Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parenting Plan Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge: don’t modify parenting plan without petition; juvenile court retains custody in separate case
Summary
The chancery judge declined an emergency request to alter therapeutic visitation reserved to another judge and said juvenile court retains exclusive custody jurisdiction in a separate divorce proceeding, directing parties to file proper petitions or seek relief from the judge handling the protection order.
At a Stewart County chancery docket call Judge David D. Wolfe declined to hear an emergency motion seeking to modify therapeutic visitation, saying the pending order of protection and related issues are reserved for another judge and that the chancery court lacked the proper petition-based pleading to modify a final decree.
In a hearing on a post-divorce dispute involving therapeutic visitation, the judge reviewed the final decree entered in September 2025 and told the father's attorney that the court would not modify a parenting plan absent a petition alleging a material change of circumstances. The judge noted an order of protection and related matters were specially set before Judge Lockhart Nash and that intervening now would improperly second-guess the judge who had the matter set for June.
In a separate divorce matter, the judge also declined to sign a parenting plan where the juvenile court had previously adjudicated custody and imposed child-support orders. The judge explained that juvenile court retains exclusive jurisdiction over dependent-and-neglect custody determinations until it relinquishes that jurisdiction; chancery may proceed with the divorce but must reserve custody to juvenile court.
Key points from the hearing included the judge’s instruction that parties who want a modification must either file a petition under the rules of civil procedure alleging a material change of circumstances or seek expedited relief from the judge who has the protection order reserved. The judge emphasized the court’s duty to follow procedural rules and res judicata limits once a final decree is entered.
The court also handled routine docket business that day, including granting a name-change petition for Huntley Cassidy Proctor, authorizing a guardian’s request to access funds for a ward’s travel, and appointing an executor in a separate probate matter.
What this means: Parties seeking changes to parenting time or custody should file the appropriate petitions and, when matters are reserved to another judge or are within juvenile-court jurisdiction, seek relief from the correct forum rather than asking chancery to act on an emergency motion.
