### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n
I N RE 

### B. N
. W.
Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Davidson Cou nty No. P T20255, PT23364 Bet ty Adam s Gr een, Judge

No. M2004- 02710-COA-R 3-JV - F iled Dece m ber 20, 2005

Th is a pp e a l in vo lve s th e de c isi on of the Da vid so n Cou nty , Te nn e sse e , Juve nil e Cou rt to d e c lin e to exercise jurisdiction, other tha n temporary emer g ency jurisdiction, in a c hild custody case under the Un if orm Ch ildCus tody Juri sd ic tio n a ndEn fo rc e me nt A c t. T he jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.
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 B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.

L .R. DeMar co, Na shville, Tennessee , for the A ppellant, Debr a Whitehead.

Mike J . Urquha

rt, Nashville, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, Will iam C. Spann.
Stephen S. Og le, Nashville, Te nnessee , for the A ppellee, Robbie Whitehea d.

OP IN ION This appea l is before t h e C o urt on the tec hnical re cord only (Tenn.R.App.P. Rule 24(a )
rec ord) a s we a

re f avore d with neither a

transcript of the evide n ce p u rs u an t to Tennessee Rule of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re 24 (b ) no r a Sta te me nt of the Ev ide nc e pu rs ua nt to T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Procedur e 24(c ). To t h e extent that resolution of the issues on appe al depe nd on fac tual de te rm inatio ns , th e la c k o f a tr a ns c ri pt o r State me nt of the Ev ide nc e is e sse nti a lly fata l to the pa

rt y having the burden on appea l. Sh e rro d v . W ix , 849 S.W .2d 780, 783 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992). It is the duty of the a ppellant t o prepa

re a rec ord which convey s a fa ir, ac cura te and c omplete ac count of what has transpire d in the trial court with re spect to the issues that form the ba sis of the appe al. State v. Boling , 840 S.W .2d 944, 951 (Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.1992). Mere statements of counsel, which are not
app ro pria te pr of

fe rs or no t e ff e c tiv e ly take n a s true by

the pa rt ie s, c a nn ot e sta

bli sh wh a t oc c ur

re d in the t rial court unless supported by evidenc e in the re cord. State v. Thompson , 832 S.W .2d 577, 579 (Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.1991).-2-

L abo ri ng un de r s uc h li mit a tio ns , w e wi ll a dd re ss the iss ue s b a se d u po n th e re c or d th a t is befor e us without consideration of extraneous assertions made in brief and at oral a rg ument which
are no t su pp orte d by the re c or d. A c hr on olo g ic a l his tory of thi s lit ig a tio n, bo th i n A la ba ma a ndin T e n n e s s e e , i s e s s e n t i a l t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i s s u e s i n t h i s c a s e , a n d s u c h c h r o n o l o g i c a l h i s t o r y, as is shown by

this recor d, establishes t hat the minor child, B .N.W., was born to Mark Whitehea d ( “ F a th e r ” ) a n d D e b r a

Wh it e h e a d ( “ M o th e r ” ) o n D e c e mb e r 2 8 , 1 9 9 8

. T h e Wh it e h e a d s a n d B

. N

. W.
re sid e d o n th e pr op e rt y

of the pate rn a l g rand pa

re nts , M ilt on Whit e he a d ( “ Gr a nd fathe r” ) andRob bie Whit ehea d (“G randmother ”).

T h e f i r s to r d e r i n t h e r e c o r d w a s i s s u e d b y t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r to f L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y, Alabama , on Fe bruary

15, 2001, fo l l o wi ng a pre -trial hea ring on Fe bruary

13, 2001. This Order pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art :

All parties to t h i s ac t i on had bee n previously serve d. None of

the Re sp on de nts ha d f

ile d a n A ns we r o r o the rw ise re sp on de d to the Pe tit ion

. At the tim e set for pr e-tria l hearing, ne ither of the Re spo ndents, Debr a Whitehead nor Mark Whit e he a d a

pp e are d. Th e Cou rt

understan ds that Ma

rk Whit e he a d is pr e se ntl y incar cer ated in the L auder dale County Detention Center. The Court understands that the Guar dian ad litem, He ath Trousdale had sent letters to the pare nts requesting they contac t him to discuss the matters alleg ed in the Petition, howeve r, neither pa rent ha d
co n t ac t ed h i mp ri o r t o t h e p re -t ri al h ea ri n g. The Petitioners, Milto n an d R o bbie Whitehead appe are d at the time set for pre- trial hea

ring and advise d the Court that they understood that neither

the Mother
no r the F a the r i nte nd e d to c on te st the c us tod y of the min or c hil dr e n b e ing pla c e d w ith them. The Court assumes this to be t ru e as neither par ent filed a response to the Petition fil ed by the P etitioners. Ba sed upon this, the Court ORDERS, ADJ UDGES
a ndDE CRE ES a s f

oll ow s: 1. Custodyof the minor chi l d ren, [D.R.W.] , [D.P .W.] and [B.N.W.] are he re by ve ste d in the paterna l g rand pa re nts , M ilt on Whit e he a d a ndRob bie Whit eh ea d

. T h e paternal g randpa rents shall have the full custody of said childre n and ar e her eby authorized and directed to act in any way nece ssary

to effe ctuate the best interest of sa id children.

2. Th e Mo the r i s d ir e c te d to pr e pa rea n Af fi da vit of I nc ome a ndfi le it w ith the Court for pur

poses of e ntering an Or der r eg arding child support within fourteen (14) day s from the date of this order

. The F ather , who is prese ntly incar cer ated in the L auder dale County

Detention F acility

shall f il ean Af fidavit of Income with the Court
no la te r tha n f

ou rt e e n ( 14 ) d a y s f

ro m th e dat e of

his re le a se fr om the L a ud e rd a le County D e te n ti o n F a c il it y

. Ch il d s u p p o r t w il l b e b a s e d u p o n th e in c o me s of the parties a nd in acc ord with a ARJA 32.-3- 3. The Court under s t ands fr om the Petitioners that there ha ve bee n sever al instances of domestic violence betwee n the R espondents. Based upon that, visit ation shall be at the discr etion of the Petitioners, M il to n Whit ehea d and Robbie Whitehead.

4. T h e p ar e n ts s h a ll c o o p e r a te in s e e in g th a t a n y it e ms o f p e r s o n a lt y in the po sse ssi on of

e ith e r R e sp on de nt w hic h b e lon g s to the m in or chil dr e n is pr omp tly provided to the Petitioners for the use a nd benef

it of the minor children.

5. Th e Cou rt

fu rthe r u nd e rs ta nd s th a t the re ha ve be e n c e rt a in p ro ble ms w ith
re g ardto s ub sta nc e abu se by the Re sp on de nts

. Th e Cou rt re ite rate s it s d ir e c tiv e to the Mother a nd Father that they attend counseling sessions a s directe d by Riverbend. I f the pa re nts c omp ly wi th thi s, the Cou rt wi ll c on sid e r e xpa nd ing the vis itatio n rig hts of the pa re nts up on pr op e r a

pp lic a tio n to the Cou rt

. Ad dit ion a l his tory is g le a ne d fr om a n Or de r e nte re d by the Juve nil e Cou rt of L aud erda le Cou nty , A la

ba ma , o n A ug us t 19 , 2 00 3, wh ic h p ro vid e s in re le vant p art :
Th is m a tte r w a s se t f

or he ari ng on July 15 , 200 3. Th e pa rt ie s a pp e are d w ith
c ou ns e l a s d id the Gu ard ia n A d Lite m. T he Cou rt me t w ith c ou ns e l for

the pa rt ie s, af te r w h ic h th e c o u n s e l m e t w ith th e ir r e s p e c ti v e p ar ti e s

. Ce r tainmatt e r s wer e ag ree d to and ce rtain matters w ere rese rved f or the Court’s de cision based upon the d i s cu s s i o n s h ad i n ch am b er s an d t es t i m o n y at t h e s u b s eq u en th ea ri n g.

Fr om the testimony , discussions, and the ag ree ments, the Court finds that the minor child, [B.N.W.] , a mi nor born 12-28-98, has primarily resided on the premises wh e re bo th h e r p are nts a ndpate rn a l g rand pa re nts re sid e d s inc e he r b irth. Th e pa re nts of [B.N.W.] lived on the premises with their child until the death of the F ather , Mark Whit ehea d, on May 16, 2002. At some time afte r t hat, the Mother le ft the pre mises and the c hild has resided on the pre m i s es wi t h the paternal g randmother (the g randf ather , Milton Horton, has since passe d away ).

T h e g r a n d mo th e r

a ls o h a s c u s to d y

o f tw o h a lf b r o th e r [s ] to [B

. N

. W. ], [D.R.W .], and [D.P.W.] , in that the Mother and F ather of the c hildren ar e dec ease d. Mark Whitehead is the F ather of all the c hildren. T h o s e ch ildren, as we ll, have
re sid e d o n th e pr e mis e s o f the pate rn a l g rand pa re nts fo r the ma

jority of the ir liv e s. By ag ree men t , t em p o ra rycu s t o d y o f [ B.

. N. W

. ] h as b ee n v es t ed i n t h e p aternal g randmother

since J uly 17, 2001. The Mother has exercise d visitation wit h the minor child in increa sing a mounts since that time.

Du e to the c los e re la tio ns hip that the c hil d ha s sh are d, mos t of he r l if e , w ith her g randmother

and the f act that she has g rown up with her half siblings, the Court finds that the best intere st of the minor child will be serve d with an Orde r g ranting-4-

vis itatio n to the g rand mothe r s o th a t th e chi ld c a n c on tin ue to m a int a in h e r c los e re la tio ns hip wi th the g rand mothe r andwi th h e r h a lf sib lin g s.
Th e Cou rt re se rv e s jur isd ic tio n to con tin ue mon ito ri ng pr og re ss in this c a us e of ac tion.

Th e pa rt ie s a nn ou nc e d to the Cou rt that a n a g re e me nt h a d b e e n r e a c he d a s to custody and visitation of the minor child, but did not agr ee to how the visitation exchang es would take place . The Court has c onsidered the testimonyand agre ements, ratify ing the parties’ ag ree ment as to custody of the minor child being returne d to the Mother, and further Orde rs that exchang e of visitation shall continue to at the M cDona ld’s at t he int erse ction of Highwa y 72 and I -65 in Athens, Alabama. The g randmother shall beg in visitation on Thursday , Aug ust 21, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. and continue until Sunday , Aug ust 22, 2003 at 5:00 p.m.. After said visitation, the g randmother

shall have visitation every other we ekend be g inning at 5:00 p.m. on Friday until 5:00 p.m. on Sunday

. Reg ular visi tation shall beg in September 5, 2003,
a ndc on tin ue e a c h a nde ve ry oth e r w e e ke ndun til fu rthe r O rd e r f o th e Cou rt

. The g randmother

shall have r eg ular visi tation by telephone w ith the minor child. The g randmother

may call the minor c hild two ti m es per wee k during the ho ur s o f 8 :00 a .m. a nd8:0 0 p .m.
The mother w ill be subject to random drug scre ens at the dire ction of the Cou rt

.
Eac h party

is responsible for pay ing one -half (1⁄2) of the Guar dian Ad Litem fe e s.
This Court shall reta in jurisdiction over this matter and shall have a revie w hearing on the 17th day

of F ebrua

ry , 2004, at 11:30 a.m. bef ore the undersig ned.

The mother had re sided in Davidson County , Tenne ssee, be fore the J uly 13, 2003, hearing that resulted in the Aug ust 19, 2003, Order of t he J uvenile C ourt of L auder dale County , Alabama

. She th en t o o k B. N. W

. with her to Tenne ssee. She r eturne d to Alabama, how ever , for the r eview hearing se t for F ebrua

ry 17, 2004, in the L auder dale County , Alabama , J uvenile Court. Following t h at h ea ri n g, an o rd erwa s en t er ed p ro v i d i n g:

This cause having come be fore t h e C ourt on a re view, and a ll interested pa rt ie s be ing pr e se nt, it i s ORDERED, ADJUDG ED and DECREED a s f oll ow s:
1. Th a t th e fu ll c are , cu sto dy , an d co ntr ol o f the abo ve na me d mi no r c hil d is hereby awa rded to the mother

/plaintiff.W e are i nfo rme d by counsel fo r Ro b b i e W hi t ehead i n oral argument t hat t he reason fo r t hi s act i o n by D eb ra 1
W hi t ehead was t hat s he i nt end ed , af t er t he A l ab am a d ecree was enrol l ed i n T en n e ssee, t o f i l e a P et i t i o n t o have t he T enn es s ee C our t mo di f y t he vi s i t at i on ar r ang ement for Rob b i e W hi t ehe ad. T he r ecor d bef ore t hi s Co ur t di s cl ose s
no t hi ng of t hi s charact er.
-5-

2. The de fenda nt/paterna l gr andmother is aw arde d visitation privil eg es with said m i n o r ch i ld in accor dance with the “In-State Standard V isitation Guidelines” inc orporated by this Court and attached hereto as Ex hibit A. The pa rties shall continue to exchang e the minor c hild for visitation as previously ag ree d.

3. Pr ov is io ns of pr e vio us or de rs no t sp e c if ic a lly mod if ie d h e re in s ha ll
re ma in i n f

ull fo rc e a nde ff

e c t.

DO NE and O RD ER ED on this the 23 day of F ebrua

ry 2004.

Fo r r ea s o n s n o td i s cl o s ed b y t h e r ec o rd , De b ra W h i t eh ea d fi l ed a P et i t i o n t o E n ro l l Fo re i gn Dec ree in the J uvenile Court of Da vidson County , Tenne ssee , on April 14, 2004. This Petiti on 1 provided:

Co m e s n o w t h e P e t i t i o n e r , D e b r a W h i t e h e a d , a n d r e s p e c t f

u l l y a l l e g e s un to the Cou rt a s f oll ow s:

1

. T h a t P e t i t i o n e r i s a r e s i d e n to f

H e r m i t a g e , D a v i d s o n C o u n t y, Tenne ssee a nd resided at 2034 Nora L ane i nH e rmi ta g e , D a v id s on County , Tenne ssee 37076 and has r esided in Tenne ssee f or o v er t wo (2) y ear s. The minor child, [B .N .W .] , has r e sid e d in Te nn e sse e sin c e July 15 , 2 00 3. Th e Re sp on de nt i s a resident of

L auder dale County , Alabama and re sides at 6395 Hig hway 157, Flore nce, Alabama 35633.

2

. T h a to n F e b ru ar y 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , i n t h e C i r c u i tC o u r to f L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y, Alabama , J uvenile Division, an orde r wa s entere d in case #J U-2001-004.01 in r eg ard to the custody and visitation of [B.N.W.]

. A copy of the described order authenticated in acc ordanc e with the Acts of Cong ress a nd the statutes of Te nnessee is attache d here to as Exhi bit A and incorpor ated he rein by ref ere nce.
3. The orde r attac hed hereto as Ex hibit A provided for the custody and vis itatio n b e tw e e n Debr a Whit e he a d, the mothe r o f the min or c hil d, a ndRob bie Whit ehea d, the paternal g randmother of the minor child. Mark Whit ehea d, the father of the minor child, is dec ease d.

4. Th e Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t th e or de r atta c hed here to as E xhibi t A is entitled to full faith and cr edit in the Courts of the State of Te nnessee

.-6- 5. The Petitioner’s Af fidavit s et t i n g fo rt h the name and last known addre ss of the Respondent a nd Petitioner is attached a s Ex hibit B and incor porate d here in by ref ere nce.
6. There are no other states in whic h this order is re g istered.

WHE RE F OR E P RE M ISES C ON SID ER ED , P ETIT ION ERP RA YS:

1. Th a t pr op e r p ro c e ss i ssu e a ndbe se rv e d u po n th e Re sp on de nt.

2. That afte r notice and hearing this Court order enrollment of the orde r a tta c he d h e re to a s E xhibi t A fo r e nf or c e me nt of thi s f

or e ig n d e c re e in this ho no ra ble
c ou rt

. 3. That Petitioner be g rante d such further relief , both ge nera l and spec ific, to which she is entitled.

On J une 3, 2004, Robbie W h i t ehea d filed her answe r in the Juvenile Court of Davidson Cou nty to the Pe tit ion se e kin g to e nr oll the Al aba ma jud g me nt i n D a vid so n Coun ty . Thi s r e sp on se pr ov ide s:
1. The respondent is without knowledg e suff icient to admit or deny

the fi rs t se nte nc e of

pa ra g ra ph 1 o f the pe tit ion , a ndstric t pr oo f ther e of is a c c or din g ly demande d. The re maining a lleg ations in parag raph 1 a re a dmitted.

2. The a lleg ations set forth in par ag raph 2 of the petition are admitted; howeve r, the Ala

bama or der spe aks for

itself.

3. The a lleg ations set forth in p ar ag raph 3 of the petition are admitted; howeve r, the Ala

bama or der spe aks for

itself.

4. I n response to the alleg ations set forth in para g raph 4 of the petition, the re spondent asserts that T ennesse e lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter under the Un if orm Ch ildCus tod y

Juri sd ic tio n A c t.

5. I n response to the alleg ations set forth in par ag raph 5 of the petition, the re spondent admits that an af fidavit is attache d to the copy of the pe tition t hat was
serve d upon her.

6. The re spondent is w ithout information suff icient to a dmit or de ny

the
a lle g a t i o n s s e t f

o r t h i n p ar a g r ap h 6 o f t h e p e t i t i o n , a n d s tr i c t p r o o f t h e r e o f i s acc ording ly

demande d.-7- 7. Any

alleg ations contained in the petition that have not been admitted, denied or explained are here by

g ener ally denied.

5. I t is denied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the re lief she se eks in her pe tition.

6. Whil e the pe tit ion e r ha s re qu e ste d that thi s Co urt e nr oll the Al aba ma order for e nfor ce m en t , she has not asse rted that the r espondent ha s violated any of its pr ov isi on s a ndha s f

a ile d to re qu e st any affi rm ative re lie f. Th e pe tit ionin this
ma tte r i s a

thi nly ve ile d atte mpt

to c ir c umv e nt the jurisd ic tio n o f the Al aba ma c ou rt , which just rende red the order that the petitioner see ks to “enfor ce” on Fe bruary 23, 2004. I nasmuch as the petitioner seeks no aff irmative re lief, this matter is not ripe for a djudication.

WH E RE F O RE , th e r e s p o n d e n t p r a y s th a t th e p e ti ti o n in th is matt e r be dismiss ed and that the costs of this cause be taxed to the petitioner.

On J une 29, 2004, re fer ee A lan Calhoun of the Da vidson County J uvenile Court enter ed an order acknow ledg ing the Petition t o Enroll and the Answ er the reto, tog ether with the jurisdictional issues rai s ed u n der the pleading s. He orde red briefs fr om the parties a nd resc heduled the he aring for July21, 2004.

So it i s at this po i n t i n the Davidson County proce eding s that we ha ve a pe tition bythe mother naming only

the paternal g randmother as a r espondent se eking to enroll the F ebrua ry 23, 2004, order

of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of L auder dale County , Al abama, and seeking enfor ceme nt of the Alabama order in T ennesse e. We the n have the answe r of the paterna l g randmother

pointing out that the P etition to Enroll seeks no relief from the Alabama judg ment, nor any other a ffirmative relief

but seeks only

the enf orce ment of the Alabama order . The a nswer of the g rand mothe r f

urthe r d e nie s th e jurisd ic tio n o f the Juve nil e Cou rt of Da vid so n Co un ty

e ith e r t o e nr oll the Alaba ma judg ment or to take jurisdiction for any other purpose

.
Be fore the pending juri s d i ctional issues could be a djudicated, the State of Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Children’s Service s on J une 30, 2004, filed a petition asserting that B.N .W. resided in D a vid so n Co un ty , T e nn e sse e , a ndwa s a de pe nd e nt andne g le c te d c hil d. Th e pe tit iona sse rt s:
This Petiti oner r ece ived a re fe rr al on J une, 22 2004. Statements fr om the
re fe rr al s t at ed i n d i ca t ed t h at t h e m o t h erwa s ab u s i n g t h e p re s cr i p t i o n d ru g, Oxy contin. That within two day s she had inge sted ten of f ifteen pills that had bee n pr e sc ri be d to he r. Th e re fe rr al a lso ind ic a te d th e mothe r h a d u se d c oc a ine a s w e ll. Th e re fe re nt s ta te d th a t mo the r w a s b e ingtr a ns po rt e d to Sum mit Ho sp ita l.

This Petiti oner f

irst interviewe d Ms. Whi tehea d (mother) at Te n nessee Christian Hospital. She admitted to a history of coc aine use and a curr ent abuse of pain medication.-8- Further investig ation showed that the fa t h er o f t his child is decea sed. A h i s t o ryo f t h i s ca s e s h o ws an u n fo u n d ed ca s e f ro m2 0 0 1 o n an ad u l ts i b l i n g.
This Petiti oner ne x t interviewe d M r

. Spa nn (maternal g randf ather ). He stated that he has be en taking car e of the mother and the chil d for the pa st two y ear s. He further stated that Ms. Whit ehea d has a history of drug a buse and me ntal illness. He the n s ta te d th a t he wo uld lik e to pe tit ionthe c ou rt fo r the te mpo ra

ry c us tod y of his g randdaug hter.

Ba s ed o n t his init ial investigation this Petitioner was able to enter into a safe ty plan with the mother a nd the maternal g randf ather . I t will ex pire on July2, 2004.

T h i s P e t i t i o n e r

i s r e q u e s t i n g a n a d

j u d i c a t i o n a n d r e q u e s t s a

c h an g eo f c u s t o d y. The De partment would re quest that custody of the minor child be gr anted to Willi am Calvin Spann, maternal g randf ather

. He is an appropriate party that will provide for the he a lth a ndsa fe ty

of the c hil d w hil e he r m oth e r a dd re sse s h e r dru g abu se iss ue s.
O n J u l y 6 , 2 0 0 4 , D a v i d s o n C o u n t y J u v e n i l e R e f e r e e C a l h o u n p l a c e d c u s t o d y pe nd e nte lit e o f B

. N

. W

. i n m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r , W i l l i a mC

. S p a n n , o f D a v i d s o n C o u n t y.
On J uly 15, 2004, Honora

ble Mike J. Urquhart, attorney at law, filed a Notice of Appe ara nce on behalf of Will iam C. Spann.

The c ase w as hea

rd by J uvenile Refe ree Alan Calhoun on Jul y 20 and 21 of 2004 r esulting i n an o rd eri s s u ed o n Au gu s t1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , p ro v i d i n g:

This matter ca me o n fo r hea ring on the 20th and 21st day s of J uly , 2004, befo re the Ho no ra

ble Al a n Ca lho un , Re fe re e , u po n th e brie fs of the pa rt ie s w ith reg ard to jurisdictional issues under the Uniform Child C u s tody J urisdiction and En fo rc e me nt A c t a ndthe Pare nta l Ki d n a p pin g Pr e ve nti on Ac t, the mot ion s o f R ob bie Whit e he a d f

ile d July 13 , 20 04 , the arg ume nt of c ou ns e l a nd the e nti re re c or d inthi s a c tio n; w he re up on , th e Cou rt OR DE RED a s f

oll ow s:
1. Robbie Whi tehea d shall have visitation with the minor child, [B.N.W.] , on J uly

20, 2004.

2. F or so lon g a s Wil lia m Ca lvi n Sp a nn ha s pe nd e nte lit e custody

of the [B.N.W.] , he shall comply with all provisions of the orde r ente red F ebrua ry 24, 2004, a copy of which is attac hed her eto a s an ex h i b i t and is incorporated her ein by ref ere nce, by

the J uvenil e C ourt for L auder dale County , Alabama , reg arding visitation between Robbie Whitehead a nd [B.N.W.] , except that hence forth Mr. Spann and Robbi e W h i t ehead shall meet to exchang e the c hild at the Tenne ssee Welcome Center on Interstate 65 at 6:30 p.m. on al t ernating Friday s beg inning-9-

Friday , Aug ust 20, 2004, and meet to exchang e the c hild aga in at 6:30 p.m. on
a lte rn a tin g Sun da y s.
3. Robbie Whit ehea d shall have visit ation with [B.N.W.] for two weeks be g inn ing July

23 , 2 00 4, a t 6: 30 p. m., a nd end in g o n Aug us t 5, 20 04 , at 6: 30 p. m. Mr. Spann and Robbie Whit ehea d shall meet at the Te nnessee Welcome Center on I n te r s tate 6 5 o n th e s e d a te s a n d a t th e s e ti me s to e xc h a n g e [B

. N

. W. ].

4

. T h e p ar ti e s s h a ll n o t d is c u s s th e c a s e w ith [B

. N

. W. ].

5. Th e Cou rt

sh a ll c ommun ic a te wi th Jud g e L arry Ma c k Sm ith a nd

/or his
succe ssor in office , in car e of the L auder dale County Courthouse, 200 South Court Street, F lorenc e, Alabama 35630, (256) 760- 5825, pursuant to t he provisions of the Un if orm Ch ildCus tod y

Juri sd ic tio n a ndEn fo rc e me nt A c t.

6. The Court denie s the motion of Ro b b i e W hitehead pr ay ing that the Court vacate its J uly

6, 2004, preliminary

hear ing or der.

7. This Court is exercising temporary emer g ency jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to sec tion 36-6-219 of the Te nnessee Code Annotated; howeve r, the e x tent of its jurisdiction remains disputed.

Be tween the hearing on J uly 20 and 21, 2004, and the entry of the orde r of Aug ust 16, 2004,
certain events a

ppare ntly occur red w hich we can only g lean from the alleg ations of ce rtain petitions and an unsig ned orde r which appea rs i n the record. On August 6, 2004, Wil liam C. S pann filed a p et i t i o n i n t h e J u v en i l e C o u rt o f D av i d s o n C o u n t y as s er t i n g:
1. That on J u l y 2 0, 2004 this matter was be fore the Honora ble Alan Ca lho un regardin g the do me sti c a tio n o f an o rd e r o f an A la ba ma Court, g ranting Robbie Whit ehea d visitation of t he mi nor child and Robbie Whi tehea d’s attempt to vacate a subseque nt placeme nt of the
c hil d w ith Willi a m Sp a nn by thi s cou rt du e to a lle g a tio ns of dr ug us e by the mother. 2

. A ll p ar ti e s w e r e p r e s e n t in c lu d in g Ro b b ie Wh it e h e a d , a t the afor ementioned he aring with the ex ception of the mother of the minor child, Debbie Whitehea d, who was r epre sented by her attorney , The Honora ble L .R DeMar co. 3. Th a t th e mothe r an d ch ild have liv e d inDa vid so n Co un ty fr om Jul y 20 03 to p re se nt. 4. Th a t in July

20 03 mothe r ha d c us tod y re turne d to he r b y theAl aba ma Court, subject to a re view hea ring in Febr

uary 2004. 5. Th a t a t th e re vie w h e ari ng in F e br ua ry 20 04 c us tod y

re ma ine d w ith t h e m o t h e r

a n d t h a tR o b b i e W h i t e h e a d h a d v i s i t a t i o n o n l y.-10- 6. At al l t i m es rele vant af ter July 2003 the child and mother lived and resided in Da vidson CountyTenne ssee with Willi am Spann. 7. The father of the child is dece ased. 8. At the afor ementioned hearing Re fer ee Ca lhoun denied the motion of Robbie Whi teh ea d to vacate the orde r g ranting Wil liam Spann custody of the c hild. 9

. Th e C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t R o b b i e W h i t e h e a d w o u l d b e a l l o w e d to exercise visitation pursuant to the orde r of the A l ab am a C o urt and stated that the c hi l d wo u l d be re turned to Will iam Spann upon the expiration of the Visitation by Robbie Whit ehea d pending fu rther
or de rs of the Cou rt

. 10. Visitation was schedule d from Jul y 23, 2004 to Aug ust 5, 2004. 11

. Th e Cou rt wa

rn e d Robb ie Whit e he a d th a t f a ilu re to r e turn th e c hil d would constitute “kidnapping .” 12. On Aug ust 5, 2004 at about 3:12 p.m. counsel for Robbie Whit ehea d inf ormed the un de rs ig ne d th a t sh e wo uldno t be re turnin g the c hil d pursuant to the orde r ente red on July20, 2004. 13

. Th e re a so n g ive n w a s th a t on or about Jul y 19 , 2 00 4 th e Al aba ma Cou rt g rante d Imme diate Te mpo ra ry Cus tod y of the c hil d to R ob bie Whit ehea d and ther efor e would not re turn the c h i l d to Wi lliam Spann. 14. That as of

today the child has not bee n returne d. 15. The Court on J uly 20, 2004 as agree d t o by all counsel maintained temporary

jurisdiction of this m atter pe nding f urther he aring schedule d on Aug ust 18, 2004 and that this date was afte r the date of the or de r e nte re d b y

the Al aba ma

Cou rt

. 16. That Robbie Whiteh ea d failed to inform the Court that the order enter ed by

the Alaba ma Court wa s enter ed on Jul y 19, 2004 in an
app are nt a

tte mpt to m isl e a d the c ou rt

in o rd e r t o g a in an a dv a nta g e in the litigation. 17

. Th a t th e a c tio ns of Rob bie Whit e he a d c on sti tut e a vio la tio n o f this
c ou rt s o rd e rs

. 18. Further, the G uardia n Ad Litem , Susanne McGow an spok e with the
c hil d ju st p ri or

to th e chi ld d e pa

rt ing fo r v isi ta tio n w ith Rob bie Whit e he a d a ndtol d h e r that sh e wo ul d b e re turnin g to l ive wi th Wil liam Spann. 19. That the child is se t to start school on Aug ust 16, 2004 and has bee n enrolled. 20. T h at t h e actions of Robbie Whi tehea d are not in the best interest of the child and a

re c ausing irrepa

rable harm to the minor child. 21. That due to t h e dependant neg lect alleg ations and the fa ct that no custody case was pe nding at the time, this C ourt maintains exclusive jurisdiction of this matter.-11- 22

. Th a t un de rs ig ne d c ou ns e l ha s in fo rm e d a ll p art ie s th a t he is attempting to ha ve a n emer g ency hearing on this matter and was informed by

all, except the Guar dian Ad Litem that they could appe ar today

. The Gua

rdian informed under signe d counsel she c ould appea r telephonica lly

if the Court so g rante d. W h er ef o re , t h e m o v an tp ra y s fo r t h e f o l l o wi n g: 1. That this matter be set for an emer g ency hearing on Aug ust 6, 2004. 2. That the Court enter the attached proposed order stating that all times rele vant and to further orde rs of this c ourt as ag ree d to by the parties of this Court and that s ai d h ea ri n g be set for October 18, 2004 as previously

order ed. 3. That the co u rt o rder Robbie Whi tehea d to immediately return the child to the State of Tennessee and t o Wil liam Spann at his residenc e and no later

then [sic] 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 2004. 4. That t he C ourt impose sanctions t o Robbie Whi tehea d to include but
no t li mit e d to the c os ts o f this a c tio n, a ttorney fees fo r the Mo va nt, Debbie Whitehea d, the De p artment of Chil d service s and the Guar dian Ad Litem t o b e s et at a l at erh ea ri n g. 5. That the Court authorizes Will iam Spann to take any action to include ob ta ini ng a n a

rres t w arr a nts [sic ] fo r v iol a tio n o f the app ro pria te statut e s.

An o rd ert h at i s u n s i gn ed ap p ea rs i n t h e r ec o rd wh er eb y Ho n o ra b l e W

. S co t tR o s en b er g, Refer ee, he ld:

This matter ca me on for hearing on the 6th day of Aug ust, 2004, before the Ho no ra ble W. Sc ott

Ros e nb e rg , Re fe re e , u po n th e e me rg e nc y mot ionfi le d A ug us t 6, 20 04 , b y

Willi a m Ca lvi n Spa nn se e kin g a n or de r r e qu ir ing Rob bie Whit e he a d to return the minor child, [B.N.W.] , to Tennesse e fr om Alabama; whe reupon, the Honora ble W. Scott R osenber g , Refer ee, and the Honora ble Alan Calhoun, Ref

ere e, c on fe rr e d v ia

te le ph on e wi th the Ho no ra ble L arry Ma c k Smith , J ud g e of the Juve nil e Court for L auder dale County , Alabama

. After this telephone conf

ere nce, the Court
w a s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n s h o u l d b e d e n i e d

. It is, acc ording ly , ORDERED t hat t he the [sic] emerg ency motion filed Aug ust 6, 2004, by Wil liam Calvin Spann seeking an order requiring Robbie Whi tehea d to return the minor child, [B.N.W.] , to Tennesse e fr om Alaba m a i s h ere by DENIED. The Honora ble Alan Calhoun, Refer ee, shall draf t a separ ate or der se tting forth additional ruling by the Court. All other matters a re r eser ved.
ENTER this the ________ day of Aug ust, 2004.

There appea

rs in the re cord a

Notice of Appea l to the J uvenile Court from this order filed by t h e D ep ar t m en to f C h i l d re n ’s S er v i ce s an d re ci t i n g:-12- Comes the State o f T en n essee , Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices, by and throug h its undersig ned counse l, and re spectfully notifies th is Honora

ble Court of it’s
no tic e of app e a l of

a n o rd e r i ss ue d o n A ug us t 6, 20 04 by Spe c ia l Re fe re e S. Ros e nb e rg a nd to re qu e st a n e me rg e nc y he ari ng on the abo ve -m e nti on e d mi no r c hil d reg arding jurisdiction.

Th e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s f ile d a n E me rg e nc y

Pe tit ionto adjudicate depende ncy an d n egl ect on J une 30, 2004. This Court enter ed an or der g ranting th e removal of leg al custody of the minor child fr om her mother, D ebra Whit ehea d on that day . On J uly 6, 2004 this Court t ook jurisdiction when it found probable cause and upheld the Depa rtment’s remova l. As a lea st drastic alternative the Court foun d W illiam S pann to be a n appropriate plac ement and g rante d te mpo ra ry le g a l c us tod y

to h im.

Movant was notified of

an eme rg ency

motion filed on behalf of Wil liam Spa n n , o n Aug ust 6, 2004. (See attac hed Exhibi t A.). Prese nt at the hea ring wer e Dana Garner, attor n ey fo r DCS , Mike Urquha rt, attorney

for Mr. Spann, Stephe n Og le, attorne y

for paterna l g randmother , Robbie Whi tehea d. Counsels that was not pr e se nt b ut h a d b e e n n oti fi e d b y At torne y Ur qu ha rt were t he G ua

rd ia n a d Lite m, Susie McGowan , and Ralph De Marc o, attorney for the mother , Debr a Whitehead. The only issue befor e t he court that day was a reque st for the g randmother to obey th e C o u r t ’ s Ju l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 o r d e r t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o M r

. S p a n n

. ( A t t his tim e Movant is unable to provide a copy of such or der. A ttorney

Og le was instruc ted by the Court to draft suc h order but Movant has not rec eived a filed copy

of such or der.)
At the Aug ust 6th hearing , the C ourt order ed that the paternal g randmother , Robbie Whi tehea d return the phy sical custody o f s aid child t o her le g al g uardia n, W i l l i a mS p a n n i m m e d i a t e l y.
The Court re quested Attorney Urquha rt to draf t the order immediately . The Court stated that the order was g oing to be signe d befor e the e nd of the da y . Attorney Urquha rt re quested that Attorne y Og le ca ll his client and inform her of the orde r. Attorney Urquha rt announc ed that he would pref er Attorney

Og le make an attempt at g aining cooper ation from Ms. Whitehea d beca use if she failed to obey

the orde r, he would have an ar

rest wa rra nt issued for Ms. Whitehead immediately . The he aring
was a djourned.
Approxim ately

two hours later

Movant rec eived a

pho n e message from Attorney Urquha

rt stating that the Court ha d reve rsed its pre vious or der aft er rec eiving notice fr om a fa milycourt judge in Alabama that such court would be
re t ai n i ng jurisdiction of the minor’s child custody case . To the best of Mova nt’s inf orma tio n, kn ow ing a ndbe lie f n o o rd e r of thes e fi nd ing ha d b e e n r e du c e d to writing at this tim e. The Depa rtment does not have a copy of such or der.-13- Movant would reques t that in as much Movant did not rec eive notice of a
su bs e qu e nt h e ari ng re g ard ing the re ve rs a l of the orig ina l ord e r b y Spe c ia l Re fe re e S. Rosenberg , Movant respe ctfully requests that a full hearing on the issue of jurisdiction be set immediately

. The issue of jurisdiction was decide d without notice to the Depa

rtment. For

cause , Movant would state that jurisdiction was not an issue stated in the eme rg ency

motion that was hear d on Aug ust 6, 2004.
Additionally

Movant has a curr ent petition pe nding in this Court and is to be adjudicate d on October

13, 2004

. M o v ant would ar g ue that this Court retains jurisdiction over said minor child pursuant to the petition filed by the Depa rtment on J une 30, 2004 and ba s ed o n t h e ac tions of the Court on J uly 6, 2004. Further the
c u rr e n tp e t i t i o n h a s n o tb e e n d i s p o s e d o f p r o p e r l y. Movant would respe ctfu lly reque st that a hea

ring on these matter s be set immediately

in order to insure the safe ty and we ll-bein g o f t h e mi nor child, [B

. N

. W. ].

On Au g us t 19 , 2 00 4, Ro bb ie W hi tehea d f ile d in the Da vid so n Co un ty Juve nil e Cou rt

a Request for Re g istration and Enfor ceme nt of Alaba ma Dec ree s which provided:

Comes now Robbie Whi tehea d, by and throug h counsel, pursua nt to section 36-6-229 of

the Tenne ssee Code Annotated, and MOVES this Court to enter an order
r e g i s t e r i n g a n d e n f

o r c i n g t h e o r d e r s o f

t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r tf

o rL a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y, Alabama , reg arding the minor child , [ B. N. W.] , which ar e attac hed her eto and incorporated her ein by

ref ere nce and are authenticated i n acc ordanc e with the ac ts of C o n gre s s an d/ o r t h e s t at u t es o f t h i s S t at e

. F u rt h er , R o b b i e W h i t eh ea d , t h ro u gh counsel, states under pe nalty of per jury that to the best of her

knowledg e these order s have not be en modified sin ce t h e m ost rece nt order e ntere d J uly 19, 2004, but that the Alaba ma court w i l l co n duct a he aring reg arding the child on Aug ust 20, 2004. A copy of the orde r re sulting fr om that hearing a uthenticated in accor dance with the act s o f Co n g r e s s a n d/o r th e s tatu te o f th is St a te w il l b e f il e d w ith th e Court when
c ou ns e l ha s r e c e ive d it

. Notice is her eb y gi v en to the persons served with this request (D ebra Whit ehea d and Willi am Calvin Spann, whose addr ess is 2034 Nora L ane, H ermitag e, Tenne ssee 37076, a

re se rved via

their re s pective attorney s inasmuch as they are alre ady parties to this proce eding .), (1) a re g istered de termination is enforc eable as of the date of the r eg istration in the same manne r as a determination issued by

a court of thi s st a te ; (2 ) a he a

ri ng to c on te st the va lid ity of the re g ist e re d d e te rm inatio n mu st be re quested within twenty (20) day s after

the servic e of this notice ; and (3) f ailure to cont es t the re g istration will result in confirmation of the c hild-custody determination and prec lude furthe r conte st of the determination with respec t to any matter that c ould have be en asse rted.A l so exem p l i f i ed by t he A l ab am a co urt and f i l ed wi t h t he A ugust 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , P et i t i o n by R o b b i e W hi t ehead are 2

t h e pr ev i ou s or der s of t h e Al aba ma Ju v en i l e Cour t f r om wh i ch t h e h i s t or y of t h e Al aba ma l i t i g at i on h as be en g l ea n ed.
-14- F i l e d w i t h t h i s p e t i t i o n a n d e x e m p l i f i e d b y t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r to f L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y, Al ab am a, i s an o rd erd at ed J u l y 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , p ro v i d i n g:
This matter havin g co m e before the Court on the Petitioner’s Motion for I mme diate Te mpo ra

ry Cus tod y a ndthe Cou rt having c on sid e re d th e sa me , it is there fore , ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE C R EED, that tempora ry custody of the
m i n o r c h i l d , [ B. N. W

. ] i s v es t ed i n t h e P et i t i o n er , R o b b i e W h i t eh ea d , p en d i n g a hearing he ld in this matter.

I t is further, ORDERED, ADJ UDGED and DECR EED, that is matter is set do wn fo r a

he ari ng on the 20 da y of Au g us t, 2 00 4, a t 10 :30 o’ c loc k, a .m. in th courtroom number

four of the L auder dale Count y Courthouse, located in F lorenc e, Alabama

. DONE a nd ORDERED, this the 19 day of Jul y , 2004. 2

Various other motions we re filed re sulting in some conf usion in the recor d, much of whic h i s al l ay ed b y

an o rd eren t er ed o n Au gu s t3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , b y J u v en i l e R ef

er ee Al an C al h o u n p ro v i d i n g:
This mat te r

c a me b e f o r e th e Co u r t d u e to s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t p le a d in g s

. T he mothe r, Ms. De br a

Whit e he a d, filed a pe tit ionto r e g ist e r a fo re ig n d e c re e . M s. Debr a Whitehead is the leg al custodi an of [B.N.W.]

. This petition is opposed by the paternal g randmother , Robbie Whi tehea d who, pursuant to a long history of court proce eding s in Alabama ha s court-or dere d v i s i t ati on with the child. Whil e that matter wa s pending , the Tenn es s ee Department of Children’s Service s filed an
emer g ency

remova l petition alleging that the mother had over dosed on drug s. Upon
a wa iving of

the pre liminary

hearing on the emer g ency remova l by

the mother, the Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices plac ed tempora ry custody of [ B.N .W.] with the
mate r n a l g r a n d f

a th e r , B il l S p a n [n ]. Judg e L arry Ma c k Sm ithve ste d te mpo ra ry c us tod y of [B .N .W. ] with Ro bb ie Whit ehea d in J uly

of 2001. That tempor ary order rema ined in ef

fect until J uly

of 2003 at which point J udg e Smith returned c ustody to the Debr a Whitehead, made her subject to random dr

ug scre ens, g rante d visitation t o the paternal g randmother , and
re se rv e d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r the ma tte r i n o rd e r t o “c on tin ue mon ito ri ng pr og re ss i n th is
cause of ac tion.” The Court re viewed the case in F ebrua ry of 2004 at which point the Court returne d full leg al custody to Ms. Debra

Whit ehea d while also orde red that the previously

order ed visitation continue. The Court f urther indicated that all issues not-15-

in c on fl ic t w ith the abo ve fr om its pr ior ru lin g s re ma ine d in ef fe c t. I t is no t in dis pu te that Ms. Debra

Whit ehea d moved to the Nashville a rea in roug hly

J uly of 2003.

Ms. De br a

Whit e he a d f

ile d h e r “ Pe tit ionto R e g ist e r F o r e i g nD e c r e e ” o n A pril 14 , 2 00 4, no t even two mon ths a ft e r thela st c ou rt date in A la

ba ma . M s. Rob bie Whit ehea d reta ined counse l to oppose th e re gi s tration. The Court issued a
sc he du lin g or de r f

or re sp on siv e brief s. W hil e the pa rt ie s w e re in the mid st o f this proce ss, DCS filed their petition. The place ment of tempora ry custody with Mr. Spann occur

red on July6, 2004 b y S p ecia l Refer ee Matthew May o. On J uly 21, 20 04 , th e pa

rt ie s app e are d b e fo re Re fe re e Ca lho un . T his Cou rt ind ic a te d th a t it reta ined emer g ency

jurisdiction under UCCJ EA enc apsulated in T.C.A. §36-6-219. On that date , th e Cou rt

ind ic a te d th a t it wo uld c ommun ic a te wi th i ts c ou nte rp art in Al aba ma a nd fur ther

ind ic a te d th a t th e vis itatio n p ro vis ionwi th M s. Rob bie Whit e he a d w ou ld r e ma in i n e ff e c t w hil e the c hil d w ou ld re ma in a s p re vio us ly order ed with Mr. Span[ n ]. The Court was unawa re of any “new ” custody

order issued by J udg e L arry

Mack Smith.
Evidently , J u d ge L arry

Mack Smith issued a custody order on J uly 19th, 20 0 4

. B y

t h a to r d e r , t h e C o u r tp l a c e d l e g a l c u s t o d y o f [B

. N

. W

. ] w i t h Rob bie Whit ehea d on an eme rg ency and ex pa rte basis. As it indicated it would, this Court communicated w ith the Alabama Cour t. I n fac t, two differ ent conve rsations
occur re d

. The fir st occurr ed shortly afte r the July21, 2004 hearing. D uring that
c on ve rs a tion, it w a s th is C ou rt ’s un de rs ta nd ing tha t th is C ou rt

wo uldre ta in
emer g ency

jurisdict i on over the matter pe nding a resolution of the ove rar ching jurisdictional question. At that tim e, however, Judge Smit h indicated that he did not have his file be fore him. The second c onversation occurr ed wh en the parties appea red be fore Ref. Ro s enberg on Aug ust 6, 2004. I t should first be noted that Refer ee Ca lhoun was at home, on paternity leave , and unaware the ca se had a ppear ed
on an eme rg ency

basis befor e Ref. Rosenbe rg . Upon being informe d o f t h i s , the Cou rt a g a in c ommun ic a te d w ith Judg e Smith. Ho we ve r, no re c or d wa s mad e of thi s conver sation.

J udg e Smit h indicated that he was very familiar with the family and the issues in the case due to its long history in Alabama. Furthermor e, it was the ve ry conce rn a bo ut dr ug u s a g e t h a tf

a c t o r e d i n t o h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l k e e p i n g c l a u s e

. H e a lso ind ic a te d th a t he pr e vio us ly(andre c e ntl y ) f ou ndMs. Rob bie Whit e he a d’ s h ome appropriate for

[B.N.W.] . I t is noted by

this Court t hat Robbie Whit ehea d fulfills the de fi nit ion of

a “ Pe rs on a c tin g a s a pa

re nt” un de r the UC CJEA . Pa rt of the pu rp os e of the UCCJ EA is to ensure that a custody dispute should be heard in the state whic h can be st de cide the case in the interest of the child. Put si mply , upon consideration of T.C.A. 36-6- 216 and 36-6- 218, both Courts ag ree d that Alabama is the proper
c ou rt of re c or d. Ac c or din g ly , th is Co urt wil l a llo w the Al aba ma c us tod y or de r t o re ma in i nta c t.Th e o r d e r r e f l e c t i n g t h i s h e a r i n g b e fo r e J u d g e Gr e e n w a s a c t u a l l y s i g n e d b y J u d g e Gr e e n a n d e n t e r e d on 3
O ct ober 18, 2004.
-16- SO ORDERED on the 30th day of Aug ust, 2004 nunc pro tunc to Aug ust 6, 2004.

An app e a l wa s tak e n by

Spa nn a ndDe br a

Whit e he a d to Juve nil e Cou rt Judg e B e tty

Ad a ms Gr e e n f ro m th e Au g us t 6, 20 04 , ac tio ns of Re fe re e s Calh ou n an d Rose nb e rg wh ic h ar e re fl e c te d in the nunc pro tunc order

of Aug ust 30, 2004, filed by Alan C alhoun and that matter ca me on to be hear d befor e Judge G ree n on Aug ust 10, 2004. The orde r by J udg e Gr een pr ovided: 3

This matter ca me on for he aring on the 10th day of Aug ust, 2004, before the Honora ble B etty Adams Gre en, Judge, upon the notices of appea l of the ruling of the Honora ble Alan Calhoun, Refer ee, and t he Honorable W. Scott Ros enber g , Refer ee; wh e re up on , th e Cou rt too k thi s ma tte r un de r a dv ise me nt anda llo we d th e pa rt ie s to submit briefs o n t h e i s sues in this case a rising unde r the Uniform Chil d Custody Juri sd ic tio n a ndEn fo rc e me nt A c t.

I t is , a c c or din g ly , O RD ERE D a s f oll ow s:
1. The orde rs of the H onorable Alan Calhoun, Refe re e, and the Honora ble W. Scott R osenber g , Refer ee, in this matt er, which are here by inc or po rate d in to this or de r b y re fe re nce, ar e he re by

c on fi rm e d b y

the Ho no ra

ble Be tty Adams Gre en, Judge, pur suant to the prov i s i o n s of sec tion 37-1-107 of the Tenne ssee Code A nnotated and Rule 4 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Juvenile Procedur e.
2. The Honor able B etty Adams Gre en, J udg e of the J uvenile Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee, ha s spoken by telephone wi th the Honora ble L arry Mack Smith, J udg e of the J uvenile Court for L auder dale County , Alabama , pursuant to the provisions of Uniform Child Cust ody J urisdiction and Enforc ement Ac t. The judge s ag ree d that the order o f t h e Alabama court entere d Fe bruary 24, 2004, pr ov ide d th a t a ll p re vio us ord ers of that c ou rt

re ma ine d infu ll f

or c e a nde ff

e c t, including the provisions of the Alaba ma court’s order enter ed Au gu s t 19, 2003, wh ic h s ta te d, “ Th e Cou rt

re se rve s ju ri sd ic tio n to c on tin ue mon ito ri ng pr og re ss i n th is
c a us e of a c tio n. ” Th e a fo re me nti on e d Ala ba ma or de r al so state d, “ Th is C ou rt sh a ll reta in jurisdiction over this matter and shall have revie w hearing on the 17th day of Fe bruary , 2004, at 11:30 a.m. bef ore the u ndersig ned.” Judge Smit h stated that he
rese rved jurisdiction ove r this matter in his Court due to his c oncern that the mother of the minor child, De bra Whitehea d (her einaf ter “ mother”) would rela

pse into drug
abu se , w hic h w a s w hat le d to the re mov a l of he r c hil d b y

the Al aba ma c ou rt a s e arl y as 2001. The judg es of both court s agreed that the c hild has ext ensive ties to the State of Alaba ma inasmuch a s she resided f rom her birth to 2003 at the residenc e of he r p a te rn a l g rand mothe r, Rob bie Whit e he a d ( he re ina ft e r “ g rand mot he r” ), in Alabama and continued to visit her g randm o th e r in A labama on a lternating wee kends af te r th e mo th e r mo v e d w ith th e c h il d to T e n n e s s e e in 2 0 0 3

. T h e mo th e r a nd the-17-

c hil d a re rep re se nte d in the Al aba ma by c ou ns e l a nda

g ua rd ia n a d li te m, re sp e c tiv e ly , a ndthe mothe r i s cur re ntl y in tr e a tme nt fo r he r dru g abu se in A la ba ma a c c or din g to h e r T e nn e sse e c ou ns e l.

3

. T h is c o u r t d e c li n e s to e xe r c is e ju r is d ic ti o n o v e r a n ycustody determination in thi s matter and he reby defe rs such issues to the Juvenile Court for L auder dale County , Alabama ; however , the Tenne ssee Depa rt ment of Children’s Se r v ic e s ( h e r e in a f

te r “ D e p ar tm e n t” ) may p r o c e e d o n it s p e ti ti o n a ll e g in g that the mother has c aused the minor child to be a de pendent a nd neg lected c hild within t he de fi nit ion se t f

orth at se c tio n 3 7- 1- 10 2( b) (1 2) of Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d. Th is Court shall transfer

any further proce eding s involving t h e custody determination reg arding this child to t he Juvenile Court for L auder dale County , Alabama

. 4. Th is C ou rt is di sp lea sed by the c on du c t of

the pa rt ie s in faili ng to
c omp ly wi th the e xistin g or de rs of bo th th e Alaba ma c ou rt a ndthi s Co urt. Spe c if ica lly , Wil lia m Ca lvi n Sp a nn faile d to ho no r the pr ov isi on s o f the Al aba ma c ou rt ’s or de rs re g ard ing the c hil d’ s v isi tati on wi th h e r g rand mothe r, a ndRob bie Whit ehea d failed to honor the provisi ons of t his Court’s order requiring her to return the c hil d to Te nn e sse e a ft e r thi s Court ord e re d tha t su c h v isi ta tio n ta ke pla c e . T his Court a dmonishes the parties to this litigation that no litigant may thumb his or her nose at the or ders of any court dealing with the custody of t his minor child. I t is the fer vent hope of this Court that the parties will put aside their own interests, fo cus instead upon what is best for the minor child and c omply wit h wh at ev er visit ation reg imen the Alaba ma court orders. It is clear that the part i es i n t his case a ll love [B .N .W. ], a ndsh e is e nti tle d to the lov e of a ll of the me mbe rs of he r f a mil y on bo th sid e s.
5. Th is Cou rt fi nd s tha t cus tod y of [B .N .W. ] is cu rr e ntl y ve ste d in Rob bie Whit ehea d pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama court’s or der e ntere d J uly 19, 20 04 , a ndthat a

he ari ng is c ur

re ntl y se t in the Al aba ma c ou rt

wi th r e g ardto this c hil d
on Oct ob er 6, 2 00 4. Th is C ou rt sh a ll d e fe r t o th e Al aba ma c ou rt wi th r e g ardto whateve r custody

determination the Alabama court make s upon its hearing reg arding the child.

On Octobe r 29, 2004, Robbie Whitehead filed a copy of the order of the J uvenile Court of L a ud e rd a le Cou nty

of Oc tob e r 13, 20 04 , withthe Juve nil e Cou rt of Da vid so n Co un ty

tog e the r w ith a Notice of F iling which pr ovided:

Comes now Robbie Whi tehea d, by and throug h counsel, a nd g ives notice of the filing of the orde r of the J uvenile C ourt for L auder dale County , Alabama , enter ed October 13, 2004. The a fore mentioned orde r set a he aring reg arding the minor child, [B.N.W.] , in the Alabama court for No v em b er 23, 2004, at 11:00 a.m. Also filed here with is a copy

of t he order of service and return of the A labama c ourt ref lecting that Debr a W hitehead, the mother of the minor c hild, was serve d with proce ss in theT he T enn es s ee D epar t ment of Chi l dren ’ s Ser vi ces has not appeal ed, and on M ay 11 , 20 05 , D C S f i l ed a N ot i ce 4
wi t h t hi s Co ur t t hat t he i s s ues r ai s ed on appeal di d not di r ect l y i nv ol ve t he D epar t ment of C hi l dren ’ s Ser vi ces an d t hat

n o b rie f o r a rg u m e n t wo u ld b e p re se n te d b y the D e p a rtm e n t. T h e F ina l O rd e r o f t h e J u v e n ile C o u rt d id no t ad ju d ic a te t he d ep end ent a nd ne gl ect ed chi l d i ss ues present ed by t he D ep art m ent of C hi l d ren’ s Se rvi ces, but i nst ead al l o wed t he D e p a rtm e n t t o p ro c e e d o n it s p e tit io n in the J u v e n ile C o u rt.
-18- Al aba ma c us tod y pr oc e e din g on Oc to ber 20 , 2 00 4, a t Re sto ratio n Ra nc h in Tuscumbia, Colbert County , Alabama , wher e she ha s been since she e ntere d treatment shortly

afte r the re moval of the minor child fr om t h e m o t h er by the Tenne ssee De partment of Children’ s Services in June 2004.

Willi a m Sp a nn a ndDe br a Whit e he a d f

ile d ti me ly

No tic e s o f A pp e a l. 4

The fir st o f m any

jurisdictional problems addre ssing the Court is the proble m of our own jurisd ic tio n g ive n th e pr e se nt p os tur e of thi s c a se . Wh e n r e se rv ing jurisd icti on ov e r the DC S de pe nd e nt andne g le c te d c hil d p e tit ionin i ts F ina l Order ent e re d O c tob e r 1 8, 20 04 , th e Juve nil e Court made no desig nation of finality as to all ot h er i s s u es and parties under Te nnessee Rules of Civil Procedur e 54.02. Whatever problems ther e are in this case as to fina lity , considerations of judicial economy

and the a voiding of

piece meal appea ls ma ndate suspension of the final judg ment require ment in this case. De cision on the appe al at bar may well, under

the facts of this case , rende r moo t th e sti ll pe nd ing de pe nd e nc y a nd ne g le c t pr oc e e din g s. We w ill , th e re fo re , s us pe ndthe fi na lit y require ments of Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure 54.02 an d p ro ce ed to a c onsideration of the merits of this appea l. Baybe rry Assoc. v . Jones , 7 83 S .W .2 d 55 3, 55 9 ( Te nn .1 99 0) ; Rec tor v. Halliburton , No. M1999-028 02-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 535924, at *3 (Te nn.Ct.App. Feb. 26, 2003).
This appea l involves the Tennesse e ver sion of the Uniform Chil d Custodyand Jurisdi ction and Enfor ceme nt Act (Te nn.Code Ann. § 36-6- 201 et seq .) . Re fe re nc e s in the Te nn e sse e Ac t to “ thi s part” ref ers to the e ntirety of t he Uniform Statute appea ring from Tennessee Code Annotated 36- 6- 201 throug h Tenne ssee Code A nnotated 36-6- 243. ( See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 6-201.)

Th e on ly t w o s t a t e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n a t b ar ar e T e n n e s s e e a n d A l ab a m a , w ith Alabama also having adopted, e ffe ctive J an u ar y 1 , 2000, the Uniform Child CustodyJ urisdiction and Enfor ceme nt Act (Code of Alabama section 30-3B -101 et seq .).

An extensive and informati v ed is c u s s io n of the Uniform Act appe ars in an annotation entitled “Construction and Ope ration of Uniform C hild Custody J urisdiction and Enforce ment Act” in 100 A.L .R. 5th, at 1-65. The Tenne ssee ve rsion of the Uniform Act was discusse d at leng th by this Court in Cliburn v. Bergeron , N o s

. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 3 8 6

- CO A

- R3

- CV , M 2 0 0 1

- 0 3 1 5 7

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 2 WL 31890868 (Tenn.Ct.App. De c. 31, 2002) ( no perm. a pp. filed).

Ba sically , under the Uniform Act, there are four ( 4) ty pes of initial child custody jurisdiction, those b e in g h o me s ta

te ju r is d ic ti o n , s ig n if

ic a n t c o n n e c ti o n ju r is d ic ti o n , ju r is d ic ti o n b y r e a s o n ofAdded t o t h es e bas es i s T empor ar y Emer g en cy J u r i s di ct i on pr ov i ded by T en n

. Code An n

. § 36- 6- 219. 5

-19- declination of jurisdiction, and de fault jurisdiction. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-216. Since we ha ve 5 determ inedthat T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio ns 36 -6 -2 21 a nd36 -6 -2 22 are ou tc ome determinative of all jurisdictional questions, no ext ensive discussion of other provisions of the Un if orm A c t is ne c e ssa

ry

. We do not ha ve in thi s c a se c omp e tit ionbe tw e e n s ta te s a s to wh ic h s ta te ha s ju ri sd iction, bu t r a the r a g re e me nt o f b othstate s th a t A la ba ma ha s ju ri sd ic tio n. Th e Juve nil e Cou rt of Da vid so n Co un ty has defer re d to the jurisd ic tio n o f the Juve nil e Cou rt of L a ud e rd a le County , Alabama , wher e extensive proce eding s occur red pr edating the April 14, 2004, Petition fil ed in Tennesse e. Appe ll at e re view of the action of a trial court in dec lining to exercise jurisdiction under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 36-6-222 ( or Alabama sec tion 30-3B- 207) is limit ed to a determination of whether or not the trial court abused its discretion. Shanoski v. Miller , 780 A.2d 275, 279 (Me.2001)

.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 6- 22 2 p ro vid e s:
36-6-222. Dec lini ng jurisdi ction — Inconvenient f orum . — (a ) Ac ou rt

of thi s state wh ich has jurisdiction under this part to make a c hild-custody determination mayd e c li n e to e xe r c is e it s ju r is d ic ti o n a t an y ti me if it d e te r mi n e s th a t i t i s an inc on ve nie nt f

or um u nd e r the c ir c ums ta nces a ndthat a c ou rt of a no the r s ta te is a
more a ppropriate forum. The issue of inconve n i en t forum may be raised upon mot ion of a pa rt y , th e c ou rt ’s mot ion , o r r e qu e st o f ano the r c ou rt

. (b ) B e fo re de te rm ini ng wh e the r it is a n inc on ve nie nt fo ru m, a c ou rt of thi s st a te sh a ll c on sid e r w he the r i t is appro pria te fo r a c ou rt of a no the r s ta te to e xer c ise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the c ourt shall allow the parties to submit information
an d s h al l co n s i d eral l re l ev an tfa ct o rs , i n cl u d i n g: (1) The leng th of time the child has re sided outside this state; (2) The distance betwee n the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (3 ) T he re la tiv e fi na nc ia l c ir c ums ta nc e s o f the pa rt ie s; (4) Any ag ree ment of the pa

rties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (5) The nature and location of the evidenc e re quired to re solve the pe nding litigation, including testimonyof the c hild; (6) The ability

of the court of eac h state to de cide the issue expeditiousl y and the proc edure nece ssary

to present the e vidence ; (7) Whether dom estic violence has occ urre d and is likely to continue in the future and which state c ould best protect the pa rties and the c hild; and (8) The familiarity of the court of ea ch state w ith the fac ts and issues in the pending litigation. (c) I f a c ourt of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that
a c o u rt o f a n o t h ers t a t e i s a m o re ap p ro p ri at e f o ru m , i ts h al l s t ayt h e p ro ce ed i n gs upon condition that a child-custody proce eding be promptl y commence d in another desig nated state and may impose any

other c ondition the court consider s just and proper

.-20- (d) A c ourt of this state may decline to e x erc ise its jurisdiction under this part if a child-custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce o r a n other p ro ce ed i n g wh i l e s t i l l re t ai n i n g j u ri s d i ct i o n o v ert h e d i v o rc e o r o t h erp ro ce ed i n g. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36- 6-222.

The rig ht of a trial court to de cline jurisdiction includes all forms of jurisdiction authorized by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-6-216 and “ Emerg ency temporary

jurisdiction” under Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sec tio n 36- 6- 21 9, sin c e a ll suc h ba se s of jurisd ic tio n exist un de r “ thi s part.”

Addre ssing this same que stion, the Supreme Court of Maine he ld:

The que stion before u s i s n ot whether the North Car olina court c ommitt ed
e rr or . O ur

c on c e rn is w he the r the Ma ine Di stric t Cou rt e xce e de d the bo un ds of its dis c re tio n in de c lin ing to e xer c ise jurisd ic tio n. We r e vie w a de c isi on to d e c lin e to exercise jurisdiction for rea son of inconvenient forum for abuse of discretion. Alley v. Parke r , 1998 ME 33, ¶ 6, 707 A.2d 77, 79.

Th e UC CJEA pr ov ides sp eci fi c fa c tor s to be c on sid e re d b y a c ou rt wi th continuing e x clusive jurisdiction in determining whether it is the appropriate for um or whe ther a nother state is the more appropriate f orum. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1751(2). The fir st list ed fa ctor is whether domestic violence has occ urre d and which state ca n best protec t the parties a nd the child. Id

. § 1751(2)( A). The re w as no evide nce of domestic violence in this case, and thus, this fac tor has no bea ring on the matter.

The sec ond fac tor is “[t] he leng th of time the child has re sided outside [Maine] .” Id. § 1 75 1( 2) (B ). Th e c ou rt no ted th at th e c hil d h a d li ve d inNo rth Carolina since she wa s less than a y ear old and had spe nt approxim ately 80% of he r time in North Carolina.

The c ourt did not discuss the third factor , which is the distance betwee n the two states. Id. § 1751(2)( C). Although Shanoski had point ed out to the court that the distance is 900 miles, he did not raise any issue about the distance except for the expense of travel, and he has m ade no a rg ument in this C ourt conc erning this factor.

Ex pense is a c oncern in the fourth fa ctor whic h is the parties’ “ rela t i ve fi n an cial circumstance s.” Id. § 1 7 5 1 ( 2 ) ( D )

. T h e c o u r t d idn o t d is c u s s th is f a c tor, possiblybeca

use there was so littl e evidenc e on it. The evidenc e bef ore the court wa s that Shanoski is an attorney with a substantial education debt. Neither his verified opposit io n n o r M il le r ’ s a f f id a v it g a v e Sh a n o s k i’ s in c o me

. M il le r ’ s in c o me was approximately

$25,000 annually , and her pare nts, w ho are described as we althy by Shanoski, have a ssisted her with litigation costs. B efor e this Court, Shanoski does-21-

no t mak e a n y

ar g u m e n tt h a tt h e f

i n a n c i a l f a c t s d e m o n s tr a t e t h a tM a i n e s h o u ld exercise jurisdiction.

The fif th fac tor is whether there is “[a]ny ag ree ment of t he parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction.” Id. § 1751(2)( E). The 1997 ref ere e’s report stated that the parties had ag ree d that Maine ha d jurisdiction over the divorc e and the order ed re fer ence for the unr esolved 1 9 9 8 visitation. On it s fac e, howe ver, that ag ree ment is limit ed to the di vorce itself and the unresolved 1998 visitation. I t was not an ag ree ment that Maine would e x erc ise jurisdiction in all future disputes, nor was it an a g ree ment to arbitrate al l fu t ure disputes. The second r efe ree ’s re port contains no agr eeme nt reg arding jurisdiction or arbitration; the parties wer e ordered to a rb itr a te fu tur e dis pu te s.
The sixt h fac tor dea ls with the “nature and location of the evidenc e” f or the custody dispute. Id. § 1751(2)( F) . The c ourt found that more information reg arding the c hil d w a s in No rth Ca ro lin a than M a ine . T he c ou rt

state d th a t “ c are pr ov ide rs , teac hers, a nd others who ha ve had sig nifican t and long standing contac t” with the child are in N orth Carolina. B eca use the dispute betwe en the pa rties ce ntere d on the dis ru p t i o n t h a tv i s i t a t i o n m a y h a v e o n t h e c h i l d ’ s e d u c a t i o n , i tw a s p ar t ic ularl y appropriate that the c ourt consider that teac hers’ testimonymay h av e a bearing on the outcome. The court did not ig nore the fac t that Maine witnesses may also have testimonyas it sugg est ed t hat the Maine witnesses could testify by deposition or t e l e p h o n i c a l l y.
Th e ne xt fa c tor

c on c e rns th e re sp e c tiv e c ou rt s’ abil iti e s to de c ide the c a se expeditious ly

. Id . § 1751(2)( G). Shanoski arg ues t hat Maine c an ac t more fa irly and
e x ped iti ou sly

than N orth C aro lin a

be c a us e Ma ine a llo ws pa rt ie s a ndwi tne sse s to appea r and te stify

by telephone. H e states that the N orth Carolina c ourt would not le t hi m app e ar b y

te le phon e for the or a l arg ume nt o n h is m oti on to d ism iss

. Shanoski, however , was a cting pro se in that matter . Ther e wa s no evidenc e that North Carolina w ould not allow Maine witnesses to testify telephon i ca l l y

. The Maine c ourt found that more witnesses who have signific ant information about the
c hil d a ndhe r c ir c ums ta nc e s a re loc a te d inNo rth Ca

ro lin a

. Th is fa c t impli e s th a t it
wo u l d b e m o re ex p ed i t i o u s fo r t h e N o rt h C ar o l i n a c o u rt t o s ch ed u l e ah ea ri n g.
The fina l fac tor is the familiarity of each court with the fac ts and issues. Id. § 1751(2)( H). Althoug h the Maine court did not discuss this fac tor, the voluminous file indicate s that the Maine court has bee n prese nted with more of the issues than the No rth Ca ro lin a c ou rt s.
Shanoski also makes a g ener al ar g ument, reg arding all of the fa ctors, that the court should have addre ssed ea ch fa ct o r, m ade spe cific f indings of f

act on e ach fa c t o r , a n d c o n c l u d e d w h i c h f a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n f

a v o r o f o r a g a i n s t d e c l i nin g to
e xer c ise jurisd ic tio n. Th e inc on ve nie nt fo ru m sta tut e , how e ve r, do e s n ot e xpre ssl y-22-

require the court to make finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law for eac h fac tor. The statutory require ment is f

or a court to consider

the fa ctors. Id. § 1751(2). We have not, by case law, required trial courts to specific ally enumer ate their findings on e ach fac tor in those situations in which there a re statutory

fa ct ors to be conside red. See MacCormick

v. Mac Cormick , 513 A.2d 266, 268 (Me.1986) (stating trial court not
re qu ir e d to g ive de ta ile d f ind ing s o n e a c h sta tut ory fa c tor c on c e rn ing be st i nte re sts of childre n). We requir e trial c ourts to ma ke finding s that are sufficie nt to inform the parties of the court’s rea soning a nd sufficie nt for ef fec tive appellate revie w. Da rg ie , 2001 ME 127, ¶ 2, 778 A.2d at 353.

I n th is c a se , th e c ou rt

fo un d th a t th e c hil d ha d spe nt 8 0% of he r l if e in N orth Carolina and that her teac hers, car e providers, and other s who had spent sig nificant time with her we re loc ated in North Carolina. These fac ts re l at ed t o three of the statutory factors: (1) the le ng th of time the child has lived outside Maine, 19- A M.R.S.A. § 1751(2)(B ); (2) the nature and location of the evidenc e, id. § 1751(2)( F) ; and (3) the ability of eac h court to de cide the cas e e x peditiously , id. § 1751(2)( G). We are not persua ded that the court ignor ed evidence reg arding other factors or that the court ga ve improper

weig ht t o the fa ctors it discussed. The c ourt’s thoug htful discussion was suffic ient to inform the p ar t i es of the ba sis of its decision and sufficie nt for us to perf

orm our func tion of appellate revie w.
Th e Ma ine c ou rt de te rm ine d that be c a us e of the le ng th o f t ime that th e c hil d ha d li ve d in Nor th Caro lin a a ndbe c a us e mor e of

the e vid e nc e re la tin g to the c hil d was in North Car olina, Maine wa s an inconvenient forum and North Carolina w as the
more a ppropriate forum. W e cannot conclude that the Maine c ourt exceede d or abused its discre tion in making that dete rmination.

Shanoski , 780 A.2d at 279-81.

T h e s u p e r io r

c o u r t o f Co n n e c ti c u t i n a

N e w York

- Co n n e c ti c u t j u r is d ic ti o n a l c o n te xt addre ssed what a

ppear ed to be mutual def ere nce b et we en courts. I n Lor d v . Lo rd , No. F A9 70 34 83 67 S, 2 00 1 WL 12 02 61 4 ( Con n. Sup e r. Ct. Se pt. 14 , 2 00 1) , a c ou ple bo rna ndraise d in New Y ork and ma

rried in that state moved t o Connecticut i n 1996 wher e their c hild was born. Nine months after the birth of the child, t h e m o t h er moved bac k to New Yor k with the child. I n a Connecticut divorce action of July29, 1998, the mother re ceive d leg al custody of the c hild pursuant to the court-a

pproved a g ree ment o f the parties. I n Marc h of 2000 the mother f iled a Ne w York action see king to modify the Connecticut de cre e with fat h er asserting that Connec ticut had continuing jurisdicti o n under the Uniform Child Cust ody J urisdiction Act. (Prede cessor to the Un if orm Ch ildCus tod y

Juri sd ic tio n a ndEn fo rc e me nt A c t.) Th e New York c ou rt de c lin e d to exercise jurisdiction re cog nizi ng Connecticut continuing jurisdiction over matt ers of custody but d i s m i s s i n g t h e N ew Yo rkp et i t i o n wi t h o u tp re j u d i ce o b s er v i n g:

I f the Connec ticut declines jurisdiction and de fer s to the courts of Ne w York, this Court wil l entertain an application by either party for modification of t he custody-23-

a nd /or vis itatio n p ro vis ion s o f the div or c e jud g me nt. Ab se nt s uc h a sp e c if ic determination by

the Connecticut c ourt, this Court declines to proce ed ther ein.

Lor d , 2001 WL

1202614, at *2.

I n a c kn ow le dg ing that th e Con ne c tic ut c ou rt ha d c on tin uin g jurisd ic tio n o f the c us tod y c a se but declining to exercise such jurisdiction, the Connec ticut court held:

Sect io n 1 3 o f

th e U CC JE A in c lu d e s a n e xp r e s s “ c o n ti n u in g e xc lusive jurisd ic tio n” ru le wh ic h s ta te s: (a ) E xce pt a s o the rw ise pr ov ide d in se c tio n 1 5 o f this Ac t, a c ou rt of thi s st a te wh ic h h a s ma de a c hil d c us tod y

de te rm inatio n p ur su a nt t o sections 12 to 14, inclusive, of this act, ha s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until : (1) a c ourt of this state or a court of another state de termines that th e c hil d, the c hil d’ s p are nts a nda ny pe rs on a c tin g a s a

pa re nt d o n ot p re se ntl y reside in this state; or (2) a court of this state determines that (A) this state is not the ho me state of

c hil d, (B ) a

pa re nt o r a pe rs on a c tin g a s a

pa re nt c on tin ue s to re sid e in this state bu t th e c h il d n o lo n g e r h a s a s ig n if ic a n t r e lati o n s h ip w ith s u c h p ar e n t or person, a nd substantial evidence is no longe r available in this state conc er n i n g the
c hil d’ s c are , p ro te c tio n, tr a ini ng , a ndpe rs on a l r e la tio ns hip s.
Under Section 13, this state is not deprived of c ontinuing, exclusi ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r ( 1 ) ab o v e s i n c e t h e p l a i n t i f f c o n t i n u e s t o r e s i d e h e r e

. N oris i t de prive d o f suchjurisd ic tio n u nd e r ( 2) abo ve . Cl e arl y , N e w Y or k h a s b e c ome Bridge tte’s home state. It cannot, howe ver, be said her r elationship with the plaintiff, who continues to re side here , is no longe r sig nificant a lthough this court f inds substanti al ev i dence is no longe r available her e conc erning her c are , protec tion, training and persona l r elationships. Her family is almost ex clusively

in New Yor

k
as ar e her school, her treating doctor(s) , her neig hbors, her friends, a nd her me dical and educ ation rec ords. Bridge tt’s only prese nt connec tion with C onnecticut is that her f ather resides he re. Thus, N ew Yor k has the maxi mum c ontact conc erning the
c hil d’ s p re se nt andfu tur e c are a nd pr ote c tio n. Whil e the re is s ome vis itatio n in thi s state on a monthlybasis, most visi tation is scheduled to take pla ce in Ne w York and the plaint if

f- fathe r d oe s n ot p la y

a n a c tiv e ro le in B ri dg ete ’s da ily lif e so a s to establish a sig nificant c onnection to Connecticut or pr ovide s ubstantial evidenc e he re . B ri dg e tte ha s no chi ldh oo d fr ie nd s her e , kno ws no ne of he r d a d’ s n e ig hb or s, does not attend school he re, is not medically treated here, and is not enr olled in any org anized activities here . Essentially , her only ties to this s tate ar e the oc curr ence of h e r b i r t h , a s h o r tr e s i d e n c y, a n d h e r

f a t h e r ’ s c o n t i n u e d r e s i d e n c y.
Whil e the de fe nd a nt’ s a

rg ume nt this c ou rt

la c ks c onti nu in g ju ri sd ic tio n is
a tte nu a te d, mor e pe rs ua siv e is he r se c on d arg ume nt that th is c ou rt sh ou ld d e c lin e to exercise jurisdiction base d upon the “ in c o n v e n ie n t f o r u m” provision of the UCCJ EA. Se c ti o n 1 8 ( a ) p r o v id e s , “ A c o u r t o f th is s tate w h ic h h a s ju r is d ic ti o n u n d e r th is A ct to make a c hild custody

determination may

decline to e x erc ise its jurisdiction at any-24-

time if it determines that i t is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that
a c ou rt of a no the r s ta te is a

mor e app ro pria te fo ru m.” Se c tio n 1 8( b) pr ov ide s: I n determining whether a court of this state is an inconvenie nt forum
a ndthat it is m or e app ro pria te fo r a

c ou rt of a no the r state to e xer c ise jurisdiction, the court shall allow the pa rties to submit i nformation and sh a ll c on sid e r a ll r e le va nt f a c tor s in c lud ing : ( 1) wh e the r f a mil y violence ha s occur

red a nd is likely to continue in the future and which state c ou ld b e st p ro te c t the pa rt ie s a nd the c hil d; (2 ) the le ng th o f t ime the child has re sided outside this stat e; (3 ) t he distance betwee n the
c ou rt in this st a te a ndthe c ou rt in the state that w ou ld a ssu me jurisdiction; (4) the re lative financ ial circ umstances of the parties; (5)
a ny a g reem e nt o f the pa

rt ie s a s to wh ic h s ta te wo ulda ssu me jur i s d i c t i o n ; ( 6 ) t h e n a t u r e a n d l o c a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e d to resolve the pending litigation, including testim o n yof the c hild; (7) the abil ity of the c ou rt of e a c h s ta te to d e c ide the iss ue e xpe dit iou sly and the pr ocedur es nec essary to present the e vidence ; and (8) the familiarity

of the court of ea ch state w ith the fac ts and issues in the pending litigation.

. . . A consider ation of these fac tors dictates a finding Connecticut should decline jurisdiction under these pr ovisions. Whil e this case has no history of fa milyviolence and despite the Ag ree ment’s provision this st ate will re tain jurisdiction, the child has resided outside the state since Aug ust of 1997 and was a resident of

Connecticut for
a me re nin e (9 ) m on ths ; th e dis ta nc e be tw een thi s c ou rt a ndthe famil y

c ou rt in Suffolk County , N e w York, is appr ox imately ninety (90) miles-not suff

icient to make a meaningf

ul differ ence

. Although the plaintiff had e arlier earned substantially

more income than did the de fenda nt, he now claims to e arn only slightly more than doe s the defe ndant in he r $47,000 a y ear teac hing position; the parties’ financ ial positions
are the re fo re ir

re le va nt. The cou ple ’s a g re e me nt C on ne c tic ut w ou ld r e ta in juris diction is also irreleva nt - particula rly since this court ha s subject matter jurisdiction. Virtually

all of the e vidence -both b y testimonyand by way of do c ume ntatio n- re sid e s inNe w Y o r k

. W h i l eh i g h ly

un lik e ly thi s n ot- y e t f

ive -y e ar- old child ’ s te s ti mo n y

w il l b e r e q u ir e d , h e r

lo c a ti o n inN e w Y o rk

s u g g e s ts a n y

c o urt order ed custody

/visit ation evaluation or mediation should oc cur the re. Clea rly , the
c ou rt in b othstate s is e qu a lly

compe te nt t o d e c ide the pe nd ing iss ue s. Whil e thi s c ou rt pr e se ntl y

ha s g re a te r f

a mil iari ty wi th the fa c ts andiss ue s, tr a ns c ri pts , memoranda , and the r ecommendations of family service s in New Yor k will provide sufficie nt guida nce f

or the Ne w York c ourt’s eve n t ual orde rs. Further, this court
r e m a i n s a v a i l ab l e f

o r a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t c o u r t m i g h t f i n d i n f o r m a t i v e

. F i n a l l y, Ne w Y or k h a s e xpre sse d a

wi lli ng ne ss t o a ssu me jurisd ic tio n if thi s state de c lin e s to exercise the sa me.-25- Th is c ou rt

fi nd s th e re is s ub

je c t matte r j urisd ic tio n b ut d e c lin e s to e xer c ise the same on the g round of inconve nient forum. Be cause the UCCJ A provision for dismiss al of the Connecticut action when this state determines it is an inconve nient forum (Connec ticut Gener al Statutes § 46b-97(e )) wa s not carried over into the new leg islation, the defe ndant’s motion to dismiss is de nied. Her moti o n t o d ecline jurisdiction is gra nted.

Lor d , 2001 WL

1202614, at *2-4.

Very educational decisions relative to the UCCJ EA ar e W e lc h- Doden v . R ob e rts , 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz.Ct.App.2002) and S.W . v. Dunc an , 24 P.3d 846 (Okla.2001)

. These c ases, howe ver, do not addre ss the declining of jurisdiction under the UCCJ EA, but rathe r a c ontest among jurisdictions
a s to wh ic h c ou rt in fa c t ha s ju ri sd ic tio n. Th e se c a se s g e ne ra lly inv olv e the pr e fe re nc e fo r “ ho me s t a t e ” j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e U C C JE A a s t o “ i n i t i a l ” c u s t o d y j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t a l s o r e c og nize a s to modification of an e x isting custody order , “home state ” jurisdict i o n status does not override continuing jurisdiction in t he abse nce of a dete rmination by the “c ontinuing jurisdiction” cour t that it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or that anothe r court would be a more convenie nt forum. S

. W. , 24 P.3d at 856-57.

Another c are fully

rea soned dec ision involv in g “ h o me state ” jurisdiction and an unsucce ssful
e ff ort by on e “ ho me state ” jurisd ic tio n to be sto w “ ho me state ” jurisd ic tio n o n a no the r s ta te is In re McCoy , 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 9 7 (T ex

. C t

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 1 ). I n t h at ca s e, t h e h o m e s t at e o f t h e c h i l d wa s t h e f o re i gn country Qatar , which soug ht by court order to de fer jurisdiction to Tex as at a time when Ar

kansas had bec ome the home stateof the c hild. Ex plaining it s d ec i s i o n t h at t he Te x as court had no jurisdiction, the Court of Appea ls of Texas held:

Te xas s imp ly

no lon g e r h a d s up e ri or

jurisd ict ion to Ar

ka ns a s a t th e tim e Mic ha e l f ile d h is s uit

in T e xas. I f M ic ha e l ha d fi le d su it in T e xas w hil e Qatar s til l maintained its status as “home state ,” Qatar’s de fer ral to the Tex as court would have made Tex as t he st ate with a superior rig ht to jurisdiction. At t hat time, Arka nsas had
no t be c ome the ho me state , a ndQatar w a s c le arl y the ho me sta

te . H ow e ve r, be c a us e Mic ha e l w a ite d to fi le su it in Te xas un til the c hil dr e n ha d liv e d in A rk a ns a s f or we ll
o v e r s i x m o n t h s , A rk a n s a s a c h i e v e d “ h o m e s t a t e ” s t a t u s d u r i n g h i s d e l a y.

In re M cCoy , 52 S.W .3d at 306.

Wit h this insi g ht into persuasive authority from sister jurisdictions, we turn to the case at bar

. Whil e Te nnessee might claim “home state” status, unde r the fa cts of this case , it has not done
so . T he on ly

ba sis on wh ic h T e nn e sse e has actua lly take n ju ri sd ic tio n is a s a re su lt o f the DC S petition charg ing that B.N.W. was a depende nt and negle cted c hild. I ndeed, Juvenile Refe ree Alan Calhoun made it clea

r in his Aug ust 17, 2004, order that “Thi s co u rt is ex erc ising tempora ry emer g ency

jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to se ction 36-6-219 of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated; howeve r, the e x tent of its jurisdiction remains disputed.”-26-

Th e o n l y r e l e v a n t p l e a d i n g s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t ar e ( 1 ) t h e p e t i t i o n b y D e b r a W hit e he a d to domesticate the judgme nt of the Alaba ma J uvenile Court of F ebrua ry 23, 2004, which petition has
never been adjudicate d and the order never domesticated; (2) the answe r of R o b b i e W h i t ehea d challeng ing t h e j u ri s diction of the Juvenile Court of Davidson County , Tenne ssee, to either domesticate the Alabama order or take an y o ther a ction in this case; (3) the petition of DCS for
emer g ency

consideration of the depe ndent and ne g lected c hild alleg ations as to B.N.W.; and (4) the oral petition of Wil liam Spann r ecog nized in the temporary custody order wher eby he soug ht such custody under the DCS petiti on.

Be cause the re cord disclose s that proce eding s as to custody of B .N.W. had long be e no n g oing be fo re th e J uv e nil e Cou rt of L a ud e rd a le Cou nty , A la

ba ma , c on sid e ratio n h a s to be fi rs t g ive n to Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 36 -6 -2 21 . T his statut e pr ov ide s:
36-6-221. P roce edings alre ady c om m enced in another state . — (a) Ex cept a s oth e rw ise pr ov ide d in § 36 -6 -2 19 [te mpo ra ry e me rg e nc y

jurisd ic tio n], a

c ou rt of thi s state may not ex er ci s e it s jurisdiction under this part if, at the time of the
c omm e nc e me nt o f the pr oc e e din g , a pr oc e e din g c on c e rn ing the c us tod y of the c hil d ha s b e e n c omm e nc e d in a c ou rt of a no the r s ta te ha vin g jurisd ic tio n s ub stanti a lly in conformitywith this part, unle ss the proce eding has bee n terminated or is stay ed by the court of the other state beca use a court of this state is a more c onvenient for um under § 36- 6-222. (b) Except as other wise provided in § 36-6-219, a court of this state, be fore hearin g a child custody

proce eding , shall examine the court docume nts and other information supplied by

the parties pursuant to § 36-6-224. I f the c ourt determines that a c hil d c us tod y

pr oc e e din g ha s b e e n c omm e nc e d ina c ou rt in ano th er s ta te ha vin g jurisd ic tio n s ub sta nti a lly in a c c or da nc e wi th thi s pa rt , the c ou rt of

thi s st a te shall stay its procee ding and communicate w it h t h e court of the other state. I f the court of the state having jurisdi ction substantially in acc ordanc e with this part does
no t de te rm ine that the c ou rt of thi s st a te is a

mor e app ro pria te fo ru m, the c ou rt of thi s s t at e s h al l d i s m i s s t h e p ro ce ed i n g. (c ) In a pr oc e e din g to m od if

y a c hil d c us tod y

de ter mi nat io n, a

c ou rt of thi s state shall determine whether a proc eeding to enforc e th e d et ermination has be en commence d in another state

. I f a proce eding to e nforc e a child custody determination h a s b e e n c o m m e n c e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e , t h e c o u r tm a y: (1) Stay the proc eeding for modification pending the entry o f an o rder of a court of the other state e nforc ing, stay ing, de ny ing, or dismiss ing the proce eding for
e nf or c e me nt; (2 ) E njo in the pa

rt ie s fr om c on tin uin g wi th the pr oc e e din g fo r e nf or c e me nt;
or (3) Proc eed w ith the modific ation under c onditions i t considers a ppropriate

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-221.T h e se c o m m e n ts to the o ff ic ia l t e x t ar e n o t p a rt o f the le g islativ e A c t, b u t ar e e v id e n c e o f l e g islativ e inte n t. 6
See T en n

. Code An n

. § 36- 6- 203.
-27- At lea s tat t h e t h eo re t i ca l l ev el , t h e U C C J E A w as i n t en d ed t o re s o l v e p ro b l em s ex i s t i ng under th e U CC JA c o n c e r n in g s imu lt a n e o u s p r o c e e d in g s

. A s e xp lain e d in th e c o mm e n ts to th e o f f ic ia l t e xt under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 36-6-221: 6

This section repr esents the r emnants of the simultaneous pr ocee dings provisions of the UCCJ A § 6. The proble m of simultaneous proce eding s is no longer a sig nificant issue. Most of the problems have been resolved by the prioritization of home state jurisdicti o n u nder se ction 17 [§ 36-6-216]; the exclusive, continuing jurisdiction provisions of section 18 [§ 36-6-217] ; and the prohi b i t i o n s on m o d i fi ca t i o n o f section 19 [ § 36-6-218]. I f there is a home state, ther e can be no
ex ercise of sig nificant c onnection jurisdiction in an initial child custody determination and, there fo re , n o simult aneous pr ocee dings. I f there is a state of exclusive, con t inuing jurisdiction, there cannot be another state with conc urre nt jurisdiction and, there fore , no simult aneous proce eding s. Of course , the home state,
as we ll as the state with exclusive, continuing jurisdic t i o n, could def er to a nother state u nder se ction 23 [§ 36-6-222]. However, that decision is left entirely to the home state or the state with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-221 (of ficial c mts).
So it appears that at the time of the final hearing befor e the Davidson County J uvenile Court
c on c e rn ing jurisd ic tio n it wa s a pp are nt that:

1. I f the c ourt found, re g ardle ss of home state status, that Alaba ma had c ontinuous and exclusive jurisdiction of the custody issues, t h en T en nessee must defer to the Alabama court unde r Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-6-221. 2. I f the Da vidson Countycourt wa s an inconve nient forum under the circ umst an ces and the c ourt of Alabama was a more a ppropriate forum, then reg ardle ss of the ty pe of jurisdiction that the Tenne ssee co u rt was or c ould be exercising , the Tenne ssee c ou rt in i ts d isc re tio n c ou ld d e c lin e to e xer c ise jurisd ic tio n a ndde fe r to the Al aba ma courts under

the provisions of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-6-222.

At the time of the final hea ring of Aug ust 10, 2004, which resulted in the f inal judgme nt of the J uvenile Court of Da vidson Countyon October 18, 2004, the following i s u n d isputed in the
rec ord:

1

. O n g o in g c u s to d y p r o c e e d in g s a s to B

. N

. W. h a d e xis te d in A la b a ma f o r th r e e ( 3) ye ar s p r i o r

t o t h e A p r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , p e t i t i o n b e i n g f i l e d i n D a v i d s o n C o u n t y. 2. The c hild, B.N.W., was in Alaba ma and in the custody of Robbie Whitehead under the July 19 , 2 00 4, or de r o f the Al aba ma c ou rt

.-28-

3. The mother, D ebra Whit ehea d, was phy sically located in Alabama in a dr ug reha b cente r. 4. Ma te rn a l g rand fathe r, Willi a m Sp a nn , h a d n e ve r b e e n a part y to the Al aba ma proce eding s, and his only claim to custody of B.N .W. was based upon the or der of the Tenne ssee c ourt following the DCS petition when that co u rt was e x erc ising temporary

emer g ency

jurisdiction pursuant to Tennesse e C o d eA n n o ta te d section 36- 6-219. 5. The Ala

bama c ourt had not dete rmined that it no longe r had c ontinui n g exclusive jurisdiction under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-6-218(1). 6. Neither

a court of Tennessee nor a court of Alaba ma had de termined that the c hild, the child’s par ents or any person a cting as a pa

rent did not presently

reside in the state of Ala

bama. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-218(2)

. Whil e we a

re ha mpere d by

the fa ct that the “O rder

Confirming Ref

ere e” e ntere d October

18, 2004, following the hea

ring of Aug ust 10, 2004, does not specifica lly delineate the basis upon which J udg e Gr een de clined to exercise jurisdiction and defe rre d to the j urisdiction of t he Juvenile Court of L auder dale County , Alabama , the finding s made by the Davidson County

J uvenile Court leave no doubt that Alabama ha s continuing e x clusive jurisdiction an d is the more conve nient and
app ro pria te fo ru m to he ar the c us tod y iss ue s in thi s c a se . T he Or de r p ro vid e s:
2. The Honor able B ettyAdams Gre en, Judge of the J uvenile Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee, ha s spoken by tel ephone with the Honorable L arry Mack Smith, J udg e of the J uvenile Court for L auder dale Count y , Alabama , pursuant to the provisions of Uniform Child Cust ody J urisdiction and Enfor ceme nt Act. The judge s ag ree d that t h e o rd er of the Alaba ma court entere d Fe bruary 24, 2004, pr ov ide d th a t a ll p re vio us or de rs of th at cou rt re ma ine d infu ll f

or c e a nde ff

e c t, including the provisions of the Alaba ma court’s order enter ed Au gust 19, 2003, wh ic h s ta te d, “ Th e Cou rt

re se rv e s ju ri sd ic tio n to c o nti nu e mon ito ri ng pr og re ss i n th is
c a us e of a c tio n. ” Th e a fo re me nti on e d A la ba ma or de r a lso state d, “ Th is C ou rt sh a ll reta in jurisdiction over this matter a nd shall have r eview he aring on the 17th day of Fe bruary , 2004, at 11:30 a.m. bef ore the undersig ned .” Judge Smith stated that he
rese rved jurisdiction over this matter in his Court due to his conce rn that the mother of the minor child, Debr a Whit ehea d (her einaf ter “ mother”) would rela

pse into drug
abu se , wh ic h wa s wh a t le d to the re mov a l of he r c hil d b y

the Al aba ma

c ou rt a s e arl y as 2001. The judg es of both courts ag ree d that t h e child has ex tensive ties to the State of Alaba ma inasmuch a s she re sided from he r birth to 2003 at the re sidence of he r p a te rn a l g rand mothe r, Rob bie Whit e he a d ( he re ina ft e r “ g rand mot he r” ), in Alabama and continued to visit her g randmother in A la b ama on alternating wee kends aft e r th e mo th e r mo v e d w ith th e c h il d to T e n n e s s e e in 2 0 0 3

. T h e mo th e r a n d the
c hil d ar e re pr e se nte d in the Al aba ma by c ou ns e l a nda

g ua rd ia n a d li te m, re sp e c tiv e ly , a ndthe mothe r i s cur re ntl y in tr e a tme nt fo r he r dru g abu se in A la ba ma a c c or din g to h e r T e nn e sse e c ou ns e l.-29- 3. This cou rt d ec lines to ex erc ise jurisdiction over any custody determination in thi s matter and he reby defe rs such issues to the Juvenile Court for L auder dale County , Alabama ; how ev er, the Tennesse e De partment of Children’ s Servi ce s (h er einaf

ter “ Depa rtment”) may

proce ed on its petition alleg ing that the mother has c aused the minor child to be a depe ndent and ne g lected c hild within t he definition set forth at section 37-1-102(b) (12) of the Tenne ssee Code A nnotated. This Cour t s h a lltr ansfe r any

further proce eding s involving the c ustody determination reg arding this child to t he Juvenile Court for L auder dale County , Alabama

.
Fr om our revie w of the rec ord, it is clea r that Alabama has c ontinuing exclusive jurisdiction and is the most convenient a nd adequate forum to dete rmine these issues c oncerning the custody of B .N .W. Th e Juve ni le Co urt of Da vid so n d id n ot a bu se its dis c re tio n in de c lin ing to e xer c ise jurisdiction and in defe rring to the jurisdiction of the J u v e n il e Court of L auder dale County , Alabama

. Th e de c isi on of the tr ia l c ou rt to d e c lin e to e xer c ise jurisd ic tio n a ndto d e fe r t o A la ba ma is
man d a te d b y

T e n n e s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 3 6

- 6

- 2 2 1 b e c a u s e A la b a ma h a s e xclusive
c on tin uin g jurisd ic tio n und e r T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 6- 21 7. Th e re c or d b e fo re thi s Court clearly

establishes that Alaba ma has such e x clusive continuing jurisdiction.
Appellants asse rt that Robbie Whit ehea d is not a “per son acting as a pare nt” within the
me a nin g of

the UC CJEA . T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 6- 20 5( 13 ) p ro vid e s:
‘Person a cting as a pare nt’ means a person other than a parent who: (A) Has phy sical custody of the child or has had ph y sical custody for a period of six (6) consec utive mon ths, including a ny temporary

absenc e, within o n e (1) y ear immediately

befor e the
commence ment of a c hild custody proce eding ; and (B ) H a s b e e n a wa

rd e d le g a l c us tod y by

a c ou rt or c la ims a rig ht to lega l custody

under the law of this state;
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-205(13)

.
I n or de r fo r app e llants to pr e va il it wo uld be ne c e ssa ry to c on str

ue “ c omm e nc e me nt o f a

c hil d
c us tod y pr oc e e din g ” to m e a n th e pr oc e e din g ins titute d by De bb ie Whit e he a d inDa vid so n Co un ty
on April 1 4 , 2 0 0 4

. T e n n e s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 3 6

- 6

- 2 0 5 ( 4 ) p r o v id e s , “ ‘ Ch il d c u s tody proce eding ’ mea ns a proc eeding in w hich leg al custody , phy sical custody , or visitation with respect to a child is an issue.”

That same statute provides, “‘ Child c u s t o d y d etermination’ means a judg ment, decr ee, or oth e r or de r of a c ou rt pr ov idi ng fo r the le g a l c us tod y , p hy sic a l c us tod y , o r v isi ta tio n w ith re sp e c t to a child.” T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-205(4)

. Nothing in the U CCJ E A co m p els the conc lusion that “commence ment of a c hild custody pr oc e e din g ” me a ns the c omm e nc e me nt of the Te nn e sse e pr oc e e din g in thi s ca se

. Th is i s p art ic ula rl y-30-

true since Alabama

clea rly has continui ng jurisdiction under Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 36- 6-217 following the “commenc ement of a child custody proce eding ” in the state of Alabama . The statutory construction sought by the appellants would mean that the court with ex clusive continuing jurisd ic tio n, wh ic h ha d spe c if ic a lly re se rv e d suc h co nti nu ing jurisd ic tio n, ha d in the sa me or de r i n which such jurisdiction had be en re serve d, sewn the se ed for the destruction of its own jurisdiction by the mere lapse of time. Such a construction would fr

ustrate the purposes of UCCJ EA. Tenne ssee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 6- 20 2 p ro vid e s:

Con str uc tio n a ndpu rp os e . T his pa rt shal l be l ibe ra lly construed and applied to promote its underlying pur poses and p o l i c i e s

. T h i s p ar ts h o u l d b e c o n s tru e d a c c o r d i n g t o i t s p urpo se s, which ar e to: (1 ) A vo id jurisd ic tio na l c omp e tit ion a nd c on fl ic t w ith c ou rt s of oth e r s ta te s in ma tte rs of c hil d c us tod y

wh ic h h a ve in the past resulted in the shifting of c h i l d ren from state to state with harmful ef fe ct s o n t h ei r w el l -b ei n g; (2) Promote c ooperation with the courts of other states to the
e ndthat a cust od y

de c re e is r e nd e re d inthat st a te wh ic h c a n b e st decide the ca se in the intere st of the child; (3) Disc ourag e the use of the i nterstate sy stem for c ontinuing
c o n tr o v e r s i e s o v e r

c h i l d c u s t o d y; (4) De ter a

bductions of childre n; (5 ) A vo id r e lit ig a tio n o f c us tod y de c isi on s o f othe r s ta te s in this state; and (6) F acili t ate the enforc ement of c ustody decr ees of

other state s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-202.

In case s involving exclusiv e c o n t i n u i n g j u ri s d i ct i o n u n d erT en n es s ee C o d e A nnotated sec tion 36-6-217, it is appar ent that the “pe rson acting as a par ent” means a per son acting as a pa rent at the tim e the orig ina l a c tio n in the c on tin uin g jurisd ic tio n stat e wa s f ile d. Th e of

fi c ia l c omm e nts to Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-6-217 provide:

The c ontinuing jurisdiction of the orig inal decr ee state i s exclusive. I t c on tin ue s u nti l on e (1 ) o f t wo (2 ) e ve nts oc c ur s: 1. I f a pare nt or a person acting as a pare nt r emains i n the orig inal decr ee state, continuing jurisdiction is lost w hen neither the
c hil d, the c hil d a nda

pa re nt, no r the c hil d a nda

pe rs on a c tin g a s a pare nt continue to have a sign i fi cant c onnection with the orig inal decr ee state and there is no longe r substantial evidenc e conc erning the child’s ca re, pr otection, training and per sonal relations in t hat state. I n o the r w or ds , e ve n if

the c hil d h a s acquir e d a ne w h ome state, the orig inal decr ee s tate re tains exclusive, continuing-31- jurisdiction, so long as the g ener al re quisites o f t h e subst antial
c on ne c tio n ju ri sd ic tio n p ro visi on s a re me t. If the re la tio ns hip be tw e e n th e c hil d a ndthe pe rs on rem ain ing in the state wi th exclusive, continuing jurisdiction bec omes so attenuate d that the court c ould no longe r find sig nificant c onnections and substantial
e vid e nc e , ju ri sd ic tio n w ou ld n o lo ng er ex is t. T he us e of the ph ra se “a c ourt of this state” unde r subsec tion (a)( 1) make s it clear that the orig inal decr ee state is the sole determinant of whethe r jurisdiction
c on tin ue s. A part y se e kin g to mod if y a c us tod y

de te rm inatio n mu st obtain an orde r fr om the orig inal decr ee state stating that it no longer has jurisdiction. 2. Continui ng jurisdiction is l ost when the c hild, the child’s pare nts, an d an y

person a cting as a pa

rent no long er r eside in the orig inal decr ee state.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-217 (of ficial c mts).

At the tim e of

the c omme nc e me nt o f the c hil d c us tod y pr oc e e din g in A la

ba ma , Ro bb ie Whit ehea d was a “per son acting as a pare nt” wit h the father of B .N.W. being inc arc erated and he r mother being addicted to c ocaine

.
I t is well to observe that Juvenile Refer ee A lan Calhoun in his August 30, 2004 orde r specific ally

found that Rob b i e W h itehead w as a “ person a cting as a pa rent” under the UCCJ EA. This finding w as app ro v ed an d incorporated into the final orde r of Juvenile J udg e Gr een e ntere d October 18, 2004. Having no transcript or statement of the e vidence for revie w we have no me ans of re vie wi ng the fa c tua l ba sis on wh ic h thi s de te rm inatio n w a s ma de a ndmus t c on c lus ive ly pr e su me that the testimonial recor d would support the ac tion of the t rial judg e. See Sherrod , 849 S.W .2d at 783.
Appellants further complain that the t rial court err ed in not making an appropriate r ecor d of its communications with the juvenile court of L auder dale County , Alabama as re quir e d

b y T e n n e s see Code Annotated se ction 36-6-213( d) and (e)

. This issue is r aised for the first time on appe al as the
rec ord bef

ore the Court does not disclose t hat appellants objected to such m atters in the trial court or otherw ise broug ht to the attention o f t h e t rial judg e the inade quacy of the re cord r elative to the communication between judges. They may not be heard now to complain. Pearman v . Pearman , 78 1 S.W. 2d 58 5, 58 7- 88 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. 19 89 ); Ba rn hil l v. B ar nh ill , 826 S.W .2d 443, 458 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

Even if de fer

ring to Alabama w ere not ma ndated under Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 36-6-221 the trial court c annot be he ld to have ab u s ed i t s discretion under Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 36-6-222 in finding that Alabama was the most convenient and ade quate f orum fo r d e te rm inatio n o f the se c us tod y iss ue s.-32-

The di s p o sition m ade of

this case make s it unnecessa ry to discuss whether or

not Debra Whit ehea d is judicially estopped to attack the continuing jurisdiction of t he Alabama court when he r initial and only

rele vant pleading in the case seeks to domesticate and enfor ce the judgme nt of the Alabama court. See Marcus v . Marcus , 993 S.W .2d 596, 601-03 (Te nn. 1999).
The judg ment of the trial c ourt is in all respec ts affirme d, and the costs are assessed to the
ap p e l l a n t s

. T h e c a s e i s r e m a n d e d f o r s u c h f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s a s m a y b e n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE