Monroe judge to consult Tennessee chancellor in interstate custody fight under UCCJEA

A Monroe County Circuit Court judge said the court will contact a Tennessee chancery judge to resolve a jurisdictional dispute over custody after attorneys for both parents filed competing petitions in Kentucky and Tennessee.

The disagreement centers on whether the child’s “home state” is Tennessee — where the child was born on April 30 and where one parent currently lives — or Kentucky, where both parents have extended family and where one petition was filed first. The court told attorneys it would consult with the Tennessee judge who had already telephoned the Monroe judge and would circulate that judge’s contact information.

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the child’s “home state” is a principal factor in deciding which court has jurisdiction. Attorneys debated whether the child’s residence since birth (Tennessee) or where the parents and extended family have stronger connections (Kentucky) should control. One attorney argued the statute’s definition for children younger than six months points to Tennessee; another argued parties cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction and that Kentucky filed first and had previously handled temporary visitation.

The judge said he would notify the Tennessee chancellor of the factual disagreements and directed both parties to file written responses within 10 days. He also offered the parties short additional time to prepare factual affidavits if they wished. The judge said he would forward the pleadings to the Tennessee chancellor before speaking with that court and reserved the option to take further testimony if necessary.

Attorneys told the court they had not reached agreement and described differing factual timelines: the parents married and lived together briefly in Tennessee, then separated; one party filed in Kentucky first, the other in Tennessee shortly afterward; the child was born in Tennessee days after one petition was filed. Attorneys also flagged practical concerns: one side warned the Tennessee forum could apply law less favorable to shared parenting and accused the other side of forum-shopping; the other side said the child’s exclusive residence since birth supports Tennessee jurisdiction.

The judge gave the parties a short procedural schedule rather than issuing a final jurisdictional ruling immediately: he allowed 10 days for written responses, said he would contact the Tennessee chancellor, and set a follow-up so the chancery judge could be apprised of the competing claims. He encouraged counsel to focus responses on the statutory definitions and factual timeline relevant to the UCCJEA and said he might hold an evidentiary hearing only if factual disputes remained after the exchange of written material.

The court did not enter a final jurisdictional order at the hearing. Instead, the judge signaled a preference to coordinate with the Tennessee court under the UCCJEA process before deciding whether Kentucky should retain or decline jurisdiction.

What happens next: each side has the ordered short period to file a written response addressing the factual questions the judge identified; the judge will forward the materials to the Tennessee chancellor and then notify counsel of any additional steps, which could include an evidentiary hearing if factual disputes remain.