Opinion ID: 1060316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deduction of Court-Ordered Support: Chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4)

Text: Chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines provides that the amount of child support ordered pursuant to a previous order of child support for other children may be deducted in determining an obligor's net income. [2] However, [c]hildren of the obligor who are not included in a decree of child support shall not be considered for the purpose of reducing the obligor's net income or in calculating the guideline amount. In addition, these children should not be considered by the court as a reason for deviation unless they meet the requirements of Rule 1240-2-4-.04(4). Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. ch. 1240-2-4-.03(4). Chapter 1240-2-4-.04(4) allows deviation from the Guidelines as follows: In instances of extreme economic hardship, such as cases involving extraordinary medical needs not covered by insurance or other extraordinary special needs for the child(ren) of the obligor's current family, [child(ren) living in the home with the obligor for whom the obligor is legally responsible] deviation from the guidelines may be considered in order to achieve equity between the parties when the court so finds. The legislative classification Dr. Elam challenges is the class of obligors who have children for whom there are no orders of support. Dr. Elam argues that strict scrutiny should apply to this classification. We disagree. The strict scrutiny standard does not apply, as it neither operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class nor interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right. A suspect class is one that has been saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian process. Robinson, 29 S.W.3d at 481 (quoting San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973)). The class of obligors Dr. Elam challenges fails to meet this definition and, therefore, is not a suspect class. Chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines also does not impermissibly interfere with a fundamental right. We have recognized that a parent has a fundamental right to the care and custody of his or her children. See Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374, 378 (Tenn.2002); Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tenn.1993). This interest, however, is distinct from the duty to support a child. In Tennessee, support obligations are mandatory, and a parent may be criminally prosecuted for failure to support. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 34-1-102 (2001 & Supp.2002); XX-XX-XXX (1997 and Supp.2002). Allocating a certain amount of financial support to one's children is a mandatory obligation, not a fundamental right. As such, parents have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit. Under chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines, the calculation of Dr. Elam's financial support for Jacob does not include consideration of the children living in his household because they are not subject to orders of support. This calculation, however, implicates only Dr. Elam's duty to support his children and does not infringe upon Dr. Elam's right to be a parent or to have a relationship with any of his children. Consequently, we cannot apply strict scrutiny to this equal protection challenge. Heightened scrutiny is also inapplicable to Dr. Elam's equal protection challenge. Heightened scrutiny applies only to legislative classifications involving a quasi-suspect class, such as gender or illegitimacy. See Nat'l Gas Distribs. v. Sevier County Util. Dist., 7 S.W.3d 41, 45 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999) (citing Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 198-99, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976)). The class of obligors who have children for whom there are no orders of support is not a quasi-suspect class. Thus, we must use the rational basis test to analyze Dr. Elam's equal protection challenge. The equal protection provisions of the federal and state constitutions demand that persons similarly situated be treated alike. See Tenn. Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 153 (Tenn.1993). When applying the rational basis test, we have observed that state legislatures have the initial discretion to determine what is different and what is the same and that they are given considerable latitude in making those determinations. See Robinson, 29 S.W.3d at 480 (citing Tenn. Small Sch. Sys., 851 S.W.2d at 153). Our inquiry into legislative choice usually is limited to whether the challenged classifications have a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. See id. We have held that under the rational basis test, a statute may discriminate in favor of a certain class, as long as the discrimination is founded upon a reasonable distinction or difference in state policy. See Castlewood, Inc. v. Anderson County, 969 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tenn.1998). Chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines treats obligors who have children for whom there are no orders of support differently from obligors who have children subject to court-ordered support. It is not necessary that the legislature state a rational basis for this differential treatment. A classification will pass constitutional muster if we can conceive of some rational basis for the distinction. See Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 53 (stating that a statutory classification is rational if any state of facts may reasonably be conceived to justify it). Chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines is designed to ensure that the voluntary acts of obligors (e.g., choosing to have additional children) do not reduce their existing court-ordered child support obligations. It is rational to require obligors to be under a court order to support their children before those children can be considered in calculating the amount of support for another child because such a requirement ensures that the obligor is legally liable for the amount of child support claimed as a deduction. Furthermore, the obligor's children who are not receiving support pursuant to a court order and who live with the obligor inherently benefit from the obligor's household expenditures. Children who do not live with the obligor do not enjoy this benefit. Thus, both policy and fact justify the classification at issue. Moreover, the trial court is not flatly prohibited from considering non-court-ordered support. Chapter 1240-2-4-.04(4) of the Guidelines provides that courts may deviate from the Guidelines in cases of extreme economic hardship. We conclude that the state has a rational, legitimate interest in requiring obligors to be under a court order to support their children before these children may be considered in calculating the amount of support for another child. Because the classification used in chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines passes the rational basis test, Dr. Elam's equal protection challenge fails.