### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O n- Br ie f Ma y 4, 200 6 STATE OF TENNESS EE, ex rel . WI LLI E BEARD v . STACEY HANNAH

A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for G ibson County No. 7735 The Honorabl e Rober t W. Ne well, Ju dge

No. W2005-02350-C OA-R3-JV - F iled Jun e 7, 2006

This is a Title I V child support case. The S tate appeals from the t rial court’s Orde r refusing to set su pp ort be c aus e thePe tit ion e r d id n ot ha ve le g a l cus tod y of the c hil d at the tim e sh e re c e ive d p ub lic assistance from the De partment of Human Service s, nor was the biologica l pa rent g iven notice that she would have to reimburse the Department of Human S ervic es for money s spent on behalf of her son when she pla ced him in the custody of the Petitioner. We re verse 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 nileCo 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 opi nion of t he court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; L aure n S. L amberth, Assistant Attorney Gene ral for Appe llant, State of Tenne ssee, e x . rel. Willi e B ear d
No brief filed by Appellee
OP IN ION
The fa cts in this case are undisput ed. Stacey Hannah (“Mother ”) is the mother of Ca rlos A. Hannah (“Carlos”) (d.o.b. 02/17/00). In Fe bruary , 2005, Ms. Hannah a s k e d h e r mother, Willie Bea

rd (“Petitioner” or “G randmother ”) to take C ar l o s into her home bec ause Ms. Hannah “w as having tro u b l e i n [her] household.” Carlos lived with Grandmother until J une 28, 2005, a pe riod of approximately

five months. During the time Gra ndmother wa s caring f o r Carlos, Grandmother rec eived Te mporary

As s i s t ancefor Ne edy

Families (“TANF ”) f

rom the De partment of H uman Service s (“DH S”).T .C .A . § 7 1 -3 -1 2 4 p ro v id e s tha t, w h e n a n ind ivid u a l re c e ive s a ssista n c e u n d e r T itl e IV -D , t h e S ta te m a y fi le 1

an y l eg al ac t i on t o “ es t abl i s h , modi f y or en for ce ch i l d or s pou s al s u ppor t , ” an d t h at t h e St at e bec omes t h e as s i g n ee of
an y r i g h t of

s u ppor t t o w h i ch t h at i n di v i du al i s e n t i t l ed. -2- OnMa rc h 1 , 200 5, theState of

Te nn e sse e (“ State ” ) p ur su a nt t o T .C. A. § 7 1- 3- 12 4, on be ha lf 1 of Grandmother, filed a

petition with the Gibson Count y J uvenile Court see king c hild support and a jud g me nt f

or ba c k s up po rt fr om Ms. Hann ah pu rs ua nt to the Te nn e sse e Chi ld S up po rt Gu ide lin e s. The matter

was sche duled for May

10, 2005, at which time the matter was continued and set to be hear d on J une 28, 2005. At the June 28th hearing , the trial court fo u n d , i n re l evant part, (1) that Gra ndmother had phy sical custody of C arlos, while Ms. Hannah had leg al custody ; and (2) that DHS had illeg ally

provided benef

its to Gra ndmother on behalf of Carlos. The trial court then or dere d the Depa rtment of Children’s Service s to conduct an inve stigation, and g ive a written report, r eg arding wh et h erM s
. Ha n n ah h ad ab an d o n ed C ar l o s
. On J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , i m m ed i at el y fo l l o wi n g t h e h ea ri n g, Carlos returned to live with his mother, Ms. Hannah.
Th e matte r wa s hea

rd on Se pte mbe r 6, 200 5, a nd the tria l cou rt re fu se d to se t c hil d s up po rt

. The trial c ourt found that Gr andmother ha d p h y s i cal, but neve r leg al, custody of Carlos fr om Fe bruary , 2005 until J une 28, 2005, and that Ms. Hannah wa s not give n notice that she w ould have to reimburse the Depa

rtment of Human Service s for money s spent on behalf of her son when she pla c e d h im i n th e c us tod y of the Gr a nd mothe r. Th e tria l c ou rt ’s Or de r of Se pte mbe r 16 , 20 05 , r e a ds , in p e rt ine nt p art :

Up on thee vid e nc e pr e se nte d, a nd the e nti re re c or d, theCou rt fi nd s: 1. thepe tit ion e r, W il lie B e ard , h a d p hy sic a l c us tod y of thec hil d Carlos Hannah, DOB 02 / 1 7 / 0 0 , but never had leg al custody

of this child; and 2. The De partment of H uman Service s g rante d TANF benef its to t he petitioner, Will ie B ear d, even thoug h the depa rtment was a war e that the Petitioner was not the l eg al custodi an of the m inor child, Carlos Hannah; and 3

. The re spondent, St a c e y H a n n ah , w as not informed by the Depart me n t o f

H u man Se r v ic e s o r

a n y o n e e ls e p r io r

to the summons and petition in t his action that the State would see k child support from her

for the time that the minor c hild was left in the car e and c ontrol of the petitioner. It is the re fo reOR DE RED a ndDE CRE ED a s f oll ow s: 1. No child support shall be set for the period that the Petitioner had phy sical custody

of the mi n o r ch ild Carlos Hannah, d.o.b. 02 /17 /00 . T his is a fi na l or de r andre so lve s a ll i ssu e s r a ise d in this matter betwee n all parties.R e sp o n d e n t, M s. H a n n a h , f iled no b rie f i n this a p p e a l. 2

T he sect i o n o f

T

. C

. A

. that t he Stat e ref ers t o i n t hei r bri ef , i s current l y co d i f i ed at T

. C

. A

. § 3 6

- 5

- 1 0 1 (b)(1). 3 H o w e v e r, a t t h e ti m e this m a tter a c c ru e d , tha t se c tio n w a s lo c a te d a t T .C .A . § 3 6 -5 -1 0 1 (q )( 1 ). T h e tex t o f t h e sta tute di d not ch ang e. -3-

2. The Petition to Set Support is dismiss ed. Court costs of $114.00 are taxed to the Respondent and shall be paid by J anuary 6, 2006. On September

26, 2005, the State filed a Notice of Appea l and ra ises one issue for revie w as stated in its brief: 2
1. Whe the r the tria l c ou rt e rr e d infaili ng to s e t su pp ort f or Ms. B e ard , w ho ha d p hy sic a l, b ut n ot l e g a l, c us tod y of Carl os
. Th e fa c tua l fi nd ing s of the tria l c ou rt area c c or de d a

pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss, a ndwe wi ll n o t o v er turn those fa ctual finding s unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst them. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Bog

an v . Boga n, 60 S.W .3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001) . Wit h respe ct to leg al issues, our revie w is conducte d “under a pure de novo standard of revie w, ac cording no d ef er enceto the conclusions of law made by the lower courts.” Sout

hern Const

ructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cou nty Bd. Of Educ., 58 S .W .3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001)

. The State arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in re fusing to set support for the time Gr andmother ha d phy sic a l cus tod y of Caro ls be c aus e , pur su a nt t o T .C. A. § 3 6- 5- 10 1( b) (1 ), it i s n ot n e c e ssa ry to 3 prove leg al custody , only phy sical custody in or der to have standing to petition for child support from the leg al par ent of the c hild. W e ar e in ag ree ment with the State.
T. C.A . § 36 -5 -1 01 (b )( 1) re a ds : ( b ) ( 1 ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n y o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f

l a w t o t h e c o n tr ar y, ne ith e r the de pa

rt me nt o f h uman s e rv ic e s, no r any Ti tle I V- D c hil d su pp ort c on tr a c tor

of thede pa rt me nt, no r an y

re c ipi e nt o f p ub lic assistance in this or any other state or territory , nor any applicant f

or either public a ssistance in this or any other s t at e o r t erritory

or for Title I V-D child support service s from the depar tment or an yo t h er Title I V-D a g ency

in this or a n y o t h er state or territory , shall be require d to de monstrate to a court or administrative tribunal that the c are take r o f the c hil d fo r wh om c hil d su pp ort is so ug ht is v e ste d w ith a n y m o r e than ph

ysical custody of the subject child or c hil dr e n in order to have standing to petitio n for c hild support from the leg al pare nt of the child or c hildren for whom support is soug ht, or to seek enfor ceme nt or modification of a ny exis ting or ders i n v olving suc h child or childre n. (Emphasis adde d).4 T .C .A . § 3 4 -1 -1 0 2 . P a re n ts; jo int a n d na tur a l gu a rd ia n s o f m ino r c h ild re n ; d u ty o f sup p o rt; di vor ce. (a) P arent s are t he joint nat ural guard ia n s o f t hei r mi no r chi l d ren, and are equall y and joint l y charged wi t h t hei r care, nurt ure, welfare, ed ucat i o n and supp o rt and al so wi t h t he
c a re , m a n a g e m e n t a n d e x p e n d iture o f th e ir e sta te s. E a c h p a re n t ha s e q u a l p o w e rs , righ ts and duti es wi t h res p ect t o t he cust o d y o f e ach o f thei r m i no r chi l d ren and the co nt rol o f t he
s er v i ce s a n d e ar n i n g s of e ac h mi n or c h i l d; pro vi d ed , t h at s o mu ch of t h e n et i n come of
e a c h m ino r c h ild a s m a y b e ne c e ssa ry m a y b e e x p e n d e d b y a p a re n t (w itho u t t h e ne c e ssity of c ou r t au t h or i za t i on ) for t h e ch i l d' s ca r e, mai n t en an ce an d edu ca t i on
. Fu n ds of a mi n or hel d by a guardi an shal l not b e exp end ed t o rel i eve o r m i ni m i ze t he o b l i gat i o n of t he p arent o r parent s t o s up p o rt t he m i no r.

-4- The statute is unambig uous in stating that nothing more than phy sical custody of a child is require d to h a ve thele g a l rig ht t o p e tit ionfo r c hil d sup po rt fr om a bio log ic a l pa re nt. Th e statut e g oe s o n to state that “[l] eg al custody of a c hild to whom a child support obligation is owed sha ll not be a prer equisite to the initiation of any support action . . . whether or not the obligation has been a ssigne d to this st ate or any other state or territory by operation of law.” T.C.A. § 36- 5-101(b) (2). Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-5-101, Gr andmother w as appr opriately awa rded TA NF be nefits by

DHS betwee n F ebru ary , 2005 un til June 28 , 2 00 5, thepe ri odwh e n s he ha d p hy sic a l c us tod y of Carl os
. Furthermore , it is clea

r that Gra ndmother was not r equire d to ha ve leg al custody of C ar l o s b efor e the initiation of a support ac tion for child support from Mother, whether that action is init iated by Gra ndmother or the State on he r beha lf.
As to the iss u e o f whether Stace y Hannah was informed by the Depa

rtment of Human Service s prior to the summons and petition in this action that the State would seek c hild support from he r f or thetim e that th e min or

c hil d w a s le ft in thec area ndc on tr ol o f the Pe tit ion e r, it i s ir re le va nt. The statutes g overning the S tate’s action do not require notice be g iven to the biologic al par ent of a child that should they leave that child in the car e and c ontrol of another adult, and that adult see ks TA NF be ne fi ts o n th e c hil d’ s b e ha lf, th a t th e a du lt w ill be ableto s e e k c hil d sup po rt fr om the m. Tenne ssee law imposes a lega l obligation on par ents to support their minor children. T .C.A. § 34-1- 10 2( a ) ; Wade v. Wade

, 11 5 S. W.3 d 9 17 , 9 20 (T e nn . Ct . A pp .2 00 2) . It is we ll e sta bli sh e d th a t th is 4 duty does not terminate w hen a pa rent re linquishes phy sical custody of their child. See T.C.A. § 34- 1-102; Sm ith v. Gore, 72 8 S. W.2 d 7 38 , 7 50 (T e nn . 1 98 7) ; State e x rel. Vau g h n v. K

a atrude, 21 S.W .3d 244, 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Ac co rd i n gl y , we re v er s e t h e O rd ero 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 m ay b e nec essary

consistent with this Opini on. Costs of this appea l are assessed a g ainst the Appellee , Stacey

Hannah.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA WF OR D, PRE S I DI NG J UDG E, W .S.-5-