ÿWPCÉ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáw@ð 0l0 0Dœ 0Jà * 0T2 0^† 0hä 0rL 0|¾ 0†: 0À 1uP U,Å 0dñ U,UU6B)·DCà AM#U*p Bš"· D3Ù‡ v~“ 0@vÓQ AO$Æs 0D9 D/} B¬˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|x„ rDstDuvwDxDyezÓ€„((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJune€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó(((('ÿÿdxd }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔCourt€of€Appeals€Rule€10(b):Ìà8 àThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€mayÏaffirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinionÏwhen€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decidedÏby€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€beÏpublished,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€a€subsequentÏunrelated€case.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€>DXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœMARY›€TERESA€WILLS€RYAN€à à)Ì(McKINNEY),à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9512„PB„00544Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€ProbateÌKEVIN€B.€RYAN,à à)à àNo.€90D„1521ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&)%;+'h|$b` ç `€€Lß›à àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PROBATE€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€PHILLIP€ROBINSON,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€#XÔM.€ALLEN€EHMLINGÌMcClellan,€Powers,€Ehmling€&€DixÌ116€Public€SquareÌGallatin,€Tennessee€€37066Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌNATHANIEL€H.€KOENIGÌ150€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€300ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóó× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓÓÓÔ€#XÔà àThe€defendant,€Kevin€B.€Ryan€("Father"),€has€appealed€fromÏthe€trial€court's€order€changing€custody€of€the€parties'€minorÏchild,€Sabrina€D.€Ryan,€from€joint€custody€to€the€primary€custodyÏof€the€plaintiff,€Mary€Teresa€Wills€Ryan€("Mother").ÌÌà àMother€and€Father€married€in€March€1983.€€In€June€1990,Ïthey€entered€into€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€("MDA")€andÏfiled€a€complaint€for€divorce.€€The€final€divorce€decree,€enteredÏon€6€September€1990,€incorporated€the€MDA.€€Mother€and€Father€hadÏone€minor€child,€Sabrina,€who€was€four€years€old€at€the€time€ofÏthe€divorce.€€The€MDA€provided€for€joint€custody.€€Mother€hadÏSabrina€three€days€a€week€and€every€fourth€weekend,€and€Father€hadÏher€the€remainder€of€the€time.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€divorce,€Mother€married€her€current€husband,ÏMark€McKinney.€€Mr.€McKinney's€job€required€that€the€couple€moveÏto€England€for€three€years.€€When€this€occurred,€Father€and€MotherÏfiled€an€amendment€to€the€MDA.€€The€amendment€gave€Father€primaryÏcustody€with€a€three€year€limitation;€gave€Mother€custody€for€oneÏmonth€in€the€winter,€two€months€in€the€summer,€and€reasonableÏvisitation€any€time€she€returned€to€the€United€States;€requiredÏMother€to€pay€$300.00€per€month€to€Father€for€child€support;€and€Ïallowed€for€renegotiation€at€the€end€of€the€three€years.Ì€€Ìà àThree€years€later,€Mother€and€Mr.€McKinney€learned€that€Mr.ÏMcKinney€had€to€stay€in€England€for€a€short€time€longer.€€As€aÏresult,€Mother€and€Father€amended€the€MDA€a€second€time€inÏDecember€1993.€€About€two€weeks€after€entering€the€amendment,ÏMother€and€Mr.€McKinney€returned€to€the€United€States.ÌÌà àDespite€Mother's€efforts€while€in€England€to€maintainÏcontact€with€Sabrina€and€her€frustration€at€not€having€theÏrequired€visitation,€Mother,€who€testified€that€she€did€so€for€theÏchild's€sake,€did€not€file€a€petition€with€the€court€to€enforceÏthe€visitation€agreement.€€Mother€knew€that€the€assignment€inÏEngland€was€temporary.€€She€also€knew€that€she€would€eventuallyÏreturn€to€the€United€States€and€that€she€could€then€seek€custody.ÌÌà àIn€1994,€Mother€and€Mr.€McKinney€moved€to€California.€€InÍMay€1994,€Mother€and€Father€entered€into€an€agreed€order€modifyingÏthe€visitation€agreement.€€Pursuant€to€the€order,€Father€was€toÏmaintain€primary€custody€and€Mother€was€to€have€summer€visitationÏin€California€and€reasonable€visitation€any€time€Mother€was€inÏTennessee.€€Mother's€child€support€payments€were€decreased€fromÏ$300.00€to€$250.00€per€month.€€At€the€end€of€the€1994€summerÏvisitation,€Mother€and€Father€were€to€renegotiate.€€During€thisÏtime€period,€Mother€learned€of€the€declining€circumstances€ofÏFather's€living€conditions.€€In€September€1994,€Mother€petitionedÏthe€court€for€a€change€of€custody.ÌÌà àFather€and€Mother's€relationship€had€deteriorated€severely.€ÏBoth€parties€filed€various€motions,€including€a€restraining€orderÏfiled€by€Mother€in€February€1995€prohibiting€Father€from€carryingÏout€his€threats€of€fleeing€the€jurisdiction€with€Sabrina.€€Of€fourÏvisitation€requests€made€by€Mother€between€her€move€to€CaliforniaÏin€1994€and€the€trial€of€this€matter€in€August€1995,€threeÏrequired€Mother€to€go€to€Tennessee's€courts.ÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€a€hearing€on€this€matter,€the€trial€court€found:€à8 àÌà8 àThat€the€Petition€to€Change€Custody€filed€by€theÏplaintiff,€MARY€TERESA€WILLS€RYAN€MCKINNEY,€is€wellÏtaken€and€the€Court€affirmatively€finds€that€thereÏhas€been€a€substantial€change€in€circumstances€andÏthat€it€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€childÏthat€the€custody€be€change[d]€from€joint€custodyÏwith€the€Defendant€being€the€primary€custodian€toÏthe€Plaintiff,€MARY€TERESA€RYAN€WILLS€MCKINNEY,Ïbeing€granted€custody€of€the€minor€child€with€theÏDefendant€being€granted...visitation€rights....€€ÌÌÓÓThe€visitation€rights€are€set€forth€in€the€court's€order€of€8ÍSeptember€1995.ÌÌà àFather's€only€issue€is€"[d]oes€the€record€contain€evidenceÏthat€preponderates€against€the€special€judge's€conclusion€that€aÏsubstantial€change€in€circumstances€warrants€a€change€of€custodyÏpursuant€to€section€36„6„101(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Code."ÌÌà àThe€review€of€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€a€civilÏaction€shall€be€de€novo€upon€the€record€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€This€presumptionÏapplies€in€child€custody€cases.€€ò òòòHass€v.€Knighton,€ó óóó676€S.W.2dÏ554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).òòò òÌó óóóÌà àIn€cases€tried€without€a€jury,€the€question€of€witnessÏcredibility€is€within€the€exclusive€province€of€the€trial€judge.Ïòòò òScarbrough€v.€Scarbroughó óóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€ÏThis€court€will€not€reverse€a€trial€court's€decision€which€reliesÏon€witness€credibility€unless,€absent€oral€testimony,€the€recordÏcontains€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.€Ïò òòòAirline€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Barró óóó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€264€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€heard€detailed€testimony€fromÏseveral€witnesses€who€testified€on€behalf€of€both€Father€andÏMother.€€The€court€considered€all€the€evidence€and€found€thatÍthere€€was€a€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€warrant€aÏmodification€of€custody.ÌÌà àFather€has€offered€no€clear,€concrete,€and€convincingÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€There€was€evidence€that,€for€the€pastÏfew€years,€the€financial€and€physical€conditions€under€which€theÏminor€child€€lived€while€in€Father's€custody€were€not€in€theÏchild's€best€interest.€€Father's€financial€situation€deterioratedÏto€the€extent€that€he€was€forced€to€seek€public€assistance€and€toÏdeclare€bankruptcy.€€The€evidence€showed€that€Father's€mobile€homeÏwas€unsuitable€because€it€had€fallen€into€a€state€of€disrepair€andÏwas€filthy.€€The€evidence€also€established€that€Sabrina€had€beenÏin€an€unhealthy€state€while€in€Father's€custody.€€For€the€pastÏfive€years€that€he€has€had€custody,€Father€allowed€Sabrina€toÏsleep€in€the€same€bed€with€him,€but€he€denied€allowing€her€toÏsleep€under€the€covers.€€There€is€a€video€tape€in€the€record,Ïhowever,€that€shows€her€sleeping€under€the€covers.€€There€was€alsoÏevidence€that€Father's€behavior€was€unsuitable€and€was€not€inÏSabrina's€best€interest.€€He€brought€various€girlfriends€to€hisÏmobile€home€and,€on€at€least€one€occasion,€made€video€tapes€of€himÏand€his€girlfriend€having€sex.€€Thinking€he€had€erased€the€tape,ÏFather€filmed€Sabrina€and€distributed€the€tape€to€the€family.€ÏUnfortunately,€the€tape€still€contained€footage€of€he€and€hisÏgirlfriend€having€sex.ÌÌà àWe€are€in€agreement€with€the€trial€court€that€the€evidenceÍestablished€a€material€change€of€circumstances€which€allowed€theÏcourt€to€award€primary€custody€of€Sabrina€to€Mother€withÏvisitation€to€Father.€€The€record€established€that€the€coupleÏoriginally€had€a€joint€custody€arrangement,€but€that€it€had€becomeÏunworkable.€€"The€unworkability€of€joint€custody€because€of€theÏrecalcitrance€of€one€or€both€parents€is€not€a€change€ofÏcircumstances€anticipated€in€the€former€decree.€€Such€is€thereforeÏa€proper€ground€for€re„evaluating€the€custody€arrangement€in€theÏformer€decree."€€ò òòòDalton€v.€Daltonó óóó,€858€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993).€€The€evidence€showed€that€Father€consistently€refusedÏto€comply€with€visitation€agreements€set€forth€in€prior€courtÏorders.€à àOur€courts€have€also€recognizedÏthat€changed€circumstances€include€any€material€change€ofÏcircumstances€affecting€the€welfare€of€the€child€which€the€formerÏdecree€could€not€anticipate.€€ò òòòHicks€v.€Hicksó óóó,€26€Tenn.€App.€641,Ï647,€176€S.W.2d€371,€374€(1943).€€The€record€established€thatÏMother€had€no€means€to€anticipate€the€decline€in€Father's€livingÏconditions,€behavior,€or€lifestyle€when€she€consented€to€FatherÏhaving€primary€custody€of€Sabrina.ÌÌà àMother€also€questions€"[w]hether€the€child€support€awardsÏare€proper."€€The€child€support€guidelines€provide€courts€with€aÏrebuttable€presumption€as€to€the€correct€amount€of€monthly€childÏsupport.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(Supp.€1995).€€CourtsÏmay€deviate€from€the€guidelines,€but€when€doing€so,€they€must€makeÏ"written€findings€that€the€application€of€the€child€supportÍguidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€.€.€.€."€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Here,Ïthe€court€found€that€the€guidelines€required€Father€to€payÏapproximately€$350.00€per€month.€€The€court€stated,€however,€thatÏit€deviated€from€the€guidelines€and€ordered€Father€to€pay€$300.00Ïper€month.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€is€ample€evidence€to€support€the€deviation€from€theÏguidelines.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àMother€has€asked€that€she€be€awarded€attorney's€feesÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„103(c).€€WeÏconsidered€this€request€and€find€it€to€be€without€merit€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€We€are€also€of€the€opinion€thatÏMother's€request€for€damages€for€a€frivolous€appeal€are€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€in€all€things€affirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€anyÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendant/appellant,€Kevin€B.€Ryan.Ì€ÌòòÌÓ#` Ü` / œÈ“X#ÓÓÓóóà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ