WPC5 1Fy~y~؇W֛sk7mI؆o0\ܦ 0 0 0K 0 0 0| 0# 0 0_ 0 0 0C 0 0 0k! 0" 0" 0E#b# 0# 0i$ 1U % B-a% 0C%U@%%%&&'()-------------- 1uA0 720000000 00000 B11 01 D32 D-2 0K22 AS?33 0X4 0D4 A@5\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0ՑL1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJE1:i+00 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.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    TONYAHargrove P.J.HillhouseLawrenceburgSockwellAdelspergerNicholsSwettKendrickShoemakeBadenhopeCampanaliLumpkinsCapps AabyDeskbookHoalcraftSolimaMusselmanAcuffPlacenciaCaudillSuttlesHelsonEldridgedecline[dSynthia RegsIrick CasMemlMunfordCommn*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   - -&&& $_   x 23   x   ({2P$ !.8dd8     $359=AEIMQ111111111)Hairline d($    (9 Z(Times New Roman  R$      1  :  _4::Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL2151200,at*2. R$      2  :  _4::Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL21512000,at*2. R$      3  :  _4::Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL21512000,at*2;Grayv.Gray,78S.W.3dat884. R$      4  :  _4::Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL21512000,at*3;Grayv.Gray,78S.W.3dat884.  R$      5  :  _4::Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL21512000,at*2,3.Adissentingjusticecharacterizedthisholdingas   contrived.Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL21512000,at*4(Barker,J.,dissenting).Weconfessourinabilityto  understandhowaparentwhohasbeenawarded50%oftheparentingtimecanbedesignatedasaprimaryresidential H parentinlightofTenn.CodeAnn.366402(4)(2001)whichdefines primaryresidentialparentas theparentwith  L whomthechildspendsmorethanfiftypercent(50%)ofthetime.Ifachildisresidingwithaparentfor50%ofthe  time,thatsamechildcannotbespendingmorethan50%ofthetimewiththatsameparent.  R$      6  :  _4::Whenparentshavebeengrantedequalparentingtime,thedesignationas primaryresidentialparentwill  becomeahotlycontestedissuebecauseoftheperceptionthatitmighthavesomefuturevalue.Parentswhomight  otherwisebeinclinedtopaychildsupporttoequalizetheresourcesavailabletotheirchildrenwillnolongeroffertodo H paysupportbecauseitwillnecessarilyresultintheotherparentbeingdesignatedastheprimaryresidentialparent.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ji)(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  : d(|3O$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3O$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8EXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#(#Ԉ &   September7,2004Session  L XEX #XXE#MARKDIONDAVISv.TONYASMITHDAVISXEX   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforLawrenceCounty  J @@No.1054301StellaL.Hargrove,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200302312COAR3CVFiledOctober12,2004 #XXE|#XEX    AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealconcernsadisputeoverthecustodyofachildwhoislessthanthreeyearsold.Within   fourmonthsaftertheparentsdivorceintheChanceryCourtforLawrenceCounty,thefatherfiled   apetitiontomodifythepermanentparentingplanbecausethemotherwasobstructingand t discouraginghisvisitationwiththechild.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthe ` wifespostdivorceconductamountedtoamaterialchangeincircumstancesandthattheparents L shouldhaveequalresidentialtimewiththechild.Thetrialcourtalsorelievedthefatherofhischild 8x supportobligationinlightofthechangeinthepermanentparentingplan.Themotherhasappealed $d boththechangeinthepermanentparentingplanandtheterminationofherchildsupport.Whilewe P affirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontoawardtheparentsequalresidentialtime,wevacatethedecision < withregardtochildsupport.#XXE6#XEX (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  AffirmedinPartandVacatedinPart     #XEV #XEX.WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. p RandyHillhouse,Lawrenceburg,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TonyaSmithDavis. H   ChristopherV.Sockwell,Lawrenceburg,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MarkDionDavis.  "`" 8  OPINION #XXEg #XEX #8 $ #XXES #  XEX@) I.  %"&   MarkDavisandTonyaSmithDavis( Ms.Smith)marriedonNovember11,2000and '#( separatedfourmonthslater.Beforetheirseparation,thecoupleconceivedachild,KatieDavis,who ($) wasbornonDecember27,2001.TheyweredivorcedintheChanceryCourtforLawrenceCounty )%* inFebruary2002.ThepermanentparentingplantheyenteredintoatthattimeallowedMs.Smith l*&+ tocareforKatieatalltimesexceptfortwohourseachSunday,Tuesday,andThursday,certain X+', holidays,twoweeksduringeachsummer,andatothersuchtimesasbothpartiesagreed.The D,(- parentingplanfurtherprovidedthatallmajordecisionsregardingeducation,nonemergencyhealth 0-p). care,andreligionwouldbemadejointly. .\*/ Ї  Despitethespiritofcooperationreflectedinthepermanentparentingplan,Ms.Smithquickly  setaboutobstructingMr.DavisseffortstonurturehisrelationshipwithKatie.InJune2002,Mr.  DavisfiledapetitionintheChanceryCourtforLawrenceCountyassertingthatMs.Smithhad  deniedhimreasonablevisitationopportunitiesandhadrefusedtoconsultwithhimwhenmaking  majordecisionsconcerningKatie.HeallegedthatMs.Smithhadrefusedtoallowhimthetwo p weeksofsummervisitation.Mr.DavisalsoassertedthatwhileMs.Smithwasatworksheinsisted \ onplacingKatieindaycareeventhoughhewasavailabletocareforKatieduringtheday.In H  addition,heallegedthatMs.Smithmademajordecisionswithoutconsultinghim,including 4 t choosingKatiesdaycareandphysician.BecauseofMs.SmithseffortstoexcludehimfromKaties  ` life,Mr.DavisrequestedeithertohaveequalparentingtimewithKatieortobedesignatedasthe  L  primaryresidentialparent.  8    Ms.SmithdeniedMr.Davissallegationsandfiledacounterpetition,whichshewithdrew   attrial,allegingthatshehadconcernsastoMr.Davissparentingability.Shesoughtahomestudy,   counseling,increasedchildsupport,andarestrainingorderagainstMr.Davistopreventhimfrom   comingtoherwork,church,andKatiesdoctorsofficeanddaycare.Ms.SmithaccusedMr.Davis   ofexhibitingstrange,disruptive,andharassingbehavioraroundKatie.Shealsofiledamotionto  dismissMr.Davisspetitiontomodifytheparentingplan. l   ThetrialcourtdeclinedtodismissMr.DavisspetitionandconductedahearinginJuly2003. D Duringthehearing,bothpartiesstatedthattheoriginalparentingplanwasnotinKatiesbest 0p interests.Accordingly,thecourtawardedequalparentingtimetoMs.SmithandMr.Davisonan \ alternatingfourdayscheduleandterminatedMr.Davisschildsupportobligationaccordingly.After H notingthatitwasimpressedwithMr.DavissdesiretobeinvolvedinKatieslife,thecourtobserved 4 thatthepartiesinabilitytocommunicateeffectivelywasnotinKatiesbestinterestsand   recommendedindividualandgroupcounseling.Onthisappeal,Ms.Smithtakesissuewiththetrial   courtsdecisionstomodifythepermanentparentingplanandtoterminateherchildsupport.  @) II.  @hhTheStandardofReview  |   Custodyandvisitationdecisionsareamongthemostimportantdecisionsthatcourtsmake. T  Steenv.Steen,61S.W.3d324,327(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2d @!  482,484(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Theirchiefpurposeistopromotethechildswelfarebycreating ,"l! anenvironmentthatpromotesanurturingrelationshipwithbothparents.Aabyv.Strange,924 #X" S.W.2d623,629(Tenn.1996). $D #   Childrenthriveinstableenvironments.Aabyv.Strange,924S.W.2dat627;National %"% InterdisciplinaryColloquiumonChildCustody,LegalandMentalHealthPerspectivesonChild &#& CustodyLaw:ADeskbookforJudges5:1,at51(1998)( LegalandMentalHealthPerspectives '#' onChildCustodyLaw).Accordingly,thecourtsfavorexistingcustodyarrangements.Taylorv. ($( Taylor,849S.W.2d319,332(Tenn.1993);Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3d822,828(Tenn.Ct. )%) App.1999).Infact,acustodydecision,oncemadeandimplemented,isconsideredresjudicataupon x*&*  thefactsinexistenceorreasonablyforeseeablewhenthedecisionwasmade.Youngv.Smith,193 d+'+ Tenn.480,485,246S.W.2d93,95(1952);Steenv.Steen,61S.W.3dat327;Solimav.Solima,7  S.W.3d30,32(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).     Despiteapreferenceforcontinuingexistingcustodyarrangements,thecourtshave  recognizedthatthecircumstancesofchildrenandtheirparentschange.Accordingly,ourstatutes p anddecisionsempowerthecourtstoaltercustodyarrangementswheninterveningcircumstances \ requiremodifications.Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(1)(Supp.2003).Thus,courtsmaymodify H  anexistingcustodyarrangementwhenrequiredbyunanticipatedfactsorsubsequentlyemerging 4 t conditions.Smithv.Haase,521S.W.2d49,50(Tenn.1975);Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970  ` S.W.2dat485.Intheinterestsofstabilityinthechildslife,acourtshouldnotalteranexisting  L  custodyarrangementuntil(1)itissatisfiedeitherthatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedina  8  materialwaysincetheentryofthepresentlyoperativecustodydecreeorthataparents  $  circumstanceshavechangedinawaythataffectsthechildswellbeing,(2)ithascarefully   comparedthecurrentfitnessoftheparentstobethechildscustodian,and(3)ithasconcludedthat   changingtheexistingcustodyarrangementisinthechildsbestinterests.Kendrickv.Shoemake,   90S.W.3d566,570(Tenn.2002);Blairv.Badenhope,77S.W.3d137,150(Tenn.2002).     Therearenobrightlinerulesfordeterminingwhenachangeofcircumstancesshouldbe l deemedmaterialenoughtowarrantchanginganexistingcustodyarrangement.Kendrickv. X Shoemake,90S.W.3dat570;Taylorv.Taylor,849S.W.2dat327;Solimav.Solima,7S.W.3dat D 32.Thesedecisionsturnontheuniquefactsofeachcase.Asageneralmatter,however,the 0p followingprinciplesilluminatetheinquiry.First,thechangeofcircumstancesmustinvolveeither \ thechildscircumstancesoraparentscircumstancesthataffectthechildswellbeing.Kendrick H v.Shoemake,90S.W.3dat570.Second,thechangedcircumstancesmusthavearisenaftertheentry 4 ofthecustodyordersoughttobemodified.Turnerv.Turner,776S.W.2d88,90(Tenn.Ct.App.   1989).Third,thechangedcircumstancesmustnothavebeenreasonablyanticipatedwhenthe   underlyingdecreewasentered.Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat485.Fourth,thechange  incircumstancesmustaffectthechildswellbeinginsomematerialway.Kendrickv.Shoemake,  90S.W.3dat570;Blairv.Badenhope,77S.W.3dat150;Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3dat829.    Thepersonseekingtochangeanexistingcustodyarrangementhastheburdenof h demonstratingboththatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedmateriallyandthatthebestinterests T  ofthechildrequireachangeintheexistingcustodyarrangement.InreBridges,63S.W.3d346,348 @!  (Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Musselmanv.Acuff,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).The ,"l! thresholdquestioniswhethertherehasbeenamaterialchangeinthechildscircumstances. #X" Kendrickv.Shoemake,90S.W.3dat570;Blairv.Badenhope,77S.W.3dat150;Placenciav. $D # Placencia,48S.W.3d732,736(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Ifthepersonseekingthechangeofcustody $0!$ cannotdemonstratethatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedinsomematerialway,thetrialcourt %"% shouldnotreexaminethecomparativefitnessoftheparents,Caudillv.Foley,21S.W.3d203,213 &#& (Tenn.Ct.App.1999),orengageina bestinterestsofthechildanalysis.Rather,intheabsence '#' ofproofofamaterialchangeinthechildscircumstances,thetrialcourtshouldsimplydeclineto ($( changecustody.Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3dat828. )%)   Custodyandvisitationdecisionsoftenhingeonsubtlefactors,includingtheparents d+'+ demeanorandcredibilityduringthedivorceproceedingsthemselves.Adelspergerv.Adelsperger, P,(, 970S.W.2dat485.Accordingly,trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontofashioncustodyandvisitation  arrangementsthatbestsuittheuniquecircumstancesofeachcase.Parkerv.Parker,986S.W.2d  557,563(Tenn.1999);Suttlesv.Suttles,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988);Helsonv.Cyrus,989  S.W.2d704,707(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Itisnotourroleto tweak[thesedecisions]...inthe  hopesofachievingamorereasonableresultthanthetrialcourt.Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3d p 82,88(Tenn.2001). \   However,trialcourtsmustbasetheircustodyandvisitationdecisionsontheevidenceand 4 t onanappropriateapplicationoftherelevantlegalprinciples.Dv.K,917S.W.2d682,685(Tenn.  ` Ct.App.1995).Thus,wereviewthesedecisionsdenovoontherecordwithapresumptionthatthe  L  trialcourtsfindingsoffactarecorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Nicholsv.  8  Nichols,792S.W.2d713,716(Tenn.1990);Swettv.Swett,No.M199800961COAR3CV,2002  $  WL1389614,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.June27,2002)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Tenn.   R.App.P.13(d).Atrialcourtsdecisionregardingcustodyorvisitationshouldbesetasideonly   whenit fallsoutsidethespectrumofrulingsthatmightreasonablyresultfromanapplicationofthe   correctlegalstandardstotheevidencefoundintherecord.Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3dat88.   @^^( III. l @A A TheModificationoftheResidentialSchedule  X   Ms.Smithtakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisiontomodifytheresidentialscheduleontwo 0p grounds.First,sheassertsthatnomaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurredthatwouldrequire \ achangeintheresidentialschedule.Second,sheinsiststhatevenifthecircumstanceshadmaterially H changed,givingthepartiesequalparentingtimewasnotinKatiesbestinterest.Wedisagreewith 4 botharguments.     Aparentsfailuretoadheretotherequirementsofapermanentparentingplancanbe  consideredamaterialchangeincircumstances.Tenn.CodeAnn.36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(Supp.2003).  ThisrecordcontainsabundantevidencethatMs.Smithhasrefusedtoadheretotheplain  requirementsoftheparentingplanandthatshehaspurposelyanddeliberatelyembarkedonacourse | which,ifnotstopped,wouldeventuallyerodetherelationshipbetweenMr.DavisandKatie. h Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthecircumstanceshadchangedmaterially T  followingthedivorceisamplysupportedbytherecord. @!    Ms.SmithalsoassertsonappealthatMr.Davispresentednoevidencetoshowthatachange #X" inresidentialschedulewouldbeinKatiesbestinterests.Whilebothpartiesagreedattrialthatthe $D # permanentparentingplanwasnotworkingandthatitshouldbemodified,Ms.Smithinsiststhatthe $0!$ onlychangethatwaswarrantedwastogiveMr.Davisincreasedvisitationtime.Shearguesthatthe %"% trialcourtwenttoofarwhenitdecidedtograntthepartiesequalparentingtime.Again,wedisagree. &#&   ThetrialcourtconsideredsuchfactorsasKatiesyoungage,thestabilityofherrelationship ($( withbothparents,andthewillingnessandabilityofbothparentstocareforandaddressherneeds. )%) ThecourtnotedthatKatiesrelationshipswithbothparentsshouldbefosteredunlessinconsistent x*&* withKatiesbestinterests.Thetrialcourtfoundnosuchinconsistencyand,infact,concludedthat d+'+ ithaddiscovered nothingintherecordthatindicatesthefatherdoesnotprovidenurturingandlove P,(, toKatiewhilesheisinhiscareandcontrol.Aftercarefulreviewoftherecord,thisCourtfindsno  basisuponwhichtoholdthattheequalparentingplanisnotpresentlyinKatiesbestinterests.  Ѐ  Duringoralargument,thiscourtexpressedsomeconcernaboutthelongtermviabilityofthe  revisedresidentialschedulebecausetheparentsarecurrentlylivingindifferentcitiesthataremore p thanonehoursdriveapart.ShuttlingKatiebackandfortheveryfourdayswillnolongerbeinher \ bestinterestswhenshebeginsschool.Ms.Smithinsiststhatthesepotentialdifficultiesprovidea H  sufficientbasistovacatetherevisedresidentialscheduleandtodesignateherastheprimary 4 t residentialparent.Werespectfullydisagree.Courtsmustbasetheirdecisionsontheevidenceof  ` whathasalreadyhappened,notonspeculationaboutwhatmighthappeninthefuture.Theseparents  L  havethepowertoavoidthesepotentialdifficultiesbyworkingoutamutuallysatisfactoryparenting  8  arrangementonceKatiebeginsschool.  $  @dd) IV.    @[ [  TheTerminationofMr.DavissChildSupport      Ms.SmithalsotakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisiontorelieveMr.Davisofhischild  supportobligation.SheassertsthatthetrialcourterredbecauseMr.Davishadnotrequestedthe l courttomodifyhischildsupportandbecausethepartiesdidnotpresentevidenceregardingthe X factorsrelevanttochildsupportmodifications.WhilethetrialcourtsdecisiontoterminateMr. D Davisschildsupportobligationhadasoundlegalfoundationwhenitwasmade,arecentTennessee 0p SupremeCourtdecisionrequiresustoremandthecaseforfurtherproceedingsregardingchild \ support.SeeHopkinsv.Hopkins,___S.W.3d___,___,2004WL2151200(Tenn.2004). H   WhenthetrialcourtconductedtheJuly2003hearing,theprevailingviewwasthatonlya   parentwhospentagreateramountoftimewithhisorherchildwasentitledtoreceivechildsupport.   Grayv.Gray,78S.W.3d881,884(Tenn.2002).Accordingly,thiscourthadheldonatleasttwo  prioroccasionsthatneitherparentisentitledtochildsupportwhen(1)neitherparentisdesignated  astheprimaryresidentialparentand(2)theresidentialschedulegrantstheparentsequalparenting  time.Coxv.Cox,No.E2002020340COAR3CV,2003WL1797944,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar. | 31,2003)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Bailyv.Capps,No.M199902300COAR3 h CV,2001WL310643,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.2,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application T  filed).BecausethetrialcourthadawardedMr.DavisandMs.Smithpreciselyequalparentingtime, @!  neitheroneofthemwasentitledtochildsupportunderthelawasitstoodatthattime. ,"l!   Onthesamedaythatthiscourtfileditsoriginalopinioninthiscase,theTennesseeSupreme $D # Courthandeddownanopinionthatchangedthelawwithregardtotheeffectthatanawardofequal $0!$ parentingtimehasontheparentschildsupportobligations.Thecourt decline[d]toadoptabright %"% linerulethatnochildsupportisowedwhenachildsresidentialtimeisdividedequallybetweenthe &#& parents.Hopkinsv.Hopkins,___S.W.3d___,___,2004WL2151200,at*2(Tenn.2004). '#' ThisholdingunderminesthecontinuingvalidityofCoxv.CoxandBailyv.Cappsandrequiresus ($( towithdrawouroriginalopinion. )%)   Hopkinsv.Hopkinsinvolvestwoworkingparentswithsignificantlydifferentsalaries.Victor d+'+ HopkinssannualincomewasmorethantwiceasmuchasSynthiaHopkinssincome.Whenthey P,(, weredivorcedinJuly2002,thetrialcourtdeterminedthattheirchildrenwouldresidewithMr.  Hopkinsfor235daysayearanddirectedMs.HopkinstopayMr.Hopkins$681permonthinchild  support.Onappeal,Ms.HopkinsassertedthatthetrialcourthadawardedMr.Hopkinstoomuch  residentialtime.Thiscourtagreedanddeterminedthatthechildrensbestinterestswouldbebest  servedbydividingtheirphysicalcustodyequallybetweentheparents.WealsodecidedthatMr. p HopkinsshouldpayMs.Hopkins$800permonthinchildsupporttoequalizetheresourcesavailable \ tothechildren.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.r.124024.02(2)(e)(2003). H    Mr.HopkinsfiledaTenn.R.App.P.11applicationseekingreviewofthiscourtsdecision  ` torequirehimtopayMs.Hopkins$800permonthinchildsupport.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt  L  firstconcludedthatawardingequalparentingtimeis permissible.7 3  1      ׀Then,turningtotheissueof  8  childsupport,thecourtheld(1)thatdeterminingtheamountofchildsupportmustbedoneona  $  casebycasebasiswhentheparentshaveequalparentingtime,8T 3  2      ׀(2)thatreducingchildsupportto   zerowaspermissible,butnotnecessarilyrequired,whenparentingtimeisdividedequally,9 3  3      ׀(3)that   onlyparentsdesignatedastheprimaryresidentialparentareentitledtoreceivechildsupport,:l 3  4      ׀and   (4)thatthecourtsmustdesignateoneoftheparentsastheprimaryresidentialparentineverycase,   evenwhentheparentshavebeenawardedequalparentingtime.; 3  5      ׀Applyingtheseprinciplestothe  factsoftheHopkinscase,thecourtoverturnedourdecisiontorequireMr.HopkinstopayMs. l Hopkins$800permonthinchildsupportsolelybecausewehadnotdesignatedMs.Hopkinsasthe X primaryresidentialparent.Thecourtthenremandedthecasewithdirectionstoenteraparentingplan D designatingaprimaryresidentialparentandcalculatingchildsupport.Hopkinsv.Hopkins,2004WL 0p 2151200,at*3. \   OncetheTennesseeSupremeCourthasaddressedanissue,itsdecisionregardingthatissue 4 isbindingonthelowercourts.Statev.Irick,906S.W.2d440,443(Tenn.1995);Paynev.Johnson,   2Tenn.Cas.(Shannon)542,543(1877).Thus,thiscourtisboundtoadheretothedecisionsofthe   TennesseeSupremeCourt.Bingv.BaptistMemlHosp.,937S.W.2d922,925(Tenn.Ct.App.  1996);SchultzEstatev.Munford,Inc.,650S.W.2d37,39(Tenn.Ct.App.1982).Thecourthas  evenadmonishedusthatwearenotfreetodisregarditsdictumwhenthecourtisspeakingdirectly  onthematterbeforeitanditisseekingtogiveguidancetothebenchandbar.Holderv.Tennessee | JudicialSelectionCommn,937S.W.2d877,88182(Tenn.1996). h  T    WeareboundtofollowHopkinsv.Hopkinsdespitethepracticaldifficultiesthatwillsurely  followinitswake.< 3  6      ׀Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredfirstbyfailingtodesignate  eitherMr.DavisorMs.Smithastheprimaryresidentialparentandsecondbybasingitschild  supportdecisionsolelyonthefactthattheparentshadequalresidentialtime.We,therefore,vacate  theportionofthetrialcourtsfinalorderregardingchildsupportandremandthecasetothetrial p courtwithdirectionstodesignateaprimaryresidentialparentandtoaddressthequestionofchild \ supportasrequiredbytheHopkinsv.Hopkins. H  @) V.   `   Weaffirmtheportionofthejudgmentgrantingtheparentsequalresidentialtime.Wevacate  8  theportionofthejudgmentterminatingMr.Davisschildsupportobligationandremandthecase  $  foratimelyhearingconsistentwithHopkinsv.Hopkinsandthisopinion.Neitherpartyshallhave   anobligationtopaychildsupportunlessthetrialcourt,followingahearing,determinesthatchild   supportiswarranted.WetaxthecostsofthisappealinequalproportionstoTonyaSmithDavisand   hersuretyandtoMarkDionDavisforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      `     h     ______________________________ X    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.