Research & Case Law

A parent who seeks to modify a child support order must show a ten percent change in support, upward or downward, due to financial circumstances which have lasted three months and that will most likely continue for another six months. In this case, the initial support order required the father to pay monthly child support of $50. The mother filed to modify support citing the parties change in employment and income. Testimony showed the father had worked but was not working at the time of hearing. He testified he could only work 20 hours per week, and he suffered from sleeping issues and other ailments. He offered no supporting documentation. The mother was eligible for a raise, which meant the child no longer qualified for Medicaid. She was going to have to insure him through her employer-provided insurance.

Child support can continue beyond the age of majority if a child is mentally or physically disabled and incapable of self-support. The Department of Family Services filed extend support for a child beyond the age of the child’s majority due to the child’s diagnosis of a metabolic disorder. The court commissioner recommended modifying support, and the district approved the recommendation. The order continued support so long as the child was enrolled as a full-time college student. The father appealed.

To modify a child support order, there must be a substantial and material change not anticipated at the time of the original order. To contest a contempt finding, the parent must show evidence of the inability to pay. The parents in this case divorced and the final decree reflected their agreement as to child support and uncovered medical expenses. The mother subsequently filed numerous petitions for contempt. This appeal consolidates the father’s appeal of the two latest orders.

The Tennessee child support guidelines contain specific factors to consider when declaring parent underemployed. In this modification action, the father was a self-employed landscaper. Citing his education, background, and a booming economy, the trial court found him underemployed and imputed a higher income. Interestingly, his support was reduced because mother’s income had increased. Regardless, the father appealed.