Bradley James Cox v. Laura Nicole Lucas, 576 S.W.3d 356

Father and Mother divorced in 2008; the final decree incorporated a Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP) naming Mother primary residential parent.
In 2015 Father petitioned the Circuit Court to modify the PPP and sought emergency custody, alleging facts that he said showed the child lacked proper care and supervision; the court granted interim emergency custody to Father.
After hearings, the Circuit Court in 2017 entered a modified PPP naming Father primary residential parent; Mother did not appeal that order within the appellate deadline.
In September 2017 Mother filed a motion in the Circuit Court arguing that Father’s 2015 petition was tantamount to dependency/neglect allegations and therefore the juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction, rendering the circuit court’s orders void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Circuit Court denied Mother’s motion; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Father’s petition alleged dependency/neglect.
While this appeal was pending, the General Assembly amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103 to state that domestic relations courts retain jurisdiction under Title 36 unless and until a pleading or relief is sought in juvenile court invoking its exclusive jurisdiction; the amendment was applied to pending cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lucas)	Defendant's Argument (Cox)	Held
Whether a circuit court loses continuing, exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over post-divorce modification petitions when the petition’s allegations are tantamount to dependency/neglect	Allegations tantamount to dependency/neglect divest the circuit court and invoke juvenile court’s exclusive original jurisdiction	Circuit court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over divorce decrees and custody modifications unless juvenile court’s jurisdiction is actually invoked	The court held the circuit court retained jurisdiction because no pleading or relief was filed or sought in juvenile court invoking its exclusive jurisdiction; Court of Appeals reversed and trial court reinstated
Whether the 2019 statutory amendment applies to this pending appeal and controls the jurisdictional question	The motion argued the underlying facts inherently required juvenile-court jurisdiction (relief sought in Circuit Court should be void)	Cox argued Circuit Court had proper Title 36 domestic relations jurisdiction and the amendment (applied to pending cases) preserves that jurisdiction	The court concluded the April 18, 2019 amendment applies to pending cases and controls; therefore circuit court jurisdiction stands

Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2012) (standard and nature of subject-matter jurisdiction review)
Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2003) (timeliness of appellate filing is jurisdictional)
Frame v. Marlin Firearms Co., 514 S.W.2d 728 (Tenn. 1974) (new procedural rules apply to pending cases)
Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC, 433 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2014) (statutory interpretation—apply plain meaning when language is clear)
State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017) (legislative intent and statutory construction principles)
Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428 (Tenn. 2013) (use plain meaning when statutory language is unambiguous)