In Re Joel B.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NAsHVILLE F l L E D December 5, 2017 Session JAN 2 9 2018 IN RE JoEL B. g;:'-§°B'y'"°_""”°"‘“__°_°°:’f Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Maury County No. 11-JV-720 Sharon Guffee, Judge No. M2016-0l370-COA-R3-JV A trial court designated the father of a child born out of wedlock as the primary residential parent and imputed additional income to the mother for purposes of child support after determining she was underemployed. The mother appealed the trial court’s judgment During the pendency of the appeal, dependency and neglect proceedings in the trial court resulted in the child’s removal from the father’s residence and his placement with the mother in California. 'I`he dependency and neglect proceedings rendered moot the mother’s challenge of the trial court’s designation of the father as the primary residential parent, leaving the imputation of additional income to the mother as the only issue on appeal. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating additional income to the mother for child support purposes, we affirm that aspect of the trial court’s judgment Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Afflrmed in Part and Vacated in Part ANDY D. BENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J.,joined. Rachel Lorraine Bonano, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Keren H. D. Phyllis Marlene Boshears, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Joel R. B. MEMORANDUM oPINIoNl Keren H. D. (“Mother”) and Joel R. B. (“Father”) are the parents of Joel B. (“the Child”), who was born out of wedlock in July 201l. Mother left Tennessee and went to live in Califomia with the child in December 2011. Father filed a petition in December 2011 to establish his paternity and put into place a parenting plan. Both Mother and Father wanted to be designated the primary residential parent, The trial court entered an order on February 3, 2012, establishing Father as the Child’s legal and biological Father and adopting a permanent parenting plan in which Father was named the primary residential parent and Mother was awarded eighty days of residential patenting time. Mother was ordered to pay child support to Father in the amount of $200 each month. The parenting plan was modified over the following few years, and on December 31, 2015, Father filed another petition for a parenting plan to be adopted as well as an order for child support in an effort to collect the support Mother had been ordered to pay but had not, in fact, paid. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on May 20 and 23, 2016, and entered an order designating Father as the primary residential parent while Mother continued residing in Califomia. The court indicated that if Mother relocated to Tennessee, the parties would be awarded equal parenting time with the Child. Finding Mother was underemployed, the court allocated additional income to Mother and determined that her monthly ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals