In Re: Courtney R., M2015-01024-COA-R3-JV

Juvenile court removed Courtney R. from Mother (Shana G.) for dependency/neglect and placed the child in DCS custody; GAL filed dependency/neglect petition and sought paternity testing.
Father (Johnican B.), an Alabama resident, was later established as biological father; both parents waived adjudicatory hearings and the child remained in foster care.
DCS sought provisional placement with Father and submitted an expedited ICPC request to Alabama; Alabama disapproved the placement citing a prior "indicated" report of sexual abuse (from Father as a minor), other reports coded "not indicated," concerns about parenting, finances, and lack of support system.
Juvenile court, after Alabama's denial, ordered the child remain in DCS custody; Father appealed to the circuit court which held a de novo dispositional hearing and awarded custody to Father, relieving DCS of further responsibility.
Circuit court found ICPC inapplicable (treating the custody award to a parent as not a foster care placement), credited testimony that undermined the prior abuse finding, found Father and his household suitable, and signaled willingness to relinquish jurisdiction on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ICPC precluded awarding custody to Father (interstate placement rules)	Mother: ICPC applies to interstate placements of children and therefore Alabama's disapproval barred placement without receiving-state approval	DCS/Father: ICPC applies only to foster/adoptive placements; awarding custody to a parent is not an ICPC placement or fits an exception	Court: ICPC did not apply; custody award to a parent fell within the Regulation No. 3 exception and court ordered relinquishment of jurisdiction on remand
Whether this Court has jurisdiction and Mother has standing to appeal	GAL argued Mother acquiesced and lacked appellate posture	Mother: has legally protected parental interest injured by circuit court order	Court: appellate jurisdiction proper; Mother has standing as an aggrieved parent with fundamental custodial interest
Whether circuit court erred in awarding custody to Father on the merits	Mother: custody award improper given Alabama concerns and DCS opposition	Father: trial evidence supported Father’s fitness and best interest of child favored custody with Father	Court: no reversible error in law; absent transcript, factual findings presumed correct and custody award affirmed
Whether Father is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees	Father: appeal was frivolous; seek fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122	Mother: appeal not frivolous	Court: declined to award fees; appeal not frivolous

In re Isaiah R., 480 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (ICPC can apply to interstate custody transfers depending on circumstances)
Cornelius v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 314 S.W.3d 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (circuit-court de novo review in dependency/neglect appeals)
Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for questions of law)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental liberty interest in custody of children)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental fundamental right to care, custody, and control of child)