Facts: Mother and Father divorced in 2015. They have one severely disabled daughter. The Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”) incorporated into their divorce decree required Father to pay child support until Daughter’s 25th birthday, after which his obligation would end. At the time of the divorce, Daughter was 18 years old and living with Mother.

Before Father’s final child support payment was due in March 2022 (Daughter’s 25th birthday), Mother filed a petition to extend child support. She alleged that Daughter’s severe disabilities, including microcephaly, autism, and an anxiety disorder, leave her with the mental capacity of a young child and render her unable to live independently. At that time, Daughter received about $840 per month in Social Security disability benefits, which were insufficient for her care. Father opposed Mother’s petition.

Mother was later appointed Daughter’s conservator, reflecting Daughter’s inability to manage her own affairs. In June 2024, the Circuit Court found Daughter to be a “severely disabled child” under Tennessee’s child-support statute and determined that it was in Daughter’s best interest for Father’s support to continue beyond age 25. The case was then transferred to the General Sessions Court for a final decision on child support.

After a contested hearing, the General Sessions Court found that Daughter was severely disabled before turning 18 and that Mother should continue receiving child support for Daughter. The trial court held that the MDA’s provision ending Father’s support obligation at Daughter’s 25th birthday was unenforceable and against public policy. The court ordered Father to pay ongoing child support of $700 per month for Daughter’s benefit, beginning in November 2024 and continuing indefinitely (with the support amount subject to modification if Father’s income decreases). The court also awarded Mother a judgment of $21,700 in retroactive child support for the period after Daughter’s 25th birthday.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to continue Father’s child-support obligation beyond the MDA’s termination date.

In Tennessee, child support is a creature of statute, and parents cannot contract away a child’s right to support. Even when a marital dissolution agreement includes a child-support provision, the agreement becomes part of the court’s decree, and the child-support terms remain modifiable by the courts in appropriate circumstances.

Tennessee law also allows courts to extend child support for disabled adult children in certain cases. TCA § 36-5-101(k) permits child support to continue beyond the age of majority for a disabled child. In particular, TCA § 36-5-101(k)(2) permits a court to order support indefinitely for a “severely disabled” child who was disabled before turning 18 and remains under the care of a parent, if the court finds it is in the child’s best interest and the obligor is financially able to pay.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the trial court properly extended Father’s child support obligation beyond the MDA’s agreed-upon termination date:

It is a well-known and longstanding legal principle that child support obligations cannot be contracted away. The duty of support cannot be permanently bargained away; agreements not to seek future increases in child support are likewise void as against public policy.

*     *     *     *     *

Our courts have held that agreements, incorporated in court decrees or otherwise, which relieve a natural or adoptive parent of his or her obligation to provide child support are void as against public policy…

*     *     *     *     *

But Father fails to acknowledge that Mother filed her petition for an extension of Father’s child support obligation in February of 2022, which was prior to the termination date established in the MDA. Moreover, the arrearage judgment was based on Father’s support obligation after Daughter’s 25th birthday, which was after the filing of the petition. Thus, the trial court’s ruling was not in contravention of TCA § 36-5-101(f)(1).

*     *     *     *     *

Contrary to Father’s contention, when a child is found to be severely disabled under § 36-5-101(k), support may be continued indefinitely.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

K.O.’s Comment: It’s important for divorcing parents of special-needs children to understand that they cannot simply “contract away” the obligation to support a disabled child. Any agreed cutoff date in a marital dissolution agreement is subject to the court’s continuing authority to ensure a disabled child’s needs are met. If a child will likely require care into adulthood, the safer approach is to plan for indefinite support (perhaps through a special needs trust or agreed provisions for adult support) rather than assume a hard end date will hold. As this case shows, a parent who tries to end support for a severely disabled adult child may find the court unwilling to let that support lapse.

Source: Reichert v. Reichert (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Division, February 19, 2026).

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