Facts: Mother and Father, the never-married parents of Child, had an on-again off-again relationship for 10 years.

Because of Mother’s relocation and Father’s work schedule, the trial court modified their parenting plan. Father’s parenting time increased from 110 days to 130 days.

To determine child support, Father produced one paystub for one week of employment. It was not even his most current paystub. Mother did not object or argue that the proffered paystub was inaccurate.

The trial court set Father’s gross monthly income at $4800 and set Mother’s at $1952. Father was ordered to pay monthly child support of $653 and was allowed to claim the child tax credit.

Mother appealed.

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

The process and criteria for determining a parent’s child support obligation is governed by the Child Support Guidelines created by the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

In Tennessee, a parent’s child support obligation is based on an Income Shares Model. This model presumes that both parents contribute to the financial support of the child in pro rata proportion to the actual income available to each parent. Under this model, both parents’ actual income and certain additional expenses of rearing the child are considered.

The Court found the trial court miscalculated the parties’ incomes for child support:

Mother contends that Father’s income should be calculated by determining his average monthly gross earnings. Pursuant to the Guidelines, this should include regular wages, bonuses, and overtime earnings. At trial, Mother did not question Father concerning any overtime pay that he received. On direct examination, Father testified only that overtime was “voluntary.” Because it is the only evidence of Father’s income, we have reviewed Father’s paystub. The paystub, which is for the pay period “04/06/22—04/12/22,” indicates that Father’s “pay frequency” is “weekly.” As such, the gross pay [of] $1986 that Father received in his April 15 paycheck was for one week of work. The $1986 includes $480.04 and overtime pay (again, there was no testimony concerning how often or how much Father receives and overtime pay); so, Father’s weekly base pay amount is $1506. Assuming that Father makes a minimum of $1506 per week, his gross monthly income would be upwards of $6000. So, in setting Father’s gross monthly income at $4800, it appears that the trial court not only assumed that Father’s paystub was for two weeks of work (as opposed to one week of work), it also failed to consider Father’s overtime pay.

*     *     *     *     *

From Mother’s testimony, she works four nights per week and makes $130 per night, which would result in gross income of $520 per week, or $2253.33 gross income per month (i.e., $520 times 52 weeks divided by 12 months). So, the trial court’s setting Mother’s gross monthly income at $1986, even if this was an imputed income, resulted in the assignment of a gross monthly income that was approximately $267.33 less than Mother’s actual gross monthly income according to her testimony.

Because the trial court erred in calculating the parties’ respective gross monthly incomes for child support purposes, we vacate the trial court’s calculation of child support and remand for recalculation of the parties’ incomes and resetting of child support under the Child Support Guidelines. The trial court is not precluded from reopening proof concerning the parties’ respective incomes.

The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and returned the case to the trial court for reconsideration.

Source: In re Justus P. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, May 9, 2024).

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