### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE F N O V E MB E R 2 9, 200 6

STATE OF TENNESS EE ex rel ., ELI Z ABETH WRAY v.

KEL LY COLL INS

Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for G ibson County

No. 8093A Rober t W. Ne well, Ju dge

No. W2006-00119-C OA-R3-JV- F iled March 20, 2007

This appea l involves a serie s of ca ses – a paternity action, a de pendenc y and neg lect proce eding , and the pre sent case , a petition to establish pater nity and set child support. The first pater nity suit had been dismissed by

the m other after ge netic testi ng had take n place , but before the cour t entere d an order of par entag e. Dur ing subse quent depe ndency and ne glect proc eeding s, a g randmother had
rec eived tempor ary

cus t o d y o f t h e child. F inally , the State of Te nnessee filed this case on the g rand m o t h er ’s behalf to establish paternity and collec t child support from the child’s biolog ical fathe r. The f

ather insis t ed t hat he ha d never been pr operly

serve d in the depende ncy and neg lect pr oc e e din g , s o the tr ia l c ourt dis mis se d th e State ’s pe tit ion . F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e re ve rs e and re mand.

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 nile Co ur t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

Pa ul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt er, W arrenJasp e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, Nashville, TN, f

or Appe llant, State of Tenne ssee e x rel., Elizabeth Wray
No Appea

ranc e for Appellee , Kelly

Colli ns
OP IN ION

I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY

I n 2003, L isa Rigg ins ( “Mother” ) filed a Petition t o Establish Paternity in the J uvenile Court of Gibson County

alleg ing that Kelly

Colli ns was the natura l f

ather of her child (“R.E.R.”) . Mother also reque sted that Mr. Colli ns be order ed to pa y child support if he was found to be the fathe r. The court orde red the parties to subm i t t o pare ntag e testing , and the test showe d a 99.99% statistical-2-

probability

that Mr. Collins was R.E.R’s fathe r. Howeve r, following the par entag e test, the c ase w as dismiss ed at Mother ’s re quest. The c ourt neve r ente red a n order decla ri n g M r. Colli ns to be the fathe r, and c hild support was not addre ssed. On April 2 8 , 2005, the Depa rtment of Children’s Ser

vices (“ DCS”) filed a

petition in the J uvenile Court of Gibson County alleg ing that R.E.R. and Mother’s two other c hildren we re de pe nd e nt a

nd ne g le c te d. Ac cord in g t o the pe tit ion , M r. Col lin s’ s w he re a bo uts we re “ c ur

re ntl y unknown,” a

nd Mother’s house had no elec tricity , heat, or running water

. The petition a lso stated that Mother had ta

ken a dr ug test that tested positive fo r m ethamphetamine. DCS requested that Thomas and Elizabeth Wray (“G randmother ”) be awa rded te mporary

custody of the c hildren.

On the same d at e, the juvenile cour t entere d a prote ctive custody order placingtemporar

y custody of the c hildren with Gra ndmother. Afte r a pr eliminary hear ing, t h e court e ntere d a preliminary order appointing a g uardia n ad litem for the c hildren, appointing attorney s for e ach of the pa re nts , a nd a g a in a wa rd ingte mpo ra

ry c us tod y to Gr andmot

he r. An oth e r he ari ng wa s h e ld i n J une of 2005, a

nd there afte r, the c ourt enter ed an order finding that the childre n wer e depe ndent and neg lected. T he cour

t ordere d DCS to prepare a home study of Mother’s h o m e, but temporary custody of the c hildren wa s to remain with Gra ndmother subject to fur

ther orde rs of the c ourt.

On Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 05 , th e State of Te nn e sse e fi le d the pr e se nt ca se in t he Gi bs on

County Juve nil e Court

on be ha lf of Gran dmo the r p ur su ant t o T e nn . Co de Ann. § 7 1- 3- 12 4( c ), se e kin g to establish the pater

nity of Mr. Collins and to have c hild support set for R.E.R.

On Novembe r 9 , 2 0 05, the cour t took further a ction in the depende ncy and neg lect proce eding s, restoringcustody of the c hildren to Mothe r beca use she ha d cooper ated a

nd complied with all Targ eted Case Manag ement ser vices off ere d to her, and she had tested negative on random drug scre ens.

I n Dec ember , the juvenile cour t held a hea

ringon the S tate’s petition broug ht on behalf of Gra ndmother t o establish pater nity and set c hild support. Mr. Coll ins appea red a nd informed the court that he had neve r re ceive d notice of the ear lier depe ndency and neg lect proc eedings. The juv enil e cour

t subsequently

enter ed an or der dismissing the pe tition t o establish pater nity and set support, with the following explanation:

The Court finds that this matter shall be dismissed due to the fa ct that [Grandmother] r ece ived custody pursuant to a depe ndent and ne g lect action in which [ Mr. C ollins] was named as a party y et neve r re ceive d notice. The ref

ore, the Court f

inds that due to the lack of notice on the depende nt and neglec t action, [Grandmother] does not have standing to pur sue support in this action for the period of time that she had the minor child pursuant to the depe ndent and ne g lect ac tion. A l t h o u g h t h e o r d e r

d o e s n o te x p l a i nt h e c o u rt ’ s r e a s o n i n g i n a l s o d i s m i s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f p a t e r n i t y, at the hea ring the judg e had e x plained that the S t at e, ac t i n g on behalf of Gra ndmother, had no-3-

sta nd ing to est abli shpate rn ity . T he jud g e state d th a t “ [Mr . Co lli ns ] or the mot he r” c an e sta

bli sh pater nity

. The State filed a

notice of a

ppeal on be half of G randmother on J anuar

y 4, 2006.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED
1. Whether pate rnity and child support should have been e stablished befor e the tria l court summarily

disposed of the State’s pe tition.

For the following rea sons, we re verse the dec ision of the juvenile cour t and re mand for f

urther proce eding s.

III
. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW
A tri a l c ourt ’s fa c tua l f

ind ing s are pr e su me d to be c or re c t, and we wi ll no t ov e rt ur n th os e fac tual findings u n l es s the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst them. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (2006) ; Bogan v. Bogan , 60 S.W .3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001) . We reviewa trial c ourt’s conc lusions of law under a de novo standard upon the rec ord with no presumption of cor rec tness. Union C

arbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 8 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g Estate of Adkins v. W hite Consol. Indus., Inc. , 788 S.W .2d 815, 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989))

.
IV. D I S CUS S I ON
A. St and ing to F ile an Ac tio n to Est

ab lis h Pa te rnit

y

I f a mother

and father a ffirmatively

acknow ledg e their pa

renta g e of a child, a court may enter an orde r of pa

renta g e upon their a g ree ment, or the court may order g enetic te sting on its own motion. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 2- 30 5( a ) ( 20 05 ). Al te rn a tiv e ly , a c omp la int to e sta bli shpa re nta g e of a c hil d may be brough t b y t h e child, the child’s mother, a man claiming to be the child’s f ather , or the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f H uma

n Se rv ic e s. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 2- 30 5( b) (1 ) ( 20 05 ); In re C.K.G. , 1 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 714, 722 (Tenn. 2005) . Another statute a lso authorizes the Depa rtment of Human Servic e s to f

il e p a te r n it y a c ti o n s in a c c o r d an c e w it h th e So c ia l Se c u r it

y A c t. T e n n e s see Code Anno ta te d § 71 -3 -1 24 (c ) p ro vid e s th a t:

(1 ) U po n th e fi lin g of

an a pp lic a tio n b y

an in div idual no t ot

he rw ise elig ible for support services unde r this section, the depa rtment may initiate support actions for a n individual, in accor danc e with the provisions of Title I V-D of the Social Secur ity

Act, as a mended. (2) The depar

tment . . . shall have a

uthority and standing to file any leg al actions to e stablish paternity or to e stablish, modify or enf orce child or spousal support in any judicial or admini strative proc eeding-4- on behalf of the de partment a

nd the s t ate for per sons who have assig ned rig hts of support to the depar tment pur suant to this sec tion, or who have otherwise applied for c hild or spousal support service s pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c)(1) or

Title I V-D of

the Social Security

Act. The depar

tment or its contractor s may file such leg al ac tions without the necessity of interve ning in a

n exis ting a ction
or namin g the state a s a

pa rt y to t he a c tio n. Th e de pa

rtmen t or i ts contra ctors shall not be require d to provide proof that the obligor , the ob lig e e or t he c hil d h a s a pp lie d f or or is r e c e ivi ngTi tle I V- D c hil d support service s in order to meet the re quirements for conducting Ti tle I V- D c hil d s up po rt

jud ic ia l or

a dmi nis tr a tiv e a c tio ns

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 71- 3-124(c ) (2004)

. I n this case, the State of Tenne ssee f

iled a complaint desig nated “ I V-D” on b ehalf of Gra ndmother pursua

nt to Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-3-124( c). The State had standing to file the
c omp la int to e sta bli shpa re nta g e of

R.E .R. , e ve n if

the c a se is s tyle d “ State of Te nn e sse e e x re l. [Grandmother].” See Sta te e x re l. Bis so ne tte

v . M ar lan d , No. E2000-02089- COA-R3-CV, slip op.
a t 3 (T e nn . Ct . App . E .S. Ap r. 26 , 2 00 1) (f ind ingthat th e State ha d s tand ingto f ile a pate rn ity su it, even if sty led ‘e x rel.’) . Acc ording to the statute, the De partment o f Hu m an S ervic es is not even
r e qu ir e d to n a me th e St a te a s a p arty to th e a c ti o n

. See T en n

. C ode Ann. § 71- 3-124(c )(2)

. There fore , the petition to establish paternity should not have bee n dismiss ed.

B. St and ing to S e e k Chi ld Supp ort

Gra ndmother wa s awa

rded temporar

y custody of R.E.R. on April 28, 2005, and custody was restore d to Mother by order on November 14, 2005. The State c ontends that the juvenile c ourt err ed in dismi ssing Gr andmother’ s petition for child support when it found that Mr. Collins was not p ro p er l y serve d in the depende ncy and neg lect proc eedingwher eby Gra ndmother had r ece ived
c us tod y of R.E .R. Th e State c la ims tha t on ly ph y sic a l c us tod

y of a chi ld is necess ary

in o rd e r t o rec eive c hild support, and that Mr. C ollins m ust pay child support to Grandmother reg ardle ss of the
va lid ity of se rv ic e of

pr oc e ss a nd the te mpo ra

ry c us tod y or de r i n th e pr e vio us pr oc e e din g s.
The Te nnessee Supreme Court re cently addre ssed a c hild’s rig ht to support from his or her pa re nts in Kirkpatr ick v. O’

Neal , 197 S.W .3d 674 (Tenn. 2006) . Specifica lly , the Court addre ssed the issue of whe ther a

non-re sidential pare nt must continue to pay child support when the r esidential pare nt dies, and custody

of the c hild is awarde d to a third party

. Id. a t 67 6. Th e Cou rt no te d th a t in Tenne ssee, both p a

r ents are equally

and jointly

char g ed with the ca

re, nur ture, we lfare , education and support of a c hild. Id. at 679. The pa rents’ duty

continues until t h e child rea ches the ag e of majority , and no cour

t order is neede d to obligate a par ent to support the child during minority

. Id. at 680. The pa

rents’ suppor

t obligation exis ts reg ardle ss of where or with whom the child lives. Id. Even thoug h support is paid to an oblige e par ent or c ustodial third party , the pay ment is rece ived on behalf of the c hild because the duty of support is owed to the c hild, not to t he other pare nt. Id.-5-

Th e Sup re me Court

ult imate ly

he ld t hat “ pa re nts are lia

ble to p ri vate thi rd

pa rt ie s f or c hil d support retroa ctive fr om the date their children are place d in third pa rty custody .” Kirkpatr ick , 197 S

. W .3d at 680-81. In Kirkpatrick , th e c h il dr e n ’ s g r an d p ar e n ts h a d ta

k e n “ p h y s ic a l p o s s e s s ion of th e m” in Ju n e w h e n th e ir mo th e r h ad died. Id. at 6 7 6. A cour t had g rante d full custody of the ch i l d re n to the g randpa

rents in September

. Id. Whe n th e Sup re me Court re mand e d th e c a se , it instructed the tria l court to ca lculate c hild support owed from the da te a c ourt had leg ally

g rante d the g randpa rents full custody of the childre n, not when they rec eived phy sical custody

. Id. a t 68 1. Stil l,
we fi nd the pr e se nt c a se to b e dis tin g uis ha ble fr om Kirkpatrick becau se thi s is a Ti tle I V- D c hil d support case

.
Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 5- 10 1( b) (2 00 5) re a ds a s f oll ow s: ( 1 ) N o t w i t h s t an d i n g an y o t h e r p r o v i s i o no f

l aw t o t h e c o n t r ar

y, neither the de

partment of human servic es , n o r an y T i t l e I V

- D c hil d
su pp or t c on tr a c tor

of the de pa rtme nt, no r a

ny re c ipi e nt o f p ub lic assistance in this or any

other state or

territory , no r a ny

ap pli c an t for either public a ssist an ce i n t his or any other state or

territory or for Titl e IV-D chil

d s up po rt s e rv ic es from the de partment or a ny other T i t l e IV

- D a g e n c y i nt h i s o r an y o t h e r

s t a t e o r t e r r i t o r y, s h a ll be required to demonstrate to a cour t or administrative tribunal that the
c are take r o f t

he c hil d for wh om ch ild

su pp or t is so ug ht i s v e ste d w ith any m ore than ph

ysical custody of

the su bje c t c hil d o r c hil dr e n, in ord er to have standing to petition for child support from the leg al pare nt of the child or c hildren for whom support is sought, or to see k enfor ceme nt or modification of a ny exis ting or d er s involving such child or childre n. (2 ) Legal custody of a c hild t o w h o m a c h i l d s u p p o rt o b l i g a tio n is owed shall

not be a prerequisite to th e in it iati o no f a n y s u p p o rt action or to the e nforc ement or modification of any support obligation in s uc h c a se s, wh e the r o r not the ob lig atio n ha s bee n ass ig ne d to thi s state or a ny other state or

territory by operation of law. (Emphasis adde d). This statute was r ece ntly applied in a case sim ilar t o the ca se bef ore us, State ex
re l. H anna h v . Be ard , No. W2005-02350-COA-R3-JV, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S . J un. 7, 2006). In Hannah , a g ra

ndmot he r ha d tak e n in her g ra

nd so n b e c a

us e his mot

he r w a s “ havin g tr ou

ble in her household.” Id. at 1. T h e g randson lived with the g randmother for a pproxi mately

five months, during whic h time the g randmother rec eived a s s i s t an ce f

rom the De partment of H uman Service s. Id. Th e State of Te nn e sse e fi le d a

pe tit ion on be ha lf of the g rand mo th er se e kin g c hil d support from the mother , but the trial court r efuse d to set support beca use t he gra

ndmother did not have le g al custody

of her g randson. Id. I n discussing Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-5- 101(b), we deter mined that the gra

ndmother was not require d to have leg al custody of t he gra ndson befor e the initiation of an action for child support, whether the action was initiated by the g randmother or the-6-

State on her behalf

. Id. at 4. “[ N]othi ngmor e tha n p hy sic a l c us tod

y of a c hil d” wa s r e qu ir e d in order to have the le g al rig ht to petition for child support. Id. The pre sent ca se fa lls withi n the re asoning of Be ar d , and Grandmother, or the S tate on her behalf , can se ek child support fr om Mr. Colli ns if the trial cour t establishes that he is the father of R.E.R. Grandmother ha d phy sical custody of R.E.R. f

or over six months, a

nd she could initiate a
s u p p o rt ac t i o n d es p i t e th e ch al l en ge to s er v i ce o f pr o ce s s i nt h e d ep en d en cy an d n egl ec tp ro ce ed i n g. As we note d in Be ar

d : The statutes g overningthe State’s ac tion do no t re q uire notice be g iven to the biologic al par ent of a chil d t h at s hould they

leave that child in th e c ar e an d

c o n tr o l o f

an o th e r a d u lt , an d th a t a d u lt s eeks TA NF be ne fi ts o n th e c hil d’ s beh alf , th a t th e a du lt w ill be a

ble to seek c hild support from them. Tenne ssee law imposes a leg al obligation on parent s t o support their minor childre n. T.C.A. § 3 4

- 1

- 1 02 (a ); W

ade v. W ade , 115 S.W .3d 917, 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). I t is well established that this duty does not terminate when a pare nt relinquishes phy sical custody of their c hild. See T.C.A. § 34 -1 -1 02 ; Sm ith v . G or e , 7 28 S.W. 2d 73 8, 75 0 ( Te nn . 1 98 7) ; State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude , 21 S.W .3d 244, 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Slip op. at 4.

V. C ONCL US I ON

For the af oreme ntioned rea sons, the petition to establish pater nity and set support should not have be en dismissed. There fore , we reve rse the decision of the juvenile c ourt and re mand for f urther proce eding s. Costs of thi s appea l are taxe d t o Ap p ell ee, K elly Colli ns, for whic h execution may i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ AL AN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE