able to comply with the Court’s order

of visitation.
6. Th e de fe nd a nt, Sa nd ra B ro wn , is in c on te mpt

of the Cou rt

. I T I S THEREFORE RECOMMENDED
1. That said child be removed fr om the custody of the mother, Sandr a Br own.-3- 2. That joint custody

of said child shall be a war ded to the mother, Sandra B rown, a nd the father, Dr. L ee T. My ers, with Sandra B rown being the primary

custodian.
3. Th a t th e mothe r o f s aid c hil d, Sa nd ra B ro wn , s ha ll c on su lt w ith the father of said child, Dr. L ee T

. My ers, with any major dec isions c on c e r n i n g s a i d c h i l d , s u c h a s e d u c a t i o n a l , m e d i c a l , o r h e a l th de c isi on s.
4. That the m o t her of

said child, Sandra B rown, shall pay attorney fee s in the amount of $1,000.00 to attorney Adam N. Cohen.
5. That Sandra

Br own shall pay

the costs for w hich execution may issue.
On Ma rc h 2 4, 20 05 , F a the r f

ile d a No tice o f App eal fr om the juv e nil e c ou rt to the Cir c uit Court of Shelby

County , Tenne ssee, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15, of the L ocal Rules of the Shelby County J uvenile Court. On October 11, 2005, the circ uit c ourt enter ed an order dismiss ing t h e a p p ea l , s t at i n g:

De sp ite Rul e 15 of the L oc a l Rul e s of Juve nil e Cou rt , thi s H on or able Court lacks subject matter to ente rtain F ather ’s appe al. As such, Father’s a

ppeal to t h i s Honorable Court shall be dismissed, and Fa ther must pursue his appe al with the Court of Appe als, Western Section at J ackson.
O n O c t o b e r

2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , F a t h e r

f i l e d a N o t i c e o f A p p e a l i n t h e C i r c u i tC o u r to f S h e l b y C o u n t y, wh ic h s ta te s: Notice is hereby g iven t hat L ee My ers named, hereby appea ls to the Court of Appea ls of Tenne ssee, Western Sec tion at J ackson f rom the final jud gm en t of the Circuit Court of Shelby County , Tenne ssee at Memphis, entere d in this action on the 11 day of Oc tober, 2005 – th Orde r of Dismissal; and fr om the final judg ment of the Juvenile Court of Shelby County , Tenne ssee at Memphis, entere d in this a ct i o n on the 24 day

of Mar ch,2005. th Appellant see ks relief

from the judgme nt of the juvenile court, enter ed Mar ch 24, 2005, set out a bove. I n order for this Court to r eac h the substantive issue, this Court must have jurisdiction of t he appeal. I n the first instance, we have jurisdiction of the appe al to determine whether the trial court e rre d in dismi ssing Appe llant’s appea l f rom the juvenile court to the circ uit c ourt. T.C.A. § 37-1-159 ( 2005), App e als , s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p art :-4- (a) The juvenile court shall be a c ourt of re cord; a nd any appea l from any final order or judg ment in a delinquenc y proce eding , filed under this chapter, e x cept a procee ding pur suant to § 37-1-134, may be made to the criminal court or court having criminal jurisdiction that shall hear the testimo ny

of witnesses a nd try

the ca se de novo; a nd a ny app eal fro m a ny

fi na l or de r o r j ud g me nt i n a n u nr uly c hil d pr oc e e din g or

de pe nd e nt andne g le c t pr oc e e din g , f ile d u nd e r this chapte r, may

be made to the circ uit court that shall hear the te stimony of witnesses a nd try

the ca se de novo. . . .

**** (g ) A pp e a ls i n a ll o the r c ivi l matte rs he ardby the juv e nil e c ou rt

sh a ll be g overne d by

the Tenne ssee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure

. I n Antho ny v . Ro dg e rs , No. W20 02 -0 12 40 -C OA -R 3- CV , 2 00 3 WL 22 21 32 08 (T e nn . Ct

. A p p e a l s S e p t

. 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e C o u r th e l d t h a tt h i s C o u r t , a n d n o tt h e C i r c u i tC o u r to f S h e l b y C o u n t y, could properly exercise subject matter jurisdi ction over the trial court’s custody determination. Id. a t *2 . T he g e ne ral la w p ro mul g a te d b y ou r l e g isl a tur e e sta

bli sh e s t hat ju ri sd iction o f a pp e a ls i n custody matters is to the Court of Appea ls. W hen a private ac t or rule of court is in conflict with the g ener al statute, the private act or rule must g ive way

in favor of

the g ener al ac t. Nic hol

s v . King , 190 Te nn . 5 73 , 2 30 S.W. 2d10 06 , 1 01 1 ( 19 50 ); Richie v. Liberty Cash Grocers, Inc., 471 S.W .2d 559, 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971). R u l e 1 5 o f t he loca l rules of the juve nile court provide s that “any dis po sit ionof

a c hil d, e xce pt t

rans fe r o f a

juv e nil e to c ri min a l c ou rt to b e de a lt w itha s a n a du lt, sh a ll be to the cir cuit court.” Acting on this rule, the Appellant appealed to the circuit court. As noted, the trial court dismiss ed the appea l, rightf ully holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, based upon T.C.A. § 37- 1-159 (g ). We ag ree that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appea l in this case . Howeve r, the trial c ourt, instead of dismissing the a ppeal, shou ld have tr a ns fe rr e d th e app e a l to the Cou rt of Ap pe a ls.
I n In Re : E

sta te of Whit e , 7 7 S. W.3 d 76 5 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. 20 01 ), thi s Co urt w a s d e a lin g wi th an appe al from the G iles CountyGene ra l S essions Court, ex erc ising probate jurisdiction, and the appea l was mistakenly taken to the C hance ry Court for Giles County . The trial c ourt determined that it lac ked appellate jurisdiction to review the de cisions of the Giles County Probate Court with reg ard to the probate of a w ill and dismi ssed the appe al. This Court said:

Ho we ve r , th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d b y dis mis sin g the po rt ionof

Ms. Whit e' s petition seeking appellate revie w of the pr obate c ourt's de c isi on s. Whe n a c a se ha s be e n app e a le d to the wr ong appel la te court, Te nn. Code Ann. § 16-4- 108(a) (2) pr o v i d es t h at it should be

" tr a ns fe rr e d to the c ou rt

ha vin g jur

isd ic tio n the re of ." Re ly ing on thi s statute, the Tenne ssee Supre me Court vacated a judgment af firming a circ uit c ourt' s dismiss al of an a ppeal f rom a probate court and then re ma nd e d th e c a se wi th dir e c tio ns that it be tr a ns fe rr e d to thi s c ou rt

.-5- I n re Estate of Wil liams, Ma dison L aw (Orde r g ranting Tenn. R. App. P. 1 1 ap p li c ati o n a n d a me n d in g ju d g me n t) ( T e n n
. N o v
. 1 8 , 1 9 85). Acc ording ly , on rema nd, the trial court is directed to ente r a n order transfe rring Ms. Whi te' s petition for appellate review to this court for further proce eding s. Id. at 769.
The recor d ref

lects t hat t he appeal to the circuit court from the j uvenile court was timely , and the appe al should have be en tra nsfer red to the Court o f Ap p ea l s
. Acc ording ly , the orde r of the c ir c uit c ou rt dis mis sin g th e app e a l is va c a te d, a ndthec a se is r e ma nd e d to the c ir c uit c ou rt wi th dir e c tio ns fo r the cir cuit c ou rt to e nte r an o rd e r t

rans fe rring the app e a l to the Cou rt of Ap pe a ls. Whe n th e c a se is a g a in d oc ke te d inthi s Co urt, A pp e lla nt m a y re ly up on his brie f f ile d inthi s a

pp e a l, upon notify ing the cler

k of the Court that he will do so. Costs of this appea l are assessed a g ainst the A p p e l l a n t , L e e T

. M ye r s , a n d h i s s u r e t y.

______________________________________ W. FR ANK

CR AW FOR D, P RES I

DI NG JUDG E, W.S.