APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a father’s obligation to pay support for a non-marital child. Fifteen years after the child’s birth, the Tennessee Department of Human Services, acting on behalf of the child’s mother, filed suit in the Montgomery County Juvenile Court seeking to establish paternity and to obtain past and future support from the father. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order establishing paternity and ordering the father to pay $542.50 per month in child support. The juvenile court also awarded the mother $50,000 in back child support. The father now takes issue with the amount of the award for back child support. We have concluded that the evidence does not support the amount of the award for back child support and accordingly remand the case for further proceedings.

The Chancery Court for Dickson County terminated a mother’s parental rights to three young children and allowed the foster parents to proceed with the adoption of the children. Because we find that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence upon which to base the termination of the mother’s parental rights, we reverse.
 

The plaintiff repeatedly cursed and insulted the defendant’s attorney during a taped deposition. The attorney played portions of the tape during the trial. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s utterances constituted criminal contempt. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute over the surname of a child born to unmarried parents. The biological father (“Father”) of the minor child, seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to change the child’s last name. Over the objections of the mother (“Mother”),1 Father sought to change his son’s last name to his own to reflect his paternity. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand.2

We granted this Rule 9, T.R.A.P., application to determine whether the defendant University of Tennessee (“the University”) can be sued for a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. We find that it cannot be sued for such violations under the current state of the law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the University’s motion to dismiss.