Now in Tennessee: No Legitimate Purpose Found in Child
Support Law
August 12, 2002
In a decision filed Friday, a Tennessee court of appeals declared unconstitutional a prohibition against considering the support of children of a current marriage when setting the amount of child support ordered for children of other relationships. A three-judge panel decided unanimously that the law violated equal protection.
The case involved a child born as the result of an affair with a married woman. Paternity of the child was not established at the time of birth in 1993. The father later married and had two children in his marriage. Paternity for the first child was legally established in 1996 at which time the father agreed to pay $375 per month in child support. A request to have the amount of child support recalculated according to the guidelines was filed in 2000 and the father was ordered to pay an additional $300 per month.
Except in cases of extreme financial hardship, Tennessee law forbade courts from considering support of children that were not the subject of the order. In this case, the court was not allowed to consider the support of the two children of the marriage. The father argued that the law violated the constitutional rights of the two children because they were not treated equally. The appellate court found in favor of the father.
There are three possible levels of review used in constitutional cases. In this case the weakest level of review was applied. Use of the weakest level of review gives the plaintiff wishing to see a law declared unconstitutional the lowest probability of winning. The restrictive provision was still found unconstitutional because it does not serve a legitimate government purpose.
The father did not argue that a fundamental right had been violated nor that he belongs to a "suspect class." When a fundamental right is involved the highest level of review is required. In a case involving a suspect class the intermediate level of review may be applied. The court found that the father "suffered a concrete injury" because his support of his other children was not considered. The issue was then considered "on its merits."
Earlier this year, a Georgia court determined their guideline unconstitutional. The intermediate level of review was applied when the court determined "that men are adversely impacted by the Guidelines as applied to a grossly disproportionate degree, which constitutes an impermissibly discriminatory effect on a group based upon their gender." Upon consideration of the details, the court added that the guidelines would have been found unconstitutional even if the lowest level of review had been used. They bore no rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
Is this too early to call it a trend? Once outside the bubble of blind acceptance, two state courts have determined that arbitrary child support laws cause damage to fathers and children and have declared them unconstitutional. Forcing flawed and illogical rulings on parents does not serve a legitimate government purpose.
