Background
A couple, Kristina Codino (“Mother”) and Christopher Codino (“Father”), divorced in Virginia. Their divorce decree incorporated a separation agreement that stipulated they would alternate parenting time with their young child every three weeks. The agreement was later amended to state that when the child reached school age, he would be enrolled in school where the Father resided, as long as that was Virginia or Minnesota. Subsequently, the Mother moved to Tennessee, and the Father moved to Minnesota.
After living in Tennessee for ten months, the Mother filed a petition in Haywood County Chancery Court. She sought to enforce the Virginia decree’s provisions on virtual visitation, which she alleged the Father was denying, and to modify the decree to name her the primary residential parent. The Father responded by registering the Virginia decree in Minnesota and filing a motion to dismiss the Tennessee action, arguing that Tennessee was an “inconvenient forum” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
The Tennessee trial court found that while it had jurisdiction (as Virginia had lost exclusive jurisdiction and Tennessee was now the child’s “home state”), Minnesota was a more convenient forum. The court based its decision almost entirely on the parties’ prior agreement about the child’s future school enrollment in Minnesota. It analyzed the eight statutory factors for an inconvenient forum analysis and found seven to be neutral, with only the parties’ agreement favoring Minnesota. The trial court dismissed the Mother’s petition and awarded attorney fees to the Father. The Mother appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and its award of attorney fees. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in its application of the inconvenient forum factors under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222. The court found that the trial judge gave dispositive weight to the parties’ agreement regarding school enrollment, which was not a true forum-selection clause for litigation, and improperly analyzed several other key factors.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s finding that most factors were neutral. It found the evidence showed the child had spent more time in Tennessee, not an equal amount. Critically, the court determined that the “nature and location of the evidence” factor strongly favored Tennessee. The child’s specialized medical care for a serious skin condition, including hospitalization and treatment at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital, was entirely in Tennessee. The child also participated in church and extracurricular activities in Tennessee, whereas no such evidence was presented regarding his life in Minnesota. The court also found the trial court minimized the evidence of domestic verbal abuse, which should have been weighed in the analysis.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by focusing on the single factor of the parties’ agreement while ignoring substantial evidence that connected the child to Tennessee and made it the more convenient forum for resolving the dispute. The case was remanded back to the Haywood County Chancery Court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A provision in a separation agreement specifying a child’s future school location is not a binding forum-selection clause for custody litigation and is only one of several factors to be considered in an inconvenient forum analysis under the UCCJEA.
- Courts must not give dispositive weight to any single factor in an inconvenient forum analysis; a thorough review of all statutory factors is required, with the child’s best interest as the paramount concern.
- The location of substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships—such as significant medical treatment, schooling, and community involvement—is a critical component of the inconvenient forum determination.
Why It Matters
This opinion serves as a crucial reminder for family law practitioners that parties cannot contractually determine subject matter jurisdiction in child custody cases. The UCCJEA provides a clear statutory framework that prioritizes the child’s connection to a state over parental agreements. The court’s decision underscores that an “inconvenient forum” motion requires a detailed, fact-based inquiry into the child’s actual life, not just the parents’ prior written intentions.
For attorneys litigating interstate custody disputes, this case highlights the importance of gathering and presenting specific evidence related to the child’s medical care, educational activities, and personal relationships in the forum state. The court made it clear that a state where a child receives essential, specialized medical treatment and has established community ties is unlikely to be deemed “inconvenient,” regardless of what a prior agreement might suggest about future schooling.