ÿWPC= nžT+Äq¾ðMÅ\·T2Ä›4ȱA* ¥m ‡q ¾?T¤¹ [Ži‰?ˆÌÉvâe¶=êóŒÖÐëCtVÀ”߬†Ë Q$ ¥¿pbÒbÆþ©I{ûdêÿttߢªìV6Å&êâ¸f ­Úƒxû¦9ùþHYú5eöóU£Òù®ÖŒ?ù?µivÃiÞu½cA¨¢¸Wÿ¸éî­ŸÛ•‘5öÝ‹ÙâL;ɾØÒPÍOXB¹ÓÝtG ΂¾þò³'ÇúâU/<çÛéyy°`5ÂÀ^tTý þ1’ps¼ˆûˆ8Žú5“P"±<è‰`µ}ü®G#î+9PmkyK‘l§Œ¯/;ýp<ër]fºãèO@Þâjvd´:Óä— à¶´¬gßÊÒ";²?À¸Ófbd_¿ªXÉÏ$¾ã¶ç_–– yzT׎n8ŽÛõ'¡¸õþ¦˜4HÐ|¬d¢HʨŽsþd#?¸Ž…ò])M£¼X´‡X¡äj Ʊ‡Žœnà°ª“oŒ)—›±ðÐ$ëU¹Î÷#Ä^X%Ãiª´ÙîùCvë¯,„ÆË¦³ ÔîßHŒêdÎ ºÜÌi¥vÑáõ åb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 1‡O 1uÖ zK ÒÅ 72— ZÉ ^ # 0D/ÆsÆ9ÆÿÆÅ 0c‹Nîwð4ôE  mb222222222222222222222222222222222222 0ë:::: B%% 0¤B D3æ D- 0KFF AS‘Æä 0¤ª 0DN A«’˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpti) PÝ ƒRk¤$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAppellant€Father€raises€five€issues€in€his€brief,€however,€we€find€that€two€of€those€issues,€requiring€continuedÐ ° Ðsupervision€and€denying€Father€custody€of€the€Children,€are€one€and€the€same.ŽO/Ï (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  ào=/ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2k¤$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iñ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüò»»Ô d(|3Éi$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iñ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Éi$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iñ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Iñ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Iñ»»»ÔÑ8€%XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îB„IñÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Iñ»îîB„#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€18,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔÌò òÔ#†¼Iñ»XX%#ÔCHRISTOPHER€D.€Ô_ÔDIRRÔ_Ôòòóó€Ð úJ Ðv.€Ð  ^ ÐLOUISE€ð ðLUCYðð€Y.€Ô_ÔDIRRÔ_Ô€(Ô_ÔLEDBETTERÔ_Ô)€M.D.òòóóÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔó óÐ " r ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Maury€CountyÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„157€€€€€€Robert€L.€Jones,€ChancellorÐ ^  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„03049„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€15,€2003ó óÔ#†¼Iñ»XX%"#ÔÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔò òÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X%XXX%ÔThis€case€involves€a€child€custody€dispute€between€the€parents€of€two€minor€children.€€In€the€originalÐ  ð Ðdivorce€action,€mother€was€granted€an€absolute€divorce€and€sole€custody€of€the€two€children€andÐ ŒÜ Ðfather€was€granted€supervised€visitation.€€Father€has€since€brought€proceedings€seeking€to€modifyÐ xÈ Ðthe€custody€arrangement€and€appeals€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€Maury€County€to€thisÐ d´ ÐCourt.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court.Ð P  ÐÔ#†X%XXX%#ÔÔ#†¼Iñ»XX%á#ÔÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔÌÓsÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Iñ»àX%*#ÔÔ‡X%X.¼IñÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ ì< Ðand€òòHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌChristopher€D.€Ô_ÔDirrÔ_Ô,€òòpro€seóó,€Nashville,€TNÐ ° ÐÌJerry€C.€Ô_ÔColleyÔ_Ô,€Mark€A.€Free,€Columbia,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ ˆ!Ø  ÐÓÉÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Iñ»XX%ø#ÔÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔÐ `#°" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Iñ»XX% #ÔÔ‡X%X»¼IñÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X%XXX%Ôà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ 8%ˆ $ ÐÌà  àLouise€Ô_ÔLedbetterÔ_Ô€("Mother")€was€awarded€an€absolute€divorce€from€Christopher€Ô_ÔDirrÔ_ÔÐ '`"& Ð("Father")€in€September€1997€on€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€addition,€the€courtÐ ü'L#' Ðbelow€found€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€two€minor€children,€Rachael€and€Robert€(collectivelyÐ è(8$( Ðthe€"Children"),€that€Mother€be€awarded€sole€custody€while€Father€only€have€supervised€visitationÐ Ô)$%) Ðtwice€during€the€week€and€for€alternating€weekends.€€The€trial€court,€the€Honorable€JamesÐ À*&* ÐÔ_ÔWeatherfordÔ_Ô€sitting€by€designation,€found€that€Father's€"puppy€dog€kissing"€or€"tongue€touching"Ð ¬+ü&+ Ðwith€Rachael€constituted€inappropriate€conduct,€and€the€evidence€of€that€conduct,€along€with€theÐ ˜,è', Ðentire€testimony€of€those€proceedings,€warranted€supervised€visitation.€Ð „-Ô(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àOn€November€14,€1997,€the€court€held€a€hearing€on€Father's€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÐ ° Ðfinal€judgment€and€denied€that€motion.€€The€Father€petitioned€the€court€to€modify€the€final€decreeÐ œì Ðof€divorce€on€April€20,€1999,€alleging€that€his€attendance€at€counseling€sessions€and€Mother'sÐ ˆØ Ðremarriage€to€a€person€with€a€teenage€boy€constituted€a€material€change€in€circumstances,€such€thatÐ tÄ Ðhe€should€be€awarded€at€least€unsupervised€visitation.€€Following€this€petition,€a€series€of€motionsÐ `° Ðfor€restraining€orders€and€changes€in€the€visitation€schedule€were€filed€by€the€parties.€€A€hearing€onÐ L œ Ðthe€petition€was€held€in€August€2000€before€the€Honorable€Robert€Jones,€and€an€order€was€issuedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€same€month€finding€there€had€been€no€material€change€in€circumstances€that€might€warrant€aÐ $ t Ðchange€in€the€visitation€arrangement.€€Immediately€following€this€order,€Father€filed€a€motion€to€alterÐ  ` Ðor€amend€the€August€2000€order€and€a€hearing€was€held€on€October€24,€2000.€€The€lower€court,€inÐ ü L  Ðan€order€dated€January€19,€2001,€denied€Father's€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€visitation€schedule.€Ð è 8  ÐThat€order€directed€Father€and€Mother€to€each€submit€plans€to€the€court€which€would€phase€outÐ Ô$  Ðsupervised€visitation€in€an€attempt€to€move€towards€a€forty„eight€hour,€unsupervised€visitationÐ À  Ðschedule€for€Father.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€court€adopted€most€of€the€provisions€of€Mother's€plan€drawn€up€by€a€qualified€socialÐ „Ô  Ðworker,€Bonnie€Beneke€("Beneke"),€in€a€hearing€on€March€20,€2001.€€Father,€Mother€and€theÐ pÀ ÐChildren€were€to€attend€counseling€individually€with€Beneke,€and€Father€stated€he€would€do€so€withÐ \¬ Ðthe€right€frame€of€mind.€€In€that€same€hearing,€Father€was€ordered€by€the€trial€court€to€pay€$22,000Ð H˜ Ðof€Mother's€attorney's€fees€taking€into€account€Father's€financial€situation€and€balancing€that€withÐ 4„ Ðthe€fact€that€Father€has€proceeded€òòpro€seóó€since€April€17,€2000.€€Although€Father€was€ordered€toÐ  p Ðattend€sessions€for€a€minimum€of€three€months,€Father€only€attended€three€sessions€holding€his€lastÐ  \ Ðone€on€April€20,€2001.€€The€sessions€ceased€because€Father€presented€pictures€of€him€and€RachaelÐ øH Ð"tongue€touching,"€and€Beneke€stated€her€opinion€that€such€an€act€was€"sexual"€in€nature.€€Father'sÐ ä4 Ðtemper€flared€and€Beneke€asked€that€Father€leave€her€office,€which€he€did.€€These€events€wereÐ Ð  Ðtestified€to€in€a€hearing€on€September€5,€2001.€€In€addition,€Beneke€stated€that,€while€the€ChildrenÐ ¼  Ðwere€both€well„adjusted,€Robert€had€fears€of€his€Father,€Rachael€feared€that€her€Father€would€notÐ ¨ø Ðreturn€them€to€their€Mother€if€they€were€not€supervised,€and€the€Children€wanted€supervision€on€theirÐ ”ä Ðvisits€with€their€Father.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àA€final€hearing€was€held€on€October€23,€2001,€and€the€trial€court€decided€that€the€partiesððÐ X ¨ Ðrights€and€obligations€with€respect€to€the€Children€would€be€governed€by€the€original€divorce€decreeÐ D!” Ðfiled€September€3,€1997,€and€the€amended€and€restated€order€filed€January€19,€2001.€€A€final€orderÐ 0"€  Ðwas€filed€on€November€6,€2001,€adjudicating€all€the€issues€which€had€been€before€the€court€in€theÐ #l! Ðhearings€on€March€20,€July€27,€September€5,€and€October€23,€2001,€and€that€order€was€amended€onÐ $X" ÐNovember€27,€2001,€upon€a€motion€of€the€Mother.€€Father€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€to€thisÐ ô$D # ÐCourt€on€December€7,€2001,€raising€the€following€issues€for€our€review׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£c ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€continued€supervision€of€the€Father'sÐ ¸'#& Ðvisitation€with€the€Children€and€not€awarding€Father€custody€of€the€Children;݃3£c œ ݌Ф(ô#'` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ê!ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€issuing€an€order€for€closure€for€a€case€open€to€theÐ ° Ðpress€for€years;݃3£ê!#"݌Мì` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£9#ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€a€portion€of€legal€fees€to€Appellee€MotherÐ ˆØ Ðrather€than€awarding€legal€fees€to€Appellant€Father;€and݃3£9#r#ÝŒÐtÄ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£±$ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIVÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€Chancellors€Jim€Hamilton€and€Robert€Jones€acted€at€aÐ `° Ðminimum€with€the€appearance€of€impropriety€such€that€reasonable€minds€would€haveÐ L œ Ðthe€perception€that€the€Chancellors,€in€carrying€out€their€judicial€responsibilities,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwere€impaired€with€respect€to€the€following:€integrity,€impartiality,€or€competence.݃3£±$ê$ÝŒÐ$ t` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ 'ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚVÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  Ý݃3£ 'D'݌Р`` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝFor€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm€the€trial€court€on€these€issues.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ  Óò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBecause€this€case€was€tried€without€a€jury,€our€review€of€these€issues€is€governed€byÐ ¬ü  ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d),€which€states€that€a€"review€of€findings€of€fact€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court€in€civil€actions€shall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€aÐ „Ô  Ðpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ pÀ Ðotherwise."€€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€We€are€mindful€that€with€cases€involving€custody€arrangements,Ð \¬ Ð"the€details€of€custody€of€and€visitation€with€children€are€peculiarly€within€the€broad€discretion€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€Trial€Judge€whose€decisions€are€rarely€disturbed."€€òòEdwards€v.€Edwardsóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€291Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).Ð  p ÐÌÓ  Óò òSupervision€and€Custodyó óÐ øH ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€determining€whether€or€not€supervision€of€visitation€is€necessary,€courts€are€directed€byÐ Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„301€(2001).€€That€section€states€that€"[i]f€the€court€finds€that€the€non„Ð ¼  Ðcustodial€parent€has€physically€or€emotionally€abused€the€child,€the€court€may€require€that€visitationÐ ¨ø Ðbe€supervised€or€prohibited€until€such€abuse€has€ceased€or€until€there€is€no€reasonable€likelihood€thatÐ ”ä Ðsuch€abuse€will€recur."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„301€(2001).€€When€considering€a€decision€of€theÐ €Ð Ðtrial€court,€we€are€reminded€that€"[t]he€trial€court€is€accorded€broad€discretion€in€deciding€issues€ofÐ l¼ Ðchild€custody€and€visitation,€and€appellate€courts€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court's€decisionsÐ X ¨ Ðabsent€a€showing€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion."€€òòAyers€v.€Ayersóó,€2000€WL€791815,€at€*5Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòWhitaker€v.€Whitakeróó,€957€S.W.2d€834,€838€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);Ð 0"€  ÐòòBrumit€v.€Brumitóó,€948€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)).€€In€addition,€though€the€statuteÐ #l! Ðmentions€situations€of€abuse€in€ordering€supervised€visitation,€Tennessee€courts,€refusing€to€undulyÐ $X" Ðrestrict€a€trial€court's€discretion,€have€held€previously€that€this€statute€does€not€prevent€courts€fromÐ ô$D # Ðordering€supervised€visitation€in€the€absence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse.€€òòSpiegel€v.€Spiegelóó,Ð à%0!$ Ð1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€88,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Finally,€"[i]f€the€issue€before€the€court€isÐ Ì&"% Ða€modification€of€the€court's€prior€decree€pertaining€to€custody€or€a€residential€parentingÐ ¸'#& Ðarrangement,€the€petitioner€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€a€material€change€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcircumstance."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„1„101(a)(2)(B)€(2001).€€If€a€court€finds€that€there€has€beenÐ )à$( Ða€"material€change€in€circumstances,"€then€the€court€must€determine€if€a€change€in€the€custodyÐ |*Ì%) Ðarrangement€is€in€the€child's€best€interest€using€the€factors€enumerated€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð h+¸&* Ð106€(2001).€€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€90€S.W.3d€566,€570€(Tenn.€2002);€òòCranston€v.€Combsóó,€106Ð ° ÐS.W.3d€641,€644€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003);€òòSolima€v.€Solimaóó,€7€S.W.3d€30,€32€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€Ð œì ÐAfter€our€review€of€the€record,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€there€has€been€no€material€changeÐ ˆØ Ðin€circumstances€from€the€time€of€the€amended€and€restated€order€in€January€2001€to€the€time€of€theÐ tÄ Ðfinal€order€rendered€in€November€2001.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWhile€the€court€below€found€no€evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€by€the€Father€in€itsÐ 8 ˆ ÐJanuary€2001€order€or€its€November€2001€order,€as€stated€above,€a€trial€court€need€not€find€evidenceÐ $ t Ðof€abuse€in€order€to€find€that€supervised€visitation€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€òòSpiegelóó,€1997Ð  ` ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€88,€at€*7.€€Though€no€evidence€has€been€presented€showing€that€Father€hasÐ ü L  Ð"tongue€touched"€with€either€of€the€Children€since€the€divorce€hearing€in€1997,€the€court€belowÐ è 8  Ðfound,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against,€the€fact€that€"counseling"€for€Father€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðbe€appropriate,€and€Father€refused€to€meet€with€Beneke€after€only€three€sessions€when€he€wasÐ À  Ðsupposed€to€attend€a€minimum€of€six€as€ordered€by€the€court€in€the€March€2001€hearing.€€Instead,Ð ¬ü  Ðhe€became€defensive€when€Beneke€offered€her€professional€opinion€about€the€act€of€"tongueÐ ˜è  Ðtouching"€with€Rachael.€€And,€while€the€court€also€found€that€Mother€and€Beneke€did€contribute€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€lack€of€progress€towards€unsupervised€visitation,€it€found,€and€the€evidence€supports,€thatÐ pÀ ÐFather's€actions€were€more€substantial€than€Beneke's€and€Mother's€combined.€€Given€the€testimonyÐ \¬ Ðabout€Father's€outburst€directed€at€Beneke€for€offering€her€opinion€to€Father€about€"tongue€touching,"Ð H˜ Ðthe€testimony€that€he€followed€a€former€babysitter€of€the€Children€in€his€car,€and€the€remainder€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€testimony€offered€in€the€four€hearings€in€2001,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÐ  p Ðfinding€that€no€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€such€that€it€would€be€in€the€bestÐ  \ Ðinterests€of€the€Children€to€change€the€custody€arrangement.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  Óò òOrder€for€Closureó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àNext,€Appellant€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€prohibited€the€media€fromÐ ¨ø Ðpublishing,€or€either€of€the€parties€from€communicating,€any€testimony€about€the€Children,€theirÐ ”ä Ðidentity,€or€the€names€of€the€Mother€and€Father.€€We€find€we€need€not€address€the€validity€of€thisÐ €Ð Ðargument€as€Appellant€Father€lacks€standing€on€this€issue.€€Generally,€a€requirement€of€"standing"Ð l¼ Ðis€that€the€party€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àmust€demonstrate€a€distinct€and€palpable€injury€that€is€likely€to€be€redressed€if€aÐ 0"€  Ðrequested€relief€is€granted.€€At€the€core€of€the€standing€doctrine€is€the€requirementÐ #l! Ðthat€a€plaintiff€allege€personal€injury€fairly€traceable€to€the€defendant's€allegedlyÐ $X" Ðunlawful€conduct€and€likely€to€be€redressed€by€the€requested€relief.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÓ XaAÓÌ32A€Am.€Jur.€2d€Federal€Courts€ðð€679€(2003)€(footnotes€omitted).€€Appellant€Father€does€not€allegeÐ Ì&"% Ðan€injury€as€a€result€of€the€trial€court's€order€closing€the€identity€of€the€parties€and€the€Children€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðmedia€coverage,€nor€does€he€allege€how€this€court€may€redress€any€injury€he€could€have€sustained.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐTherefore,€this€Court€need€not€address€the€merits€of€the€argument€against€the€trial€court's€order€forÐ )à$( Ðclosure.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓ  Óò òÐ h+¸&* ÐAttorney's€Feesó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àNext,€Appellant€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Appellee€Mother€$22,000Ð ˆØ Ðin€attorney's€fees.€€He€argues€the€trial€court€erred€because€he€has€much€fewer€resources€than€AppelleeÐ tÄ ÐMother,€who€is€a€medical€doctor€by€trade.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(2001)€addresses€theÐ `° Ðawarding€of€attorney's€fees€in€child€custody€cases€and€states:Ð L œ ÐÌÒ½°ÒÓ'°,XX€%ŒX°œX'Óà0  àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,€and€the€spouse€or€otherÐ $ t 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 ü L  Ðand/or€child€support,€or€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudication€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€the€parties,€both€uponÐ Ô$  Ðthe€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixedÐ À  Ðand€allowed€by€the€court,€before€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€òòin€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscretion€of€such€courtóó.Иè !! ÐÌÒ°½ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(2001)€(emphasis€added).€€In€addition,€Tennessee€courts€have€foundÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€ability€to€pay€is€not€the€controlling€consideration€with€regard€to€awards€of€attorney's€fees€inÐ \¬ Ðcustody€or€support€proceedings.€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòBjorkÐ H˜ Ðv.€Bjorkóó,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€712,€at€*23€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Ability€to€pay€is€still€certainlyÐ 4„ Ða€factor€for€trial€courts€to€consider,€and€from€the€record,€it€appears€the€trial€court€balanced€theÐ  p ÐAppellant€Father's€ability€to€pay€with€the€fact€that€Father,€by€acting€òòpro€seóó,€likely€caused€theÐ  \ Ðproceedings€to€last€much€longer€than€if€he€were€represented€by€counsel.€€We€find€that,€given€thisÐ øH Ðbalancing€by€the€trial€court,€the€court€below€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€awarding€Appellee€MotherÐ ä4 Ða€portion€of€her€legal€fees.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò òImpartiality,€Integrity,€and€Competency€of€the€Chancellorsó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFinally,€Appellant€Father€argues€in€his€brief,€though€he€makes€few€references€to€the€record,Ð €Ð Ðthat€two€Chancellors€of€Maury€County,€the€Honorable€Jim€Hamilton€and€the€Honorable€RobertÐ l¼ ÐJones,€lacked€impartiality,€integrity,€and€competence.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€argument.€€AdverseÐ X ¨ Ðdecisions€alone€are€not€grounds€to€find€that€a€trial€court€judge€is€guilty€of€lacking€such€qualities.€Ð D!” ÐIndeed,€even€though€Judge€Jones€warned€Appellant€Father,€when€he€decided€to€proceed€òòpro€seóó,€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhe€would€be€held€to€the€same€standards€as€an€attorney,€he€still€granted€Father€what€this€Court€wouldÐ #l! Ðconsider€much€latitude€during€the€hearings€in€the€trial€court.€€After€an€extensive€review€of€the€record,Ð $X" Ðwe€find€there€is€no€evidence€that€either€Judge€Hamilton€or€Judge€Jones€lacked€impartiality,€integrity,Ð ô$D # Ðor€competency.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  Óò òÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐConclusionó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court.€€Costs€are€adjudgedÐ ˆØ Ðagainst€Appellant,€Christopher€D.€Dirr,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€Ð tÄ ÐÌò òó óÌÌÔ#†X%XXX%‘ #ÔÔ#†¼Iñ»XX%c #ÔÔ€X%X»¼IñÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE