### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE A T ME MP H IS Fe br ua ry 19, 200 9 S es sio n MEL IND A R EUS T WILLIA MS v. ER IC BU TZE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forShelb y County No. CT-001348-08 R obert L. Childers, Judge

No. W2008-01490-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Mar ch 18, 2009

This case beg an as a petiti on for de pendenc y and neg lect, which pe tition was dismi ssed by consent of the pa rt ie s. Th e juv e nil e c ourt th e n p ro c e e de d to de te rm ine c us tod y purs ua nt t o it s a uth or ity g rante d by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-104(f ). When custody

was plac ed with Father/Appe llee, Mother/Appellant a

ppeale d to the Circuit Court of Shelby County . The Circuit Court d eter mined that the Tenne ssee Court of A ppeals wa s the proper

appellate court a

nd enter ed an order

transfe rring the a pp e a l to us . M oth e r a

pp e a ls that tr ans fe r. We a ff ir m.
Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circ uit Court Aff irme d
J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., delivere d the opinion of t h e court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J

. W.S.,and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.
Ti mothy J. W ill ia ms, Me mph is, TNfo r A pp e lla nt, Me lin da Re us t W ill ia ms Ivan D . Har

ris, Colli erville, TN f

or Appe llee, Eric Butze

OP IN ION Appellee /Fathe r Eric Butze and Appellant/Mother Melinda Wil liams ha ve one minor child, K.M.B., born out of wedloc k on September 8, 2000. Following her birth, K.M.B. was in the primary custod y o f

M s
. W il li a ms
. O n A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , M r
. Bu tz e f il e d a p e ti ti o n f

o r d e p e n d e n c y and neglec t, protective c ustody and/or custody, see king cus t o d y o f t h e minor child base d upon allegations that Ms.Williams as unable to prope rl y ca re f or K.M.B. In re sponse to Mr. Butze’s pe tit ion , th e tr ia l c ou rt

e nte re d a pr ote c tiv e c us tod y or de r, pla c ing te mpo ra ry c us tod y o f K .M .B. wi th Mr. Butze.
After some discover

y an d litigation, the par ties rea ched a

n ag ree ment to dismi ss the de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t pe tit ion . O n Jan

ua ry 9, 20 06 , th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d an or de r, wh ic h s tate s, in r e le va nt p art :-2- T h is c a u s e c ame to b e h e ar d

. . . . u p o n a p e ti ti o n f

o r d e p e n d e n cy

and neg lect.... F rom statements of c ounsel it appea rs t hat t he parties have rea ched a n amicable set t l em en t of all issues and that the se ttlement a pp e ars to b e re a so na

ble to t he Court : 1

. T h e Petition [ for de pendenc y and neg lect, filed on Aug ust 18, 2003] i s d ismiss ed by consent of the parties and the Court her eby enter s a child custody

Orde r pursua

nt to § 36-6-106 of the Te nnessee Code Annotated. (Emphasis adde d).
Th e tr ia l court pla c e d pri mary re sid e nti a l cus tod y wi th Mr . B utze , a

nd g ra nte d M s. Willi a ms’ visitation. The parties oper ated unde r the sche dule until J une 16, 2006 when M r. Bu t z e filed a pe tit ion to m od if y the pr e vio us or de r o n c us tod y . T he pe tit ion

re a ds , in pe rt ine nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: Sin c e [F athe r w a s g ra

nte d c us tod

y ] ci rc ums tanc e s hav e c ha ng e d in that...said child incurr ed h igh le vels of ar senic in her bloodstream while visiting mother a

pproxi mately

two or three wee ks ag o. By Orde r of June 16, 2006, Ms. W illiams’ visi tation with K.M.B. wa s suspended pe nding a hea ring on Mr. B utze’s petition. That hearing took place on Aug ust 24, Aug ust 28, and September 4, 2007. On September

4, 2007, t h e t ri al co u rt enter ed an or der, which re ads, in rele vant par t, as fo llo ws : 5. That immediately following an unsuper

vised period of

visitation betwee n the mother a

nd child said child bec ame ve ry ill. W hen take n to a d o c t o r s h e w a s t e s t e d an d s h o w e d p o s i t i v e f o r s i g n s of

or g a nic and inorg anic a

rsenic. T hat from all the testimony this Court finds by clea r and c onvincing proof t h at the mother know ingly cause d her child to inge st a

rsenic and that such conduct by the mother constitutes sever e child abuse as defined by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated , Section 37-1-102( 21)(A)

. 6. That the petition should be sustained and that the pre vious order of thi s Co ur t e nte re d o n Jan

ua ry 9, 20 06 should b e mod if ie d a s it is not in said child’s best interest to have any court orde red unsupervised c ontact with her mother.
T h e c o u rto r d e r e d

t h e Janu ar

y 9 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e r

b e s e ta s i d e , an d

g r a n t e d M s
. W i l lia ms’ supervised visitation with the child “under such terms a

nd conditions as may

be esta blished...by

the fathe r, in his sole discretion, for the protec tion of the child.” Ms. Wil liams was a lso prohibited from g iving the c hild any

food or dr ink.-3-

On September

14, 2007, Ms. Wi lliams filed a notice of appea l to the C ircuit Court at Shelby County

. By Orde r of J une 27, 2008, the Ci rcuit Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the a pp e a l, a nd tr ans fe rr e d th e matte r t o th is C ourt fo r dis po sit ion . M s. Willi a ms a pp e a ls the Cir c uit Court’s transfe r of the a

ppeal. The sole issue b efor e this Court is whether the Circ uit Court erred in transfe rringMs. Wi lliams’ appea l of the Juvenile Court order.
Be cause the i ssue presents a question of l aw, we revie w the Circuit Court’s dec ision de novo upon the rec ord with no pr esumption of corr ectne ss. See Te nn . R. App . P. 13 (d ); Waldron v. Delffs , 98 8 S.W.2 d 182 , 184 (T e nn . Ct . App .1 99 8) ; Sims v . St e wart , 9 73 S.W. 2d

59 7, 59 9- 60 0 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1998).
Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 7- 1- 15 9 p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : (a) The juvenile c ourt shall be a court of r ecor d... and any appea l from any fin al orde r or judg ment in an unruly child proce edingor depende nt and neg lect proc eeding , fi l ed under this chapter , may be made to the c ircuit court that sha ll hear th e testimony of witnesses and try the case de novo. The appea l sha ll be perf ecte d within ten (10) d ay s , ex cl u d i n g n o n

j u d i ci al d ay s , fo l l o wi n g t h e j u v en i l e c o u rt 's dispositi on.... * * * (g ) Ap pe a ls in a ll oth e r c ivi l matte rs he ard by the juv e nil e c ourt

sh a ll be g overne d by

the Tenne ssee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 3 7 -1 -1 0 3 (a )( 1 ) p ro v i d es t h at t h e J u v en i l e C o u rt h as ex cl u s i v e j u ri sdiction over de pendenc y

and neg lect proc eeding s. This ex clusive jurisdict i o n co ntinues until one of the fo llo wi ngc ri te ri a

is m e t: Whe n ju ri sd ic tio n h a s b e e n a c qu ir e d un de r the pr ov isi on s o f t his pa rt , such jurisdiction shall c ontinue until the c ase ha s been dismissed, or until the custody

deter mination is t ransf

err ed to another juve nile, c ir c uit , c ha

nc e ry or g e ne ra l se ssi on s c ourt

e xer c isi ngdo me sti c relations jurisdi ction, or until a petition for a doption is filed reg arding the child in question as set out in § 36-1-116(f ).... Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-103(c ).
I n In Re D. Y.H. , 226 S.W .3d 327 (Tenn. 2007), our Supreme Court stated that “any custody decision that is made during a dependenc y and negle ct proceeding is a part of t he depe ndency and neg lect proc eedingand ap p eala ble to the circ uit court.” In Re D. Y.H. , 226 S.W .3d at 331 (c iting Te nne sse eDe pa rtme nt o

f C hild re n’ s Se rv ic es v

. O we ns , 1 29 S.W. 3d

50 (T e nn . 2 00 4) ) ( e mph a sis-4-

added) . The D. Y.H. Court further held that any

custody decision made subsequent to a de pendenc y and ne g le c t pr oc e e din g wi ll ari se fr om and be pa rt of the de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t pr oc e e din g un le ss there is an interruptingevent unde r Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103( c). Id

. I n Antho ny

v . Ro dge rs , N o
. W 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 2 4 0

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 2 2 1 3 2 0 8 ( T e n n . Ct

. App. Sept. 23, 2003), the orig inal petition was one for depende ncy and negle ct, which wa s filed by the g rand m o t h er , s ee king c ustody of a minor c hild born out of wedlock. Id . at *1. The c hild’s biologica l father

also filed his own petit i o n for de pendenc y and neg lect, askingthe cour t to place custody with him. Id . The Juvenile Court dism issed both petitions for depende ncy and neg lect and awa rded c ustody

to the fathe r pursuant to T enn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. The mother then a ppeale d this custody

deter mination to the Circuit Court at S helby County

. I n Antho ny , th is C ourt fo un d th a t, beca use the Juvenile Court had dismiss ed both petitions for depende ncy and neg lect, and ha d made a custody d et ermination betwe en the two pa rents, that the mother

was a ppealingthe custody decision, and not the de pendenc y and neg lect issue. C onsequently , under Te nn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 15 9, thi s Co ur

t he ld t hat it ha d s ub je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n o ve r t he a pp e a l, n ot t

he Cir c uit Court

. As discussed above , in the instant case, the depende ncy and neg lect petiti on filed by Mr. Butze wa s dismis sed by

con s en t o f b o t h the par ties on J anuar

y 9, 2006. As in Antho ny , th is dismiss al of the depende ncy and negle ct petit ion serve d as an interrupting event, whic h ended the J uvenile Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the depende ncy and negle ct proc eeding s. Tenn. Code Ann.§ 37-1-103( c). In the same January 9, 2006 o rd er , t h e J uvenile Court made a custody deter mination “pursuant to § 36-6-106 of the Tenne ssee Code A nnotated

. ” I n so doing, the trial court w a s p r o c e e d in g u n d e r it s ju r is d ic ti o ne s ta

b li s h e d b y T e n n
. Co d e A n n
. § 3 7

- 1

- 1 0 4 ( f ) , which pr ov ide s: No tw ith sta nd ingany provis ion

of law t o th e c on tr ary , th e juv e nil e court ha s concur

rent jurisdiction with the circ uit a nd chanc ery

court of proc eeding s to establish the paternity of childre n born out of lawf ul wedlock a

nd to deter

mine any custody , visitation, support, education or other issues re g ardingthe ca re a nd control of c hildren born out of we dlo c k. Th e c ourt fur ther ha s th e po we r t o e nf

or c e its or de rs
. No thi ngin t

his su bs e c tio n ( f) sh a ll b e c on str ue d as v e sti ngthe c ir c uit and cha ncer y cour t wi t h jurisdiction over matters that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court unde r § 37-1- 103.
I n short, once the parties c onsented to the dismiss al of the de pendenc y and neg lect petition, the Juve nil e Court ’s e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n und e r T e nn . Code Ann. § 37- 1- 10 3( c ) ce a se d. He re , M s. Wi ll ia ms is a p p e a li n g a

c u s to dy d e c is io nma d e b y

th e Ju v e n il e Co u rt p u r s u an t t o it s ju r is d ic tion un de r T e nn . Co de Ann. § 37 -1 -1 04 (f ). Con se qu e ntl y , un de r Te nn
. Cod e Ann. § 3 7- 1- 15 9( g ), thi s Court , n ot t

he Cir c uit Court , is the pr op e r a

pp e llate c ourt

. For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the order of the C ircuit Court. Costs of this appea l are a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e Ap p e l l an t , M e l i n d a W i l l i a m s an d

h e r s u r e t y.-5- 

### ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____ J

. S T E V E N S T A FF O RD , J.