STATE of Tennessee EX REL. Jamie Joy WILLIAMS v. Deadrick Donnell WOODS, Sr.
530 S.W.3d 129
Tenn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother and Father have one child born Oct. 1995; Father executed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and the juvenile court entered an order of legitimation in Apr. 1996; no child support order was entered then.
- The State (on Mother's behalf) filed a 2002 petition to modify child support but later withdrew; Mother filed for child support in Sept. 2014.
- The Child lived primarily with Mother until high school; from Aug. 2010 through graduation (2014) the Child lived with Mother’s stepfather on weekdays for school, returned to Mother on weekends/summers; Father had weekend/holiday/summer time throughout.
- After hearings and magistrate recommendations, a special judge entered final judgment (signed by the special judge) establishing retroactive child support of $138,876 less a $59,229 credit, yielding $79,647 owed to Mother; Father appealed.
- On appeal the court: (1) treated the special judge as a de facto judge (no appointment order in record but no party objected/bad faith); (2) affirmed Mother as Primary Residential Parent (PRP) for all periods including 2010–2014 and affirmed the presumption that Father as Alternative Residential Parent (ARP) had 80 days/year; and (3) corrected a mathematical error in month counts, reducing the retroactive award to $74,818.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of special judge appointment | State: special judge properly presided; no defect affects judgment | Woods: judge not properly appointed (no signed appointment order) | Special judge acted as de facto judge; judgment valid and enforceable |
| 2. Entitlement to retroactive support for 2010–2014 | State/Mother: Mother remained PRP and entitled to support for 2010–2014 | Woods: Step‑Grandfather was primary weekday caretaker and thus should receive or displace Mother’s claim | Court affirmed Mother as PRP for 2010–2014; Mother entitled to retroactive support |
| 3. Number of PRP days in 2010–2014 | State: trial court’s 285 days/year finding supportable | Woods: 285 days/year unreasonable given ~180 school days with Step‑Grandfather | Court upheld PRP designation and days finding (no preponderance against trial court) |
| 4. Father’s co‑parenting days (presumptive 80) | Woods: father had more than presumptive 80 days/year and award should be reduced | State: presumptive 80 days is appropriate; Woods didn’t preserve clear challenge | Court affirmed 80 days/year for Father as ARP across the periods |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (standard for appellate review of bench findings)
- Ferrell v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2000) (de facto judge doctrine when no bad faith shown)
- Kirkpatrick v. O’Neal, 197 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2006) (non‑parent custodians entitled to retroactive support because obligation follows the child)
- Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417 (Tenn. 2011) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for child support determinations)
- Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (Child Support Guidelines have force of law)