determination of contempt and its manner of dealing with contempt
subject to an
abuse of discretion review. Quality First Staffing Serv. v. Chase-Cavett
Serv., Inc., No.
1999 WL 281312, at * 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 1999), no appl. perm.
Robinson v. Air Draulics Eng’g Co., 377 S.W.2d 908, 912 (Tenn. 1964). We
“‘abuse of discretion’ a discretionary judgment of a trial court unless it
appears that the
trial court’s decision was against logic or reasoning, and caused an injustice
to the party
complaining.” Marcus v. Marcus, 993 S.W.2d 596, 601 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting
Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)). With respect to the Trial Court’s
findings of fact,
our review is
de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness,
the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Rule App. P. 13(d); Alexander v. Inman,
S.W.2d 689, 692
(Tenn. 1998). The Trial Court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de
presumption of correctness. Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293, 296
raises numerous issues on appeal, all of Knox’s arguments are based
upon the Trial
Court’s imposition and enforcement of the child support order. Knox argues
appeal that the
Trial Court erred by denying her request to reduce her child support obligation
because she was
not employed and her only income was derived from AFDC, food stamps and
unemployment compensation. Knox also disputes the Trial Court’s determination
she is willfully
unemployed or underemployed.
In setting child
support obligations, the court is to apply “as a rebuttable
support guidelines. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(1)(A). The Child
provide that a child support award is based upon a “flat percentage of the
income. . . .”
Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4-.03(2). The Guidelines specifically
AFDC and food
stamps from its definition of “income.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch.
the obligor seeks a modification of the child support order, the court shall
variance test” to compare the Guidelines amount and the current support
variance” is defined by the Guidelines as “at least 15% if the current support
is . . .
greater per month and at least . . . [$15] if the current support is less than
$100 . . . per
Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4-.02(3).
While AFDC and
food stamps are excluded from the Guidelines’ definition of
Court, however, has held that the receipt of such public assistance does not
a court from
finding that a child support obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed
State ex rel. Norfleet v. Dobbs, No. 01A01-9805-CV-00228, 1999 WL 43260,
* 5 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Feb. 1, 1999), no appl. perm. app. filed, (holding that despite the
receipt of SSI
benefits, she was still employable and was willfully unemployed).
whether an obligor is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed
the factual background of the case.” Pennington v. Pennington, No.
WL 277993, at * 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2000), no appl. perm. app.