Court Finding No Significant Variance: Child Support Reversed

Tennessee child support modification law in Tennessee family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Jenny A. Pennington vs. Christopher J. Hennessee – Significant Variance Required to Modify Tennessee Child Support

The Mother, Jenny Pennington, and the Father, Christopher Hennessee, were the unwed parents of one child (born 2002).  A paternity order entered against the Father in 2002, and the Parents adopted a “Permanent Parenting Plan.”  The Father’s original child support obligation was $128/week plus medical and dental insurance, reasonable school expenses, daycare expenses while the Child was with him, and college expenses.

By 2005, the Parents signed and the court entered an “Agreed Order” to provide for the shared custody of the Child and to modify the Father’s child support obligation.  The Parties stipulated that “neither party shall be obligated to pay child support,” although the Father would continue to pay additional sums to third parties as per the original child support order.

In 2010, the Mother filed a “Petition for Modification of Child Support,” requesting Father pay child support to her.  The Mother lost her arguments at the trial court, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and remanded the Parties back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Mother earned $9,550 in 2005.  In 2010, she earned $8,400.  The trial court found the Mother qualified to be deemed a “low income provider.”  The Father’s income in 2005 was $55,600 and in 2010 was $58,805.

The Court of Appeals refused to recognize the Parents’ 2005 agreement to waive child support payments.  The Court of Appeals wrote that even if the Parties agree to a variation or a waiver of child support, the trial court must make a “written finding that the application of the child support guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in that particular case,” citing Tennessee Code Annotated at section 36-5-1-1(e)(1)(A) and Tennessee Comp. Rules & Regulations section 1240-02-04-.02(7).  In 2005, when the Parties agreed that neither should pay child support to the other, the trial court simply entered the order without conducting an independent, financial analysis.

The Court of Appeals essentially said that no matter the deals parents may reach between themselves, the court remains the final authority on whether a deal between the parents is in the best interests of the child.

The Court of Appeals reminded the trial court and the Parents that the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines are a “rebuttable presumption” of the child support obligations of each party, meaning, the court shall start its analysis with a presumption that child support should be paid as per the statutory formula unless a party convinces the court otherwise.  And, even when convinced, the trial court must set out the presumptive child support and articulate the specific reasons for the variance to comply with Tennessee Annotated Code section 36-5-101(e)(1) and Tennessee Comp. Rules & Regulations 1240-02-04-.02(7).

Jenny A. Pennington vs. Christopher J. Hennessee, No. M2010-01873-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA, practices family law exclusively with the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. To learn more about Tennessee child support laws and guidelines, read and view:

A Memphis child support attorney from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help you with Tennessee child support issues including setting or modifying child support. Contact the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC at 901-683-1850.

Topics

Copyright © 2024 Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC   - Disclaimer