Tennessee Dads Can Owe Child Support as Part of Order of Protection
Tennessee law case summary on jurisdiction and child support in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Ferrari-Bullock v. Randall – Tennessee Divorce and Jurisdiction Law
Jennifer Ferrari-Bullock and Justin Randall were married in 1992, and had four minor children. In 2009, Jennifer filed for an order of protection against Justin in Davidson County. In her petition, Jennifer alleged that Justin had physically restrained her in the kitchen and placed both her and the children in fear. She alleged that he harassed and frightened the children, that he was a “control freak” who became angry and bullied her and the children.
The Davidson County Circuit Court granted the petition and granted custody of the children to Jennifer. Justin was given supervised visitation one day per week, and was ordered to pay $1,400 per week for support of the children. However, the Circuit Court neglected to attach a child support worksheet to the order.
About a month later, Justin made a motion to set aside the support order on the grounds that Sumner County had jurisdiction, since the wife had filed a divorce petition there. She had filed this petition after requesting the order for protection, but before the Davidson County court had made its order. The Sumner County court had already ordered Justin to pay $3,000 per month in temporary child support as part of the divorce action. Jennifer had requested that the Sumner County divorce case be dismissed, and that motion had been granted. But she then asked the Sumner County court to reinstate the divorce action. That motion to reinstate the divorce case was actually heard the same day that the case was heard in Davidson County.
After the Davidson County court had made its order for protection, and while the motion to set aside the Davidson County order was pending, Jennifer made a motion in Sumner County to transfer the divorce case to Davidson County. The Sumner County court denied this motion, and held that Sumner County was the proper venue for the divorce. After this order, Jennifer once again filed a notice of dismissal, and the Sumner County divorce case was dismissed.
About a year later, Jennifer filed a motion in Davidson County to extend the order for protection, and the court renewed the order for another ten years.
Justin once again moved to modify the order on the grounds that Davidson County did not have subject matter jurisdiction, because Jennifer had subsequently filed for divorce in Milam County, Texas. The Davidson County court denied this motion, and held that it had jurisdiction because Jennifer had stated that she may move back to Tennessee. The Davidson County court kept the child support at $1,400 per week. Justin appealed from this order.
On appeal, Justin argued that the Davidson County court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the protection order, since he resided in Sumner County, and the alleged abuse took place in Sumner County. However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals did point out some incidents that took place in Davidson County.
Justin also argued that the Davidson County court had no jurisdiction to make an order for child support, due to the on-again off-again pending divorce case in Sumner County, which had actually made an order setting child support. But the Court of Appeals pointed out that the two types of cases are not mutually exclusive, and that there is some permissible overlap in the avenues of relief. The Court did quote a Tennessee statute stating that nothing in the statute regarding orders for protection “shall prohibit a petitioner from requesting relief under this section in a divorce action.”
The Court of Appeals also held that the pending Texas divorce action (about which few details were available to the court) did not divest the Tennessee court of jurisdiction.
Justin also argued that the Davidson County court had not followed the child support guidelines, nor did it give any reason for deviating. However, the Court of Appeals held that Justin hadn’t appealed the original order. He was only appealing the later order extending the order for protection. Therefore, he should have raised this issue in an appeal from the original order.
The Court of Appeals did agree with Justin, however, that the trial court erred in failing to apply the child support guidelines in the renewed order. The trial court had conceded in the transcript that the amount awarded “far exceed child support guidelines.” The only evidence of income before the trial court was a single bank statement.
The Court of Appeals held that the case would need to be vacated and remanded, and that the trial court would need to follow the guidelines, or make specific written findings if it deviated from them. When questioned by Justin’s attorney about the lack of an income and expense worksheet, the trial court had stated, “they don’t do that in orders of protection.” The Court of Appeals made clear that this was not correct. It cited a regulation of the Tennessee Department of Human Services which stated that the child support guidelines apply in orders of protection as well as divorce actions.
Ferrari-Bullock v. Randall, No. M2011-01528-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. of App. June 28, 2012).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, child support, alimony, prenuptial agreements, child custody, parental relocation, child support modification, alimony modification, and divorces including business valuation and forensic accounting issues.
