Kristina Eileen Codino v. Christopher John Codino

07/22/2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 13, 2026 Session KRISTINA EILEEN CODINO v. CHRISTOPHER JOHN CODINO Appeal from the Chancery Court for Haywood County No. 2024-CH-82 Michael Mansfield, Chancellor ___________________________________ No. W2025-00630-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ The parties to this appeal were divorced in Virginia, and the divorce decree provided that they would alternate parenting time with their young child every three weeks. The mother moved to Tennessee, and the father later moved to Minnesota. After residing in Tennessee for ten months, the mother filed a petition in Tennessee seeking to have the Tennessee court enforce the Virginia divorce decree with respect to her allegations of contempt and modify the Virginia decree to name her primary residential parent. The father subsequently sought to register the Virginia decree in Minnesota. After a hearing, the Tennessee court found that Virginia had lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction because all parties had left that state and that Tennessee now had jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree because it qualified as the child’s home state. However, the Tennessee court declined to exercise its jurisdiction upon finding that Minnesota would be a more convenient forum for the litigation, primarily based on the fact that the Virginia divorce decree contained an agreement of the parties stating that the child would be enrolled in school in Minnesota upon reaching school age if the father was still residing there. The trial court dismissed the petition and awarded the father a portion of his attorney fees. The mother appeals, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in its analysis of the statutory factors under the inconvenient forum statute, erred by dismissing her request for enforcement of the Virginia decree, and erred by granting the father his attorney fees. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and its award of attorney fees. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, P.J., E.S., joined. Heather C. Grewe, Pinson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kristina Eileen Codino. Alexander D. Camp, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Christopher John Codino. OPINION I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kristina Eileen Codino (“Mother”) and Christopher John Codino (“Father”) married in Virginia in June 2019. Both had children from previous relationships. Father had a daughter who resided in Washington, and Mother had three sons who resided primarily with her and Father. Mother and Father also had one child together, Isaac, who was born in April 2020. Mother and Father separated in August 2022, when Isaac was just two years old. According to the trial testimony presented in this case, Virginia law provides that a couple must be separated for a year before filing for divorce. As a result, the parties entered into a separation agreement, which governed various issues between them during their period of separation. Neither party was represented by counsel at the time. The separation agreement provided that Virginia was Isaac’s home state for purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and that the parties would share joint legal and physical custody of him, with alternating weeks of parenting time. The agreement stated that neither party would relocate with Isaac outside the area without the other party’s express written consent, but should either party need to relocate more than sixty miles, if no agreement could be reached, “custody will then be determined by the court.” It stated that custody would remain with the parent who was not relocating until an agreement could be reached. The father of Mother’s three older sons, who also lived in Virginia, died in October 2022. During this timeframe, Mother was “laid off” from her job as well. She had stayed in the parties’ home with her children, with rent of $3,200 per month, so it was urgent for her to find another job. Around August or September 2023, Mother informed Father that she was applying for various employment positions that may require her to relocate out- of-state, either in Tennessee or another state. Once Mother discussed the possibility of moving, Father also began to consider leaving Virginia because he had no family there either. Mother ultimately decided to move to Tennessee. On October 27, 2023, the parties met to discuss an amendment to their separation agreement, in contemplation of Mother leaving for Tennessee later that week, on November 1. According to Mother, Father told her that, pursuant to their separation agreement, she could move wherever she wanted, but if she was going to have any form of parenting time with Isaac, she had to sign an amendment to their agreement. Father took the position that the separation agreement -2- provided that the child would stay with the parent who was not relocating from the point Mother moved out of state. According to Mother, Father told her that if she did not agree to his terms, then “[h]e would keep custody” of Isaac and refuse to sign anything else, and she panicked because she had already released her house in Virginia and rented one in Tennessee, and she and her other children were leaving Virginia within days. The parties signed an amendment that day, which contained several provisions pertaining to custody and visitation. It stated that, for the remainder of 2023, Isaac would live with Father three weeks and then Mother two weeks on an alternating basis until their holiday schedule began,1 and then beginning in January 2024, he would live with each parent for alternating three-week periods. The addendum stated that neither party would withhold Facetime calls with the child. Notably, it stated, “Both parties agree that when the child turns school age, he will be enrolled in school where the father resides as long as he remains in the state of Virginia or Minnesota. If the father resides in any other state, the parties will assess their situations and agree to what is best for the child at that time.” The addendum stated that Mother would “exercise her right to travel on weekends to see the minor child and will have custody of the minor child every other year for Spring Break and half of summer break.” Mother moved to Tennessee on November 1. Father and Mother split the cost of a $900 retainer fee for an attorney to file the paperwork necessary for their uncontested divorce. Neither party met the attorney in person. The final decree of divorce was entered on December 8, 2023, and it incorporated the parties’ separation agreement and amendment. It listed the attorney as counsel for the plaintiff, Mother, and stated that Father was pro se. On December 16, 2023, Father relocated to Minnesota, where he had family. Isaac stayed with Mother in Tennessee for “a little bit longer” than normal during December and/or January so that Father could move and get settled in Minnesota. Isaac also spent “extra time” in Tennessee when Mother remarried and when Father went on a golf trip. Aside from these variations, the parties generally adhered to the three-week visitation schedule between Minnesota and Tennessee for the next several months. During the summer of 2024, when Isaac was four years old, Mother asked Father to have a Facetime call with Isaac, and he informed Mother that he did not want Isaac to participate in Facetime calls with her because they left Isaac agitated and wanting his mother. The next time Mother requested a Facetime call, Father again protested, stating that she was not considering “what I told you it does to him.” Mother believed that Father was trying to drive a wedge between her and Isaac and already felt that the three-week time period away from him was difficult at his age, so she decided to return to court to seek modification of the Virginia decree. 1 According to Father, he suggested that Isaac spend more time with him, in Virginia, during the period of Mother’s move until she got everything settled in Tennessee. -3-  On September 25, 2024, ten months after Mother moved to Tennessee, she filed a petition in the chancery court of Haywood County, Tennessee, asking the court to “accept jurisdiction” in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), modify the Virginia custody order to designate her primary residential parent, and “enforce” the Virginia order by holding Father in contempt for violating its provisions regarding Facetime calls. She alleged that she had only signed the amendment to the separation agreement because Father advised her that his consent to her relocation was contingent on her agreement to allow him to have primary custody if he wanted to move. Mother asserted that Father used a portion of the language from the separation agreement “as a threat” that she was not allowed to move without his agreement. Mother said she ultimately agreed under duress due to her impending relocation and to escape an abusive marriage. She asserted that she had exercised primary physical custody of Isaac for the majority of the relevant time period since both parties left Virginia. Mother alleged that Virginia lost its status as “home state” within the meaning of the UCCJEA when all the parties left there, and Tennessee had now become Isaac’s home state, as she had lived here with him for “the better part of a year.”2 Thus, Mother asked the court to “accept” jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, adopt her proposed parenting plan, and find Father in contempt. Father filed an answer and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition. He argued that the parties’ amendment to the separation agreement “designates the child’s home state as where the Father resides,” so long as he remained in Minnesota or Virginia upon the child turning school age. Thus, Father contended that Minnesota was “contemplated, agreed upon and ultimately ordered” by the Virginia court “as a potential home state placement for the child upon reaching school age.” Father also claimed that he had recently filed a petition for modification of the Virginia decree in Minnesota in accordance with the UCCJEA. However, the document that he attached to his petition was simply a request to register the Virginia decree in Minnesota, not a request for modification. The document reflected that it was filed in a Minnesota court on November 15, 2024, a few weeks after Mother filed her petition in Tennessee on September 25. Father contended that the child was spending half the time in Minnesota and that Minnesota was the “more appropriate forum” to hear the litigation, again stating that Minnesota was “explicitly contemplated by agreement” as an appropriate state in which the child would attend school. According to Father, Mother had signed an “agreement for the child’s home 2 Under the UCCJEA as adopted in Tennessee, the term “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-205(7). “[P]eriods of temporary absence do not toll the time period required to establish ‘home state’ status[.]” Gutzke v. Gutzke, 908 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-205(7). In other words, “a period of ‘temporary absence’ from the state in which the child actually lived for six months does not ‘restart the clock in calculating the consecutive six-month period necessary to establish a new home state.’” Taylor v. McClintock, No. M2013-02293-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3734894, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2014) (quoting Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532, 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)). -4- state to be in Father’s residential state” in Minnesota. Thus, Father asked the Tennessee court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that Tennessee was an inconvenient forum. He also argued that Mother failed to file a certified copy of the judgment she sought to enforce and modify. Father asked the court to dismiss Mother’s petition and award him attorney fees. He attached to his motion a copy of the parties’ Virginia divorce decree, a copy of the request for registration he filed in Minnesota, and other pertinent documents. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss in March 2025. At the outset, Father’s counsel asked the trial court to “punt” jurisdiction to Minnesota, for several reasons. He again argued that Mother failed to attach a certified copy of the divorce decree from Virginia, so he sought dismissal based on that “procedural deficiency.” At the same time, however, Father admitted that there was in fact a final order of divorce from Virginia that incorporated the parties’ separation agreement and amendment, and he noted that it was attached as an exhibit to his own motion to dismiss. Father maintained that the parties’ separation agreement “designates the child’s home state” as Minnesota and noted that he had registered the divorce decree there. He asked the court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that Tennessee is an inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA.3 3 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-222 addresses the situation in which a court declines to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that it is an inconvenient forum, providing, in pertinent part: (a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part to make a child-custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court. (b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including: (1) The length of time the child has resided outside this state; (2) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (3) The relative financial circumstances of the parties; (4) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (5) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (6) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; (7) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; and (8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. (c) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child-custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper. -5-  In response, Mother argued that to the extent there was any issue with the certification of the divorce decree she attached, it was not fatal to her petition. She pointed out that the copies she submitted were identical to the one submitted by Father. Mother also noted that Father had registered the decree in Minnesota. She emphasized, however, that simply registering a decree in another state does not give that state subject matter jurisdiction to modify it, and in any event, Father had not requested modification or even enforcement of the Virginia decree in Minnesota. Mother insisted that Isaac had resided in Tennessee for the majority of the past year and that Tennessee was now his home state. She claimed that Father could not use the parties’ agreement regarding school enrollment to “confer” subject matter jurisdiction. She also asked the court to find that Tennessee was a convenient forum for the litigation considering the relevant factors. The trial judge asked Father to clarify whether he sought modification of the decree in Minnesota, and Father stated that he did not. He said he had essentially started the process to register it. The trial judge noted that he had not been contacted by any court in Minnesota. The trial judge also asked Father to clarify the nature of his objection to the certification of the divorce decree that Mother filed. Father’s counsel admitted that there was “a copy of a certified copy.” The trial judge pointed out that Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-232(a) provides, regarding petitions for enforcement: “A petition under this part must be verified. Certified copies of all orders sought to be enforced and of any order confirming registration must be attached to the petition. A copy of a certified copy of an order may be attached instead of the original.” The trial court then heard testimony from Father via Zoom. He testified that Isaac was currently four years old and would be ready to begin kindergarten when school began later that year, in August. Isaac currently attended daycare in Minnesota. Father worked in construction from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., so Isaac attended daycare from around 6:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Father testified that Isaac is not enrolled in any extracurricular activities in Minnesota. He testified that he has family members who reside in Minnesota, including his mother, stepfather, sister, brother-in-law, and their four children. Father originally moved in with his mother upon moving to Minnesota but had since moved into a townhome with his fiancée and her teenage daughter. Father testified that he is financially stable and that he pays rent to his fiancée. Father admitted that Isaac had stayed with Mother in Tennessee “a little bit longer” than scheduled in December or January, after he moved on December 16, so that he could focus on moving from Virginia to Minnesota. He said that the parties had “pretty much” been following the three-week rotation since January 2024, although he admitted there were multiple examples of accommodations for things like his golf trips. He said Isaac also stayed in Tennessee for “extra time” when Mother got married. When asked if he would admit that Isaac had not spent fifty percent of the time in Minnesota, Father said, “I cannot speak to that.” Isaac suffers from severe eczema that requires medicated ointments -6- and creams multiple times per day to prevent itching and bleeding. Father acknowledged that he had never taken Isaac to any dermatologist or specialist in Minnesota with regard to his condition. He also admitted that Isaac had never been to any dentist in Minnesota. Father also testified regarding the amendment the parties signed days before Mother moved to Tennessee. He insisted that Isaac would have had to stay with him in Virginia “from the point [Mother] moved out of state” pursuant to the original separation agreement.4 Father said he did not want to lose that right by moving to Minnesota and wanted to “protect[] [him]self,” so “what I felt comfortable with was putting in writing that when he gets school aged, he will reside with me.” Father testified that he had requested and received a certified copy of the Virginia divorce decree, and he introduced it as an exhibit at trial. He testified that he had registered the decree in Minnesota. He said his “goal in that was to seek and keep jurisdiction in Minnesota where we, per our agreement and understanding, agreed to.” However, Father testified that he was not seeking modification of the Virginia decree in Minnesota. Father testified that he believed Minnesota would be the “more appropriate forum” for litigation “especially” since the parties had agreed that Minnesota “could be the potential spot.” He agreed that it was not practical for Isaac to continue going back and forth between Tennessee and Minnesota for three-week periods as he grew older but believed he should be in Minnesota with him. Father was also asked about the allegation in Mother’s petition about a history of domestic violence and whether he denied domestic abuse. He replied, “Define domestic abuse. Did we argue and – and scream? Yeah, we both did.” Father stated that he had never been arrested or investigated by law enforcement for domestic violence against Mother. Mother’s oldest son, Ryan, testified next. He was 22 years old at the time of trial but had lived with Mother and Father for about three years during their marriage in Virginia. Ryan and Isaac are half-brothers. Ryan described episodes during the marriage when Father would yell at Mother and call her names. He recalled one particular episode toward the end of the marriage when Mother asked Father to stop drinking and poured out his alcohol, and Father got increasingly angry and “ended up cocking his fist back as if to hit my mother,” such that Ryan feared for her safety and told Father to stop. Ryan testified that there were multiple instances during the marriage when he feared for Mother’s safety and that he was “very much on edge.” He testified that the verbal abuse also occurred in front of Isaac. Ryan testified that he now lives in Tennessee with Mother and her current husband and his siblings, and there is no such behavior in their home. He testified that he and his siblings play with Isaac when he is there. He also testified regarding the severity 4 As previously noted, the separation agreement actually provided that neither party would relocate from the area with Isaac without the other party’s express written consent, but should either party need to relocate more than sixty miles, if no agreement could be reached, “custody will then be determined by the court.” -7- of Isaac’s eczema and the fact that he sometimes has to wrap his hands in gauze. Mother’s current husband (“Stepfather”) testified next. He had two teenagers from a previous marriage, and the youngest lived with him and Mother. Stepfather also worked in construction and owned a six-bedroom home and farm. Stepfather testified that he had attended all of Isaac’s doctor appointments in Tennessee related to his eczema, and he noted that Isaac had recently been hospitalized as well, for three days. Stepfather testified that he had undergone training on how to give Isaac injections of medication for his eczema. He testified that Isaac attends church in Tennessee, and he participates in taekwondo three days per week. Stepfather testified that Isaac and Mother also attend “Mommy and Me” classes weekly at their church. He testified that Mother works part- time but stays home during the three-week periods when Isaac is in Tennessee in order to care for him. Finally, Mother testified. She said that Isaac’s three older half-brothers live with her and Stepfather on the farm. She testified that Stepfather’s parents also live five minutes away from their house and spend time with them. Mother testified that since she had moved to Tennessee on November 1, 2023, Isaac had spent the majority of the time in Tennessee with her. She described, for instance, Isaac spending extra time in Tennessee while Father went to a golf tournament. Mother also described Isaac’s extracurricular activities in Tennessee, and she testified that all of his medical treatment had been here. She testified that he was currently under the care of a team at LeBonheur Children’s Hospital, seeing doctors in both Memphis and Jackson. She had also undergone the training necessary to administer his injections. Mother testified that Isaac’s pediatrician was in Tennessee as well. She was not aware of him ever seeing a doctor in Minnesota. Mother described Isaac as “established here” in Tennessee. Mother testified regarding Father’s issues with drinking and verbal abuse during their brief three-year marriage. She testified that Father drank every week and that the verbal abuse occurred every couple of months. She also described the incident witnessed by Ryan, when Father “swung his arm back” as if he was going to hit her after she poured out his alcohol. Mother said that no physical abuse ever actually occurred and that it was “just intimidation.” Mother testified that she found an inexpensive attorney who was in his eighties and had recently closed his firm but still handled uncontested divorces for $900. She said she asked Father to split the cost with her and he agreed. She said they prepared the paperwork themselves from online documents and never actually met the attorney, and that he simply filed the paperwork for them. She said when the time came for the final paperwork to be submitted, Father wanted to change some things at the last minute, and she panicked because she was trying to avoid a huge legal battle just five days before she was leaving Virginia and could not afford to pay an attorney separately. Mother explained that she was in a difficult position because she was processing the death of her older children’s father -8- and laid off from her job, so she had to find employment as soon as possible, even if in another state. She testified that Father told her that if she did not agree to those terms then he would keep custody of Isaac and she would be voluntarily giving up custody because he would not sign anything else. Thus, Mother testified that she believed she would not have been able to move if she had not signed the amendment, and she had already given up her home in Virginia and rented one in Tennessee. Mother also described Father’s attempts to end her Facetime calls with Isaac during the summer of 2024. She testified that she was already having a hard time going three weeks without seeing Isaac and that she believed Father was trying to drive a wedge between them with a communication barrier. She testified that she decided it was time to “do what’s right for [Isaac].” At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial judge asked the parties’ attorneys if they were familiar with forum selection clauses utilized in other settings and asked whether that law would apply in this situation. In other words, he asked if, in the event that two different states could have jurisdiction, was there any reason why the parties could not agree which of those states to litigate in. Mother argued that the law regarding forum selection clauses generally would be inapplicable in the UCCJEA context. She argued that the UCCJEA provides specific factors for consideration for determining whether a forum is inconvenient, but under those factors, any agreement by the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction would be only one factor to consider, in the event that such an agreement did exist. Father’s counsel agreed that an agreement is one factor to consider and “would not be dispositive.” Mother also argued that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court by agreement. The trial judge gave the parties the opportunity to submit briefs on the issue of “the enforceability of forum selection clauses in Tennessee UCCJEA cases” and took the matter under advisement. On April 24, 2025, the trial court entered an order granting Father’s motion to dismiss. After summarizing the testimony of the various witnesses at the hearing, the trial judge noted that he “participated in a telephone conference with the parties and the court in Minnesota . . regarding certain unfortunate circumstances that have arisen since the March 20, 2025, hearing in this Court[.]” However, the order stated that “this Court does not find it necessary to communicate with any other court concerning the issues that were tried during the March 20, 2025, hearing in order to render its decision, which decision the Court orally communicated to the parties and the Minnesota court during their April 17, 2025 telephone conference and which is set out more fully below.” The trial court found that Virginia was originally the child’s home state when it entered the initial custody determination in this case. It found that the Virginia court had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the determination, under the UCCJEA, until, among other things, “[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.” -9- Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-217(a)(2). The trial court found based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing that neither Isaac nor his parents reside in Virginia anymore. The trial court also found that Tennessee has now “qualified as the child’s home state” for the six months preceding the filing of Mother’s petition (although the trial court noted parenthetically that Minnesota would also qualify as the home state). As a result, the trial court concluded that it would have jurisdiction to make an initial determination as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-216,5 and therefore, “this Court has jurisdiction to modify the initial custody determination” from the Virginia court pursuant to section 36- 6-218,6 “should it choose to exercise such jurisdiction.” Nevertheless, the trial court noted that it had authority to decline to exercise jurisdiction if it determined that Tennessee was an inconvenient forum pursuant to section 36-6-222. The trial court found that “the evidence presented at the March 20, 2025 hearing and the statements of counsel for the parties and of Judge Knight in Minnesota on the April 17, 2025, conference call preponderates in favor of this Court declining to exercise its jurisdiction as Minnesota is a more convenient forum for litigation of these issues under 5 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-216 provides, for an initial custody determination: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-219, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six (6) months before 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 declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under § 36-6-221 or § 36-6-222, and: (A) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one (1) parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (B) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (3) All courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under § 36-6-221 or § 36-6-222; or (4) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3). 6 Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-218 provides, regarding modification: Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-219, 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 determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under § 36-6-217 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under § 36-6-221; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state. - 10 - the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222 quoted above.” The trial court found that seven of the eight factors did not favor either jurisdiction. Specifically, regarding the length of time Isaac had resided in each state, it found that Isaac resided “an equal amount of time in Minnesota and Tennessee . . . with only a couple of insignificant, agreed upon variations.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222(b)(1). It found that the distance and financial circumstances of the parties did not favor either state, and neither did the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the litigation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 222(b)(2), (3), (5). It found that the ability of the courts to decide the issues did not favor either state, and neither court was more familiar with the parties or issues. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222(b)(6), (8). Regarding the factor addressing domestic violence, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222(b)(7), the trial court found that “while Father may have verbally abused Mother at some point during their marriage after he had drank too much alcohol on occasion, such abuse was rare and out-of-character for Father,” such that this factor did not favor either jurisdiction. The trial court found that the only factor that weighed in favor of either jurisdiction was factor (4), which requires consideration of “[a]ny agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-222(b)(4). The trial court found that this factor favored Minnesota. It noted that the parties’ amendment to the separation agreement provided, “Both parties agree that when the child turns school age, he will be enrolled in school where the father resides so long as he remains in the state of Virginia or Minnesota.” The trial court conceded that the parties “did not specifically agree what state should have jurisdiction to decide any custody disputes that arose between them after their divorce [w]as finalized.” However, the court found that “the parties did agree at the time their divorce was finalized that the child would be enrolled in school wherever the father resided at that time, so long as the father resided in either Virginia or Minnesota.” The trial court noted that marital dissolution agreements are deemed valid and enforceable contracts in Tennessee absent a showing of fraud or coercion.7 The trial court stated that “the mere fact that the parties made an agreement is not dispositive of the issue under Tennessee law,” as it was simply one factor to consider under the UCCJEA. Still, the trial court recognized that it was “the one factor that favors one side or the other” under its analysis. The trial court recognized that, under Tennessee law, parents cannot bind a court with an agreement affecting the best interest of a child, as the best interest of the child is always the paramount concern. “Nevertheless, with regard to forum selection clauses in standard contract cases,” the court continued, Tennessee courts 7 The trial court noted Mother’s testimony that she signed the agreement under duress because Father threatened to take the child away if she did not sign it. It found that “Father testified unequivocally and credibly that he would not have moved to Minnesota after the parties’ divorce had Mother not signed the agreement that they negotiated, as he felt that if he stayed in Virginia, he would keep custody of the child once the child started school, regardless where Mother moved.” The trial court found that “Father gave up a possibly superior custodial arrangement in order to sign that agreement to accommodate Mother’s desires” to move to Tennessee as soon as possible. - 11 - generally deem them binding and enforceable. Ultimately, the trial court found that the best interest of the child would not be adversely affected “by having the parties’ agreement enforced in the first instance and for the Minnesota court, where the agreement states the child should attend school, determine whether the agreement should be modified thereafter.” Thus, the court determined that the litigation should take place in Minnesota. The trial court ordered Mother to be responsible for one-half of Father’s attorney fees incurred in defending against the petition under the UCCJEA and dismissed the petition. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal. Mother subsequently filed a motion for this Court to consider post-judgment facts, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 14, regarding litigation that occurred in Minnesota and Tennessee following the entry of the trial court’s order. We hereby grant that motion.8 Those documents reflect that the Virginia divorce decree was registered by the Minnesota court, and Father later filed a petition for enforcement of the Virginia decree in Minnesota. After the aforementioned hearing in Minnesota on April 17, 2025, the Minnesota court entered an order on August 6, 2025. The Minnesota court found that the parties were divorced by a Virginia decree in 2023, and the parties “agreed that when the child turns school age, he will be enrolled in school where the father resides, as long as he remains in the state of Virginia or Minnesota.” The Minnesota court found that Mother had filed a petition for modification in Tennessee in September 2024, and Father had filed a request to register the decree in Minnesota in November 2024, along with a subsequent petition for enforcement. The order states that Chancellor Mansfield, in Tennessee, “appeared before this court at the April 17, 2025 hearing and informed the Court he would be granting Petitioner’s motion to dismiss.” The Minnesota court noted that Chancellor Mansfield subsequently entered an order dismissing the case, stating that even though Tennessee had jurisdiction to modify the initial custody determination from Virginia, it was declining to do so on the basis that Minnesota was the more convenient forum. The Minnesota court noted that Mother filed a notice of appea