Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221 (2026)
Proceedings already commenced in another state
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-219, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this part if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this part, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under § 36-6-222.
- (b) Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-219, a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to § 36-6-224. If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this part, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this part does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
- (c) In a proceeding to modify a child custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may:
- (1) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;
- (2) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement; or
- (3) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
Acts 1999, ch. 389, § 22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · 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). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
Button v. Waite, 208 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2006). “tate 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 determines it no longer has exclusive,…”
State, Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. T.M.B.K., 197 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “e the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; (2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1), or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Kelso v. Decker, 262 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “tate 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: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive,…”
Staats v. McKinnon, 924 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “) See also Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221(a). Because the Tennessee court exercised its jurisdiction in a modification of custody proceeding brought pursuant to section 61.”
Barry Craig Taylor v. Sarah Ann McClintock (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-221 to -223. Id. at 547-48 (footnote omitted).”
In Re B.N.W. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221 . -26- At least at the theoretical level, the UCCJEA was intended to resolve problems existing under the UCCJA concerning simultaneous proceedings.”
Adedamola Olagoki Oni v. Cassondra Tucker Oni (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “3 After consulting with the Fulton County court as required by the UCCJEA,4 the Hamilton County court entered an order holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain any custody actions under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-221 due to the Georgia court’s…”
In Re: Apex R., 577 S.W.3d 181 (2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-218 (2017). Finally, Tenn.”
Roger Chase Hagans v. Rachel Wallock Hagans (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221 (a). Until such time as the court in Scotland cedes jurisdiction, it has exclusive jurisdiction of the custody matters between these parties; accordingly, we vacate the Parenting Plan and child support obligations incorporated into the final decree.”
Curtis R. Thrapp v. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “2006), and ruled in reversing the Court of Appeals that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221 (a) and (b) apply to initial custody determinations, and subsection (c) governs modification proceedings.”
Leslie Burke v. Dep't of Child.'s Servs. (2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-221 to -223. Staats v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(a) — 7 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
Button v. Waite, 208 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2006). “tate 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 determines it no longer has exclusive,…”
Staats v. McKinnon, 924 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “) See also Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221(a). Because the Tennessee court exercised its jurisdiction in a modification of custody proceeding brought pursuant to section 61.”
Roger Chase Hagans v. Rachel Wallock Hagans (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221 (a). Until such time as the court in Scotland cedes jurisdiction, it has exclusive jurisdiction of the custody matters between these parties; accordingly, we vacate the Parenting Plan and child support obligations incorporated into the final decree.”
Adedamola Olagoki Oni v. Cassondra Tucker Oni (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “3 After consulting with the Fulton County court as required by the UCCJEA,4 the Hamilton County court entered an order holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain any custody actions under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-221 due to the Georgia court’s…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(b) — 2 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
In Re: Lillian F. W. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(c) — 1 case
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(c)(1) — 1 case
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(e) — 1 case
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-221(e)(2) — 1 case
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-221 cmt. (noting that an order enjoining parties from enforcing another state's child custody determination "is the equivalent of a temporary modification”); accord UCCJEA § 206 cmt.”
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.