WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>U6 D3 B8B)U 0@~DC AMU*N#x"v~vG AOi 0D/ D/s BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDD{ӀU!$3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New++++'dxd d% Line 7 d("$    ,,,,7Border 1dd-.C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#(  00   YYY FILED0X August19,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.0AppellateCourtClerk  } !#d#(   $       ))Sincetheissuesbeforeuspertaintothepartieschild,thelitigantswillbereferredtointhisopinion,foreaseofreference,as Fatherand Mother.  !#d#(   $       ))Whilethedivorcejudgmentisnotintherecordbeforeus,itapparentlydoesnotsetforthFathersvisitationrightswithspecificity.Atonepointintheproceedingsbelow,Fatherscounselcommentedthat theresnosetvisitationscheduleintheorderhere.  !#d#(   $       ))Whilethecourtwasrenderingitsopinion,therespondent,Ms.Fenley,toldthejudgethatshehadwitnessesavailabletotestify,towhichherespondedthatwitnesseswouldnotchangewhathehadsaidaboutthecase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &''Xd&#''Xd#(  P \RA'\)\RA'\7XXdd7  ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜L/1.;+'h|`  `LߛJOHNDAVIDFENLEY,   )C/ANO.03A019604CH00121      )WASHINGTONCO.CHANCERYCOURT  PetitionerAppellee,)      )      )      )v.      )HONORABLELEWISW.MAY,JR.,      )JUDGE,SittingbyInterchange      )      )      )LINDADIANEMcFALLFENLEY, )AFFIRMEDINPART      )REVERSEDINPART  RespondentAppellant.)REMANDEDJUDITHFAIN,Erwin,AttorneyforAppellantMARKD.SLAGLE,JohnsonCity,AttorneyforAppellee@ OPINION           Susano,J.  Thisisapostdivorcecase.JohnDavidFenley(Father 2   ),apsychiatrist,filedapetitionforchangeofcustodyofthepartieschild,CaitlinAnnFenley(DOB:June8,1990).Atthetimeofthedivorce,thechildscustody,byagreementofthepartiesandapprovalofthetrialcourt,hadbeenplacedwiththechildsmother,therespondentLindaDianeMcFallFenley(Mother).AtthecloseofFathersproof,thetrialcourt,actingsuasponte,dismissedthepetition.ItthenwentfurtherandmodifiedthevisitationrightsofFather.Mother,beingdissatisfiedwiththenewvisitationdecree,appealed.Fatherdidnotraiseanissueregardingthedismissalofhispetition.Motherraisesthreeissues. 8 1.DidthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretionindirectingthatthechildwouldbewithFathereverySundaysohecouldtakehertochurch? 8 2.DidthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretioninnotrequiringFathertogiveMotheramonthsnoticeofhisintenttoexercisevisitation? 8 3.DidthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretionindenyingMothersrequestforattorneysfeesanddiscretionarycosts?WebelievethetrialcourtsjudgmentregardingFathersvisitationshouldbereversed,butforreasonsotherthanthosesuggestedbyMother.@ I  Thepetitioninthiscaseallegesthattherehasbeena substantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancessothat itisinthebestinterestofthechildthat[Father]begrantedsolecustodyofthepartiesminorchild.Itdoesnotallege,alternatively,thatthecourtshouldmodifythedivorcejudgmentwithrespecttohisvisitationintheeventhiscustodypetitionisdenied. 3   ׀TheprayersforreliefinthepetitiononlypertaintoreliefrelatedtoachangeofcustodytoFather.Again,thereisnospecificprayerforamodificationoranyreliefwithrespecttoFathersvisitationrights.  Mothersanswertothepetitiondeniedthatachangeofcustodywasappropriate.Sheaskedforanawardofcourtcosts,attorneysfees,anddiscretionarycosts.Nocounterclaimwasfiled.  Priortoreceivingopeningstatements,thecourtengagedinthefollowingexchangewithcounsel: 8 THECOURT:Ireadthefileyesterday.Thisisthecaseofchangetocustody?  MR.SLAGLE:Thatscorrect.  MS.FAIN:Yes.Inhisopeningstatement,counselforFathertoldthecourt werehereontheoneissueandthatissueisthechild.Atanotherpointinhisopeningstatement,thesamecounselsaid [w]erenotheretotalkaboutchildsupport.ThereisnothingintheopeningstatementsandthecourtscommentsinterspersedamongthemtosuggestthattheissueofFathersvisitationwas onthetable.  DuringthetestimonyofFatherswife,shealludedtothepartieschurchattendance.Thatprecipitatedthefollowingexchangewiththecourt: 8 Q:DoyouinvolveKatieinsocialandchurchactivities?  A:Yes. 8 Q:Howmuchsoandonwhatlevel,whatactivitylevel? 8 A:Caitlin,atthistime,isinthecherubchoir.Shesbeeninthatforprobablythelastmonthtotwomonths.ShegoestochurchusuallyeverySundaymorningforSundayschoolandthenpreachingafter. 8  THECOURT:Counselor,Iunderstandthatyouwanttointroducealltheevidenceyoucantoshowanychangeofcustody,butthishearingisnttoexplainthechurch.Itsthecircumstances.Thisdoesntaddressthat. 8  MR.SLAGLE:Iunderstand.Illmoveon.  Fathertestifiedextensivelyatthehearingbelow.Hetoldthecourtthatthechildwaswithhimasubstantialpartofthetime: 8 Q:Sinceyou[and]LoriFenleyhavemarriedwell,quitefrankly,evenbeforethen,howoftendoyougettoseeyourdaughter?Iknowtheresnosetvisitationscheduleintheorderhere.Couldyoutellushowoftenyouseeher? 8 A:Oneonetotwoweeknights;andthenwhenwereintown,virtuallyeveryweekend.Somedaysjustonetwentyfourhourperiod.SomedayssomeImeansomeweekends,oneday,likeSaturdayeveningtoSundayduringtheday;someFridayeveningtoSundayevening. 8 Q:Soitsjustabouteveryweekendorontheaverage,howmanyweekendsamonthdoyouhaveher?  A:Idsaythreeoutoffour.  AtthecloseofFathersproof,thetrialcourtabruptlyterminatedthecasebeforetherespondentwasaffordedanopportunitytoputonanyproof: 8 THECOURT:Allright.Youmaycomedown.  MS.FAIN[Motherscounsel]:CanInotcrossexam? 8 THECOURT:Youmayifyouwantto.Imabouttoreachadecision. 8 MS.FAIN:Allright,sir.Well,Iwasabouttomakeamotionotherwise.So...ComedownMs.Fenley,please.  (Witnessexcused.) 8 THECOURT:ThePlaintiff,havingclosedtheircasetheresbeennomaterial,substantialchangescircumstancesinthiscasetowarrantchangeofcustody.Afterdenyingtheonlyreliefbeingsoughtinthecase,i.e.,achangeofcustodytoFather,andovertheobjectionofMother,thetrialcourtdirectedthatthechildwouldbewithFathereverySundayexceptwhenMothertookasummervacationsohecouldtakethechildtochurch.Insodoing,thecourtcommentedthat thespiritualneedsofthischildaregoingtobeparamounttothecourt.HealsodecreedspecificvisitationatThanksgiving.HealsotouchedonvisitationatChristmasalthoughitisnotclearifheawardedspecificvisitationatthattimeofyear.@ II  MotherarguesthatthecourtsdecreewithrespecttoSundaysand,moreparticularly,thecourtsdeferencetothechildsspiritualneedsviolatestheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticle1,Section3,oftheTennesseeConstitution.Becausewefindanotherbasisforreversingthispartofthetrialcourtsjudgment,wedonotaddresstheconstitutionalissues. [O]urcourtsdonotdecideconstitutionalquestionsunlesstheissuesresolutionisabsolutelynecessaryfordeterminationofthecaseandtherightsoftheparties. Haynesv.CityofPigeonForge ,883S.W.2d619,620(Tenn.App.1994),andnumerouscasescitedinthatopinion.  TheonlyissueatthetriallevelwaswhethertherehadbeenasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstancesrequiringthatthechildscustodybechangedfromMothertoFather.Neitherpartyaskedthecourtintheirpleadingstomodifyoraddress,inanyway,thevisitationrightsofFather;norwasthatissuetriedwiththeimpliedconsentoftheparties.Cf. ZackCheekBuilders,Inc.v.McLeod ,597S.W.2d888(Tenn.1980).ItistruethattherewastestimonyregardingFathersvisitationwiththechild;butitisclearfromtherecordthatthistestimonywasnotgivenbythewitnessesorreceivedbythecourtonthenonissueofFathersvisitation.Thecourtclearlystated,atanumberofpointsintherecord,thatthiswasacaseinvolvingwhetherthechildscustodyshouldbechangedfromMothertoFather.TherewasnothingintheproceedingstoputMotheronnoticethattheissueofthequantumofFathersvisitationwasgoingtobeaddressedbythetrialcourt.  Motherwasnotpermittedtoputonanyproof. 4   ׀Ofcourse,upuntilthetrialcourtgotintoitsvisitationchanges,shehadnodesireorneedtoputonproofshehadbeencompletelysuccessfulontheonlyissuebeforethecourt.Therewasnoreasonforhertoputonproofastoanissueonwhichshehadalreadybeen declaredthewinner.  Ithaslongbeenthelawinthisstatethatajudgmentbeyondthepleadingsorissuestriedbyconsent,isnotvalid. Brownv.Brown ,281S.W.2d492,497(Tenn.1955); FidelityPhenixFireIns.Co.ofNewYorkv.Jackson ,181S.W.2d625,629(Tenn.1944); TennesseeCentralRy.Co.v.Pharr ,198S.W.2d289,292(Tenn.App.1946); Reddingv.Barker ,230S.W.2d202,204(Tenn.App.1950); JohnJ.HeirigsConst.Co.,Inc.v.Exide ,709S.W.2d604,607(Tenn.App.1986); Zumsteinv.Smith ,1995WL113472(Tenn.App.atKnoxville,March16,1995,Crawford,J.)  Apartyisentitledtonoticethatanissuewillbetriedbythecourt.Itisaxiomaticthatwithoutsuchnotice,apartyisatadisadvantageinpreparingfortrial.Itishardtodefendagainstaclaimorrequestthatyoudonotknowisgoingtobelitigated.AstheSupremeCourtinthe Brown casesaid: 8 Thepolicyunderlyingtheruleseemstobethatsincethepurposeofpleadingsistogivenoticetoallconcernedregardingwhatmaybeadjudicated,ajudgmentbeyondthescopeofthepleadingsisbeyondthenoticegiventhepartiesandthusshouldnotbeenforced.Id.at497.  Wedonotmeantoholdthatacourtcanneveraddressvisitationissuesinacustodycase.Frequently,thoseissuesareanaturaladjuncttothemattersbeforethecourt;butitisnotfairtoapartytoexploretheseissueswithoutanynoticeandwithoutaffordingthatpartyanopportunitytoputonproof.  WealsofindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentregardingeverySundayvisitationforFather.ThetestimonysomeofwhichisquotedaboveindicatesthatFatherhadthechildasubstantialamountoftimeundertheexistingvisitationdecree.EveniftheissueofFathersvisitationhadbeenproperlypleadandtried,theevidenceheardbythecourtbelowwouldnotsupportthecourtsdecreewithrespecttoeverySundayvisitation.Weekendsarespecialtimesforeachofthepartiesandtheyshouldbeequitablydivided.TheproofdoesnotsupportanawardofeverySundaytoFather.WebelieveaRule13(d),T.R.A.P.analysismilitatesinfavorofreversal.  ForthesamereasonsthatwefindtheeverySundayvisitationdecreetobeinvalid,wealsofindthatthecourtwasnotinerrorinrefusingtorequireFathertogiveMotheramonthsnoticeofhisintenttoexercisevisitation.  MotherisentitledtoherfeesinsuccessfullydefendingFatherschangeofcustodypetition.T.C.A.365103(c); Deasv.Deas ,774S.W.2d167,170(Tenn.1989).Wedisagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthatshewaspartiallyresponsibleforthefilingofthepetition.Wefindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingtoawardherfeesforthedefenseofthispetition.Seealso Dv.K ,917S.W.2d682,686(Tenn.App.1995).  ThiscaseisremandedforadeterminationofreasonablefeesforMotherssuccessfuldefenseofthepetitionandalsoforherfeesforpursuingthisappeal.See Folkv.Folk ,357S.W.2d828(Tenn.1962).Wealsofindthatsheisentitledtodiscretionarycosts,sametobedeterminedbythetrialcourtonremand.  TheresultreachedbythiscourtrelievesusofthenecessityofaddressingtheconstitutionalityofthecourtsactionwithrespecttoSundayvisitationand,accordingly,wepretermitthisissue.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthepetitionforchangeofcustodyisaffirmed.Theremainderofthecourtsjudgmentisreversed,atappelleescosts.Costsonappealarealsotaxedtotheappellee.       _____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_____________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._____________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.