WPCA 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0~ 0x 0k 0k 0e 0~ 0} 0N 02 0 UB % 0  0! 01? 0Cp 0V 0  0 0| 0  B 0 0 0z 0S 0 D3 0z 0F 0@ 1_ 0d H 0=Y 0F 0P 1, 0 0Cv! 0}! 0x6" 0" 1;#n#$$E#( 0J%( 0To( 0^( 0h!) 0r) 0|) 0w* 0* 1u+ 0d,U6f,B),DC, AM-U*U--.=Q5f66v~ 8v9 AO[?? 0Dp@ D/@ B@R"(3|x}($ iEjkElmDnDoӀ{| U}((3$ !      0  ('$  2  V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXz :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   ..  dl,$͛:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. $$$$'dxdR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS .'#%&!"()  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S("$    '#%&!"() CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style0S 4    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S123($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper =(2B$ !  p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..`  CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@ z 6(  6XXXXX6$>'*d66$>'*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ABCDEFGH ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dRRRR7Border 1dd-SC << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#Q  UU   YYY FILEDUX June4,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.UAppellateCourtClerk   !#d#Q   $       ݀QԀThetrialcourtcreditedtestimonythatmotherssisterandattorney,0 LindaWelch,hadstatedthatshewould breakhim injuvenilecourt.AppellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoallowMs.Welchtotestifyandrefutethisstatement.ItisfirstnotedthatMs.Welchwasgivenachancetotestifyanddecidednotto,thencamebacklaterandaskedtotakethestand.EveniftheTrialCourtshouldhavelethertestifyatthispoint,itwouldbeharmlesserror.Theallegedstatementisnotdeterminativetothefindingthatmothertriedtoexcludethefatherandhisfamilyfromherchildslife. 0  Theactionsofthemotherinattemptingtohavethefathercharacterizedasneglectfularemuchmoresignificantinthisregard,althoughwenotethatwedonotagreewithAppellantsadditionalargumentthatsheisbeingpunishedforpursuingsuchcharges.Whileareviewofthestatutorydefinitionsof abuse and dependentandneglectedchild, inT.C.A.371102(b)(1)and(12)demonstratesthattheyaremeanttoapplytocaseswheresubstantiallymoresignificantharmisbeinginflictedbyaparent,thetrialcourtdoesnotappeartohavemadethisissuedeterminativeinthecustodydecision.Wenotethattherewerenumerousitemsweighedandconsideredinhisopinionandthinkitisfairertocharacterizethejuvenilecourtproceedingsmerelyasevidenceoftheconsiderableanimosityfeltbythemothertowardsthefather. 3 !#d#Q   $       ݀QInitsorderdeterminingcustody,theTrialCourtorderedthatall0 transportationarrangementsandcostsbebornebythemother. \\RA'\  !  #d#Q  UU   YYY FILEDUX June4,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.UAppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . Q        \RA'\\RA'\7JXXdd7RTVSA1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION TERRIG.BOWERS,   )C/ANO.03A019701CV00008      ) PlaintiffAppellant, )KNOXLAW      )v.      )HON.BILLSWANN,      )JUDGEFREDERICKALLANBOWERS,  )      )AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED DefendantAppellee.  )ANDREMANDEDL.CAESARSTAIR,III,BERNSTEIN,STAIR&McADAMS,andELIZABETHK.B.MEADOWS,SCHMID,JONES&MEADOWS,PLLC,Knoxville,forPlaintiffAppellant.ROBERTR.SIMPSONandJAMESH.VARNER,JR.,ESHBAUGH,SIMPSONANDVARNER,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellee.@ OPINION         Franks.J.  Inthiscustodydispute,theTrialJudgegrantedcustodyofthepartieschildtothefather,andthemotherhasappealed.  TerriBowersandFrederickBowersweredivorcedinKentuckyin1992.Theyagreedtojointcustodyoftheirthenthreeyearolddaughter,Chelsea,withprimaryresidencewiththemother.Thefather,whohadmovedtoOklahomaCity,hadvisitationoneoutofeveryfiveweeks,withadditionaltimeonholidaysandduringsummer.  Mother,thenmovedtoKnoxville,andshehastestifiedthatthechildexperiencedbehavioralchanges,suchasbecominglistless,clingingtohermother,wetting,andparrotingwhomevershewasspeakingwith,followingthefathersvisitationperiods.ThemotherdomesticatedtheKentuckydivorcedecreeandfiledapetitioninJuvenileCourttohavecustodychangedtoherandvisitationwiththefathersuspended.TheJuvenileCourtawardedtemporarycustodytothemotherandϜlimitedthefathersvisitationtoanunspecifiedamountoftimeinKnoxvilleas agreedto bytheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices,thefather,themother,andthechildstherapist.ThosevisitsthatwereallowedweretobesupervisedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices.  Ultimately,thefatherappealedtheJuvenileCourtsactiontotheCircuitCourt,wheretheCircuitCourtgrantedsolecustodyofthechildtothefather.ThebasisoftheTrialJudgesdecisionwashisfindingthatthefatherhadbeenandwouldcontinuetoencouragethechildtomaintainalovingrelationshipwithbothsidesofthefamily,whilethemotherseemedintentonexcludingfatherandhisfamilyfromthechildslife.TheCourtawardedsubstantialvisitationtothemother,includingthefirstandthirdweekendofeverymonth,eachspringbreak,ThanksgivingandChristmas,andsixtyconsecutivedaysinthesummer.   ThemotherinsiststheCourterredingrantingcustodytothefather.Whereitisdemonstratedthatanexistingjointcustodialarrangementisnotinthebestinterestofthechild,itisappropriatefortheCourttoalterthecustodyarrangementestablishedintheoriginaldecree.Daltonv.Dalton,858S.W.2d324,326(Tenn.App.1993).ThedecisionoftheTrialJudgeregardingcustodyisaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessunlesstherecordpreponderatesotherwise.Nicholsv.Nichols,792S.W.2d713(Tenn.1990).̛  Thefatherandhismothertestifiedthatthemotherwascontinuallyattemptingtoshutthemoutofthechildslife.Themotherstestimonyshowsthatshemadelittleefforttoputthechildateaseregardingherparentsrelationship.Themotherneverinitiateddiscussionsregardingthefatherandneversuggestedthatthechildcallherfather.Thissilenceconfusedthechild,whowasunsurewhethertoshowaffectionandtowhomwhenbothparentswereinthesameroom.Thesematterswouldbesignificantevenwithoutthecampaignwagedbymother,tocharacterizethefatheras abusive.  W   כIncontrast,theevidencesupportsthecourtsfindingthatthefatherhasencouragedthechildtoshowaffectiontohermotherandhasattemptedtomaintainaworkingrelationshipwiththemothersfamily.  Takingintoaccountthisdetermination,alongwiththetestimonyofnumerouspsychologistsandneighborsregardingthecloserelationshipofthechildwithbothparents,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthecustodydecisionmadebytheTrialCourt.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).  ThemotheralsoarguesthattheTrialCourterredinhearingthematterwhenthejuvenilecourtorderwasnotfinal,requiringthepartiestopresenttheircaseona witnessbywitness basis,andorderingthetrialtogoforwardonanexpeditedbasis.  TheorderinJuvenileCourtwasfinalexceptforthedeterminationofguardianadlitemfees,pursuanttoT.R.C.P.Rule54.02andT.R.A.P.Rule3.SeegenerallyFoxv.Fox,657S.W.2d747(Tenn.1983).ThesettingoffeescannotbesaidtoaffectthemeritsofthecaseandforthepurposesofappealintheCircuitCourt,thejuvenilecourtorderwasfinal.SeeSaundersv.MetropolitanGovtofNashville,214Tenn.703,383S.W.2d28(Tenn.1964).  ThematterofestablishingtheorderofproofiswithintheTrialCourtssounddiscretionandwillbereversedonlywhenthetrialjudgehasabusedthatdiscretionandwhereitcandemonstratedthattheerrorhasaffectedthesubstantialrightsofoneorbothparties.Castelliv.Lien,910S.W.2d420(Tenn.App.1995).Themotherwasallowedtopresentallofhernoncumulativewitnesses.SeeCordellv.WardSchoolBusMfg.,Inc.,597S.W.2d323(Tenn.App.1980);Kirkseyv.OvertonPub,Inc.,804S.W.2d68(Tenn.App.1990).Twoduplicativewitnesseshadtheirtestimonystipulatedtoandwedonotfindanabuseofdiscretioneffectingthemotherssubstantiverights.  Regardingtheexpeditedtrial,themothersattorneywasnotabletoattendthehearingwherethedatewasset.ShefiledamotionrequestingthattheCourtreconsiderthedate,whichwasdenied.Shestatesthatshewasthereforedeprivedofsufficienttimetocompletediscovery.However,theTrialCourtsdecisiontosetthedatewasconstrainedbyT.C.A.371159,whichrequiresthatappealsfromaparentslossofcustodybeheardwithinfortyfivedays.Inaddition,themotherhadnotfiledanymotionstocompeldiscoveryortakeotheractionswhichwouldindicatethattheearlytrialdateaffectedandprejudicedthepresentationofhercase.Thisissueweconcludeiswithoutmerit.  TheremainingissueforconsiderationiswhethertheTrialCourterredinallowingthemothertooffsetherchildsupportpaymentswiththecostoftransportationforvisitation.TheTrialCourtadoptingthedeterminationsofaReferee,setthemotherschildsupportobligationat$894.00permonth,outofhermonthlyincomeof$6,055.00.Giventhatvisitationwasgrantedfor37daysabovetheaveragenumberusedintheguidelines,hermonthlyobligationwasreducedto$778.71.Becauseofmotherstestimonythattravelexpenses X   ׀forvisitationwouldexceedherannualchildsupportobligation,thetrialcourtorderedthatthemothercoulddeducthervisitationexpensesfromthechildsupportobligation.Thiswouldeffectivelynegateanychildsupportpaymentsbythemother.  Thecircumstancesinwhichdownwarddeviationsareappropriatefromthechildsupportguidelines,arelimited.SeeJonesv.Jones,930S.W.2d541,545(Tenn.1996).WhilethelistsetforthinJonesisnotexclusive,itgivesa powerfulindication ofthetypesofsituationsinwhichtheguidelinesallowdeviationdownward.Id.  Clearly,thereductioninsupporttoaccountforthemothersaboveaveragevisitationisallowedundertheguidelines.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,Ch.124024.04(2)(b).Thereductiontooffsettransportationcosts,however,isnotanalogoustothesituationsinJones.Accordingly,wedonotbelieveitisappropriatetofurtherreducethechildsupportpaymentsbasedupontravelexpenses.  However,thiscasepresentsalargedisparityinthepartiesincome.Thefather,aphysician,earnsapproximately$430,000.00peryear.Themother,anurseanesthetist,earnsapproximately$72,000.00peryear.Inthiscase,themothermayspendhalfofherincomeinsupportingandvisitingwithherϜchild.AssigningtravelexpensesforvisitationisanissueonwhichtherelativefinancialresourcesofthepartiesmaybeϜconsidered.Doddv.Dodd,737S.W.2d286,292(Tenn.App.1987);Reznicekv.Reznicek,1991WL156407(Tenn.App.1991).Itisinthechildsbestinterestthatshespendtimewithherrespectiveparents,andweconcludeunderallofthecircumstancesthatitisappropriateforthefathertodefraythetravelandlodgingexpensesofthemotherwhenvisitingthechildinOklahoma.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtwillbemodifiedtorequirethemothertopaythechildsupportϜof$778.71.However,thefatherwillreimburseonamonthlybasis,themotherforhertravelandlodgingexpensesinconnectionwithchildvisitation,inaccordancewiththeguidelinesestablishedbytheRefereeandtheTrialJudgeastothereasonablenessofthecostoftravelandlodging.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,asmodified,andthecostoftheappealisassessedonehalftoeachparty.̀      ________________________Y      HerschelP.Franks,J.7JXXdXXd7  JTZ;+'b|`  `@J߀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION TERRIG.BOWERS,   )C/ANO.03A019701CV00008      ) PlaintiffAppellant, )KNOXLAW      )v.      )      )FREDERICKALLANBOWERS,  )      ) DefendantAppellee.  )@ ORDER  Thiscausewasregularlyheardandconsideredbythecourt.ITISNOWORDEREDthatthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,asmodified,andthecauseremanded.Thecostsofappealareadjudgedonehalftoeachparty,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      PERCURIUM̀       ̀ӀCONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̛̜___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.