WPC' (|$O4#g*b-1G0{{˾cyTdjO 7n1iXޅ,L6N*Mzyiio>dڿt{VH ! WuĻJl6M2klpܺy,=ۣ\ߒn!Ig0UV!#xElMh86a,ؒ*tW_ ]v>;S8j\>JX6|,{IA?M"V .=qk[_ uNCrum1}W# UN % 04!^ Uw@a4 m 0b M 0 D M N D3 5 AQ= #  RX EeRh:8 U:UN!2"UN#$ 0D$ 0D$% 0Dh% D/% B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B&HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  =rp&c DDDDӀcl&rtyBar4w3|xU((2L$ U!   XXX   `   0  - -(#$  0  VVVV'dxd &'()*C<< C   L$  XXX @ @ `   1    _Mr.Poteetdidnotraisetheissueoftheconstitutionalityoftheguidelines___in_Ԁhispleading  filedinthejuvenilecourtanddidnotnotifytheAttorneyGeneralandReporterthattheconstitutionalityoftheguidelineswasatissueasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.24.04.   L$  XXX @ @ `   2    _Therecorddoesnotcontainspecificinformationconcerningthecircumstancessurrounding  Mr._Poteet_smarriageorthebirthofhischildrenbecauseneitherofthepartieselectedtoprovideaverbatimtranscriptorstatementoftheevidencecoveringthefirstdayofthetrialwhentheytestifiedinjuvenile_court____._ԀHowever,thejuvenilecourtsmemorandumopinionindicatesthatMr._Poteet_ԀwasmarriedandthatheandhiswifehadonechildbeforetheStatefileditspaternityactionagainstMr._Poteet_ԀinMay1990.   L1$  XXjX @ @ `   3    _SeeFinalReport,EvaluationofChildSupportGuidelines,VolI:FindingsandConclusions  1.2.1(UnitedStates_Dept_ԀofHealth&Human_Servs_.,Admin.forChildren&Families,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement1996)( FinalReport);RobertG.Williams,AnOverviewofChild  SupportGuidelinesintheUnitedStates5,inChildSupportGuidelines:TheNextGeneration  (MargaretC.Haynes,ed.1994)( Williams).  L1$  XXjX @ @ `   4    _SeeWilliams,supranote3,at7.   L1$  XXjX @ @ `   5    _SeeFinalReport,supranote3,at1.2.2;Williams,supranote3,at56.  L1$  XXjX @ @ `   6    _SeeWilliams,supranote3,at7. v  L1$  XXjX @ @ `   7    _Eightypercentofdivorcedmenandfiftyfivepercentofdivorcedwomenremarrywithin  tenyearsaftertheirdivorce.SeeFinalReport,supranote3,3.2. ^  L1$  XXjX @ @ `   8    _SeeThomasEspenshade,MarriageTrendsinAmerica:Estimates,Implications,and  UnderlyingCauses,11PopulationandDev.R.193(1985).   L1$  XXjX @ @ `   9    _SeeMarianneTakas,AddressingSubsequentFamiliesinChildSupportGuidelines37,in  ChildSupportGuidelines:TheNextGeneration(MargaretC.Haynes,ed.1994)( Takas). .  L1$  XXjX @ @ `   10    _ArecentstudypreparedfortheSouthCarolinaDepartmentofSocialServicespointsout  thatthirtyfivestatescurrentlypermitadjustmentsordeviationsforanobligorparentsadditionaldependents.SeeRobertG.Williams,etal.,EconomicBasisforUpdatedChildSupportSchedule  6061(PolicyStudies,Inc.1997).   L1$  XXjX @ @ `   11    _Formerly,actionstorequireanoncustodialparenttosupportachildwererequiredtobe  broughtinthechildsname.SeeBrooksv.Brooks,166Tenn.255,258,61S.W.2d654,655(1933).,@AZ"Arial Regular   L1$  X#XjX @ @ `   3    _SeeFinalReport,EvaluationofChildSupportGuidelines,VolI:FindingsandConclusions  1.2.1(UnitedStates_Dept_ԀofHealth&Human_Servs_,Admin.forChildren&Families,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement1996)( FinalReport);RobertG.Williams,AnOverviewofChild  SupportGuidelinesintheUnitedStates5,inChildSupportGuidelines:TheNextGeneration  (MargaretC.Haynes,ed.1994)( Williams).("  Z6Times New Roman Regular   L1$  X%XjX @ @ `   11    _Formerly,actionstorequireanoncustodialparenttosupportachildwererequiredtobe  broughtinthechildsname.SeeBrooksv.Brooks,166Tenn.255,258,61S.W.2d654,___(1933).("  Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd '"        Ad FILEDXV X   March17,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh  d U!   _XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   7xdd7  lp   r,<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  r@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLE W{lpԈ h STATEOFTENNESSEE,exrel.,0  ) %% DONNARANDOLPH,0 h 0h%h%0%%) (%%  `     h     )0 p PutnamJuvenile >p%p%  ` Plaintiff/Appellant,0  0%%)0p%%No.83T p%p%  `     h     )VS.0 ` 0 ` %` %0 % %0h%%0h%h%0%%)0p%%AppealNo.0 p%p%  `     h     )0 p 01A019808JV00419F p%p% JOHNR.POTEET,0 h 0h%h%0%%)\ %%  `     h     ) ` Defendant/Appellee.0  0%%)%%  lpW{@tt&DCONCURRINGOPINION#W{lp#    ` IconcurwiththecourtsopinionbecauseitappliesthecurrentchildsupportguidelinesasinterpretedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Anobligorparentsresponsibilitytochildrenofalatermarriagedoesnotprovideabasisfordeviatingfromtheguidelinesunlessthe extraordinaryneedsofthesechildrensubjecttheparenttoan extremeeconomichardship.Jonesv.Jones,930S.W.2d541,545 !2 (Tenn.1996).Mr.Poteethasnotpresentedevidencethatsatisfiesthisdemandingstandardbecausesupportingformerchildrendoesnot,inandofitself,causeanextremeeconomichardship. ` WhilethisevidentiaryfindingconcludesMr.Poteetsclaimsinthiscase,itisnotthefinalwordonamorefundamentalissueMr.Poteethasnotraised.Thatissueistheconstitutionalityofthe firstfamiliesfirstpolicyimplicitinTennesseesguidelinesthatclassifieschildrennotonthebasisoftheirneedbutonthetimingoftheirbirth.Whilethispolicymaysimplifytheapplicationofthechildsupportguidelines,itpatentlyignoresreality.Asaresult,itappearstounreasonablyaffectthefundamentalrightsnotonlyofsubsequentchildrenbutalsotheirparents. ` Appellatecourtsgenerallydecline,asaprudentialmatter,toaddressissuesthathavenotbeenraisedbelow.SeeSimpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion,810 848 S.W.2d147,153(Tenn.1991);Harrisonv.Schrader,569S.W.2d822,828(Tenn. Q:5: 1978).Ourrefusaltoconsidermattersnotraisedextendstoissuesinvolvingthe ;B7< constitutionalityofastatute.SeeLawrencev.Stanford,655S.W.2d927,929(Tenn.  1983);CityofElizabethtonv.CarterCounty,204Tenn.452,462,321S.W.2d822, Q 827(1958).BecauseMr.Poteethasnotchallengedtheconstitutionalityofthechildsupportguidelines,thisissueisnotripeforadjudicationinthiscase._ #  1      _ԀHowever,this   courtshouldnothesitatetotakeuptheissuewhenithasbeenproperlyraisedinanothercase.@.D I.  g   ` DonnaLynnUnderwoodwasanunemancipatedchildwhenshegavebirthtoStephenAshleyUnderwoodinApril1982.Shortlyafterthechildsbirth,Ms.Underwoodsparents,actingonherbehalf,filedapaternityactionagainstJohnPoteetinthePutnamCountyJuvenileCourt.Mr.Poteet,whowassixteenatthetime,neitheradmittednordeniedthathewasthechildsfatherandinsistedonabloodtesttoascertainthechildsparentage.Ms.Underwoodsparentsapparentlyneverpursuedthepaternityaction,andMs.UnderwoodlatermarriedandbecameDonnaL.Randolph.HersecondchildwasborninOctober1984,andherthirdinJanuary1988.Mr.Poteetalsomarried,andheandhiswifeeventuallyhadthreechildren._` #  2      _ a "  ` InMay1990,theStatefiledasecondpaternityactionagainstMr.PoteetinthePutnamCountyJuvenileCourt.Forthesecondtime,heneitheradmittednordeniedpaternityanddemandedabloodtest.AfterthetestestablishedthathewasStephenUnderwoodsfather,Mr.Poteetagreedtopay$200permonthtosupporthisson.InFebruary1991,thejuvenilecourtenteredanorderfindingthatMr.Poteetwasthechildsfather,directingMr.Poteettopay$200permonthaschildsupport,andchanging_Stephen__s_ԀsurnamefromUnderwoodtoPoteet.Ms.Randolphretainedcustodyofthechild.  /Z*4  ` InNovember1997,theStatefiledapetitiononMs.RandolphsbehalfrequestinganincreaseinMr.PoteetschildsupportobligationtoStephen.ThepetitionallegedthattherewasasignificantvariancebetweenStephenscurrentchildsupportandtheamountofchildsupporthewouldbereceivingundertheguidelinesbasedonMr.Poteetscurrentsalary.WhileMr.Poteetadmittedthathisincomehadincreasedsince1991,heassertedthathewashiswifenowhadthreechildrenbetweentheagesofsevenandoneandthattheywere strugglingtomeettheirfinancialneeds.Accordingly,herequestedthejuvenilecourteithertodenytherequestedmodificationortogrant significantdeviationfromtheguidelinesinviewoftheneedtosupporthisthreechildrenwholivewithhimandhiswife. ` Followingahearing,thejuvenilecourtdeterminedthattheguidelinesrequiredMr.Poteettopay$469permonthtosupportStephen.However,thejuvenilecourtalsodeterminedthatapplyingtheguidelineswouldbe unjustorinappropriatebecauseoneofMr.PoteetschildrenwasbornbeforetheentryoftheFebruary1991supportorderandbecausethestrictapplicationoftheguidelineswouldworkanextremefinancialhardshiponMr.Poteetscurrentfamily.Accordingly,thetrialcourtincreasedMr.PoteetschildsupportobligationtoStephenfrom$200to$325permonth.TheStatehasappealedthisdecision.@.D II.  % (  ` Tennesseeschildsupportguidelineswerefirstpromulgatedin1988todecreasethenumberofimpoverishedchildrenlivinginsingleparentfamilies,tomakechildsupportawardsmoreequitablebyensuringmoreconsistenttreatmentofpersonsinsimilarcircumstances,andtominimizetheeconomicimpactofdivorceonchildren.SeeTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.124024.02(2)(a),(b),(e)(1994).Like X/*4 theircounterpartsinotherstates,theseguidelineshavehadasalutaryeffectonchildreninTennesseeswhoselivesareaffectedbytheir_parents'_Ԁdivorce.Thus,byanyobjectivemeasure,thepromiseoftheguidelineshas,inpart,beenfulfilled. ` Experienceoverthelasttwelveyearshas,however,highlightedseveralpotentiallysignificantflawsinthedesignoftheguidelines.Inanefforttodevelopguidelinesthatwouldbesimpletoapply,theauthorofTennesseesoriginal :$6B guidelineschosewhatisknownasthe percentofobligorincomemodel._" #  3      _ԀWhile  thismodelissimpletouse,@ #  4      ׀itisnotthemodelcurrentlybeingusedbymoststates. T Overthirtystatescurrentlyemploythe incomesharesmodelwhichcomputeschildsupportobligationsbasedontheincomeofbothparentsratherthanjusttheincomeofthenoncustodialobligorparent. #  5      ׀The incomesharesmodelisconsidered @  preferabletothe percentofobligorincomemodelforthreereasons:(1)guidelinesbasedontheincomeofbothparentsareperceivedasbeingmorefairthanguidelinesbasedonlyontheobligorsincome;(2)statespreferguidelinesbasedonacrediblebodyofeconomicresearchconcerningchildrearingexpenditures;and(3)statesperceivethatthe incomesharesmodelismoreequitablebecauseitconsidersabroaderrangeofvariables.  #  6       h  ` Tokeepthe percentofobligorincomemodelsimple,itwasdesignedbasedontheassumptionthatthecalculationofchildsupportinvolvedonlyonesetofchildren!thechildorchildrenofthelitigatingparties.Thisassumptionoverlooks  twofactsoflifeincontemporarysociety.First,asignificantpercentageofallmarriagesendindivorce.Second,anestimatedseventyfivepercentofthesedivorcedpersonswillremarry,h  #  7      ׀andmanyofthesepersonshavehadorexpecttohave  " eithernewbiologicalchildren,stepchildren,orboth. #  8      ׀Casesinvolvingmultiple 8"$ familiesorserialfamilydevelopmentarenowthenormratherthantheexception. #  9       #,&  $'t"*  ` Theoriginalguidelinesbasedonthe percentofobligorincomemodeldidnoteffectivelyaddressthecomplexitiesofmultiplerelationships,remarriage,andblendedrelationships.Thus,bydesign,guidelinesliketheonescurrentlyineffectinTennesseeembodywhatexpertsinthefieldrefertoasthe firstfamiliesfirstbias.Theydisregardtheneedsoftheobligorparentsotherchildrenincomputingchildsupportobligationsforthechildrendirectlyinvolvedinthelitigation.Thetheoreticalbasisfordisregardingthesubsequentchildrenisthattheirsupportisnothingmorethanavoluntarilyassumedobligationoftheirparent.Likeothervoluntarilyassumedobligations,thesesupportobligationscannotbeconsideredas changedcircumstanceswarrantingareductioninchildsupportpaymentsotherwiseowed. t SeeDillowv.Dillow,575S.W.2d289,291(Tenn.Ct.App.1978). h  ` This firstfamiliesfirstbiasimplicitintheTennesseesguidelineshasnotescapedthenoticeofTennesseescourts.Onetrialcourtattemptedtoaddressthematterbycalculatinganobligorparentschildsupportobligationtothetwochildrenofhispreviousmarriagebycalculatingthetotalamountoftheparentssupportobligationforallfiveofhisadoptedandbiologicalchildrenandthenbyawardinghisformerspousetwofifthsofthisamount.Apanelofthiscourtreversedbecausetherecorddidnotcontainsufficientevidencetomakeoutacasefordeviatingfromtheguidelines.However,thepanelalsoheldthat thecourtsmayconsideraparentsobligationtothenaturaloradoptedchildrenofhisorherimmediatefamilyifsuchevidenceispresentedtorebutthepresumptionthattheamountprovidedbytheGuidelinesistheappropriatechildsupportaward.Wilsonv.Wilson,No.01A01 ($, 9007CH00244,1991WL83352,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.May22,1991)_((perm._Ԁapp. l*%. denied((Tenn.Sept.30,1991)_____). ,`'0  ` Anotherpanelofthiscourtrevisitedthisissuetwoyearslaterinacaseinvolvingtheobligationofamarriedmantosupportanonmaritalchildinadditiontohistwomaritalchildren.Thetrialcourtcalculatedthesupportobligationbasedonthefathersnetincomewithoutconsideringthefactthathewasalsosupportingtwootherchildren.RatherthanfollowingthedeviationfromtheguidelinesapproachapprovedinWilsonv.Wilson,twomembersofthepanelheldthatthefathershould 72> havebeenpermittedtodeductfromhisgrossincomethatamountofsupporttheguidelineswouldhaverequiredhadhebeenorderedtosupportthetwochildrenof :$6B hismarriage.SeeAdamsv.Reed,874S.W.2d61,6365(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).The  thirdmemberofthepanelarrivedatthesameresultusingthesamedeviationrationalethathadbeenusedinWilsonv.Wilson. H  ` Theadoptionofa secondfamiliesfirstpolicyinAdamsv.Reedprompteda @  responsefromtheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices,theauthorofTennesseesguidelines.Ratherthanfollowingtheleadofamajorityofstatesthathadaddedprovisionstotheirguidelinespermittingadjustmentsordeviationsforadditionaldependents, #  10      ׀theDepartmentrevisedtheguidelinestoprovidethat   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Childrenoftheobligorwhoarenotincludedinadecreeofchildsupportshallnotbeconsideredforthepurposesofreducingtheobligorsnetincomeorincalculatingtheguidelinesamount.Inaddition,thesechildrenshouldnotbeconsideredbythecourtasareasonfordeviationunlesstheymeettherequirementsofRule124024.04(4).   Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.124024.03(4)(1994).Therevisedguidelinespermittedrevisionsonlyincircumstancesof extremeeconomichardshipbroughtaboutby extraordinarymedicalneedsnotcoveredbyinsuranceorotherextraordinaryspecialneedsof child(ren)livinginthehomewiththeobligorforwhomtheobligorislegallyresponsible.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.124024.04(4)(1994).TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasconstruedtheseregulationsassignificantlylimitingthecourtsdiscretiontodeviatefromtheguidelines.SeeJonesv.Jones,930S.W.2d $D % at54445.@-D III.  )0%+  ` Childrenhavearighttoastandardofliving,care,andmaintenancecommensuratewiththecollectiveincomesandbesteffortsofboththeirparents.See .*1 Tenn.CodeAnn.3411102(a)(1996);Hallv.Jordan,190Tenn.1,11___,227S.W.2d p0+3 35,39___(1950);Evansv.Evans,125Tenn.112,119___,140S.W.745,747___(1911).Their 2d-5 righttoexpectthattheirparentswilladequatelyfeed,clothe,house,andeducatethemdoesnotdependonthedateoftheirbirthorthefamilyintowhichtheyareborn.See \509 Martinezv.Martinez,660A.2d13,17(N.J.Super.Ct.Ch.Div.1995).Thus,the  righttosupportexistsregardlessoftheparentsmaritalstatus,andtheparentssharedobligationtotheirchildrendoesnotendwhentheydivorce. ` Therealpartiesininterestinanyproceedingtodeterminetheexistenceoramountofachildsupportobligationarenottheparentsbutratherthechildrenwhosesupportisatissue.SeeThompsonv.Thames,67Cal.Rptr.2d695,70506___(Ct.App.   1997);Nowakv.Trezevant,685A.2d753,757(D.C.1996);DepartmentofHealth ,|  &RehabilitativeReproductive_Servs_.v.Holland,602So.2d652,654(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992);   McDonaldv.Bellotti,562N.E.2d114,117116(Mass.App.Ct.1990);Roddenv.Rodden, t 527S.W.2d41,43(Mo.Ct.App.1975).Therefore,amodificationactionundertheguidelinesis,ineffect,derivativelybroughtonthechildsorchildrensbehalf.$ #  11      ׀   Recognizingthatsupportproceedingsshouldbedrivenbytheneedsofthechildratherthanthoseoftheparentsillustratestheinherentunfairnessoftheprinciplethatachildsrighttosupportshouldsomehowbeinfluencedbytheconductofitsparents.Thisnotionpenalizesinnocentchildrenforconductoftheirparents,andinothercontextshasbeenfoundtobeconstitutionallysuspect.SeeWeberv.AetnaCas.& @  Sur.Co.,406U.S.164,175,92S.Ct.1400,1406(1972)(invalidatingaclassification  " basedonthemaritalstatusofthechildsparents). ` Therehasbeensurprisinglittlejudicialconsiderationoftheconstitutionallegitimacyofthe firstfamiliesfirstbiasinherentinchildsupportguidelinesliketheonescurrentlyineffectinTennessee.Onlyonecourt,inaverycursoryfashion,hasheldthattheguidelinescanwithstandrationalbasisequalprotectionscrutiny.See l*%. Feltmanv.Feltman,434N.W.2d590,592(S.D.1989).However,thisholding ,`'0 promptedadissentingjusticetoobservethattheclassificationbetweenchildrenofaformermarriageandchildrenofacurrentmarriageis unconstitutionalbecauseitdiscriminatesagainstchildrenofanoncustodialparentssecondfamily,denyingthemnequalprotectionunderthelaw.Thisstatuteclassifieschildrenbyaccidentoftheirbirth,aclassificationthathasnorationalrelationshiptoanylegitimategovernmentalinterest.Feltmanv.Feltman,434N.W.2dat59394(Henderson,J., 581< dissenting).Othershaveraisedsimilarconcerns,notonlyaboutthereasonableness 72> ofthe firstfamiliesfirstbiasbutalsoaboutitseffectsonotherfundamentalrightsandinterestsofthenoncustodialparentandhisorherspouse.SeeRebeccaB. T Garland,Note,SecondChildrenSecondBest?EqualProtectionforSuccessiveFamilies H UnderStateChildSupportGuidelines,18HastingsConst.L.Q.881(1991).    ` ThisissueinvolvesWearedealingherewithachildsrighttoreceivesupportfromacommonbiologicalparent.Allchildrenofthesameparenthavetherighttosharefairlywiththeirsiblingsintheircommonparentsresources.Whenotherstateshaveadoptedchildsupportguidelinesthataccommodatethisright,theDepartmentcannotplaceadministrativeconvenienceaheadoffundamentalfairness.TheDepartmentcannotsimplyshrugitsbureaucraticshouldersandannouncethatithasdonethebestitcan. ` Tennesseeschildsupportguidelinescontainthestandardsbywhichtheyshouldbemeasured.Theirstatedpurposeis tomakechildsupportawardsmoreequitablebyensuringmoreconsistenttreatmentofpersonsinsimilarcircumstances.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.124024.02(2)(b).Itshouldbeapparentthatthecircumstancesofchildrenwithacommonbiologicalparentaresimilar.Accordingly,whenthisissueisproperlyraisedinafuturecase,thecourtsshouldputtheguidelines firstfamiliesyfirstbiastothetestandshouldcarefullyconsiderwhetheritpassesmusterunderthestateandfederalconstitutions. `     h     ____________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE