Tennessee Court Rules on Custody and Visitation Dispute

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision regarding custody and visitation rights involving two minor children, Jordan A. and June A. The ruling affects the children's father, Bernard A., and their maternal aunt and uncle, Dorothy C. and Ezekiel C., who sought visitation rights. This case highlights the complexities of child custody disputes, especially when multiple jurisdictions are involved.

The case, titled In Re Jordan A., was filed under docket number M2025-00960-COA-R3-PT on May 22, 2026. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Steven W. Maroney, with Judges Kristi M. Davis and Valerie L. Smith joining in the ruling. The court's decision addresses whether the Tennessee trial court's orders regarding telephone visitation and fees remain relevant in light of a permanent custody order issued by a Colorado court.

Background

The dispute centers around the custody of Jordan A. and June A., the children of Leigh K. (the mother) and Bernard A. (the father). After the death of their mother in 2023, Bernard voluntarily relinquished custody of the children to their maternal aunt and uncle, Dorothy C. and Ezekiel C., who brought the children from Colorado to Tennessee.

Following the mother's death, the aunt and uncle filed a petition for custody in the Coffee County Juvenile Court in December 2023. Concurrently, Bernard initiated separate proceedings in Colorado, claiming that the children had been abducted. The Tennessee juvenile court found that while Bernard was not abusive, he lacked the ability to care for the children, leading to a ruling that continued custody with the aunt and uncle until the Colorado court could assume jurisdiction.

In June 2024, the aunt and uncle sought to terminate Bernard's parental rights in the Chancery Court of Coffee County. However, the court ruled in April 2025 that the petition to terminate parental rights was dismissed, and custody was returned to Bernard. Subsequently, the aunt and uncle filed for telephone visitation rights, which the court granted. Bernard later appealed this decision, leading to the current case.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled that Bernard's appeal regarding telephone visitation was moot due to the Colorado court's permanent custody order awarded to the aunt and uncle. The court stated, "Because the custody of the children was adjudicated by the Colorado court, Appellant’s issues regarding telephone visitation are moot." The ruling emphasized that the Colorado court's order took precedence over any visitation orders made by the Tennessee court.

Additionally, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of Bernard's motion for abusive civil action and attorney's fees. The opinion noted that the trial court found no evidence that the aunt and uncle acted with malicious intent in pursuing their legal claims. The ruling stated, "There is no motive on the part of [Appellees] in this cause other than their desire to address all possible legal remedies and to present argument of their position, post-trial and otherwise, all of which the Court finds was conducted in good faith and not for the purpose of harassing or causing intentional or wrongful harm to [Appellant]."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for custody and visitation disputes, particularly in cases involving multiple jurisdictions. It underscores the authority of a permanent custody order from one state over temporary orders from another. The decision also clarifies the standards for determining whether a civil action is abusive, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of malicious intent.

Going forward, this case may influence how similar custody disputes are handled, especially regarding the jurisdictional authority of courts in different states. It reinforces the importance of adhering to established custody orders and the complexities that arise when families navigate the legal system across state lines.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Bernard intends to appeal the ruling further. However, the Colorado custody order remains in effect, and the children will continue to reside with their aunt and uncle in Tennessee.