Judge orders DNA testing, schedules June 16 hearing after father contests out-of-state adoption

A judge in Robertson County Chancery Court ordered DNA testing and set a June 16 hearing after a father asked the court to halt what he says is an out‑of‑state adoption of a baby born while a divorce was pending.

The judge told attorneys he would “require all both of the children to undergo DNA testing” and said the court “maintains jurisdiction over the parties and both minor children who have been represented to this court” by counsel as the parties’ children. The order directs that samples be taken in Tennessee and coordinated with labs in Colorado and the state where the mother is located so the paternity question can be resolved.

Why it matters: Counsel for the father told the court the newborn is in Denver and listed in a Colorado adoption petition; he said the mother relocated and that the father had not been given notice. If the child is the father’s biological child, he argued, he has a right to contest the adoption and seek custody. Opposing counsel said the mother left the state because of safety concerns and that coordination of testing has been complicated by her location.

What the court ordered and next steps: The judge directed that DNA testing be performed within about 10 days where practicable and allowed remote sampling through accredited labs. He said the father, who requested the tests, should initially pay testing costs but may seek reimbursement if results establish paternity. The judge also said he would check with the prior judge (Judge Wallace) about whether to consider modification of a prior temporary support order and then hear all related motions on June 16.

What counsel said: Counsel for the father told the court the newborn had been placed with prospective adoptive parents in Colorado and that the father was served with the adoption petition Friday; he pressed for immediate sampling and return of the children if paternity is confirmed. The mother’s counsel said her client had relocated for safety after alleged domestic violence and was willing to cooperate with testing but sought to protect her client’s undisclosed location.

Process notes and jurisdiction: The judge acknowledged possible interstate jurisdictional issues under the uniform interstate‑custody framework but said sending a child out of state does not automatically divest this court of jurisdiction while the divorce and custody matters are pending. He directed that identification and chain‑of‑custody steps be taken so samples taken in Colorado can be reliably matched to the child the court is testing.

The court left other emergency relief requests for the June 16 hearing and instructed counsel to arrange testing logistics promptly so results can be available to the court that day.