WPCBJ SRU%!ݜ9ְ9GY%9ѥz ۄכ兝ܖC`0;(`1034^ClR}k=hj%p,, UZqBdk 3u Mq8Gbm+d.uGN-m _ni1~.yDTV.VJ|e8k?Ă#9U;3{hB +IxubÊ<,$ڭ!tyIi˔U5v>/N=MGc&CU`Ƣs{VMc?EXq!?^\(U5 ^*'|$zF+~TD_4p-Y昴!D}<bM, ZLAm&5c&*<0+ch2_.1'EŒsoj35>us م>m# % ^ 0 UNQ w 4 z 1   m UN+ y ?  0DN 0UE 0 0 0 0 0 0^ 08 0 0C 0& 0 0! 0" 0p# 0;$ 0% 0% 0@& 0& 0' 0m(b;) 0C) 0* 0* 0+ 0], 00- 0<J- 0- 0>D. 0v. 0`. 0`X/ 0`/ 0`0 0`x0 080 01 021 02 0:3 0YJ3 0_3 0 4 0j 5 0v6 B*7 D/$8 0S8 D/9 0: 06: 0 ; 0:< 0^L< 0<< 0< 1e=U66>U>l> B>U*> 0> D3? D-? 0K? 1u@@ AS@A 0A 0DrB AB 72aC 0cCCCDDDDDD3FHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0Ȅ-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1    _Mr.WilsonsbriefstatesthattheamountofchildsupportintheOrderwasfor$229.00permonth,but  accordingtotherecordtheamountMr.Wilsonwasorderedtopaywas$290.00permonth.Theorderexplainedthat t Mr.Wilsonwouldpay$66.92plusthe$3.35feeperweekforatotalof$70.27perweek.*+ (_2623  ..  R$      2    _ThetrialcourtorderedMr.Wilsontopay$870.00asbackchildsupportfromthedateoftheDNAtestresults.  AccordingtotheStatementoftheEvidence,theamountofchildsupportthatwouldhaveaccruedfromthedateofthe t divorceuntilthedatesupportwasfirstset,baseduponMr.Wilsonsincomeduringthattime,was$16,787.00.  R$      3    _In2000,thelegislatureadoptedasimilarresultbyproviding:  8  Noprovision,findingoffactorconclusionoflawinafinaldecreeofdivorceorannulmentorother 8 declarationofinvalidityofamarriagewhichprovidesthatthehusbandisnotthefatherofachildborn L tothewifeduringthemarriageorwithinthreehundred(300)daysoftheentryofthefinaldecree,or  whichnamesanotherpersonasthefatherofsuchchildshallbegivenpreclusiveeffectunlessscientific  teststodetermineparentagearefirstperformedandtheresultsofthetestwhichexcludethehusband H  fromparentageofthechildorchildrenorwhichestablishpaternityinanotherpersonareadmittedinto  \ evidence....    2000Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.9229,nowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.365101(t).Seealso2000Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch. X   9224,nowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.362304(b)(4).*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2$ !.8\dd8         0  !"#$%&'( 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman d%2A`Arial(|3Ǐ$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ǐ$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK\i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0       R$      4    _Thepartieshavestipulatedthisamounttobe$16,787.Wenotethatstipulationmustbeapprovedbythecourt  beforeusingtheguidelinestoreviewtheadequacyofthestipulation.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.02(4). t Wealsonotethestipulationcoverstheperiodbacktothedateofdivorce,nottothedateofseparation.  R$      5    _Wehaveheldthat anawardforretroactivechildsupportisgenerallyconsideredtohavetwopurposes:(1)  tobenefitthepartieschild;and(2)toreimbursethecustodialparentforcontributingmorethan[their]fairsharetothe t childsupport._Berryhill_Ԁv.Rhodes,No.W200100748_COA_ԄR3JV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS331,at*22(Tenn.Ct. 8 App.May2,2002)(noTenn.App.P.11applicationfiled)(citingStateexrel.Stewartv._Lockett_,No.M200100809 L _COA_ԄR3JV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS66,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.30,2002)(noTenn.R.App.P.11application  filed)(citing_Kaatrude_,21S.W.3dat248)). !.8\dd8     _  \8 XXdd8  eOY@ N\INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#\N#Ԉ &   October10,2002Session L X X\ #\XX #STATEOFTENNESSEEEXREL.MARYE.CLARK J v.VERNONA.WILSONX X\   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.95D2682CarolL._Soloman_,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101626_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember23,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      TheStateofTennessee,exrel.MaryE.Clarkappealsthefinalorderofthetrialcourtawarding  retroactivechildsupportfromthedateDNAtestresultsestablishedtheappelleeasthefatherofthe x childinquestion,insteadoffromthedateofthepartiesseparationbydivorcedecreeenteredalmost d sixyearsearlier.Wefindthatthetrialcourtincorrectlyorderedretroactivechildsupportfromadate P otherthanthedateofthepartiesseparationandfailedtomaketherequiredwrittenfindingsto < supportadeviationfromtheguidelineamountinitsawardofretroactivechildsupport.Therefore, (x wevacatethetrialcourtsdecisionandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. d  TennR.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt < VacatedandRemanded  (   #\X ٜ#X X.\PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain,J.,and  JohnA._Turnbull_,SP.J.,joined.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;StuartF.WilsonPatton,SeniorCounsel;Pamela t  Finch,fortheappellant,MaryE.Clark. `!  MarkWalker,_Goodlettsville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,VernonA.Wilson. 8#"   OPINION #\XX 5 #X X\ %` $ I.Facts &8"& #\XX ١ #X X\  @*     X XXX MaryE.ClarkandVernonA.WilsonweremarriedonApril1,1993,whenMs.Clarkwas ($( eightmonthspregnant#X XX X t # X XXX .OnMay16,1993#X XX X 4 # X XXX ,slightlyoveronemonthintothemarriage,#X XX X و #Ԁthechildwas )$) born.Beforetheirmarriagethepartieshaddatedforapproximatelytenmonthstooneyear. *%* However,Ms.Clarkadmittedtohavinghadintercoursewithanothermanduringtheperiodof +&+ conception.Ms.ClarktestifiedshetoldMr.Wilsonhecouldbethefatherofherchild.Mr.Wilson p,', waslistedasthechildsfatheronherbirthcertificate.Ms.ClarkalsotestifiedshealwaystoldMr. \-(- _Wilsonhewasthechildsfather,butalsotestifiedthathealwaysdeniedhewasthefather.Ms.  ClarkandMr.WilsonweredivorcedbydecreeenteredonNovember7,1995.Nochildsupportwas  setinthedivorcedecreeorsubsequenttothedivorcebecauseMs.Clarkstatedindocumentstothe  courtthattherewerenochildrenbornofthemarriage.Mr.WilsondidnotchallengeorcorrectMs. t Clarks X XXX representationstothecourtthattherewerenochildrenofthemarriage. `   Fourandahalfyearsafterthedivorce,aPetitiontoModifythedivorcedecreewasfiled, 8  allegingthatMr.Wilsonwasthefatherofthechild,and,thus,wasresponsibleforchildsupport $ t retroactivetothefinaldivorcedecree.Mr.WilsondisputedpaternityofthechildandfiledaMotion  ` forDNAtestingtoDetermineParentage.AnAgreedOrderforDNATestingtoDetermine  L  Parentagewasentered.DNAtestresultsreceivedonSeptember18,2000,confirmedMr.Wilson  8  asthefatherofMs.Clarkschild.AnAgreedOrderofSupportwasenteredonJanuary10,2001, $  orderingMr.Wilsontopaychildsupportintheamountof$290.00 #  1      ׀permonthinaccordancewith   theTennesseeChildSupportGuidelinescommencingDecember22,2000.TheAgreedOrder   reservedthematterofretroactivechildsupporttoahearingsetforFebruary8,2001.Byorder   enteredonJune19,2001,theTrialJudgeawardedretroactivechildsupportfromthedateofthe   resultsoftheDNAtest,September18,2000. #  2      ׀ThetrialcourtfoundthatMs.Clarkwasnota p crediblewitness,andthatitwouldbeinequitabletorequireMr.Wilsontopaysupportbeforethe \ timehehadreasontobelievethechildwashis.TheStateofTennessee,exrel.MaryE.Clark H appealed.#X XX X # 4   II.ChildSupport  \     ItiswellsettledunderTennesseelawthateveryparentisobligatedtosupporthisorher 4 childrenduringtheirminority.Tenn.CodeAnn.341102;Stateexrel.Vaughnv.Kaatrude,21   S.W.3d244,247(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Thisobligationtoprovidesupportexistswithoutacourt   order.Theobligationsofparentstosupport,carefor,andnurturetheirchildrenarejoint,andthe  extentoftheirdutytosupportdependsontheirabilitytoprovidethatsupport.Stateexrel.Grant  v.Prograis,979S.W.2d594,60001(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).    Theparentsobligationtosupport,aswellasthechildsconcomitantrighttosupport,exist X  whethertheparentsaremarried,divorced,orhaveneverbeenmarried.Whenmarriedparents D! divorce,thecourtisauthorizedtoprovideforsupportoftheminorchildren.Tenn.CodeAnn. 0"  365101(a)(1)and(a)(2)(A).Whenpaternityofachildbornoutofwedlockisestablished,the #l!  fatherisrequiredtoprovidesupport,assetbythecourt,forthechildsbenefit.Tenn.CodeAnn. $X" 362311;Berryhillv.Rhodes,21S.W.3d188,190(Tenn.2000).Thelegaldutyofsupportexists  inallcases.Id.21S.W.3dat191(citingSmithv.Puett,506F.Supp.134,142(M.D.Tenn.1980)).     Thetrialcourtbaseditsdeterminationonitsfindingthatthefather hadreasontobelievehe t wasnotthefatherand,therefore,requiringsupportforthetimebeforehispaternitywas ` conclusivelyestablishedwouldbeinequitable.Thisreasoningisinerrorfortworeasons:(1)a L  biologicalfathersbeliefastothepaternityofthechild,eventhebiologicalfatherslackof 8  knowledgeoftheexistenceofthechild,cannotacttoautomaticallydepriveachildofsupport;and $ t (2)thepartiesweremarriedwhenthechildwasborn,makingMr.Wilsonthechildspresumptive  ` fatherunlessoruntilthatpresumptionwasrebutted.Wenotethepresumptionhereinwasnot  L  rebuttedbut,instead,wasconfirmedbyscientifictesting.Thus,Mr.Wilsonhasalwaysbeenthe  8  childslegalaswellasbiologicalfatherandhashadacontinuingobligationtoprovidesupport. $  @ III.SupportforChildrenBornOutofWedlock     Thefactsituationwhereaputativefatherisunsureofthepaternityorunawareofexistence   ofachildmorecommonlyariseswhentheparentshaveneverbeenmarriedtoeachother.Inthat p situation,thelawdoesnotpresumefatherhood.However,statutoryproceduresexistfor \ acknowledgingandestablishingpaternity.Tenn.CodeAnn.362305.AsourSupremeCourthas H explained: 4 8  OurpaternityandchildsupportstatutesandtheChildSupportGuidelinesevincea  \ policythatchildrenshouldbesupportedbytheirfathers.Thepaternitystatutes H provideaprocessbywhichtheputativefathercanbeidentified.Onceidentified,the 4 fatherisrequiredtofurnishsupportandeducationforthechild.Thepaternity   statutesincorporateboththechildsupportprovisionspertainingtodivorcedecrees   aswellastheChildSupportGuidelines.   Berryhill,21S.W.3dat19091(citationsomitted).    Oncepaternityisestablished,thecourtsaretosetprospectivechildsupportaswellas X  retroactivesupport.Tenn.CodeAnn.362311(a)(11);Berryhill,21S.W.3dat192;Kaatrude,21 D! S.W.3dat248.Inthatsituation,afathersresponsibilityforsupportforachildofhisbornoutof 0"  wedlockarisesatthedateofthechildsbirth.Stateexrel.Colemanv.Clay,805S.W.2d752,755 #l! (Tenn.1991). $X"   InColeman,theSupremeCourtinterpretedthethenexistingpaternitystatutestoauthorize %0!$ aretroactiveawardforsupportinconjunctionwithanorderofpaternitybutalsotogivethecourts &"% broaddiscretiontodeterminetheamountofsucharetroactiveaward.Thecourtfurtherstated: '#& 8  Whatthejuvenilejudgelacksisdiscretiontolimitthefathersliabilityforchild )$( supportinanarbitraryfashionthatisnotconsistentwiththeprovisionsin[the |*%) paternitystatutes].Forexample,nothinginthosesectionscanbeinterpretedto h+&* restrictthefathersliabilitytothedatewhenheknowsforcertainthatthechildin  questionishis.Suchalimitationnotonlyamountstojudiciallegislation,butalso  encouragestheputativefathertoavoidlegitimatelyinstitutedcourtproceedingsand  todelaytesting...inthehopeofminimizingtheultimatesupportaward.t   Coleman,805S.W.2dat755. L    InColeman,paternityproceedingswerenotinstituteduntilthechildwasfourteenyearsold. $ t Althoughthefatherinitiallydeniedpaternity,heoccasionallyvisitedthechild.Bloodtests  ` confirmedthatthedefendantwasthechildsfather.Thetrialcourtenteredapaternitydecreeand  L  setprospectivesupport.Thecourtalsoawardedretroactivesupportonlybacktothedatewhen  8  bloodtestresultswereavailablewhichestablishedthedefendantwasactuallythechildsfather.Id. $  805S.W.2dat754.TheSupremeCourtfoundthat upondeterminationofpaternity,thefatherof   achildbornoutofwedlockisstatutorilyliableforsupportfromandafterthechildsbirth.Id.805   S.W.2dat755.Thecourtexplicitlyrejectedthetrialcourtsimplicitholdingthatthefathers   liabilityisretroactiveonlytothedateonwhichheknowsforcertainthatheisthechildsfather.     Colemanwasdecidedin1991,andtheGeneralAssemblymadesubsequentchangesinthe \ statutoryproceduresregardingtheestablishmentofpaternityotherthanbyadoption.SeeTenn.Code H Ann.362301to322.However,thesechangesdidnotaffectthesubstanceoftheprovisions 4 relieduponinColeman.Tenn.CodeAnn.362311;Berryhill,21S.W.3dat19092.  p   Thus,theobligationtosupportachildexistsfromthechildsbirth,anduponentryofan H orderestablishingpaternity,thefatherisliableforsupportbacktothatdate.Coleman,805S.W.2d 4 at75455.   8  Afathersbeliefsconcerninghisresponsibilityforachildareirrelevantincasesof  thissort.Itisneitheruncommonnorunexpectedforafathertobedisinclinedto  supportachildhebelievesisnothis.However,oncepaternityisestablished,the  obligationtoprovidesupportexistsnotwithstandingthefathersbeliefthatthechild l isnothisorthefactthat,eitherbychoiceorcircumstance,hehasnotbeenapartof X  thechildslife.D!   Kaatrude,21S.W.3dat248. #l! @a a IV.SupportforChildrenBornDuringMarriage $D #   UnderTennesseelaw,amanispresumedtobethefatherofachild,when,asinthiscase, &"%  themanandthechildsmotheraremarriedorhavebeenmarriedtoeachotherandthechildisborn '#& duringthemarriageorwithinthreehundred(300)daysafterthemarriageisterminatedbydeath, (#' annulment,declarationofinvalidity,ordivorce....Tenn.CodeAnn.362304(a)(1).This )$( presumptionmayberebutted inanappropriateaction,TennCodeAnn.362304(b)(1),bya |*%) preponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.362304(b)(3). h+&* Ї  Inthesituationofmarriedparents,theamountofchildsupportistobesetatthetimeof  divorce.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1).Courtsareauthorizedtoprovideforthefuturesupport  ofchildrenbyfixingadefiniteamounttobepaidinregularinstallmentsorotherwise,as  circumstancesmaywarrant.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(2)(A).Further,courtsmustapplythe t childsupportguidelinesdevelopedbytheDepartmentofHumanServicesindeterminingtheamount ` ofsuchsupport.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(e)(1)(A).Theguidelinesrequireanoncustodial L  parenttopaysupportwhichis aflatpercentageoftheobligorsnetincome,Tenn.Comp.R.& 8  Regs.,ch.124024.03(2),dependingonthenumberofchildrentobesupported.Theamount $ t dictatedbytheguidelinesistobeappliedasarebuttablepresumptionofthecorrectamountof  ` support.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(e)(1)(A).  L    Childsupportisestablishedprospectivelyatthetimeofdivorce.Inthatsituation,however, $  aninitialorderofsupportmustincludeanamountdueformonthlysupportfromthedateofthe   partiesseparation.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.04(1)(e).     Obviously,acourtcanenteranappropriateorderforsupportupondivorceofthechilds   parentsonlyifthecourtisawarethataminorchildisinvolved.Divorcingparentscannotdeprive p achildofsupportbyagreeingthatthehusbandisnotthefatherofthechildandagreeingtorelieve \ thatpartyfromanysupportobligation.Wittv.Witt,929S.W.2d360,363(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). H Further, 4 8  achildorchildrenborntoamarriagecannotberenderedillegitimate,directlyor  \ indirectly,inanydivorceactionorotherproceedingunlessthechildandorchildren H aremadepartiestotheaction,affordedtheprotectionofaguardianadlitem,and 4 counsel,ifnecessary.    Id.    InWitt,theparentssignedamaritaldissolutionagreementstipulatingthatachildwasborn  duringthemarriagebutthatthehusbandwasnotthefatherofthechildandthatthewifewasnot l livingwiththehusbandwhenthechildwasconceived.Adivorcewasgrantedonthegroundsof X  irreconcilabledifferences,andthedecreeapprovedthemaritaldissolutionagreement.Almosttwo D! yearslatertheState,whichhadbeenprovidingAFDCbenefitstothemother,soughttoimposechild 0"  supportobligationsontheformerhusbandandtoestablishpaternity.Bloodtestingrevealedthatthe #l! formerhusbandwasthechildsbiologicalfather. $X"   %0!$   Thiscourtupheldthetrialcourtsjudgmentsettingaside,pursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60,  thatportionofthedivorcedecreedealingwithpaternityandchildsupportbecausethoseprovisions  werevoidasagainstpublicpolicy.Id.929S.W.2dat362. #  3          Thepartieshereindidnotenterintothesameagreementintheirmaritaldissolution ` agreementasthepartiesinWitt.However,theeffectwasthesame:thechildbornduringthe L  marriagewasdeprivedofsupportbyhisorherlegalandbiologicalfather.Thiswasaccomplished 8  withouttheprotectionsguaranteedinWittorinthestatutequotedabovebecauseofomissionsinthe $ t divorcepapers.  `   Therecordhereinincludesthecomplaintfordivorce,citinggroundsofirreconcilable  8  differences,filedbythewife,nowMs.Clark.Theformcomplaintincludesaspaceforthe $  complainanttoidentify minorchildrenbornofthismarriageandtheirdatesofbirth.Theword    Noneisenteredinthatspace.AlthoughMr.Wilsondidnotsignthecomplaint,hedidsignthe   maritaldissolutionagreementwhichwasfiledwiththecourtandwhichdidnotmentionthechild.     Adivorceonthegroundofirreconcilabledifferencesrequiresthatthepartiesmakean p agreementregardingsupportofminorchildrenandthatthecourtfindsuchagreementreasonable, \ Tenn.CodeAnn.364103(b),reaffirmingthelegislaturesintentthatchildrenbornduringa H marriagebeprovidedsupportupondivorce.Becausethedivorcedecreehereindidnotaddressthe 4 issueofsupport,thereisnoprovisionwhichmustbesetaside.However,becausethedecreedidnot  p makeprovisionforsupportofthechild,itshouldbemodifiedtoreflectcustodyandsupport  \ decisionsrelatedtothechild. H   ThetrialcourthereinfoundMs.Clarkwasnotacrediblewitnessbecauseinherdivorce   complaintshedidnotlistanychildrenborntothemarriage.Thisfindingledthetrialcourtto   discountMs.ClarkstestimonythatshetoldMr.Wilsonhewasthefather.Becausethechildwas  bornduringthemarriage,thehusbandsbeliefastothepaternityofthechildwasnotrelevant.  Consequently,thecredibilitydeterminationhasnoeffectonthelegalissuestobedecided.Further,  whileMs.Clarkfailedtodisclose,orintentionallymadeaninaccuratestatement,Mr.Wilsondid l notcorrecttheerror.Inanyevent,neitheroneparent,norbothparentsbyagreement,candeprive X  achildofsupport.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat19192;Witt,929S.W.2dat363. D! Ї  Hadthecomplaintormaritaldissolutionagreementdisclosedtothecourtthatachildwas  bornduringthemarriage,thecourtcouldhavetakenappropriateactiontodeterminetheparentage  andtoprotectthechildsrighttosupport.Regardlessofwhichparentmaybearmoreresponsibility  fortheomission,itisthechildwhoseinterestsareparamount. t   Becausethechildwasbornduringthemarriage,Mr.Wilsonwasthepresumptivefather,and L  supportshouldhavebeensetatthetimeofthepartiesdivorce.Becausethepartiesfailedtodisclose 8  tothecourtthefactthatachildhadbeenbornduringthemarriage,therewasnojudicial $ t determinationofthechildspaternity.Thepresumptionthatthehusbandwasthechildsfatherwas  ` notrebutted.Theonlyevidenceeverintroducedincourtwasatthemodificationhearinginvolved  L  inthisappeal,andthatevidenceproved,ratherthanrebutted,thatMr.Wilsonwasthechildsfather.  8  @ V.DurationandCalculationofRetroactiveSupport     Thegoalofstatutesandregulationsgoverningchildsupportistoassurethatchildrenreceive   supportreasonablyconsistentwiththeirparentsorparentsfinancialresources.Kaatrude,21   S.W.3dat24849.TheChildSupportGuidelinesstateoneoftheirgoalsisto ensurethatwhen p parentsliveseparately,theeconomicimpactonthechild(ren)isminimized....Tenn.Comp.R. \ &Regs.,ch.124024.02(2)(e). H   Itisonlybecauseoftheuniquefactsofthiscaseandthetrialcourtsemphasisonthe  p reasonablenessofMr.Wilsonsbeliefthathewasnotthechildsfatherthatwehavediscussed  \ retroactivesupportintwocontexts:divorceandestablishmentofpaternity.Thechildinvolvedin H thisappealwasbornduringthemarriage,andsupportshouldhavebeensetatthetimeofthedivorce. 4   Asmorefullyexplainedbelow,however,thereisnowlittledifferenceinhowcourtsareto   awardorcalculateretroactivesupportbetweenordersforsupportaspartofadivorceandthose  resultingfromtheestablishmentofpaternityofachildborntoparentswhowerenotmarriedtoeach  otheratthetimeofthebirth.    Thechildsupportguidelinesapplytosupportorderedaspartofadivorcedecreeaswellas X  supportorderedupontheestablishmentofpaternityofachildborntoparentswhoarenotmarried D! toeachother.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat19091;Kaatrude,21S.W.3dat249.Theguidelinesapply 0"  inallactionsbroughttoestablishsupport.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.02(3).Underthe #l! guidelines: $X" 8  Incaseswhereinitialsupportisbeingset,ajudgmentmustbeenteredtoincludean %0!$ amountdueformonthlysupportfromthedateofthechildsbirthordateof &"% separationordateofabandonmentwhicheverisappropriate,untilthecurrentsupport '#& orderisentered.(#'   Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.04(1)(e). |*%)  h+&* eOY e e    Becausesupportshouldhavebeensetatthetimeofdivorce,theappropriatedatefor  determiningretroactivesupportisthedateofthepartiesseparation.AccordingtotheStatementof  theEvidence,Ms.ClarkmovedoutofthemaritalhomeinMarchof1994.Therecordissilentas  towhetheranysupportwasprovidedafterthattime. t   Althoughthiscasepresentsanunusualsituationinthatneitherprospectivenorretroactive L  supportwasawardedatthetimeofdivorce,wearenotwithoutguidanceastohowtocalculate 8  retroactivesupport.First,thiscourthasconsideredsituationswhereinitialchildsupportwas $ t improperlycalculatedatthetimeofthedivorce.Inthatsituation,thesupportistoberecalculated,  ` applyingtheguidelinestotheobligorparentsactualincome,andanyamountswhichshouldhave  L  beenpaidbutwerenotarearrearages.Andertonv.Anderton,988S.W.2d675,68182(Tenn.Ct.  8  App.1998);Smithv.Smith,No.M200001094COAR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS320,at*23 $  *24(Tenn.Ct.App.May2,2001)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).     Second,thechildsupportguidelinesnowprovidedirection.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat192.   Theguidelines carrywhatamountstoalegislativemandate.Id.21S.W.3dat192(quotingNash   v.Mulle,846S.W.2d803,804(Tenn.1993)).Undertheguidelines,whenthecourtdeterminesthe p amountofretroactivesupportduewhenenteringtheinitialorderforsupport,theamountofpast \ support: H 8  mustbecalculatedbasedupontheguidelinesusingtheaverageincomeoftheobligor  p overthepasttwoyearsandispresumedtobecorrectunlessrebuttedbyeitherparty.  \ Anamountshouldbeincludedintheordertoreducethearrearsjudgmentona H monthlybasiswithinareasonabletime.4   Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch124024.04(1)(e).     TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatthe1994inclusionintheguidelinesof  provisionsregardingretroactivesupporthaslimitedthecourtsdiscretioninmakingsuchawardsin  ordersestablishingpaternity.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat193.Althoughcourtscontinuetohave l discretion,the broaddiscretiontodeterminetheamountofretroactiveawardsdescribedin X  Coleman,805S.W.2dat755,hasbeennarrowed,andanydiscretion mustbeexercisedwithinthe D! stricturesoftheChildSupportGuidelines.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat193. 0"    Thus,theguidelinesmustbeapplied.TherecordhereinincludesMr.Wilsonstaxreturns $X" fortheyearsfrom1995through2000.However,theseexhibitsareunaccompaniedandunexplained $D # bytestimony.Consequently,uponremand,thetrialcourtshouldapplytheguidelinesby,first, %0!$ determiningMr.Wilsonsaverageincomeoverthepasttwoyearsand,then,aftergivingtheparties &"% theopportunitytopresentadditionalevidence,determiningwhethereitherpartyhasrebuttedthe '#& presumptionthatthisaverageamountisthecorrectamount.SeeBerryhill,21S.W.3dat19394 (#'  (findingthatproofofactualincomerebuttedthepresumption).Then,usingtheinstructionsand )$( formulaintheguidelines,thecourtshoulddeterminetheamountofchildsupportwhichwouldhave  beenowedundertheguidelines.f #  4         @  VI.DeviationfromGuidelines t   Havingdeterminedtheamountofretroactivesupportthatwouldbeowedunderthe L  guidelines,thetrialcourthasthediscretiontodeterminewhetherfactsexisttojustifyadeviation 8  fromtheguidelines.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(e)(1)(A)providesthat: $ t 8  Inmakingitsdeterminationconcerningtheamountofsupportanyminorchildor  L  childrenoftheparties,thecourtshallapplyasarebuttablepresumptionthechild  8  supportguidelinesasprovidedinthissubsection.Ifthecourtfindsthatevidenceis $  sufficienttorebutthispresumption,thecourtshallmakeawrittenfindingthatthe   applicationofthechildsupportguidelineswouldbeunjustorinappropriateinthat   particularcase,inordertoprovideforthebestinterestofthechild(ren)ortheequity   betweentheparties.Findingsthattheapplicationoftheguidelineswouldbeunjust   orinappropriateshallstatetheamountofsupportthatwouldhavebeenorderedunder p thechildsupportguidelinesandajustificationforthevariance.\     Inaddition,Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.01(2)providesthat: 4 8  T.C.A.365101requiresthattheremustbearebuttablepresumptioninallchild  \ supportcasesthattheamountofchildsupportdeterminedbyanapplicationofthese H guidelinesisthecorrectamounttobeawardedunlessthecourtmakesawrittenor 4 specificfindingontherecordthattheapplicationoftheguidelineswouldbeunjust   orinappropriateinaparticularcase.Suchafindingwouldsufficientlyrebutthe   presumptioninthatcase.Therebuttablepresumptionmustbeappliedtoallchild  supportawardseveniftheorderisbeingsoughtforaretroactiveperiodbefore  October13,1989.     Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.02(7)providesthat: X  8  Theseguidelinesshallbeappliedasarebuttablepresumptioninallchildsupport 0"  cases.Ifthecourtfindsthattheevidenceissufficienttorebutthepresumptionthat #l! theapplicationoftheguidelinesisthecorrectamounttobeawardedthenthecourt $X" mustmakeawrittenorspecificfindingthattheapplicationofthechildsupport $D # guidelineswouldbeunjustorinappropriateinthatparticularcase.Findingsthat %0!$  rebuttheseguidelinesmuststatetheamountthatwouldhavebeenrequiredunderthe &"% guidelinesandincludeajustificationfordeviationfromtheguidelineswhichtakes  intoconsiderationthebestinterestofthechild.      TheSupremeCourthasspecificallydirectedapplicationoftheseprovisionstoaretroactive t supportaward.Berryhill,21S.W.3dat193.Thecourtfurtherexplained: ` 8  Theguidelinesprovideageneralformulaforcalculatingtheappropriateamountof 8  childsupportbasedonanobligorsincomeandincludeaprocedurewhichpermits $ t limiteddeviationdownwardfromthegeneralformula.Theguidelinesalsomandate  ` adeviationupwardundercertaincircumstances.Theguidelinesareaminimumbase  L  fordeterminingchildsupportobligations. Theguidelinesexpresslyprovidefor  8  downwarddeviationwheretheobligeehasutterlyceasedtocareforthechild(ren); $  wheretheobligeeclearlyhasalowerlevelofchildcareexpensethanthatassumed   intheguidelines;andwheretheobligorissaddledwithextremeeconomic   hardship.Jonesv.Jones,930S.W.2d541,545(Tenn.1996). Althoughtherule   doesnotpurporttosetforthanexhaustivelistofinstancesinwhichdownward   deviationisallowed,thesespecificinstancesneverthelessareapowerfulindication p astothetypesofsituationsinwhichitiscontemplatedundertheguidelines.Jones, \ 930S.W.2dat545.Theguidelinesindicatethatthecourt shallincreasetheaward H iftheobligorisnotprovidinghealthinsurance,iftheobligorisexercisinglessthan 4 averagevisitation,ifextraordinarymedicalandeducationalexpensesexist,orifthe  p courtfindsthatequityrequiresit. \   Id.(somecitationsomitted). 4   Thus,onremand,thetrialcourtmayconsiderwhetheradeviationfromtheamountof   retroactivesupportdictatedbytheguidelinesformulaisjustified,underappropriatestandards.The  guidelinesprovidethatindeviatingfromtheguidelines primaryconsiderationmustbegiventothe  bestinterestofthechild(ren)forwhosesupporttheguidelinesarebeingutilized.Tenn.Comp.R.  &Regs.,ch.124024.04(5).l #  5      ׀Thetrialcourtisrequiredtofirstdeterminetheamountdueunder l theguidelinesandthenmakespecificfindingsjustifyinganydeviation. X  @SS"VII.Conclusion 0"    ThetrialcourtincorrectlylimitedretroactivesupporttothedateofDNAtestresults $X" establishingpaternityinsteadofthedateofthepartiesseparation.Totheextentthecourtsruling $D # canbeconsideredadecisiontodeviatefromthechildsupportguidelines,thedeviationisnot %0!$ supportedbytherequiredfindingsoffact.Forthosereasons,wevacatethejudgment.Wehave  determinedthatthecaseshouldberemandedforproceedingsinwhichthepartiesshallbegiventhe  opportunitytopresentadditionalevidencerelevanttotheappropriatestandardsandforthetrialcourt  tomaketherequisitedeterminationsandfindings.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee, t VernonWilson. `    `     h     ___________________________________  `    `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE