WPC3 # VU:a % 0(b w@4 ) 0l8 0D  0J 0T: 0^ 0h 0rT 0| 0B 0 1uX 0d U *1B)[DC AM= cJ B D3v~v{ 0@N AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - DDUӀD 3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G !  #d#"  "   YYY FILED"XApril30,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   3 !#d#"     "       Thecourtrecommendsthatthepartiesreadthiscasecarefully.Itdemonstrateswhatshouldhappenwhencaseslikethisonearise. Y !#d#"     "       If,infact,thecourthadanyjurisdictiontobeginwith.Thepetitiondidnotallegethatanyemergencyexistedwhilethechildrenwereintheirfathershome. d))))'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . "         \RA'\\RA'\7XXdd7    ћ STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )DEPARTMENTOFHUMAN  )SERVICES,     )      ) Petitioner/Appellee,  ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019610CV00496̜VS.      )      ) FranklinCircuitINTHEMATTEROF:   ) No.9439̜R%&$A1-j| `  `@Rߛ      )EMMIPRUITTAND   )KARELYNPRUITT,   )      )JAMISWAYZE(McCARTHY),  )      ) Respondent/Appellant.  )@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFFRANKLINCOUNTYATWINCHESTER,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEBUDDYD.PERRY,JUDGE̜JOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterDOUGEARLDIMONDAssistantAttorneyGeneral426FifthAvenueNorthNashville,Tennessee372430499 AttorneyforPetitioner/AppelleeTIMOTHYS.PRIESTSWAFFORD,PETERS&PRIEST100FirstAvenue,S.W.Winchester,Tennessee37398 AttorneyforRespondent/Appellant@ REVERSED,DISMISSEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:LEWIS,J.KOCH,J.  @ "OPINION "X  ThiscaseinvolvesaquestionofthejurisdictionofthisstateoveraϜjuvenilepetitionfiledwhilethechildrenwerevisitinghere.ThepetitionallegedϜthatthechildrenweredependentandneglectedbecauseofactsthatoccurredinϜtheirhomestateofMichigan.ThejuvenilecourtofFranklinCountyassumedjurisdiction,foundthechildrentobedependentandneglected,andplacedtheminfostercare.Thecircuitcourtaffirmed.Weholdthatthelowercourtshadnojurisdictionoverthisproceeding;thereforewereversethecourtsorderanddismissthepetition.@ I.   TroyandJamiSuePruittweredivorcedbytheCircuitCourtofGeneseeCounty,MichiganinMayof1993.ThedivorcedecreeawardedcustodyofthepartiestwominordaughterstoMs.Pruitt(nowknownasJamiMcCarthy).TroyPruittlivesinTennesseewherethechildrencametovisitinMayof1994.WhenthetimecameforthechildrentoreturntoMichigan,someone(itisnotclearintherecordwho)referredthechildrentotheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS),andthedepartmentsagentsfiledapetitioninthejuvenilecourtofFranklinCountyallegingthatthechildrenweredependentandneglectedinMichigan.Thisconclusionwasbasedonaconversationwiththeoldestdaughter,agesix,revealingthatsheandherfouryearoldsisterhadbeensexuallyabusedintheirmothershome.Thecourtenteredanemergencyordertakingcustodyofthechildrenandtheyhavebeeninstatecustodyeversince.ThejuvenilecourtandthecircuitcourtofFranklinCountyoverruledthemothersjurisdictionalchallenge.@ II.   TheUniformChildCustodyJurisdictionAct(UCCJA),Tenn.CodeAnn.366201,etseq.,limitsthejurisdictionofthisstatescourtstoissuecustodyorvisitationorderswherethechildrenorthepartieshaveasignificantrelationshiptoanotherstate.Thevariedpurposesoftheactincludethepreventionofforumshoppingandthepromotionofjurisdictioninthestatewiththeclosestconnectiontothechildandthechildsfamily.L.G.v.ThePeopleofTheStateofColorado,890P.2d647(Colo.1995).Theactlimitsthisstatesjurisdictiontocaseswhere:8 8 (1) Thisstate:8 8 8 (A) Isthehomestateofthechildatthetimeofcommencementoftheproceeding;or8 8 8 (B) Hadbeenthechildshomestatewithinsix(6)monthsbeforecommencementoftheproceedingandthechildisabsentfromthisstatebecauseofthechildsremovalorretentionbyapersonclaimingcustodyorforotherreasons,andaparentorpersonactingasparentcontinuestoliveinthisstate;or8 8 (2)(A) Itappearsthatnostatehasjurisdictionundersubdivision(a)(1),oreachstatewithjurisdictionundersubdivision(a)(1)hasdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictiononthegroundthatthisstateisthemoreappropriateforumtodeterminethecustodyofthechild;and8 8 8 (B) Thechildandatleastone(1)contestanthaveasignificantconnectionwiththisstate;and8 8 8 (C) Thereisavailableinthisstatesubstantialevidenceconcerningthechildspresentorfuturecare,protection,trainingandpersonalrelationship;and8 8 8 (D) Itisinthebestinterestofthechildthatacourtofthisstateassumejurisdiction;or8 8 (3) Itappearsthatnostatehasjurisdictionundersubdivision(a)(1)or(2)oreachstatehasrefusedjurisdictiononthegroundthatthisisthemoreappropriateforumtodeterminechildcustody,anditisinthebestinterestofthechildthatacourtofthisstateassumejurisdiction.8 8   ...8 8 (d) Jurisdictionshallnotbeexercisedtomodifyan8 8 8 existingcustodydecreeexceptinaccordancewith366215.Tenn.CodeAnn.366203.  Tenn.CodeAnn.366215provides:8 8 (a) Ifacourtofanotherstatehasmadeacustodydecreerecognizableandenforceableunder366213,acourtofthisstateshallnotmodifythatdecreeunless:8 8 8 (1) Itappearstothecourtofthisstatethatthecourtwhichrenderedthedecreedoesnotnowhavejurisdictionunderjurisdictionalprerequisitessubstantiallyinaccordancewiththispartorhasdeclinedtoassumejurisdictiontomodifythedecree;and8 8 8 (2) Thecourtofthisstatehasjurisdiction.  Everyoneconcedesthatthisstatedoesnothavejurisdictiontochangethecustodyofthesechildren.Thestateasserts,however,thatthisisnotacaseinvolvingcustody;thatthisisapetitioninthejuvenilecourthavingtodowiththewelfareofthechildrenbecausetheyareallegedtobedependentandneglected.SincetheMichigancustodyorderremainsintact,thestatearguesthattheUCCJAdoesnotapply.  Wedisagree.UndertheUCCJAthedefinitionofa custodyproceedingdoesexcludemostproceedingsunderthejuvenilecode exceptproceedingstodeterminecustodypursuantto371104andpursuantto371103astodependentandneglectedchildrenwhenanoriginalpartyorpersonactingasaparentfilesthepetitionorwhenthepetitioninvolvesfactsarisingfromanotherstate.Tenn.CodeAnn.366202(3).Thus,theprovisionsoftheUCCJAspecificallyapplytoproceedingsinthejuvenilecourtinwhichachildisallegedtobedependentandneglectedunderfactsarisinginanotherstate.SeeInReA.L.H.,Juvenile,630A.2d1288(Vt.1993); '   כL.G.v.ThePeopleoftheStateofColorado,890P.2d647(Colo.1995).  Thisstatecanactinanemergencytoprotectachildwhoispresentinthisstateandwhoisthreatenedwithseriousinjury.Tenn.CodeAnn.366204.Butthispowerissubjecttoasixtydaylimit.Inordertomakeapermanentchange,thepetitioningpartymustproceedinastatehavingjurisdictionunderTenn.CodeAnn.366203.  WeconcludethatpursuanttotheprovisionsoftheUCCJA,thecourtsofthisstatehadnojurisdictiontodealwiththesechildrenexcepttothelimitedextentsetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.366204.Sixtydaysafterthefilingoftheinitialpetitionthatjurisdictionended. (   כNow,nearlythreeyearslater,theprocessofreturningthesechildrentotheirhomestateshouldproceed.  ThejudgmentofthecourtbelowisreversedandthecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofFranklinCountyforfurtherproceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinion.ThirtydaysafterthemandateissuesinthiscasethechildrenshallbereturnedtotheirmotherscustodyunlessDHShasarrangedanalternativeplacementsatisfactorytotheMichigancourt.Taxthecostsonappealtothestate.̛̜      _____________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE_______________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE   X   @