A 30years old man who lives in tennesse is tryind to sue his father for back child support his parents was never married child support was never ordered can he do such

A 30years old man who lives in tennesse is tryind to sue his father for back child support his parents was never married child support was never ordered can he do such


36-2-311. Order of parentage
(a)(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:
(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.

Child Support Guidelines, Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-2-4-.06 states a presumption that child support “shall be awarded retroactively to the date of the child’s birth.”

The child can not sue the father for support.

The mother of the "child" can sue, for support if she had an original court order for support but never collected on it.

The child has no standing and the case will easily be thrown out, if even allowed to file

The child can not sue the father for support.

A child can sue the father for retroactive child support if he/she is 18+.
The Federal Standard allows the mother to file up to the day the child reaches the age of majority, which is 18 in most states, and if the mother does not file, the adult child can file for retroactive child support.

Another question is whether there is limitation or not.
For example if the mother does not file, the adult child can file for up to five years later /Michigan/.

Can you link to where this is? It sounds confusing because the child support was meant for a different purpose and not as an entitlement for the child. By allowing it there could be a whole can of worms opened up over vendictive children. That would caus the courts to get even further clogged.

Can you link to where this is? It sounds confusing because the child support was meant for a different purpose and not as an entitlement for the child. By allowing it there could be a whole can of worms opened up over vendictive children. That would caus the courts to get even further clogged.

Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Oh St.3d 629, 821 N.E.2d 180 (2004)

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote,"The attorneys for Jessica/the adult child/ argued that when the two sections of law are read in conjunction, it's clear that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to award retroactive support in a paternity action brought after the age of 18 but prior to the child's 23rd birthday.

Kemp's/the father/ attorneys took a different view. They maintained that once a child reaches the age of 18, she is no longer a child and the juvenile court has no jurisdiction to order a parent to pay prior support obligations.

But other appellate courts have reached opposite decisions. And, by a five-to-two vote, we did too. In reaching our conclusion, we followed a line of logic that went something like this: one section of the law expressly extends – by five years – the length of time to file a parentage action, so that an adult child has up to the age of 23 to get things started. The other section of the law dealing with child support is couched in broad language, and there is nothing in it that limits a juvenile court's jurisdiction to award retroactive support to minor children only.

Therefore, in reading the two laws together, we believe that the language of the law dictated the result – that a juvenile court has jurisdiction to award retroactive child support to an adult child if a parentage action is filed prior to the child's 23rd birthday."

I found Tn Code 36-2-306 as applicable in OP's case:
36-2-306. Statute of limitations. —
An action to establish the parentage of a child may be instituted before or after the birth of the child and until three (3) years beyond the child's age of majority. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect the relationship of parent and child as established in § 31-2-105.

It looks like they fixed the loop hole created by Carnes vs Kemp.

ACTION BY ADULT CHILD.
Although a child, deemed to be an adult under RC § 3109.01, had a right to file a paternity complaint under RC §
3111.05, the juvenile court had no authority to order the father to provide back child support to the adult child after the
Duty to support under RC §§ 3111.03, 3111.77 and 3103.03 had elapsed. Carnes v. Kemp, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS
5235, 2003 Ohio 5884, (Nov. 3, 2003), reversed by 104 Ohio St. 3d 629, 2004 Ohio 7107, 821 N.E.2d 180, 2004 Ohio
LEXIS 3067 (2004).


Ref:
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGk71.UaZLD3wBxn1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2s4bDg zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12goltbte/EXP=1269277438/**http%3a//www.fifthdist.org/P08-12%2520-%2520OHCODE_3111_03.pdf

What I found surprising in the Carnes vs Kemp decision is that the state in fact had stepped in and delivered support services for the child. Yet there was no mention of recouping the states end of it. They in effect gave the entire award to the plaintiff. When at best it should have been split between the supporting parties.

Btw: Great read.

It looks like they fixed the loop hole created by Carnes vs Kemp.

ACTION BY ADULT CHILD.
Although a child, deemed to be an adult under RC § 3109.01, had a right to file a paternity complaint under RC §
3111.05, the juvenile court had no authority to order the father to provide back child support to the adult child after the
duty to support under RC §§ 3111.03, 3111.77 and 3103.03 had elapsed. Carnes v. Kemp, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS
5235, 2003 Ohio 5884, (Nov. 3, 2003), reversed by 104 Ohio St. 3d 629, 2004 Ohio 7107, 821 N.E.2d 180, 2004 Ohio
LEXIS 3067 (2004).

Nope!. :):):)
... the juvenile court had no authority to order the father to provide back child support to the adult child after the
Duty to support under RC §§
3111.03 Presumption of paternity.
3111.77 Presumed father assuming duty of support.
3103.03 Married persons' obligations of support.