Christy L. Taylor filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Rutherford County to establish the paternity of her twelve-year-old son, Zachary Lee Taylor, naming Randall Robinson, Jr. as the alleged father. A DNA test confirmed Robinson's biological paternity, and he agreed to pay temporary child support during the proceedings. Taylor sought retroactive child support from the child's birth date, but the court ruled to limit retroactive payments to the date of the petition due to Taylor's failure to inform Robinson of his potential paternity prior to filing. The court affirmed the limited retroactive support but remanded the case for the trial court to specify the total amount of retroactive support that would have been owed without deviation, as required by Tennessee law. The case background included Taylor's relationships and the limited communication between her and Robinson over the years. The paternity proceedings began after Taylor's second divorce, with Robinson consenting to a DNA test that indicated a greater than 99.99% probability of paternity.
Mr. Robinson, referred to as 'Father,' acknowledged his parentage and agreed to provide temporary child support of $400 per month until a final support hearing. He was married in 1995 and had two daughters with his wife, later adding coverage for Zachary to his family medical insurance. In response to a legitimation petition, Father submitted past income tax returns, which Mother used to prepare a child support worksheet claiming $56,995 in retroactive support and an additional $16,054 for Zachary's medical, dental, orthodontic, educational expenses, and attorney fees. The trial spanned two days, starting August 17, 2004, and resuming August 24, 2005, with several witnesses testifying, including Jackie Mullinax Marshall, who dated Father around the time of Zachary's conception.
Marshall recounted that Mother informed her of the pregnancy and sought to contact Father, who expressed skepticism about paternity, citing Mother's sexual history. Mother testified that she reached out to Father about the pregnancy, but Father denied receiving any such call. Mother also contacted Father about the possibility of adoption, to which he initially agreed. In 1999, Mother sought Father’s medical history for Zachary, who had a learning disability and health complaints, and she firmly believed Father was Zachary's father, asserting that "a woman would know." However, others suggested Mother harbored doubts, with evidence indicating she acknowledged the possibility of another potential father, David Holbrook. After paternity was confirmed, Mother informed Holbrook of the results, implying that despite her strong belief, her delay in establishing paternity raised questions about her certainty.
Mother expressed doubts about Mr. Robinson's suitability as a father, citing his marijuana use and D.U.I. citations. Her motivations for filing a paternity action appeared inconsistent; initially, she claimed it was to secure insurance for Zachary, but later indicated a long-standing awareness of paternity issues, suggesting she could wait until Zachary turned 12 to limit Father's involvement.
There was no direct testimony from Mother affirming she had informed Father of his paternity, though her conversations regarding adoption and medical history implied it. Testimony from Jane Manley, Father's mother, contradicted Mother's claims about their interactions and her notifications regarding Zachary's paternity. The trial court found that Mother did not list Mr. Robinson as the father on TennCare or the birth certificate, nor did she inform him or the state of his biological status.
The court noted that Mother had been sexually active with other men during the conception and had known Mr. Robinson and his mother for years without disclosing the child’s paternity. Additionally, Mother did not communicate her pregnancy or confirm Father’s status throughout their previous conversations. As a result, the court determined that retroactive child support from Zachary's birth would be unjust and instead ordered support to begin from the date of the legitimation petition, setting it at $548 per month going forward.
An appeal was initiated concerning retroactive child support determinations. Under Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311(a)), when establishing parentage, a court must declare paternity and set both prospective and retroactive child support. Retroactive support can be awarded from the child's birth, the parties’ separation, or the date of abandonment, as applicable. The Child Support Guidelines serve as a rebuttable presumption for calculating support amounts, which include provisions for retroactive support.
The law recognizes that requiring retroactive support from a child's birth may be inequitable in certain situations. An amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311(a) specifies three factors for courts to consider when deviating from the presumption of retroactive support: (i) the father's lack of knowledge about the child; (ii) the mother’s failure to inform the father about the child; and (iii) any efforts by the mother to notify the father of her pregnancy or the child's existence. If clear and convincing evidence rebuts the presumption, the court may reduce retroactive support, provided it documents that applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate to serve the child's best interests or equity between the parties.
This amendment applies to cases filed after June 17, 2003. The Tennessee Supreme Court has emphasized that the statute's factors are limited to the father's awareness regarding the child, while also allowing consideration of the equity between the parties.
The court in In re T.K.Y. established that Tennessee law permits deviations from standard child support guidelines when a court finds sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of guideline amounts, specifically if such deviations serve the best interests of the child or ensure equity between the parties. The relevant statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-101(e)(1)(A), is similar to Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311(a), which pertains to initial support awards upon establishing paternity. The Supreme Court indicated that trial courts have the discretion to adjust retroactive support based on the equities between parties, beyond the specific scenarios outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311(a)(11)(A). In this case, the Supreme Court found that the biological father's child support obligation could be suspended because he had been denied access to the child, undermining his ability to fulfill parental responsibilities.
The mother in the case argued that the father's claim of ignorance regarding paternity did not meet statutory conditions, citing that he was aware of her pregnancy and could have located her. However, the court noted that both parents have responsibilities to communicate regarding parentage. The mother’s vague attempts to inform the father about potential paternity were insufficient, suggesting she may have been uncertain about the father's identity and wished to avoid acknowledging him in the child's life. The document highlights the importance of DNA testing for resolving paternity disputes and notes that the mother had legal resources available during divorce proceedings but chose not to formalize the father-child relationship.
Mother argues that her inaction regarding filing a parentage petition was justified because Father had an equal right and duty to file such a petition after being informed of the likelihood of his paternity through her calls in 1998 and 1999. However, the trial court found that Father did not believe he was Zachary's father and perceived Mother's calls as attempts to disrupt his marriage. The court concluded that Mother never explicitly informed Father of her belief in his paternity, indicating that neither party bore a greater obligation to file.
The trial court also examined the equities between the parents, noting that Father’s failure to pay child support during Zachary’s early years stemmed from Mother’s failure to file a parentage petition. Mother had access to legal counsel for a significant period and did not show evidence that Father intimidated her. Testimony revealed that Mother deliberately delayed filing to prevent the establishment of a father-son relationship. During these years, Zachary was supported by Mother's two ex-husbands, who had stable incomes, and there was no evidence of material deprivation.
Mother filed the petition only after her second divorce, while Father promptly cooperated post-filing, undergoing DNA testing and beginning child support payments. He currently pays $548 per month in child support, with reported gross incomes of $40,847 in 2004 and $37,301 in 2003. The trial court found it inequitable to impose retroactive child support on Father for the twelve years when Mother made no effort to establish paternity, and thus affirmed its decision.
The court’s decision aligns with statutory requirements, as it must provide written findings and conclusions to justify any deviations from child support guidelines.
The final order includes written findings of fact and incorporates a letter opinion that correctly cites the statutory factors for deviating from support guidelines. Both documents state that retroactive support back to the child's birth would be unjust and not in the child's best interest. However, they do not specify the amount of support that would have been due without the deviation. Given the available financial information, the court can easily modify its order to include this figure. The trial court's order is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Juvenile Court of Rutherford County for necessary proceedings, including the addition of the total retroactive support amount as required by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-311 (a)(11)(F). Costs of the appeal are imposed on Appellant, Christy L. Taylor.
