Appeals Court Affirms Child Support Case Despite Pro Se Mother’s Grievances

Tennessee case summary on child support and judge recusal in divorce and family law.

Appeals Court affirms child support case, despite Pro Se mother’s laundry list of grievances

Nedra R. Hastings v. Larry M. Hastings

The child in this child support case was born in 2004, and the State of Tennessee filed an action to establish child support.  Litigation followed over the years, including a 2020 hearing before a special judge to hear Social Security Title IV-D issues.  The special judge dismissed all Title IV-D matters, and the remainder of the case was heard by another judge.  Dissatisfied with the outcome in 2020, the mother brought an appeal, the second of her fourth, to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals made its ruling in that second appeal on April 5, 2024.

The mother acted as her own attorney in the appeal.  The court, after reciting the lengthy history of the litigation, first noted that the mother raised numerous issues, but some of them were not consistent with what she argued in her brief.  Also, some of the issues were not supported by arguments at all.

Some issues were properly presented, and the Court of Appeals addressed them in turn.  First of all, she argued that the trial judge, Nancy Percer Kessler of the Shelby County Juvenile Court, should have been recused.  In particular, the mother argued that the judge should have not made any rulings until the recusal motion was decided.  But the appeals court pointed out that the judge had followed the correct procedure:  She denied the motion before hearing other matters.  Therefore, there was no reversible error on this point.

The mother also argued that the Title IV-D issues were outside the jurisdiction of the court.  But the appeals court found this argument to be invalid, since the case had been brought in state court with the mother’s consent.

The mother also argued that the appointment of a special judge was improper.  The chief judge had made an order that the regular judge was absent, and the appointment of an outside attorney to serve as special judge was necessary.  However, the appeals court pointed out that the court is not required to offer proof of the necessity of the appointment. 

The mother also objected to the use of Zoom hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The appeals court pointed to a standing order of the Tennessee Supreme Court that as much business as possible was to be conducted during the pandemic by means other than in-person hearings.  The appeals court held that the Zoom hearings were proper in light of this order.

The mother also objected to the lower court having quashed some of her subpoenas.  But the appeals court found that the error, if any, was harmless.

The mother also argued that the lower court had failed to make independent findings, but the appeals court also ruled that this issue was without merit.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and assessed the costs of appeal against the mother.

No. W2020-01225-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2024).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Support Laws in Tennessee.