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. Fathers first point argues that the trial court erred in modifying custody because the court lacked jurisdiction to do so. Fathers 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. Fathers 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) Fathers permanent address is in Kentucky; and (c) Father testified falsely regarding alleged ex parte communications between the court and the guardian ad litem. Fathers 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. Fathers ninth point asserts error in modifying the Tennessee decree by adopting Mothers revised parenting plan because the modification was against the weight of the evidence and misapplied the law. Finally, Fathers tenth point argues that the court erred in awarding attorneys fees to Mother. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Per Curiam: