ÿWPC$ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ4åù  0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux U,í 0d U,} U*© B)Ó DCü AM?Œv~ž BvÓ9 D3  0@? AOÆÎ 0D” D/Ø B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -Ó€ DÒ 3|x  #2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌSeptember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€GÅXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑJULIA€JONES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9601„CV„00038ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|€¼` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSumner€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€14204„CÌSAMUEL€ROBERT€JONES,€JR.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTYÌAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌGARY€M.€WILLIAMSÌ116€Shivel€DriveÌHendersonville,€Tennessee€37075Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌJOE€P.€BINKLEYÌFirst€American€Center,€Suite€2395Ì315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌÌTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMÌ500€Church€Street,€5th€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ì(Appeal€Only)Ìà àAttorneys€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌCONCURRING€IN€PART€ANDÌDISSENTING€IN€PART:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€parties€a€divorce,€and€awarded€jointÏcustody€of€the€four€children€of€the€marriage€to€both€parents.€€Actual€physicalÏcustody€of€the€two€older€children€was€granted€to€the€father;€physical€custody€of€theÏtwo€younger€children€was€granted€to€the€mother.€€The€father€appealed,€arguingÏthat€he€was€the€more€fit€parent,€that€it€was€error€to€separate€the€children,€and€thatÏhe€should€have€been€granted€physical€custody€of€all€four.€€We€reverse€the€awardÏof€joint€custody€to€both€parents.€€In€all€other€respects,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àSamuel€Robert€Jones€Jr.€and€Julia€Jones€were€married€in€1977.€ÏThe€parties€had€many€problems€during€their€eighteen€years€of€marriage.€€TheirÏdifficulties€with€one€another€apparently€came€to€a€head€in€April€of€1995,€during€aÏstormy€episode€in€which€Mr.€Jones€allegedly€assaulted€his€wife.ÌÌà àà àThe€couple€separated,€and€the€wife€applied€to€the€Circuit€Court€ofÏSumner€County€for€an€Order€of€Protection€against€the€husband.€€The€courtÏgranted€the€wife€an€Ex€Parte€Order€of€Protection€on€April€18,€1995.€€After€Ïsubsequent€hearing,€the€court€made€the€Order€of€Protection€permanent.ÌÌà àà àThe€terms€of€the€order€left€Mrs.€Jones€with€temporary€custody€of€SamÏPaul€Jones€II,€then€age€12€and€Stephen€Jones,€then€age€10.€€Mr.€Jones€wasÏgranted€temporary€custody€of€Christie€Jones,€age€16€and€August€Jones,€age€15.ÏThe€order€contained€provisions€for€regular€visitation€by€all€the€children€with€theÏnon„custodial€parent.€€The€wife€was€granted€temporary€possession€of€the€maritalÏhome,€and€the€husband€was€ordered€to€pay€her€$285€per€week€in€temporaryÏalimony€and€child€support.ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€filed€for€divorce€on€May€10,€1995€and€asked€for€custody€ofÏall€four€children.€€The€husband€answered€and€counter„claimed,€also€asking€forÏcustody€of€all€the€children.€€Subsequent€to€these€pleadings,€both€parties€filedÏmotions€with€the€court:€the€wife€filed€a€Motion€for€Contempt€against€the€husband,Íclaiming€that€he€failed€to€make€child€support€payments€in€a€timely€way;€theÏhusband€filed€a€Motion€to€Amend€the€Order€of€Protection,€asking€the€court€toÏterminate€visitation€by€the€two€older€children,€on€the€ground€that€they€did€not€wantÏto€visit€with€their€mother,€and€that€they€in€fact€refused€to€allow€the€father€to€takeÏthem€to€their€mother€for€their€scheduled€weekend€visitation.ÌÌà àà àOn€June€27,€1995,€the€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€both€motions.€ÏMuch€to€the€surprise€of€both€parties,€the€courtððs€subsequent€order€declared€theÏparties€to€be€divorced€as€of€the€date€of€the€hearing,€with€the€issue€of€fault€reservedÏpending€a€final€hearing.€€The€custody€arrangement€in€the€Order€of€Protection€wasÏcontinued€as€it€was.€€The€issue€of€visitation€was€held€under€advisement,€withÏneither€party€compelled€to€deliver€the€children€in€their€custody€for€visitation€to€theÏother.€€Future€support€payments€by€the€husband€were€ordered€to€be€paid€by€wageÏassignment€from€his€employer.€€The€court€also€ordered€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices€to€conduct€home€studies€of€both€parties.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€and€wife€had€been€undergoing€counseling€fromÏWilliam€H.€Anderson,€Ed.D.,€a€Licensed€Clinical€Psychologist€and€CertifiedÏAddiction€Counselor,€following€an€episode€a€year€earlier,€when€the€husband€hadÏbeen€involved€in€an€alcohol„related€car€wreck.€€The€psychologist€had€also€seenÏthe€two€older€children€as€the€therapeutic€relationship€with€the€parents€developed.€ÏPrior€to€final€hearing,€the€husband€filed€a€motion,€which€the€court€granted,€toÍcompel€the€wife€to€make€the€two€younger€children€available€to€Dr.€Anderson€forÏpsychological€evaluation.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€final€hearing€was€held€on€September€26,€1995.€€Dr.€AndersonÏwas€the€only€witness€to€testify.€€He€strongly€commended€the€parenting€skills€of€Mr.ÏJones€and€his€dedication€to€his€children.€€At€the€same€time,€he€found€the€wife€toÏbe€ð ðexperiencing€some€very€abnormal€internal€responses€to€life.ðð€€He€had€heldÏtwo€sessions€at€which€all€four€children€were€present,€and€he€expressed€theÏopinion€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children€that€they€be€reunited€withÏeach€other€and€with€the€father.ÌÌà àà àNonetheless,€on€October€17,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€a€FinalÏDecree€of€Divorce,€which€ordered€that€custody€continue€to€be€divided€in€the€sameÏway€as€in€the€Protective€Order.€€The€court€declined€to€set€specific€visitation€at€thatÏtime,€but€recited€that€it€ð ðstrongly€encourages€the€parents€and€children€to€workÏtogether€in€arranging€liberal€visitation.€€If€such€arrangements€cannot€be€made,Ïthen€either€party€may,€by€motion,€ask€the€Court€to€set€specific€visitation.ððÌÌà àà àIn€response€to€a€subsequent€motion€by€the€husband€to€set€specificÏvisitation€with€the€younger€children,€and€also€to€alter€and€amend€the€Final€DecreeÏof€Divorce,€and€to€stay€the€courtððs€order€pending€appeal,€the€court€ordered€that€theÏyounger€children€visit€with€their€father€every€other€weekend€from€Friday€at€5:00Íp.m.€to€Sunday€at€6:00€p.m.€€The€court€also€recited€that€it€ð ð.€.€.€would€want€theÏpartiesðð€two€oldest€minor€children,€Christie€Elise€Jones€and€August€SamuelÏLeonard€Jones,€to€visit€with€their€mother,€but€the€Court€is€not€issuing€a€mandateÏpursuant€to€that€end.ðð€€The€court€denied€the€other€relief€requested€by€Mr.€Jones.€ÏThis€appeal€followed.Ìà@ àÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€proper€standard€of€appellate€review€in€child€custody€cases€is€òòdeÏnovoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings.€€See€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€TheÏparamount€consideration€in€determining€child€custody€is€the€welfare€and€bestÏinterest€of€the€child€or€children€involved.€òò€Bah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€664€(Tenn.App.Ï1983).€€The€expert€opinion€of€a€psychologist€who€has€examined€family€membersÏcan€be€of€great€help€to€the€court€in€determining€which€parent€is€best€qualified€toÏexercise€custody,€but€it€is€not€a€substitute€for€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€or€ofÏthis€court.€€Seeòò€Starnes€v.€Starnesóó,€No.€01„A„01„9010„CV„00373€(Middle€Section,ÏCourt€of€Appeals,€filed€March€6,€1991).€€Ì€à àà àWe€must€accord€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€great€deferenceÏon€appeal,€because€the€court€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€andÏdemeanor€of€the€witness€on€the€stand,€and€our€own€review€is€limited€to€the€writtenÏrecord€alone.€See€òòTown€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Coóó.,€205€Tenn.€478,€327ÍS.W.2d€47€(1959).€Dr.€Andersonððs€credibility€has€not€been€put€at€issue€by€theÏappellee,€but€the€weight€that€should€be€accorded€his€testimony€was€properly€aÏmatter€for€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Anderson€is€not€a€child€psychologist,€nor€is€he€a€psychiatrist.€HeÏnever€visited€the€parties€at€home,€but€had€to€glean€all€his€information€from€a€seriesÏof€fifty€minute€sessions€in€his€office.€€He€found€that€the€wife€harbored€delusions,Ïincluding€beliefs€that€the€husband€was€having€affairs,€and€that€he€had€anÏimproper€relationship€with€the€daughter.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Anderson€encouraged€Mrs.€Jones€to€keep€a€diary€of€herÏthoughts,€then€read€pages€of€the€diary€into€the€record€during€his€testimony.€ÏThough€we€have€grave€reservations€about€such€a€breach€of€the€confidentialÏrelationship€between€psychologist€and€patient,€the€wife€did€not€object€at€trial,€andÏso€we€must€consider€the€import€of€those€pages.ÌÌà àà àThe€writings€of€Mrs.€Jones€clearly€revealed€great€anger€towardsÏmen,€an€inability€to€relate€to€other€women,€some€bizarre€suicidal€ideation,€and€aÏbelief€that€her€psychological€problems€arose€from€sexual€abuse€she€hadÏexperienced€as€a€young€child€at€the€hands€of€a€family€friend.€€Dr.€AndersonÏcharacterized€one€passage€as€ð ðhomicidal€as€well€as€suicidalðð€which€read€ð ðI€haveÍa€cast€iron€skillet,€12„inch,€forged€in€South€Pittsburgh€at€Lodge€Manufacturing,Ïand€I€will€not€hesitate€to€use€it€if€provoked.ððÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€quarrel€with€Dr.€Andersonððs€conclusion€that€Mrs.€JonesÏsuffers€from€psychological€problems,€nor€with€his€recommendation€that€she€seekÏfurther€counseling,€although€we€suspect€that€fear€of€disclosure€of€confidentialÏrevelations€may€discourage€her€from€pursuing€her€therapeutic€options.€€HoweverÏwe€do€not€believe€that€Mrs.€Jonesðð€psychological€condition€necessarilyÏdisqualifies€her€from€custody€of€her€younger€children.ÌÌà àà àThe€home€study€ordered€by€the€court€included€an€examination€of€theÏliving€conditions€and€arrangements€in€her€home,€an€interview€with€Mrs.€JonesÏabout€such€matters€as€family€social€activities€and€her€attitude€towards€discipline,Ïand€contacts€with€three€references€supplied€by€Mrs.€Jones.€€On€the€basis€of€thisÏinvestigation,€the€DHS€social€counselor€concluded:€€ð ðAfter€a€thorough€home€studyÏof€Mrs.€Jones,€this€agency€believes€her€home€is€appropriate€and€the€childrenÏwould€be€well€taken€care€of€if€she€were€granted€custody.ððÌÌà àà àThe€report€cards€of€Sam€Paul€and€Stephen€for€the€first€six€weeks€ofÏthe€1995„96€school€year€were€made€a€part€of€the€record.€€They€did€not€indicateÏany€conduct€or€discipline€problems,€and€they€showed€regular€attendance.€€BothÏboys€earned€high€grades,€and€appear€to€be€honor€students.€€Since€problems€atÍhome€often€manifest€themselves€in€school€as€well,€this€further€indicates€the€wifeððsÏfitness€to€care€for€the€children.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€his€counter„complaint€for€divorce,€Mr.€Jones€alleged€that€ð ðthereÏhas€been€an€enormous€amount€of€turmoil€in€the€partiesðð€marriage€caused€by€theÏwifeððs€erratic€and€unpredictable€behavior€towards€the€children€and€him.ðð€€AmongÏother€things,€the€husband€claimed€that€the€wife€had€more€than€once€drivenÏrecklessly€in€order€to€frighten€the€children,€that€she€had€neglected€and€insultedÏthe€daughter,€that€she€had€told€all€the€children€that€she€hated€them€and€wishedÏthey€had€never€been€born,€and€that€the€children€had€come€home€from€school€onÏoccasion€to€find€the€house€€unlocked,€with€no€one€at€home.ÌÌà àà àThis€court€does€not€take€such€allegations€lightly,€but€the€wife€deniedÏthem€in€her€answer€to€the€counter„complaint,€and€if€the€husband€attempted€toÏprove€them€at€the€hearing€of€June€27,€1995,€we€unfortunately€have€no€basis€uponÏwhich€to€review€his€testimony,€as€the€record€before€us€does€not€contain€aÏtranscript€from€that€hearing.€€The€husband€claims€that€he€is€afraid€that€the€wife€willÏharm€the€children,€but€apparently€the€only€legal€actions€he€has€ever€taken€toÏprotect€them€are€the€current€proceedings€for€custody.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€evidence€in€the€record,€however,€that€the€husband€wasÏverbally€abusive€towards€the€wife,€and€that€he€had€a€t„shirt€made€up,€which€heÏwore€in€the€presence€of€the€children,€that€read€ð ðMarried€to€a€Whore€and€a€Slut.ðð€ÏHe€also€taped€the€wife€while€she€slept€(she€talked€in€her€sleep)€and€played€theÏtape€for€the€children.€He€also€admitted€telephoning€her€over€150€times€over€aÏthree€month€period€after€resuming€visitation€with€the€younger€children,Ïdemanding€to€speak€to€them.€€If€he€really€feared€that€the€wifeððs€psychologicalÏcondition€might€lead€her€to€harm€the€children,€surely€he€would€not€have€riskedÏworsening€that€condition€by€demeaning€and€harrassing€her.ÌÌà àà àPursuant€to€the€orders€of€the€court,€Dr.€Anderson€met€with€the€twoÏyounger€children€twice.€€Both€sessions€were€conducted€with€the€older€children€inÏattendance€as€well.€€Dr.€Anderson€concluded€from€the€two€interviews€that€ð ðtheseÏfour€children€need€to€live€together,ðð€because€ð ð[i]n€many€respects€the€two€olderÏchildren€are€the€role€models€providing€warmth,€love,€care,€and€support€that€theÏtwo€younger€boys€need.ðð€€However,€despite€his€reliance€on€Dr.€AndersonððsÏexpertise,€the€father€has€apparently€made€no€effort€to€maximize€contact€betweenÏthe€older€and€younger€children€by€encouraging€the€older€children€to€visit€with€theirÏmother,€and€no€such€visitation€has€occurred,€in€defiance€of€the€trial€courtððs€twice„expressed€wishes.€€By€contrast,€the€wife€has€fully€cooperated€with€the€trial€courtððsÏorder€to€allow€the€husband€visitation€with€the€younger€children.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€shows€that€the€husband€has€demonstrated€a€vindictiveÏattitude€towards€the€wife€that€is€not€conducive€to€the€best€interests€of€the€children.€ÏWe€accordingly€believe€that€his€fitness€to€exercise€custody€has€not€been€shown€toÏbe€greater€than€hers.€€In€light€of€all€the€proof€in€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€that€theÏhusband€€should€exercise€physical€custody€of€the€older€children€only,€and€that€theÏwife€should€exercise€custody€of€the€younger€children.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€have€a€problem,€however,€with€the€courtððs€decision€toÏdesignate€the€custody€arrangement€it€has€reached€as€joint€custody.€€WhileÏarrangements€for€joint€custody€or€shared€parenting€are€specifically€permitted€byÏstatute€ð ðas€the€welfare€and€interest€of€the€child€or€children€may€demand,ðð€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a),€this€court€has€repeatedly€pointed€out€that€joint€custodyÏarrangements€will€rarely€succeed€where€there€is€hostility€and€ill€will€between€theÏparents.€€òòGray€v.€Grayóó,€885€S.W.2d€353€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€òòMalone€v.€Maloneóó,Ï842€S.W.2d€621,€623€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€òòDodd€v.€Doddóó,€737€S.W.2d€286,€289„90€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àOf€course€in€many€cases€where€a€court€orders€joint€custody,€it€alsoÏdictates€in€what€manner€the€custodians€will€exercise€their€joint€responsibilities.€€InÏsome€cases,€actual€physical€custody€alternates€between€the€parents.€€òòGarner€v.ÏGarneróó,€773€S.W.2d€245€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€òòMcDaniel€v.€McDanielóó,€743€S.W.2dÍ167€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€In€others,€physical€custody€remains€with€one€parent€whileÏthe€other€gets€to€participate€in€decision„making€on€a€matter€of€importance,€such€asÏthe€education€of€the€minor€child.€€òòLewis€v.€Lewisóó,€741€S.W.2d€900€(Tenn.€App.Ï1987).€€Such€arrangements€depend€for€their€success€on€a€high€degree€ofÏcooperation€between€the€parents,€so€it€is€perhaps€not€surprising€that€they€shouldÏfrequently€fail.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€the€court€failed€to€state€how€the€parties€shouldÏshare€the€parenting€responsibilities€for€the€children€not€in€their€custody.€€The€trialÏcourt€conceded€that€the€decision€to€award€the€parents€joint€custody€was€a€ð ðcop„outðð€and€that€it€was€motivated€by€the€desire€that€Ms.€Jones€not€believe€that€sheÏhas€ð ðbeen€robbed€.€.€.€of€her€two€other€children.ðð€€While€a€trial€court€may€tailor€theÏlanguage€of€a€divorce€or€custody€decree€in€such€a€manner€as€to€avoid€increasingÏthe€rancor€between€the€parties,€it€is€debatable€whether€the€welfare€of€the€childrenÏis€served€by€establishing€the€fiction€that€the€parties€will€be€sharing€responsibilityÏfor€their€upbringing,€when€in€fact€they€seem€unable€to€agree€on€anything.ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€modify€the€order€of€the€trial€court€by€eliminating€thatÏportion€of€it€relating€to€joint€custody.€€We€also€direct€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€orderÏestablishing€a€well„defined€liberal€arrangement€that€will€permit€these€children€toÏhave€a€significant€relationship€with€both€of€their€parents€and€all€of€their€siblings.€ÏWe€note€that€the€court€retains€the€right€to€restrict€the€visitation€rights€of€either€party,Íif€that€party€fails€to€comply€with€the€visitation€order,€or€acts€in€such€a€manner€as€toÏdamage€the€relationship€of€any€of€the€children€with€the€non„custodial€parent.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€husbandððs€appeal€also€involved€several€issues€involvingÏproperty€and€alimony,€which€we€will€deal€with€briefly.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€awarded€the€marital€home€to€the€wife.€€The€husbandÏasked€us€to€award€the€marital€home€to€him,€in€the€event€we€modify€child€custodyÏin€accordance€with€his€wishes,€so€that€the€four€children€could€continue€to€live€inÏthe€home€that€they€grew€up€in.€€Since€we€affirm€the€trial€court€on€custody,€we€alsoÏaffirm€the€allocation€of€marital€property.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€also€claimed€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏordering€the€husband€to€pay€the€wife€$100€per€week€in€transitional€assistance€forÏsix€months.€€We€note€that€the€husband€is€gainfully€employed,€and€earns€overÏ$38,000€a€year€managing€a€business€owned€by€his€father.€€Though€the€wife€has€aÏteaching€license,€she€has€not€practiced€that€profession€since€the€birth€of€herÏoldest€child.€€€Prior€to€the€divorce,€she€inherited€some€money€from€her€father,€andÏbought€a€limousine€with€the€intention€to€start€a€limousine€service.€The€newÏbusiness€has€apparently€not€worked€out,€and€given€the€wifeððs€age,€and€her€longÍabsence€from€the€job€market,€the€need€for€rehabilitative€alimony€appears€to€us€toÏbe€clear.€€€ÌÌà à€à àDuring€the€marriage,€the€wife€was€insured€under€the€health€planÏsupplied€by€the€husbandððs€employer.€€After€the€trial€court€declared€them€divorced,Ïthe€husband€eliminated€the€wifeððs€insurance€coverage€but€failed€to€notify€her€thatÏhe€had€taken€that€step.€€The€wife€underwent€a€tubal€ligation€prior€to€October€17,Ï1995,€the€date€on€which€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€was€filed,€incurring€expensesÏof€about€$5,100.ÌÌà àà àThe€husband€argues€that€once€the€parties€were€declared€to€beÏdivorced,€he€was€not€prohibited€from€cancelling€her€insurance,€and€that€he€wasÏnot€obligated€to€notify€her€of€his€action.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€husband€to€payÏthe€outstanding€medical€bills,€and€to€hold€the€wife€harmless€for€them.€€While€it€isÏgenerally€true€that€a€party€cannot€be€held€liable€for€a€debt€incurred€by€a€formerÏspouse€after€the€dissolution€of€a€marriage,€see€27B€C.J.S.€òòDivorceóó€ðð€547€(1986),Ïwe€are€persuaded€that€under€the€unusual€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€trialÏcourtððs€action€was€correct.€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€joint€custody€to€the€partiesÏis€reversed.€€The€remaining€part€of€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€causeÏto€the€Circuit€Court€of€Sumner€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌSEPARATE€OPINION€CONCURRING€INÌPART€AND€DISSENTING€IN€PARTÌÇÑ ° ÑÑ  ÑÔ% € Ô