ÿWPCB  ¸  ©fiÒ®¹Ä]~¯Æ¢xÑìùn£ÈÚ©d-0&KA´’4shYÛÓ·Ïj¬šÆÖÁqûÀ¬Ü}ˆLHçöÒv6zuù¹ÕĆŽ£Š¿pQ@ ,9¬XÀ8wÚ¯ÄÓÐó{}g“ë6•!\Œˆ=ÂÄ[êö2êhz¥ñkFE<(døŠ>¦ sa×D^ 8¦†obÝ÷û},½e˜öŽp"µç:˜Ü™¡ÃßÉí·»).ÛY"ŠÈ³–Âꇡé0´äÌë SÐD_lW48½aïv÷´à÷Gà~’û7È 0žÑn1"ä´ª…fùòÒ´ªtp4¶KpÉàüÓZ(´ßª^%.6w8ÜÃO‡fmb6õÛÙ%Þ5t,dË¡å ãL^²È9!oÓ!(šÔnNž¸×¿áÓ´Õq¼ÆSÌ„¿Ð%É‘?“Aïêjìª`n! /gßûnz‘ëO¼&o|î¿•ëØwz5[¸‚£´…ïèú„çü"Œéœºÿç»f `­9!Õ¼ Q, Jÿ®)´—@­ÈÑqx•TãSMž ÛR§‡ú€¼bh}u<¯ôB’F­d‘ÝŒùŽWX¢ðëvfHXywj•ȧwSi)# >UNI %— 0(w@Å4(UN0~ 0l› 0D 0DKU:‘ Ë U:Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í AQ ÆX 0D Bb 0D  D/à à Bò D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ <E=>?@DAeBUCÓ€MPn~<$[3|xP'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€guardian€ad€litem€issued€a€report€prior€to€trial€which€was€not€admitted€into€evidenceÐ ° Ðand€not€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€Consequently,€the€report€is€not€considered€in€this€appeal.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý øÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XúyXXXÔÔ€tíXXúyÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XúyXtíÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€26,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular øÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XúyXXXÔÔ€tíXXúyÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XúyXtíÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€23,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular ! #%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñAñ›ñAññAñ›ñAñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÓÉXXdædÈ7Ñò òÔ‡ XÓÉXXXÔÑ  ÑñCñœñCññMññCñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx0°ð árßñCññMññPññMñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx0°ð árßñMññPññPññPññPññCñ›ñCññPññPññPññPñ›ñPññPñ›ñPñà@} } ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òñPñœßt€(>.*jxÿ` `€€@EÇ3` ttx0ÿ–ð } tß›ñPñà@jj%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ –æ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð |Ì ÐÌóóÌSUZANNE€KAY€BURLEW,à h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ . ~ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ  d Ðà  àPlaintiff/Counterdefendant/à h àà À àò ò)à  àó óShelby€Chancery€No.€D26813„IIÐ ú J Ðà  àñAñœñAñAppellant,à ¸ àà  àñAñ›ñAñà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ à 0 Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ Æ   Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9807„CH„00186ò òÐ ’â  ÐBRAD€STEVEN€BURLEW,€€€€€€€€à h àà À à)à  àÐ xÈ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Counterplaintiff/ò òà h àà À à)Ð D”  Ðà  àñAñœñAñó óAppellee,à ¸ àà  àñAñ›ñAñà h àà À àò ò)Ð *z  ÐÌÌÌà@ÇÇìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYˆÐ  Ðà@## ìàAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÌà@w w ìàTHE€HONORABLE€FLOYD€PEETE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€ñAñœñAñPlaintiff/Counterdefendant/ñAñ›ñAñà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Ð òB ÐAppellant/Counterappelleeà  àà h àà À àAppellee,€Counterappellantóó:Ð Ø( ÐòòÌóóStevan€L.€Black€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWilliam€W.€Dunlap,€Jr.€€Ð ¤ô ÐVickie€Hardy€Jones€€€€€à  àà h àà À à€Memphis,€Tennessee€Ð Š Ú ÐMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€INÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñAñœñAñPART,ñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñMODIFIEDñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñAND€REMANDEDñAñ›ñAñÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð .T). ÐÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€Ô#†XÓÉXX XÓÉ¿#ÔòòÐ  Ð/ +0 ÐØØÑ7€ÓÉXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑóóÓ  ÓÓÓà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThis€is€a€divorce€case€with€issues€regarding€custody€and€alimony.€€The€trial€court€awardedÏthe€parties€joint€custody€of€their€minor€child,€with€the€wife€as€primary€custodial€parent€except€duringÏdesignated€time€periods.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€wife€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€but€no€alimony€òòinÐ  d Ðfuturoóó.€€€The€wife€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€regarding€child€custody€and€visitation,€as€well€asÐ à 0 Ðalimony.€€Husband€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€regarding€alimony.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€inÏñAñœñAñpart,€modify€and€remand.ñAñ›ñAñ€€Ìà  àñAñœñAñPlaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellant€Suzanne€KayñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñBurlew€(ð ðWifeðð)ñAñ›ñAñ€andÏñAñœñAñDefendant/Counterplaintiff/AppelleeñAñ›ñAñ€Brad€Steven€Burlew€(ð ðHusbandðð)€were€married€in€Flint,ÏMichigan€in€August€1972.€€There€is€one€minor€child€of€the€marriage,€Geoffrey€Burlew€(ð ðGeoffðð),Ïborn€April€5,€1990.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€was€forty„five€years€old,€and€Husband€was€forty„sevenÏyears€old.Ìà  àWhen€the€parties€married,€Husband€was€attending€General€Motors€Institute€and€was€in€theÏprocess€of€obtaining€a€degree€in€engineering.€€After€completing€the€program,€Husband€worked€forÏone€year€as€an€engineer€for€General€Motors.€€Meanwhile,€Wife€was€studying€to€obtain€a€nursingÏdegree.€€In€1974,€Wife€graduated€from€University€of€Michigan€with€a€degree€in€nursing€and€laterÏbecame€employed€full„time€as€a€registered€nurse.€€In€1974,€Husband€enrolled€in€the€University€ofÏMichigan€to€complete€prerequisites€for€medical€school€and€worked€on€a€€part„time€basis.€€In€1975,Ïwhen€Husband€enrolled€in€medical€school€at€Northwestern€University,€Husband€and€Wife€relocatedÏto€Chicago,€and€she€began€new€employmentÌà  àIn€1979,€the€parties€moved€to€Detroit€where€Husband€accepted€and€completed€an€internship,Ïseveral€years€of€residency€and€fellowships€in€cardiology.€€From€1979€to€1986,€Wife€worked€full„time€Ïas€a€nurse.€€Wife€also€obtained€a€masterððs€degree€in€ñAñœñAñnursing,ñAñ›ñAñ€attending€classes€on€a€part„time€basisÏand€utilizing€a€tuition€reimbursement€plan€provided€by€her€employer.€€Wifeððs€income€was€utilizedÏfor€living€expenses€as€well€as€Husbandððs€medical€school€expenses.Ìà  àIn€1980,€the€parties€began€experiencing€marital€problems.€€Husband€told€Wife€that€he€ñAñœñAññAñœñAñhadÏhadñAñ›ñAññAñ›ñAñ€an€extramarital€affair.€€Husband€promised€Wife€that€he€would€not€have€another€affair,€and€theÏparties€recommitted€to€their€marriage.€€Ìà  àIn€1986,€the€parties€moved€to€Memphis,€Tennessee€where€Husband€accepted€a€teachingÏposition€with€the€University€of€Tennessee€and€also€joined€a€private€medical€practice€with€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee€Medical€Group€(ð ðUT€Medical€Groupðð).€€At€this€time,€Wife€began€attendingÐ ˜:è5< Ðlaw€school€at€the€University€of€Memphis.€€In€1989,€Wife€completed€law€school€and€passed€theÏTennessee€bar€examination.€€After€several€miscarriages€and€several€years€of€attempting€to€conceiveÏa€child,€Wife€became€pregnant€with€a€high€risk€pregnancy€in€July€1989,€immediately€afterÏcompleting€law€school€and€the€bar€examination.€€The€pregnancy€resulted€in€the€birth€of€the€partiesððÏminor€child,€Geoff.€€Thereafter,€by€agreement€of€the€parties,€Wife€remained€at€home€to€raise€Geoff.Ìà  àIn€1993,€Husband€had€a€second€affair,€and€there€was€a€second€agreement€between€the€partiesÏto€remain€in€the€marriage.€€Then,€in€1995,€Wife€learned€that€Husband€was€spending€time€withÏanother€woman.€€Husband€denies€having€a€sexual€relationship€with€the€woman.€€In€1996,€Wife€filedÏfor€ñAñœñAñdivorce,€allegingñAñ›ñAñ€irreconcilable€differences€and€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€HusbandÏcounterclaimed€on€the€same€grounds.€€Ìà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€parties€reached€an€agreement€regarding€€division€of€the€marital€property.€ÏWife€received€60.7%€of€marital€assets€while€Husband€received€39.3%€of€the€assets.€€Both€partiesÏsought€custody€of€Geoff.€€Upon€Wifeððs€motion,€the€trial€court€appointed€a€guardian€ad€litem,€KellyÏStark,€to€represent€Geoffððs€interests.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð@ ÐñAñœñAñà  àAtñAñ›ñAñ€the€time€of€trial,€Husband€was€a€tenured€associate€professor€of€medicine€at€the€UniversityÏof€Tennessee.€€In€his€work€with€UT€Medical€Group,€Husband€performs€heart€ñAñœñAññAñœñAñcatheterizationsñAñ›ñAñ€forñAñ›ñAñÏpatients.€€Husband€is€also€a€self„employed€consultant€in€medical€malpractice€cases.€€He€receivesÏincome€from€all€three€sources.€€In€1997,€Husband€earned€approximately€$93,000€as€an€associateÏprofessor,€approximately€$101,300€from€UT€Medical€Group,€and€approximately€$9,000€as€aÏconsultant,€for€an€approximate€gross€income€of€$203,300.€€Wife,€at€the€time€of€trial,€was€studyingÏto€obtain€a€Masterððs€degree€in€business€administration.€€She€testified€that€she€decided€to€€pursue€thisÏdegree€when€she€realized€that€her€skills€were€dated€after€staying€home€with€Geoff.€€Wife€worked€inÏtwo€part„time€nursing€positions€for€several€months€at€each€position,€only€to€maintain€her€nursingÏlicense.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Wife€had€no€source€of€income€other€than€the€monies€received€fromÏâ âHusband.Ð 3à.2 Ðà  àAt€trial,€it€was€undisputed€that€Wife€was€Geoffððs€primary€caregiver€since€his€birth€and€duringÏâ âthe€course€of€the€marriage.€€Wife€testified€that€Geoff€suffers€from€asthma€and€is€under€the€care€of€anÏallergist€who€prescribes€preventive€medication€to€control€his€symptoms.€€Wife€was€responsible€forÏtransporting€Geoff€to€doctorððs€appointments.€€In€addition€to€tending€to€Geoffððs€health€care€needs,ÏWife€was€responsible€for€the€childððs€educational€needs€and€attended€the€majority€of€school€functions.€ÏWife€transported€Geoff€to€extracurricular€activities€including€swimming,€skating,€and€tennis€lessons.€ÏWitnesses€presented€by€Wife€testified€that€she€and€Geoff€have€a€good€and€loving€relationship.Ìà  àThe€proof€at€trial€indicated€that€prior€to€the€partiesðð€separation,€Husband€was€far€less€involvedÏthan€Wife€in€Geoffððs€upbringing,€rarely€attending€school€events,€taking€him€to€appointments€withÏphysicians€or€assisting€in€school€work.€€ñAñœñAñWhenñAñ›ñAñ€the€parties€separated,€Husband€sought€to€become€moreÏinvolved€with€Geoff.€€During€Husbandððs€scheduled€visitation,€he€took€Geoff€to€school,€helped€himÏwith€schoolwork,€cooked€for€him€and€taught€him€to€play€the€cello.€€The€parties€agreed€that€GeoffÏbenefitted€from€Husbandððs€increased€involvement€with€Geoff.Ìà  àIn€his€testimony,€Husband€explained€that€he€has€two€ð ðcallðð€schedules.€€Husband€is€on€callÏfor€the€department€of€cardiology€approximately€every€fifth€week.€€This€call€schedule€results€inÏHusband€being€on€call€from€approximately€5:00€p.m.€on€Friday€until€7:00€a.m.€the€following€Friday.€ÏDuring€that€week,€Husband€is€required€to€respond€to€calls€on€weekends€and€evenings€regardingÏpatients€treated€by€physicians€at€the€department,€and€must€make€rounds€at€the€hospital€on€SaturdayÏand€Sunday€mornings€of€the€fifth€weekend€to€see€patients€of€the€department.€€Except€for€his€roundsÏat€the€hospital,€Husband€testified€that€virtually€all€other€calls€can€be€ð ðmanaged€over€the€telephone.ðð€ÏHusbandððs€second€call€schedule€requires€him€to€be€on€call€twenty€four€hours€a€day,€seven€days€aÏweek€to€perform€cardiac€catheterizations.€€Husband€testified€that€this€occurs€ð ðwith€randomÏfrequencyðð€and€that€only€once€during€the€two€years€in€which€the€parties€were€separated€had€HusbandÏbeen€called€to€do€such€an€emergency€procedure€while€Geoff€was€in€his€care.€€On€that€occasion,ÏHusband€brought€Geoff€to€Wifeððs€home.Ìà  àHusband€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Judith€Soberman€(ð ðDr.€Sobermanðð),€anotherÏcardiologist€employed€by€the€University€of€Tennessee€and€UT€Medical€Group.€€Dr.€SobermanÏtestified€that€she€and€other€physicians€take€their€children€to€the€hospital€while€they€conduct€rounds.€ÏDr.€Soberman€described€bringing€her€two€children,€ages€eight€and€four,€to€the€hospital€while€she€sawÐ 09€48 Ðpatients€in€the€intensive€care€unit,€and€putting€the€children€alone€in€the€nursesðð€lounge€with€booksÏand€asking€the€eight„year€old€to€ð ðwatch€your€brother.ðð€€Dr.€Soberman€testified€that€her€call€scheduleÏdoes€not€conflict€with€her€obligation€to€her€children.€€She€testified€that,€in€the€academic€trainingÏsystem€in€which€she€and€Husband€work,€most€of€the€emergencies€can€be€handled€over€the€telephone.€ÏDr.€Soberman€conceded€that€she€is€married,€that€she€does€not€perform€cardiac€catheterizations,€andÏthat€her€specialty,€cardiac€arrhythmia,€does€not€require€her€presence€at€the€hospital€for€emergencies.€Ìà  àThe€parties€also€testified€about€their€disagreement€regarding€Geoffððs€asthma.€€Prior€ñAñœñAñto€theñAñ›ñAñÏseparation,€Wife€located€an€allergist;€she€testified€that€Husband€did€not€participate€in€locating€anÏallergist€because€he€did€not€believe€that€Geoffððs€asthma€was€serious.€€Husband€testified€that€he€didÏnot€consider€Geoffððs€condition€to€be€serious€because€Geoff€participates€in€sports€and€has€never€beenÏhospitalized€due€to€the€asthma.Ìà  àThe€guardian€ad€litem,€attorney€Kelly€Stark,€testified€that€she€found€both€parents€to€be€goodÏand€loving€parents€and€found€Geoff€to€be€a€bright,€poised€child.€€She€stated€that€Geoff€would€notÏexpress€a€preference€for€either€parent.€€She€noted€that,€since€the€partiesðð€separation,€Husband€hadÏbecome€a€ð ðdedicated€dadðð€and€that€Husbandððs€increased€involvement€in€Geoffððs€upbringing€hadÏresulted€in€a€ð ðspecial€relationshipðð€between€them.€€Stark€testified€that€Wife€was€angry€at€her€forÏmeeting€with€Geoff€without€first€informing€Wife€and€that€Wife€did€not€want€Stark€to€obtain€anyÏinformation€from€psychologists€who€had€treated€Wife.€€Stark€expressed€concern€that€Mother€wouldÏmove€to€Michigan€where€her€extended€family€lives€and€believed€that€if€Husband€were€awardedÏcustody€there€was€a€good€chance€Wife€would€stay€in€Tennessee.€€Stark€also€felt€that€Wife€was€notÏgenuinely€supportive€of€Husbandððs€relationship€with€Geoff.Ìà  àOn€the€financial€issues,€each€party€filed€an€Affidavit€of€Income€and€Expenses.€€HusbandððsÏaffidavit€shows€a€gross€monthly€income€of€$14,500.92€as€an€associate€professor€from€the€UniversityÏof€Tennessee€and€a€net€monthly€income€of€$9,797.99.€€In€addition,€Husband€receives€$33,308.12Ïfrom€bonuses€and€other€sources€of€income.€€Husband€lists€$9,723€in€monthly€expenses,€includingÏñAñœñAñ$5,000€per€month€inñAñ›ñAñ€pendente€lite€support.€€Wifeððs€affidavit€indicated€that€Wife€has€no€source€ofÏincome€and€lists€$4,713€in€monthly€expenses,€excluding€Geoffððs€expenses.Ìà  àBoth€parties€presented€expert€testimony.€€Robert€Winfield,€a€certified€financial€planner,Ïtestified€for€Wife€that,€considering€Husbandððs€income€from€the€University€of€Tennessee,€the€UTÐ 09€48 ÐMedical€Group€and€his€consulting,€Husband€would€be€able€to€pay€Wife€$3,500€per€month€in€alimonyÏand€$2,100€per€month€in€child€support.€€Based€on€information€from€Wife,€Winfield€assumed€thatÏWifeððs€earning€capacity€was€approximately€$30,000€per€year€and€that€she€would€work€part„time€untilÏGeoff€reached€the€age€of€twelve.€€He€testified€that€the€amount€of€alimony€and€child€supportÏrequested,€plus€$1,000€per€month€in€rehabilitative€alimony,€would€be€necessary€in€order€to€preventÏWife€from€depleting€assets€received€in€the€division€of€marital€property.€€Husband€did€not€object€toÏWinfieldððs€testimony.Ìà  àHusband€presented€the€testimony€of€William€H.€Watkins,€a€certified€public€accountant.€ÏWatkins€testified€that,€if€Wife€earned€$30,000€per€year,€with€child€support,€her€net€annual€incomeÏwould€not€require€her€to€encroach€upon€her€share€of€the€marital€assets.€€Watkins€also€testifiedÏregarding€the€range€of€compensation€Wife€could€earn€in€the€health€care€field€and€as€a€lawyer.€ÏWatkinsðð€testimony€on€the€compensation€Wife€could€earn€in€these€fields€was€based€on€his€havingÏclients€in€ñAñœñAñthe€healthñAñ›ñAñ€care€and€the€legal€profession,€telephone€calls€to€entities€hiring€entry„levelÏemployees€in€these€fields,€and€information€from€the€ñAñœñAñnewspaper,ñAñ›ñAñ€and€surveys€conducted€by€severalÏlocal€hospitals.€€Wifeððs€counsel€objected€to€Watkinsððs€testimony€on€the€compensation€Wife€couldÏexpect€to€earn,€based€on€Watkinsðð€lack€of€expertise€in€this€area€as€well€as€hearsay.€€The€trial€courtÏadmitted€Watkinsðð€testimony€into€evidence.Ìà  àWife€testified€that€she€had€sent€her€resume€to€over€forty„seven€prospective€employers€in€bothÏthe€nursing€and€legal€fields.€€As€a€result,€Wife€interviewed€for€several€nursing€positions€and€at€leastÏone€position€in€the€legal€field.€€Wife€testified€that€she€had€ð ðnot€reallyðð€been€offered€a€job.€€Wife€alsoÏtestified€that€she€interviewed€with€one€law€firm€who€wished€to€offer€her€a€position,€but€they€wereÏhandling€a€case€in€which€Husband€was€involved€and€declined€to€offer€her€the€job.€€Wife€testified€thatÏonce€she€found€a€job€she€anticipated€earning€approximately€$30,000€per€year.€€Husband€testified€thatÏWife€ñAñœñAñcould€earnñAñ›ñAñ€$35,000€to€$40,000€ð ðand€depending€on€the€degree€of€effort€up€to€$65,000€orÏñAñœñAñthereaboutsððñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñemployed€as€a€staff€nurse.€€Husband€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€Wife€couldÏnot€make€$65,000€working€eight€hours€a€day€from€8:00€a.m.€to€5:00€p.m.ñAñ›ñAñÌà  àWife€acknowledged€having€taken€over€$61,000€in€joint€marital€funds.€€Most€of€these€moniesÏwere€paid€to€Wifeððs€several€attorneys,€to€the€University€of€Memphis€for€Wifeððs€M.B.A.€program,€andÏfor€Geoffððs€private€school€tuition.Ð 09€48 Ѐà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€awarded€a€divorce€to€Wife€on€the€grounds€ofÐ ° Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€On€the€issue€of€custody€and€visitation,€the€trial€court€held:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ3.€€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€are€awarded€joint€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€ÏPlaintiff€shall€be€the€primary€custodial€parent,€with€the€exception€of€the€period€ofÏtime€during€the€childððs€summer€vacation€and€the€Christmas€holidays€when€DefendantÏis€exercising€visitation€as€hereinafter€provided.€€For€that€portion€of€the€childððsÏsummer€vacation€and€the€Christmas€holidays€when€Defendant€is€exercising€visitation,ÏDefendant€shall€be€the€primary€custodial€parent.€€Also,€for€that€portion€of€the€childððsÏsummer€vacation€when€Defendant€is€exercising€visitation,€Plaintiff€shall€enjoy€theÏvisitation€regularly€enjoyed€by€Defendant.Ì€€€€€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€are€to€confer€on€all€major€decisions€concerning€the€child.Ì€€€€€Each€of€the€parties€may€have€the€right€to€have€the€minor€child€with€them€for€one„¼half€(ðð)€of€the€childððs€summer€vacation.€€During€the€summer,€each€parent€may€haveÏvisitation€with€the€child€for€a€period€of€at€least€two€(2)€weeks€uninterrupted€by€theÏvisitation€schedule€.€.€.€.Ì€€€€€Defendant€shall€have€visitation€with€the€minor€child€every€other€week,€beginningÏon€Wednesday€after€school€and€ending€on€Monday€when€Defendant€takes€the€childÏto€school.€€On€alternate€weeks,€Defendant€shall€also€have€visitation€with€the€minorÏchild€Wednesday€after€school€until€Thursday€morning€when€Defendant€takes€childÏto€school€.€.€.€.ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓHusband€was€ordered€to€pay€$2,100€per€month€in€child€support,€as€well€as€the€childððs€educationÏexpenses€of€$7,032€per€year.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€set€out€a€holiday€visitation€schedule.€€AfterÏordering€Husband€to€maintain€medical€and€dental€insurance€on€behalf€of€Geoff,€the€trial€court€heldÏthat€both€parties€had€the€right€ð ðafter€conferringðð€to€take€Geoff€to€see€doctors,€dentists€and€otherÏhealth€care€providers.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€awarded€Wife€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€in€the€amount€ofÐ À! Ð$220,000.€€Husband€was€ordered€to€pay€$45,000€the€first€year,€reduced€by€$5,000€each€subsequentÏyear,€ending€after€eight€years€and€payable€in€equal€monthly€installments€due€on€the€first€day€of€eachÏmonth.€€From€this€decree,€Wife€now€appeals.€€Ìà  àWife€raises€numerous€issues€on€appeal.€€Wife€contends€first€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏawarding€her€sole€custody€of€Geoff.€€Further,€Wife€asserts€that€as€legal€custodial€parent€of€the€childÏshe€should€have€the€right€to€attend€to€Geoffððs€health€care€needs€without€prior€consultation€withÏHusband.€€Secondly,€Wife€contends€that€the€visitation€schedule€set€by€the€trial€court€is€disruptive€forÏGeoff€and€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€set€reasonable€parameters€on€Husbandððs€visitation€based€uponÏHusbandððs€on€call€schedule.€€Third,€regarding€alimony,€Wife€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€the€testimony€of€a€certified€public€accountant€concerning€the€range€of€salaries€availableÏin€the€nursing€and€legal€fields.Ìà  àBoth€parties€assign€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó.€€Wife€contends€thatÐ @837 Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€her€alimonyòòò ò€ó óin€futuroóó,€in€addition€to€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€andÐ  :p59 Ðin€failing€to€provide€for€increases€in€Wifeððs€alimony€in€proportion€with€inflation€or€a€future€showingÏof€an€increase€in€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay€and€Wifeððs€increase€in€need.€€Husband€argues€that€theÏaward€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€is€excessive€considering€the€$61,000€in€joint€funds€appropriated€by€WifeÐ pÀ Ðand€the€$5,000€per€month€Husband€paid€in€temporary€alimony€and€child€support€pending€trial.€€WifeÏcontends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€failing€to€award€her€attorneyððs€fees€andÏexpert€witness€fees.Ìà  àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€this€case€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€13(d),€which€provides€that€a€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€courtÏshall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€ofÐ ° Ðthe€factual€findings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€ò òòòHass€v.Ð à ÐKnightonó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1988);€ò òòòLoyd€v.€Loydó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€409,€411€(Tenn.€€App.Ð pÀ Ð1993).€Ìà  àWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€awarding€her€sole€custody€of€Geoff€when€it€wasÏundisputed€that€she€had€been€the€childððs€primary€caregiver€since€birth.€€Wife€contends€that€jointÏcustody€cannot€work€because€the€parties€disagree€regarding€Geoffððs€need€for€medical€care€as€wellÏas€the€issue€of€child€care€for€Geoff€when€Husband€is€on€call.€€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€creating€an€arrangement€whereby€Wife€is€ð ðprimary€custodial€parentðð€during€mostÏof€the€year€and€Husband€is€ð ðprimary€custodial€parent,ðð€during€designated€periods€during€summerÏvacation€and€Christmas€holidays€when€Husband€is€exercising€visitation.€€She€also€contends€that€theÏvisitation€schedule€is€disruptive€and€results€in€Geoff€being€ð ðpassed€back€and€forth.ðð€€In€addition,ÏWife€objects€to€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that,€after€conferring,€both€parties€may€take€Geoff€to€seeÏdoctors€and€dentists.€€Ìà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1)€requires€that€custody€of€children€in€divorce€beÏdetermined€ð ðas€the€welfare€and€interest€of€the€child€or€children€may€ñAñœñAñdemand€.ñAñ›ñAñ€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„6„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998).€€In€ò òòòBah€v.€Bahóóó ó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€the€CourtÐ °1-0 Ðoutlined€a€common€sense€approach€in€determining€custody€cases,€the€doctrine€of€ð ðcomparativeÏfitness.ðð€€The€òòò òBahóóó ó€Court€noted€that€ð ð[t]he€paramount€concern€in€child€custody€cases€is€the€welfareÐ p5À04 Ðand€best€interest€of€the€child.ðð€€òòò òBahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666;òòò ò€see€also€Ruyle€v.€Ruyleó óóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,Ð P7 26 Ð442€ñAñœñAñ(Tenn.€App.€1996);ñAñ›ñAñ€ò òòòKoch€v.€Kochóóó ó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€ñAñœñAñ(Tenn.ñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñApp.€1993).ñAñ›ñAñ€€This€determinationÐ 09€48 Ðdepends€on€the€facts€in€each€case.€€òòò òKochóóó ó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„6„106Ð ° Ðsets€forth€factors€to€be€considered€in€custody€determinations:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà ` à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€andÏchild;ÌÌà ` à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,Ïmedical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€hasÏbeen€the€primary€caregiver;ÌÌà ` à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€and€the€length€of€time€theÏchild€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environment€.€.€.€.;ÌÌà ` à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;ÌÌà ` à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;ÌÌà ` à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;ÌÌà ` à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€ÏThe€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferencesÏof€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weight€than€those€of€youngerÏchildren;ÌÌà ` à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parentÏor€to€any€other€person€.€.€.€.Ìà ` àÌà ` à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€orÏfrequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€person's€interactions€with€the€child.ÌÌà ` à(10)€Each€parent's€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parentingÏresponsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€toÏfacilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuing€parent-child€relationship€between€theÏchild€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€ñAñœñAñchild.ÌñAñ›ñAñÌÒ°¢]ÒÒ°°]ÒÓ¾]ÓñAñœñAñTenn.ñAñ›ñAñ€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106€(Supp.€1998).€€Most€of€the€statutory€factors€in€this€case€are€not€inÏdispute.€€Geoff€unquestionably€loves€both€parents€and€is€loved€by€both€of€them.€€Both€parents€haveÏprovided€him€with€necessities.€€There€is€no€question€as€to€the€mental€or€physical€health€of€eitherÏparent,€and€Geoff€is€doing€well€in€school.€€Geoff€expressed€no€preference€for€either€parent.€€On€theÏsecond€and€third€statutory€factors,€this€Court€has€stressed€the€importance€of€stability€and€ð ðcontinuityÏof€placementðð€for€children€in€custody€and€visitation€cases.€€ò òòòSensing€v.€Dodsonóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9701„Ð Ð/ +. ÐJP00042,€1997€WL€671995,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€29,€1997)€(citing€ò òòòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóóó ó,€936€S.W.2dÐ °1-0 Ð626,€630€ñAñœñAñ(Tenn.€1996);ñAñ›ñAñ€ò òòòTaylor€v.€Tayloróóó ó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€328€(Tenn.€1993)).€€ò òòòSee€ñAñœñAñalsoóóó óñAñ›ñAñ€ò òòòSartoph€v.Ð 3à.2 ÐSartophó óóó,€354€A.2d€467,€473€(Md.€ñAñœñAñ1976);€òòò òContreras€v.€Wardóóó ó,€831€S.W.2d€288,€290€(Tenn.€App.Ð p5À04 Ðâ â1991)€.ñAñ›ñAñÐ P7 26 Ðà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€ñAñœñAñ36„6„101ñAñ›ñAñ€(a)(2)€addresses€joint€custody,€providing€that€€ð ðneitherÏâ âa€preference€nor€a€presumption€for€or€against€joint€legal€custody,€joint€physical€custody,€or€soleÏcustody€is€established€.€.€.€.ðð€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñAñœñAñ36„6„101(a)(2)ñAñ›ñAñ€(Supp.€1998).€€The€success€of€jointÏcustody€arrangements€depends€upon€a€ð ðhigh€degreeðð€of€cooperation€between€the€parties.€€òòò òDix€v.Ð P   ÐCarsonóóó ó,€No.€02A01„9704„CV„00093,€1998€WL€886555,€at€*11€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€17,€1998)€(citingÐ 0 € Ðò òòòWinchester€v.€Winchesteró óóó,€No.€02A01„9604„CH„00092,€1997€WL€61508,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.Ð `  Ð14,€1997);òòò ò€Jones€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9601„CV00038,€1996€WL€512030,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.Ð ð@  Ð11,€1996)).Ìà  àIn€Tennessee,€the€term€ð ðjoint€custodyðð€has€no€established€definition.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€ò òòòMartin€v.€Martinóóó ó,Ð ° ÐNo.€03A01„9708„GS„00323,€1998€WL€135613,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€26,€1998)€(noting€that€trialÏcourt€defined€joint€custody€as€ð ðequal€input€by€both€parties€as€to€decision€making€for€the€childrenððsÏgeneral€welfare,€health,€education,€and€extra„curricular€activitiesðð);òòò ò€Gray€v.€Grayóóó ó,€885€S.W.2d€353,Ð P  Ð356€(Tenn.€App.€1994)€(defining€ð ðjoint€custodyðð€broadly€as€ð ðshared€custody€and€sharedÏresponsibility€for€supportðð).€€Trial€courts€are€not€limited€by€a€narrow€definition€of€joint€custody€andÏmay€outline€each€partyððs€responsibilities€concerning€care€of€the€children.€€ò òòòSchwalb€v.€Langloisóóó ó,€No.Ð ð@ Ð01A01„9304„CV„00152,€1993€WL€415766,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Oct.€13,€1993).Ìà  àOn€the€issue€of€joint€custody,€the€record€indicates€that€the€parties€have€had€someÏdisagreements€about€Geoffððs€care,€such€as€the€seriousness€with€which€each€parent€regards€his€asthma.€ÏHowever,€both€parties€testified€that€they€are€supportive€of€the€other€parentððs€relationship€with€Geoff.€ÏAlthough€Mother€objected€to€the€visitation€schedule€ordered€in€the€decree,€she€indicated€aÏwillingness€for€Husband€to€spend€substantial€time€with€Geoff€and€acknowledged€their€ð ðspecialÏrelationship.ðð€€Likewise,€Husband€admitted€an€awareness€that€children€in€divorce€need€both€parentsÏñAñœñAñand€expressedñAñ›ñAñ€a€willingness€to€parent€with€Wife.€€The€testimony€also€indicates€that€the€parents€haveÏð ðcoveredðð€for€each€other€with€Geoff€when€conflicts€arose,€such€as€Husband€bringing€Geoff€to€WifeððsÏhome€when€he€was€called€to€the€hospital€to€perform€a€cardiac€catheterization.€€In€all,€the€recordÏreflects€a€reasonable€degree€of€cooperation€between€the€parents€to€work€together€in€Geoffððs€bestÏinterest.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏâ âaward€of€joint€custody€with€a€designation€of€the€primary€custodial€parent.Ð P7 26 Ðà  àThe€trial€courtððs€designation€of€primary€custodial€parent,€however,€is€unusual€and€confusing.€Ïâ âThe€decree€states:ÌÓÓà8  àPlaintiff€[Wife]€shall€be€the€primary€custodial€parent,€with€the€exception€of€the€periodÏof€time€during€the€childððs€summer€vacation€and€the€Christmas€holidays€whenÏDefendant€[Husband]€is€exercising€visitations€as€hereinafter€provided.€€For€thatÏportion€of€the€childððs€summer€vacation€and€the€Christmas€holidays€when€DefendantÏis€exercising€visitation,€Defendant€[Husband]€shall€be€the€primary€custodial€parent.Ï.€.€.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àPlaintiff€and€Defendant€are€to€confer€on€all€major€decisions€concerning€theÏchild.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8  àà ` àBoth€parties€shall€have€the€right€after€conferring€to€take€the€child€to€and€fromÏthe€offices€of€doctors,€dentists€or€other€health€care€providers€and€to€confer€with€theseÏproviders€as€necessary€regarding€the€health€and€well€being€of€the€child.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓThe€decree€is€clear€in€its€directive€that€the€parties€are€to€confer€on€major€decisions€and€make€aÏgenuine€attempt€to€reach€agreement.€€However,€the€fact€that€the€designation€of€primary€custodialÏparent€changes€during€the€year€creates€confusion€and€uncertainty.€€In€this€situation,€it€is€unclear€howÏthe€parents€are€to€resolve€disputes€on€long„term€decisions,€such€as€which€school€Geoff€will€attend,Ïshort€of€court€intervention.€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€intended€for€theÏparties€to€bring€such€decisions€to€court.€€The€trial€courtððs€designation€of€which€parent€has€primaryÏcustody€and€which€has€secondary€custody€needs€to€create€ð ða€definite€allocation€of€duties€andÏresponsibilities€between€them.ðð€€ñAñœñAñò òòòSchwalbóóó ó,ñAñ›ñAñ€1993€WL€415766,€at€*2.Ð $à" Ðà  àShort€of€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€this€issue,€the€best€alternative€appears€to€beÏclarification€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€It€is€undisputed€that€during€the€marriage€Wife€was€GeoffððsÏprimary€caregiver€and€was€responsible€for€the€majority€of€decisions€affecting€his€well„being.€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€designation€of€Wife€as€primary€custodial€parent€is€consistent€with€this€fact.€€AsÏclarification,€Husbandððs€designation€as€primary€custodial€parent€during€his€visitation€over€theÏChristmas€holidays€and€summer€vacation€shall€pertain€to€short„term€decisions€limited€to€that€periodÏof€time.€€As€to€long„term€decisions,€Wife€shall€remain€the€primary€custodial€parent.€€The€partiesÏremain€obliged€to€confer€on€major€decisions€and€make€a€genuine€effort€to€reach€agreement.Ìà  àThe€trial€courtððs€decree€appears€to€treat€Geoffððs€medical€care€differently€from€other€majorÏdecisions;€the€trial€court€ordered€that,€after€conferring,€both€parties€could€take€the€child€to€health€careÏprofessionals.€€While€this€is€somewhat€inconsistent€with€Wifeððs€designation€as€primary€custodialÐ 09€48 Ðparent,€it€is€not€unwarranted€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Both€parents€are€trained€healthÏcare€professionals.€€While€Wife€objected€that€Husband€did€not€treat€Geoffððs€asthma€seriously,€thereÏis€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€trial€court€could€have€concluded€that€Wife€wasÏoverprotective€of€Geoff.€€Moreover,€while€the€parties€differed€as€to€how€ð ðseriousðð€Geoffððs€asthmaÏis,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€parents€worked€at€cross„purposes,€such€as€Husband€failing€to€giveÏGeoff€asthma€medicine€prescribed€by€a€physician€selected€by€Wife.€€Therefore,€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€this€issue.Ìà  àTherefore,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€the€parties€joint€custody€with€a€designation€ofÏprimary€custodial€parent€is€affirmed.€€The€designation€of€primary€custodial€parent,€as€clarified,€isÏaffirmed.€€To€the€extent€that€the€clarification€of€the€decree€on€primary€custodial€parent€is€aÏmodification,€this€decision€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€that,€after€conferring,Ïboth€parties€may€take€Geoff€to€see€health€care€professionals,€is€affirmed.Ìà  àWife€also€questions€the€parenting€schedule€ordered€by€trial€court,€with€Geoff€at€his€fatherððsÏhome€every€other€week€from€Wednesday€after€school€to€the€following€Monday€morning,€and€onÏWednesday€night€in€the€alternate€weeks.€€During€summer€vacation,€this€schedule€is€reversed,€withÏGeoff€at€his€motherððs€home€during€these€time€periods.€€Wife€contends€that€the€parenting€scheduleÏset€by€the€trial€court€is€extremely€disruptive€and€results€in€ð ðpassing€the€child€back€and€forth.ðð€€Also,ÏWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€fashion€a€parenting€schedule€which€recognized€HusbandððsÏcall€schedule€and€asserts€that€ð ðreasonable€parametersðð€must€be€placed€on€Husbandððs€visitation€dueÏto€his€call€schedule.€€Wife€proposes€that€Husband€not€have€visitation€every€fifth€week€while€he€is€onÏcall€and€that€Husband€should€notify€Wife€when€he€is€called€to€the€hospital€for€an€emergency,€so€thatÏshe€can€care€for€Geoff.€€Wife€maintains€that€taking€Geoff€to€the€hospital€in€the€middle€of€the€nightÏand€leaving€him€in€Husbandððs€office€without€supervision€is€unacceptable.€€Husband€argues€ñAñœñAñthat€his€ñAñ›ñAñÏschedule€allows€him€flexibility€in€caring€for€Geoff€and€that€his€call€schedule€has€not€presented€aÏproblem€in€his€ability€to€care€for€Geoff.€€Husband€asserts€that€it€is€in€Geoffððs€best€interests€toÏcontinue€the€parenting€schedule€set€out€by€the€trial€court.€€Husband€also€argues€that€his€call€scheduleÏhas€not€presented€a€problem€in€his€ability€to€care€for€Geoff.Ìà  àAs€noted€by€Wife,€the€parenting€schedule€set€forth€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case€ñAñœñAñisñAñ›ñAñÏincongruent€with€the€partiesðð€history,€since€it€is€undisputed€that€Wife€was€the€childððs€primaryÐ 09€48 Ðcaregiver€until€the€parties€separated€and€that€Husbandððs€substantial€involvement€in€GeoffððsÏupbringing€came€about€only€after€the€parties€decided€to€divorce.€€This€Court€has€repeatedlyÏemphasized€the€importance€of€stability€and€continuity€in€the€lives€of€children€of€divorced€parents.€Ïò òòòSee€Gaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€ñAñœñAñ630.ñAñ›ñAñ€€ñAñœñAñSuchñAñ›ñAñ€continuity€and€stability€is€normally€achieved€by€making€theÐ P   Ðparent€who€was€the€primary€caregiver€during€the€marriage€the€primary€custodial€parent,€in€theÏallocation€of€parenting€time€as€well€as€in€decisionmaking€on€matters€affecting€the€child.€€ò òòòSee€BrooksÐ `  Ðv.€Carteró óóó,€No.€02A01„9709„CV„00225€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€2,€1999)€(reversing€trial€courtððs€designationÐ ð@  Ðof€father€as€primary€custodial€parent€and€ordering€joint€custody€with€mother€as€primary€custodialÏparent€where€mother€had€been€primary€caregiver€during€marriage);€ò òòòBarnhill€v.€Barnhilló óóó,€826€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð443,€453€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(affirming€award€of€joint€custody€with€father€as€primary€custodial€parentÏwhere€father€had€been€childrenððs€primary€caretaker€during€latter€part€of€partiesðð€marriage).€€ñAñœñAñHowever,ñAñ›ñAñÏwhere€the€parent€who€has€been€the€primary€caregiver€during€the€marriage€is€deemed€the€less€fitÏparent,€it€is€necessary€to€award€primary€custody€to€the€parent€who€was€not€the€primary€caregiver.€Ð 0€ Ðò òòòSee€Grover€v.€Groveróó,€ó óNo.€01A01„9804„CH„00197€(Tenn.€App.€Apr.€30,€1999);€òòò òGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2dÐ ` Ðat€630„31.Ìà  àIn€this€case,€the€allocation€of€parenting€times€ñAñœñAñgivesñAñ›ñAñ€Geoff€somewhat€more€time€in€WifeððsÏhome,€although€the€time€spent€with€each€parent€is€nearly€equal.€€This€is€inconsistent€with€the€ñAñœñAñfactñAñ›ñAñ€thatÏWife€was€Geoffððs€primary€caregiver€during€the€marriage.€€However,€the€record€includes€evidenceÏfrom€which€the€trial€court€could€have€concluded€that€it€was€in€Geoffððs€best€interest€to€spend€moreÏtime€with€his€father.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€testified€about€her€concerns€that€Wife€would€move€toÏMichigan€where€her€extended€family€lives€and€her€belief€€that€Wife€would€be€more€likely€to€stay€inÏTennessee€if€Husband€were€awarded€custody€of€Geoff.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€stated€that€Wife€wasÏangry€at€her€for€speaking€with€Geoff€and€that€Wife€did€not€want€her€to€obtain€any€information€fromÏpsychologists€who€had€treated€Wife.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€also€felt€that€Wife€was€not€genuinelyÏsupportive€of€Husbandððs€relationship€with€Geoff.€€As€noted€above,€there€was€some€indication€thatÏWife€is€overprotective€of€Geoff.€€The€guardian€ad€litem€found€both€parties€to€be€good€and€lovingÏparents,€but€repeatedly€emphasized€the€quality€of€Husbandððs€relationship€with€Geoff:ÌÓÓà8  àòò[Stark]óó:€The€problem€is€.€.€.€I€do€not€believe€it€is€in€Geoffreyððs€best€interest€for€himÐ P7 26 Ðto€not€have€very€frequent€and€extended€visitation€with€both€parents.€€Dr.€Burlew,Ïfrom€everything€I€have€been€able€to€find€out,€both€from€my€interview€with€him€andÏmy€interview€with€people€who€knew€him,€this€man€is€special.€€Both€parents€are€goodÐ  :p59 Ðparents,€do€not€get€me€wrong.€.€.€.€[B]ut,€from€everything€I€could€figure€out,€includingÏmy€interview€with€Geoff,€Geoff€has€a€special€relationship€with€Dr.€Burlew€.€.€.€.Ï[Geoffrey]€was€much€more€verbal,€much€more€detailed,€much€more€animated€whenÏhe€talked€about€what€he€did€with€his€father€than€what€he€did€when€he€talked€aboutÏwhat€he€did€with€his€mother.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€addition€to€considering€which€parent€was€the€childððs€primary€caregiver€during€theÏmarriage,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€willingness€of€each€parent€to€encourage€a€close€andÏcontinuing€relationship€with€the€other€parent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(10)€(Supp.€1998).€ñAñœñAñ€€TheÏtrial€court€could€also€consider€Wifeððs€attitude€regarding€the€investigation€by€the€guardian€ad€litem,Ïas€well€as€the€concerns€raised€by€the€guardian€ad€litem.€€AppellateñAñ›ñAñ€courts€are€reluctant€to€reverse€aÏtrial€courtððs€custody€decision€because€ð ð[c]ustody€and€visitation€determinations€often€hinge€on€subtleÏfactors,€including€the€parentsðð€demeanor€and€credibility€during€the€divorce€proceedings€themselves.ðð€Ïò òòòGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€631.€€The€trial€court,€not€the€appellate€court,€is€in€the€position€to€observe€theÐ pÀ Ðdemeanor€of€the€parties€and€assess€their€credibility.€€ò òòòBrewer€v.€Breweró óóó,€869€S.W.2d€928,€934€(Tenn.Ð P  ÐApp.€1993).€€Consequently,€the€trial€courtððs€overall€parenting€schedule€is€affirmed.Ìà  àWife€raises€concerns€on€appeal€regarding€Husbandððs€care€for€Geoff€when€he€is€ð ðon€call.ðð€€SheÏargues€that€he€should€not€have€scheduled€parenting€time€when€he€is€on€call€every€fifth€week€and€that,Ïwhen€he€is€called€to€the€hospital€at€other€times,€he€should€be€required€to€have€Wife€take€care€ofÏGeoff,€rather€than€bringing€Geoff€to€the€hospital€with€him.€€The€trial€court€made€no€provisions€forÏthis€in€the€final€decree.Ìà  àAs€noted€above,€Husbandððs€first€ð ðcallðð€schedule€occurs€every€fifth€week.€€During€this€week,ÏHusband€must€take€telephone€calls€regarding€other€physiciansðð€patients.€€His€unrefuted€testimonyÏwas€that€these€can€almost€always€be€managed€by€telephone.€€In€addition,€every€fifth€weekend,ÏHusband€must€make€rounds€at€the€hospital€on€Saturday€and€Sunday€mornings,€a€task€which€takesÏfrom€one€to€four€hours.€€The€second€ð ðcallðð€schedule€means€that€Husband€may€be€required€to€go€toÏthe€hospital€to€perform€an€emergency€cardiac€catheterization€at€any€time€of€the€day€or€night.€ÏHusbandððs€testimony€indicated€that€this€occurs€with€ð ðrandom€frequencyðð€and€had€happened€onlyÏonce€while€Geoff€was€Husbandððs€care€in€the€two€years€the€parties€were€separated.€€On€this€occasion,ÏHusband€brought€Geoff€to€Wifeððs€home.Ìà  àHusbandððs€witness,€Dr.€Soberman,€indicated€a€belief€that€there€was€no€problem€with€leavingÏa€child€Geoffððs€age€unattended€in€the€hospital€while€the€parent€sees€patients€or€performs€medicalÐ 09€48 Ðprocedures.€€We€find€this€troubling.€€Husbandððs€call€schedule€does€not€interfere€so€significantly€withÏGeoffððs€care€that€Husband€should€not€have€scheduled€parenting€time€during€those€periods.€€However,Ïthe€decree€should€be€modified€so€that€Geoff€is€not€left€unattended€at€the€hospital€while€HusbandÏtends€to€patients.€€If€Husband€is€required€to€see€patients€at€the€hospital,€whether€making€rounds€onÏa€weekend€morning€or€performing€an€emergency€medical€procedure,€if€Husband€is€not€able€to€haveÏGeoff€with€him€and€supervise€him,€he€must€either€have€Wife€care€for€Geoff€or,€if€that€is€notÏpracticable,€have€a€responsible€adult€designated€to€care€for€Geoff€in€Husbandððs€absence.€€The€orderÏof€the€trial€court€must€be€modified€to€add€this€requirement.€Ìà  àWife€also€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€regarding€alimony.€€The€trial€court€awarded€WifeÏalimony€òòin€solidoóó€in€the€amount€of€$220,000.€€The€court€ordered€Husband€to€pay€$45,000€the€firstÐ à Ðyear,€reduced€by€$5,000€each€subsequent€year,€ending€after€eight€years.€€Wife€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€admitted€the€testimony€of€certified€public€accountant€William€Watkins€on€theÏrange€of€available€salaries€in€the€medical€community€and€in€the€legal€community€in€Memphis€forÏwhich€ñAñœñAñWifeñAñ›ñAñ€would€be€qualified.€€Wife€argues€that€Watkins€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert€to€giveÏsuch€testimony€and€that€the€testimony€constituted€hearsay.€€Both€parties€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏregarding€alimony.€€Wife€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€insteadÐ Ð  Ðof€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€and€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€provide€for€increases€in€Wifeððs€alimony€inÐ °"  Ðproportion€with€inflation€or€a€future€showing€of€an€increase€in€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay€or€WifeððsÏincrease€in€need.€€Husband€argues€that€the€amount€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€awarded€was€excessive.Ð p&À!$ Ðà  àAs€noted€above,€Watkins€testified€to€a€range€of€salaries€available€to€Wife€in€the€nursing€fieldÏand€in€the€legal€profession€in€Memphis,€based€upon€information€gathered€from€telephone€calls,€theÏlocal€newspaper€and€surveys€conducted€by€several€local€hospitals.€€At€trial,€Wife€challengedÏWatkinsðð€qualifications€as€an€expert,€arguing€that€Watkins€was€not€qualified€to€testify€regarding€aÏrange€of€salaries€available€to€Wife€in€the€health€care€field€and€in€the€legal€profession€merely€becauseÏhe€has€clients€in€those€fields.€€In€addition,€Wife€argued€that€Watkinsðð€testimony€constituted€hearsay.Ìà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€702€provides€that:€ð ð[i]f€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÏknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÏin€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÏtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€ñAñœñAñotherwise.ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€InñAñ›ñAñ€order€to€qualify€as€an€expert,Ð 09€48 Ðthe€witness€must€have€ð ðsome€special€as€well€as€practical€acquaintance€with€the€immediate€line€ofÏinquiry.ðð€€ò òòòBenson€v.€Fowleróóó ó,€306€S.W.2d€49,€63€(Tenn.€App.€1957)€(quoting€ò òòòPowers€v.€McKenzieóóó ó,Ð à Ð16€S.W.€559,€562€(Tenn.€1891).€€ò òòòSee€also€Bradford€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóóó ó,€885€S.W.2d€78,€83€(Tenn.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€1994).€€The€expert€must€possess€ð ðthorough€knowledgeðð€of€the€subject€matter€that€is€not€withinÏthe€knowledge€or€experience€of€the€average€person.€€ò òòòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€850Ð 0 € ÐS.W.2d€439,€443€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€ò òòòKinley€v.€Tennessee€State€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€620€S.W.2d€79,€81Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€ñAñœñAñ1981)).ñAñ›ñAñ€€The€trial€courtððs€finding€as€to€whether€a€witness€qualifies€as€an€expert€will€be€upheldÏunless€the€trial€court€erred€regarding€the€witnessðð€qualifications€and€the€error€was€prejudicial.€Ïò òòòBradfordó óóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€83€(citing€ò òòòUnderwood€v.€Waterslides€of€Mid„America,€Inc.óóó ó,€823€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð171,€182€ñAñœñAñ(Tenn.€App.ñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñ1991)).ñAñ›ñAñÌà  àIn€this€case,€Watkins€was€qualified€to€testify€regarding€matters€within€his€field€of€expertiseÏas€a€certified€public€accountant.€€However,€there€was€no€showing€that€he€was€qualified€as€aÏvocational€expert€to€testify€regarding€the€jobs€for€which€Wife€was€qualified,€based€on€her€educationÏand€experience€and€considering€her€years€as€a€homemaker,€and€the€compensation€she€could€expectÏto€earn.€€Since€Watkinsðð€testimony€is€the€only€testimony€Husband€presented€on€the€issue€of€WifeððsÏearning€capacity,€apart€from€Husbandððs€testimony,€it€was€clearly€prejudicial.€€Consequently,€we€mustÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Watkinsðð€testimony€on€the€issue€of€Wifeððs€earningÏcapacity.Ìà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€Wife€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€in€the€amount€of€$220,000.€€The€trial€courtÐ p&À!$ Ðordered€Husband€to€pay€$45,000€the€first€year,€reduced€by€$5,000€each€subsequent€year€and€endingÏafter€eight€years.€€Wife€cites€ò òòòAaron€v.€Aaronóóó ó,€909€S.W.2d€408€(Tenn.€1995),€for€the€proposition€that,Ð 0*€%( Ðin€determining€alimony,€the€most€important€factor€is€the€need€of€the€spouse€seeking€support.€€WifeÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€her€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€rather€than€alimony€òòin€futuroóó.Ð ð-@), Ðà  àHusband€contends€that€an€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€is€appropriate€but€argues€that€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðamount€awarded€was€excessive.€€He€notes€that€Wife€spent€$61,187.57€in€joint€funds,€with€theÏmajority€of€the€funds€utilized€for€Wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€Husband€argues€that€he€paid€Wife€$5,000Ïper€month€temporary€alimony€and€child€support,€and€that€these€constituted€ð ðtax€free€paymentsðð€toÏher,€totaling€$105,000.€€Husband€contends€that,€in€light€of€her€education,€training€and€experience,€ÏWife€has€the€ability€to€earn€a€substantial€income.€Ð 09€48 Ðà  àThe€determination€of€an€amount€of€alimony€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€(Supp.€1998).€€ò òòòSee€also€ó óóó€òòò òGilliam€v.€Gilliamó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€81,€86€(Tenn.€App.Ð à Ð1988);€òòò òIngram€v.€Ingramóóó ó,€721€S.W.2d€262,€264€(Tenn.€App.€1986)€(citing€ò òòòNewberry€v.€Newberryóóó ó,Ð pÀ Ð493€S.W.2d€99€(Tenn.€App.€1973).€€Tennessee€statutes€permit€three€types€of€alimony:€(1)Ïrehabilitative€alimony,€which€is€temporary€support€to€enable€a€spouse€to€obtain€the€ability€to€supportÏhimself€or€herself€at€a€certain€level;€(2)€periodic€alimony€or€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€which€is€permanentÐ `  Ðalimony€to€benefit€an€economically€disadvantaged€spouse;€(3)€alimony€òòin€solidoóó,€which€is€a€lumpÐ ð@  Ðsum€payment€to€a€spouse.€€ò òòòSee€óóó óTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)(1)€(Supp.€1998).€€Under€TennesseeÐ Ð  ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(d),€the€factors€considered€in€determining€alimony€are:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà ` à(A)€The€relative€earning€capacity,€obligations,€needs,€and€financial€resourcesÏof€each€party,€including€income€from€pension,€profit€sharing€or€retirement€plans€andÏall€other€sources;Ìà ` à(B)€The€relative€education€and€training€of€each€party,€the€ability€andÏopportunity€of€each€party€to€secure€such€education€and€training,€and€the€necessity€ofÏa€party€to€secure€further€education€and€training€to€improve€such€party's€earningÏcapacity€to€a€reasonable€level;Ìà ` à(C)€The€duration€of€the€marriage;Ìà ` à(D)€The€age€and€mental€condition€of€each€party;Ìà ` à(E)€The€physical€condition€of€each€party,€including,€but€not€limited€to,Ïphysical€disability€or€incapacity€due€to€a€chronic€debilitating€disease;Ìà ` à(F)€The€extent€to€which€it€would€be€undesirable€for€a€party€to€seekÏemployment€outside€the€home€because€such€party€will€be€custodian€of€a€minor€childÏof€the€marriage;Ìà ` à(G)€The€separate€assets€of€each€party,€both€real€and€personal,€tangible€andÏintangible;Ìà ` à(H)€The€provisions€made€with€regard€to€the€marital€property€as€defined€in€ððÏ36-4-121;Ìà ` à(I)€The€standard€of€living€of€the€parties€established€during€the€marriage;Ìà ` à(J)€The€extent€to€which€each€party€has€made€such€tangible€and€intangibleÏcontributions€to€the€marriage€as€monetary€and€homemaker€contributions,€and€tangibleÏand€intangible€contributions€by€a€party€to€the€education,€training€or€increased€earningÏpower€of€the€other€party;Ìà ` à(K)€The€relative€fault€of€the€parties€in€cases€where€the€court,€in€its€discretion,Ïdeems€it€appropriate€to€do€so;€€andÌà ` à(L)€Such€other€factors,€including€the€tax€consequences€to€each€party,€as€areÏnecessary€to€consider€the€equities€between€the€parties.ÌÒ°WÀÒÒ°eÀÒÓsÀÓÌThe€statute€reflects€a€policy€in€favor€of€rehabilitative€alimony.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101Ð À0,/ Ð(d)(1)€(Supp.€1998);€òòò òAaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€410.€€The€statute€provides€further:Ð  2ð-1 ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ€€€€€It€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€a€spouse€who€is€economicallyÏdisadvantaged,€relative€to€the€other€spouse,€be€rehabilitated€whenever€possible€by€theÏgranting€of€an€order€for€payment€of€rehabilitative,€temporary€support€andÏmaintenance.€€Where€there€is€such€relative€economic€disadvantage€and€rehabilitationÏis€not€feasible€in€consideration€of€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€set€out€in€thisÏâ âsubsection,€then€the€court€may€grant€an€order€for€payment€of€support€andÐ 09€48 Ðmaintenance€on€a€long-term€basis€or€until€the€death€or€remarriage€of€the€recipientÏexcept€as€otherwise€provided€in€subdivision€(a)(3).€€Ìâ âÌÒ°šÈÒÒ°¨ÈÒÓ¶ÈÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101€(d)(1)€(Supp.€1998);€ò òòòseeóóó ó€ò òòòSelf€v.€Selfó óóó,€861€S.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð1993).Ìà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòò òAaron€v.€Aaronóóó ó€noted€that€ð ðthe€real€need€of€the€spouseÐ @  Ðseeking€the€support€is€the€single€most€important€factor.ðð€ò òòòAaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€410€(quotingÐ  p  Ðò òòòCranford€v.€Cranfordó óóó,€772€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€App.€ñAñœñAñ1989)).ñAñ›ñAñ€€In€addition€to€the€need€of€theÐ P  Ðdisadvantaged€spouse,€the€ability€of€the€obligor€spouse€to€provide€support€is€considered.€€ñAñœñAñòòò òId.ó óóó€atñAñ›ñAñ€410„Ð à0  Ð11.€€Fault€of€a€spouse€in€precipitating€a€divorce€is€also€a€consideration€when€determining€an€alimonyÏaward.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101€(d)(1)(K).€€ò òòòSee€also€Aaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€410-11;€òòò òGilliamó óóó,Ð  ð Ð776€S.W.2d€at€86.€€The€amount€of€alimony€should€be€determined€so€ð ðthat€the€party€obtaining€theÏdivorce€[is€not]€left€in€a€worse€financial€situation€than€he€or€she€had€before€the€opposite€party'sÏmisconduct€brought€about€the€divorce.ðð€€ò òòòShackelford€v.€Shacklefordó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€598,€601€(Tenn.Ð @ ÐApp.€1980);€ò òòòsee€Rush€v.€Rushóóó ó,€232€S.W.2d€333,€334€(Tenn.€App.€1949);òòò ò€McClung€v.€McClungóóó ó,€198Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€820,€822€(Tenn.€App.€1946).Ìà  àIn€the€present€case,€Husband€is€in€his€mid„forties€and€is€a€cardiologist€at€the€University€ofÏTennessee€and€UT€Medical€Group.€€In€1997,€Husbandððs€income€was€approximately€$200,000.€€WifeÏis€also€in€her€mid„forties.€€Wifeððs€situation€is€unique.€€Wife€holds€two€degrees€in€nursing,€a€lawÏdegree,€and€is€completing€a€masterððs€degree€in€business€administration.€€However,€by€agreement€ofÏthe€parties,€Wife€has€not€been€employed€outside€the€home€since€1986,€except€for€part„time€work€toÏmaintain€her€nursing€licenses.Ìà  àThe€parties€were€married€approximately€twenty„four€years.€€During€the€marriage,€HusbandÏattended€medical€school€and€began€his€career€as€a€cardiologist.€€From€approximately€1979€untilÏ1986,€Wife€worked€full„time€while€Husband€attended€medical€school€and€completed€years€ofÏresidencies€and€fellowships.€€Wife€ñAñœñAñmovedñAñ›ñAñ€several€times€ñAñœñAñinñAñ›ñAñ€furtherance€of€Husbandððs€career.€€BecauseÏof€these€moves,€Wifeððs€retirement€benefits€never€vested,€and€she€forfeited€her€retirement€benefits.€ÏWhen€they€moved€to€Memphis,€the€parties€began€attempting€to€conceive€a€child,€and€Wife€began€lawÏschool.€€When€Geoff€was€born€in€1990,€shortly€after€Wife€obtained€her€law€degree,€the€parties€agreedÏâ âthat€she€would€stay€home€to€raise€Geoff.€€Ð @837 Ðà  àThus,€during€the€course€of€this€marriage,€Wife€substantially€contributed€to€Husbandððs€earningÏâ âcapacity.€€She€financially€supported€Husband€throughout€his€training€as€a€physician.€€In€addition,€sheÏrelocated€with€Husband€several€times€in€support€of€his€career€and,€as€a€result,€forfeited€employmentÏbenefits.€€Husband€likewise€supported€Wifeððs€education€after€she€obtained€her€nursing€degree,€suchÏas€Wife€obtaining€a€law€degree.€€However,€by€agreement€of€the€parties,€Wife€did€not€seek€outsideÏemployment€and€remained€at€home€to€care€for€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€€Consequently,€while€WifeÏhas€as€much€education€as€Husband,€she€has€not€utilized€her€training€because€of€the€partiesððÏunderstanding€that€she€would€stay€at€home€with€Geoff.€€Due€to€her€age€and€her€dated€skills,€Wife€hasÏhad€difficulty€in€obtaining€a€job€in€the€legal€community.Ìà  àExcluding€the€testimony€of€Husbandððs€expert,€William€Watkins,€on€the€issue€of€WifeððsÏearning€capacity,€the€only€testimony€in€the€record€on€this€topic€is€testimony€from€Wife€and€fromÏHusband.€€Wife€testified€that€she€anticipated€earning€approximately€$30,000€per€year.€€Her€expert,ÏRobert€Winfield,€testified€that€Wifeððs€earning€capacity€was€$30,000€per€year,€but€his€testimony€wasÏsimply€based€on€information€he€obtained€from€Wife.€€Husband€testified€that€Wife€could€earnÏanywhere€from€$35,000€to€$65,000.Ìà  àHusbandððs€Rule€15€affidavit€showed€a€gross€monthly€income€from€the€University€ofÏTennessee€and€the€UT€Medical€Group€of€$14,500.92€and€$33,308.12€per€year€from€bonuses€andÏother€sources.€€His€net€monthly€income,€excluding€$33,308.12€from€bonuses€and€consulting€work,Ïis€$9,797.99.€€Husband€listed€$9,723€in€monthly€expenses,€including€$5,000€per€month€in€pendentÏlite€alimony€and€child€support.€€Wifeððs€affidavit€showed€no€source€of€income€and€$4,713€in€monthlyÏexpenses,€excluding€expenses€for€Geoff.€Ìà  àWhile€Wifeððs€earning€capacity€is€unclear€based€on€the€admissible€proof€in€the€record,€it€isÏclear€that€Wife€has€substantially€less€earning€capacity€relative€to€Husband.€€Therefore,€she€ñAñœñAñhasÏsubstantialñAñ›ñAñ€need€for€alimony.€€Based€on€Husbandððs€earnings,€he€has€the€ability€to€ñAñœñAñpay€alimony.ñAñ›ñAñ€€InÏaddition,€Husband€substantially€contributed€to€the€termination€of€the€marriage;€the€trial€courtÏawarded€the€divorce€to€Wife€based€on€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€As€noted€above,€€a€wrongedÏspouse€should€not€be€in€a€worse€financial€situation€than€prior€to€the€opposite€partyððs€misconductÏwhich€brought€about€the€divorce.€€ò òòòSee€Gilliamó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€86;€€òòò òShackelfordó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€601;Ð P7 26 Ðò òòòsee€Rushóóó ó,€232€S.W.2d€at€334;òòò ò€McClungóóó ó,€198€S.W.2d€at€822.Ð 09€48 Ѐ€€€€€€à  àTherefore,€based€on€Wifeððs€limited€earning€capacity€because€of€the€partiesðð€decision€that€sheÐ ° Ðstay€home€to€raise€Geoff,€Husbandððs€ability€to€pay€alimony,€the€long€duration€of€the€marriage,€theÏstandard€of€living€enjoyed€by€the€parties€during€the€marriage,€and€the€relative€fault€of€Husband€inÏbringing€about€the€divorce,€we€conclude€that€an€award€of€ñAñœrehabilitatieñAññAñrehabilitativeñAñ€alimonyòò€óóin€an€amount€notÐ P   Ðless€than€$1,000ñAñ›ñAñ€per€month€is€warranted,€beginning€ñAñœñAñno€later€than€threeñAñ›ñAñ€years€after€the€date€of€theÏoriginal€decree,€in€addition€to€the€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€by€the€trial€ñAñœñAñcourt.€€The€cause€isÐ `  Ðremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€the€appropriate€amount€of€rehabilitative€alimonyÏand€an€appropriate€start€date€for€the€monthly€payments.€€In€addition,€on€remand,€the€trial€court€shouldÏdetermine€when€Wife€could€reasonably€be€expected€to€reach€an€income€level€commensurate€withÏher€education,€and€set€a€reasonable€period€of€time€for€the€termination€of€the€monthly€rehabilitativeÏalimony€payments.€€ñAñ›ñAñà ¸ àœñBñÐ pÀ Ðà  àñBñFinally,›€Wife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€award€her€attorneyððs€fees€andÏexpert€witness€fees.€€Wife€contends€that€she€has€insufficient€funds€to€pay€these€fees€and€would€haveÏto€take€out€a€loan€or€encroach€upon€assets€in€order€to€pay€the€fees.€€On€the€other€hand,€HusbandÏcontends€that€Wife€appropriated€approximately€$61,000€in€joint€funds,€the€majority€of€which€wereÏutilized€for€Wifeððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€€€€€€€€€Ìà  àThe€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÏdisturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€ò òòòLyon€v.Ð $à" ÐLyonóóó ó,€765€S.W.2d€759,€762„63€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€An€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€treated€asÐ p&À!$ Ðalimony,€and€the€trial€court€should€consider€the€factors€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€ñAñœñAñ36„5„¼101(d)(1).ñAñ›ñAñ€€ò òòòSee€Houghland€v.€Houghlandó óóó,€844€S.W.2d€619,€623€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ð 0*€%( Ðà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€Wife€utilized€approximately€$36,000€in€joint€funds€for€attorneyððs€fees.€ÏIn€addition,€Wife€employed€four€different€attorneys€for€this€litigation.€€Under€the€circumstances,€€theÏevidence€does€not€€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€expert€witnessÏfees€to€Wife.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€as€to€attorneyððs€fees€and€expert€witness€fees€isÏaffirmed.Ìà  àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€joint€custody€of€the€ñAñœñAñpartiesððñAñ›ñAñ€minor€child,€with€a€designatedÏprimary€custodial€parent,€is€affirmed.€€The€designation€of€primary€custodial€parent€is€clarified€asÏfollows:€Wife€is€the€primary€custodial€parent€for€all€decisions€except€those€which€pertain€only€to€theÐ 09€48 Ðtime€periods€in€which€Husband€is€the€designated€primary€custodial€parent,€i.e.,€during€his€visitationÏover€the€Christmas€holidays€and€the€childððs€summer€vacation.€€The€parties€are€obliged€to€confer€onÏmajor€decisions€and€make€a€bona€fide€effort€to€reach€agreement.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€that€bothÏparties,€after€conferring,€could€take€the€child€to€see€health€care€professionals€is€affirmed.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€parenting€schedule€is€affirmed€with€the€modification€that,€if€Husband€is€required€to€seeÏpatients€at€the€hospital€while€the€child€is€in€his€care,€if€Husband€is€not€able€to€have€the€child€with€himÏand€supervise€him,€he€must€either€have€Wife€care€for€the€child€or,€if€that€is€not€practicable,€have€aÏresponsible€adult€designated€to€care€for€the€child.Ìà  àThe€trial€courtððs€award€of€alimony€òòin€solidoóó€is€ñAñœñAñaffirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€WifeððsÐ ° Ðrequest€for€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€is€also€affirmed.ñAñ›ñAñ€€ñAñœñAñTheñAñ›ñAñ€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Wifeððs€request€ñAñœñAñforÐ à ÐrehabilitativeñAñ›ñAñ€alimony€ñAñœòòóóñAñisñAñ›ñAñ€ñAñœñAñreversed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€ofÏwhen€Wife€could€reasonably€be€expected€to€attain€an€income€level€ñAñcmmensurateñAññAñcommensurateñAñ€with€her€educationÏand€for€an€award€of€rehabilitative€alimony€in€an€amount€not€less€than€$1,000€per€month€beginningÏnñ9ño€later€than€three€years€after€the€date€of€the€original€decree,€and€ñ9ññ:ññ9ñañ9ññ:ññ;ñsetting€an€appropriate€date€forÏñ;ññ<ññ;ñdeñ;ññ<ññ=ñtermination€of€the€monthly€rehabilitative€alimony€payments.ñ=ññ?ñ€€ñ?ññ@ññ=ñ€€ñ=ññ@ññ>ñ,›€and€Husband€is€ordered€to€payÏalimony€òòin€futuroóó€in€the€amount€of€$1,000€per€month,€beginning€five€years€after€the€date€of€theÐ ð@ Ðoriginal€divorce€decree.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€appropriate€order€onÏthe€alimony€òòin€futuroóó,€with€an€appropriate€provision€for€the€alimony€òòin€futuroóó€to€end€upon€œdeath,›Ð °"  Ðœremarriage,€or€other€appropriate€event,›€in€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€ñ>ñThe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€WifeððsÏrequest€for€attorneyððs€fees€or€expert€witness€fees€is€affirmed.Ìà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€modifiedñAñ›ñAñ€as€set€forthÏñAñœñAñabove,€and€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€CostsñAñ›ñAñ€on€appeal€are€taxedÏequally€to€Appellant€and€to€Appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓÔ‡ XºtXXXœˆÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 0*€%( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð +l&) Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¸/+. ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð ¤0ô+/ ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ h3¸.2 ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÐ T4¤/3 ÐÔ#†XœˆXX Xºtÿ÷#ÔÌà  àÌÌÌÌ