### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs , A pr il 1, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE ex rel KATRI NA WEEK S, v. CHRI STO PHER D. KI R KL A N D , IN R E: M IN OR C HI LD : KY LE WE EK S, d
. o. b. 7/1 6/9 6

Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Monroe County No. J96-342 Hon. J. Ree d Dixon, Ju dge

No. E2007-01735-COA- R3-JV - F ILED APRIL 17, 2008

The Tr ial Court entere d J udg ment fo r back child support, but barr ed the State f rom enfor cing the Judg me nt t

ho ug h p a ssp or

t de nia l. We re ve rs e the Tr ia l Co ur t.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm en t of the Juv e nile Co ur t R e ve r se d and Re m ande d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he C ourt, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter , and J u a n G

. V il la s e n o r , A s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, N a s h v il le , T e n n e s s e e , f o r a p p e ll a n t, State of Tenne ssee ex re l

Katr ina Wee ks

. Steven B . Ward, Madisonville Tennesse e, for appellee , Christopher D. Kirkla nd.

OP IN ION

This dispute originated when the fathe r filed a Petition t o modify

child support reg ardinghis son, Ky le Weeks, who re sides with his mother. The fa ther a sked for

his child support obligation to be decr ease d, stating th at h e had bee n laid off f rom his job. The mother Answe red, stating the parties’ visitation order had bee n enter ed over

ten y ear s ag o, and since that time, the fathe r had only exercised visitation on 2 or 3 occ asions, and aske d that the Petition be dismi ssed.-2- At a hearin g b e f

o r e th e r e f

e r e e , it w a s d e te r

mi n e d th a t t h e r e w a s an ar

r e a r a g e of $5,328.71. The father was di ssatisfied, and asked for re view by the Court. At the hea

ring befor e the Court , the Judg e a ff

ir me d the re fe re e ’s fi nd ing s r e g a rd ingsu pp or t, b ut s ta te d th a t “ the Court a t th is time does not authorize enfor ceme nt of the ar rea rag e throug h passport denia l.” The State Appe aled this issue.

No transc ript of the e v i d en t i ar y hear ing ha s been f iled in the rec ord, but the issue befor e us is a question of law , and the Tr ial Court’s decision does not enjoy a p re s u m ption of
corr ectne ss. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

The S tate ar g ues the Tr ial Court lacked subje ct matter jurisdiction to limit the State’s ability to collect the f

ather ’s child support ar

rea rag e throug h passport denia l. The State re lies on the fede ral statutes g overningI V-D a ctions, 42 U.S.C. §652(k) a nd 42 U.S.C. §654(31), which re quire t h e S t at e t o ce rt i fy

t o t h e U

. S

. S ec re t ary

o f S t a t e wh en an i n d i v i d u al h as a c h i l d

s u p p o rt arre ar age exceeding $2,500.00, so that the Secre tary may revoke , restric t or ref use to issue a pa ssport to that individual. The State also relies on Te nn. Code Ann. §36-5- 101(f) (4), whic h g ives the De partment of Human Se rv ic e s th e ri g ht to us e a ny a dmi nis tr a tiv e me a ns to c oll e c t an a rr e a ra g e of

c hil d s up po rt

. The State points out that beca use t he father owed an a

rre ara g e excee ding $2,500.00, it wa s require d to c ertify to the Secre tary that he owe d such ar rea rag e, and the Court could not bar the State from c arr

ying out that duty . The a

bove cited f

eder al statutes mandate that require ment and the husband, in his reply

brief f iled by his attorney , has conc eded this issue on appe al.

We r e ve rs e the Judg me nt of the Tr ia l Cou rt on thi s iss ue a nd re mand , wi th the c os t of the a ppeal a ssessed to Christopher D. Kir kland.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.