The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed the case of Tammy Laree Kennamore v. Albert Thompson concerning retroactive child support. After a divorce from Bobby Ray Kennamore, who was excluded as the biological father of their child K.R.K. through DNA testing, Kennamore filed a paternity petition against Thompson, whom she had an affair with. Genetic testing confirmed Thompson as the biological father. The juvenile court initially awarded child support retroactive to March 2005, the date of the genetic test excluding Kennamore's ex-husband. However, after a motion filed by the State, the court modified this to retroactive support starting September 21, 2005, the date of the paternity petition, citing that Kennamore was judicially estopped from claiming support from K.R.K.'s birth date due to her prior divorce allegations. Kennamore appealed, questioning the trial court's decision to limit retroactive support based on judicial estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient support for the deviation from the Child Support Guidelines.
The trial court's decision regarding retroactive child support for Albert Thompson is under scrutiny for potentially failing to adhere to Tennessee law, specifically T.C.A. 36-2-311. The court is required to establish prospective child support at the time of determining parentage but must also consider awarding retroactive support from the child's birth date unless clear and convincing evidence justifies deviation from the statutory child support guidelines. The court's discretion is subject to a rebuttable presumption in favor of these guidelines, which stipulate a need for written findings if a deviation occurs. Key statutory factors for determining retroactive support include: (i) whether the father was unaware of the child's existence, (ii) any failure by the mother to notify the father about the child, and (iii) any attempts by the mother to inform the father of her pregnancy or the child's existence. Additionally, the court may consider the equity between the parties. If the court decides to award retroactive support, it must document why applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate, ensuring the decision serves the child's best interests.
Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-101(e)(1)(A) establishes that courts apply child support guidelines as a rebuttable presumption when determining child support amounts. If evidence is presented to rebut this presumption, the court must document its findings, including the support amount under the guidelines and justification for any deviation. Additionally, Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. 1240-2-4-.06(2) mandates that deviations from presumptive retroactive support must be accompanied by written findings explaining the reasons for the deviation and detailing both the guideline amount and how the deviation best serves the child's interests.
In the case at hand, the trial court awarded retroactive child support to Tammy Laree Kennamore from September 21, 2005, the date she filed for paternity. The court deviated from the guideline presumption of awarding support from the child’s birth date, noting that Tammy had misled her husband, Bobby Ray Kennamore, into believing he was the child's father until 2005, and had not informed Albert Thompson of his potential paternity prior to that date. The court found that Tammy's actions constituted fraud and judicial estoppel, preventing her from claiming Albert as the father until her petition was filed. Consequently, the court determined that Albert Thompson was liable for retroactive child support beginning on the date of the paternity petition.
Ms. Kennamore contends that the trial court misapplied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that contradicts a position taken in a prior case. Judicial estoppel aims to prevent unfair advantage from inconsistent positions in litigation. From K.R.K.'s birth, Ms. Kennamore represented to her husband, Mr. Kennamore, that he was the father, despite being aware of a potential paternity claim from Mr. Thompson due to their prior relationship. While Ms. Kennamore claims that Mr. Thompson privately acknowledged paternity, he did not formally do so and believed he was sterile. The trial court's findings, given its ability to assess witness credibility, are presumed correct upon appellate review. Previous cases indicate that retroactive child support should not extend back to the child's birth if the mother was involved with other men during conception and did not clearly notify the father of the pregnancy. Tennessee law provides specific factors to consider when determining the appropriateness of retroactive child support.
Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311 (a)(11)(A)(i, iii) allows retroactive child support only to the child's date of birth if the father was unaware of the child's existence. The court can also consider "the equity between the parties" under Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-101(e)(1)(A). If evidence sufficiently rebuts the presumption that support should follow the guidelines, the court must document why applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate, focusing on the child's best interests or the equity between the parties. In In re T.K.Y., the court recognized that trial courts have discretion to deviate from the guidelines for reasons beyond those specified in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311 (a)(11)(A). Specifically, it can reduce retroactive support to maintain equity, even if the father's lack of knowledge does not apply. The Supreme Court in In re T.K.Y. suspended the child support obligation due to the biological father's lack of access to the child, noting that he had no legal parental rights or responsibilities. The trial court properly referenced the statutory basis for its deviation and provided written findings supporting its decision. The record showed that Ms. Kennamore represented Mr. Kennamore as the father until their divorce, and he supported the child during that time. Mr. Thompson had no grounds to claim paternity beyond his relationship with Ms. Kennamore. The trial court's decision to award retroactive support from the date of the paternity petition was upheld, with costs assessed against the Appellant, Tammy Laree Kennamore.
