I have not left the town that I met the woman in and have not tried to hide.she has waited 8 years to tell me that I have a child.I now have a family and a home and a life.what rights do I have as far as this new child is concerned.can I sign my rights away or do I have to pay child support for a child that I never even knew about.

You can't sign your rights away - https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/signing-over-rights-read-first-116098.html

If DNA proves paternity you will have to pay child support. Yes, you have to pay for a child you never knew about, starting with the date the mother files the Petition.

None of this is the child's fault and the child deserves to be supported by two parents - and you are one of them.

Welcome to the world of "if you don't want children, don't have sex".

YES, you have to pay child support! Do you think the taxpayers should pay it just because you're married now? Gee, I bet all the other parents out there paying child support wish that they could just not pay it anymore because they're married with a family and a home and a life.

Get a DNA test, go to court to set child support, and really--I'd at least TRY to build a relationship with the child. It's not exactly the child's fault you didn't know, now is it? Would it really be in the best interest of the child for you to sign your rights away just because you didn't know?

I assume TN means Tennessee.

Tn code 36-2-311. Order of parentage11) (A) Determination of child support pursuant to chapter 5 of this title. When making retroactive support awards pursuant to the child support guidelines established pursuant to this subsection (a), the court shall consider the following factors as a basis for deviation from the presumption in the child support guidelines that child and medical support for the benefit of the child shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the child's birth:

(i) The extent to which the father did not know, and could not have known, of the existence of the child, the birth of the child, his possible parentage of the child or the location of the child;

ii) The extent to which the mother intentionally, and without good cause, failed or refused to notify the father of the existence of the child, the birth of the child, the father's possible parentage of the child or the location of the child; and
iii) The attempts, if any, by the child's mother or caretaker to notify the father of the mother's pregnancy, or the existence of the child, the father's possible parentage or the location of the child;

Yes, you have to pay for a child you never knew about, starting with the date the mother files the Petition.


The parent's obligation to support, as well as the child's right to support, exist regardless of whether a court order exists, and regardless of whether the parents were ever married. When paternity of a child born out of wedlock is established, the trial court is required to address not only the child's need for future support, but
Also the father's obligation to pay past support. T.C.A. § 36-2-311; Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tenn. 2000); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). In State ex rel. Coleman v. Clay, 805 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. 1991), our Supreme Court specifically held that “... the father of a child born out of wedlock is statutorily liable for support from and after the child's birth.” Id. At 755 (emphasis added). “Thus, the obligation to support a child exists from the child's birth, and upon entry of an order establishing paternity, the father is liable for support back to that date.” State ex rel. Clark v. Wilson,No.M2001-01626-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL31863296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002) (citing Coleman, 805 S.W.2d at 754-55)
/ Source: : http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tca/PDF/063/HayesPeggyopn.pdf /

The parent’s obligation to support, as well as the child’s right to support, exist regardless of whether a court order exists, and regardless of whether the parents were ever married. When paternity of a child born out of wedlock is established, the trial court is required to address not only the child’s need for future support, but
also the father’s obligation to pay past support. T.C.A. § 36-2-311; Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tenn. 2000); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). In State ex rel. Coleman v. Clay, 805 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. 1991), our Supreme Court specifically held that “...the father of a child born out of wedlock is statutorily liable for support from and after the child’s birth.” Id. at 755 (emphasis added). “Thus, the obligation to support a child exists from the child’s birth, and upon entry of an order establishing paternity, the father is liable for support back to that date.” State ex rel. Clark v. Wilson,No.M2001-01626-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL31863296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002) (citing Coleman, 805 S.W.2d at 754-55)
/ Source: : http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tca/PDF/063/HayesPeggyopn.pdf /


Back to date of birth? Had no idea! Thanks for the correction - I'm going to read the case law.

Back to date of birth? Had no idea! Thanks for the correction - I'm going to read the case law.

Interesting.

Note that in Carter, the period between the child's birth and the original support order was a bit over 5 years. I don't know what the SOL is for CS in Tenn.

I'm not sure, but this might help

Tennessee child support statute of limitations on collection (http://www.child-support-collections.com/statutes/tennessee.html)

I don't know what the SOL is for CS in Tenn.

There is no SOL for CS in the state of Tennessee.

K.A.G. v. B.L.I.(Court of Appeals, November 25, 2009).Fourteen years after the child’s birth, the mother filed a petition seeking retroactive support to the date of the child’s birth. The trial court held that mother should have retroactive support limited to three years prior to the filing of her petition. The Court of Appeals reversed.
"In the present case, the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. §
36-2-311(a)(1)(A)(I) - (iii) are clearly inapplicable. Succinctly
Stated, that section “only contemplates excusing retroactive
child support to the date of birth in circumstances where the
father was not aware of the existence of the child.”

I'm not sure, but this might help

Tennessee child support statute of limitations on collection (http://www.child-support-collections.com/statutes/tennessee.html)

No, I don't think so:


"36-2-321. Limitations period for child support payment orders. —
Judgments for child support payments for each child subject to the order for child support pursuant to this part shall be enforceable without limitation as to time."
I believe this section merely codifies the principle that statutes of limitation only limit the time within which one can file a lawsuit after the cause of action accrues - not how long a judgment can be enforced. Say, for example, a child was born 1/1/2001, and the SOL is 6 years. In action to enforce CS filed on 1/1/10, judgment could be entered for CS only from 1/1/04, and the earlier 4 years would be time-barred.

Taking my example a bit further, if someone sought to enforce the hypothetical judgment (action filed 1/1/10 and judgment entered on, say, 1/1/11), it could be enforced 50 years from now, and the SOL (whatever it is) would not be a problem.


There is no SOL for CS in the state of Tennessee.

I don't see, in the case you summarized, authority for that proposition. The summary doesn't mention a SOL.

I think this (36-2-306. Statute of limitations. —) is the applicable SOL (3 years after the child reaches the age of majority).

;)In Re-T.K.Y./No. M2004-01634-SC-R11-JV.2006 /


The decision to award retroactive child support lies within the discretion of the juvenile court.  State ex rel Coleman v. Clay, 805 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn.1991).   However, the trial court's discretion is cabined by the statutory requirement that it must presumptively apply the Child Support Guidelines.  Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(A) (2005).   The trial court's discretion is further limited by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-2-311(a)(11)(A) (2005), which states a presumption that child support “shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the child's birth.”   See also Child Support Guidelines, Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-2-4-.06

Thanks, GV70. In summary, I think our research has shown that the mother of OP's child can go for 8 years of CS, if she chooses, but there is some limited wiggle room for the court to exercise if it wants.

Could be. I don't know. But I don't see, in the case you summarized, authority for that proposition. The summary doesn't mention a SOL. Do you have a link?

I think this (36-2-306. Statute of limitations. —) is the applicable SOL (3 years after the child reaches the age of majoirtiy).

Legal Resources (http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode)



36-2-311. Order of parentage
(a) Upon establishing parentage, the court shall make an order declaring the father of the child. This order shall include the following:
11) (A) Determination of child support pursuant to chapter 5 of this title. When making retroactive support awards pursuant to the child support guidelines established pursuant to this subsection (a), the court shall consider the following factors as a basis for deviation from the presumption in the child support guidelines that child and medical support for the benefit of the child shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the child's birth:



There is no SOL for retroactive child support thus I cannot give you a link. But there is Court practice including the Supreme Court of Tn which states the CS “shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the child's birth.” /In re-TKY/

Thanks, GV70. In summary, I think our research has shown that the mother of OP's child can go for 8 years of CS, if she chooses, but there is some limited wiggle room for the court to exercise if it wants.

It will be within the judge's discretion.

Every child needs to receive support from both parents. The problem that the Supreme Court and the states failed to directly address is priority of support. Financial(100% focus of the courts) or emotional support. The irresponsible solution of the courts is for the non-custodial parent to provide financial support to our children. It stops there... the courts have failed to address the emotional support a child needs.

Yes, our first responsibility as parents should be the emotional support of our children. Financial support should be secondary and based on the needs of the child not what the resident parents want. Each parent has the moral obligation to encourage and take part in a meaningful relationship between child and parent regardless of the financial resources that the resident receives from the non-resident parent.

What percentage of litigation's involve financial support versus emotional support? Which has the biggest impact on a child, emotional or financial support?

This is a topic for a discussion board. I do not see an answer to the question in MrM's post here.