WPC j9?Q?S+J"~*3զj=.؃&U9NmaKcf^Q4ۉ)1qpp-L 0"%̦4^Zlf%i],<$AG7xqy^nm`-# F UNQ % 0( UF wL 4_ s UP UF  U:6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Bp p 0D  D3 A 0Ksssss D+ AO88 0D D/B BqHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular EDDDDӀh&3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular  X[MXXX  X X[M   Ad FILED       July15,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. +   AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d(3$ !  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5%%%%'dxd)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK( $ Figure  1  'dxd'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P XXXX7F>XXdXXd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tr *<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP r@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEFRANCISKEITHFARRIS, h   )C/ANO.03A019807CH00231 *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.   `     h   )McMINNCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )RHONDAGAILWATSON,   h   ) 2    `     h   )HONORABLEEARLH.HENLEY,   ` DefendantAppellee.  )CHANCELLOR  ForAppellant    h   ForAppellee   D.MITCHELLBRYANT   h   RANDYG.ROGERS !h Cleveland,Tennessee h   Cleveland,Tennessee "> @$ X XXX  S X X OPINION  -   S XX  -Ԉ 1J'/ AFFIRMED,ASMODIFIEDREMANDED `     h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09    ` Inthispostdivorceproceeding,thetrialcourt,actingonthepartiescompetingpetitions,modifiedanearliercustodyorder.Thedecreenowbeforeusleavestheappellee,RhondaGailWatson,formerlyFarris( Mother),asthesolecustodianofthepartiesminorchild,BlakeFarris,age12;butordersthat eachpartyshallhavethechild...foraperiodofoneweek,saidweekstobealternated.FrancisKeithFarris( Father)appeals,contendingthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdecisionnottoawardhimsolecustodyofBlake.Fatheralsocomplainsthatthetrialcourterredinnotmodifyinghis$90perweekchildsupportobligation.XXX X   ` # XXXX #XXX XOurreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe ` recordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialjudgesfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id .; Hassv.Knighton ,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn. &x" 1984).   ` Ourdenovoreviewissubjecttothewellestablished +!( principlethatthetrialjudgeisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchcredibilitydeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); 2X(0  Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).# XXXXc # t4$*2 XXX X   ` Atrialcourthasbroaddiscretionregardingacustody 7-6 determination. Brumitv.Brumit ,948S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.App. 9H/8 1997).Wewillnotdisturbsuchadeterminationunlesstherecordreflectsanabuseofthatdiscretion. Id .# XXXX#   XXX X   ` Thereare [n]ohardandfastrules...fordetermining t$ whichcustodyandvisitationarrangementwillbestserveachildsneeds. Gaskillv.Gaskill ,936S.W.2d626,630 |  (Tenn.App.1996).Acustodydeterminationis factuallydrivenand requiresthecourtstocarefullyweighnumerousconsiderations. Id .Theoverridingconsiderationisthebest   interestofthechild. Id .SeealsoT.C.A.366106(Supp. l 1998).# XXXXX# 8    ` Thetrialcourtfoundthatbothpartieshadappliedpressureontheirchildinanattempttowinhissolelegalandphysicalcustody.Thecourtpointedoutthatthechildhad,atdifferenttimes,writtencontradictorystatementswithrespecttotheidentityoftheparentwithwhomhewantedtolive.Thecourtstatedthat  8 ` thechildhascomeinhere,anddependinguponwhoheiswith,unfortunately,hehasgivenstatementsagainsttheotherone... ` `  Thetrialcourtwentontoobservethat theresbeenmoreinterferenceinthiscasethananyIvehad.   ` Thecourtbelowwasespeciallyconcernedaboutthechildsgradesinschoolparticularlyhisfailinggradeinmathematics.Significantly,thechildsgradeshadimprovedsinceNovember,1997,whenthetrialcourtfirstdecreedthe 9P/8 everyotherweekarrangementonatemporarybasis.Inmakingthatjudgment,thetrialcourtwasinfluenced,atleastinpart,bythereportofAdolphusH.Pelley,alicensedprofessionalcounselor,towhomthepartiesandtheirchildhadbeenreferredbythecourtfollowingahearingonMarch4,1997.Dr.Pelleysreportandrecommendation,inpart,areasfollows:  8 ` Irecommendthatthecustodynotbechanged.Althoughjointcustodymaynotbeanoption,theloosestofarrangementsbemadewhereinthefatherhasasmuchinvolvementandsayintheupbringingofthechildbeadheredto.Communicationsbetweenthebiologicalmotherandbiologicalfatherrelatedtohealthcareandacademicissuesbecontinuous.Blakewillbenefitfromanothervisitationarrangement.Myrecommendationisasfollows:Blakewillalternateweekswitheachparent. ` `     ` Thepartieslivesixmilesapart.Whilethereiscontinuinganimositybetweenthem,thetrialcourtfoundthateachwasgenuinelyconcernedaboutthechildswelfare.Thetrialcourtfeltthatbothparentswereinapositiontonurtureandcarefortheirson.   ` ConsideringDr.Pelleysreportandrecommendation,thegenuineinterestofbothoftheparentsinthechildswelfare,andtheimprovementinthechildsgradessincetheeveryotherweekarrangementwasfirstputintoeffect,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdecisioninthiscase.SeeRule13(d),T.R.A.P. 4)2    ` FatherMothersfirstissueisfoundadversetohimer. ,9.8    ` Fatheralsoarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrequiringhimtopaythesameamountofchildsupportashadbeenorderedbythecourtwhenhehadstandardvisitation.Hecorrectlypointsoutthattherewasnoevidenceofhiscurrentwages.   ` Inthiscase,thepartiesfocusedonthechildslegalandphysicalcustody,essentiallytotheexclusionoftheassociatedeconomicissues.TheonlyevidenceregardingFatherswageswastestimonythathehadreceivedarecentincreaseinpay.Therewasnotestimonyregardinghispresentnetwages.andnoattempttocomparehispresentwageswiththewagesbeingearnedbyhimwhenthe$90perweekawardwasmade.   ` Webelieveitisappropriatetoremandthiscasesothatthetrialcourtcanreceivedevelopevidenceregardingthepartieswagesandtheirrespectiveobligationsforthesupportoftheirchildsupport.See %  T.C.A.273128.SeealsoTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024 &x" .02(6).Intheinterestofjustice,thetrialcourtisdirectedtomakeanynewchildsupportarrangementprospectiveinnatureonly.   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourt,asmodified,isaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforsuchadditionalproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedonehalftoeachofthepartiestotheappellant.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.  :/9 CONCUR:______________________HerschelP.Franks,J.______________________H.DavidCate,Sp.J.