In Re Ethan R., W2015-01208-COA-R3-CV

Mother (Wang) filed a dependent-and-neglect petition in Shelby County Juvenile Court after her son Ethan was hospitalized in Arkansas for ingesting methadone while in Father’s (Rowland) custody.
The juvenile court initially found Ethan dependent and neglected and awarded custody to Mother, but later set aside that order, appointed a guardian ad litem, and scheduled a full hearing.
Father filed motions seeking to enjoin Mother’s relocation to Kentucky and to change custody; the magistrate ultimately dismissed both Mother’s dependent-and-neglect petition and Father’s custody/relocation petitions, and the juvenile judge ratified the dismissal.
Father appealed the juvenile court dismissal to the Circuit Court for a trial de novo; Mother moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively argued the case should be transferred to Kentucky.
The Circuit Court overruled Mother’s jurisdictional motion, heard the case de novo, concluded Ethan was not shown to be dependent and neglected, found Mother’s Kentucky relocation to be reasonable (not vindictive), denied Father’s request to change custody, and entered a new parenting schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether Circuit Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Father’s appeal after Juvenile Court dismissed Mother’s dependent-and-neglect petition	Juvenile Court’s dismissal terminated its exclusive dependency-and-neglect jurisdiction, so the Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed because Mother did not appeal the dismissal	Father argued his custody/relocation claims were part of the dependency-and-neglect proceeding and thus properly appealed to Circuit Court for a de novo hearing	Court held Circuit Court had subject-matter jurisdiction: dependency-and-neglect jurisdiction continues through appeal and custody decisions made during the juvenile proceeding are appealable to circuit court (In re D.Y.H. controlling)
Whether the case should have been transferred to Kentucky under venue/UCCJEA principles	Once Juvenile Court dismissed the petition, emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA ceased and the matter should be heard in Kentucky	Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over the appeal; moreover, Father’s relocation/custody claims became moot because Mother already relocated to Kentucky and did not appeal the circuit ruling	Court rejected Mother’s transfer argument and noted the custody/relocation issues are moot given Mother’s relocation and lack of further appeal

In re D.Y.H., 226 S.W.3d 327 (Tenn. 2007) (held custody claims during dependency-and-neglect proceedings remain part of that proceeding and are appealable to circuit court)
Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. Owens, 129 S.W.3d 50 (Tenn. 2004) (custody decisions during dependency-and-neglect proceedings are part of the proceeding)
Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (principles on courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction)
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction is de novo)