David Randal Smithson, a Tennessee resident and airline pilot, became romantically involved with Marie Soledad Torrico (Morales), a Bolivian citizen, during a trip to Bolivia. Their son was born in Bolivia on April 18, 2001. After difficulties obtaining child support, Mother moved to Tennessee on a tourist Visa in August 2002 and filed a paternity action in the Wilson County Juvenile Court, which established Father as the biological father through DNA testing. The court ordered Father to pay child support according to Tennessee guidelines. Father appealed, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the child was conceived and born in Bolivia, and both Mother and the child are Bolivian citizens. The Court of Appeals concluded that while the Juvenile Court had subject matter jurisdiction, it incorrectly applied Tennessee law. Consequently, the Juvenile Court's judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Throughout the case, it was noted that the child had lived with Mother's parents in Bolivia since Mother relocated to the U.S. and that Father sought dismissal based on forum non-conveniens.
Father has initiated legal proceedings in Bolivia, thus accepting the personal jurisdiction of the Bolivian court. He argues in the Juvenile Court that child support obligations should adhere to Bolivian law rather than Tennessee law and contends that Mother is not the appropriate recipient of child support since she has not physically cared for the child for several years. The Juvenile Court confirmed its jurisdiction based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307 and ordered Father to commence temporary child support payments in November 2002. Following a DNA test in July 2003, the court established Father as the biological father. In July 2004, a Final Order mandated Father to pay $2,266.43 for birth-related expenses and $1,088 monthly in child support, while also ruling that he owed $18,000 in child support arrears. Father is appealing the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction, the application of Tennessee law over Bolivian law, the requirement to pay Mother despite her lack of custody, and the assessed amount of his arrears. The court’s factual findings are presumed correct unless evidence strongly contradicts them, while legal questions are reviewed de novo without deference to lower court rulings. The Juvenile Court's jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307 is affirmed, which allows it to address paternity and child support matters based on established minimum contacts related to the child's conception in Tennessee.
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide specific types of cases, which in Tennessee is derived from the state constitution or legislative acts. In child support cases, jurisdiction is typically straightforward when all parties reside in Tennessee. Issues arise when parties live in different states or countries, prompting the need for the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to facilitate the registration and enforcement of support orders across jurisdictions. Tennessee's UIFSA allows recognition of out-of-state support orders when the obligor parent resides in Tennessee and establishes a reciprocal framework with other states and certain foreign jurisdictions. However, Bolivia is not considered a reciprocating jurisdiction under UIFSA, limiting its applicability in cases involving Bolivian residents.
Tennessee juvenile courts have specific jurisdiction over paternity cases and are directed to issue child support orders. In this case, while the mother and child are Bolivian residents, the father's residence in Tennessee provides in personam jurisdiction to the Tennessee Juvenile Court. The critical question is whether the juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a child support order given the residency of the mother and child. The conclusion drawn from the case's circumstances is that the juvenile court does possess subject matter jurisdiction to enter a child support order despite the mother and child's Bolivian residency, as it has in personam jurisdiction over the father.
Tenn. Code Ann. 36-2-307 and 36-2-311(a)(11) grant the Juvenile Court subject matter jurisdiction over child support issues in paternity cases. Following the determination of jurisdiction, the next consideration is whether the Juvenile Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in light of the doctrine of forum non-conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss a case if another more suitable forum exists. This doctrine is discretionary, with appellate review focused on potential abuse of discretion, as established in Zurick v. Inman.
The analysis under forum non-conveniens involves two steps: confirming the existence of an alternative forum and assessing various public and private factors that may influence the court's decision on dismissal. Private factors include access to evidence, witness availability, costs associated with obtaining witnesses, judgment enforceability, and other practical trial considerations. Public factors involve local interests and the appropriateness of the chosen forum relative to the applicable law.
While typically not applied in child support cases due to existing statutory guidance on jurisdiction and venue, the absence of such statutes in this instance necessitates an evaluation of the forum non-conveniens factors. In this case, most evidence regarding child support will come from the parents, suggesting no significant advantage for one forum over another based on the private factors. Additionally, there is no evidence regarding the ability to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses, particularly if they reside in Bolivia, indicating potential limitations for the Tennessee court.
A Bolivian court's ability to compel a U.S. citizen's attendance is questioned, with doubts about the enforceability of a Bolivian judgment compared to a Tennessee judgment. Public interest factors suggest Bolivia is the appropriate forum, given that both the mother and child reside there. The Juvenile Court is confirmed to have subject matter jurisdiction for a child support order; however, since the child was conceived, born, and has lived in Bolivia, Bolivian law governs the father's child support obligations. The Juvenile Court's judgment, which relied on Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, must be vacated. Upon remand, the parties are required to present Bolivian child support laws for the Juvenile Court to determine the father's obligations. If they fail to do so, the case will be dismissed based on forum non-conveniens, allowing Bolivian courts to address the matter. All remaining issues are set aside. The Juvenile Court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with costs of appeal divided equally between the appellant and appellee.
