State ex rel. Roberts v. Crafton
Citation | 638 S.W.3d 651 |
Decision Date | 19 April 2021 |
Docket Number | No. W2019-01010-COA-R3-JV,W2019-01010-COA-R3-JV |
Parties | STATE EX REL. James Frederick ROBERTS v. Elizabeth Dale CRAFTON |
Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
James Frederick Roberts, pro se appellant.
Jason R. Ridenour, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Elizabeth Dale Crafton.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, and Kristen Kyle-Castelli, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the Tennessee Department of Human Services.
D. Michael Swiney, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Carma Dennis McGee, J., joined.
This appeal concerns a post-divorce child support matter. Elizabeth Dale Crafton ("Mother") sued James Frederick Roberts ("Father") for divorce. In 2007, the Circuit Court for Shelby County ("the Circuit Court") entered a final decree of divorce in the case. In 2008, the Circuit Court entered a permanent parenting plan concerning the parties’ children. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County ("the Juvenile Court") later accepted jurisdiction for child support matters. Father went on to file a series of motions seeking to be relieved from paying for private school tuition. In 2019, the Juvenile Court entered an order denying Father relief and resolving all outstanding matters. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the original child support order is void as against public policy for failure to adhere to the Child Support Guidelines, and that the succeeding orders are void, as well. As the original child support order did not entirely relieve the parents of their duty to support and otherwise was jurisdictionally sound, we hold that it is not void. We affirm.
Our review of this long-running post-divorce child support matter begins with a review of its procedural history. In August 2007, the Circuit Court entered its final decree in Father and Mother's divorce proceedings. Two children were born of the parties’ marriage—one born in December 1996, the other in April 2003. The final decree of divorce provided that "[i]n lieu of the payment of child support, the parties agree that [Father] shall share equally in the cost of private school." In April 2008, the Circuit Court entered a permanent parenting plan. As relevant, the plan provided:
In lieu of the payment of child support, the parties agree that Father shall share equally in the cost of private school. When the children have reached the age where Christ Methodist School is no longer an option, the parties agree that the children will attend private school chosen by Mother. At that time, Father's obligation to pay his share of private school will cease. Any child support obligation will be limited to the amount of support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines without consideration of this tuition amount paid by Mother.
Uncovered reasonable and necessary medical expenses were divided equally. In August 2009, the Circuit Court entered a consent order regarding child support. In February 2012, the Department of Human Services ("DHS") filed a notice of Title IV-D services in the Circuit Court seeking to transfer all matters concerning modification and enforcement of child support to the Juvenile Court.
In August 2012, Father filed his Motion to Modify Child Support and Void Previous Judgment as it Relates to Child Support in the Juvenile Court. In his motion, Father stated that "the original parenting plan relating to child support fails to comply with TN Law and is void." Father requested that he "not continue to be held to the original child support order and forced to pay for a private school education that clearly both parties would not be able to finance even if they were still together." In August 2012, DHS filed a petition in the Juvenile Court to establish arrears and/or modify order. In December 2012, DHS filed an amended petition clarifying that the initial parenting plan did not order either party to pay child support, but rather the parties agreed to pay private school tuition in lieu of child support.
In February 2013, a hearing was held before the Juvenile Court Magistrate. In April 2013, the Juvenile Court entered an order confirming the February 2013 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate. The findings reflected that the Juvenile Court administratively accepted jurisdiction of the Circuit Court's final decree of divorce for purposes of enforcement and modification of child support. The order modified the August 2009 consent order regarding child support and found that Father owed $725 per month in private school tuition. Father's $725 payment was offset by Mother's $232 payment. Father's child support obligation was set at $493 per month. The Juvenile Court stated that the child support and credit worksheet appeared to be correct. Citing Father's failure to appeal the Circuit Court child support orders from 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Juvenile Court denied Father's motion to modify child support and void the previous judgment. The Juvenile Court continued the case for establishment of arrears.
In November 2013, the Magistrate heard the outstanding arrears issue. The Magistrate found that it was in the children's best interest for them to continue attending private school. Mother was found to owe $1,830.44 in arrears and Father $12,278.62. The parents were required to share, pro rata, the cost of extracurricular activities, reasonable and necessary school supplies, and tutoring as agreed by both parents.
In February 2014, the Juvenile Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate's latest findings and recommendations. In February 2015, Father, pro se at this stage, filed his Motion to Vacate Order and sought to set aside the February 22, 2013 and November 6, 2013 orders pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01, 60.02 (1), (2), (3), & (5) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Father asserted, in part:
In June 2015, Father filed his Amended Motion to Vacate Order and/or Modify. In this motion, Father asserted that "the Circuit Court order used by the Juvenile Court in reaching it's decisions and the record standing alone proves the Circuit Court order is void ab initio meaning Father is still PRP of the remaining minor child ... and has/had a constitutional right to place the child in public school." (Emphasis in original). In October 2015, the Magistrate denied Father's motion to vacate and continued matters related to modification. In January 2016, Father filed his Emergency Ex Parte Petition for Dismissal, Remand Back to Circuit Court and for Interlocutory Appeal in the Juvenile Court. The Magistrate entered an order regarding this latest petition in which it found, in part:
The Juvenile Court ratified these findings and recommendations. In February 2016, the Juvenile Court entered an order dismissing Father's petition for rehearing regarding his motions to vacate/modify. In March 2016, another hearing was held before the Magistrate. The Magistrate recommended modification of child support, requiring DHS to apply Mother's payment to Father's arrearage. The Magistrate found, in part:
Father's arrears were set at $18,146.18. The findings and recommendations were confirmed by April 2016 order. DHS requested a rehearing before the Juvenile Court Judge regarding the Magistrate's findings and recommendations.
In August 2016, the Juvenile Court entered an order sustaining allegations contained in a contempt petition filed against Father. The Juvenile Court held Father in contempt, stating that he had "the present ability to...
To continue reading
Request your trial