Adult Child Can Sue Biological TN Dad for Retroactive Child Support
Tennessee child support law case law summary on child support collection from the Court of Appeals.
[See, Back Child Support Can Be Limited to 5 Yrs: New Law in 2017]
Jordan Ashton Danelz v. John Gayden, M.D.
This was the third appeal in a case of a Tennessee adult who brought an action against his biological father for retroactive child support. The son was born in 1984 while his mother was married to someone other than his biological father. The son was unaware of his mother’s relationship with his biological father, and her husband signed his birth certificate and raised him as a son. The mother and her husband were divorced while the son was still young.
Upon becoming an adult, the son filed this action. After the first appeal, a DNA test showed a probability of 99.992% that the defendant was the biological father, and the trial court found that he was the biological father.
In the second appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that the son might be entitled to retroactive child support if the biological father were found to be the legal father. Therefore, it remanded the case so that the trial court could make the determination of whether the defendant was the legal father. In the current appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reconsidered and determined that the determination of legal parenthood was not dispositive.
On remand, the trial court first found that the defendant was the legal father under Tennessee law. It then went on to consider whether the son was entitled to retroactive child support. The trial court concluded that he did not have a right to seek the child support because his mother was barred from seeking the child support. Because she had asserted in the divorce proceeding that her husband was the father, she was estopped from claiming otherwise, and was therefore unable to collect child support.
The son brought a third appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The father also brought an appeal challenging the trial court’s finding that he was the legal father.
The trial court had based its decision largely on the grounds that the statute specifies that child support shall be paid to the custodial parent. It reasoned, therefore, that the child himself did not have a personal interest in those funds. For example, it cited an earlier case in which the child had reached majority. In that case, the court had held that only the parent had a right to collect the funds. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the earlier case did not address the same situation. The Court of Appeals noted that courts in other states have allowed adult children to sue for retroactive child support. It based this determination on its reading of the state parentage statutes, and it concluded that such a claim was possible.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals held that the son could recover retroactive child support. Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a determination of the amount of the support.
No. W2012-01667-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
For more information, see Tennessee Child Support Answers to FAQ’s. For legal updates, news, analysis, and commentary, visit our Tennessee Family Law Blog and its Child Support category. 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. To schedule your confidential consultation about Tennessee child support, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
