WPC^ h``߿w]EԿf]b@7H,]"tf=ikc\}o̚R큿I";YZ||fw:,"UjHA"K%HI(Z3+cMd5Z2$)ݭ.9v#7MTlBvG0흲-Sl3O.IWوP&Ƒ573ہ ER`Heۡvj3^Z"R])A/n+)w#!~K xy_Ks,m*<4'AYCCgU{}u] 7–"KZI<&OznG䊰XjT/HZ~52"oúudO2mRʁq6<;S;T?H%X`rzFab=;&cEE7b#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z1  }  m  8 0DPNE/"11111111111111111111111bSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0[[[[ BFF 0c D3 D-: 0Kgg AS 0 0Do A\\IB01S04\CLERKKNOX,,,,0. (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularg=.: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|xU  R$      2    _Thepetitionisanexhibitintherecord.ItreflectsthatMother _ha[d_]beenarecipientofanAidforFamilies  withDependentChildrenGrantfromtheStateofTennessee[forthechild]sinceOctober,1993.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1    _See Stateexrel.Clarkv.Wilson ,C/ANo.M200101626_COA_ԄR3CV,2002WL31863296,at*2(Tenn.  Ct.App.M.S.,filedDecember23,2002)(holdingthatafatherslackofknowledgeoftheexistenceofachild cannot v acttoautomaticallydepriveachildofsupport).  R#7$      3     _In Stateexrel.Clark ,2002WL31863296,at*7,wenotedthatthe broaddiscretiontodetermineretroactive  awardsalludedtoin Coleman  hasbeennarrowedbytheholdingin _Berryhill_ . rebuttable- -(|G2$ !.8Add8         0   d(|3$ !.8Add8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Add8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Add8     _  A8=XXdd8  @ Y8AINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#AY8 #Ԉ &   April1,2003Session L X=XA #AXX=#inre:CRYSTALMICHELLEMOATSX=XA  J @@ AppealfromtheJuvenileCourtfor_Blount_ԀCounty  J @@No.1133537WilliamT.Denton,Jr.,_Judge  6 FILEDAPRIL29,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<Z` AAV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201635_COA_ԄR3JV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisapaternitycase.FollowingDNAtesting,thepartiesagreedthatRandyL.Garner( Father) x  isthebiologicalfatherofCrystalMichelleMoats(DOB:August13,1985)( thechild).Theissues d remainingbeforethetrialcourtwere currentsupport,pastduesupport,andmedicalpayments. P Followingabenchtrial,thecourtaddressedtheseissues.Aspertinenttothisappeal,thetrialcourt < awardedMother$1,000assupportforthechildfromherdateofbirthtothedateoffilingofthe (x paternitypetition,i.e.,September18,2000.Motherappeals,contendingthatthetrialcourterredin d settingtheamountofretroactivesupportfortheperiodpriortothefilingofthepetition.Wevacate P thetrialcourtsawardof$1,000andremandforfurtherproceedings. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheJuvenileCourt  Vacated;CaseRemanded     #AX=\#X=X.ACharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined. t R.D.Hash,_Maryville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TeresaE.Headrick. L  H.AllenBray,_Maryville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,RandyL.Garner. $"t! v  OPINION #AXX= #X=XA #L# #AXX= #X=XA  @)I. %$!%   Thepartieswerenevermarriedtoeachother.Fathertestifiedthathewasnotawareofthe '"' childuntilshewastenyearsold._ #  1      _ԀHedidnotsayhowhefirstlearnedthatshewasallegedlyhis (#( daughter. )$) Ї  In1994,Mother,throughtheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices,  #  2      #AXX=5 #X=XAԀfiledapetition  againstFathertoestablishpaternityofthechild.Thatpetitionwassubsequentlynonsuited.Mother  testifiedthatsheterminatedthatproceedingbecauseofthreatsfromFathersfamily.    ThecurrentpetitionwasfiledonSeptember18,2000.Fathersfederalincometaxreturns ` for1995,1996,1997,and1998werefiledasexhibitsatthehearingbelow.Husbandtestifiedthat L  hehadsubmittedarequestwiththeIRSforcopiesofhistaxreturnsforthepertinentyearspriorto 8  1995,buthadbeenunabletoobtainthem. $ t   FatherattemptedtoshowthatthechildhadbeeninthecustodyofMothersgrandmotherfor  L  aperiodoftimepriorto1996.Thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatcustodyofthechildwasever  8  grantedtothegrandmother.Therecordreflectsthat_Oleana_Ԁ_Teffeteller_Ԁwasdesignatedasthechilds $  guardianinanorderenteredinthetrialcourtonMay20,1987.Thatguardianshipwasterminated   byanorderenteredOctober31,1995.Mothertestified,withoutcontradiction,thattheguardianship   wasestablishedsolelyforthepurposeofgivinghergrandmotherauthoritytoobtainmedical   treatmentforthechildwhileMotherwasworkingtwojobs.Motherstatedthattheguardiandidnot   receiveanysupportforthechildfromanysource,otherthanfromMother,andthatsheandthechild p livedwiththeguardian,firstintheguardianshomeandlaterinMothersresidence. \ @)II. 4   InawardingMother$1,000insupportfortheperiodfromthedateofthechildsbirthtothe  \ dateoffilingofthepetition,thetrialcourtstatedthefollowing: H   8 ` Evenifwegobackanduseimputedincome,theCourtstilliswithin   theCourtsdiscretiononanawardof_arrearages_.Thetestimonywas   [thatitwas]tenyearsbeforeheknewhehadadaughter,itwasfifteen  yearsbeforethisladyfiledandbroughtthisactiontoday.Aprevious  actionhadbeenbrought,butdismissed.The_arrearages_,asfarasthe  Courtwillaward,fromthedateofbirthuntilthefilingofthisaction l willbeatotalsumof$1,000.00.X ` x` x Thecourtdidnotindicate(1)howitarrivedatthe$1,000figure;(2)whetherthatawardwas 0"  computedpursuanttotheChildSupportGuidelines( theGuidelines);(3)ifnot,howmuchwas #l! dueundertheGuidelines;and(4)whythecourtwasdeviatingfromtheGuidelinesmandated $X" amount.Wedonotbelievethetrialcourtfollowedtheproperstepsindeterminingtheappropriate $D # amountofretroactivesupportinthiscase. %0!$   '#& @vv(III.    In _Berryhill_Ԁv.Rhodes ,21S.W.3d188(Tenn.2000),theSupremeCourtwasfacedwitha  petitionforpaternityfiledafterthesubjectchildhadattainedtheageof18. Id .at189.Inthatcase, t shortlyafterthechildsbirth,theputativefatherandthechildsmotherreachedaprivateagreement ` forthesupportofthechild. Id .Thefathermadesupportpaymentsduringtheentireperiodofthe L  childsminority. Id .Inherpetition,themother requestedchildsupportfromthedateofthechilds 8  birththroughtheperiodofherminority. Id .Shetookthepositionthattheprivateagreement $ t betweenthepartieswasvoidasagainstpublicpolicy.TheSupremeCourtheld,ina32decision,  ` thatprivateagreementstopaychildsupport usedtocircumventtheobligationssetforthinthe  L  statutesandguidelinescontravene[public]policy. Id .at192.  8    Aspertinenttotheissuebeforeus,theSupremeCourtin _Berryhill_ opinedastohowacourt   shouldgoaboutresolvingtheissueofretroactivechildsupport.Wequoteextensivelyfromthatcase   becausewebelieveitsetsforththeapplicableprinciplesanda roadmapforcourtstofollowwhen   presentedwiththisparticularissue:     8 ` OurpaternityandchildsupportstatutesandtheChildSupport \ Guidelinesevinceapolicythatchildrenshouldbesupportedbytheir H fathers.Thepaternitystatutesprovideaprocessbywhichthe 4 putativefathercanbeidentified.Onceidentified,thefatheris  p requiredtofurnishsupportandeducationforthechild.Thepaternity  \ statutesincorporateboththechildsupportprovisionspertainingto H divorcedecreesaswellastheChildSupportGuidelines.Thelegal 4 dutyofsupportexistsinallcases. ` x` x @%***    8 ` Thelegislaturehasprovidedforretroactiveawardsbystatuteandby  theincorporationoftheChildSupportGuidelinespromulgatedbythe l TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices,ChildSupportServices X  Division.Retroactivechildsupportisavailablewhetherthechildis D! aminororwhetherthechildhasreachedtheageofmajorityand 0"  bringstheclaimwithintimepermittedbythestatute.Furthermore, #l! courtsarerequiredtoapplytheChildSupportGuidelinesasa $X" rebuttablepresumptionindeterminingsupport,andthe1994 $D # guidelinesexplicitlyprovide thattherebuttablepresumptionmust %0!$ beappliedtoallchildsupportawardseveniftheorderisbeing &"% soughtforaretroactiveperiodbeforeOctober13,1989.ThisCourt '#& hasheldthattheguidelines carrywhatamountstoalegislative (#' mandate.Accordingly,themereactionofseekinganawardof )$(  retroactivechildsupportwithinthetimeframepermittedbystatute |*%) cannotrenderarequestforchildsupporteither unjustor   inappropriate.` x` x  @%*** t   8 ` TheChildSupportGuidelines,however,weresilentastoretroactive L  awardswhenthisCourtdecided Coleman [ v.Clay ,805S.W.2d752 8  (Tenn.1991)].Subsequenttothedecisionin Coleman ,retroactivity $ t provisionswereaddedtotheChildSupportGuidelines.Thespecific  ` inclusionoftheseprovisionsin1994limitedthecourtsdiscretionin  L  settingamountsofchildsupport.Whilethejuvenilecourtcontinues  8  tohavediscretioninmakingawardsofchildsupport,thatdiscretion $  mustbeexercisedwithinthestricturesoftheChildSupport   Guidelines. ` x` x @%***     8 ` Theguidelinesprovideageneralformulaforcalculatingthe \ appropriateamountofchildsupportbasedonan_obligor_sincome H andincludeaprocedurewhichpermitslimiteddeviationdownward 4 fromthegeneralformula.Theguidelinesalsomandateadeviation  p upwardundercertaincircumstances.Theguidelines areaminimum  \ basefordeterminingchildsupportobligations.H` x` x   8 ` [_T]he_Ԁguidelinesexpresslyprovidefordownwarddeviationwhere   the_obligee_Ԁhasutterlyceasedtocareforthechild(_ren_);wherethe   _obligee_Ԁclearlyhasalowerlevelofchildcareexpensethanthat  assumedintheguidelines;andwherethe_obligor_Ԁissaddledwith  extremeeconomichardship. Althoughtheruledoesnotpurport  tosetforthanexhaustivelistofinstancesinwhichdownward l deviationisallowed,thesespecificinstancesneverthelessarea X  powerfulindicationastothetypesofsituationsinwhichitis D! contemplatedundertheguidelines.Theguidelinesindicatethatthe 0"  court shallincreasetheawardifthe_obligor_Ԁisnotprovidinghealth #l! insurance,ifthe_obligor_Ԁisexercisinglessthanaveragevisitation,if $X" extraordinarymedicalandeducationalexpensesexist,orifthecourt $D # findsthatequityrequiresit.%0!$` x` x   8 ` Afterdeterminingtheamountofchildsupportundertheguidelines, '#& thetrialcourtmaythenconsiderwhethertheevidenceissufficientto (#' rebutthepresumption.Todeviatefromthepresumptiveamount,a )$( courtmustenter:|*%)` x` x  h+&*    ` 8 awrittenorspecificfindingontherecordthatthe  applicationoftheguidelineswouldbeunjustor  inappropriateinaparticularcase...inorderto  provideforthebestinterestofthechildortheequity t betweenthepartiesandthecourtmustshowwhatthe ` childsupportawardwouldhavebeenwithoutthe L  deviation.8     Id. at19091,192,193(footnoteandcitationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).Forfurtherguidance  ` ontheissueofadownwarddeviation,see Jonesv.Jones ,930S.W.2d541(Tenn.1996).  L    AsnotedbytheSupremeCourt, retroactivityprovisionswereaddedtotheChildSupport $  Guidelinesin1994andtheseprovisionsnow limit[]thecourtsdiscretioninsettingamountsof   childsupport. _Berryhill_ ,21S.W.3dat193.Thediscretionthatremains mustbeexercisedwithin   thestricturesoftheChildSupportGuidelines._ %  3      _Ԁ Id .Itisalsoclearunder _Berryhill_ that themere   actionofseekinganawardofretroactivechildsupportwithinthetimeframepermittedbystatute   cannotrenderarequestforchildsupporteitherunjustorinappropriate. Id .at192(emphasis p added).SeeTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.ch.124024.01(2)(3),ch.124024.02(7)(1994).Sincethe \ petitionintheinstantcasewastimelyfiled,itsfiling,some15yearsafterthebirthofthechild, H cannotbeabasisforfindingthatanawardofsupportundertheGuidelineswouldbeunjustor 4 inappropriate.  p   Theretroactivityprovisionsalludedtoin _Berryhill_ arefoundatTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.ch. H 124024.04(1)(e)(1994): 4   8 ` Incaseswhereinitialsupportisbeingset,ajudgmentmustbeentered   toincludeanamountdueformonthlysupportfromthedateofthe  childsbirthordateofseparationordateofabandonmentwhichever  isappropriate,untilthecurrentsupportorderisentered.Thisamount  mustbecalculatedbasedupontheguidelinesusingtheaverage l incomeofthe_obligor_Ԁoverthepasttwoyearsandispresumedtobe X  correctunlessrebuttedbyeitherparty.Anamountshouldbe D! includedintheordertoreducethearrearsjudgmentonamonthly 0"  basiswithinareasonabletime.#l!` x` x @ll)IV. $D #   Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtfailedtomakethefindingsrequiredbytheGuidelines.In &"% thetrialcourtsdefense,itshouldbenotedthattherewasapaucityofevidenceregardingFathers '#& pre1995income;however,theGuidelinesclearlysetforththeapproachatrialcourtshouldtake (#' whenaddressingretroactivechildsupport.Suchsupport mustbecalculatedbaseduponthe  guidelinesusingtheaverageincomeofthe_obligor_Ԁoverthepasttwoyearsandispresumedtobe  correctunlessrebuttedbyeitherparty. Id .(emphasisadded).Itisnotclearwhetherthetrialcourt  foundthatthispresumptionhadbeenrebutted.Ifitreachedsuchaconclusion,itfailedtostateits t rationaleforthatdetermination. `   Wehavedeterminedthatthismattershouldberemandedtothetrialcourtforafurther 8  hearing.Thecourtshouldreceivesuchadditionalrelevantevidenceasthepartiesmaywishto $ t presentontheissueofretroactivechildsupportfortheperiodfromthechildsbirthtothefilingof  ` thecurrentpetition.Inresolvingthisissue,thetrialcourtshouldfollowthestepbystepprocedure  L  setforthintheGuidelinesasexplainedin _Berryhill_ .Writtenfindingsonthevarioussubissuesto  8  beaddressedonremandshouldaccompanythetrialcourtsdecision. $  @)V.     SomuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentasawardsMother$1,000forretroactivechildsupport   isvacated.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings,consistentwiththis p opinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee,RandyL.Garner. \    `     h     _______________________________  \    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE