WPC) CU"B % 0t 0$ 0\ 0E 0r 0D D+  0 0=O 0 AQ 0j 0D # don 0 r 0JU:>w@x4L B  0T= 0^ D3 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d U *oB)DC AKPWR9 v~G"v#\  `*Times New RomanTT'  The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW<5T.footerfooter   !        >4X` hp x (#>P8page numberpage numberXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV!:footnote texfootnote text          `:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW(e2$ !'''   'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2$ !'''   ($    (e2$ !'''      C<< c(f(3$ !'''       0  (#$  0  HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl3|x\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP(J$~4~4~4  2 0Indent123  +K AZ"Arial Regular  DUgUӀz=#VC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT d2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  $$$$'dxd26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  '(*+,-. ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d99997Border 1dd :C << G !   88   YYY FILED8XOctober17,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   M !#d#        8UniformReciprocalEnforcementofSupportAct.ForTennesseescurrentversionoftheAct,seeT.C.A.365201to229(1996).  !#d#        8WerecognizethattheSeptember1996pendenteliteorderisnotthesubjectofthisappeal.Inaddressingtheproprietyofthependenteliteorder,however,wenotethatneithertheStatenorDaviswereapartytothedivorceactionand,thus,hadnostandingtoappealthependenteliteorder.  !#d#        8Wealsoquestionthetrialcourtsstatedgoalof preservingtheprimaryfamilyunit,inasmuchasitappearsthatthepurposeofMatikkesdivorcepetitionisjusttheopposite.  !#d#        8InamendingtheChildSupportGuidelinesinDecember1994,forexample,theDepartmentofHumanServicesrespondedtocriticismoftheOctober1989versionbyclarifyingsomeoftheGuidelinesprovisions.SeeKirchnerv.Pritchett,No.01A019503JV00092,1995WL714279,at*5n.5(Tenn.App.Dec.6,1995).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .    \RA'\   ` X\RA'\88X7'dXXd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE,exrel, )MARIEOSONGDAVIS,   )      )  Plaintiff/Appellant,  )DavidsonCircuitNo.94R462      )VS.      )AppealNo.01A019702CV00090      )DAVIDMATIKKE,    )      )  Defendant/Appellee. ) @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEMURIELROBINSON,JUDGE̜ R;<:A1-j|b`  `@Rߛ JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyGeneral&ReporterKIMBERLYM.FRAYNAssistantAttorneyGeneral Nashville,TennesseeAttorneysforAppellant PAULN.RUDOLPH Nashville,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee REVERSEDANDREMANDED̜          ALANE.HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.DAVIDR.FARMER,J.  7Qdd7 PlaintiffStateofTennessee,onbehalfofMarieOsongDavis,appealsthetrialcourtsordermodifyingthechildsupportobligationofDefendant/AppelleeDavidMatikke.ThetrialcourtsorderofmodificationreducedMatikkeschildsupportobligationfrom$580permonthto$342.33permonth.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,wereversethetrialcourtsmodificationorderandreinstatethetrialcourtspreviousorderrequiringMatikketopaychildsupportintheamountof$580permonth. ThetrialcourtsoriginalorderresultedfromaMarylandURESA =   ׀petitionfiledonbehalfofDavisinApril1994.ThepetitionersoughtanadjudicationthatMatikkewasthefatherofDavissminorchild,MeganEkwopiOsong,bornApril8,1989,aswellasanorderofchildsupport.Whensubsequentgenetictestingestablisheda99.32%probabilityofpaternity,thetrialcourtenteredanorderadjudicatingMatikketobeMegansfather.Thereafter,MatikkeagreedtopaychildsupportforMeganintheamountof$580permonth.Perthisagreement,inMarch1996thetrialcourtenteredanorderrequiringMatikketopay$580permonthretroactivetoFebruary9,1996. Fivemonthslater,inAugust1996,Matikkefiledamotiontoreducetheamountofchildsupportpreviouslyestablishedintheagreedorderenteredbythetrialcourt.ϜAsgroundstherefor,MatikkeallegedthathehadfiledadivorceactionagainsthiswifeinJuly1996;thatMatikkeandhiswifehadthreeminorchildren,allofwhomwereolderthanMegan;thatMatikkedesiredtoprovideforthesupportofMeganandthethreeminorchildrenofhismarriage;and,finally,thatastrictapplicationoftheTennesseeChildSupportGuidelineswouldwork aseriousinequityanddisadvantageforthethreechildrenofMatikkesmarriage. ThetrialcourtgrantedMatikkesmotionandenteredanordermodifyingthepreviousorderofchildsupportenteredinMarch1996.Insupportofitsdecision,thetrialcourtreasonedthat:̜8 8  4. ThepartiestotheDivorceaction[Matikkeandhiswife]andtheirthreeminorchildrencomprisetheprimaryfamilyunit.8 8  ....8 8  6. Thecourtheretofore[inthedivorceaction]ordered[Matikke]topaychildsupportto[hiswife]intheamountof41%of[Matikkes]netmonthlyincome,or$1,133permonth.8 8  7. Thechildforwhom[Matikke]isobligatedtopaychildsupportinthisactionisnotamemberoftheprimaryfamilyunit.8 8  8. Theparamountinterestofpreservingtheprimaryfamilyunitrequiresthattheamountofchildsupporttobepaidforthebenefitofachildwhoisnotamemberoftheprimaryfamilyunitbecalculatedbyapplyingtheappropriatepercentageofthechildsupportobligorsnetmonthlyincomeafterdeductionoftheamountofchildsupportbeingpaidforthebenefitoftheprimaryfamilyunit.̛̜̜ IncalculatingMatikkesmodifiedchildsupportobligationforMegan,thetrialcourtreducedMatikkesnetincomeof$2,763by$1,133,theamountofsupportMatikkewasorderedtopayforthemarriagesthreeminorchildren.FromMatikkesremainingnetincomeof$1,630,thetrialcourtorderedMatikketopaytwentyonepercent(21%),or$342.33,assupportforMegan.ThetrialcourtsorderofmodificationwasenteredonSeptember11,1996,twodaysafterentryofthependentelitesupportorderinthedivorceaction. Onappeal,theStatecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinmodifyingitspreviousorderofsupportenteredonbehalfofMeganbasedonthependenteliteorderofsupportsubsequentlyenteredinMatikkesdivorceaction.Weagreebecause,whilethetrialcourtwasrequiredtoconsiderthepreviousorderofsupportforMeganinestablishingMatikkeschildsupportobligationinthedivorceproceeding,thetrialcourtssubsequentpendenteliteorderenteredinthedivorceactionwasanimproperbasisuponwhichtomodifythepriorsupportorderforMegan. Inestablishingaparentschildsupportobligation,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoconsiderpreviousordersofsupportfortheobligorsotherchildren.Specifically,TennesseesChildSupportGuidelinesrequirethetrialcourt,indeterminingtheobligorsnetincomefromwhichchildsupportiscalculated,tosubtract theamountofchildsupportorderedpursuanttoapreviousorderofchildsupportforotherchildren.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.tit.1240,ch.24.03(4)(amended1994)(emphasisadded). InconstruingthisprovisionoftheGuidelines,thiscourthasheldthat,inorderforapriorsupportobligationtoconstitutea previousorder,theobligor mustbebothorderedbyacourtandactuallypayingchildsupportpursuanttothatorder.Boydv.Boyd,No.02A019210CH00294,1993WL8379,at*1(Tenn.App.Jan.20,1993);accordKirchnerv.Pritchett,No.01A019503JV00092,1995WL714279,at*5(Tenn.App.Dec.6,1995)(obligorsnetincomemaynotbereducedbypaymentsforsupportofotherchildrenunlesspaymentsarebeingmadepursuanttocourtorder).Therequirementofapreviouscourtorder insurestheawardingcourtthattheobligorislegallyliablefortheamountofchildsupportclaimedasadeduction.Towerv.Tower,No.02A019407CV00170,1995WL650131,at*9(Tenn.App.Nov.3,1995). AlthoughtheGuidelinesdonotdefinewhatismeantbya previousorder,generallyaccepteddefinitionsfor previousinclude [a]ntecedent;prior;beforeand goingbeforeintimeororder.BlacksLawDictionary1070(5thed.1979);WebstersNinthNewCollegiateDictionary933(1990).Applyingthesedefinitions,weconcludethat,forpurposesofcalculatingMatikkeschildsupportobligationundertheGuidelines,theonly previousorderthatthetrialcourtproperlycouldconsiderwastheinitialorderofMarch1996establishingMatikkeschildsupportobligationforMegan.ThisMarch1996orderclearlyprecededtheSeptember1996pendenteliteorderforMatikkesotherthreechildren. TheplainimportoftheGuidelineslanguageisthat,incalculatingtheamountofchildsupporttobeorderedinMatikkesdivorceactioninSeptember1996,thetrialcourtwasrequiredtoconsideritspreviousorderofchildsupportforMeganenteredinMarch1996.Instead,thetrialcourtcalculatedMatikkeschildsupportobligationinthedivorceactionasiftheMarch1996orderforMegandidnotexist.ThetrialcourtcompoundeditserrorbythenusingtheincorrectlycalculatedsupportobligationinitspendenteliteorderfromthedivorceproceedingtojustifymodifyingMeganschildsupportaward.Inthisregard,werejectMatikkescontentionthat,becausetheordermodifyingchildsupportforMeganwasenteredsubsequenttothependenteliteorder,thependenteliteordersomehowqualifiedasa previousorder.Weareparticularlyreluctanttoadoptsuchastrainedconstructioninthepresentcase,wherethetrialcourtfailedtocomplywiththeGuidelineswhenitcalculatedthependenteliteaward. >    InreviewingtheChildSupportGuidelines,wecanfindnothingthereinwhichwouldsupportthetrialcourtsmodificationofMegansprevioussupportorderbasedonasubsequentsupportorderforotherchildren.Moreover,wefindnothinginthelanguageoftheGuidelinestosupportthepositionthat,inestablishingchildsupportobligations,trialcourtsshouldgivepreferencetochildrenbelongingtotheobligors primaryfamilyunit. ?   ׀Ifanything,theGuidelinesexpressapreferenceforchildrenforwhomachildsupportorderisestablishedfirstintime,regardlessofwhetherthechildwastheproductofavalidmarriageorwhetherthechildeverresidedwiththeobligor.Werecognizethatthispreferencemayworktothedetrimentofchildrenforwhomasubsequentorderofchildsupportisentered.Webelieve,however,thatthisisanargumentmoreappropriatelyaddressedtotheGeneralAssemblyortotheDepartmentofHumanServices,theentityresponsibleforpromulgatingtheChildSupportGuidelines. @    Thetrialcourtsordermodifyingchildsupportisherebyreversed,andthiscauseisremandedforreinstatementofthetrialcourtspreviousorderofsupportenteredinMarch1996andforanyfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoAppellee,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.8                  88XHIGHERS,J.CONCUR:򀀀CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.򀀀FARMER,J.