### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 8, 200 4 S es sio n
CY NTH IA R OSE M cP HER SON v. C RA IG JOHN McP HER SON

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Mar shall County No. 9,651 F . Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2003- 02677-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Dece m ber 19, 2005

Th is ap pe a l invo lve s a con tin uin g po st- div or c e dis pu te re g ard ing c hil d s up po rt a ndre la te d is su e s. Se ve n y e ars a ft e r the div or c e , the fo rm e r h us ba ndfi le d a pe tit ionin the Chanc e ry

Cou rt fo r M ars ha ll Countyreque sting the c ourt to rec alculate his c hild support obligation and to re-e stablish visi tation that had bee n suspended e arlier beca use of non- payment of child support and failure to abide by the
c ou rt ’s or de rs . T he fo rm e r w if e re sp on de d b y requ est in g t hat h e r f orme r h us ba ndbe he ld i n contempt for f

ailing to c omply

with the ea rl i er court orders. F ollowing a bench trial, the court en t er ed an o rder

finding the forme r husband in “c ivil” contempt. The c ourt sentenc ed the f ormer hu sb a ndto a ma nd a tory te n- day ja il se nte nc e a nd or de re d that he re ma in inc arc e rate d u nti l he pa id a portion of his child support ar rea rag e and othe r financ ial obligations. The court a lso reca lculated the fo rm e r h us ba nd ’s c hil d s up po rt ob lig a tio n a ndor de re d th e re su mp ti on of visit a tio n. On thi s app e a l, the fo rm e r h us ba ndtake s is su e wi th the c on te mpt jud g me nt, the e arl ie r s us pe ns ion o f h is vis itatio n, a ndthe de nia l of his re qu e st t o c la im the c hil dr e n as de pe nd e nts fo r inc ome ta x pur po se s. Whil e weha ve de te rm ine d th a t th e ju dg me nt o f c on te mpt c a nn ot s ta ndbe c aus e it i s p ro c e du ra lly defe ctive, we find that the re mainder of the trial court’s Aug ust 22, 2003 order is leg ally and fac tually sound. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed in Par t and Vacated in Par t

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., delivered the opinio n o f t h e court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.
David A. Collins, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Craig J ohn McPherson.

Pat M. Fra ley , Fay etteville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, Cynthia Rose McPherson (Pala zz olo).
OP IN ION

I.

C ra i g J ohn McPherson a nd Cy nthia Rose McPherson we re ma rried in Michig an in 1981. They had four children during their marria g e. I n Fe bruary 1996, Ms. McPherson filed a complaintM s
. M cP her s on’ s s ur name i s now P al azz ol o; howev er , for t he s ake of cl ar i t y , we wi l l cont i nu e t o re fer t o her 1
as M s. M cP hers o n.

T he co urt s t at ed t hat M r. M cP hers o n co ul d res um e cl ai m i ng two o f t he chi l d ren as de p end ant s i n f ut ure y ears 2 if h e p a id his c h ild su p p o rt.
-2- in the Chance ry

Court for Mar shall Countyseekin g a d i v o rce and custody of the pa rties’ c hildren who wer e then between six and fourtee n y ear s old. Mr. McPherson counte rcla imed for a divorce

. On April 26, 1996, the trial court declar ed the pa rties divorce d based on irr econc ilable diffe renc es a ndapp ro ve d th e ir mari ta l diss olu tio n ag re e me nt. Th is ag re e me nt pr ov ide d for joi nt c us tod y

wi th Ms. McPherson being the prim ary residential parent. I t obligated M r. McPherson to pay $700 per month in child support and to pay one-ha lf of the children’s medical and denta l expenses not covere d by ins ur a nc e
. Th e a g re e me nt a lso pe rm itt e d e a c h pa rty to c la im tw o c hil dr e n a s de pe nd e nts on the ir fe de ra l in c ome ta x re turns
. There afte r, Ms. McPherson rema rried, and Mr. McPherson moved back to Michigan wher e 1 he lived with his mother. Ms. McPherson c ont i nued to work f or Saturn Corporation, and Mr. M c P h e r s o n b e c a m e e m p l o ye d b y Lo w e ’ s H o m e Imp r o v e m e n tW ar e h o u s e i n F l i n t , M i c h i g a n
. In Ap ri l 19 97 , M s. Mc Phe rs on fi le d a pe tit ionin the tria l c ou rt se e kin g to h oldMr. McPh e rs on in contempt bec ause ( 1) he w as $2,050 in arr ear s on his child support, (2) he ha d failed to pay a $875 debt t o the I nterna l Revenue Service, a nd (3) he had dec lined to file a joint 1995 tax return a s order ed b y th e c o u r t. Sh e a ls o s o u g h t s o le c u s to d y o f th e c h il d r e n
. M r
. M c Ph e r s o n r e tain e d a T ennesse e la wy e r andfi led a re sp on se a dmi tti ng that he wa s b e hin d inhis c hil d s up po rt pay me nts . H e a lso reque sted a re duction in his child su p p o rt , s o l e cu stody of the pa

rties’ two sons, and a

revised vis itatio n a

rr a ng e me nt w iththe pa

rt ie s’ tw o d aug hte rs
. Following a hea

ring in J anuary

1998, the tri al co u rt enter ed an or der on A pril 3, 1998 addre ssing the issues e x isting at that time. B ased on the parties’ ag ree ment that Mr. McPherson w as $7 ,5 00 in a

rr e ars on his c hil d su pp ort, the tria l c ou rt dir e c te d h im t o b e g in p a y ing $5 0 p e r m on th t o re du c e the arr e ara g e . T he tr ia l c ou rt a lso re du c e d M r. Mc Phe rs on ’s pr os pect ive c hil d s up po rt to $6 50 pe r mon th. Th e c ou rt or de re d e a c h p arty

to p a y on e -h a lf of on e of the ir daug hte r’ s d e nta l bi lls and permitted Ms. McPherson to claim all four c hildren as dependants on her 1997 tax return. The 2 court e x pressly

rese rved theissue of conte mpt “for a later he aring if nec essary .” The pa rties re turned to court four m onths later whe n Mr. McPherson f iled a petition reque sting the tria l court to permit the parties’ y oung er daug hter to live with him in Michigan. A fter the court g rante d Mr. M cPherson temporary custody , Ms. McPherson filed a counte rcla im seeking
so le c us tod y

of the pa rt ie s’ c hil dr e n a nda

mod if ic a tio n o f M r. Mc Phe rs on ’s vis itatio n. She a lso reque sted the trial court t o re q u i re Mr. McPherson to obtain medic al and de ntal insurance for the
c hil dr e n a ndto h old Mr

. Mc Phe rs on in c on te mpt be c aus e he wa s no w $1 3, 95 0 in arr e ars on his c hil d support and bec ause he had failed to pay th e d eb t s al l o ca ted to him in the marital dissolut ion
a g re e me nt.
The trial c ourt conduc ted another hearing, and on De ce m ber 10, 1999, e ntere d an orde r fi nd ing that Mr

. Mc Phe rs on wa s $1 4, 37 7. 98 in arr e ars on his c hil d s up po rt . T he c ou rt a wa rd e d M s.T h e trial c o u rt a n d th e p a rtie s e x p la ine d d u rin g a late r h e a rin g tha t t h e y lac k e d su ff ic ie n t ev id e n c e to se t a 3

s peci f i c a mo un t of

ch i l d s uppo r t at t hat t i me.

T h e law ye r w h o h a d r e p r e se n te d M r. M c P h e rs o n in the e a rlie r p ro c e e d ing s w ithd re w fro m the c a se in 4
D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 . M r. M c P h e rs o n w a s a w a re o f this he a rin g a n d a c tua lly a ttem p te d to c o m m u n ic a te b y fac sim ile w ith t he t rial co urt. T he co urt resp o nd ed t o M r. M cP he rso n that i t co uld no t co nsid er these ex p arte c o m m un i ca t i o ns.

T he p art i es’ oldest chi l d had be co m e em anci p at ed pri o r t o t he Fe b ruary 20 0 1 heari ng. 5

-3- McPherson a judgme nt for the arr ear ag e and held M r. McPherson in contempt for failing to pay the child support. Howeve r, th ec o u r t re s e rved punishing Mr. McPherson “ to see if De fendant/Petit ioner complies with the Orde rs of this Court” and announce d that it would review the child support issue in six mon ths

. Th e c ou rt a lso dir e c te d Mr

. Mc Phe rs on to pay Ms. Mc Phe rs on 41 % of his wee kly net income a s child support. I n addition, the court direc ted Mr. McPherson to provide tax returns 3 and to pay the I RS debt and his share of his daug hter’s de ntal bill. Finally , the trial court decided to conti n ue the joint custody arr ang ement, with Ms. McPherson a cting as the primary residential pare nt for thre e childre n and Mr. Mc Pherson ac ting a s the primary residential pa

rent for the fourth.

L ess than o n e y ear

later, Ms. McPher son returne d to court re questing that Mr. McPherson be held in conte mpt for fa iling to pay the prope r amount of c hild support in a timelymanner . She alleg ed that Mr. McPherson still had not paid the $14,377.98 arr ear ag e. In addition, she asserted that he had f ailed to provide the tax returns or to pay the I RS debt or his share of his daug hter’s de ntal
e xpe ns e s a s r e qu ir e d b y

the De c e mbe r 1 0, 19 99 or de r. Th e tr ia l c ou rt con du cted a he ari ng in Fe bruary 2001, but neither Mr. Mc Pherson nor his lawy er a ppear ed. There afte r, the c ourt enter ed

4 an orde r on Mar ch 13, 2001, concluding that Mr. McPherson wa s “eva ding se rvice of proc ess” a nd that Mr. McPherson’ s visitation r i gh t s should be suspended. Thecourt a lso found that Mr. McPherson wa s in contempt but reserved further a ction until he was “phy sically befor e the Court.” B a se d o n it s c on c lus ionthat Mr . M c Phe rs on wa s e a rn ing $3 5,00 0 per y e ar, the c ou rt se t hi s c hil d support for the three rema ining minor children at $976.50 per month. Finally , the trial court ordere d 5 Mr . M c Phe rs on to p a y

$5 ,5 00 of

Ms. Mc Phe rs on ’s a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.
Three y ear s later, on April 15, 2003, Mr. McPherson r etained ne w counse l and filed a petition seeking to re-e stablish visitation with the parties’ two rema ining minor c hildren. He also reque sted the trial court to re calc ulate his child support obligation because only two children w ere minors and beca use his curr ent child support was ba sed on an “ incorre ct i n co me amount.” Ms. McPher son responde d by

cata loging all order s that Mr. M cPherson had not obey ed and by reque sting that he be held in contempt.

The trial c ourt conduc ted a he aring on the parties’ pending motions on J uly 25, 2003. At the conclusion of the he aring , the court annou n ce d t h at Mr. McPherson w as “not g oing to lea ve her e without doing some jail time. He’ s g oing to jail.” T here afte r, the c ourt conc l uded that Mr. McPherson wa s g uiltyof “c ivil contempt” and sente nced him to a mandatory ten-day jail sentence

. The c ourt also orde red that Mr. McPherson would re main in jail after se rving the mandatory sentenc eT hi s p ayment represent ed one
- t hi rd o f the cur rent chi l d s up p o rt arr earage, t he p ayment t o t he Int ernal R evenue 6 Ser vi ce t hat M s
. M cP her s on ha d m ade on M r
. M cP her s on’ s beha l f , an d M r
. M cP her s on’ s s har e of t he chi l dren ’ s dent al
e x p e n se s.

T h e cou r t fou n d t h at M r
. M cPh er s on w as e ar n i n g $25, 000 pe r y ea r a t Low e’ s an d a n ot h er $8, 000 pe r y ea r f r om 7 h is “m u sic ia n a v o c a tio n .”
-4- until he (1) paid Ms. McPherson $4,257.55, (2) notified the I nterna l Re venue Service that he wa s 6 not claiming any

o f t h e chil dren a s depende nts from 1999 throug h 2002, and (3) enter ed into a repay ment schedule for the r emaining balanc e that wa s acc eptable to the c ourt and Ms. McPher son.
The trial c ourt then turned to the issu es o f v isitation and child support. I t decided that “[v] isitation i s to resume with the minor children acc ording to the prior Orde rs of the Court.” B ased
on its de te rm inatio n that Mr

. Mc Phe rs on wa s c a pa ble of e arn ing $3 3, 00 0 p e r y e ar, the c ou rt se t hi s 7 child support for the r emaining two minor children at $710 per month. The c ourt also orde red Mr

. McPherson to pay

an additional $200 per month towar d the child support ar rea rag e and dir ecte d that bo th the c hil d s up po rt

a ndarr e ara g e pay me nts sh ou ld b e a c c omp lis he d b y wa g e a ssi g nme nt.
Mr. McPherson w as take n into custody at t he conclusion of t he hearing but was later rele ased
on $1 0, 00 0 b on d. Th e tr ial c ou rt la te r g rante d h im a

stay of e xec uti on c on dit ion e d o n h is demonstrating that he had r efiled his fe dera l income tax returns for 1999 throug h 2002.

II. T HE C ON TEM PT S A N C TIO N S A GA I N ST M R . M C P HE RS ON
Mr. McPherson takes issue with the t rial court’s decision t o hold him in “civil” c ontempt for his failure to make his child support pay ments, as we ll as other payments order ed by the court. He
asserts that he ac tually

rec eived a

criminal contempt penalty and that the trial court err ed by holding h i m i n contempt bec ause he demonstrated that he lacke d the ability to make the c ourt-orde red payments. We have de termined that the portion of the judg ment finding Mr. McPherson in c ontempt must be vacated bec ause the proce eding was fatally flawe d.

A.

An act of contempt is a willful or intentional act that hinder s, delay s, or obstructs the c ourt’s ad m i n i stration of justice. Ah e rn v . A he rn , 1 5 S. W.3 d 7 3, 78 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; W i n f r e e v
. Sta te , 175 Te nn . 4 27 , 4 31 , 1 35 S.W. 2d 45 4, 45 5 ( 19 40 ). Ana c t of c on te mpt ma y be e ith e r c ivi l or

c ri min a l in nature , R eed v . Hamilton , 39 S.W .3d 115, 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), and determining whether a punishment for conte mpt is civil or criminal depends on the char acte r and the purpose of the sanc tion imposed. Robinson v. Fulliton , 140 S.W .3d 304, 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Sa nc tio n s f

o r c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t ar e p u n i t i v e i n c h ar a c t e r , a n d t h e i r p r i m ar y p u rp o s e i s to
v i n d i cate the court’s authority

. Do e v . B d. of P ro f’ l R e sp on sib ili ty , 1 0 4 S. W. 3 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 4 (Tenn. 20 03 ); Black v . Blount , 938 S.W .2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996). Criminal contempt sanctions are imposed simplyas punishment, Ah e rn v . A he rn , 15 S.W .3 d at 79, and pe rsons imprisoned for-5-

c ri min a l c on te mpt c a nn ot be fr e e d by e ve ntu a l c omp lianc e wi th the c ou rt ’s orde rs
. Robinson v. Fu lliton , 1 4 0 S.W .3d at 310. Unless the c ontemptuous act wa s permitted in the pre sence of the court, proc eeding s for c riminal contempt must comply with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 4 2 (b ). Persons char g ed with crimi nal contempt ar e pre sumed innocent a nd may not be found to be in c riminal
c on te mpt in the abs e nc e of pr oo f be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t th e y

ha ve wi llf

ull y faile d to c omp ly with the court’s or der. Black v . Blount , 9 38 S.W. 2da t 39 8; Thigpen v. Thigpen , 874 S.W .2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

Civ il c on te mpt

sa nc tio ns , u nli ke c ri min a l con te mpt sa nc tio ns , a reint e nd e d to c oe rc e a

pa rty to c o mp ly w ith th e c o u r t’ s o rder

. Doe v. Bd. o f P ro f’ l R e sp on sib ili ty , 1 04 S.W. 3da t 47 3. Th e ir purpose is to enfor ce private rig hts. Black v . Blount , 938 S.W. 2d a t 398. Pe rs on s f ou ndto b e in c ivi l contempt “hold the key s to the jail” and may purg e themselves of conte mpt by comply ing w ith the court’s or der. Robinson v. Fulliton , 140 S.W. 3da t 30 9; Garrett v. Forest Lawn Mem’ l Gardens , 588 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 5 ( T e n n
. C t

. A p p
. 1 9 7 9 )

. P e r s o n s w h o h a v e f a i l e d t o m ak e p a ym e n t s r e q u i r e d b y a p r e v i o u s c o u r to r d e r

m a y b e h e l d t o b e i n c i v i l c o n t e m p to n l y i f t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e s , b y a preponde ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t th e y h a v e n o t ma d e th e p a y me n ts e v e n th o u g h th e y h a v e the prese nt a bility to do so. Do e v . Bd. of P ro f’ l R e sp on sib ili ty , 1 04 S.W. 3da t 47 4; Ah e rn v . A he rn , 15 S.W. 3da t 79 ; Loy v. Loy , 32 Tenn. App. 470, 479- 80, 222 S.W .2d 873, 877-78 (1949)

. Punishm ent for c ontempt should fit the offense , and the co u rt against whom t he conte mpt is committ ed is in the best position to fashion the appropriate punishment consisten t wi t h the applicable leg al principles. W alker v . W alker , No. M 2002-02786-COA- R3-CV, 2005 WL 229847,
a t *3 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . Jan . 2 8, 20 05 (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . A c c or din g ly , c ou rt s have inhe rent authority

to order punishment for ac ts of contempt, Ree d v. Hamilton , 39 S.W .3d at 117-18, and the ir exercise of this p o wer

is discretionary

. Ha wk

v . H awk , 855 S.W .2d 573, 583 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Hi ll v . H

ill , 1 52 S.W. 3d54 3, 54 8- 49 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 4) ; Freem an v. Free man , 147 S.W .3d 234, 242 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). A court’s contempt power s, howeve r, extend only to the types of acts described in T enn. Code Ann. § 29-2-102 (2000). Ree d v. Hamilton , 39 S.W .3d at 118.

B.

De s p i t e t h e t ri al co u rt ’s ch ar ac t er i z at i o n o f t h i s p ro ce ed i n g as a “ ci v i l ” c o n t em p tp ro ce ed i n g, the punishment imposed refle cts that it was, in larg e part, a criminal contempt proce eding . The
ma nd a tory

te n- day ja il se nte nc e is a pu nis hme nt fo r c ri min a l c on te mpt be c aus e Mr . M c Phe rs on did not have the a

bilityto purg e his contempt and a void this sentenc e by making the payments require d by the pre vious court orde rs. The c ontempt sanction was imposed to punish Mr. McPherson, r ather than to c oe rc e him

int o c omp ly ing wi th the or de rs of the c ou rt

. The proc edure the t ri al co u rt used to impose this criminal contempt sanction wa s proce durally

defe ctive. Ms. Mc Pherson’s April 2003 petition did not state whe ther she w as see king to h oldMr

. Mc Phe rs on in c ri min a l c on te mpt , c ivi l c on te mpt , o r b oth . T he tria l c ou rt didno t se e to it that Mr. McPherson re ceive d notice as r equire d by Tenn. R. C ri m
. P

. 4 2(b), a nd the re cord contains no evide nce that Mr. McPherson wa s aff orded the presumption of innocenc e or informed of his privileg e ag ainst self-incrimination. These omissions, t og ether with the absence from the trialT h is o p inio n sh o u ld no t b e inte rp re te d a s sig n ifyi n g tha t w e h a v e c o n c lud e d tha t M r. M c P h e rs o n is no t gu ilt y 8 of e i t h er c i v i l or c r i mi n al c on t empt

. W e h av e on l y c on cl u ded t h at t h e pr oce du r es e mpl oy ed i n t h e con t empt por t i on of this p ro c e e d ing w e re p reju d ic ia lly flaw e d

. T h e tr ia l c o u rt c o n tinu e s to h a v e the p o w e r to p u n ish M r. M c P h e rs o n fo r b o th crim i na l an d civil co ntem p t i f wa rran t ed b y t he f ac t s, as lon g a s i t fo l l o w s t he p ro p er p ro ce d ure s.

I t s t at ed s i mp l y t hat t he “ part i es wi l l ea ch cl ai m t wo ( 2) c hi l dren for i ncome t ax pur po s es
. ” 9

-6- court’s A ug ust 22, 2003 order of an af firmative finding that Mr. M cPherson had the abili ty to make the re quired pay men t s and will fully failed to do so, re quire that the portion of the judg ment sentenc ing Mr . McPherson to ser ve a ma ndatory ten-day sentenc e be va cate d.

The trial court committed another err or t hat undermines the porti on of i ts judgment imposing
c ivi l c on te mpt

sa nc tio ns a g a ins t Mr . M c Phe rs on . T he tr ia l c ou rt , in e ff e c t, w a s c on du c tin g a

c ivi l contempt proce eding and a criminal contempt proce eding simult aneously . We have pointed out that such proc eeding s are fundame ntally flawe d and shoul d b e avoide d beca use of the sig nificant differ ence s in the respe ctive bu rd en s of proof and the pr ocedur al rig hts acc orded to the pe rsons acc used of c ontempt. Cooner v. Cooner , No. 01A01-9701- CV-00021, 1997 W L 6 2 5277, at *6-7 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . N ov . 1 4, 19 97 ) (No Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . Crimi na l a ndc ivi l contempt proce eding s should be tried separ ately

. Freem an v. Free man , 147 S.W .3d at 243-44. The trial court’ s failure to separate the proc eeding s prejudice d Mr. McPherson. Acc ording ly , the portion of the jud g me nt f

ind ing Mr . M c Phe rs on in c ivi l c on te mpt mus t be va c a te d a s w e ll. 8

III
. T HE S U SPEN SI O N O F M R . M C P HE RS ON ’ S V I S I T AT I ON R I GH TS
Mr. M cPherson also takes iss ue with the porti ons of t he trial court’s Dece mber 22, 2000 and Marc h 13, 2 0 0 1 o rd er s suspending his visit ation rig hts. He insists that these order s wereenter ed without notice and an oppor tunityto be hea

rd. W e h ave de termined that this issue was re ndere d moot when the trial court reinstated Mr. McPherson’s visitation rig hts in it s Aug ust 22, 2003 order.

IV. M R . M C P HE RS ON ’ S R I GHT T O C LAIM THE C H ILD R EN A S D EP END ENTS
As a fi na l matt e r, Mr . McP he rs on take s issu e wi th the tr ia l cou rt ’s int e rp re ta tio n o f i ts A pril 3, 1998 order reg arding the criteria of claiming the children as depende nts on his fe dera l income tax returns. H e insists that the court’s order and its subsequent interpr etation of the or der a re c onfusing
a ndun fair . We fi ndlit tle me ri t w iththi s a rg ume nt. The pa rties’ marital di ssolution agr eeme nt provided that ea ch of the m could claim two children as depende nts on their fede ral income tax returns. After Mr. McPherson f

ailed to satisfy 9
a ll h is c hil d s up po rt ob lig a tio ns , the tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d a n o rd e r o n A pril 3 , 1 99 8 p ro vid ing that Ms

. Mc Phe rs on wo uldbe a llo we d to c la im a ll f ou r c hil dr e n as de pe nd e nts on he r 1 99 7 f e de ra l in c ome ta x form. H ow e ve r, the c ou rt a lso state d th a t:-7- F or a ll s ub se qu e nt ye ars , a s long a s the De fe nd a nt p a y s c hil d s up po rt , he is entitled to claim two children. Provide d child support is being paid and is cur

rent with said support, the Plaintiff wi l l claim the second an d fourth child and the Def endant will claim the f

irst and third child. The part i es can sw itch these tax ex emptions by mutual ag ree ment if they

so choose. Following the entry

of the 1998 orde r, Mr. McPher son continued to be delinquent in his pay ment of child support and other

expenses related to the childre n
. I n December 1999 and Mar ch 2001, the tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d a dd iti on a l or de rs dir e c tin g Mr

. Mc Phe rs on to fu lf ill his fi nan cia l o bl ig a tio ns , including or ders g ranting judgme nts to Ms. McPherson for bac k child support and esta b l i s h i ng pay me nt p la ns fo r the se jud g me nts . E ve ntu a lly the c ou rt wa s re qu ir e d to ord e r that th e se pay me nts be ma de by

wa g e a ssi g nme nt.
Mr. McPherson now claims that he shoul d be entitled to claim the r emaining minor children as depe ndants eve n though he h as not liquidated the support ar rea rag e or his other

financ ial obligations. He asserts that since he is now re g ularly making both his child support payments and the re quired a

rre ara g e payments, he is “cur rent” on his child support. W e disag ree . The April 1998 order conditions Mr. M cPherson’ s rig ht to claim hi s children as depende nts on two things. Fir st, he must be reg ularly

paying his c hild support, and second, he must be curr ent on his support obligation. Whil e Mr. Mc Pherson is prese ntly paying his support obli g ations as they come due , he is not y et “cur rent” with his child support beca use he has y et to pay the entire amount of the chil d s u p p ort arr ear ag e. Ac cording ly , we af fi rm t h e portion of the A ug ust 22, 2003 judgment dire cting Mr. McPherson to ame nd his feder al income tax returns to delete his claims of t he parties’ childre n as de pe nd e nts

. V.

We v a c a te the po rt ionof

the Au g us t 22 , 20 03 jud g me nt f ind ing Mr . M c Phe rs on in c on te mpt , af fi rm t h e re m ai n d er o f t h e j u d gm en t , an d re m an d t h e ca s e t o t h e tri al co u rt fo r f u rt h erp ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion. We tax the costs of this appea l in equal proportions to Craig J ohn McPherson a nd his surety and to Cy nthia Rose McPherson for which execution, if nec essary , may issue.

______________________________ WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.