ÿWPCì …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ B¡ ã U:ë 0J% 0To 0^à 0h! 0r‰ 0|û 0†w 0ý 1u 0dU>fU*¤B)Î B÷DC AMWߤv~ƒ D3vÓ4 0@ AOGÆ– 0D\ D/  BϘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÎDÏÐ{ÑÒUÓgÔÕDÖÓ€àDÒ x 3|xàC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTÂ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌJuly€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€×[XXdìdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ex€relà àà à)ÌSHERRY€SHAVER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPetitioner/Appellant,à àò ò)€€Davidson€Circuit€No.€95R„593Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9610„CV„00474̜ـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|O` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€D.€SHAVER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óRespondent/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKIMBERLY€M.€FRAYNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òC.€TRACEY€PARKSÌHARSH,€PARKS,€HARSHÌó óGallatin,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óà àÌÑ7€ ݤ XXdæXXdì7Ñà àIn€this€enforcement€of€child€support€case,€the€State€of€Tennessee€(ð ðStateðð)Ïbrings€this€action€on€behalf€of€Sherry€Shaver€(ð ðMotherðð)€and€her€minor€child,€AmberÏNicole€Shaver€(ð ðAmberðð),€in€order€to€collect€child€support€arrearages€from€RichardÏShaver€(ð ðFatherðð)€based€upon€a€Texas€divorce€decree.€€The€trial€court€held€thatÏFatherððs€child€support€obligations€irrevocably€and€absolutely€terminated€on€August€24,Ï1987€when€Father€filed€an€affidavit€relinquishing€his€parental€rights€to€Amber.€€The€trialÏcourt€further€held€that€Father€was€not€in€arrears€for€any€child€support€payments€whichÏaccrued€from€and€after€August€24,€1987.€The€State€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€arguing€that€Fatherððs€child€support€obligation€did€not€terminate€upon€the€filing€ofÏhis€affidavit€which€purported€to€relinquish€his€parental€rights€and€that€child€supportÏarrearages€did€accrue€prior€to€Fatherððs€signing€of€the€affidavit.€€For€the€reasons€statedÏhereafter,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àOn€October€10,€1982,€Father€and€Mother€had€a€child,€Amber€Nicole€ShaverÏ(ð ðAmberðð),€born€during€their€marriage€in€the€State€of€Texas.€€On€April€13,€1983,€€a€finalÏdecree€of€divorce€was€entered€in€the€State€of€Texas,€dissolving€Mother€and€FatherððsÏmarriage.€€The€Texas€divorce€decree€awarded€custody€of€Amber€to€Mother€andÏordered€Father€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$180.00€per€month€beginning€onÏMarch€15,€1983€and€ending€when€Amber€reached€the€age€of€eighteen€or€when€a€courtÏorder€directed€otherwise.€ÌÌà àOn€August€24,€1987,€Charles€Troy€Simpson€and€Tommie€Marie€Simpson€œ(the›Ïœð ðSimpsonsðð),›€Amberððs€maternal€grandparents,€filed€a€petition€to€adopt€Amber€in€theÏDistrict€Court€of€Dallas€County,€Texas.€€In€their€petition,€the€Simpsons€alleged€thatÏMother€had€left€Amber€with€them€and€had€disappeared€to€some€unknown€location€andÏthat€Father€had€not€provided€support€for€Amber€and€had€not€requested€to€visit€Amber€inÏover€a€year.€€Filed€with€the€Simpsonsðð€petition€for€adoption€was€an€affidavit€signed€byÏFather€which€purported€to€relinquish€his€parental€rights€to€Amber.€€In€his€affidavit,ÏFather€stated€in€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€am€the€father€of€AMBER€NICOLE€SHAVER,€a€female€bornÏOctober€10,€1982.Ìà8 àà8 àI€am€presently€obligated€by€Court€Order€to€make€paymentsÏfor€the€support€of€the€child€and€the€child€owns€no€property.Ìà8 àà8 àI€was€fully€informed€of€my€rights,€powers€duties€andÏprivileges€as€a€parent€before€executing€this€affidavit.€€IÏunderstand€that€this€Affidavit€is€irrevocable.€€I€understandÏthat€this€means€that€I€cannot€change€my€mind€not€now€or€atÏany€time€in€the€furture€[sic]€as€for€the€return€of€my€child.€€IÏagree€that€my€rights€as€father€may€be€terminated.Ìà8 àà8 àI€execute€this€affidavit€freely€and€voluntarily€because€I€deemÍit€to€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ìà8 àà8 àI€designate€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Charles€T.€Simpson€as€qualifiedÏpersons€and€suitable,€competent€adults€to€serve€asÏmanaging€conservator€of€the€child€if€my€parental€rights€areÏterminated.€€Ìà8 àà8 àI€waive€the€right€to€issuance,€service€and€return€of€citationÏupon€me€in€a€suit€to€terminate€the€parent„child€relationshipÏbetween€the€child€and€me€and€any€other€suit€affecting€theÏparent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€me.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€December€1987,€the€Simpsons€voluntarily€dismissed€their€action€to€adoptÏAmber.€€A€court€order€terminating€the€parental€rights€of€either€Father€or€Mother€wasÏnever€obtained.€€Ìà àFather€executed€another€affidavit€on€June€26,€1996€which€was€filed€with€the€trialÏcourt.€€€In€his€second€affidavit,€Father€stated€in€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à4.€€I€paid€child€support€for€Amber€Nicole€Shaver€until€JuneÏ29,€1987.Ìà8 àà8 à9.€€I€lived€in€Texas€at€the€time€of€the€surrender€[August€24,Ï1987]€and€continued€to€live€at€the€same€address€and€workÏat€the€same€job€for€several€years€before€moving€toÏTennessee.Ìà8 àà8 à10.€€I€was€never€informed€by€Sherry€or€her€parents,€theÏSimpsons,€that€the€adoption€was€not€finalized.Ìà8 àà8 à11.€€I€have€had€no€contact€with,€nor€have€I€been€contactedÏby€Sherry€or€any€member€of€her€family€since€August€1987.Ìà8 àà8 à12.€€I€have€not€had€any€contact€with€Amber€Nicole€ShaverÏsince€executing€the€surrender€in€August€1987.€œÌÌ›ÌÌÓÓà àOn€August€25,€1995,€the€State€of€Texas€filed€a€Uniform€Reciprocal€EnforcementÏof€Support€Act€(ð ðURESAðð)€petition€on€behalf€of€Mother€and€Amber.€€Pursuant€to€theÏURESA€petition,€Texas€requested€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€enforce€the€existingÏTexas€divorce€decree€ordering€Father€to€pay€child€support€and€to€collect€theÍarrearages€which€had€accumulated€under€the€decree.€€The€URESA€petition€seeksÏsupport€from€the€period€beginning€May€1983€and€ending€July€1995.€€In€an€affidavitÏfiled€with€the€trial€court,€Mother€stated€that€she€has€never€received€child€supportÏpayments€from€Father€pursuant€to€the€Texas€divorce€decree.€ÌÌà àà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€sole€issue€before€this€Court€is€as€œfollows:€€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€enforce€a€Texas€divorce€decree€requiring€Father€to€pay€child€supportÏpayments€for€his€minor€child€by€holding€that€Father€terminated€any€ongoing€duty€ofÏsupport€when€he€executed€an€affidavit€surrendering€his€parental€rights.€ÌÌà àURESA€serves€to€facilitate€the€enforcement€and€collection€of€child€supportÏobligations€when€the€mother€and€father€live€in€different€states.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„201(1996);€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746€S.W.2d€665,€668€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€expressedÏlegislative€purpose€in€enacting€URESA€was€ð ðto€improve€and€extend€by€reciprocalÏlegislation€the€enforcement€of€duties€of€support€and€to€make€uniform€the€law€withÏrespect€thereto.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„201(1996).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€court€has€statedÏthat€URESA€is€remedial€in€nature€and€should€be€liberally€construed€with€reference€toÏthe€object€sought€to€be€obtained.€€òòMartin€v.€Martinóó,€373€S.W.2d€609,€611€(Tenn.€1963).€€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennesseeððs€adoption€of€URESA,€a€ð ðduty€of€supportðð€is€defined€as€oneÏthat€ð ðincludes€any€duty€of€support€imposed€or€imposable€by€law,€or€by€any€court€order,Ídecree€or€judgment,€whether€interlocutory€or€final,€whether€incidental€to€a€proceedingÏfor€divorce,€legal€separation,€separate€maintenance€or€otherwise.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202(3)(1996).€€Similarly,€a€ð ðsupport€orderðð€is€defined€as€ð ðany€judgment,€decree€orÏorder€of€support,€whether€temporary€or€final,€whether€subject€to€modification,Ïrevocation€or€remission€regardless€of€the€kind€of€action€in€which€it€is€entered.ðð€€€€T.C.A.Ïðð€36„5„202(14)(1996).ÌÌà àEnforceable€duties€of€support€under€our€URESA€statute€are€described€in€T.C.A.Ïðð€36„5„207(a)(1996)€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àò òWhat€duties€are€enforceable€„„€Filing€of€original€paternity€andÏsupport€petitions.€„„ó ó€(a)€Duties€of€support€applicable€under€this€partÏare€those€imposed€or€imposable€under€the€laws€of€any€state€where€theÏobligor€was€present€during€the€period€for€which€support€is€sought.€€TheÏobligor€is€presumed€to€have€been€present€in€the€responding€state€duringÏthe€period€for€which€support€is€sought€until€otherwise€œshown.ÌÌ›ÌÌà àAs€to€the€enforcement€of€support€orders,€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„220(1996)€reads€in€partÏas€ÌÌfollows:ÌÌò òà8 àOrder€of€support€„„€Enforcement.€„„€ó ó(a)€If€the€court€of€the€respondingÏstate€finds€a€duty€of€support,€it€may€order€the€respondent€to€furnishÏsupport€or€reimbursement€therefor€and€subject€the€property€of€theÏrespondent€to€such€order.ÌÌœÓÓArrearages›€are€included€within€the€concept€of€"duties€of€support"€that€this€state€mayÏenforce€pursuant€to€a€petition€filed€under€URESA.€€œòòSeeó󛀜T.C.A.›€ðð€œ36„5„209(a)(1996).›ÌÌà àThe€existence€of€the€obligation€of€support€is€presumed€by€URESA.€€òòHoyleóó,€746ÍS.W.2d€at€668;€òòState€ex€rel.€Depððt€of€Social€Servs.€v.€Wrightóó,€736€S.W.2d€84,€86€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€The€duty€to€support€is€not€and€cannot€be€established€through€a€URESA€action.€ÏòòHoyleóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€668.€€ÌÌà àAt€some€point€prior€to€the€initiation€of€a€URESA€action,€some€state€must€renderÏan€order€establishing€a€duty€of€support.€€òòHoyleóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€668.€€The€state€in€whichÏa€support€order€is€originally€entered€is€known€as€the€rendering€state.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202(11)(1996).€€The€state€in€which€a€subsequent€URESA€petition€is€filed€is€theÏinitiating€state.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202(5)(1996).€€The€state€in€which€any€proceedingÏpursuant€to€the€proceeding€in€the€initiating€state€is€or€may€be€commenced€is€theÏresponding€state.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202(12)(1996).Ìà àÌà àThe€duty€of€the€initiating€state€is€not€to€determine€the€extent€of€the€obligation€toÏsupport€but€rather€to€determine€whether€sufficient€grounds€exist€to€permit€theÏresponding€state€to€determine€under€its€own€law€the€extent€of€the€support€obligation.€ÏòòHoyleóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€668.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòRay€v.€Pentlickióó,€375€So.2d€875,€877€(Fla.€Ct.ÏApp.€1979)€(stating€that€URESA€creates€no€duty€of€support€but€simply€provides€aÏmeans€of€enforcing€a€duty€of€support€as€that€duty€may€exist€under€the€law€of€theÏresponding€state).€€€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746€S.W.2d€665,€668€(Tenn.Ï1988),€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àGenerally,€under€URESA,€the€sole€issue€for€determination€is€enforcementÍof€the€support€obligation€previously€established€by€an€order€of€a€court€inÏa€rendering€State€and€no€other€issues€can€be€raised€by€the€respondent€toÏa€URESA€petition€in€the€court€of€the€responding€state.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„227Ïstates€that€ð ð[p]articipation€in€any€proceedings€under€this€part€shall€notÏconfer€upon€any€court€jurisdiction€of€any€of€the€parties€thereto€in€anyÏother€proceeding.ðð€€The€primary€focus€of€URESA€is€to€enforce€childÏsupport€obligations€and€not€to€decide€collateral€issues€such€as€thoseÏconcerning€allocation€of€custody€or€enforcement€of€visitation€rights.ÌÌà àÓÓà àÌà àAs€stated€in€its€petition,€the€State€of€Texas€seeks€support€payments€from€FatherÏfor€the€period€beginning€May€1983€and€ending€July€1995.€€Because€Father€stated€inÏan€affidavit€that€he€moved€to€Tennessee€ð ðseveral€yearsðð€after€the€filing€of€his€AugustÏ24,€1987€affidavit€wherein€he€purported€to€relinquish€his€parental€rights€to€Amber,ÏFather,€by€his€own€admission,€has€resided€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€during€the€periodÏfor€which€enforcement€is€sought.€€Thus,€Tennessee,€as€the€responding€state,€mayÏorder€Father€to€pay€child€support€or€reimbursement€therefor€pursuant€to€the€TexasÏdivorce€decree€which€ordered€Father€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$180€perÏmonth€beginning€on€March€15,€1983€and€ending€when€Amber€reached€the€age€ofÏeighteen€or€when€a€court€order€directed€otherwise.ÌÌà àUnder€the€laws€of€this€state,€the€adoption€of€a€child€is€governed€by€statute.€€òòIn€ReÏAdoption€of€Mullinsóó,€412€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1967);€òòBank€of€Maryville€v.€Toppingóó,Ï393€S.W.2d€280,€282€(Tenn.€1965);€òòIn€re€Van€Hussóó,€338€S.W.2d€588,€590„91€(Tenn.Ï1960);€òòIn€re€Petition€to€Adopt€Clementsóó,€296€S.W.2d€875,€879€(Tenn.€1956);€òòCoonradtÏv.€Sailorsóó,€209€S.W.2d€859,€861€(Tenn.€1948);€òòScott€v.€Pulleyóó,€705€S.W.2d€666,€670Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€In€order€to€effect€a€legal€adoption,€the€statutes€must€be€followedÍwith€strict€compliance.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€supreme€court€œin€òòIn›€re€Petition€to€Adopt€Clementsóó,€296€S.W.2d€875,€879Ï(Tenn.€1956),€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[U]ntil€the€court€has€finally€adjudicated€that€the€petitionersÏfor€adoption€are€suitable€ones€and€that€it€is€for€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child€to€be€placed€with€them€for€adoption€thatÏno€legal€rights€attach€to€either€of€the€parties€until€saidÏadoptive€statutes€are€carried€out.Ìà àà8 à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà8 à[T]here€is€œno›€statute€in€this€State€which€authorizes€a€party€orÏparties€to€adopt€a€child€by€a€mere€private€declaration€orÏcontract,€and€in€the€absence€of€such€a€statute,€it€cannot€beÏdone,€because€to€allow€it€would€be€contrary€to€public€policyÏof€the€State.ÌÌòòÓÓSee€alsoóó€òòBray€v.€Gardneróó,€268€F.€Supp.€328,€332€(D.C.€Tenn.€1967)€(stating€that€anÏadoptive€relationship€cannot€be€created€by€private€contract€or€by€estoppel).ÌÌà àIn€òòWright€v.€Hollandóó,€No.€01„A„01„9208„CV00311,€1993€WL€49560€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€€Feb.€26,€1993),€this€Court€addressed€an€issue€similar€to€the€one€in€the€case€atÏbar.€€In€òòWrightóó,€the€issue€addressed€was€whether€a€father€continues€to€have€a€legallyÏenforceable€duty€to€support€a€minor€child€after€he€signs€a€surrender€document€whichÏpurportedly€surrenders€the€child€for€adoption€but€where€no€petition€for€adoption€wasÏever€filed€with€the€court€because€the€prospective€adoptive€father€decided€not€to€adoptÏthe€child.€Relying€on€òòIn€Re€€Petition€to€Adopt€Clementsóó,€296€S.W.2d€875,€879€(Tenn.Ï1956)€for€the€proposition€that€no€legal€rights€attach€to€either€the€natural€parent€or€theÏadopting€parent€until€a€court€order€adjudicating€a€childððs€adoption€has€occurred,€thisÏCourt€held€that€the€natural€fatherððs€obligation€to€support€his€minor€child€continues€untilÍthe€entry€of€a€court€order€of€adoption.€€€òòWrightóó,€1993€WL€49560,€at€*7.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€T.C.A.€œ36„5„101(a)(5)(1996)›€states€in€part€that:ÌÓÓœà8 àAny›€order€for€child€support€shall€be€a€judgment€entitled€to€be€enforced€asÏany€other€judgment€of€a€court€of€this€state€and€shall€be€entitled€to€full€faithÏand€credit€in€this€state€and€in€any€other€state.€€Such€judgment€shall€not€beÏsubject€to€modification€as€to€any€time€period€or€any€amounts€due€prior€toÏthe€date€that€an€action€for€modification€is€filed€and€notice€of€the€action€hasÏbeen€mailed€to€the€last€known€address€of€the€opposing€parties.ÌÌÓÓThus,€it€is€abundantly€clear€from€the€express€language€of€the€statute€that€courts€areÏprohibited€from€retroactively€modifying€child€support€orders.€€òòRutledge€v.€Barrettóó,€802ÏS.W.2d€604,€606€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€statute€removes€all€discretion€from€the€trial€court€toÏforgive€support€arrearages€which€accrue€under€a€valid€order€of€child€support€at€anyÏtime€prior€to€the€filing€of€an€action€for€modification.€€òòIdóó.€€Only€prospective€modificationsÏof€child€support€orders€are€authorized,€and€such€prospective€modifications€are€subjectÏto€the€filing€and€notification€requirements€of€T.C.A.€36„5„101(a)(5).€€ÌÌà àFather€also€argues€that€based€upon€Motherððs€failure€to€notify€him€that€theÏadoption€of€Amber€was€not€finalized,€the€equitable€defenses€of€estoppel€and€lachesÏpreclude€the€court€from€ordering€him€to€pay€either€future€or€past„due€child€support.€€WeÏnote,€however,€that€the€supreme€court€has€repeatedly€stated€that€equitable€defensesÏare€not€available€as€a€defense€to€the€enforcement€of€child€support€orders.€€òòRutledgeóó,Ï802€S.W.2d€at€607.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Father€signed€an€affidavit€which€purported€to€relinquish€hisÍparental€rights€to€Amber,€and€Fatherððs€affidavit€was€filed€with€the€Simpsonsðð€petition€toÏadopt€Amber.€€The€Simpsonsðð,€however,€voluntarily€dismissed€their€petition€to€adoptÏAmber€before€a€final€adjudication€of€the€adoption€was€obtained.€€Thus,€because€theÏSimpsons€did€not€obtain€a€court€order€adjudicating€Amberððs€adoption€and€because€theÏrecord€contains€no€evidence€that€either€party€filed€an€action€to€modify€the€child€supportÏorder€pursuant€to€the€Texas€divorce€decree,€the€trial€court€erred€in€forgiving€the€childÏsupport€arrearage€which€had€accrued€under€the€Texas€divorce€decree€subsequent€toÏAugust€24,€1987,€the€date€Father€executed€the€affidavit€relinquishing€his€parentalÏrights.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€which€held€that€FatherððsÏchild€support€obligations€pursuant€to€the€Texas€divorce€decree€œwere›€irrevocably€andÏabsolutely€terminated€as€of€August€24,€1987€when€Father€filed€his€affidavit€whichÏpurportedly€relinquished€his€parental€rights€to€Amber.€€€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€reversed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€Appellee€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.