### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n B ri ef S ep te m be r 20, 200 5 ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E e x r el . , S HA N N ON N IC OL E F A R M ER v. ROD ERIC K LA MON T P AR SON A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. N9456 The Honorable Herbert L. Lan e, Special Judge

No. W2004-02588-C OA-R3-JV - F iled Novem ber 30, 2005

This is a Title I V child support case . The State appea ls from the trial court’s Orde r for g iving F a the r/Ap pe lle e ’s c hil d su pp ort arr e ars be c aus e F a the r/Ap pe lle e a lle g e dly ma desu pp ort pay me nts direc tly to the mother. The trial court made no finding s to support a deviation fr om the child support g uidelines as require d by

T.C.A. §36-2-311 ( Supp. 2004). Consequently , we r ever se and r emand.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nileCo ur t i s R e ve r se d and Rem anded W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; War ren Jasper, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, F or Appellant, State of Te nnessee ex rel., Shannon Nicole F arme r No appe arance by

Appellee

. OP IN ION Shannon Nicole F arme r is the mother of J ere my Ry an Fa rmer ( d.o.b. 9/29/99) and Roderic k L amont Fa

rmer ( d.o.b. 01/30/01). On Dec ember 4, 2002, Ms. Farmer pe titioned the J uvenile Court of Shelby Countyto establish Roderick L amont Parson (“A ppellee” ) as the natura l f ather of the two children. P at er nity

tests reve aled that Mr. Par son was the biolog ical father of Rode rick L amont Fa rmer but e x cluded him as the f ather of Jeremy

Ry an Farme r. The Ref

ere e of the J uvenile Court (“Ref ere e”) enter ed his Finding s and Recommendations on May 6, 2 0 03. The F indings a nd Re c omm e nd a tio ns re a d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Th e de fe nd a nt, Rod e ri c k L amon t Pa rs on , h a vin g faile d to app e ar i n Court after

having been pr operly

summoned, and upon motion of the petitioner for

judgme nt b y d ef

ault, and upon proof

introduced-2- including a

positive D NA test and the entire r ecor d, the Refe ree finds that the def

endant is the natural father of said child(ren)

. I T I S THEREFORE RECOMMENDED 1. That the petition be dismiss ed with pr ejudice as [t o] Jeremy Ry an Fa rmer, born September 29, 1999 due to the defendant having be en e xclu de d b y

DN A t e sts

. 2. That R oderic k L amont Fa rmer sha ll be a leg itimate child(ren) of the def endant for purpose of inheritanc e, support, and a ll other lawful purposes a nd that custody o f Ro[deric k] L amont [Farmer ] be awar ded to mother. 3. Th a t th e de fe nd a nt p a y a ll me dic a l e xpe ns e s in c ide nt t o th e birth of R o[derick] L amont Fa

rmer and that he pay

$348.00 monthly , to the Ce ntr a l Ch ildSup po rt Re ceipt ing Un it.

.. tow ardthe su pp ort of sa id child(re n) beg inning on [] J une 1, 2003, and that future pay ments be made by income assig nment. Unless spec ifically orde re d b y

the Court, such support shall not be re duced or prorated. * * * 6. That the retroa ctive child support be e stablished at $9,326.00 to be r e p a i d a tt h e r a t e o f

$ 5 0

. 0 0 m o n t h l y. These F indings a nd Recommendations wer e confirmed as the decree of t he J uvenile C ourt. On May 12, 2003, Mr. Parson re quested a hearing be fore the trial court. A hea ring was he ld on November 6, 2003. At that hearing, the following , rele vant testimony , was a dduced:

THE C OURT: Were y ou [Ms . Fa rmer] rec eiving benef

its for all the children during–during this period of time? MS. F AR ME R: Y e s. THE COURT: Were y ou rec eiving any assistance from the fathers of those children? MS. FARMER: W ell, he’s [Mr. Parson] been ta king c are of both of them...from the other

fathe r. THE COURT: He w as taking car e of both of the children?-3- MS. FARMER: Yes, sir. * * * THE COURT: All rig ht. Sir, the support that was set i n t h i s case , $3 48 a mo nth , s e e ms t o b e a n a pp ro pria te a mou nt o f s up po rt

. Howeve r, base d upon her testimonytoday that y ou have pr ovided her with support during the period of time for the –the date of the birth of the child until entry

of this order, I wi l l s how that it’s retroa ctive support which was established at $9,326. You wil l rec eive c redit for the same amount, leaving an ar rea rag e at zero. Ho w e v e r , y o u a

r es till re ceiving benef

its from the State, which me a ns that th e State is e nti tle d to some re imb ur se me nt f or tho se be ne fi ts. So y ou wi ll h a ve to c on tin ue to p a y thi s $34 8 p e r m on th until such tim e as y ou resolve a ll those issues with the St ate. * * * MR. MURR ELL : Your Honor, on behalf of the State, I

would assert that the Court’s ruling inhibits the abi l i ty of the State to re cover monies that are owed to it by g iving a cre dit that-- TH E CO UR T: I un de rs too d th a t, M r. Mu rr e ll. B ut f or tw o y e ars , th is man has been supporting not only this woma n’s child, bu t another c hil d th a t sh e ha d b ya no the r m a n. So i n f a ir ne ss t o h im, it w ou ld seem to me that he should be g iven s o m e credit for the a mount of money that he has paid directly

to her. On No ve mbe r 6 , 2 00 3, the tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d a n O rd e r, wh ic h r e a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED 1. That the Ref

ere e’s r uling of May 6, 200 3 , b e and is hereby rec onfirmed a s the dec ree of this Court with the ex ception of the a mou nt o f r e tr oa c tiv e c hil d s up po rt

. 2. That the re troac tive child support be esta blished at $0.00. On No ve mbe r 2 6, 20 03 , the State of Te nn e sse e (“ State ,” or “ Ap pe lla nt” ) fi le d a “ Mo tio n to Alter or A mend,” which was hear d by the trial court on September 7, 2004. On September 7, 2004, the trial court entere d its Orde r di smissi ng the S tate’s Moti on. The S tate appe als and raises one issueM r. P a rs o n fi le d no b rie f i n this a p p e a l. 1

W e no t e t hat t hi s st at ut e has been m o d i f i ed at T .C .A . § 3 6 -5 -1 0 1 (d)(7) (20 0 5 ). H o wever, t he rel evant 2

re q u ire m e n ts o f t h e sta tute a re the sa m e sinc e T .C .A . § 3 6 -5 -1 0 1 (d )( 7 ), like it s 2 0 0 4 c o u n te rp a rt, sta te s tha t “[n ]o c re d it sh a ll b e g ive n to a n o b ligo r fo r a n y p a ym e n ts m a d e b y th e o b ligo r o r b y a n o the r p e rs o n o n b e h a lf o f t h e o b ligo r, d ire c tly to a n o b lige e o r th e o b ligo r’s c h ild o r c h ild re n .... ” -4- for r eview a s stated in its brief: Whether re troac tive child support was unlaw ful l yestablished at $0 .0 0 b y the Juve nil e Cou rt ? 1
F ro m ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d, it a pp e ars that th e tr ia l c ou rt “for gave” Mr. Pa

rs on ’s c hil d support arr ear s because Mr. Parson a l l ege d l y s u pported both of Ms. F arme r’s c hildren by pay ing monies directly

to her. In so doing, the trial court e ffe ctively condoned an ag ree ment betwee n the pare nts of this mi nor child whe reby the father wa s allowed to circ umvent his obligatio n to pay retroa ctive child support. The rec ord, howeve r, is de void of any evidenc e to support the trial court’ s d ec i s i o n . I n t he first instance , it is not clea r fr om the rec ord that Mr. Parson paid any amount of support to Ms. Farmer. And, even if we a ssume, arguendo , that he did make suc h payments, there is no indication as to the amount(s) of same. Nonethele ss, T .C.A. § 36-5-101( a)( 4)(E) (Supp. 2004) 2 state s, in r e le va nt p art , th a t:

I n all Title I V-D child support case s, child support payments shall be m a d e b y t h e o b l i g o r

t o t h e c l e rk

o f c o u r t , o r t h e d e p ar t m e n t

. . . . In Title I V-D child support case s...no cre dit shall be g iven to an oblig or fo r a ny pay me nts ma de by the ob lig or or by a no the r p e rs on on be ha lf of the oblig or, direc tly

to an oblige e or the obligor ’s child or c hildren unless the obl i gee remit s the payment to the department or the participating c lerk.... Reg ardle ss of whethe r t h er e wa s any ag ree ment betwee n Mr. Parson and Ms. F arme r conce rning support for this child, T.C.A. §36-2-311( Supp. 2004) require s the t ria l c o u r t t o determine any retroa ctive child support accor ding to the g uidelines or, if the c ourt deviate s from same, to make writt e n f ind ing s to su pp ort th e de viatio n, to w it: 36-2-311. Order

of p arentage .– (a) Upon es tablishing pa renta g e, the c ou rt sh a ll mak e a n ord e r de c lari ng the fathe r o f the c hil d. Th is order sha ll

i n cl u d e t h e f

o l l o wi n g: * * * 11 (A ) D e te rm inatio n of chi ld sup po rt pu rs ua nt t o c ha

pte r 5 of thi s tit le . Wh e n makin g re tr oa c tiv e su pp ort a wa rd s p ur su a nt t o th e c hil d support g uidelines established pursuant to subsection (a), the court sha ll consider the following fac tors as a basis for de viation from the presumption in the child support g u idelines that child and medic al-5- su pp ort f or the be ne fi t of the c hil d sh a ll be a wa rd e d r e tr oa c tiv e ly

to the date of

the child’s birth: * * * (B ) I n case s in whic h t h e presumption of the application of the g uidelines is r ebutted by clea r and convincing evidenc e, th e c o urt shall deviate f

rom the child support guidelines to reduc e, in whole or in part, any

retroa ctive support. The court m ust m ake a written findin g that application of th e guidelines wou ld be u n justor inappropriate in order to provide for the best interests of the child or the e qu ity be tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s. (Emphasis adde d). He re , th e tr ia l c ou rt

de viate d f

ro m th e c hil d s uppo rt guidel ine s in se tti ng re tr oa c tiv e c hil d support at $0.00. However, in so doing, the court made no written finding s as to why such deviation was ne ce s sary . Consequently , we r ever se the trial c ourt’s orde r and r emand f or either a d et er m i n at i o n o f r et ro ac t i v e c h i l d s u p p o rt ac co rd i n g t o t h e gui d el i n es o r a n en tryo f w ri t t en fi n d i n gs to justi fy a deviation from those g uidelines pursuant to the c riteria outlined in T.C.A. §36-2- 311. Ac co rd i n gl y , we re v er s e t h e Or d er o f t h e tri al co u rt an d re m an d fo r s u ch fu rt h erp ro ce ed i n gs as may be nec essary

consistent with this Opini on. C o s t s o f t his appea l are assessed a g ainst the Appellee , Roderick L amont Parson.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA WF OR D, P RE S I

DI NG J UDGE, W.S.