ÿWPCË »F]ý/6~þÁa°èÞ[2e$„4cLï'McŠVÜ?8ÑI}¿~\Ìi)³ýà%Ô×qÔÄ:ÆF:ºþþö¸XæFìÑÍœî GT±å‹f~?g…mëV«…¸×å,÷¿1Y¬|ä3_ËíëY¡è:Â)š ¤gô *ºŽÖ\†?râÉ[q?ICŸ.3#ÏšÊpé.‰“gÊà>®~yMMUUz­ñG¢j "*ÞG&•®{aì¤Æ µ´!ž9¨»vøãPS3LôGARá(),³"ÆuƒOKnUz9·!®h^N˜6ç'ÒÍç“>”ÎmšâŽÊ`fK{üï…fòŽ‚ ¾1r¬=šÇbâc A–®%&¿*¯¡.fÁJþ˜ƒ=çÁ=Ç·€ê:™’-ÿMâ‘î’E ï?jbCÿE_+Ø_›*ÀN®…dr墖…^c•ÒÚ–BjêKý=kbØáF0JÛwJií³c‚]Ïͯ@áõ\oˆ ­—7„»Çn’·.×?—Ð9Ε2­-·lx0Òßuñ‡×:jc‰ÖTi åý€×ŽÒX&Õ‹¬§µ;¡ÖpðLPÌX3¡† [ó·ÑUÝ=~ñô™˜knY `# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  F* p bx :€ º 0P½ U: AQG Ƙ 0D^ ^ 0D¢ ¢ D/æ B B2 D3O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0D‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ AÆ D?E BG„˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ jDklDmUnIoUpqDrÓ€|Õcl&tttttt3|x|waiverPutnamCOOKEVILLE- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÉXXXÔÔ€VmXXÉÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÉXVmÔÐ  ÐÌMarch€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼ü¼XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñ|ññ|ññ|ññrñœñrñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ|ññrññrññ|ññ|ñSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE€òòex€rel.,à  àóó)Ð ° Ðñ|ñœßt€ )>.*jxñL` `€€@Eå ` 8ttxPÀ L tß›ñ|ñDONNA€RANDOLPH,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð à0 ÐÓ  Óà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9808„JV„00419Ð ð@ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð  P Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àPutnam€JuvenileÐ  ` ÐJOHN€R.€POTEET,à  à)à  àNo.€83Ð  p Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à  à)Ð @  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X–X¼¼ü8#ÔÔ‡»|»XX–ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ €Ð  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€JUVENILE€COURT€FOR€PUTNAM€COUNTY,ÌÌAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€NOLAN€R.€GOOLSBY,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌTAMMY€L.€KENNEDYÌSUE€A.€SHELDONÌAssistant€Attorneys€GeneralÌ2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌ425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243ÌÔ#†X–X»»|.#ÔÔ‡¼ü¼XX–Ôà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÐ à)0%# ÐÌÌÌRANKIN€P.€BENNETTÌ107€South€Washington€AvenueÌCookeville,€Tennessee€€38501„3547Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌñrñÑ foÑÑ7€–XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñrñÌà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ foÑÑ7€–XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñrñÑ foÑÑ7€=XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñrñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X–X¼¼ü…#ÔÔ‡°a,°XX–ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X–X°°a,© #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼ü¼XX–Ôà  àIn€this€case€the€mother€of€a€sixteen€year€old€boy€appeals€the€action€of€theÐ T¤ Ðtrial€court€in€applying€a€downward€deviation€from€child€support€guidelines.ÌÌà  àJohn€R.€Poteet€is€married€and€has€three€children€born€of€the€marriage,Ïsuch€children€being€ages€seven,€four€and€one€respectively,€and€he€is€the€biologicalÏfather€of€Stephen€Poteet€born€to€the€petitioner,€Donna€Randolph€on€April€16,Ï1982.€ÌÌà  àBy€paternity€order€dated€February€20,€1991,€the€legal€obligation€of€JohnÏR.€Poteet€to€support€Stephen€Poteet€was€recognized€and€his€support€obligation€wasÏset€at€$200€per€month€with€which€obligation€John€R.€Poteet€has€faithfullyÏcomplied.ÌÌà  àOn€November€26,€1997,€Donna€Randolph€filed€a€petition€to€modify€childÏsupport€for€Stephen,€alleging€a€"significant€variance"€from€the€Tennessee€ChildÏSupport€Guidelines.€€This€was€a€Title€IV(d)€petition€filed€with€the€assistance€of€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€Child€Support€Division.ÌÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€court€found€the€gross€income€of€John€R.€Poteet€to€beÏ$2,924.13,€yielding€a€net€income€of€$2,233€per€month.€€Such€an€income€requiredÏa€presumptively€correct€guideline€child€support€figure€of€$469.ÌÌà  àMr.€Poteet€argued€for€a€downward€variation€from€the€guidelinesÏasserting€that€his€oldest€child€of€his€marriage€was€born€before€the€legitimation€orÏthe€paternity€order€of€February€20,€1991€and€that€his€three€children€living€in€hisÏhousehold€should€be€considered€as€a€basis€for€deviating€from€the€guidelines.ÌÌà  àThe€trial€court€held:ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ ä è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà8  àà ä àThe€Court€in€making€its€decision€in€this€case€finds€thatÏfollowing€the€decision€of€òòAdams€v.€Reedóó,€the€Department€ofÐ 6T1; ÐHuman€Services€amended€the€guidelines€effective€DecemberÏ14,€1994€to€provide€"Rather€than€giving€parents€credit€forÏvoluntary€child€support€payments,€the€amended€guidelinesÐ 49„4> Ðspecifically€state€that€voluntary€child€support€cannot€beÏdeducted€f[ro]m€gross€income€and€cannot€be€used€as€a€basisÏfor€deviation€from€the€guidelines€unless€the€payments€involveÏextreme€economic€hardship."€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€R.Ï1240„2„4„.03(4).Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àTherefore,€the€Court€finds€the€issue€relating€to€theÏsecond€and€third€child€of€the€respondent's€marriage€isÏspecifically€covered€by€the€current€guidelines€and€cannot€beÏconsidered€as€a€basis€for€deviation€in€this€modification€caseÏunless€there€is€a€showing€of€extreme€economic€hardship.€€butÏthe€guidelines€do€not€address€the€facts€surrounding€the€firstÏborn€child€of€the€respondent's€marriage.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àNotwithstanding€the€above€mentioned€rule,€it€is€theÏCourt's€ruling€that€first€born€child€of€the€respondent's€marriageÏis€not€covered€by€the€same€provision€of€the€guidelines€for€theÏreason€that€their€was€no€legal€obligation€of€support€for€theÏchild€born€out€of€wedlock€until€a€court€order€was€entered€firstÏestablishing€paternity€and€thus€creating€the€legal€obligation€ofÏsupport€for€said€child.€€Prior€to€the€entry€of€such€order€onÏFebruary€20,€1991,€the€respondent€had€no€parental€rights€orÏobligation€to€support€Stephen€Poteet.€€The€legal€argument€thatÏafter„born€children€are€a€voluntary€assumed€obligation€mustÏbe€based€upon€an€underlying€legal€support€obligation.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€Court€finds€that€the€respondent€had€no€legalÏobligation€to€support€any€child€prior€to€the€birth€of€the€firstÏchild€born€of€his€marriage.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€*€*Ìà8  àà ä àAfter€considering€all€of€the€testimony€of€the€parties€andÏtheir€witnesses,€arguments€of€counsel€and€from€the€entireÏrecord€in€this€cause,€the€Court€finds€in€this€case€that€theÏpresumptively€correct€monthly€child€support€amount€isÏ$469.00€for€the€minor€child,€Stephen€Poteet,€under€guidelinesÏbased€upon€the€respondent's€present€monthly€net€income€ofÏ$2,233.00.€€However,€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case€isÏsufficient€to€rebut€this€presumption.€€The€Court€finds€thatÏapplication€of€the€child€support€guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÏinappropriate€in€order€to€provide€for€the€best€interest€of€theÏchildren€and€to€provide€equity€between€the€parties€based€uponÏthe€above€findings€and,€in€particular,€considering€the€fact€thatÏone€child€of€the€respondent's€marriage€was€born€before€theÏpaternity€of€Stephen€Poteet€was€established.€€The€CourtÏfurther€finds€that€extreme€economic€hardship€would€result€ifÏthe€guideline€amount€were€not€reduced.€€Based€upon€theseÏfindings,€the€Court€orders€that€the€respondent's€child€supportÏobligation€shall€be€set€in€the€sum€of€$325.00€per€monthÏbeginning€January€14,€1998.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€court€further€held€that€because€Mr.€Poteet€had€been€punctual€in€hisÏprevious€child€support€payments,€that€he€should€be€allowed€to€continue€to€makeÐ Ð9 53 Ðthe€payments€directly€to€Mrs.€Randolph€rather€than€pay€them€into€court€as€requiredÏby€the€guidelines.ÌÌà  àWith€all€due€respect€to€the€trial€court€and€no€small€degree€of€sympathyÏfor€Mr.€Poteet,€these€adjudications€by€the€trial€court€simply€cannot€stand€under€theÏrequirements€of€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€930€S.W.2d€541€(Tenn.1996).Ð ¨ ø  ÐÌà  àThe€guidelines€are€a€clear€legislative€mandate€and€the€courts€have€noÏchoice€but€to€follow€them€absent€a€legitimate€basis€for€deviating€therefrom.ÌÌÓ€Óà8  àà ä àChild€support€in€Tennessee€is€statutorily€governed€byÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101.€€Section€36„5„101(e)(1)€provides€that€"[i]nÏmaking€its€determination€concerning€the€amount€of€support€ofÏany€minor€child€.€.€.€of€the€parties,€the€court€shall€apply€as€aÏrebuttable€presumption€the€child€support€guidelines€asÏprovided€in€this€subsection."€€The€General€Assembly€adoptedÏthe€child€support€guidelines€promulgated€by€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€in€order€to€maintainÏcompliance€with€the€Family€Support€Act€of€1988,€codified€inÏvarious€sections€of€42€U.S.C.€€While€they€add€a€measure€ofÏconsistency€to€child€support€awards€statewide,€the€guidelinesÏprovide€more€than€simply€percentages€to€be€applied€againstÏthe€net€incomes€of€non„custodial€parents.€€They€also€embodyÏ"the€rules€promulgated€by€the€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏin€compliance€with€[the]€requirements€[of€the€Family€SupportÏAct€of€1988]."€€Hence,€the€purposes,€premises,€guidelines€forÏcompliance,€and€criteria€for€deviation€from€the€guidelinesÏcarry€what€amounts€to€a€legislative€mandate.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌòòNash€v.€Mulle,€óó846€S.W.2d€803,€804€(Tenn.1933).Ð Ð( $' ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àIn€specific€reference€to€the€authority€of€the€court€for€downwardÏdeviation€from€the€guidelines,€the€Supreme€Court€has€said:ÌÓ€Óà8  à[3]€€€This€latter€argument€construes€the€trial€court's€authorityÏto€deviate€downward€too€broadly.€€While€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)Ïdoes€authorize€deviation€in€order€to€ensure€equity€between€theÏparties,€and€while€downward€deviation€is€clearly€notÏprohibited,€the€trial€court's€authority€to€do€so€must€beÏconsidered€in€light€of€the€provisions€dealing€with€suchÏdeviation„„Rule€1240„2„4„.04(2)€and€(4).€€Although€notÏexclusive,€those€subsections€provide€for€downward€deviationÏin€three€instances:€€(1)€where€DHS€has€taken€custody€of€theÏchild(ren)€pursuant€to€neglect,€dependency,€or€abuse€action;Ð H9˜48 Ð(2)€where€the€child(ren)€spend€more€visitation€time€with€theÏobligor€than€is€assumed€by€the€guidelines;€and€(3)€in€cases€inÏwhich€the€obligor€is€subjected€to€an€"extreme€economicÏhardship,"€such€as€where€other€children€living€with€the€obligorÏhave€extraordinary€needs.€€Therefore,€the€guidelines€expresslyÏprovide€for€downward€deviation€where€the€obligee€has€utterlyÏceased€to€care€for€the€child(ren);€where€the€obligee€clearly€hasÏa€lower€level€of€child€care€expense€than€that€assumed€in€theÏguidelines;€and€where€the€obligor€is€saddled€with€an€"extremeÏeconomic€hardship."€€Although€the€rule€does€not€purport€to€setÏforth€an€exhaustive€list€of€instances€in€which€downwardÏdeviation€is€allowed,€these€specific€instances€nevertheless€areÏa€powerful€indication€as€to€the€òòtypesóó€of€situations€in€which€itÐ pÀ  Ðis€contemplated€under€the€guidelines.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌòòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€930€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.1996).Ð  ð ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àPrior€to€òòJonesóó,€efforts€were€made€to€take€into€consideration€the€plight€ofÐ X¨ Ðchildren€living€with€mother€and€father€in€the€married€household.€€òòAdams€v.€Reedóó,Ð ð@ Ð874€S.W.2d€61,€63„65€œ(Tenñfñn.Añfññgñuñgññhñpñhñp.1993).›ÌÌà  àSaid€this€court€œñiñafterñiññjñfollowingñjñ›€the€òòAdamsóó'€decision:Ð ¸ ÐÓ€Óà8  àFN5.€€€After€criticizing€the€October€1989€version€of€theÏguidelines€for€not€recognizing€a€parent's€obligation€to€supportÏchildren€in€the€absence€of€a€court€order,€another€panel€of€thisÏcourt€held€that€voluntary€child€support€should€be€consideredÏin€setting€child€support.€€òòAdams€v.€Reedóó,€874€S.W.2d€61,€63„Ð $à! Ð65€œ(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).›€€The€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏamended€the€guidelines€after€the€òòAdams€v.€Reedóó€decision.€Ð °&"# ÐRather€than€giving€parents€credit€for€voluntary€child€supportÏpayments,€the€amended€guidelines€specifically€state€thatÏvoluntary€child€support€cannot€be€deducted€from€gross€incomeÏand€cannot€be€used€as€a€basis€for€deviating€from€theÏguidelines€unless€the€payments€involve€extreme€economicÏhardship.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240„2„4„.03(4).Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌ1240„2„4„.0„3(4);€òòKirchner€v.€Pritchettóó,€1995€WL€714279€(Tenn.App.1995).Ð 0/€*+ ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€child€support€order€of€the€trial€court€will€be€modified€and€increasedÏfrom€the€$325€support€figure€set€by€the€trial€court€to€$469€per€month€as€is€requiredÏby€the€child€support€guidelines.ÌÌœñmñÐ H9˜47 Ðñmñ›à  àAlso,€child€support€will€be€paid€by€income€assignment€as€required€byÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„501(a)(1)(1997€Supp.)€as€there€is€neitherÏa€specific€finding€that€the€child's€interest€would€be€best€served€by€not€having€anÏincome€assignment€œñkñor€añkññlñand›€there›€is›€noñlñ›€written€agreement€of€the€parties€approved€by€the€trialÏcourt€to€forego€income€assignment€entered€in€this€record.ÌÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€forÏproceedings€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà  àCosts€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee.ÌÌÌÌÓ€ÓÓ?€ü(€ ä ì@’X€ü(€ ä è“X?Óà  àà ä àà ì à______________________________________Ìà  àà ä àà ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌœñnñ____________________________________›ÌñnñWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEñoñÌCONCURñoññpñSñpññqññoñINGñoññqññoñ€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONñoñÌ