marriage (and imposing an obligation of support upon the husband) was ‘plainly and palpably wrong[ ]’ and ... is due to be reversed.” (Emphasis added.) In the case now before us, the divorce judgment did not expressly determine whether the husband was the father of K.R.G.; however, it impliedly determined that the husband was the father of K.R.G. because it (1) granted the husband visitation with K.R.G., (2) ordered the husband to pay child support for K.R.G. and to pay one-half of KR.G.’s uninsured medical, optical, and dental expenses, and (3) authorized the husband to claim K.R.G. as a dependent for tax purposes in odd-numbered years. Those provisions of the divorce judgment are inconsistent with a determination that the husband is not the father of K.R.G. See C.T.J. v. A.S.J. (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the trial court erred in
holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child