Kimberly K. Carr v. Floyd K. Sutton, M2015-01568-COA-R3-JV

Child born Aug. 1996 to Kimberly Carr; no father listed on birth certificate. Paternity not established until 2013 after State filed a legitimation petition and genetic testing identified Floyd Sutton as father.
March 10, 2014 order declared Sutton the legal father, changed the child’s name, ordered health insurance and reserved child support for later action.
Mother filed a petition to set child support on June 16, 2014. A magistrate hearing (Oct. 3, 2014) set ongoing support at $549/month and calculated full retroactive support to birth (~$132,309) but—finding equitable reasons to deviate—awarded retroactivity only to Oct. 2013 (arrearage $7,137) payable $100/month.
Juvenile court heard the case de novo and adopted the magistrate’s findings, ordered past-due amounts and current support, and later amended to add interest; Mother appealed pro se.
Central legal dispute: whether the trial court erred by limiting retroactivity of child support to the date paternity was established (Oct. 2013) rather than to the child’s birth, particularly given Mother’s assertions of prior domestic violence by Father.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carr)	Defendant's Argument (Sutton)	Held
Retroactivity of child support	Support should be retroactive to date of birth (1996).	Deviation from full retroactivity appropriate because father lacked knowledge of parentage until 2013 and mother intentionally concealed parentage.	Court affirmed deviation; retroactivity limited to Oct. 2013.
Whether asserted domestic violence precludes deviation	Carr argued Father had prior domestic assault conviction, which would preclude reducing retroactivity.	Sutton denied demonstrated history; evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard.	Court found no clear-and-convincing proof of demonstrated history of domestic violence and allowed deviation.
Evidentiary rulings / excluded evidence	Carr argued the court improperly excluded or failed to consider certain evidence and witness testimony.	Court and Sutton argued excluded material was irrelevant, inadmissible, or not properly presented on appeal.	Court declined to reverse; many complaints waived or unsupported; trial court’s evidentiary choices not shown to be an abuse of discretion.
Amounts/interest on arrears and payment terms	Carr challenged calculations and orders for interest/payment schedule.	Trial court applied magistrate’s calculations, ordered arrears payment plan and later added interest; Sutton accepted court orders.	Appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s calculation, payment plan, and award of interest.

In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343 (Tenn. 2006) (explains statutory presumption that child support is retroactive to birth and limits on trial court discretion to deviate)
State ex rel. Coleman v. Clay, 805 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. 1991) (discusses juvenile court discretion in awarding retroactive support)
In re Alysia S., 460 S.W.3d 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard and its application in family law matters)