ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü @ 0JH 0T’ Bæ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ 0|; 0†· 0= 1uÍ 0dB D3¦U>ÙU 6 0@MB)DC¶ AMùU*Fpò~Jp4º,îv~vÓ˜ AOkƺ 0D€ D/Ä Bó˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ãäåDæçEèéDêDëìÓ€Úƒç"3|x÷&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òAugust€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€childððs€date€of€birth€is€May€7,€1980.Ì @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔòòSee€ò òFortson€v.€Fortsonó óóó,€C/A€No.€03A01„9104„CV„00123,€1991€WL€170567›Ï(Court€of€Appeals€at€Knoxville,€September€6,€1991).Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔMr.€Fortson€concedes,€and€we€agree,€that€the€contempt€proceedingsÏagainst€Ms.€Fortson€were€criminal€in€nature.Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔSuch€notice€is€not€required€in€cases€of€òòdirectóó€criminal€contempt,€òòi.e.óó,Ïwhere€the€conduct€constituting€the€contempt€occurs€ð ðin€the€actual€presence€ofÏthe€courtðð€and€is€witnessed€by€the€judge.€€Rule€42(a),€Tenn.R.Crim.P.€€In€theÏinstant€case,€the€alleged€contempt€was€òòindirectóó,€in€that€it€occurred€outsideÏof€the€presence€of€the€court.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€\–XXdðdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€02/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌNICHOLAS€HOMER€FORTSON,à àà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9611„CV„00363Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€McMINN€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌELIZABETH€GWENDOLYN€FORTSON,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à€€€)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌSUZANNE€MASTERSà àà àà àà àH.€CHRIS€TREWÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àHiggins,€Biddle,€Chester€&Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Trew,€œL.L.P.›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÔ€,ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED€IN€PART›ÌœREVERSED€IN€PART›ÌœREMANDED€WITH€INSTRUCTIONS›à àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àà àIn€this€post„divorce€proceeding,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€petition€of€Elizabeth€Gwendolyn€Fortson€(Mother)€for€anÏincrease€in€child€support€and€other€relief€against€her€formerÏhusband,€Nicholas€Homer€Fortson€(Father).€€The€trial€court€grantedÏFatherððs€counter„petition€for€contempt€and€sentenced€Mother€toÏseven€days€in€jail€for€interfering€with€Fatherððs€visitation€withÏhis€minor€child,€who€was€œ13›€œyears€old€at›€the€time€of€the€hearingÏbelow.€€Mother€appealed,€raising€six€issues€which€present€theÏfollowing€questions€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€toÏconduct€the€criminal€contempt€proceedingÏagainst€Mother€as€though€she€had€been€indictedÏfor€a€criminal€offense,€thereby€violating€herÏfederal€and€state€constitutional€rights?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Does€the€evidence€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Mother€was€guilty€ofÏcriminal€contempt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€no€material€changeÏin€circumstances€occurred€so€as€to€warrant€anÏincrease€in€child€support€prior€to€DecemberÏ14,€œ1994?ÌÌà àà8 à4.€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€a€judgment€againstÏFather€for€a€medical€expense€arrearage€owed€toÏthe€minor€childððs€psychologist?Ì›Ìà àà8 àœ5.›€€Does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€Motherððs€request€forÏattorneyððs€fees?Ìœ›à àà8 àÌà àà8 à6.€€Is€Mother€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€andÏcourt€costs€for€the€prosecution€of€thisÏappeal?ÌÌÓÓ̜Ǜà@ àIÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€divorced€in€1989.€€Mother€was€grantedÏsole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child,€Nicholas€Brock€FortsonÏ(Brock)× ƒ3 ××  ×,€with€specific€visitation€awarded€to€Father.ÌÌà àà àIn€October,€1989,€Father€filed€a€petition€for€contempt,Ïalleging€that€Mother€had€interfered€with€his€visitation€rights.€ÏMother€was€found€to€be€in€contempt€and€was€sentenced€toÏincarceration€for€two€days;€however,€that€sentence€was€suspendedÏð ðprovided€there€[was]€no€future€showing€of€disobedience€of€theÏorders€of€[the]€court€by€her.ððÌÌà àà àIn€August,€1990,€Mother€filed€a€motion€addressingÏeducational€and€medical€expenses€for€the€minor€child.€€FatherÏresponded€to€the€motion€and€also€petitioned€the€court€to€changeÏcustody.€€The€court€denied€both€œpetitions.›€€Fatherððs€appeal€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€refusal€to€change€custody€was€subsequently€affirmedÏby€this€court.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àIn€the€current€dispute,€Mother€filed€a€petition€œinÏDecember,€1992,€to›€increase€child€œsupport,›€and€also€requested€thatÏthe€court€find€Father€in€contempt€for€his€refusal€to€pay€a€certainÏmedical€bill€for€Brockððs€psychological€counseling.€€Father€filed€aÏcounter„petition€asking€the€court€to€hold€his€former€wife€inÏcontempt€for€again€interfering€with€his€visitation€rights.€€AmongÏother€things,€Fatherððs€petition€alleged€that€Mother€had€denied€himÏChristmas€visitation€in€1992.€€On€October€18,€1993,€the€trialÏcourt€heard€proof€on€the€partiesðð€œpetitions.›€€At€the€conclusion€ofÏall€the€proof,€the€court€took€the€matter€under€advisement€andÏreviewed€the€entire€record€in€this€œcase,€including€the€record€ofÏthe€earlier€proceedings.€€Some›€19€months€later,€the€trial€courtÏissued€a€memorandum€opinion€denying€Motherððs€petition€for€anÏincrease€in€child€support€and€holding€her€in€contempt€forÏinterfering€with€Fatherððs€visitation€rights.€€It€sentenced€her€toÏserve€the€original€two€days€of€incarceration€that€previously€hadÏbeen€suspended,€as€well€as€five€additional€days€in€jail.€€TheÏtrial€court€subsequently€amended€its€judgment€to€provide€for€anÏincrease€in€child€support€from€$450€a€month€to€$668€per€month,Ïretroactive€to€December€14,€1994.€€Motherððs€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àMotherððs€first€two€issues€address€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€she€was€guilty€of€contempt€for€interfering€withÏFatherððs€visitation.€€Mother€contends€that€since€the€trial€courtÏheld€her€in€òòcriminaló󀄄€rather€than€civil€„„€contempt× ƒ5 ××  ×,€she€wasÏentitled€to€various€procedural€safeguards,€e.g.,€notice€of€theÏcharges,€the€opportunity€to€put€on€witnesses,€the€right€to€requireÏproof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€the€right€against€self„incrimination.€€She€argues€that€she€was€not€afforded€theseÏprotections,€œthat,€consequently,›€œher›€federal€and€stateÏconstitutional€rights€œwere›€violated,€and€that€œher›€œconvictionÏshould›€therefore€œbe€reversed.›€€She€also€contends€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€support€a€finding€that€she€was€guilty€of€contempt€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àà àDeterminations€regarding€contempt€lie€within€the€courtððsÏsound€discretion€and€are€final,€absent€any€plain€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€ò òòòHawk€v.€Hawkóóó ó,€855€S.W.2d€573,€583€(Tenn.€1993);Ïò òòòRobinson€v.€Air€œDraulics›€Engineering€Co.óóó ó,€377€S.W.2d€908,€912Í(Tenn.€1964);€ò òòòœSherrod›€v.€œWix›óóó ó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€786€(Tenn.App.Ï1992).€€Criminal€contempt€proceedings€are€governed€by€Rule€42(b)Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€which€provides,€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àA€criminal€contempt€except€as€provided€inÏsubdivision€(a)€of€this€rule€shall€beÏprosecuted€on€notice.€€The€notice€shall€stateÏthe€time€and€place€of€hearing,€allowing€aÏreasonable€time€for€the€preparation€of€theÏdefense,€and€shall€state€the€essential€factsÏconstituting€the€criminal€contempt€charged€andÏdescribe€it€as€such....ÌÌÓÓÌRule€42(b),€Tenn.R.Crim.P.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Tennessee€courts€have€overturnedÏcriminal€contempt€convictions€where€proper€notice€was€not€given.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.,€ò òStorey€v.€Storeyó óóó,€835€S.W.2d€593,€599„600€(Tenn.App.Ï1992).òò€óó€Thus,€it€is€well„established€that€a€defendant€may€beÏpunished€for€indirect€criminal€contempt€only€after€he€or€she€hasÏbeen€given€notice€and€the€opportunity€to€respond€to€the€charges.€Ïò òòòState€v.€Madduxóóó ó,€571€S.W.2d€819,€821€(Tenn.€1978)(citingÏò òòòJohnson€v.€Mississippió óóó,€403€U.S.€212,€91€S.Ct.€1778,€29€L.Ed.2dÍ423€(1971);€ò òòòCooke€v.€United€Statesóóó ó,€267€U.S.€517,€45€S.Ct.€390,Ï69€L.Ed.€767€(1925)).ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€notice€and€a€hearing,€a€defendant€in€aÏcriminal€contempt€proceeding€is€entitled€to€other€constitutionalÏprotections,€including€the€presumption€of€innocence,€the€right€toÏrequire€proof€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€the€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination.€òò€ò òGompers€v.€Buckððs€Stove€and€RangeÏCo.ó óóó,€221€U.S.€418,€31€S.Ct.€492,€499,€55€L.Ed.€797€(1911);Ïòòò òStoreyóóó ó,€835€S.W.2d€at€599.€€In€short,€the€contempt€proceedingÏð ðmust€be€tried€as€if€the€party€were€under€indictment.ðð€€ò òòòKornik€v.ÏKornikóóó ó,€3€Tenn.Civ.App.€(Higgins)€41,€44€(1913).€€Accordingly,€theÏaccused€must€be€allowed€a€ð ðchance€to€testify€and€call€otherÏwitnesses€in€his€behalf,€either€by€way€of€defense€or€byÏexplanation.ðð€€òòò òIn€re€Greenððs€Petitionó óóó,€369€U.S.€689,€82€S.Ct.Ï1114,€1116,€8€L.Ed.2d€198€(1962);€òòsee€alsoò ò€Robinsonóóó ó,€377€S.W.2dÏat€913€(ð ðthe€freest€opportunity€should€always€be€given€[theÏaccused]€to€produce€his€defense.ðð).ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àOn€the€notice€issue,€Fatherððs€counter„petition€set€forthÏhis€allegations€of€criminal€contempt.€€He€charged€that€Mother€hadÏinterfered€with€his€visitation€òòin€the€pastóó.€€He€prayed€that€she€beÏheld€in€contempt€ð ðfor€violating€his€visitation€œprivileges,ðð€andÏspecifically›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[œt]hat›€the€Court€punish€[Mother]€by€having€herÏserve€the€two€(2)€days€in€the€œMcMinn›€CountyÏJail€as€required€by€the€[earlier]€Judgment,Ïand€[that€the€Court]€provide€furtherÏpunishment€for€her€other€violations€of€theÏOrders€in€this€case.ÌÌÌÌÓÓIt€is€clear€that€Father€was€not€seeking€his€former€wifeððsÏincarceration€regarding€a€transgression€which€was€within€herÏability€to€rectify.€€He€asked€that€she€be€jailed€for€past€conductÏwhich€had€produced€a€result,€i.e.,€missed€visitation,€that€couldÏnot€be€undone.€€The€counter„petition€clearly€put€Mother€on€noticeÏthat€she€was€charged€with€criminal€contempt.ÌÌà àà àMother€also€argues€that€she€was€required€to€put€on€herÏproof€before€Father€offered€his€proof,€thus€violating€her€right€toÏrequire€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€her€right€againstÏself„incrimination.€€Mother€œmischaracterizes›€what€happened€below.ÌÌà àà àBoth€of€the€parties€in€this€case€were€seekingÏaffirmative€relief.€€Mother€filed€her€petition€first€and€was€theÏfirst€to€call€her€witnesses.€€After€putting€on€proof€with€respectÏto€her€various€requests€for€relief,€counsel€for€Mother€engaged€theÏcourt€in€the€following€colloquy:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àMS.€LEE:€Ms.€Fortson€„„€Your€Honor,€in€theÏcountersuit€filed€regarding€visitation€wouldÏit€be€all€right€if€I€went€ahead€and€got€intoÏthat€here€or€do€you€want€to€hear€from€him?ÌÌà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€No,€I€think€you€ought€to€go€intoÏeverything€that€both€offensively€andÏdefensively€and€Mr.€œTrew›€do€the€same.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€find€that€Mother€œsought€the€permission€of€the€court›Ïto€proceed€in€the€manner€now€being€criticized€by€her.€€If€theÏprocedure€utilized€by€the€trial€court€was€in€error,€Mother€œisÏpartially›€responsible€for€that€error€and€will€not€be€heard€toÏcomplain€now.€€Rule€36(b),€œT.R.A.P.›ÌÌà àà àMother€argues€that€she€was€precluded€from€calling€someÏwitnesses€she€had€available€to€testify€regarding€her€allegedÏinterference€with€Fatherððs€visitation.€€The€record€does€notÏreflect€that€the€trial€court€refused€to€hear€Motherððs€witnesses.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€parties€had€testified,€œthe›€following€œexchangeÏtook€place€among›€counsel€and€the€court:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€What€other€witnesses€do€you€allÏhave€and€what€are€they?ÌÌà àà8 àœMS.›€LEE:€I€have€Cliff€Willard,€Your€Honor,€whoÏis€an€expert€in€dealing€with€children€withÏlearning€disabilities€and€will€testify€as€toÏBrock€Fortsonððs€learning€disability€and€as€toÏwhat€he€needs€in€terms€of€adaptive€material.ÌÌà àà8 àœHe›€is€a€specialist€in€this€area€dealing€withÏlearning€disabled€children€and€is€in€fact€is€aÏlearning€disability€person€himself€and€hasÏpersonal€experience€in€this€area.ÌÌà àà8 àœI›€also€have€a€witness,€two€witnesses€as€to€theÏevents€that€transpired€on€December€18,Ïregarding€this€Christmas€visitation.€€I€donððtÏknow€whether€the€Court€needs€additionalÏtestimony€on€that€issue€or€not,€but€we€haveÏthat€available.ÌÌà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€I€think€you€have€a€witness€on€thatÏDecember€18€visit?ÌÌà àà8 àMR.€œTREW›:€Yes,€if€the€Court€wants€to€hear€„„ÌÌà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€I€think€I€want€to€just€hear€Mr.ÏWillard€since€heððs€here€to€testify.€€Letððs€tryÏto€keep€it€brief.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAt€no€time€were€the€witnesses€in€question€called€by€Mother€toÏtestify.€€At€no€time€did€the€court€refuse€to€let€the€witnessesÍtestify.€€The€record€simply€does€not€support€Motherððs€contentionÏthat€the€court€refused€to€let€her€witnesses€testify.ÌÌà àà àMother€also€complains€that€the€court€reviewed€the€entireÏcourt€œfile,›€as€it€pertained€to€the€earlier€proceedings€betweenÏthese€œparties,›€in€making€its€decision€in€this€case.€€We€findÏnothing€wrong€with€this.€€A€trial€court€œmay›€take€judicial€noticeÏin€a€post„divorce€proceeding€of€earlier€proceedings€between€theÏsame€parties€in€the€same€divorce€œcase.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€201(b)(2),ÏTenn.R.Evid.€€(ð ðA€judicially€noticed€fact€must€be€one€not€subjectÏto€reasonable€dispute,€in€that€it€is€either€(1)€generally€known€.Ï.€.€or€(2)€capable€of€accurate€and€ready€determination€by€resortÏto€sources€whose€accuracy€cannot€reasonably€be€questioned.ðð);€òòseeÏalso€ò òMandela€v.€Reynoldsó óóó,€C/A€No.€01A01„9303„CH„00126,€1993€WLÏ236607€at€*2„3€(Tenn.App.,€M.S.,€filed€June€30,€1993,€Todd,€J.)Ï(records€of€prior€proceedings€between€the€same€parties€in€the€sameÏcase€are€subject€to€judicial€notice€since€they€constituteÏunquestionably€accurate€sources€under€Rule€201(b)(2),ÏTenn.R.Evid.).›€€This€was€particularly€necessary€in€this€case€sinceÏFather€was€œasking›€that€Mother€serve€œthe€two›€days€of€incarcerationÏthat€had€earlier€been€suspended.€€Motherððs€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àAs€her€last€argument€on€the€criminal€contempt€issue,ÏMother€complains€that€her€guilt€was€not€shown€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Again,€we€disagree.ÌÌà àà àOn€this€particular€point,€it€is€important€to€note€theÏtrial€courtððs€explicit€finding€regarding€œMotherððs›€œcredibility:›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIn€all€matters€relating€to€custody€andÏvisitation,€this€Court,€both€from€the€recordÏand€from€observing€her€demeanor€in€Court,Ïcannot€accredit€any€testimony€by€mother.ÌÌÌÌÓÓœð ð[O]n›€an€issue€which€hinges€on€witness€credibility,€[the€trialÏcourt]€will€not€be€reversed€unless,€other€than€the€oral€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,€concrete€andÏconvincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€ò òòòTennessee€Valley€KaolinÏv.€Perryó óóó,€526€œS.W.2d›€488,€490€(œTenn.App›.€1974).ÌÌà àà àThere€was€an€abundance€of€evidence€that€Mother€deniedÏFather€his€visitation€rights.€€The€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€purpose€here€then€is€to€show€a€now€clearÏpattern€of€conduct€and€lies€by€a€troubled€andÏdisturbed€parent€designed€to€prevent€a€normalÍrelationship€between€the€child€and€the€otherÏparent.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 àTypical€of€the€manner€in€which€she€hasÏinterfered€with€visitation,€she€offered€theÏfather€visitation€dates€for€Christmas,€1992,Ïwhich€he€accepted.€€She€then€reneged€byÏð ðcorrespondenceðð€which€he€never€received,Ïeventually€requiring€the€intervention€ofÏattorneys€for€last„minute€scheduling€ofÏChristmas€vacation.€€Moreover,€this€is€theÏfirst€time€the€Court€has€even€seen€a€laudableÏactivity€like€the€Boy€Scouts€used€to€impede€aÏparent/child€relationship.ÌÌÌÌÓÓOur€review€of€the€record€convinces€us€that€Mother€intentionallyÏset€out€to€interfere€with€Fatherððs€visitation.€€We€find€in€œthe›Ïrecord€proof€of€this€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€reviewed€all€of€Motherððs€arguments€supportingÏher€contention€that€the€trial€courtððs€œcriminal€contempt€decree›Ïshould€be€vacated.€€We€find€that€all€of€her€arguments€are€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àà àMother€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€make€the€increase€in€child€support€decreed€by€the€courtÍretroactive€to€the€date€of€filing€of€her€petition€seeking€anÏincrease.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€initially€refused€to€grant€Mother€anyÏincrease€in€child€support.€€In€its€memorandum€opinion€of€OctoberÏ18,€1993,€the€court€noted€that€there€had€been€no€showing€of€aÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances,€œstating›€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[Mother]€has€proven€only€that€the€fatherððsÏincome€has€increased€and€that€her€ownÏfinancial€needs,€as€opposed€to€those€of€herÏson,€have€increased,€primarily€because€of€herÏinability€to€remain€employed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓœAfter›€obtaining€new€counsel,€Mother€timely€filed€a€ð ðMotion€for€NewÏTrial/Motion€to€Modify€Judgmentðð€in€which€she€argued€that€thereÏhad€been€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€between€the€child€supportÏpreviously€being€paid€by€Father€and€the€amount€due€under€theÏGuidelines,€given€Fatherððs€present€level€of€income.€€òòSeeóó€œT.C.A.›€ððÏ36„5„101(a)(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€œTenn.Comp.R.›€&€œRegs›.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3).€€She€also€argued€that€even€prior€to€the€advent€of€theÏð ðsignificant€varianceðð€œtest,›€which€was€effective€December€14,Ï1994,€she€was€entitled€to€an€increase€in€child€support€based€uponÏthe€old€œtest,€which›€œrequired›€a€showing€of€a€material€change€ofÍcircumstances.€€Accordingly,€she€sought€an€increase€in€supportÏfrom€$450€per€month€to€$668€per€month,€retroactive€to€the€date€ofÏfiling€of€her€petition.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court,€after€hearing€argument€on€MotherððsÏœmotion,›€ruled€that€Mother€was€entitled€to€the€requested€increaseÏin€support,€œbut€only€retroactive€to›€December€14,€1994.€€In€doingÏso,€the€trial€court€opined€that€it€was€only€decreeing€such€anÏincrease€because€it€felt€that€such€an€increase€was€mandated€by€theÏœnew›€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€test.€€The€court€adhered€to€itsÏoriginal€decision€œthat›€there€was€no€basis€for€awarding€an€increaseÏin€child€support€prior€to€the€œeffective€date€of€the€adoption›€ofÏthe€new€test.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€œdetermination›€that€Mother€had€failed€to€show€aÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances€warranting€an€increase€in€childÏsupport€prior€to€December€14,€1994.€€œIn›€this€case,€there€wasÏevidence€that€Motherððs€financial€situation€was€severely€impactedÏby€the€fact€that€she€was€no€longer€employed€full„time.€€SheÏclaimed€that€she€needed€additional€support€œin€order€to›€purchase€aÏcomputer€for€her€œson,›€who€suffers€from€a€learning€disability;€butÍthe€evidence€was€clear€that€he€had€access€to€a€computer€at€œschool;Ïthat€he›€had€been€permitted,€on€occasions,€to€take€it€œhome;›€andÏœthat€he€was›€being€served€by€specialists€at€school€for€his€learningÏdisability.ÌÌà àà àApplying€the€standard€set€forth€in€Rule€13(d),€œT.R.A.P.,›Ïwe€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€child€support€decree.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà@ àVÌÌà àà àMother€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awardedÏher€a€judgment€for€a€œbill›€owed€to€one€of€the€minor€childððsÏpsychologists,€Dr.€Terry€œMolnar.›€€The€simple€answer€to€this€issueÏis€that€Mother€did€not€seek€a€money€judgment.€€Her€prayer€forÏrelief€on€this€matter€asked€only€that€Father€ð ðbe€held€in€contemptÏfor€his€willful€refusal€to€pay€the€counseling€bill€as€set€forthÏherein.ððÌÌà àà àIn€denying€Motherððs€request€for€relief€as€to€Dr.ÏœMolnarððs›€bill,€the€trial€court€noted€that€she€had€taken€the€childÏto€Dr.€œMolnar,›€only€after€ð ðœremov[ing›]€[him]€from€the€psychologistÍwho,€by€background,€training€and€experience,€was€best€able€toÏassist€the€partiesðð€son.ððÌÌà àà àWe€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€awardÏMother€any€relief€pertaining€to€Dr.€œMolnarððs›€bill.€€In€effect,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€it€was€not€reasonable€and€necessary.€€WeÏcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€finding.€ÏœThere›€was€evidence€that€despite€his€learning€disability,€theÏpartiesðð€child€had€been€on€the€honor€roll€for€the€last€two€yearsÏand€was€one€rank€from€being€a€Eagle€scout.€€The€evidence€supportsÏa€finding€that€this€is€a€fine€young€man€who€needs€lessÏpsychological€œhelp,›€and€more€support€œfrom›€his€mother€in€developingÏa€relationship€with€his€father.ÌÌà àà àMotherððs€issue€with€respect€to€Dr.€œMolnarððs›€bill€isÏwithout€œmerit.ÌÌà@ àVIÌÌà àà àIn€her€next€issue,€Mother€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€refusing€to€award€her€attorney€fees,€citing€her€successÏin€securing€an€increase€in€child€support.€€The€issue€of€attorneyÍfees€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ïand€an€appellate€court€will€not€interfere€absent€a€showing€of€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion.€€ò òòòElliot€v.€Elliotó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€87,€92Ï(Tenn.App.€1991);€ò òòòThreadgill€v.€Threadgilló óóó,€740€S.W.2d€419,€426Ï(Tenn.App.€1987).€€In€this€case,€Wife€was€partially€successful€inÏher€efforts€on€behalf€of€her€minor€child.€€Therefore,€we€find€thatÏshe€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees,€but€only€to€theÏextent€her€attorneyððs€charges€and€expenses€are€related€to€theÏincrease€in€child€support€decreed€by€the€court.€€This€case€will€beÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€to€determine€the€feesÏand€expenses€to€which€Mother€is€entitled.€€òòSee€ò òFolk€v.€Folkó óóó,€357ÏS.W.2d€828,€829€(Tenn.€1962).€€The€trial€courtððs€holding€that€sheÏis€not€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€isÏreversed.Ì›Ìà@ àVIIÌÌà àà àFinally,€Mother€seeks€fees€and€costs€incurred€inÏconnection€with€this€appeal.€€Since€œthe€vast€majority€of€theÏissues›€on€œthis€appeal›€have€been€found€adverse€to€her,€she€is€notÏentitled€to€such€fees€and€costs.ÌÌà àà àœThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€denying€Mother€any€attorneyÏfees€and€expenses€at€the€trial€level€is€reversed.€€In€all€otherÏrespects,€the›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellant€and€her€surety.€€This€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€œa€hearing€on€the€issue€ofÏattorneyððs€fees€and€expenses.€€In€all€other€respects,€this€case€isÏremanded€for€enforcement›€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€andÏcollection€of€costs€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicableÏlaw.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€œSusano›,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌHouston€M.€œGoddard›,€œP.J.›ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌœHerschel›€P.€Franks,€J.