ÿWPCÉ Ì}ÉZõ®ò.ÊùójKQÃÞ{€r£XÅt‚Ù÷ø,Ñ5a Óö>1‹((ÞÛød £WYn¾õ_“Þ«©hÁEú ¦~ÆHÿÀjƒÛ2j/CÎC[4Êʤð"Øó*¶zÜù¸ÎÔt[Fì#\‰ÕM•;4£ÇpÌg}¿Át‹CÉ"Þ &Jm½fû…S„ÀˆéÂw­Òaõ“qd3å‰`øµ62O0j _>ܪÍÃ9¢ÂîR=Ò=®Œfí©Ÿî)s¿pSX`6¢Dì«+¹ÑjNޏL× }ŠGÔl~ûÓ<ߎm·’ˆ¹X<%5ló9µ.®Iª„ÿ¬ú—Û ;Cå hÔ.ò|hyÄúÜØÍ}¸¶O­8¢t…ºåF_›Á×™.?º“ˆ\ÿ㛾÷’y+Èr)—Mï$ÒB•>56ÿ*²P}ëdy” C¸Y›]¯mœ”¬ê½‰÷hø×³«sÞû]böœn–ý,ŠÓÎíŠìŸ|^akàç'ØçÖ w©ú´’Q +u×þ[N`{Ão¿]e2ƒËÏ%äq¾lÜÐõ®&ºmØ¡¤Œ|X*1„ŽtqªŒ6˜­]˜åNÑã9ãGR5+ŸétoÓ³µWæPæ–=¦b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq U Nù 1‡G 0Î zþ Òx pJ UNº 1u 72}ƯÆuÆ;Æ 0DÇN ^  0 cE|w~4‚–¥ m§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§b¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ 0ëÆÆÆÆ B±± 0¤Î D3r D-¥ 0KÒÒ ASÆp 0¤6 0DÚ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. &Ý ƒRi $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€appears€from€the€record€that€Sheila€Buhl€Byrd€is€now€known€as€Mrs.€Sheila€Powell.€€For€simplicity,€she€shallÐ ° Ðbe€referred€to€as€ð ðAppellant.ðð ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt fÝ ƒRi $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSpecifically,€Appellee€asserted€in€his€motion€that€Childððs€ð ðhome€environment€is€bazaar€[sic],€immoral,€andÐ ° Ðdangerously€detrimental€to€[Childððs]€moral€and€mental€health€in€that€[Appellant]€.€.€.€is€a€call€girl,€participates€in€aÐ tÄ Ðpornographic€lifestyle€on€the€Internet,€and€has€had€numerous€sexual€encounters€in€the€home€with€[Child]€present€in€theÐ 8ˆ Ðhome.ðð€Appellee€also€noted€that€ð ðthe€information€he€obtained€against€the€mother€of€his€son€is€so€overwhelmingly€devoidÐ üL Ðof€morality€and€is€so€bazaar€[sic]€that€it€is€inappropriate€to€describe€such€behavior€in€a€[Ô_Ôp]etitionÔ_Ô€to€change€custody.€.€.Ð À Ð.ðð€(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2˜L+s (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àj5+ertyBarØ%¦3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2i $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_Ý»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»Ô d(|3Él$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_Ý»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Él$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_Ý»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_Ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼_Ý»»»ÔÑ8€±XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îDì_ÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼_Ý»îîDì #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓASSIGNED€ON€BRIEFS€JUNE€6,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X±X»¼_ÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼_Ý»XX±ü#ÔSHEILA€SUE€BYRDòòóó€v.€DAVID€BUHLòòóóÔ‡X±X»¼_ÝÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€94„76„212;€The€Honorable€Carol€Ô_ÔCatalanoÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00070„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X±XXX±ÔThis€appeal€involves€a€custody€and€visitation€dispute€brought€by€divorced€parents€having€jointÐ xÈ  Ðcustody€of€their€child.€€After€the€mother€of€the€child€moved€out€of€state,€the€childððs€father€petitionedÐ d´ Ðthe€court€for€change€of€custody.€€The€mother€then€counter„petitioned€the€court€for€an€increase€in€childÐ P  Ðsupport.€€After€a€hearing€on€the€matter,€the€court€altered€the€previous€visitation€agreement,€increasedÐ <Œ Ðchild€support,€granted€the€father€the€right€to€claim€the€child€as€a€dependent€for€income€tax€purposes,Ð (x Ðand€refused€to€grant€the€mother€attorneyððs€fees.€€This€appeal€followed€and€for€the€following€reasons,Ð d Ðwe€affirm.€€Ð P ÐÔ#†X±XXX±ñ#ÔÔ#†¼_Ý»XX±k#ÔÔ‡X±X»¼_ÝÔÌÓåÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ЀÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_Ý»àX±Z#ÔÔ‡X±X.¼_ÝÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòHollyÐ œì ÐKirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌCarrie€W.€Ô_ÔKershÔ_Ô,€Clarksville,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ `° ÐÌDavid€Buhl,€Clarksville,€TN,€òòpro€seóóÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓúÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_Ý»XX±) #ÔÔ‡X±X»¼_ÝÔÐ #`" ÐÌÒe°ÒòòóóÔ#†¼_Ý»XX±à #ÔÔ‡X±X»¼_ÝÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X±XXX±Ôà@ÙÙÆàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ è$8 $ Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àSheila€Buhl€Byrd׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(Appellant)€and€David€Buhl€(Appellee)€divorced€in€December€1994€afterÐ À&"& Ðtwo€years€of€marriage€and€the€birth€of€a€child€(Child).€€The€divorce€decree€incorporated€a€MaritalÐ ¬'ü"' ÐDissolution€Agreement€(the€MDA),€which€vested€the€parties€with€joint€custody€of€Child.€€PursuantÐ ˜(è#( Ðto€the€MDA,€Appellant€retained€primary€physical€custody€of€Child€and€Appellee€acquired€visitationÐ „)Ô$) Ðrights.€€The€MDA€also€provided€for€monthly€child€support€payments€in€the€amount€of€$290.00€to€beÐ p*À%*ý Ðpaid€by€Appellee€to€Appellant.€€Further,€the€parties€were€to€alternate€claiming€Child€as€a€deductionÐ ° Ðfor€income€tax€purposes€year€to€year.€Ð œì ÐÌà ½ àAppelleeððs€visitation€under€the€MDA€included€two€months€per€year€during€the€summer€untilÐ tÄ ÐChild€reached€the€age€of€three.€€However,€upon€Child€reaching€the€age€of€three,€Appelleeððs€visitationÐ `° Ðextended€to€every€other€weekend,€one€week€every€other€month€in€conjunction€with€the€weekendÐ L œ Ðvisitations,€four€weeks€during€the€summer,€alternating€holidays,€and€every€other€Wednesday€evening.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà ½ àApproximately€one€month€after€the€divorce€decree€was€entered,€the€parties€began€havingÐ  ` Ðdifficulties€with€one€another€regarding€visitation€and€phone€contact€with€Child.€€These€difficultiesÐ ü L  Ðsoon€culminated€in€a€melee€of€petitions,€counter„petitions,€and€allegations€of€wrongdoing€that€haveÐ è 8  Ðcontinued€up€until€this€appeal.€€As€a€result€of€the€legal€feud,€several€orders€were€entered€by€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€specifically€defining€the€rights€of€each€party.€€In€December€1995,€the€trial€court€issued€an€orderÐ À  Ðthat€again€set€out€the€visitation€rights€of€the€parties;€this€time€in€very€specific€detail.€€However,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðproblems€between€the€parties€continued€and€the€allegations€of€misdeeds€and€transgressions€committedÐ ˜è  Ðby€the€parties€increased.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà ½ àThe€most€recent€dispute,€now€before€this€Court€on€appeal,€began€in€November€1998€withÐ \¬ ÐAppelleeððs€filing€of€a€motion€for€change€of€custody.€€In€his€motion,€Appellee,€a€member€of€the€UnitedÐ H˜ ÐStates€Army,€claimed€he€obtained€a€reassignment€from€Korea€to€Fort€Campbell€in€Clarksville,Ð 4„ ÐTennessee€upon€learning€certain€facts€that€demonstrated€a€need€for€change€of€custody€of€Child.€Ð  p ÐAppellee€alleged€that€Appellant€had€moved€with€Child€to€Ste.€Genevieve,€Missouri€and€that€this€moveÐ  \ Ðwould€hinder€the€visitation€rights€previously€granted€to€him€by€the€trial€court.€€Appellee€furtherÐ øH Ðalleged€that€the€home€environment€provided€by€Appellant€for€Child€warranted€a€change€of€custodyÐ ä4 Ðin€favor€of€Appellee.Ô_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ½ àIn€Appellantððs€answer€to€Appelleeððs€motion€for€change€of€custody,€Appellant€denied€theÐ ¨ø Ðallegations€and€petitioned€the€court€for€an€increase€in€child€support.€€Appellant€asserted€thatÐ ”ä ÐAppelleeððs€income€had€increased€at€least€fifteen€percent€and,€thus,€she€was€entitled€to€a€greater€awardÐ €Ð Ðof€child€support.€€Subsequent€to€further€filings€by€each€party,€on€April€15,€1999,€the€trial€court€enteredÐ l¼ Ðan€order€stating€that€Appellant€would€be€unlikely€to€follow€the€visitation€agreement€and€grantedÐ X ¨ Ðextended€visitation€to€Appellee€until€a€hearing€could€be€held€on€Appelleeððs€motion€for€custody€ofÐ D!” ÐChild.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà ½ àThe€April€15€order€was€quickly€challenged€by€Appellant€and€another€rash€of€motions€brokeÐ $X" Ðout€among€the€parties.€€Appellant€filed€motions€to€amend€the€courtððs€order,€terminate€extendedÐ ô$D # Ðvisitation,€appoint€a€guardian€ad€litem,€grant€additional€visitation,€require€psychological€evaluationÐ à%0!$ Ðof€Child,€and€establish€a€date€to€return€Child€to€school.€€Appellantððs€motion€to€establish€a€date€toÐ ° Ðreturn€Child€to€school€was€granted€on€August€13,€1999€and€ended€the€extended€visitation€previouslyÐ œì Ðgranted€to€Appellee.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà ½ àOn€August€29,€2000,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€Appelleeððs€original€motion€toÐ `° Ðchange€custody.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€€outlining€its€findings€of€factÐ L œ Ðand€altering€the€rights€of€the€parties.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Appelleeððs€allegations€regardingÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellantððs€lifestyle,€even€when€taken€as€true,€showed€no€disparate€effects€on€Child.€€However,Ð $ t ÐAppellantððs€move€to€Ste.€Genevieve,€Missouri,€constituted€a€material€change€of€circumstancesÐ  ` Ðrequiring€reconsideration€of€the€visitation€arrangements.€€€The€trial€court€held€the€fact€that€the€partiesÐ ü L  Ðnow€lived€in€different€states€rendered€the€previous€visitation€agreement€unworkable.€€To€reflect€theÐ è 8  Ðchange€of€circumstances,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€Appellant€retain€primary€physical€custody€ofÐ Ô$  ÐChild€and€granted€the€following€visitation€to€Appellee:€€one€weekend€per€month€(on€three€dayÐ À  Ðweekends€when€available),€the€entire€summer,€and€one€week€during€Childððs€spring€break.€€In€addition,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€parties€would€continue€to€alternate€holidays€with€the€child.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà ½ àWith€regard€to€child€support,€Appellee€was€ordered€to€increase€his€monthly€payment€fromÐ pÀ Ð$290.00€to€$485.00.€€€However,€because€Appellee€would€now€have€custody€of€Child€during€theÐ \¬ Ðsummer,€no€child€support€would€be€paid€during€the€months€of€June€and€July.€€€Together,€the€net€effectÐ H˜ Ðof€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€increased€child€support€by€$1,370.00€per€year.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà ½ àThe€trial€court€additionally€ordered€that€Appellee€provide€military€insurance€for€Child€andÐ  \ Ðcover€any€associated€costs€for€healthcare,€so€long€as€Appellant€took€child€to€military€facilities€whenÐ øH Ðpossible.€€€Further,€apparently€to€lessen€the€burden€of€the€increased€expenses€for€Appellee,€AppelleeÐ ä4 Ðwas€granted€the€right€to€claim€Child€as€a€deduction€for€income€tax€purposes€every€year€as€opposedÐ Ð  Ðto€every€other€year.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€refused€to€tax€Appellantððs€attorneyððs€fees€to€Appellee.€Ð ¼  ЀÌÒe°ÒÓ  Ó€€ò òIssuesÐ ”ä ÐÌó óÓb'Óà0 ½ àAppellant€brings€the€following€issues€before€this€Court€on€appeal:ÐpÀ½s#½s# ÐÌ1.à0 ½ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€Appellee€the€right€to€claim€Child€as€a€dependant€forÐ H!˜ Ðincome€tax€purposes€even€though€such€relief€was€neither€requested€in€the€motion€for€changeÐ 4"„  Ðof€custody€nor€litigated€by€the€parties;Ð #p!½s#½s# ÐÌÓ€ (Eh83 ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ê)ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ½ àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€Appellantððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€basedÐ ø$H # Ðon€the€frivolity€of€Appelleeððs€motion;€and€Ýƒ3£ê)*ÝŒÐä%4!$½s#½s# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£]+ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ½ àÝ  ÝWhether€the€visitation€granted€by€the€trial€court€is€in€Childððs€best€interest.݃3£]+Š+݌м' #&½s#½s# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà ½ àAppellee€brings€a€fourth€issue€before€this€Court€on€appeal:Ð ”)ä$( ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£Õ,ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ½ àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€Appelleeððs€motion€for€change€of€custody.݃3£Õ,-ÝŒÐl+¼&*½s#½s# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ½ àò òó óÔ#†X±XXX±z #ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔÌÔ#†X±XX X±0.#ÔÔ‡X±XXX±Ôòòóóò òÓ  ÓLaw€and€AnalysisÐ œì Ðó óÓ  Óà ½ àRegarding€Appellantððs€first€issue,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€awarding€AppelleeÐ ˆØ Ðthe€right€to€claim€Child€as€a€dependant€for€income€tax€purposes€every€year.€€Appellant€challenges€theÐ tÄ Ðpropriety€of€the€award€only€on€the€grounds€that€the€award€was€neither€requested€in€the€motion€forÐ `° Ðchange€of€custody€nor€litigated€by€the€parties.€€Appellant€avers€that€the€trial€court€only€had€theÐ L œ Ðauthority€to€address€issues€presented€in€the€pleadings€or€voluntarily€litigated.€€Because€Appellant€failsÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€allege€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Appellee€as€opposed€to€AppellantÐ $ t Ðdeserved€the€deduction,€we€will€not€second€guess€the€correctness€of€the€decision€in€that€respect.€€€Thus,Ð  ` Ðour€review€of€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€determining€whether€the€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€awardÐ ü L  ÐAppellee€the€deduction.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà ½ àWe€agree€with€Appellantððs€general€assertion€that€a€court€may€only€decide€issues€and€awardÐ À  Ðjudgments€to€the€extent€requested€by€the€parties€in€their€pleadings€or€voluntarily€litigated.€€InÐ ¬ü  ÐòòFidelity-Ô_ÔPhenixÔ_Ô€Fire€Ins.€Co.€of€New€York€v.€Jackson,€et€al.óó,€181€S.W.2d€625€(Tenn.1944),€theÐ ˜è  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€stated,€"[Ô_Ôn]oÔ_Ô€rule€is€better€settled€than€that€both€allegations€and€proof€areÐ „Ô  Ðessential€to€a€decree€or€judgment€and€that€there€can€be€no€valid€decree€unless€the€matter€on€which€theÐ pÀ Ðdecree€is€rested€is€plainly€within€the€scope€of€the€pleadings."€€òòId.óó€at€629.€€The€supreme€court€furtherÐ \¬ Ðstated,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hereforeÔ_Ô,€the€rule€is€firmly€established€that€irrespective€of€what€may€be€proved€a€courtÐ H˜ Ðcannot€decree€to€any€plaintiff€more€than€he€claims€in€his€bill€or€other€pleading.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€Ð 4„ Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àà  àÌà ½ àHere,€however,€Appellant€overlooks€two€important€facts€that€placed€the€tax€deduction€issueÐ øH Ðproperly€before€the€trial€court.€€First,€because€Appellant€petitioned€the€trial€court€for€an€increase€inÐ ä4 Ðchild€support€and€an€increase€was€granted,€she€opened€the€door€for€the€court€to€examine€the€financialÐ Ð  Ðconsequences€to€Appellee.€€òòóóCourts€retain€the€discretionary€power€to€allocate€tax€exemptions€for€minorsÐ ¼  Ðand€should€consider€the€tax€consequences€of€child€support€orders.€€òòÔ_ÔBarabasÔ_Ô€v.€Rogersóó,€868€S.W.2d€283,Ð ¨ø Ð289€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòMiller€v.€Milleróó,€No.€02A01„9809„CH„00271,€1999€WL€329777€at€*2Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€21,€1999).€€Thus,€in€adjusting€the€child€support€amount€granted€to€Appellant,€theÐ €Ð Ðtrial€court€properly€analyzed€the€tax€ramifications€for€Appellee.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€designateÐ l¼ ÐAppellee€as€the€party€who€could€claim€the€deduction€was€within€the€courtððs€discretion.€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà ½ àSecond,€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€section€152€of€the€Internal€Revenue€Code€appearsÐ 0"€  Ðto€make€the€determination€of€dependency€exemptions€for€minor€children€an€inevitable€element€of€childÐ #l! Ðcustody€decisions.€€òòTravis€v.€Travisóó,€No.€E2000-01043-COA-R3-CV,€2001€WL€261543€at€*4€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCt.€App.€March€16,€2001).€€Here,€because€of€the€partiesðð€motions,€the€trial€court€was€deciding€theÐ ô$D # Ðcustody€of€Child€and€visitation€rights€of€the€parties.€€Thus,€the€determination€of€custody€and€visitationÐ à%0!$ Ðprecipitated€a€need€to€review€the€tax€deduction€issue€surrounding€the€decision.€€Again,€since€noÐ Ì&"% Ðargument€has€been€made€questioning€the€application€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€in€the€matter,€ourÐ ¸'#& Ðinquiry€into€this€issue€necessarily€ends€with€our€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€did€not€surpass€itsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðauthority€in€granting€the€deduction€to€Appellant.€€With€regard€to€Appellantððs€second€issue,€we€hold€thatÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€grant€Appellantððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€based€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfrivolity€of€Appelleeððs€motion.€€Section€36„5„103(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€governs€awards€ofÐ ° Ðattorneyððs€fees€in€proceedings€relating€to€child€support€and€child€custody:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8 ½ àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,€and€the€spouse€or€otherÐ tÄ Ðperson€to€whom€the€custody€of€the€child,€or€children,€is€awarded€may€recover€from€theÐ `° Ðother€spouse€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€in€enforcing€any€decree€for€alimonyÐ L œ Ðand/or€child€support,€or€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudication€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€the€parties,€both€uponÐ $ t Ðthe€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixedÐ  ` Ðand€allowed€by€the€court,€before€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÐ ü L  Ðdiscretion€of€such€court.Ðè 8 ½!½! ÐÌPursuant€to€this€statute,€attorneyððs€fees€are€granted€in€custody€decisions€only€at€the€discretion€of€theÐ À  Ðtrial€court.€€Where€a€trial€court€determines€that€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€would€be€inappropriate,Ð ¬ü  Ðinequitable,€or€unnecessary,€the€court€may€properly€choose€not€to€award€them.€€òòÔ_ÔDeasÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔDeasÔ_Ôóó,€774Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€167,€170€(Tenn.€1989).€€Thus,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Appellantððs€request€forÐ „Ô  Ðattorneyððs€fees€must€focus€on€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà ½ àWe€emphasize€that€the€grant€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€custody€cases€is€to€€protect€the€rights€of€theÐ H˜ Ðchildren,€not€the€rights€of€the€custodial€parents.€€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWixÔ_Ôóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 4„ Ð1993).€€Thus,€as€stated€in€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ôóó,€ð ðrequiring€parents€who€precipitate€custody€or€support€proceedingsÐ  p Ðto€underwrite€the€costs€if€their€claims€are€ultimately€found€to€be€unwarranted€is€appropriate€as€a€matterÐ  \ Ðof€policy.ðð€€òòId.óó€€However,€this€policy€must€still€be€balanced€with€the€insight€available€to€the€trial€courtÐ øH Ðin€determining€what€would€be€appropriate,€equitable,€and€necessary€in€each€case€before€it.€€€€€Ð ä4 Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àHere,€the€trial€courtððs€memorandum€opinion€proffered€a€reason€for€refusing€to€grant€AppellantððsÐ ¼  Ðrequest€for€attorneyððs€fees:€Appellee€at€least€needed€to€bring€a€petition€to€alter€the€visitation€agreementÐ ¨ø Ðbetween€the€parties.€€(TR,€Vol.€I,€p.€77).€€Apparently,€the€trial€court€deemed€that€even€though€AppelleeÐ ”ä Ðwas€unsuccessful€in€his€petition€for€full€custody€of€Child,€the€circumstances€still€warranted€action€ofÐ €Ð Ðsome€sort;€namely,€a€modification€of€the€visitation€agreement.€€Judging€from€the€record,€the€need€toÐ l¼ Ðalter€visitation€arose€from€Appellantððs€decision€to€move€with€Child€to€Missouri.€€The€trial€court€couldÐ X ¨ Ðeasily€have€viewed€Appellantððs€move€as€an€equitable€factor€in€refusing€to€grant€attorneyððs€fees,€as€theÐ D!” Ðservices€of€an€attorney€eventually€would€have€been€needed€by€both€parties.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà ½ àAppellant€asserts€that€Appelleeððs€claim€was€frivolous€in€two€respects.€€First,€Appellant€aversÐ $X" Ðthat€Appelleeððs€claim€for€full€custody,€which€was€eventually€denied,€was€based€solely€on€statementsÐ ô$D # Ðconcerning€Appellantððs€lifestyle€made€by€another€of€Appellantððs€ex„husbands.€€(Appellantððs€Brief,€P.Ð à%0!$ Ð12).€€This€argument,€however,€is€without€merit.€€In€Appelleeððs€motion€for€change€of€custody,€Appellee,Ð Ì&"% Ðbefore€even€mentioning€Appellantððs€alleged€lifestyle,€stated€that€his€visitation€with€Child€would€beÐ ¸'#& Ðhindered€by€Appellantððs€move€with€Child€to€Missouri.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà ½ àSecond,€Appellant€states€that€since€Appellee€was€in€Korea€at€the€time€of€her€move€and€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðunsure€of€where€his€next€military€assignment€would€be,€there€would€have€been€no€reason€for€a€changeÐ h+¸&* Ðin€the€visitation€agreement.€€€However,€this€assertion€is€also€without€merit.€€Appellee€had€beenÐ ° Ðreassigned€to€Tennessee€before€filing€his€motion.€€Accordingly,€at€the€time€the€motion€was€filed,€aÐ œì Ðgenuine€need€for€modifying€the€visitation€agreement€existed.€€Thus,€we€find€there€is€insufficientÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€grant€Appellant€attorneyððsÐ tÄ Ðfees.€€€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌà ½ àWith€regard€to€the€third€and€fourth€issues,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrant€full€custody€to€Appellee€or€in€revising€the€visitation€agreement€in€a€manner€consistent€withÐ $ t ÐChildððs€best€interest.€€Ô#†X±XXX±s.#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€custody€and€visitation€decision€is€governed€byÐ  ` ÐRule13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€ò òòòó óóóòòÔ_ÔRuyleÔ_Ôv.€Ô_ÔRuyleÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€441Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòKochv.€Kochóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Rule13(d)Ð è 8  Ðrequires€this€court,€in€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record,€to€presume€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ô$  Ðfactual€findings€are€correct,€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòó óóóòòTenn.€R.€App.Ð À  ÐP.óó€13(d).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà ½ àIn€applying€this€standard€of€review,€we€are€mindful€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]rialÔ_Ô€courts€are€vested€with€wideÐ „Ô  Ðdiscretion€in€matters€of€child€custodyðð€and€that€ð ðthe€appellate€courts€will€not€interfere€except€upon€aÐ pÀ Ðshowing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€that€discretion.ðð€€òòKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€Because€ð ð[Ô_Ôc]ustodyÔ_Ô€andÐ \¬ Ðvisitation€determinations€often€hinge€on€subtle€factors,€including€the€parentsðð€demeanor€and€credibilityÐ H˜ Ðduring€the€divorce€proceedings€themselves,ðð€appellate€courts€ð ðare€reluctant€to€second„guess€a€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourtððs€decisions.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔGaskillÔ_Ôv.€Ô_ÔGaskillÔ_Ôóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€The€courtsððÐ  p Ðparamount€concern€in€a€custody€case€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children.€Ð  \ Ðò òòòó óóóòòÔ_ÔRuyleÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€441;€òòKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€This€determination€necessarily€turns€on€theÐ øH Ðparticular€facts€of€each€case.€€òòKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.Ô#†X±XX X±U#ÔÔ‡X±XXX±Ôà % àÐ ä4 ÐÌà ½ àAfter€an€initial€award€of€custody€or€visitation,€a€party€seeking€modification€of€the€decree€mustÐ ¼  Ðshow€that€an€intervening,€material€change€in€the€childððs€circumstances€has€occurred€that€warrants€anÐ ¨ø Ðalteration€in€the€agreement€in€keeping€with€the€childððs€best€interests.€€òòÔ_ÔSolimaÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSolimaÔ_Ôóó,€7€S.W.3d€30,Ð ”ä Ð32€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Further,€in€order€to€justify€the€alteration€of€a€custodial€arrangement,€theÐ €Ð Ðchanged€circumstances€must€ð ðdirectly€affect€the€welfare€of€the€minor.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔMcReynoldsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔMcReynoldsÔ_Ôóó,Ð l¼ ÐNo.€01A01„9702„CH„00064,€1997€WL€607516€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€3,€1997)€(quoting€òòDaileyÐ X ¨ Ðv.€Daileyóó,€635€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981)).€€Ð D!” ÐÌà ½ àHere,€the€trial€courtððs€opinion€indicates€that€such€a€standard€was€indeed€applied.€€As€toÐ #l! ÐAppelleeððs€claim€that€Appellantððs€lifestyle€warranted€a€change€of€primary€custody,€the€court€noted€thatÐ $X" Ðonly€the€testimony€of€immoral€behavior€came€from€Appellantððs€ex„husband.€€Further,€even€whenÐ ô$D # Ðassuming€his€testimony€to€be€the€truth,€the€court€stated€that€Appellee€offered€no€credible€evidence€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðtended€to€show€any€disparate€effects€on€Childððs€welfare.€€Under€our€standard€of€review,€presuming€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€to€be€correct,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€refusing€to€grantÐ ¸'#& ÐAppellee€primary€custody.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà ½ àHowever,€as€the€trial€court€correctly€opined,€other€circumstances€did€exist€that€warranted€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðalteration€of€the€visitation€agreement.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€Appellantððs€move€to€MissouriÐ h+¸&* Ðconstituted€a€material€change€in€Childððs€circumstances.€€Further,€this€material€change€€resulted€in€aÐ ° Ðnegative€impact€on€Child€because€of€the€distance€Child€would€have€to€travel€for€visitation€withÐ œì ÐAppellee.€€Presuming€these€factual€findings€to€be€true,€the€trial€court€correctly€altered€the€visitationÐ ˆØ Ðagreement€to€coincide€with€the€new€circumstances.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àAppellant€argues€in€her€brief,€however,€that€the€visitation€granted€to€Appellee€is€not€in€the€bestÐ L œ Ðinterest€of€Child.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€new€visitation€ð ðhadÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€beðð€as€equivalent€as€possible€to€the€previous€agreement.€€If€this€were€the€case,€we€would€agree€withÐ $ t ÐAppellant€that€the€wrong€standard€was€used€by€the€trial€court.€Visitation€arrangements€should€alwaysÐ  ` Ðstrive€to€serve€the€best€interests€of€the€child€and€not€simply€retain€the€status€quo.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà ½ àOur€reading€of€the€trial€courtððs€opinion,€however,€reveals€a€different€stance€taken€by€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt.€€Because€of€the€distance€between€the€parties,€the€court€ruled€that€visitation€every€other€weekendÐ À  Ðwas€unworkable.€€Weekend€visitation€was€therefore€decreased€to€once€a€month€and€was€to€be€takenÐ ¬ü  Ðon€three€day€weekends,€when€possible,€because€of€the€time€spent€driving.€€The€one€week€a€month€thatÐ ˜è  ÐAppellee€was€to€spend€with€Child€was€also€discontinued.€€This€modification€resulted€in€Child€losingÐ „Ô  Ðconsiderable€time€with€Appellee.€€The€opinion€recites€only€that€it€is€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€courtððs€intention€to€makeÐ pÀ Ðup€for€that.ðð€€€Nowhere€does€the€opinion€indicate€that€the€court€felt€constrained€by€the€previousÐ \¬ Ðagreement.Ð H˜ ÐÌà ½ àBased€on€the€trial€courtððs€desire€to€create€other€times€for€Appellee€to€spend€time€with€Child,Ð  p Ðthe€court€extended€the€summer€visitation€from€four€weeks€to€the€entire€summer.€€Further,€the€courtÐ  \ Ðdetermined€that€one€week€during€Childððs€spring€break€was€to€be€spent€with€Appellee.€€In€the€end,€byÐ øH Ðour€math,€Appellant€will€actually€get€to€spend€more€time€with€Child€now€than€under€the€previousÐ ä4 Ðagreement.€€We€see€no€reason€to€question€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€selecting€the€visitation€grantedÐ Ð  Ðto€the€parties€and€therefore€affirm€its€decision.€€€€€€Ð ¼  ЀÌòòóóò òÓ  ÓConclusionó óÐ ”ä ÐÌÓ  Óà ½ àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appealÐ l¼ Ðare€taxed€equally€against€the€Appellant,€Sheila€Sue€Byrd,€and€the€Appellee,€David€Buhl,€for€whichÐ X ¨ Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ô#†X±XXX±¢]#ÔÔ#†¼_Ý»XX±L #ÔÔ€X±X»¼_ÝÔÐ D!” ÐÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð ô$D # Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE