Facts: Mother’s troubling behavior led Father to file for divorce and gain custody of their daughter (“Child”) in 2016.

Because of Mother’s mental-health issues and erratic conduct (including baseless abuse accusations and a prescription drug problem), the divorce court restricted Mother to supervised visitation.

A 2018 permanent parenting plan designated Father as the primary residential parent and required Mother’s visitation be supervised at her expense. In light of those costs, the plan deviated Mother’s child support obligation to $0 (her guideline support would have been $449/month) so long as she paid for supervised visitation.

Mother never paid any child support after the divorce; she believed the court’s order meant she owed nothing as long as she wasn’t allowed unsupervised time.

Over the next several years, Mother’s own parents (Child’s grandparents) and even a professional agency struggled to manage her visits due to Mother’s unstable behavior. By 2021, Mother’s visitation stopped entirely for lack of a willing supervisor.

In early 2023, Father and Stepmother petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights so Stepmother could adopt Child. The petition alleged several grounds, including abandonment by willful failure to support, and others related to Mother’s mental unfitness.

After a trial, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of three grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to support, (2) mental incompetence, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. It also found that termination of Mother’s rights was in Child’s best interest.

Mother appealed, primarily disputing the “failure to support” ground and arguing the evidence on the other grounds and best interests.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed one ground but affirmed the rest of the trial court’s decision (and the ultimate termination of Mother’s rights).

Mother contended her failure to pay child support in the relevant four-month period was not willful because she genuinely believed she had no duty to pay under the $0 support order in the parenting plan.

Tennessee law presumes every parent knows they must support their child, even without a court order, but a parent can defeat an abandonment ground by proving their failure to support was not willful.

Here, the Court acknowledged the unique parenting plan provision “deviating” Mother’s support to zero. Mother was never told in the order that she needed to resume payments if her visitation stopped. In fact, the order arguably implied she owed nothing unless she was exercising (and paying for) supervised visitation.

The Court agreed that Mother’s nonpayment under these circumstances did not rise to willful abandonment:

Mother argues that while her child support payment was deviated downward from $449.00 per month to $0.00 per month in light of her responsibility to pay for supervised visitation, the trial court’s February 2018 permanent parenting plan did not contain a provision reinstating payments should visitation not occur. In other words, [Mother] could not have been aware of a duty to support the child when the operative Permanent Parenting Plan ordered her to pay Zero Dollars ($0.00) in support.

Petitioners offer no argument that Mother’s understanding of the trial court’s order is unreasonable. Nor do Petitioners argue that this Court should read inversely conditional language—i.e., that the downward deviation would not apply in the absence of visitation—into the order. We have previously reversed the finding that the ground of abandonment by failure to support weighed in favor of termination where the “order in effect during the pivotal time period may have obfuscated the parties’ legal obligation to pay support, and muddie[d] the evidence on the willfulness of their admitted failure to pay.” Despite there being no dispute that Mother did not provide support for the child, in light of the fundamental liberty interest at stake and the unique facts of this case, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports Mother’s argument that her failure to do so was not willful. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling on this ground must be reversed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the “failure to support” ground but affirmed the termination of Mother’s parental rights on the other grounds and best interests. Mother’s loss of parental rights stands despite the one vacated ground.

K.O.’s Comment: The unusual child-support deviation (setting support at $0 while Mother paid for supervised visitation) created confusion. Mother believed – not unreasonably – that she had no obligation to pay support if she wasn’t getting visitation. The Court of Appeals was willing to give Mother the benefit of the doubt on willfulness because the order “muddied” the issue. Lawyers drafting parenting plans should try to anticipate reasonably foreseeable scenarios such as this. If support is waived or reduced contingent on something like supervised visitation, spell out what happens if that arrangement ends.

Also, a parent in Mother’s position would be wise to err on the side of caution – when in doubt, pay something (or at least seek clarification from the court). It’s far better to meet your support obligations, even voluntarily, than to risk a court later finding you willfully abandoned your child. Tennessee law presumes parents know they must support their kids; only truly extraordinary facts (like a contradictory court order) will excuse non-payment.

Source: In re Miriam T. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, September 8, 2025).

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