Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217 (2026)
Continuing jurisdiction of state courts - Jurisdiction to modify own decrees
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-219, a court of this state which has made a child-custody determination consistent with this part has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
- (1) A court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and one (1) parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
- (2) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.
- (b) A court of this state which has made a child-custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 36-6-216.
Acts 1999, ch. 389, § 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Jurisdiction attaches *549 at the commencement of a proceeding, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt., and the UCCJEA defines “Commencement” as “the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding,” Tenn.”
Button v. Waite, 208 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2006). “That section provides: [A] court of this state may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 36-6-216(a)(1) or (2), and: (1) The court of the other state…”
Bradley James Cox v. Laura Nicole Lucas, 576 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2019). “§ 36-6-217 (2017) (providing for "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" over child custody determinations).”
Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019). “§ 5422 ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217 ; Va. Code Ann.”
Kelso v. Decker, 262 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “ed in § 36-6-219 [regarding temporary emergency jurisdiction], a court of this state may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 36-6-216(a)(l) or (2), and:…”
Travis Daniel Freeman v. Wendy Y. Freeman, 579 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “at § 36-6-217 (providing for “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over child custody determinations); Id.”
Ex Parte Davis, 2100515 (ala.civ.app. 10-7-2011), 82 So. 3d 695 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “3d at 799 (relying on Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217 and Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-202).”
P.E.K. v. J.M., 52 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 36-6-216 (a)(2) and (3), or (3) this state has continuing jurisdiction under *661 Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(l)(2). The question of the appropriate forum to decide the custody of this child must be resolved in the chancery court.”
Davis v. Blackstock, 47 So. 3d 796 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “The father next asserts that the Tennessee trial court had exclusive, continuing *799 jurisdiction over the custody issue pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217, a part of the Tennessee UCCJEA.”
Pek v. Jm, 52 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “If this state is not the home state, jurisdiction to decide custody is limited to situations where (1) there is no home state, (2) the home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-216(a)(2) and (3), or (3) this state has continuing jurisdiction under…”
Davis v. Self, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “The father next asserts that the Tennessee trial court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody issue pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217, a part of the Tennessee UCCJEA.”
Ahmed Mote Alzamzami v. Arwa Al-Sulaihi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt. 2; see also Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a) — 13 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Jurisdiction attaches *549 at the commencement of a proceeding, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt., and the UCCJEA defines “Commencement” as “the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding,” Tenn.”
Button v. Waite, 208 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2006). “That section provides: [A] court of this state may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 36-6-216(a)(1) or (2), and: (1) The court of the other state…”
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re: Rilyn S. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(1) — 11 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Jurisdiction attaches *549 at the commencement of a proceeding, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt., and the UCCJEA defines “Commencement” as “the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding,” Tenn.”
Samuel Pinner v. Jessie Connatser (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
Willard Harrison Iman, Jr. v. Megan Blanchfield Iman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
In Re: Marquise T. G. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(1)(2) — 1 case
Pek v. Jm, 52 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “If this state is not the home state, jurisdiction to decide custody is limited to situations where (1) there is no home state, (2) the home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-216(a)(2) and (3), or (3) this state has continuing jurisdiction under…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(2) — 6 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Jurisdiction attaches *549 at the commencement of a proceeding, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt., and the UCCJEA defines “Commencement” as “the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding,” Tenn.”
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Ahmed Mote Alzamzami v. Arwa Al-Sulaihi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt. 2; see also Tenn.”
Lee Stack, III v. Joann Valerie Stack (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(l)(2) — 1 case
P.E.K. v. J.M., 52 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 36-6-216 (a)(2) and (3), or (3) this state has continuing jurisdiction under *661 Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(l)(2). The question of the appropriate forum to decide the custody of this child must be resolved in the chancery court.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(b) — 4 cases
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Ahmed Mote Alzamzami v. Arwa Al-Sulaihi (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217 cmt. 2; see also Tenn.”
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
Curtis R. Thrapp v. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(c) — 1 case
In Re Paisley H. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.