Katrina Parrish v. Michael Griggs
W2015-02504-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Mother (Katrina Parrish) and Father (Michael Griggs) had a relationship in the mid-1990s; their daughter Ashton was born in 2000. DNA testing in 2014 established Father’s biological parentage.
- Father had some contact and gave two $400 payments and other material support shortly after Ashton’s birth, then ceased contact in late 2000.
- Mother filed a petition to establish paternity in 2014 when Ashton was 14; Father filed counterclaims seeking custody/visitation and alleged Mother told him Ashton was not his child in 2000.
- Juvenile court held a two-day trial, named Mother primary residential parent, ordered prospective child support, awarded retroactive child support to Ashton’s birth (total $160,477, payable monthly), and ordered Ashton’s surname changed to Father’s.
- Father appealed, challenging (1) denial of deviation from retroactive child support, and (2) exclusion of certain documents from the appellate record; Mother cross-appealed the surname change.
Issues
| Issue | Parrish's Argument | Griggs's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding full retroactive child support to date of birth | Mother: Guidelines presume retroactive support to birth; Father knew/could have known parentage so presumption stands | Father: He was told in 2000 Ashton was not his; equities justify deviation from retroactive support | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Father knew or should have known and failed to rebut presumption by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether juvenile court applied correct legal standard regarding equities for deviation | Mother: Court applied statutory standard and considered equities | Father: Court refused to address equities properly | Held against Father — court cited and applied §36-2-311(a)(11) and considered equities; findings not against preponderance of evidence |
| Whether juvenile court erred by excluding certain designated items from appellate record | Mother: Items were irrelevant; exclusion appropriate | Father: Court lacked authority to exclude properly designated documents; exclusion hindered review | Court erred in excluding items on irrelevance grounds, but error harmless — excluded materials would not change outcome |
| Whether juvenile court erred in changing child’s surname to Father’s without evidence | Mother: Name change was not requested by Father and no proof it was in child’s best interest | Father: Did not contest on appeal and presented no best-interest evidence | Reversed — surname change vacated because Father bore burden and presented no evidence supporting best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for bench trial findings)
- Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (preponderance/record guidance)
- Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Smith v. Gore, 728 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn. 1987) (parental support obligation principle)
- In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343 (Tenn. 2006) (§36-2-311(a)(11) contemplates excusing retroactive support only where father unaware of child)
- State v. Housler, 167 S.W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2005) (limitations on adding/subtracting from appellate record)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (deference to trial court credibility findings)