### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n- Br ie f Fe br

ua ry 9, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE, ex rel ., LAJAUTA McNEI L DAUDA v. CORRY JA M A L H A R R IS

A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. C8666 The Honorable Harold W. H orne, Special Judge

No. W2006-01314-C OA-R3-JV- F iled March 26, 2007

This is a Title I V-D c hild support case. The Appellant State of Tenne ssee ex re l . L a Juan ta Mc Ne il D a

ud a wa s g ra nte d a n o rd e r l e g iti mizin g the min or c hil d a nd se tti ng Ap pe lle e /F a the r’ s c hil d support obligation going forwa rd. Appellee /Fathe r filed a petition to set aside pater nity , which wa s denied. Appellee /Fathe r’s child support arr ear s were deter mined and, ther eaf

ter, the c hild’s mother soug ht to have A

ppellee/F ather ’s support obligation suspended and a ny arr ear s forg iven. The tria l court g rante d the motion and the State appe als. We reve rse a nd rema nd.

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

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

Robert E. Cooper, J r., Att orney Gene ral and Reporter ; Warren A. J asper , Assistant Attorney Gene ral for Appe llant, State of Tenne ssee, e x rel. L ajauta Mc Neil Dauda

Cor ry Jama l H arr is, Pr o Se

OP IN ION

On J uly 17, 1992, the State of Te nnessee ex re l . L aJuata McNeil Da uda (“ State,” or

“ Ap pe lla nt” ), fi le d a

pe tit ion a g a ins t Corr

y Jama l Harr is ( “ Ap pe lle e ” ) t o e sta bli shpate rn ity

of Ms. Dauda ’s child, A.D.H. (d.o.b. September 26, 1991). On August 14, 1992, the juvenile court f ound that Mr. Har

ris was the f

ather of A.D.H . and set c hild support at $115.00 per month.

Twelve y ear s later, on Septembe r 21, 2004, Mr. Ha rris filed a

petition to set aside the judgme nt of pater

nity . I n his Petit ion, Mr. Har ris states that he obtained a DNA paternity

test, which showed zero pe rce nt pr obability that he is the father of A .D.H. On Oc tober 26, 2004, the State f iled-2-

its response asserting that Mr. Har ris’s Petition is barr ed by

the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata . T he State also asser ted that Mr. Ha

rris had ne ver ma de a voluntar y child support pay

ment and t h at he owe d $20,674.65 as of October 1, 2005. Along with its response, the State also filed a motion in limine and/or motion to strike seekingto exclude the results of the privately conducte d DNA test. On or about J une 14, 2005, the tria l court ente red a n Orde r dismissing Mr. Ha rris’s Petition.

O n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , M s

. D a uda filed a pr o s e petition to modi fy the J une 14, 2005 Or der. Specifica lly , Ms. D auda reque sted that Mr. Har ris’s child support obligation be suspended a nd that
any arr e ars be fo rg ive n a

nd te rm inate d. A h e ari ngwa s hel d on Augus t 15, 200 5. At the he ari ng , M s. Dauda testified that, althoug h the DNA test indicated that Mr. H arr is was not A.D.H.’ s father , Mr. Har ris continued to take c are of the c hild. Ms. Da uda further testified that, when A.D.H. was born, bo th sh e and

Mr . H arr is b e lie ve d th a t Mr . H arr is w a s th e fa the r; ho we ve r, sh e c on c e de d th a t bo th she and Mr . Har

ris knew t h at t here was a possibili ty

that another

man was the fathe r. As A.D.H

. g re w, Ms. Da

ud a state d that sh e re a lize d he loo ke d li ke the oth e r m an b ut t hat Mr . H arr is w a s “ his da dd y .” Ms. Da

ud a te sti fi e d that Mr . H arr is o we d a bo ut $ 17 ,0 00 .0 0 in

c hil d s up po rt , b ut t

hat on ly $2,016.00 of that sum was owe d to the State. Mr. Har ris testified that he still loved the child, that the c h i l d s p e n t s u m m e r s w i t h h i m an d t h a t h e w o u l d c o n t i nu e t o d o s o

. B o t h M r

. Ha rr is a ndMs. Da ud a te sti fi e d th a t, w henever A. D. H. ne e de d s ome thi ng , M r. Ha rr is p ro vid e d it . M r. Ha rr is indicated that h e should not have to pay child support beca

use he g ave A .D.H. more money per month than he was r equire d to pay in child support.

The State indicated that the total ar rea rs wer e $19,000.00 and that $2,500.00 of that was owed to the State. B ased upon this testimony , the Refe ree reduc ed the total arre ars to $2,500.00. On or a bo ut Augus t 15 , 20 05 , the Re fe re e e nte re d a n O rd e r s us pe nd ingMr . H arr is’ s o ng oin g c hil d support obligation, a

nd establishing the total a

rre ars at $2,500.00, which sum w as owe d to the State. On Aug ust 18, 2 0 0 5 , t h e State re quested a hear ing be fore the juvenile cour t judge . The hear ing w as held on F ebrua ry 2, 2006. At that hear ing, Mr . Har ris reiter ated his desire to stay in the child’s life a

nd to treat the c hild as his own. Ms. Dauda testified t hat s he did not want any support from Mr. Ha

rris. F ollowing the he aring , the trial cour t’s ent er ed an d Or der on F ebrua ry 2, 2006, wh ic h O rd e r r e a ds , in

pe rt ine nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: [T]he Court

fi nd s:
* * * 2. That the pa

rties ar e in ag ree ment that the def en dant is not the bio log ic a l fathe r of the min or c hil d le g iti ma te d in thi s c a us e Au g us t 14, 1992 and base their ag ree ment on the re sults of DNA testing p e r f o r m e d b y th e m p r i v a t e l y. 3. Th a t th e de fe nd ant d oe s n ot s e e k to se t a sid e the or de r o f p a te rn ity as he c ontinues to act as sa id child’s fathe r out of a se nse of love and
conce rn for

said child’s we lfare

.-3- 4. That at the hear ing on Aug ust 15, 2005 the parties e x presse d to the Re fe re e the ir

de sir e to te rm inate the on g oin g ob lig a tio n to pa y c hil d
su pp or t th ro ug h th e Cou

rt

. * * *

6. Th a t th e Re fe re e award ed th e State a jud g me nt f

or $2 ,5 00 .0 0 it claimed it was due and, at the r equest of the petitioner, terminate d the
c on tin uin g ob lig a tio n to pa

y c hil d s up po rt

. 7. That the d ef

en d ant t here upon tender ed to the State, throug h the Court Clerk’s Off

ice a pay ment of $2,500.00 to satisfy the judg ment and mar ked upon the face of the pay ment that it was in full pay ment of the a bo ve de bt. 8. That the de fenda

nt has satisfied his o b l i gat i o n to reimburse the State and that the mother

should be allowed to dismiss her ac tion.

I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED

1. That the Ref

ere e’s r uling of Aug ust 15, 2005, be an d is hereby
re c on fi rm e d a s th e de c re e of thi s Co ur t. 2. That the a

rre ars owe d by

the def endant to the State of

Tenne ssee be esta blished at $0.00, due to his having paid $2,500.00 owed to the State of Te nn e sse e wh ic h s a tis fi e s h is o bli g a tio n in fu ll.

On Marc h 3, 2006, the S tate filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Or der,” asser ting that the tr ial court ha d g rante d an impermissi b l e, re t roactive modification of c hild support arre ars a nd that the pa rt ie s c ou ld n ot c ir c umv e nt t he c hil d sup po rt g uid e lin e s by pr ivate a g re e me nt. A h e ari ngwa s h e ld on May 18, 2006. At the hea

ring , the State indicated that it had no new p ro o f an d the trial cour t denied the State’ s motion by Orde r of Ma

y 18, 2006.

The State a

ppeals a nd raises two issues f

or re view as state d in its brief:

1. Whe the r the fathe r c on tin ue s to ow e c ourt -o rd e re d c hil d s up po rt

. 2. Whe the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d wh e n it fo rg a ve c hil d su pp or t arr e ars

.
I t is undisput ed in this recor d that Mr. Har ris rema ins the leg al father of A.D.H. As such, Mr. Har ris has a le g al obliga

tion to provide support for A.D. H. as s et i n t he 1992 Or der. T.C.A. § 36 -5 -1 01 (f

)( 1) (2 00 5) pr ov ide s: Any order for c hild support shall be a judg ment entitled to be
en fo rc ed as any

other judg ment of a c ourt of this state and sha ll be entitled to full faith and cr edit i n t h is state and in any other state.-4- S u ch ju d g men t s h a l l n o t b e su b je ct to mod i f i ca ti o n a s to a n y ti me period or any am ounts d ue prior to the date that an action for
m odif ication is f

iled and notice of the action has be en mai led to the l ast k now n address of the op posin g parties . I f the full amount of child support is not paid by the dat e upon which the order ed support is due, the unpaid amount is i n arr ear s an d shall become a judgme nt for the unpa id amounts and shall ac crue interest fr om the date of the arr e ara g e a t the rate of tw e lve pe rc e nt (1 2% ) p e r a nnum. All interest which a ccumul at es on arr ear ag es shall be c onsidered
c hil d s up po rt . Co mputa tio n o f i nte re st sha ll not be the re sp on sib ili ty of the c lerk. (Emphasis adde d).

Fur thermore , our Supreme Court ha s held in Rutl e dgev . Ba rre tt , 8 0 2 S

. W .2d 604 (Tenn.1991) that, pursuant to the above statute, a c hild support or d er is not subject to retroac tive modification. Id . at 60 5- 60 7; see also Alexander v. Alexander , 34 S

. W

. 3 d 456, 46 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) ( providing that “a c ourt has no power to a lter a c hild support awar d as to any p e r i o d o f t i m e o c c u r

r i n g p r i o r t o t h e d a t e o nw h i c h [ a p ar e n t ] f i l e s h i s o r h e r p e t i t i o n

. ” )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, a tr ia l c ourt

may no t r e tr oa c tiv e ly

fo rg ive a c hil d s up po rt

arr e ara g e , b ut m ay

on ly mod if y c hil d
su pp or t ob lig a tio ns ba c k to the date that a pe tit ion or mot ion fo r m od if

ic a tio n is fi le d a

nd no tic e is provided to the n o n-moving party . Consequently , the trial cour t in the instant case lac ked the authority to retroa ctively

modify the child support orde r. In rea ching i t s d ec i sion to forg ive Mr. Har ris’s child support ar

rea rs, the trial c ourt made the f ollowing, r eleva

nt, statements from the be nch at t h e c l o s e o f p ro o f a tt h e F eb ru ary 2 , 2 0 0 6 h ea ri n g:
I ’m g oin g t o do what y ’a ll [Ms . D a ud a and Mr . H arr is] a sk e d, bu t I
near g uara nty [si c] y ou, they ’re [t he State] go i n g to appea l it to t he Court of Ap pe a ls a

nd y ’a ll w ill have ano the r h e a ri ng

.. .. May

be if they [t his Court] hear

y ou vocally

explain to t hem why

y ou want the State o u t o f

y o u r b u s in e s s , th e y ’ ll d o s o me th in gd if f e r e n t t h anthey been [sic] d o i n g, but the Court’s g oing to f ind number 1, that the mother’s pe tition t o terminate this child sup p o rt order be g rante d. Number 2, that the fathe r has pa id in full the $2,500 which was owe d to the State and aw arde d to them in t h e Au gu s t 15 order and that th the re ’s no mor e mon e y du e

. I wi shy ’a ll l uc k o n th e a pp e a l, b e c a

us e if the State is so unkind as to pursue this matter, y ou ’d t hink they ’d have some thing be tter to do with their time, but Idon’t know.

Fr om these statements, it is obvious that the low er co u rt has ig nored a cruc ial point–that being that the primary benef iciary of child support is the child, not the pare nts. Hop kin s v . Ho pkins , 152 S.W .3d 447, 449 (Tenn.2004) . A custodial par ent' s conduct c annot extinguish a non-c ustodial pare nt's r esponsi b i l i t y

to support his or her c hildren, Rutl e dgev . Ba rre tt , 802 S.W .2d at 607, and-5-

the law d oe s n ot p e rm it p are nts to w a ive or c ir c umv e nt t

he ir mi nor c hil dr e n' s r ig ht t o s up po rt

. Berryhill v. Rh odes , 2 1 S. W.3 d 1 88 , 192, 19 4 ( Te nn .2 00 0) (h old ingthat pr ivate a g re e me nts to
c ir c umv e nt c hil d s up po rt

ob lig a tio ns are a g a ins t pu bli c po lic y

); Hun tley v. Huntley , 61 S.W .3d 329, 33 5- 36 (T e nn .Ct .App .2 00 1) ; Wit t v . W itt , 929 S.W .2d 360, 363 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996)( “We find and hold that ag ree ments, incorpora ted in court dec ree s or otherw ise, which re lieve a natural or a doptive pare nt of his or her obliga t i on to provide child support ar e void as a g ainst public policy as e sta bli sh e d b y

the Ge ne ra l A ss embly .” ). Ac c or din g ly , e ve n w he n p are nts un de rt a ke to m a ke the ir own child s u p p o rt arr ang ements or to cir cumvent the oblig ation all toge ther, the c ourts have the power –and are, in fac t, leg ally

bound– to set and enf

orce the par ent’s support oblig ation unless and until same is modified pursuant to the statutory scheme

. For the fore g oing rea sons, w e reve rse the Orde r of the trial c ourt, and re mand for suc h further proce eding s as may

be ne ce s s ar y

consistent with this Opini on. Costs of this appea l are assessed
a g a ins t th e Ap pe lle e , Co rr y Jama l H arr is.

__________________________________________

W. F RA NK CRA WF O R D , P R E S I D I N G JU D GE , W. S.