ÿWPCÍ) …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 0 x@ 0D¸ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø B` ¢ 0rª 0| 0†˜ 0 ® 1u¶ 0d+U >B)Í BöDC AMVU*£äͱ D3¶éðx 0@hº¨db5Ærûjmv~× vÓU" AO((Æw( 0D=) D/) B°)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÑUÒÓgÔ Õ ÙPÚPÛVeÜÓ€æDÒ ˜úÿÿú, ú3|xæ(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2@ 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌSeptember€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Motherððs€attorney€quoted€this€portion€of€the€final€divorce€decree€at€the€hearing€below.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€general€sessions€court€judge€signed€the€order€based€upon€the€affidavit€of€the€FatherððsÏattorney€stating€that€none€of€the€districtððs€circuit€court€judges€were€available€to€sign€the€order.€€òòò òSeeó óóóÏT.R.C.P.€65.03(2).Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€tit.€1240,€ch.€2„4€(amended€1994).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFurther,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€that€the€Father€gave€an€injunction€bond€ð ðfor€theÏpayment€of€such€costs€and€damages€as€may€be€incurred€or€sufferedðð€by€the€Mother€in€the€event€sheÏwas€found€ð ðto€have€been€wrongfully€restrained€or€enjoined.ðð€€T.R.C.P.€65.05.Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€pertinent,€Rule€65.03(5)€provides€that:ÌÌà8 àEvery€temporary€restraining€order€granted€without€notice€shall€expire€by€its€termsÏwithin€such€time€after€entry,€not€to€exceed€fifteen€days,€as€the€Court€fixes,€unlessÏwithin€the€time€so€fixed€the€order,€for€good€cause€shown,€is€extended€for€a€likeÏperiod,€or€unless€the€party€against€whom€the€order€is€directed€consents€that€it€mayÏbe€extended€for€a€longer€period.€.€.€.ÌÌT.R.C.P.€65.03(5).Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€Father€testified€that€he€obtained€the€TRO€after€an€incident€atÏthe€ball€park.€€According€to€the€Father,€the€Mother€and€the€Motherððs€mother€attempted€to€interfereÏwhen€the€Father€was€disciplining€the€child.€€The€Mother€warned€the€Father€that€he€ð ðwas€going€toÏget€in€trouble€for€whipping€[the€child].ðð€The€Motherððs€mother€also€objected€and,€when€she€becameÏviolent,€the€Father€called€the€police.€€Although€the€Motherððs€sister€was€not€present€during€theÏincident,€the€Father€included€the€sister€in€the€TRO€because€the€sister€previously€had€tried€toÏinterfere€with€the€Father€seeing€the€child€at€ball€practice.€Ì hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€also€note€that€this€court€previously€has€ð ðemphasized€the€importance€of€continuity€ofÏplacement€in€custody€cases.ðð€€ò òòòHall€v.€Halló óóó,€1995€WL€316255,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(citingÏò òòòContreras€v.€Wardó óóó,€831€S.W.2d€288,€290€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€and€ò òòòBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2dÏ663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983)).€€There€was€evidence€in€this€case€that€the€child€has€benefited€fromÏliving€in€the€stable€environment€provided€by€the€Father.Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€36„6„106€became€effective€after€the€trial€court€conducted€the€evidentiary€hearing€inÏthis€case€but€before€the€court€entered€its€order€denying€the€Motherððs€petition.€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.ÏActs€428.€€Under€Section€36„6„106,€the€trial€court,€in€making€custody€determinations,€is€requiredÏto€consider,€among€other€factors,€€ð ð[t]he€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€ofÏage€or€older.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106(7)€(Supp.€1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ` p` ˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€*XXdìdÈ7Ñœ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌSHARRON€COGGINS€SMITH,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€€Giles€Chancery€No.€8497Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&(%;+'h|«Ï` ç `€€Lß›VS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9511„CH„00536Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€STACEY€SMITH,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àà àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€GILESÏCOUNTYÌà@ àAT€PULASKI,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMICHAEL€E.€GILMERÌó óColumbia,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJOE€W.€€HENRY,€JR.ÌHENRY,€HENRY,€STACK,€GARNER€&€SPEER,€P.C.Ìó óPulaski,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òVACATED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌó óà àÌÌÌÌÑ7€*XXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà àPlaintiff„Appellant,€Sharron€Coggins€Smith€(ð ðMotherðð),€appeals€the€trial€courtððsÏorder€denying€her€petition€to€modify€the€partiesðð€final€divorce€decree.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€divorced€in€May€1994.€€The€final€divorce€decree€awardedÏDefendant„Appellee,€Charles€Stacey€Smith€(ð ðFatherðð),€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€son€andÏgranted€the€Mother€reasonable€visitation€rights.€€Although€the€final€divorce€decree€is€not€included€inÏthe€record€on€appeal,€the€trial€court€apparently€gave€the€following€reason€for€awarding€custody€toÏthe€Father:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThis€Court€is€charged€under€its€oath€to€do€what€is€in€the€best€interestÏof€the€children€caught€in€the€web€of€a€divorce.€€This€case€is€a€perfectÏexample€of€parents€using€or€attempting€to€use€a€child€as€a€club€toÏpunish€one€another.€€The€evidence€in€this€case€betrays€what€TheÏCourt€considers€to€be€the€worst€housekeeping€it€has€ever€seen€inÏtwenty„eight€(28)€years€of€law€practice.€€The€condition€of€this€homeÏclearly€shows€a€way€of€life€and€an€uncaring€attitude€on€the€part€ofÏ[the€Mother].€€This€cannot€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€born€ofÏthis€union.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÌÓÓÌà àOn€June€24,€1994,€a€general€sessions€judge€for€Giles€County€signed€a€TemporaryÏRestraining€Order€(ð ðTROðð)€upon€the€Fatherððs€motion.€€The€TRO€imposed€the€following€restraintsÏon€the€Mother€and€certain€family€members:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[The€Mother],€her€mother,€and€her€sister,€be€and€hereby€areÏrestrained€from€and€ordered€not€to€come€around€[the€Father]€orÏcontact€him€at€any€time€or€any€place€or€in€any€manner,€including€butÏnot€limited€to€his€residence,€his€work€place,€and€the€ball€park.ÌÌà8 àà àThis€Restraining€Order€shall€apply€to€and€[the€Mother],€herÏmother€and€sister€are€further€restrained€from€contacting€[the€Father]Ïby€telephone,€by€letter,€or€in€person€for€any€purpose.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€TRO€provided€that€it€would€remain€in€effect€ð ðpending€further€orders€of€this€Court.ðð× ƒ+ ××  ×€€TheÏrecord€on€appeal€fails€to€include€a€verified€complaint€or€affidavit€by€the€Father€to€justify€issuance€ofÏthe€TRO.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.R.C.P.€65.03(1).ÌÌà àIn€August€1994,€the€Mother€filed€a€petition€to€modify€the€final€decree€of€divorce€inÏwhich€the€Mother€requested€the€trial€court€to€set€aside€the€TRO€and€to€grant€her€increased€visitationÏwith€the€child.€The€Mother€subsequently€filed€an€amended€petition€in€which€she€also€requested€aÏchange€in€child€custody€from€the€Father€to€the€Mother.€€As€grounds€for€the€change€of€custody,€sheÏasserted€the€following€changes€in€circumstances:€€(1)€that€the€Mother€had€changed€her€lifestyle€andÏwas€now€able€to€provide€a€stable,€clean,€loving€home€for€her€son;€and€(2)€that,€since€the€partiesððÏdivorce,€the€Father€had€attempted€to€interfere€with€the€Motherððs€efforts€to€maintain€a€relationshipÏwith€her€son.€€The€Mother€also€asserted€that€the€child€was€now€of€sufficient€age€and€maturity€underÏTennessee€law€to€be€heard€as€to€his€custody€preference.ÌÌà àThe€Father€answered€the€amended€petition€and€asserted€a€counter„claim€for€childÏsupport.€In€his€answer€and€counter„claim,€the€Father€requested€that€the€Mother€be€required€to€payÏchild€support€in€accordance€with€the€Child€Support€Guidelines× ƒ, ××  ×€and€to€share€responsibility€forÏhealth€care€related€expenses.€€The€Father€also€requested€an€award€of€his€attorneyððs€fees.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€these€issues€in€May€1995.€€OnÏJuly€3,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€Motherððs€petition€to€modify,€ordering€theÏMother€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$37€per€week€and€to€share€in€the€childððs€health€careÏrelated€expenses,€and€awarding€the€Fatherððs€law€firm€$1,660€in€attorneyððs€fees.€The€trial€courtððsÏorder€additionally€provided€that€ð ðall€things€and€matters€contained€in€the€previous€Order(s)€of€thisÏCourt€not€in€conflict€herewith€shall€remain€in€full€force€and€effect.ðð€€Although€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏdid€not€specifically€address€the€TRO,€the€order€effectively€extended€the€TRO.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Mother€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.à àDid€the€Chancellor€err€by€failing€to€find€that€theÏTemporary€Restraining€Order€issued€by€Judge€Lee€was€improperlyÏissued€and€therefore€void?ÌÌà8 àà à2.à àIn€any€event,€did€the€Chancellor€err€in€failing€to€setÏaside€the€Temporary€Restraining€Order€issued€by€Judge€Lee?ÌÌà8 àà à3.à àDid€the€Chancellor€err€in€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€toÏ[the€Father]€below€sua€sponte€without€first€allowing€[the€Mother]€anÏopportunity€to€inquire€into€the€reasonableness€of€the€fee?ÌÌà8 àà à4.à àDid€the€Chancellor€err€by€modifying€the€final€OrderÏof€divorce€between€the€parties€to€provide€that€[the€Mother]€must€nowÏpay€child€support€and€partial€medical€bills?ÌÌà8 àà à5.à àDid€the€Chancellor€err€in€failing€to€consider€theÏwishes€of€the€minor€child€of€the€parties€as€to€custody?ÌÌà8 àà à6.à àDid€the€Chancellor€err€in€failing€to€find€a€material€andÏunexpected€change€of€circumstance€in€the€life€of€[the€Mother]Ïsufficient€to€support,€along€with€the€stated€preference€of€the€minorÏchild,€a€change€of€custody€from€[the€Father]€to€[the€Mother]?€€ÌÓÓÌà@ àòòò òI.€€The€Temporary€Restraining€Orderó óóóÌÌà àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€conclude€that€the€record€on€appeal€fails€to€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€issuance€or€continuance€of€the€TRO.€€Rule€65.03(1)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure€provides€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€restraining€order€may€be€granted€at€the€commencement€ofÏthe€action€or€during€the€pendency€thereof€without€notice,€if€it€isÏclearly€shown€by€verified€complaint€or€affidavit€that€the€applicantððsÏrights€are€being€or€will€be€violated€by€the€adverse€party€and€theÏapplicant€will€suffer€immediate€and€irreparable€injury,€loss€orÏdamage€before€notice€can€be€served€and€a€hearing€had€thereon.ÌÌÓÓÌT.R.C.P.€65.03(1).€€The€record€in€this€case€contains€no€verified€complaint€or€affidavit€setting€forthÏthe€bases€for€issuance€of€the€TRO.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Based€on€the€record€before€us,€therefore,€we€are€unable€toÏdetermine€whether€the€general€sessions€judge€who€initially€issued€the€TRO€complied€with€theÏprocedural€requirements€of€Rule€65.03(1).ÌÌà àThe€record€does€indicate,€however,€that€both€the€general€sessions€judge€and€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€comply€with€Rule€65€in€that€both€failed€to€set€forth€reasons€on€the€record€when€theyÏextended€the€TRO.€€By€making€the€TRO€effective€ð ðpending€further€orders€of€this€Court,ðð€theÏgeneral€sessions€judge€extended€the€TRO€beyond€the€fifteen„day€time€limit€permitted€by€RuleÏ65.03(5).× ƒ/ ××  ×€€But€in€doing€so,€the€general€sessions€judge€failed€to€set€forth€reasons€for€the€extensionÍas€required€by€Rule€65.03(5)€(ð ðThe€reasons€for€the€extension€shall€be€entered€of€record.ðð).€ÏAdditionally,€and€as€noted€previously,€the€trial€courtððs€order€effectively€extended€the€TRO€becauseÏthe€order€provided€that€previous€orders€of€the€court€ð ðshall€remain€in€full€force€and€effect.ðð€ÏAlthough€the€trial€court€heard€some€evidence€at€the€hearing€below€regarding€the€justification€forÏissuing€the€TRO,× ƒ0 ××  ×€the€trial€courtððs€order€fails€to€include€the€reasons€for€extending€the€TRO€asÏrequired€by€Rule€65.03(5).ÌÌà àFurther,€authorities€have€noted€that€the€extension€of€a€temporary€restraining€orderÏconverts€the€order€into€a€temporary€or€preliminary€injunction.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€43€C.J.S.€ò òòòInjunctionsó óóó€ðð€10bÏ(1978)€(ð ðUnless€a€temporary€restraining€order€is€extended€by€the€court,€which,€in€effect,€convertsÏit€into€a€preliminary€injunction,€it€ceases€to€be€operative€at€the€expiration€of€the€time€fixed€by€itsÏterms.ðð);€42€Am.€Jur.€2d€ò òòòInjunctionsó óóó€ðð€14€(1969)€(ð ðAlthough€the€restraining€order€made€at€theÏcommencement€of€the€action€would,€by€its€own€terms,€expire€at€the€hearing€of€the€order€to€showÏcause,€if€at€that€time€it€is€continued€until€the€termination€of€the€suit,€the€order€so€continuing€it€is€inÏfact€a€new€and€distinct€restraint,€and€itself€constitutes€a€preliminary€injunction.ðð).€€In€this€regard,ÏRule€65.04(6),€relative€to€temporary€injunctions,€provides€that€ð ð[i]n€granting,€denying€orÏmodifying€a€temporary€injunction,€the€court€shall€set€forth€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÏwhich€constitute€the€grounds€of€its€action.ðð€€T.R.C.P.€65.04(6).€€In€the€present€case,€neither€theÏgeneral€sessions€judgeððs€TRO€nor€the€trial€courtððs€order€extending€the€TRO€contain€such€findings.ÌÌà àRule€65.07€provides€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€domestic€relations€cases,€restraining€orders€or€injunctions€may€beÏissued€upon€such€terms€and€conditions€and€remain€in€force€for€suchÏtime€as€shall€seem€just€and€proper€to€the€judge€to€whom€applicationÏtherefor€is€made,€and€the€provisions€of€this€Rule€shall€be€followedÏonly€insofar€as€deemed€appropriate€by€such€judge.ÌÌÓÓÌT.R.C.P.€65.07.€€We€are€cognizant€of€the€discretion€given€to€trial€courts€to€issue€restraining€ordersÏand€temporary€injunctions€in€domestic€cases€pursuant€to€Rule€65.07;€however,€we€do€not€believeÏthat€this€rule€envisions€a€TRO€remaining€in€effect€òòò òad€infinitumó óóó.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€43€C.J.S.€òòò òInjunctionsó óóó€ððÏ10b€(1978)€(ð ðA€temporary€restraining€order€is€of€short€duration,€and€should€be€limited€to€the€timeÏspecified€by€statute€or€to€such€a€reasonable€time€as€may€be€necessary€to€notify€the€adverse€party.ðð);Ï42€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòò òInjunctionsó óóó€ðð€10€(1969)€(ð ðThe€purpose€of€[a€temporary€restraining€order]€is€toÏrestrain€the€defendant€for€what€should€be€a€very€brief€period,€pending€a€hearing€on€the€applicationÏfor€a€temporary€injunction.ðð).€€Nor€do€we€believe€that€this€rule€envisions€dispensing€with€theÏrequirement€that€the€trial€court€enter€reasons€or€findings€of€record€when€extending€a€TRO€or€whenÏgranting€a€temporary€injunction.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,ó óóó€ò òòòCarpentersðð€District€Council€v.€Cicció óóó,€261ÏF.2d€5,€7€(6th€Cir.€1958)€(holding€that€formal€findings€of€fact€were€mandatory€where€federal€ruleÏ52(a)€required€that€ð ðin€granting€or€refusing€interlocutory€injunctions€the€court€shall€similarly€setÏforth€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€which€constitute€the€grounds€of€its€action.ðð).€ÏAccordingly,€we€vacate€the€TRO.ÌÌòòò òà@ àII.€€Child€Custodyó óóóÌÌà àWe€affirm,€however,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€change€custody€from€the€Father€toÏthe€Mother.€€In€a€custody€modification€proceeding,€the€comparative€fitness€analysis€of€the€originalÏcustody€proceeding€is€no€longer€determinative.€€Instead,€the€non„custodial€parent€has€the€burden€ofÍproving€a€material€change€in€circumstances€ð ðcompelling€enough€to€warrant€the€dramatic€remedy€ofÏchanged€custody.ðð€€ò òòòMusselman€v.€Acuffó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€WeÏconclude€that€the€Mother€has€failed€to€meet€this€burden€in€the€present€case.ÌÌà àThe€Mother€first€contended€that€a€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€inÏthat€the€Father€had€interfered€with€the€Motherððs€visitation€rights€with€the€child.€€Specifically,€theÏMother€testified,€the€Father€had€refused€to€let€the€Motherððs€sister€pick€up€the€child€for€visitationÏwhen€the€Mother€worked€late,€had€at€times€refused€to€permit€the€Mother€to€interact€with€the€child€atÏthe€ball€park€when€it€was€not€the€Motherððs€visitation€time,€and€had€scheduled€sports€activities€andÏtrips€during€the€Motherððs€visitation€time.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Father€admitted€that€he€objected€to€the€Motherððs€sister€picking€up€theÏchild,€the€Father€denied€preventing€the€child€from€speaking€to€the€Mother€at€ball€games.€€Further,Ïrelative€to€an€out„of„town€trip€to€see€the€Atlanta€Braves€that€the€Father€scheduled€during€theÏMotherððs€visitation€time,€the€Mother€acknowledged€that€she€did€not€lose€any€visitation€time€becauseÏshe€was€able€to€swap€weekends€with€the€Father.€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€notÏerr€in€refusing€to€modify€custody€based€on€the€Fatherððs€interference€with€the€Motherððs€visitation.ÌÌà àThe€Mother€also€contended€that€a€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€inÏthe€Motherððs€lifestyle€which€warranted€a€change€in€custody.€€The€Mother€testified€that,€since€theÏdivorce,€the€Mother€had€gained€full„time€employment,€had€begun€attending€church,€and€was€nowÏliving€in€her€motherððs€home€which€she€helped€to€keep€clean€and€well„maintained.€€The€MotherÏblamed€her€past€housekeeping€problems€on€the€fact€that€she€was€in€a€bad€marriage€for€almostÏtwelve€years.€€Ìà àAgain,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€modifyÏcustody€based€on€this€asserted€change€in€circumstances.€€Although€such€an€improvement€in€theÍMotherððs€lifestyle€might€have€made€a€difference€in€the€comparative€fitness€analysis€of€the€originalÏcustody€proceeding,€we€reiterate€that€comparative€fitness€is€no€longer€the€standard€at€this€stage€ofÏthe€proceedings.€€Rather,€the€Mother€was€required€to€prove€that€the€improvement€in€her€lifestyleÏconstituted€a€material€change€in€circumstances€compelling€enough€to€warrant€the€dramatic€remedyÏof€changed€custody.€€ò òòòMusselman€v.€Acuffó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€922.€€While€the€Motherððs€improvedÏlifestyle€is€commendable,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,Ïany€change€demonstrated€by€the€Mother€did€not€warrant€a€modification€of€custody.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àÌà àIn€holding€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Motherððs€petition€to€modify,Ïwe€reject€the€Motherððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€wishes€of€theÏchild.€€As€conceded€by€the€Mother€on€appeal,€the€childððs€stated€preference€is€not€binding€upon€theÏtrial€court€but€is€just€one€of€the€factors€to€be€considered€by€the€court€in€making€its€custodyÏdetermination.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòHarris€v.€Harrisóóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€352,€353„54€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(decidedÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„102€(1991));€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106(7)€(Supp.€1995)€(effective€JuneÏ12,€1995).× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Here,€the€trial€court€properly€conducted€an€in€camera€interview€of€the€child,€who€wasÏtwelve€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€The€fact€that€the€trial€courtððs€ultimate€custodyÏdetermination€was€not€in€accordance€with€the€childððs€wishes€does€not€constitute€grounds€forÏreversal.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà àòòò òà@ àIII.€€Child€Supportó óóóÌÌà àWe€also€reject€the€Motherððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€her€toÏpay€Ô'  Ôchild€support€to€the€Father€in€the€amount€of€$37€per€week.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€theÏMother€worked€part„time€at€a€grocery€store€where€her€salary€averaged€$100€to€$120€per€week.€€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€hearing€on€the€Motherððs€petition,€however,€the€Mother€had€gained€full„timeÏemployment€and€was€earning€a€net€income€of€$178.10€per€week.€ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€Motherððs€contention€on€appeal,€this€increase€in€income€wasÏsufficient€to€warrant€the€change€in€child€support€made€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case.€€As€this€courtÏrecently€explained,ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section]€36„5„101(a)(1)Ï(Supp.1994)€presently€empowers€the€trial€court€to€increase€orÏdecrease€a€child€support€award€ð ðwhen€there€is€found€to€be€aÏsignificant€variance,€as€defined€in€the€child€support€guidelinesÏ[between€the€guidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currentlyÏordered].ðð€€Prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€Act€of€April€21,€1994,Ï[Section]€36„5„101(a)(1)€permitted€a€change€in€child€support€only€inÏthe€presence€of€changed€circumstances.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€change€in€[Section]€36„5„101(a)(1)€allows€the€court€toÏrecognize€that€an€increase€in€a€non„custodial€parentððs€income€can€beÏa€changed€circumstance€if€the€increase€results€in€a€significantÏvariance€from€the€guidelines€support€amount.€€This€is€consistentÏwith€the€computation€of€child€support€being€based€upon€a€flatÏpercentage€of€the€non„custodial€parentððs€net€income.ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òHall€v.€Halló óóó,€1995€WL€316255,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(footnote€omitted).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€application€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€results€in€aÏsignificant€variance€between€the€amount€of€child€support€previously€ordered€(zero)€and€the€currentÏguidelines€amount€($37€per€week,€or€roughly€$160€per€month).€€Under€these€circumstances,€theÍtrial€court€did€not€err€in€ordering€the€Mother€to€begin€paying€child€support€to€the€Father€inÏaccordance€with€the€guidelines.ÌÌÔ&  Ôòòò òà@ àIV.€€Attorneyððs€Feesó óóóÌÌà àWhile€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€determining€the€issues€of€childÏÔ'  Ôcustody€and€support,€we€are€unable€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.€WeÏrecognize€that€the€trial€court€was€authorized€by€statute€to€order€the€Mother€to€pay€the€FatherððsÏattorneyððs€fees.€€ò òòòSee€Sherrod€v.€Wix,€ó óóó849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(Supp.€1994).€Here,€however,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏaward€of€$1,660€to€the€Fatherððs€law€firm.€€Although€the€Fatherððs€answer€and€counter„claimÏrequested€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees,€the€Father€neither€produced€evidence€at€the€hearing€norÏsubmitted€affidavits€in€support€of€such€an€award.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Dover€v.€Doveró óóó,€821€S.W.2dÏ593,€595€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(holding€that€trial€court€properly€based€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€onÏaffidavit€of€wifeððs€attorney€where€husband€failed€to€object€to€procedure€employed);€ò òòòHennesseeÏv.€Wood€Group€Enterprisesóóó ó,€816€S.W.2d€35,€37€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(holding€that,€althoughÏattorneyððs€affidavit€would€have€been€preferable,€trial€court€properly€awarded€attorneyððs€fees€basedÏon€clientððs€testimony€as€to€fees€paid).€€Accordingly,€we€vacate€that€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏrequiring€the€Mother€to€pay€$1,660€to€the€Fatherððs€law€firm.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà0 àòòò òà@ àV.€€Conclusionó óóóÌÌà àWe€vacate€the€TRO€and€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€trialÏÔ'  Ôcourtððs€order€denying€the€Motherððs€petition€to€modify€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÏone„half€to€the€Father€and€one„half€to€the€Mother,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.à àà àà àà àà àà à