State, ex rel., Schrita O. v. Robert T., W2017-00073-COA-R3-JV

Background

In 2014 Mother (Schrita O.) filed a UIFSA petition in Shelby County to establish paternity and obtain initial and retroactive child support for her son Shamar (born Nov. 18, 1996); Mother was assisted by a Title IV‑D attorney.
Genetic testing showed a 99.99% probability that Father (Robert T.) is the child’s biological father.
A juvenile court magistrate originally ordered limited retroactive support; after a de novo hearing a Special Judge found Father the father and ordered $127,530 in retroactive child support. Father appealed.
Disputed factual issue: whether Mother or the maternal grandfather (Grandfather), who had Mississippi guardianship, was the child’s physical custodian during his minority.
The appellate court concluded the record supports the juvenile court’s finding that Mother was the child’s physical caretaker and that she had standing to seek support, but vacated and remanded the retroactive support calculation because the court improperly credited Father with 80 parenting days despite undisputed evidence he exercised zero parenting time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Subject‑matter jurisdiction to establish paternity/support	UIFSA petition by Mother (and Title IV‑D) properly invoked Tennessee jurisdiction over putative father residing in TN	Mother lacked proper status as caretaker, so juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter initial support	Court: Jurisdiction proper under UIFSA; State/Title IV‑D may initiate and juvenile court may enter initial support once paternity is established
Whether trial court made sufficient findings that Mother was physical custodian	Trial court’s worksheets and bench statements show Mother was primary residential parent/caretaker	Findings insufficient and should be more specific	Court: Although written findings were sparse, the basis is "readily ascertainable" from order, worksheets and bench remarks; will "soldier on"
Whether evidence preponderates against finding Mother was caretaker	Mother testified she had possession and care; worksheets reflect primary residential parent	Father testified child lived with grandparents and Mother was "never around"	Court: Evidence does not preponderate against trial court; credibility credited to Mother
Standing to sue for parentage/support	As mother and physical custodian, Mother has statutory standing to file	Father argued lack of standing because custody vested in Grandfather	Court: Mother has statutory standing to establish parentage; physical custody not required to seek support
Failure to join indispensable party (Grandfather)	N/A (not raised below)	Grandfather should have been joined as indispensable party	Court: Issue waived on appeal because Father did not raise it at trial
Calculation of parenting time in child support worksheet	Court crediting presumptive visitation days for Father reasonable because no prior legal visitation rights	Father argued Grandfather was caretaker and Father exercised zero parenting time; court erred by crediting Father 80 days	Court: Abuse of discretion to credit Father 80 days when evidence shows zero; remanded to recalculate retroactive support based on actual parenting days (court may reopen proof)

Key Cases Cited

Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993) (standards for de novo review of legal issues)
McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995) (trial judge is best positioned to rule on witness credibility)
Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for preponderance overcoming trial court findings)
Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013) (construing judgments to give effect to what is clearly implied)
Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in child support determinations)