ESLINGER v. ESLINGER (2022)

Order

Heath Eslinger (Father) appeals from a judgment denying his motion to modify custody and granting a countermotion for modification filed by Sarah Eslinger (Mother). Father raises ten points on appeal. Father's first point argues that the trial court erred in modifying custody because the court lacked jurisdiction to do so. Father's second point asserts error in registering the parties’ 2019 Tennessee divorce decree, which incorporated their parenting plan, because both Mother and the trial court failed to comply with statutory notice requirements. Father's third, fourth, and fifth points, respectively, claim that the court erred in finding (a) the dates of trial were July 29 and 30, 2021; (b) Father's permanent address is in Kentucky; and (c) Father testified falsely regarding alleged ex parte communications between the court and the guardian ad litem. Father's sixth, seventh, and eighth points, respectively, contend that the court erred in denying motions for contempt, family access, and enforcement of the Tennessee decree because the court did not allow Father to present evidence or call witnesses. Father's ninth point asserts error in modifying the Tennessee decree by adopting Mother's revised parenting plan because the modification was against the weight of the evidence and misapplied the law. Finally, Father's tenth point argues that the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Mother. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: