Judge gives Navy servicemember 30 days to file response in parental‑rights case under Soldiers and Sailors Act

At a civil docket call the presiding judge told Antoine Mills, a servicemember participating by Zoom, that the court has determined it is the proper jurisdiction for a petition to terminate parental rights and granted him 30 days to file a formal answer and retain counsel if desired.

The judge explained that because Mills is on active duty the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act applies and prevents entry of a default judgment while the servicemember has adequate opportunity to retain counsel. "Since he is on active duty with the navy, then we have the soldiers and sailors civil relief act that would, prevent the entry of a default judgment until the court signs and sees he's had adequate opportunity to retain counsel," the presiding judge said.

The judge told Mills that the document the court had received was not a proper answer under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and that an answer contesting specific petition allegations must be filed. "I'm going to...give you a 30 day period to file a proper response, and that's gonna give you time to hire a lawyer," the judge said. The judge directed plaintiff counsel to draft an order recording the court's rulings and provide Mills with a copy.

Mills told the court he had emailed a response while underway and later faxed a response; the judge said the filing did not comply with procedural rules and emphasized that the protection from default judgment under the Soldiers and Sailors Act applies only if the servicemember shows that service materially prevents litigation. The judge said if Mills did not file a compliant answer within 30 days plaintiff counsel could renew a motion for default judgment.

The court also noted that the parties had conferred with a Virginia judge and that both judges had agreed this court is the appropriate forum. The judge instructed counsel that the clerk would mail Mills a copy of the signed order documenting jurisdiction and the 30‑day deadline.

No final adjudication of the merits was made; the court's action was an administrative scheduling and procedural direction to allow the servicemember an opportunity to respond under statutory protections.