WPC< T# UN % 04 0;w@4H\kjs 0D 0J! 0Tk 0^ b 0h% 0r 0| 0{ N  m 0 1u 0d! BUL>B)DC  AMLU*J  nPzs AQ!! 0D" 0@" 0D'# D/k# B# D3#G#D1%Fu&e'@ ).`*I+G,R.Sp/S0U2Lk3v~4v56HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (}(2$ U!   XXNX   `   0   f g h bi Kej Uk Ul Dm n Ӏx _#'3|xx baker v. baker - opinion    '  0 .   (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  - -26 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  U2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd<>.C << G<  9p`(Arial @ !  #d#++   ="  00   YYY FILED0XDecember5,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#++   $   X +X         _Thetrialcourtpointedoutthatitsdecisiontograntjointcustodywasnotpromptedbythepartiescooperativeconductbutratherbyitsconclusionthatneitherpartyshouldhavesolecustody.  !#d#++   $   X +X         _ChildSupportServicesisanentitythathascontractedwiththeDepartmentofHumanServicestoprovideTitleIVDchildsupportcollectionservicesinDavidsonCounty.ItassumedtheseresponsibilitiesfromtheDistrictAttorneyGeneralfortheTwentiethJudicialDistrictin1992.  !#d#++   $   X +X         _Bothpartieshadbeenrepresentedbyprivatecounseluptothispointinthelitigation.ThecircumstancessurroundingtheentryofChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCountyintothiscasedonotappearintherecord.Inlightoftheevidenceintherecordofthepartiesemployment,wehavenobasistoconcludethateitherpartywasfinanciallyunabletoretainprivatecounselastheyhaddoneduringthepasttenyearsoflitigationovertheirchildren.  !#d#++   $   X +X         _TheAttorneyGeneralandReporterhasnottakenissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisionnottorequireMs.Bakertoexecuteawageassignment.Tenn.CodeAnn.365501(a)(2)(A)specificallypermitstrialcourtstorefrainfromorderingawageassignmentforgoodcause. d !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeSocialSecurityAct,TitleIV,PartA,42U.S.C.A.601615(West1991&Supp.1997).  !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeSocialServiceAmendmentsof1974,Pub.L.No.93647,451459,88Stat.2337(1974),codifiedat42U.S.C.A.651667(WestSupp.1997). p !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeS.Rep.No.931356(1974),reprintedin1974_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ8133,8145.  !#d#++   $   X +X         _See42U.S.C.A.654(5);S.Rep.No.931356,reprintedin1974_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁat8152.  !#d#++   $   X +X         _See42U.S.C.A.654(4)(A)(ii);S.Rep.No.931356,reprintedin1974_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁat8158.<=>?@C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  AA' dxdP Pd 'dxd = !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofApril20,1977,ch.110,1977Tenn.Pub.Acts219. : !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofMay4,1977,ch.235,1977Tenn.Pub.Acts566. < !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofApril6,1982,ch.764,1982Tenn.Pub.Acts372. [ !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeChildSupportEnforcementAmendmentsof1984,Pub.L.No.98387,98Stat.1305(1984). 6 !#d#++   $   X +X         _See42U.S.C.A.666(a)(1),(b)(WestSupp.1997). $ !#d#++   $   X +X         _See42U.S.C.A.666(a)(4),(6). ? !#d#++   $   X +X         _See42_U.C.S.A._Ԁ666(a)(2). = !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofJune19,1985,ch.477,1985Tenn.Pub.Acts1062. H !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofJune19,1985,ch.477,6,1985Tenn.Pub.Actsat1063. I !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofJune19,1985,ch.477,11,1985Tenn.Pub.Actsat1065. I !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofJune19,1985,ch.477,14,1985Tenn.Pub.Actsat1069. K !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofApr.21,1994,ch.987,1,1994Tenn.Pub.Acts1007,1009. B !#d#++   $   X +X         _SeeActofApr.21,1994,ch.987,1,1994Tenn.Pub.Actsat1008.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . ++     X  \RA'\_7&dd7+  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE<ٜR/1.A1-j|9`  `@Rߛ@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE+ SANDRAK.BAKER(_ABROMS_), )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      )      ) DavidsonCircuitVS.      ) No.83D522      )      )STATEOFTENNESSEE,exrel, ) AppealNo.GARYD.BAKER,   ) 01A019509CV00428      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWALTERC.KURTZ,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:JamesG.Martin      JohnKnox_Walkup_G.A._Puryear_,IV      AttorneyGeneralandReporterFARRIS,_WARFIELD_Ԁ&_KANADAY_Nashville,Tennessee     JamesH.Tucker,Jr.        AssistantAttorneyGeneral̛̜̜@ +VACATEDANDREMANDED +̛̜        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE     + @ OPINION + ThisappealinvolvesatrialcourtsdiscretionnottoemploythemechanismsinTitleIVDforthepaymentandcollectionofchildsupport.Inapostdivorceproceedingseekingchangesinvisitationandchildsupportarrangements,theCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountydeclinedtoorderthe_obligor_Ԁparenttoexecuteawageassignmentortopaychildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerk.Onthisappeal,theAttorneyGeneralandReporter,onbehalfoftheTitleIVDcontractorwhorepresentedthecustodialparent,assertsthatthetrialcourtwasstatutorilyrequiredtodirectthenoncustodialparenttopaychildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerk.Weagree.Eventhoughrequiringthechildsupporttobepaidthroughthetrialcourtclerkwill,inthiscase,extractanunnecessaryfivepercentpenaltyfromthenoncustodialspouse,payingchildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerkisstatutorilyrequiredinTitleIVDproceedings.__@ I.  Sandra_Kabert_ԀBakerandGaryD.BakerweredivorcedinNovember1983.Ms.Bakerreceivedsolecustodyofthepartiestwinsonswhowerethenapproximatelyfouryearsold.Thedissolutionofthemarriagedidlittletoabatethepartiesanimositytowardseachother,andregrettably,theirangercontinuedtomanifestitselfinfrequentdisputesabouttheirchildren.Asoneoftheseveraltrialjudgeswhohavepresidedoverthiscasenotedin1987,thechildrenhavebeendrawnintoacrossfirebythe insatiablelitigiousnatureoftheparties.Thetrialcourteventuallyappointedanattorneytoserveasthechildrensguardianadlitemandtorepresenttheirinterests. In1987thetrialcourtmodifiedtheoriginalcustodyarrangementtoawardthepartiesjointcustodyoftheirsons. 2   ׀Ms.Bakerreceivedprimaryphysicalcustody,andMr.Bakerreceiveddefinedvisitation.Thepartiesbickeringovertheirchildrendidnotabateastheyearspassed.InSeptember1993,whenthechildrenwereapproximatelyfourteen,thepartiesenteredintoanagreedordergivingMr.BakerprimaryphysicalcustodyandgrantingMs.Bakerextensivevisitationrights.TheorderstatedthatMs.Bakercouldsatisfyherchildsupportobligationeitherbypayingchildsupportorbypayingthechildrensprivateschooltuition. InNovember1994,asthevisitationprovisionsintheSeptember1993orderwereabouttoexpire,Ms.Bakerpetitionedthetrialcourttosetaspecificvisitationschedulefor1995and1996andtoadjustherchildsupportobligation.ChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCounty 3   ׀respondedonbehalfofMr.BakerbyassertingthatMs.BakerwasinarrearsonherpreviouslyorderedchildsupportandthattheamountofsupportshouldbeincreasedinlightofthematerialandsubstantialchangesinthepartiescircumstancesoccurringsincetheentryoftheSeptember1993order.Mr.Bakeralsofiledaprosepetitionrequestingthetrialcourttoset standardvisitationforMs.Baker. 4    ThetrialcourtheardtheevidencewithoutajuryinMarch1995.Thereafter,thetrialcourtprescribedMs.BakersvisitationschedulethroughMay1998anddirectedMs.Bakertopay$550permonthinchildsupport.ThetrialcourtalsofoundthatMs.BakerowedMr.Baker$3,000inunpaidchildsupportanddirectedhertopaythisarrearageattherateof$100permonth.ThetrialcourtdidnotimposeawageassignmentonMs.Bakeranddidnotrequirehertopayherchildsupportthroughtheclerkofthetrialcourt. ChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCountyfiledaTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionrequestingthetrialcourttoamenditsfindingsortomakeadditionalfindingsoffact.ItassertedthatTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(A),101(a)(4)(E)(i)(Supp.1997)requiredMs.BakertopayherchildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerkandthatthetrialcourthadnotmadewrittenfindingsrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.365501(a)(2)(A)(Supp.1997)todispensewithawageassignment.InitsMarch23,1995orderdenyingthemotion,thetrialcourtstatedthatnowageassignmentwasnecessarybecauseitwas convincedthatSandraBakerwillpaythecourtorderedchildsupportwithoutawageassignment,andifthecourtorderedawageassignment,itsexistencewouldbeusedbyGaryBakertofurtheralienatethechildrenfromMs.Bakerandthiswouldnotbeinthebestinterestofthechildren.Onthisappeal,theAttorneyGeneralandReporterassertsthatthetrialcourterredbydecliningtoorderMs.Bakertomakeherchildsupportpaymentsthroughthetrialcourtclerk. 5   @ II.  Thesolequestionhereiswhetherthetrialcourtmay,initsdiscretion,excusean_obligor_Ԁparentfrompayingchildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerk.TheanswertothisquestionisobviouswithregardtoTitleIVDchildsupportproceedings.WhiletrialcourtshavediscretionincasesnotcoveredbyTitleIVD,Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(A),101(a)(4)(E)(i)requirechildsupportpaymentsinallTitleIVDcasestobepaidthrougheitherthetrialcourtclerkortheDepartmentofHumanServices.Ms.BakerseekstoavoidthisobligationanditsattendantadditionalcostsbyassertingthatthiscaseisnotaTitleIVDchildsupportproceeding.@ A.  TheAidtoFamilieswithDependentChildren( AFDC)programisoneofthechiefmeansforprovidingfederalfinancialassistancetodisadvantagedfamilies. 6   ׀Ratherthanadministeringtheprogramdirectly,CongressmakesAFDCfundsavailabletothestateswhomustadministertheirprogramsincompliancewithfederalstandards.RespondingtothesignificantincreasesinAFDCspending,CongressenactedtheSocialServiceAmendmentsof1974 7   whichincludeTitleIV,PartDoftheSocialSecurityAct.TheTitleIVDprogramisdesignedtoprovideincentivesforstatestoimprovetheirownlawsandprogramsaimedatcollectingchildsupportfromabsentparents.Forstatesthatbringtheirlawsandprogramsintocompliancewithfederalstandards,TitleIVDprovidesincreasedfederalmatchingfunds.StateswhodonotcomplywiththefederalrequirementsfacetheprospectofreducedAFDCmatchingfunds. TitleIVDsmajorpremisewasthatthefailureofabsentparentstosupporttheirchildrenhadcausedtheincreaseinAFDCspending._ 8   _ԀCongressbelievedthatAFDCspendingcouldbebroughtundercontrolbysteppingupthestatesenforcementoftheirchildsupportstatutesandbyrequiringparentstoassignthechildsupportrightstotheStateinordertobeeligibletoreceiveAFDCbenefits._ 9   _ԀCongressenvisionedthatthechildsupportcollectedbythestateswouldmoderatetheincreasingfederalAFDCexpenditures.CongressalsoenvisionedthatmorevigorousenforcementofstatechildsupportstatuteswouldhelpcustodialparentsavoidthenecessityofseekingAFDCassistance.Accordingly,theTitleIVDprogram,fromtheverybeginning,requiredthestatestoprovidechildsupportcollectionassistancetoallcustodialparents,notjustthosewhowerereceivingAFDCassistance._ :   _ In1977,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyrespondedtotheTitleIVDprogrambyenactingTenn.CodeAnn.713124(Supp.1997) E   ׀whichrequiresapplicantsandrecipientsofAFDCbenefitstoassigntheirrighttochildsupporttotheStateandbyenactingTenn.CodeAnn.713125(1995) F   ׀whichempowersthedistrictattorneysgeneraltoestablishchildsupportenforcementprogramsintheirrespectivedistricts.Fiveyearslater,theGeneralAssemblyenactedTenn.CodeAnn.713124(c) G   ׀specificallyrequiringtheStatetoinitiatechildsupportactionsonbehalfofindividualswhowerenoteligibleforreceivingAFDCbenefits.     BuoyedbytheinitialsuccessoftheTitleIVDprogram,CongressenactedtheChildSupportEnforcementAmendmentsof1985tostrengthentheTitleIVDprogramschildsupportprocedures. H   ׀Inreturnforprovidingmatchingfundstoassistthestatesinautomatingtheirchildsupportcollectionprograms,theseamendmentsplacedadditionalobligationsonthestates.Theseobligationsincluded:(1)establishingmandatorywagewithholdingforAFDCfamilies, I   ׀(2)providingforliensandbondstosecurethepaymentofdelinquentchildsupport, J   ׀and(3)institutingexpeditedproceduresforenforcingchildsupportorders._ K   _Ԁ TheGeneralAssemblyrespondedtoCongressschangesintheTitleIVDprogrambyenactingtheChildSupportEnforcementActof1985. L   ׀Amongotherthings,thisActrequiresthatchildsupportinTitleIVDcasesmustbepaidthroughtheclerkofthetrialcourt,seeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(A), M   andthattrialcourtclerkscollectingsupportundertheTitleIVDprogrammaycollectafeeequalto5%ofthechildsupportpaymentfromthe_obligor_Ԁparent.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.821403(a)(Supp.1997). N   ׀TheActalsoestablishedproceduresforwageassignments.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.365501. O   ׀In1994,theGeneralAssemblyreiteratedthatchildsupportpaymentsinallTitleIVDcasesmustbepaideithertothetrialcourtclerkortotheDepartmentofHumanServices,seeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(E)(i), P   ׀andthatthetrialcourtclerkswereentitledtoafeefortheircollectionanddistributionservices.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(C)(iii). Q   ׀    @ B.  Two_dispositive_ԀconclusionscanbedrawnfromthefederalandstatelegislationinvolvingtheTitleIVDprogram.First,TitleIVDchildsupportcollectionservicesareavailabletoallcustodialparentsnotwithstandingtheirfinancialstatus.Fromtheoutset,TitleIVDhasnotbeenlimitedtoparentswhoarereceivingwelfarebenefits.See_Carelli_Ԁv._Howser_,923F.2d1208,1210(6thCir.1991);_Thaysen_Ԁv._Thaysen_,583So.2d663,666(Fla.1991);CabinetforHum.Resourcesv._Houck_,908S.W.2d673,67475(Ky.Ct.App.1995).Second,aTitleIVDproceedingiscommencedwhenacustodialparentappliestoaTitleIVDserviceproviderforassistanceinestablishing,modifying,orcollectingchildsupport.ForthepurposesoftheTitleIVDprogram,itmakesnodifferencewhethertheproceedingbeganasaTitleIVDproceedingorwhetherthecustodialparentinitiatedtheproceedingorisrespondingtothe_obligor_Ԁparentspetitiontomodifyoreliminateanexistingchildsupportobligation. Ourtaskistoenforcestatutesaswefindthem.SeeJacksonv.Jackson,186Tenn.337,342,210S.W.2d332,334(1948).Itisnotourprerogativetoinquireintothereasonablenessofastatuteortoourpolicyjudgmentsforthoseofthelegislature.SeeStatev._Grosvenor_,149Tenn.158,167,258_S.W._Ԁ140,142(1924);Henleyv.State,98Tenn.665,67981,41_S.W._Ԁ352,35455(1897).Rather,whenthewordsofastatuteareclear,itisourdutytoenforcethestatuteaswritten.SeeCarsonCreekVacationResorts,Inc.v.State,865S.W.2d1,2(Tenn.1993);InreConservatorshipofClayton,914S.W.2d84,90(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). EventhoughthiscasedidnotbeginasaTitleIVDproceeding,itbecameone_when_ԀMr.BakersoughtandobtainedtheassistanceofChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCountytoopposeMs.Bakerspetitiontomodifyherchildsupportandtopursuehisclaimsforincreasedchildsupportandforunpaidchildsupport.OncethiscasebecameaTitleIVDproceeding,thetrialcourtlostitsdiscretiontodeterminehowMs.Bakershouldmakeherchildsupportpayments.EventhoughMs.Bakerhadneverbeforepaidherchildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerk,Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(4)(A),101(a)(4)(E)(i)requirehernowtopaychildsupportthroughthetrialcourtclerk,andTenn.CodeAnn.821403(a)requireshertopaytheclerkanadditional5%processingfee.@ III.  WevacatetheportionoftheMarch23,1995orderdenyingChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCountysTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoChildSupportServicesofDavidsonCountyanditssuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       _____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE