Facts: Husband and Wife divorced after 25 years of marriage. They have two children, both of whom are adults. The trial took place over six days, spread out over a year.

One of their adult children has significant developmental delays. She was educated through 12^th grade in a special education program for children with moderate to severe disabilities and received a “certificate of attendance” in place of a high-school diploma.

The trial court heard testimony from a clinical psychologist who is also a board-certified disability consultant. He testified Child has an IQ score of around 60 and cannot work, even with considerable supervision. Child cannot take care of herself without considerable guidance and support. Moreover, Child’s severe impairment will deteriorate over time.

While both Husband and Wife recognized that they would have to take care of Child for the rest of her life, Husband argued Child’s struggles do not rise to the level of a severe disability. He acknowledged, however, that she cannot travel independently, has never ridden a bicycle, cannot drive a car, and has trouble with math, time, and sensory issues. Child cannot cross a busy street by herself because she does not know to look both ways and cannot judge when to go. It is very difficult for her to microwave a frozen dinner or make change for a dollar. While Husband agreed Child cannot handle money, he thought she could take an Uber to work at agencies for people with severe disabilities, such as Goodwill.

The trial court found Child is severely disabled and was severely disabled before she turned 18. Husband was ordered to pay child support of $906 per month.

Husband appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding Child “severely disabled.”

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Tennessee law lets courts order child support regardless of the child’s age for children who are “severely disabled and living under the care and supervision of a parent.”

The Court found the trial court’s ruling was supported by the evidence:

The trial court found [Child] to be severely disabled pursuant to the applicable statute, finding the testimony of [the witnesses] to be credible on the issue of the child’s ability to work, use transportation, and manage her financial affairs. The [trial] court cited Husband’s testimony that he would be uncomfortable with [Child] living on her own or crossing the street by herself…. The [trial] court likewise relied on the testimony of both parents and the uncontradicted corroboration of the other witnesses in finding that [Child’s] disability preceded her turning 18 years of age. Despite Husband complaining that [Child] was not “afforded the opportunity to testify,” we find the representation she received from the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem protected her best interest. A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the finding that the trial court did not err in finding that [Child] is severely disabled.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

K.O.’s Comment: The case also involved complex valuation issues regarding Wife’s interest in certain business entities. Both parties presented expert proof. The trial court credited Mother’s expert witness, Shannon Farr, CPA, over Husband’s expert, finding Ms. Farr to be more qualified, more experienced, and more persuasive than Husband’s expert. I met with Shannon when she was in Knoxville recently, and I want to give her a shout-out for doing great work in this case.

Source: Niemeyer v. Niemeyer (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, April 17, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.