Facts: Mother and Father are the never-married parents of Child, who was born in July 2017. They separated before Child was born. Both parents lived in Indiana.

After Child’s birth, Mother petitioned an Indiana court to establish child support. Father appeared and cooperated in the litigation, but it was dismissed in April 2021 because of Mother’s lack of cooperation.

After Mother’s Indiana petition was dismissed, Father moved to Tennessee.

In Tennessee, Child Support Services petitioned in January 2024 to establish paternity and set current and retroactive child support. A DNA test confirmed Father’s paternity.

The Child Support Magistrate found:

• Father was aware of Mother’s pregnancy and that Mother considered Father to be Child’s father;
• the parents separated before Mother gave birth;
• Father acknowledged that Mother sent pictures and communicated with Father’s friends and family after Child’s birth, alleging that Child was Father’s child;
• Child has lived exclusively with Mother at all times, and
• Father has provided no financial support for Child.

The Magistrate determined that Father owed $58,000 in retroactive child support going back to Child’s birth.

Father asked for a hearing before the Chancellor, who affirmed the Magistrate’s findings except the Chancellor concluded that:

• Father proved he was unsure of his possible parentage “because of Mother’s noncooperation in her previous petition to establish paternity,” and
• the extent to which Father did not know and could not have known of his possible parentage is “limited in nature” such that retroactive support is only appropriate from the date Mother’s initial petition was dismissed, i.e., April 2021, instead of going back to Child’s birth in July 2017.

Thus, the Chancellor reduce Father’s child support arrearage from $58,000 to $40,000.

Father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by using the dismissal date of Mother’s initial petition as the date that his retroactive support obligation began.

Child Support Services argued the trial court erred in finding Father had rebutted the presumption in the Child Support Guidelines of awarding full retroactive support and abused its discretion in partially reducing Father’s retroactive-support obligation.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s ruling.

In Tennessee, retroactive child support is generally awarded back to the child’s birth, the parents’ separation, or the abandonment of the child. Unless the court determines that a longer period of retroactive support is in the interest of justice, retroactive child support shall not be awarded for a period of more than five years from the date the petition for child support is filed.

When determining whether to deviate from the presumption of retroactive support, Tennessee courts must consider these factors:

• the extent to which the father did not know, and could not have known, of the existence of the child, the birth of the child, his possible parentage of the child, or the location of the child;
• the extent to which the mother intentionally, and without good cause, failed or refused to tell the father about the existence of the child, the birth of the child, the father’s possible parentage of the child, or the location of the child; and
• the attempts by the child’s mother or caretaker to tell the father about the mother’s pregnancy, or the existence of the child, the father’s possible parentage, or the child’s location.

In making any deviations from awarding retroactive support, Tennessee courts must make written findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the basis for the deviation.

Here, the Court found the trial court’s findings were contradictory:

The trial court found that Father “carried his burden” to deviate from the Guidelines because “he testified that he was unsure to a degree of his possible parentage” because Mother failed to cooperate with the Initial Petition. As an initial matter, the trial court failed to find that Father rebutted the presumption with clear and convincing evidence, as required by TCA § 36-2-311(a)(11)(B) and the Guidelines. “Clear and convincing evidence” requires a higher burden of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard. Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, there must be “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” Thus, the trial court was required to find that there was no serious or substantial doubt concerning the extent to which Father did not know and could not have known of his possible parentage of Child. The trial court’s lack of findings constrains our review of this issue. Indeed, the trial court failed to elaborate as to what “degree” of knowledge Father had that Child was or was not his biological child. Additionally, the trial court did not address the other two factors in § 36-2-311(a)(11)(A). Section 36-2-311(a)(11)(A)(ii) required the trial court to consider the extent to which Mother intentionally failed or refused to notify Father of Child’s existence or birth, Father’s possible parentage, or Child’s location. Section 36-2-311(a)(11)(A)(iii) requires the trial court to consider Mother’s attempt to notify Father of her pregnancy, the existence of Child, Father’s possible parentage, or Child’s location…. On review of the Magistrate’s findings, it appears that Father was not only aware of Child’s existence, but he also was apprised of the likelihood that Child was his. Nonetheless, he chose to remain ignorant of the truth. Indeed, the Magistrate found that Father “had ample reason” to believe he was Child’s father…. The Magistrate also found that Father “could have initiated his own paternity action” after [Mother’s] Initial Petition was dismissed or at any time after learning of Mother’s pregnancy or Child’s birth. It is difficult to reconcile these extensive findings, which the trial court confirmed as its own, with the trial court’s finding that Father carried his burden to deviate from the Guidelines. Even more perplexing is the trial court’s second finding that “[t]he extent to which [Father] did not know and could not have known of his possible parentage is limited in nature[.]” The trial court made no finding as to why Father’s ignorance of his parentage would be “limited in nature.” … For the many reasons discussed above, the trial court’s order failed to provide the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its deviation from the Guidelines and the presumption that full retroactive support should be awarded….

If a court deviates from the Guidelines, it “must make a written finding that application of the Guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in order to provide for the best interests of the child or the equity between the parties.” Additionally, the trial court was required to “include in the order the total amount of retroactive support that would have been paid … had a deviation not been made by the court[.]”

The Guidelines make clear that, when deviating from them, “primary consideration must be given to the best interest of the child for whom support under these Guidelines is being determined.” …

When the trial court orders a deviation of child support without the required findings, we have often held that the decision should be vacated and the cause remanded for the entry of a fully compliant order. Because there were insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final order, we remand the case to the trial court to reconsider whether a deviation from the Guidelines is warranted…. If the trial court finds that Father is entitled to a deviation, it must make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the deviation, as discussed extensively above. We caution the trial court against merely issuing conclusory statements without findings to support such statements.

The Court vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for further findings.

K.O.’s Comment: Father’s curious choice to appeal the trial court’s favorable decision may prove a costly mistake.

Source: Stacy P. v. Bret P. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, May 19, 2025).

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