Mom Gave Baby Away — Then DNA Proved He Was The Father... Big Mistake

You're ready on your motions, good morning, your honor. >> 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 Mathis, and Mr Black represented Mr. Thomas. A motion to to set support, temporary support, both spousal and child support, was filed by Mr.

Thomas. Um And that notice was sent to counsel 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 counsel.

Uh Mr Mathis had filed a motion withdraw 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, I think. >> It was Judge Wallace, your honor, I believe. And I wasn't here for that hearing, either.

Um A- 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. I can't speak to what the court did or did not hear. I wasn't there, but basically 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, I believe, a 17-month marriage before the parties separated. Um there was one child alleged born during the marriage, presumed to be the father's.

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 happened >> Hold on. Let me 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 [clears throat] that, made findings of fact that that that served uh the findings of fact served as the basis for his um making the order in the case.

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. >> And if your honor's 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.

>> Well, I'm disinclined 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. >> That works for me.

>> Same on depositions. >> Looks like I'm available June 16th. >> Well, I think that's I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but it it clearly it seems to me that Well, Judge Wallace needs to consider a motion to set us out or to to amend or change the order that he did after an evidentiary hearing.

So, we'll reset you for June 16th. I apologize. >> be inclined to entertain the other motions in this >> you're going to go in front of him on any of them, I think you need to hear him he needs to hear them all.

So, >> And there is an emergency motion we filed for for immediate relief that that 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 adoptive family in Colorado.

>> I did read that in the file. >> Father was served Friday with a petition for adoption. Father's got 35 days according to that Colorado summons to file documents in Colorado contesting the adoption.

>> Let me ask this question. There was a there was an order for DNA testing. 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 counsel.

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 counsel 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 notified 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, uh, mother stated that she wouldn't, 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. 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 in the file entered between her previous Mr Thomas's previous counsel, 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. 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, [clears throat] uh, one option is 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. >> 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 I I would submit this the children are subject to this court's jurisdiction. I know the child wasn't born here and opposing counsel might make some UCCJA arguments about it, but I believe this court has jurisdiction over the custody of these children. 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 to the father cuz 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 in mother's care, custody, and control.

We don't know. There There's an order of protection that was entered and subsequently appealed by father that the court reserved for final hearing. >> And where is that?

Is that in this court or is that in a different court? >> It was in originally in general sessions. They had a hearing as 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 Scarlett Thomas, the I believe she's almost three, two or three years old now. Um But but we're asking the court to return both of the children to father.

We don't know what mother Mother has put a child up for adoption. We don't know where Scarlett'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 Scarlett. She has given the other child up for adoption. 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 Scarlett Thomas returned to the father. Um I think it's a threat of irreparable harm that this child's outside of 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. So so we're asking the court for that emergency relief today. >> Your Honor, I do have a response on on both of those.

Would you like me to tackle the DNA testing or the >> Let's start with the DNA testing. >> Your Honor, so the DNA testing, so my regulation recollection of events and what has happened is that there was an agreed order between uh Ms. Thomas and Mr Mathis.

So uh Mr Thomas's prior attorney. That was last year. Uh subsequently, Mr Mathis withdrew.

There was no contact between us. Um had to hire a a personal process server to actually serve Mr Thomas some documents to try to find him. Um at that time uh Ms.

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 Ms. Thomas is willing to do.

Uh I will point out to the court that Ms. 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 break-ins for following her to a medical facility and taking her vehicle. Uh these are the reasons that Ms. Thomas is out of state.

And so in an effort to preserve Ms. Thomas's 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 LabCorp.

My understanding is when I had proposed that that that is the testing location we were 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 impasse. >> saying that LabCorp is available to do the testing both for Mr Thomas here as well as for your client wherever she may be living?

>> So here as in Hendersonville, Your Honor, and where my client is living. 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? >> So Ms. Thomas is going to say it's Mr Thomas.

I believe Mr Thomas wants the DNA test. >> So we we're going to the order went down only as to Scarlett Thomas. That's right.

And there was a DNA request as to that child and now we have another child born and Mr. Thomas says that that is Mr Thomas's child. >> Yes, Your Honor.

>> And she has placed that child for adoption? >> That is my understanding. Um I will say on Ms.

Thomas's 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 court of Miss Thomas and perhaps some messages she would admit it 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 Miss Thomas can speak for herself. >> 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.

>> Well, your honor, I will say uh simply for the fact that I do not want to waive 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 UCCJEA.

Uh It's not so clear which is the home state. Because the the newborn child I 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're proceeding with this adoption proceeding. Again, I'm in candor 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. Uh 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 where they 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 child 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, [clears throat] I'm of the opinion that Mr Thomas needs to contest to the adoption, and got if he does contest it a 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. That means that she's going to have to ensure that that child is comes 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 a of an estate, and she lived in Washington state.

Uh there was a method by which she uh used a child a uh a laboratory in the state where she lived to obtain her DNA sample. Um then the 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 client and her child if she is wherever she is living, and then a sample will be taken from Mr Thomas here at LabCorp, and all of those are going to have to be analyzed by LabCorp to determine the paternity issue. The order that this court puts down is is that this court maintains jurisdiction over the parties and the and both minor children who have been represented to this court by counsel to be the biological children of these parties. And [clears throat] that the adopted court in Colorado They're made Obviously, this is going to be a an issue for the appellate courts if it goes through as a contested matter, but I think we got to first resolve this if this child in Colorado was 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 really because Colorado makes that you know, we don't care what Tennessee does.

We're holding that we have jurisdiction. I'm I'm really I don't care what Colorado says. I'm saying I have jurisdiction, so >> Mr Jan.

On the emergency petition essentially to return I guess both children to Mr Thomas. On Ms. Thomas's behalf, I would also say that >> Now, there's Excuse me for interrupting.

I apologize. Is there an order of protection still in full force and effect? >> Yes, Your Honor, there is.

There's also a pending contempt for those house break-ins. That is also in effect. >> And under that original order of protection, what is provision What provision is made for the I don't have the order of protection in this file that I can >> I can provide it.

I believe Mr Bellamy had said that Scarlett is listed under it, which is our oldest child. I did not did not see that, but I can provide it. >> Well, and I'm I'm My question, of course, is what if any provision is made in the in that order of protection for Shell the one child that's there that we know Scarlet.

>> 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. This is the temporary order that I've been handed. And then you're saying that there's already been a hearing on that temporary order of protection and it was extended?

>> Yes, your honor. >> And was that in Circuit Court or General Sessions and then it was appealed? >> It was It was appealed and the appeal was not was not heard and by agreed order it was set off.

>> It was reserved for final hearing by previous counsel. So, it's my understanding the order of protection that the that was entered by the General Sessions Court is still in effect and and Mr Thomas has no contact with either the petitioner nor the minor children covered under the order of protection. >> 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.

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 the that's the order that you're asking to be set up 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. 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. >> 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 Ms.

Thomas could add with testimony but she's been the primary caretaker. Um >> Well, Mr Thomas filed for DNA testing. I'm not going to grant him custody of children that he has a question that whether or not >> Yes, sir.

>> sort of practice of law that was a factor that that if a parent father requested DNA testing that was a factor the court could consider in among 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. Um >> Pending any questions, Your Honor, I've I've nothing else to add.

>> 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 it's uh 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?

>> Yes, your honor. I'm available. >> Well, what about the 15th?

>> I can check. Looks like >> set on the 16th? Anything for me?

Yeah, I'm a I can give you the 16th. >> 16th of March, 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. And if Ms. Thomas I think we need to get this DNA testing done as soon as possible.

>> Understood. >> 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 Scarlett and the child that's in Colorado.

That DNA testing will be performed by a sample taken from Mr Thomas, uh LabCorp here in Hendersonville. Sample for Mr. Thomas and the minor child, Scarlett in state where she resides by LabCorp if there is one there.

And by LabCorp in Colorado where this minor child is. It would be Mr. Thomas's obligation to ensure that the child's sample is taken and the proof is obtained from Colorado of the validity of the identity of that child.

In other words I'll tell you this story that we had a well-known where ne'er-do-well down in Humphreys 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 >> [clears throat] >> they uh you know set you up with the father and the mother and the child all went to get the blood they uh blood test done so came back negative and the mother just was out right 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 sit in his stead and of course it came back it wasn't and later it was his child so he they uh had to redo it um what I want is to make sure that that child is identified in the state of Colorado sufficiently by whatever means photography [snorts] 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 question >> 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 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 all the other motions I would think need to be heard on that same day I will realize it's an emergency type situation and that's why I'm giving you the June date I'm supposed to be in Humphreys County that month so >> Appreciate it Judge >> Anything else? >> If I if I may Judge and this kind of gets into pepper spray or I don't want to do that but 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 following 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. >> So, we'll go with an itemized list of what the charges are for the test, and she's responsible for herself. >> Understood, Your Honor.

>> Although, the other option you have is tote that child back from Colorado, bring it here, and have a have all three of them I have all three your client and the two children tested at LabCorp in the state she lives in. >> [snorts] >> Understood, Your Honor. And I'm going to ask just one more clarification and a request to this court.

If those are determined to be Mr Thomas's children, can Ms. Thomas be reimbursed for her costs of the test? >> If they are Mr Thomas's children, I will she can make application for reimbursement at that point in time.

>> Understood. >> Normally, if someone contests that being their child and it turns out they are, then they requested 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. >> 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. >> Thank you, Judge.

>> This case became a striking example of how modern family law disputes can rapidly escalate into multi-state jurisdictional conflicts involving custody, adoption, paternity, domestic violence allegations, and overlapping court authority. What began as a divorce proceeding involving temporary support and paternity questions evolved into a legally complex battle spanning Tennessee and Colorado courts simultaneously. Throughout the hearing, the court repeatedly emphasized that nearly every major issue in the case depended on one unresolved factual determination, whether Mr Thomas was actually the biological father of the children involved.

Until that question was answered through DNA testing, the court was effectively navigating custody claims, adoption proceedings, protective orders, and interstate jurisdiction disputes without knowing whether Mr Thomas legally possessed parental rights at all. The hearing also highlighted the enormous procedural weight carried by temporary orders in family court. Existing orders of protection, prior findings made by another judge, and pending adoption proceedings all dramatically limited the court's ability to make immediate custody changes despite the emergency arguments being raised.

At the same time, the judge made clear that Tennessee would not simply surrender jurisdiction because another state had initiated adoption proceedings involving a child allegedly born during the marriage. The court's insistence on expedited DNA testing demonstrated an effort to stabilize the litigation before the legal conflict between the two states deepen further. But even with those rulings, the matter remained far from resolved.

Questions surrounding custody, support obligations, jurisdiction under the UCCJA, reimbursement of testing costs, and the validity of the Colorado adoption proceeding all remained pending for future hearings. Family law cases often become most volatile when multiple legal systems begin intersecting at once. And this hearing demonstrated exactly how quickly those overlapping issues can create procedural chaos for everyone involved, including the courts themselves.

Let us know if there is a case or legal topic you'd like us to cover next.