Mom Attempts SECRET Out-Of-State ADOPTION For Newborn Baby Behind Dad’s Back!

[00:00:11]Welcome to Looking at Legal Stuff. Today we have a new update in a case where an emergency motion for DNA testing was filed in the divorce of a couple who were only married for 17 months but still had two children. Dad claims that mom has given one of their children, a newborn baby, to an outofstate couple for adoption. And she did this behind dad's back and without his permission.

[00:00:32]What does the judge think of this claim?

[00:00:35]Let's find out.

[00:00:37]>> You're ready on your motion.

[00:00:38]>> Good morning, your honor.

[00:00:39]>> Good morning.

[00:00:40]>> I am. Uh, judge, there's a few moving pieces today and I'll I'll do my best to kind of summarize the reasons for which we are here. There was a previous order entered by the chancery court um on February 5th, 2026 setting some temporary support. At that time, Mr. Thomas was represented by Jacob Matthysse and Mr. Black represented Mrs. Thomas. A motion to to set support, temporary support, both spousal and child support, was filed by Mrs. Thomas. Um, and that notice was sent to councel at the time for Mr. Thomas. At some point in between the filing of that motion and the hearing for that motion, there was a breakdown in communication between Mr. Thomas and his previous council. Uh, Mr. Matthysse had filed a motion withdrawal that was set for that same day as the temporary support hearing. Um, Mr. Thomas, I believe, if the court were to take some testimony today, would would state that he didn't have notice that the temporary support hearing was set for that day and and consequently he did not appear at that hearing. Judge, um, his attorney at the time was allowed to withdraw and then the court proceeded with setting some temporary support and I believe the court set temporary support um, in the amount of $1,500 per month. And that was a different judge than than me.

[00:02:14]>> It was Judge Wallace, your honor, I believe. And I wasn't here for that hearing either. Um, and ultimately, so so the first motion I filed is a motion to reduce or set aside the temporary support order. And that's just I don't believe the court that day.

[00:02:30]I can't speak to what the court did or did not hear. I wasn't there. But based based on my understanding, the court set that support without inquiring into my client's ability to pay. and and that's all I'm I'm asking the court. This was a believe a 17-month marriage before the party separated. Um there was one child alleged born during the marriage presumed to be the fathers. The father disputes and we're going to get into the DNA issues here in a moment. Um there's one child born at the time that hearing took place and another child that the mother was pregnant with when that hearing took place. So there's two alleged children of this marriage. the court had ordered some DNA testing to occur that hadn't >> Let me interrupt you and just simply say what my concern is is that Judge Wallace conducted an evidentiary hearing on the February 5th, 2026 date and following that made findings of fact that that that served uh the findings of fact served as the basis for his uh making the order in the case.

[00:03:33]Now, for me to change that order would basically retry the entire uh temporary motion. And it seems to me that the the more appropriate matter would be to reset this in front of Judge Wallace who is here next month and would be able to consider your motion to set aside or to modify his his prior order.

[00:03:56]>> And if your honor is inclined to do that, I'd be okay with that. I just, you know, he didn't have, no matter what Judge Wallace did or did not hear, we know Mr. Thomas was not present and there was no inquiry in regards to his his ability to pay at that time.

[00:04:11]>> Well, I'm disincclined to go behind what another judge has found and ruled upon because there may be some other factor that, >> you know, that wasn't made apparent to me. You had Judge Wallace's calendar >> salmon depositions.

[00:04:36]Looks like I'm available June 16th.

[00:04:38]>> Well, I think that's I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but it it >> clearly seems to me that >> that Judge Wallace needs to consider a motion to set us out or to uh to to uh amend or change the order that he did after an evidentary hearing. So, we'll reset you for June 16th.

[00:04:57]>> Would your honor be inclined to entertain the other motions in this?

[00:05:00]>> Well, if you're going to go in front of him on any of them, I think you need to hear them. He needs to hear them all.

[00:05:04]So, >> and there is an emergency motion we filed for for immediate relief that that's set for today. Um, mother has there was a child, she was pregnant at the time of the last hearing. This child's since been born. Without any notice to father, this child has been removed from the mother, placed in an adopted family in Colorado.

[00:05:27]>> I did read that in the file.

[00:05:29]>> Father was served Friday with the petition for adoption. Fathers got 35 days, according to that Colorado summons, to file documents in Colorado contesting the adoption.

[00:05:41]>> Well, let me ask this question. There was there was an order for DNA testing.

[00:05:45]Is that because there was some question whether he was the biological father >> with respect to both children >> and if he is the biological father of this child that's now being put up for adoption. Obviously he has a vested interest in objecting to that. Um we'll go forward on that particular issue because I think there is an emergency basis. Um why has there not been the DNA testing >> and that's why we filed the motion to review DNA testing. Again Mr. Thomas was represented by previous council. They had agreed, entered an agreed order to participate in the DNA testing. The order required the testing to be scheduled by the father. Um there was some exchange between council about setting up the DNA testing. Uh Mr. Thomas notified me he was going to any lab now. There was no specific place set forth in the the order to do the DNA testing. Mr. Thomas noticed me he was going to any lab now. I subsequently noticed opposing counsel. There was no objection made to that. The DNA testing was done and paid for by Mr. Thomas there. And then shortly thereafter, um, mother stated that she would, I guess, not be able to do the DNA testing at any lab now and referred us to an email that was previously sent over saying, uh, I believe it was it was another lab, DNA lab North America would be more convenient for her. So, it just seems like every time we get close to getting DNA testing done, mother is trying to to interfere with that. Now we have a child in Colorado. I don't know how we do the DNA testing with the baby in Colorado.

[00:07:15]Mother has has voluntarily taken this child or let this child be taken. I believe she wrote relocated to West Virginia due to abuse allegations that were prior to my time. There was an agreed order I saw on the file entered between her previous Mr. Thomas's previous council, Mr. Black, allowing her to relocate. Um the child I believe was born there in West Virginia and she subsequently has taken this child and placed the child in Colorado without any notice to the father. The first time he's heard of this child being in Colorado with with these pre-adoptive parents was Friday when he received service of this petition. Um so we had filed the motion to review DNA testing today um because we're we're having an extreme difficulty in getting this done.

[00:07:56]This order was entered, I believe, two or three months ago, maybe even longer ago than that. And we still don't have DNA testing done. I don't know how we accomplish it now with the child that's in Colorado. Um, >> parties are before this court. And therefore, uh, one option is I simply order that the child, the mother, and the father all appear at a lab here in Tennessee, submit to the DNA samples being taken, and then we go from there.

[00:08:22]And that's what we're asking the court for today is enter a more clear order directing the parties regarding the DNA testing. Judge, with respect to the emergency motion for immediate return of the the minor children, both of them again, there's an issue with paternity that should have been resolved. It's not. I hope we can get that resolved very quickly. Um but it but mother has taken this child and I would submit this the children are subject to this court's jurisdiction. I know the child wasn't born here and opposing council might make some UCCCJA arguments about it, but I believe this court has jurisdiction over the custody of these children.

[00:08:56]There's a pending divorce. This happened during the pendency of this divorce proceeding. Um, and mother relocated voluntarily and is now attempting to to just go behind the father's back and have this child adopted. If if this is father's child, he absolutely asserts a right to custody. He wants to be the father. Mother surrendered and and voluntarily terminated her parental rights. That's fine. then the court needs to enter a 3650 plan awarding custody of the father because he wants to be a father if he is indeed the biological father. Um so so we're asking the court today for some immediate temporary relief and that brings us to the other minor child and mother's care and custody and control. We don't know there there's an order of protection that was entered and subsequently appealed by father that the courts reserved for final hearing.

[00:09:40]>> And where is that? Is that in this court or is that in a different court?

[00:09:44]>> It was in originally in general sessions. They had a hearing is my understanding and then that was entered and appealed. So there's still an order not allowing the Mr. Thomas to have contact um and and and he cannot have contact with Scarlet Thomas the I believe she's almost three two or three years old now.

[00:10:03]Um but but we're asking the court to return both of the children to father.

[00:10:08]We don't know what mother has put a child up for adoption. We don't know where Scarlet's located. We don't know how she's doing. We don't know if mother's a fit and proper parent to have sole custody of of Scarlet. She has given the other child up for adoption.

[00:10:24]And so we're asking the court to to for more clear order regarding the DNA testing to order the parties to to have DNA testing completed within a specific amount of time. Um, and we're asking the court to enter an order to to have baby uh Thomas brought back from Colorado to Tennessee and and to have Scarlet Thomas returned to the father. Um, I think it's a threat of irreparable harm that this child's outside of not only this state but in Colorado. Um, mother by the attachment with what father was served on Friday, it is clear mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights.

[00:11:06]So, so we're asking the court for that emergency relief today.

[00:11:18]>> Your honor, I do have a response on on both of those. Would you like me to tackle the DNA testing or the emergency?

[00:11:23]>> Let's start with the DNA testing, >> your honor. So the DNA testing so my recollection recollection of events and what has happened is that there was an agreed order between uh Miss Thomas and Mr. Matthysse. So uh Mr. Thomas's prior attorney that was last year u subsequently Mr. Matthysse withdrew.

[00:11:42]There was no contact between us. Um I had to hire a personal process server to actually serve Mr. Thomas some documents to try to find him. Um, at that time, uh, Miss Thomas was absolutely willing to do DNA testing. Uh, and there was just nothing until very recently. There was a renewed push for the DNA testing, which Miss Thomas is willing to do. Uh, I will point out to the court that Miss Thomas is in another state due to domestic violence, uh, which Mr. Thomas was convicted of in General Sessions court by plea of guilty. She is in another state due to violations of an order of protection for multiple house breakins for following her to a medical facility and taking her vehicle. Uh these are the reasons that Miss Thomas is out of state. And so in an effort to preserve Miss Thomas' undisclosed location, a essentially secret address, um we were trying to coordinate DNA testing that could occur both locally here and where she was located. And that is why I proposed LabCore. My understanding is when I had proposed that that that is the testing location we're going to use. And then I received communication that that is not the testing center that was used. And then at this point we reached an impass. Are you saying that LabCore is available to do the testing both for Mr. Thomas here as well as for your client wherever she may be living?

[00:13:09]>> So here is in Hendersonville, your honor, and where my client is living.

[00:13:13]That was our our proposition. I will say that while I have nothing to give the court at this exact moment, my understanding is that the newborn child um of this marriage is located in Denver, Colorado, which I found out about to make it clear to the court found out about Thursday evening. Um, >> who is the father of that child?

[00:13:34]>> So, Miss Thomas is going to say it's Mr. Thomas. I believe Mr. Thomas wants the DNA tested.

[00:13:40]>> So, we we're going to the order went down only as to Scarlet Thomas.

[00:13:44]>> That's right.

[00:13:45]>> And and there was a DNA request as to that child. And now we have another child born and Mrs. Thomas says that that is Mr. Thomas's child. Yes, sir.

[00:13:56]>> And she has placed that child for adoption. That is my understanding. Um, I will say on Miss Thomas' behalf that there appears to be some evidence that this was an understood plan between them when they found out that the child was going to be born. That actually, according to Miss Thomas and perhaps some messages she would admit at hearing, Mr. Thomas has spoken to the adoptive parents before that there was some dispute over whether they were going to raise this child or not. And at this point, um, Thomas could speak for herself.

[00:14:29]>> Well, if there is an afterborn child that was born while this case has been pending, then this court has jurisdiction over that child, regardless of what has been filed in the state of Colorado.

[00:14:41]>> Well, your honor, I will say uh simply for the fact that I do not want to wave any jurisdictional issue and I've not had time since this was emergency order filed. I would like to file the detailed response. Um I will raise a jurisdiction issue just to preserve it under the UCCC J. Uh it's not so clear which is the home state because the the newborn child I if we parse them apart right the older child absolutely concur with your honor the youngest child there may be some dispute over what is the home state. I have been informed that the state of Colorado has decided that they have jurisdiction and they are proceeding with this adoption proceeding. Again, I'm in cander to the court. It's a complicated issue to me and I would need to file a brief and research that to give a response. But I do want to raise the objection that for the youngest child may not be the home state. Um but besides those things judge uh I would also say >> you cannot divest this court of jurisdiction understood >> by sending a child that is one of the children of these parties with a pending divorce action where custody of one child is already at issue >> and then send one of the one of the children that is alleged to be the biological ch child of Mr. Thomas. you cannot then send that to another state that child and defeat the jurisdiction of this court to make a custody determination. So I just want to make that clear that this court's opinion is is that this court has jurisdiction uh over both children if they are in fact the children that were born of these parties and that is what I'm told by both of you today. So I am of the opinion that Mr. Thomas needs to contest the adoption and if he does contest it, contest that adoption, I'm going to put an order down that's going to require um all both of the children to undergo DNA testing. How that is accomplished is going to be up to you and your client.

[00:16:45]That means that she's going to have to ensure that that child has come back and is tested. Now there are we had a case not too long ago in this court where there was a woman who claimed to be a biological heir of an estate and she lived in Washington state. Uh there was a method by which she uh used a child a laboratory in the state where she lived to obtain her DNA sample. Um then that was compared to DNA samples that were tested here in Tennessee. It would seem to me that's what's going to have to happen here. You're going to have to obtain a DNA sample from this child in Colorado and a DNA sample from your clients and her child if she is wherever she is living. And then a sample will be taken from Mr. Thomas here at LabCore.

[00:17:36]And all of those are going to have to be analyzed by LabCore to determine the paternity issue.

[00:17:44]The order that this court puts down is that this court maintains jurisdiction over the parties and and both minor children who have been represented to this court by council to be the biological children of these parties and that the adoptive court in Colorado there may obviously this is going to be a an issue for the appellet courts if goes through as a contested matter. But I think we got to first resolve if if this child in Colorado is Mr. Thomas's biological child. If it's not, then there's no issue. If there is, then he has to take the steps to contest it there in Colorado. He cannot ignore the Colorado proceeding and rely upon this court's ruling because Colorado may say, you know, we don't care what Tennessee does. We're polling that we have jurisdiction. I'm h I'm ruling. I don't care what Colorado says. I'm saying I have jurisdiction. So, >> understood. Yarn. On the uh emergency uh petition essentially to return guess both children to Mr. Thomas. Uh on Miss Thomas' behalf, I would also say that you know there's excuse me for interrupting. I apologize. Is there an order protection still in full force in effect?

[00:19:07]>> Yes, your honor, there is. There's also a pending contempt for those house breakins. Uh that is also in effect.

[00:19:15]>> And under that original order protection, what is provision? What provision is made for? I don't have the order of protection in this file that I can >> I can provide it. Uh I believe Mr. Bellamy had said that Scarlet is listed under it, which is our oldest child. I did not did not see that, but I can provide it.

[00:19:36]Well, and I'm I'm my question of course is what if any provision is made in uh in that order protection for shel the one child that's there that we know Scarlet.

[00:19:57]So, I'm looking at the petition and um just looking at the petition, I do not see Scarlet listed on the petition, but it was the Thank you.

[00:20:48]This is the temporary order that I've been handed.

[00:20:53]And then you're saying that there's already been a hearing on that temporary order of protection and it was extended.

[00:21:03]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:21:05]And was that in circuit court or general sessions and then it was appealed?

[00:21:10]>> It was it was appealed and the appeal was not was not heard and by agreed order it was set off.

[00:21:19]>> It was reserved for final hearing by previous council.

[00:21:23]>> So it's my understanding the order protection that the that was entered by the general sessions court is still in effect and Mr. Thomas has no contact with either the petitioner nor the minor children covered under the order of protection.

[00:21:40]>> Well, I'm looking at the order that was entered in this court after the hearing on February the 5th in paragraph two of the findings of fact is the wife testified that she had been married to Mr. Michael Thomas husband since 2024.

[00:21:52]The wife testified the parties have a 10-month-old daughter born of the marriage, Scarlett Thomas, and that she was also pregnant with the marriage's second child, which is due in early March. So, in according to Judge Wallace's finding, and that's the order that you're asking to be set aside, he made a finding based on her testimony that that was in fact the child of the marriage that's now in Colorado sought to be adopted.

[00:22:18]And it goes on to talk about these findings of fact. Nowhere in that order does it specifically order anything other than temporary spousal support. It doesn't put an order down regarding the temporary parenting plan or custody of the minor child.

[00:22:40]>> That's my understanding as well, your honor. Uh if I can say though, we would object to Mr. Thomas having the children. Uh, and there's a lot of reasons to that that maybe perhaps Miss Thomas could add with testimony, but she's been the primary caretaker. Um, >> well, Mr. Thomas filed for DNA testing.

[00:22:58]I'm not going to grant him custody of children that he has a question of whether or not when I started practicing law that was a factor that that if a parent father requested DNA testing that was a factor the court could consider in among all the other factors in determining whether or not he ought to have you know what type of visitation or custody or whatever. So if he's questioning whether this is his child or not, then I'm not likely to say those children have to come back and live with him, especially in view of the fact that there are orders of protection in place.

[00:23:31]Um >> any any questions, your honor? I have nothing else to add.

[00:23:38]>> This is a mess. And I'm going to do one thing. I'm going to check with Judge Wallace. It may be better if I heard this case and through its u I don't really want to but it may be better if I can do it. Are you We checked on on your availability on the 16th. Is that correct?

[00:23:58]>> Yes, your honor. I'm available.

[00:23:59]>> But what about the 15th?

[00:24:01]>> I can check.

[00:24:03]>> It looks like we said on the 16th.

[00:24:05]Anything for me?

[00:24:12]>> Yeah, I'm I can give you the 16th.

[00:24:15]16 work for me. Your honor, >> I'd like to just check with Judge Wallace. If he doesn't have an objection to me hearing the motion that you filed, then I would suggest we hear everything on the 16th.

[00:24:27]And if Miss Thomas, I think we need to get this DNA testing done as soon as possible.

[00:24:36]>> Judge, >> so we're talking about June 16th to hear everything, all these motions. And between now and then, I want the DNA testing performed on both Scarlet and the child that's in Colorado. That DNA testing will be performed by a sample taken by Mr. Thomas by LabCore here in Hendersonville. Sample for Ms. Thomas and the minor child Scarlet in state where she resides by LabCore if there is one there. and by LabCore in Colorado where this minor child is. It would be Mrs. Thomas's obligation to ensure that the child's sample is taken and that proof is obtained from Colorado of the validity of the identity of that child. In other words, I tell you the story that we had a well-known wear narrator well down in Humphre County who is a member of a famous music family down there and he was he was hired or rather he was sued for child support back in that day. They uh you know sent you up with the father and the mother and the child all went to get the blood the blood test done. So came back negative and the mother just was irate could not believe it and anyway they took they they apparently took a picture of the father and the child and the mother it wasn't the defendant he had sent one of his buddies to go have set the dead and of course it came back it was and later it was his child so he they uh had to redo it.

[00:26:12]Um, what I want is to make sure that that child is identified in the state of Colorado sufficiently by whatever means, photography or whatever, that that we can ensure that Mr. Thomas knows this child that is being tested in Colorado is in fact the same child that we're having questions.

[00:26:34]And so I think we do that DNA testing and I'd like to have that done within the next 10 days on all parties and then we reset it for June 16th and hopefully we'll have the results of that at that time. And I will check with Judge Wallace to see if he has any objection to me considering your motion to modify his order and then we'll go from there.

[00:26:58]All the other motions I would think need to be heard on that same day. Uh we realize it's an emergency type situation and that's why I'm giving you the June date. I'm supposed to be in Humphre County that month. So >> appreciate it.

[00:27:11]>> Anything else?

[00:27:12]>> If I if I may, judge, and this kind of gets into court. I don't want to do that.

[00:27:31]Well, he pays for his test. He pays for his test. She pays for her test. And he's the one who's requesting the testing. So, it's going to understand and I'll consider that at the final at the next hearing, but he's going to have to bear the cost of the test itself. She will pay for the test for herself and the two children. He will pay for his test and the performance of the actual DNA testing.

[00:27:54]>> So, we'll go with an itemized list of what the charges are for the test and she's responsible for herself, >> right?

[00:28:02]Understood, your honor.

[00:28:04]>> Other the other option you have is tote that child back from Colorado, bring it here and have a have all three of them have all three of your client and the two children tested at LabCore in the state she lives in.

[00:28:18]>> Understood, your honor. And I'm going to ask just one clarification and request to this court. If those are determined to be Mr. Thomas' children, can Miss Thomas be reimbursed for her cost of the test?

[00:28:28]>> If they are Mrs. Thomas's children, >> I will she can make application for reimbursement at that point in time.

[00:28:34]>> Understood.

[00:28:36]>> Normally, if someone contests that being their child and it turns out they are, then they requested the DNA, they have to pay for it in the end result. But as was pointed out, if he's incurring a great deal of expense to fight an adoption of a child he never consented to being adopted, then that may be a factor as well. So, >> understood.

[00:28:57]>> All right. I am uh I'm of the opinion that we uh have it all heard on the 16th and we will sort it all out to the best of my ability at that time. So, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you.

[00:29:14]>> Make judgment.

[00:29:16]>> Pardon me.

[00:29:17]>> Good morning, your honor.

[00:29:18]>> Good morning, >> judge. We were previously here on May 18th.

[00:29:29]Uh, and the court had put down an order.

[00:29:31]There were several motions on the court's docket that day. Not sure if the court recalls the I do recall.

[00:29:37]>> Court had put down an order uh saying the court would confer with Judge Wallace to see about taking over um this case. I believe a motion prior to Mr. Thomas retaining me and and now Miss Thomas has gotten new counsel, but there was a motion that uh occurred. I believe Judge Wallace heard it on temporary support. We had filed on behalf of Mr. Thomas a request for the court to review that as he was not present when that was established. Uh beyond that, the court had ordered the parties comply and and get the DNA testing done. That has been done. Mr. Thomas is indeed the father of these two minor children born during the pendency of the marriage. Um, we also the court had had entered an order uh stating that this court had jurisdiction over those minor children in regard to the emergency motion uh for temporary custody that Mr. Thomas had filed due to the adoption with the newly born uh child and and I think the court ultimately left it at the court would confer with Chancellor Wallace about taking this matter over. We said >> I did confer with Chancellor Wallace and he has no problem with me hearing this case and doing whatever needs to be done.

[00:30:45]>> Understood. And and so I think where we're at, Judge, we have agreed uh Mr. Kirby is now representing Mrs. Thomas. I believe he filed a notice of appearance in this matter last week. Uh we have agreed we will I will give Mr. Turb Kirby some time to get up to speed on the temporary support issues. I think we we do have to address today uh the immediate motion the emergency motion for return of the minor children. Uh Mr. Kirby filed a response to that on Friday uh citing the UCCCJA and how this court needed to reconsider its previous ruling on it having jurisdiction over that minor child. Um I don't know if the court wants to hear testimony on that today or just argument.

[00:31:30]>> I'll do I'll hear whatever you want to hear.

[00:31:33]And I really think factually it's it's undisputed. The child was born in West Virginia. Um there was an order of protection entered uh by the General Sessions Court here in Dixon that included one of the minor children on it. The baby Thomas had not yet been born. Mother relocated pursuant to an agreed order. That order of protection was appealed. The parties reserved that for a final hearing. Um, the new minor child was born in West Virginia.

[00:32:03]Not entirely certain on the facts. The child at some point went from West Virginia, I believe the day she was born, and relocated to Colorado with pre-adoptive parents. Um, I know it's it's mother's position that this court does not have jurisdiction under the UCCCJA to make an initial custody determination. However, father would aver that under 366216A2, this court does have jurisdiction to make that initial custody determination.

[00:32:31]Um, I'm sure the court's familiar. It's kind of our argument that there is no home state of this child. Um, home state is defined under the UCCCJA as a child that's living with a parent or a person acting as a parent. Um, if the child is under the age of 6 months, it's the state in which the child's lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned.

[00:32:54]So that would be a parent or a person acting as a parent. Child's in Colorado, not with a parent and not with a person acting as a parent. The person acting as a parent is defined under that statute.

[00:33:06]Um, it's our contention that the the pre-adoptive parents in Colorado are not persons acting as a parent. So, it's our contention Colorado is not the home state. That leaves West Virginia.

[00:33:17]There's no actions pending in West Virginia to our knowledge that we've been notified of. Also, mother under the UCCCJA has a continuing duty to supplement to this court in the in a divorce proceeding under the UCCCJA.

[00:33:33]If anything is to change during the pendency, if the child is to relocate, um knows of any proceeding that could affect the current proceeding. None of that was complied with here, judge. Um we would aer mother has unclean hands.

[00:33:47]She's done this to try to gain an advantage in this divorce proceeding. I know that's more of an argument uh for father to make in Colorado if that court tries to exercise jurisdiction over this minor child. But we would assert under 366 216 A1 is not applicable and therefore the court would have to go to A2 and we believe the court can exercise jurisdiction under A2. as a court of another state, neither Colorado nor West Virginia has jurisdiction in this matter with respect to making the initial child custody determination.

[00:34:22]With that being said, if the court does conclude today that the court has jurisdiction, mother has filed documents in the Cal Colorado Court saying she surrenders her rights to this child. Mr. Thomas is the biological father. He wants to be the father. He's got stuff set up at his house to be the father. He couldn't communicate with Miss Thomas because of the order of protection. She relocated out of state. He couldn't be there during the birth of this child.

[00:34:46]That wasn't his own request. He was prevented by law from doing that. So, it's not like we have a person that's just intentionally not being present in this child's life. He was prohibited by an order that he could not be there. Um, so we are requesting that if the court determines that it has jurisdiction that the court issue an order, a temporary emergency order transferring custody of of baby girl Thomas who's located in Colorado to Mr. Thomas, which also brings s significant concerns to the party's other minor child um that is in mom's care, custody, and control. We we she relocated and he's had no contact.

[00:35:28]when he finds out, and I think they're going to say there was some knowledge about him having knowledge of an adoption proceeding. He was not. They didn't communicate. There was an order of protection. Um, he has serious concerns about this other child that's in mother's care. When you when you take one child and put her up for adoption and you surrender your rights, that he doesn't know where this other child's located. He doesn't know what's going on with this child. So he has significant concerns about the mother's fitness to care for the other child as well. So we're asking the court to if the court determines it has jurisdiction in this matter to make the initial custody determination to award him temporary par immediate parenting time with these two minor children.

[00:36:10]>> All right. You and Mr. Thomas have a seat over here at the table. Let me hear from Mr. Kirby and then we'll start.

[00:36:19]>> Morning.

[00:36:20]>> Good morning. I'm coming into this court uh late in terms of this case, so I apologize about that. But I got hired and filed a agreed order for substitution late last week and filed a response to this motion. I was not present what happened previously. I can't speak on that. Uh but what I can say is this that there was a statement made by opposing council in terms of Mr. Thomas wants to be a part of these children's lives. I think that would have been something that should have been considered prior to him domestically assaulting, sexually, emotionally the mother of these children at this point to which he's not only plead guilty to the actual action, he's also plead guilty to a violation of the order of protection as well. And that's here.

[00:37:09]This is not something that is new for Mr. Thomas as he has a background of domestic violence. He's actually currently pending a charge, I believe, in South Carolina for domestic violence against another individual.

[00:37:21]The allegations of which are that uh he threw uh items to include broken glass and attempt to destroy that individual.

[00:37:30]Um that is still currently pending. He is not a safe individual to have around.

[00:37:36]Uh and he has made that clear. He has a history of drug use. we would say that he probably still is considering and and taking those drugs. Um, obviously with less than a week of me being on the case, I have been able to get everything together that needs to be together. I'm still getting the file together from opposing uh not posing counsel, but opposing counsel and previous council to come here before the court today. What we have here though is a question of jurisdiction where it is undenied that this child has never stepped foot in Tennessee has was not born in Tennessee was >> Let me interrupt you and ask this question. Are you aware how long this case has been pending?

[00:38:16]>> Correct. Yes.

[00:38:17]>> It was filed October the 3rd of 2025 and your client along has has made an appearance and has filed pleadings in this court submitted to this court's jurisdiction. Would you agree?

[00:38:30]>> Not as it relates to this child. No.

[00:38:32]Well, when when you say not as it relates to this child. So, you're you're saying that a person can have a divorce case pending in this court that concerns the custody of one of their children and that if she flees the state and goes to another state, has a child out of wedlock or has the child uh there in that state that somehow that robs this court of jurisdiction over the second child? I don't think it robs the court of anything because I don't think the court ever had anything to be robbed of as it relates to the second child.

[00:39:04]She didn't flee the state. She was by agreed order allowed to leave the state because of the uh physical issues that had happened within the party's marriage at that point. Mr. Thomas doesn't know her address because that address is protected based on the physical issues that had happened within the party's marriage at this point. So, she didn't flee in any way whatsoever. Maybe that was a poor choice of words.

[00:39:27]>> And I I understand your honor. As far as the jurisdiction of what we're looking here, I have no qualms that this court has personal jurisdiction over these two individuals as it relates to the divorce. I have no qualms that this court has subject matter jurisdiction as it relates to the divorce of these two parties. I have no qualms that this court has subject matter jurisdiction as it relates to the party's oldest child.

[00:39:51]Uh I believe the name is Scarlet if I remember correctly. Um I do have qualms that this court has jurisdiction related to the youngest child. And the reason being for that is that home state is defined as if a child is less than six months old. Home state is defined as the state in which the child is born. West Virginia is the state in which child is born. We don't get to A2 as was being argued by Mr. Felamy because we don't get past A1. West Virginia was the home state. We cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction to this court. These parties cannot agree to subject matter jurisdiction to this court. We have had many cases previously where we have a divorce going on in one state and we have to bifurcate it to the extent that custody has to be decided by a different state. I've had uh issues where custody is being decided by one state and it's bifrocated where child support is going to be decided by a different state. We have those issues pop up continuously and this would be yet another issue of that point. When there is a question of UCCCJA, I believe the next step I think what the court is required to do is to communicate with the judge of that other jurisdiction. We know what that other jurisdiction is. My understanding after talking to my client is that there was an ICPC between West Virginia and Colorado for the purposes of the adoption. I do not have a certified copy or copy of that to hand to the court today. Again, I apologize. I'm coming into this late. I know that. I didn't file a motion to continue this because I know the court wanted to hear about this part of it. But I think Colorado has the open adoption right now. Mr. Thomas has representation in Colorado for that adoption at this point. he has every right to litigate that adoption in Colorado and the adoption as we all understand would also be covered by the UCCCJA as well. Child custody includes the idea of adoption litigation. I think it is most appropriate and the best next step and I think what is actually considered and required by the UCCCJA for this court to have an inc camera conference with the court that is doing the adoption litigation in Colorado and then discuss it from there. I don't think this court has the jurisdiction to take anything away from Colorado. I understand where the court's coming from. I do. But I don't think this court has the power to say, "Colorado judge, you've accepted this. You've accepted these documents.

[00:42:23]You've accepted this litigation."

[00:42:25]But me sitting here in Tennessee, I'm going to take that away from you.

[00:42:29]Whatever happens after y'all's in camera review, we can deal with that afterwards. But right now, I think that is the next step as far as the argument of this job needs to be returned or shouldn't say return. This child needs to be given for the first time ever to Mr. Thomas. There's a couple things I would say about that. One, my client hasn't abandoned this child in the sense of just not having any communications with what's going on or not caring for the welfare of this child. In fact, she is in uh sending breast milk to this child on a regular basis to the uh presumptive adopted parents in Colorado.

[00:43:07]>> Why is she giving this child up for adoption?

[00:43:10]>> This was a child she has. This would have been five children in her home at this point. She has uh four other children including the oldest child that's at issue here. This child was there is some postpartum issues. This was something that was discussed my client would say prior to the order of protection being in place between these parties. It would be my client's statement that the father said on many occasions or at least one occasion I should say that he would sign the adoption paperwork for that child if she signed the divorce paperwork. That's not where we're at and that's not what's going on. Say that they never had any idea of adoption. That's false. They had talked about the adoption as it relates to this job. Was he given specific notice? I can't say that. I wasn't on this case when it happened. I'm going to defer to Mr. Belly saying that he got specific notice only when he got served.

[00:44:08]That that's the best explanation I have as far as that's concerned, your honor, where they've had communications with it. This was a plan from the beginning.

[00:44:15]These were pre-adoptive parents that in Colorado that had been a part of this pregnancy throughout is my understanding of this. Um, this was always the plan is my understanding as far as taking that child and giving it to Mr. Thomas uh from the for the first time. Couple things that I want to say about that. One, we have an older child that's not even seeing this father right now because of all the protective issues that we have in place. Two, we still have pending criminal charges.

[00:44:49]Three, we still have an order of protection that's in place right now.

[00:44:52]Four, uh, when we get to this point of looking at that, the consent that was there and submitted by my client, it actually states in there that were that adoption to not go through for some reason, whatever that reason might be, whether it's jurisdictional or otherwise, that child will return to my client's care and custody. That's what the consent states. Um, if anything, if something happens with that adoption, the point emphasis would be that that child returns to my client based under the essential contract law that has been entered into between my client and these adopted parents. Uh, the other part of this that I would say is that there's nothing going on with Scarlet. To say that there's an adoption proceeding there, that that means that she's doing something with this older child is disingenuous at best. There's nothing that needs to be said about other litigation with Scarlet because there is none. If the court uh wants us to have a specific order stating that nothing will be done with that child, I have no objection to it because nothing's going to be done with that child. Uh that child is with my client. That child's well taken care of. That child does not really even know father at this point based on everything that's been happening with this proceeding as far as the order protection and protective orders that have been in place.

[00:46:14]>> Thank you.

[00:46:17]This court is of the opinion that there is a fundamental difference in this case than in the normal UC J uniform child custody and visitation act uh cases.

[00:46:29]Number one, this case was filed in this court in October 3rd of 2025, and that was the complaint that was filed.

[00:46:39]So, jurisdiction was invoked in this uh court. The court then conducted a hearing in front of Judge Larry Wallace in February of 2026 and entered an order regarding the custody support and so forth which would again um exercising the jurisdiction that this court had over these parties and the child that was born at that time.

[00:47:10]So what the argument that the def that the defendant in this case or the uh actually it's the plaintiff in this in this case actually the plaintiff was filed complaint was filed by Michael Thomas the order that was drafted shows Rachel Thomas as the plaintiff but I think that is incorrect that may have been with the order protection situation. In any event, the court entered an order that controlled the um parties and ordered certain testing to be done for uh DNA. There was I think there was an order for support and so forth that was entered in this court. So, Miss Thomas invoked the jurisdiction of this court to her benefit by obtaining an order of this court. Now, she seeks to say that this court doesn't have jurisdiction over the child that was born simply because she relocated to another state.

[00:48:13]I am of the opinion that that does not prevent this court from having the opportunity to or having jurisdiction to decide the custody of both children.

[00:48:24]To rule otherwise would encourage u parties who are dissatisfied with the court's ruling on a custody case and they have a pregnancy involved and they simply move to another state and thereby make the argument that this court is robbed of jurisdiction because that child was born in another state. I understand that where children are uh the uniform commer the uniform act pro provides certain protections that if a child is living in another state and that state has asserted jurisdiction but this court has already asserted jurisdiction over the parties and their older child and this court part of what this court will have to do whether it's me or another judge is to make a determination as to the custody of that oldest child. Part of that factor will be uh the behavior of the parents, all of those statutory factors and the u factor of of of whether or not these siblings were together or apart and what was her reason in placing this child up for adoption and so forth.

[00:49:27]So, I'm of the opinion that the jurisdiction of this court extends to this young child that was just born and that the uh Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act does not uh prevent this court from having jurisdiction over that child simply because Miss Thomas moved to the state of of uh wherever she's located in West Virginia or wherever it is and then place the child up for adoption in Colorado. Colorado's only jurisdiction over the child is because the child was brought into that state for the purposes of an adoption. And if the adoption is not valid because there's been no surrender of that child by the father, then in my opinion that uh court does not have proper jurisdiction under the uh uniform act either to do it. I think this court is the only court that that logically would have the right to make those decisions.

[00:50:23]So I am of the opinion that this court and do hereby hold that this court continues to have jurisdiction over the parties and the party's minor children. Um the Colorado court obviously may take a different view and there may be an extensive u litigation involved in that. However, Mr. Thomas's request that this child be surrendered to him in due all of the allegations that have occurred in this case is not something that the court will automatically take it upon myself to simply say well he's going to get custody of this child. Uh he doesn't know the child has never had any contact with the child and the older child there are certain protections protections in place because of the uh allegations of domestic assault and domestic violence.

[00:51:15]So, it's this court's opinion at least that um it is not an automatic thing that I can return this child to Mr. Thomas. The Colorado court's going to have to rule on whether or not they have jurisdiction. It'll be litigated there.

[00:51:29]It'll um I'm assuming that Miss Thomas may choose to make an interlocatory appeal on my ruling regarding jurisdiction. If that's what she chooses to do, I would authorize that because I think it's a very unique legal question.

[00:51:44]In the meantime, Mr. Thomas's rights are protected against this court, at least under this court's order, from any surrender or any termination of his rights for failure to have a relationship with the child because he's attempting to do so. And this court has is of the opinion that would not constitute abandonment. um that would result in a termination.

[00:52:09]Then that brings us to what are we able to do at this point other than my ruling that uh we have jurisdiction. I think it's going to require before I can do anything about that child, we need to see what Colorado is going to do regarding their their I don't think West Virginia is really the issue. Child's not there. Being born there doesn't mean they have jurisdiction. So with that, Mr. Bellamy, you have anything you wish to add about today other than the fact that I've reaffirmed my ruling and we h we set this hearing to determine what the DNA tests were going to be. DNA shows he is the biological father. I'm therefore ruling that we do have jurisdiction over this child. If the defense wishes to seek an interlocatory appeal to a court of appeals for their interpretation, then I'm willing to do so. Do you want to put on the record the circumstances of this so that there is a record made to take to the court of appeals? That would be the only thing I would offer.

[00:53:11]>> Judge, I'm just a few things if I could add briefly. The order protection in this case is the court saying that the order of protection extends to the the newborn minor child.

[00:53:25]I'm not saying that the order of protection extends to the newborn mind or child. It extends to the to those people who were listed on the order of protection. The order of protection lists um the mother and a stepdaughter, a stepson, a stepson, and Scarlet Thomas who is the child of these parties. It does not mention this unborn unborn child. It was issued back in September of 2025 and therefore the child obviously may she was pregnant with the child but and it could have mentioned that but it did not. So I'm of the opinion it does not apply to that child. But asking me to order that the child be surrendered to Mr. Thomas in view of the allegations is what I'm simply saying. I'm not prepared to do that.

[00:54:18]So, I guess that would be my my concern is is when when is the court going to be prepared to make that determination?

[00:54:24]>> I will give you an evidentiary hearing and you can make that argument and then I will make a ruling and if you want to do that today, we'll do that today.

[00:54:32]>> It's up to you.

[00:54:33]>> I may confer with my client just briefly, judge.

[00:54:38]And your honor, as far as the evidentary hearing, while he's confirmed that I'm going to respectfully say that any evidentiary hearing on that topic, I would ask to be continued to another date for many reasons. One of which I just got on the case as the court of all knows and we've already said on Nauseium here this morning. Secondly, there are things that are related to what is happening with Mr. Thomas in his own personal life uh that I need to get of.

[00:55:08]>> Mr. Bowie, I'm going to Mr. Kirby is right. He's new to the case and I think under the circumstances this is a unique situation. I'm of the opinion that we said I can give you July 22nd.

[00:55:25]>> Give me one moment. Let me check.

[00:55:35]I have a >> on July 22nd.

[00:55:46]>> All right. Well, my calendar in the month of July is full, but many of those are criminal trials. I've missed a call from General Lee Willoughby over in Chin County because I'd ask him about or any of the all of us who practice law know that just because it's on my calendar doesn't mean it's going to go. So bear with me and let me step off. I have a TBI agent that was supposed to be here. All right, he's here. And uh I need to see him about a judicial subpoena. Then I will check with Mr. Willoughby about that calendar and then I'll let you know what we have available. My inclination is to set it for July um after get Mr. Kirby an opportunity to be heard or rather get prepared and then we'll come back. So >> understood. Thank you.

[00:56:32]>> Thank you.

[00:56:37]of July.

[00:56:39]After speaking with the district attorney, I have offered the I can give you the 16th of July.

[00:56:51]>> And depositions all day that day, your honor.

[00:56:54]>> I can give >> What about the 15th of July?

[00:57:00]>> I have a disposition hearing. You have a hearing?

[00:57:03]>> I do.

[00:57:04]>> Did I go Did I suggest the 22nd of July already?

[00:57:08]>> You did. And I had a hearing on that when I >> What about the 29th of July?

[00:57:14]>> 29th would work for me.

[00:57:20]>> I'll make it work, your honor.

[00:57:22]>> All right. And we'll reset this matter for the 29th of July.

[00:57:29]And at that point hopefully we may have some sort of here a ruling out of Colorado. Does anybody know what their status is regarding the situation?

[00:57:41]>> I was going to ask my client, but I don't see her on the WebEx anymore. I I didn't want to step out and call her.

[00:57:48]>> No, you may. She's exited the hearing.

[00:57:51]So >> Okay. I I don't have one off the top of my head. I know that the last update that I got was that Mr. on this hire counsel. I would assume there's a motion date, but I would need to check with the council in Colorado to see what their next step is.

[00:58:05]>> And judge, that's that would be the update I've got to provide as well, but just some clarity for the record. Is the the court has stated that it's exercise jurisdiction in this matter over this minor child?

[00:58:16]>> That is correct.

[00:58:17]>> But is it the court is the court saying >> that's too I'm sorry. your parent is the court saying any further determination regarding the minor child is dependent on the outcome in Colorado.

[00:58:30]>> No, but I'm saying that it would be good to know what Colorado says. So, you know, um >> understood. But just for the record, this board's exercising jurisdiction and it's not contingent on on Colorado.

[00:58:41]>> I'm of the opinion that Colorado has, you know, the right to decide whatever they want to decide. I'm going to rule that we have jurisdiction over this minor child. That doesn't mean your client's going to automatically get this child. It will be a factor that that this court has to determine and I have to have a evidentiary hearing and that's what this 29th is going to be about is a custody hearing over this minor child that I've said we have custody over jurisdiction over. And the defendant in the case, Miss Thomas, will be able to present all of the evidence that they claim. All I've heard have been allegations and that hearing will be for the evidence to be introduced that allows me to make a decision and I will consider all of those factors set forth in that in the interim period.

[00:59:28]Obviously, Mr. uh Kirby may decide he wants to sue pursue an interocatory appeal on the jurisdiction issue and I'll leave that up to him to do that.

[00:59:38]But right now, I'm setting the Thomas versus Thomas on the custody issue over this minor child and the visitation with the other child as well. Uh, all of that will be subject to a hearing on the 29th. So, both of you marshall your evidence. So, >> all right.

[00:59:53]>> Understood.

[00:59:54]>> Thank you, judge.

[00:59:55]>> Thank you very much.

[00:59:58]>> Judge on Sartine. I don't know if you're ready.