ÿWPCÇ ‚ƒ*‘ݲ &š•ªR^P!J& £_X¡ÀÂ˪ ,¦W v2V 1 Æ]!B{àÑcù´)Á±¼õ¢f^© JƵªi‹rüžÃíÿ)o8ðŸ6®ƒ3ÿ&ÐÞË'£À—d}OÚáêcˆƒ”…чõz ñÌË5 `óæ´ƒØÞ0DRýNßU+@Ím> Äaü”?…Dð2Ó~Á,S°¤s’Sîð‹ñ:—’óú1oêõr5IýÇø¯•vb"o?mqarå ¹a¿¤£X"K]?[+ )Fˆ߇â—f¤ñÀu¼©!†óóäp1ÕLGà”ìŽõ?ê‚€À¯@Ô€x¿%Í æ´WËl;ù5yy-Ÿ.Bß,Ìñ×È…cšßð;a+Xr½âÊF@€kŒ0B¼ß¿a%TލëþZi•5¸¢ãc]˜É0ÁUg¤Û’p‰-ïíp« aæ$ K£®Ÿò³§ÎîïtÜmVÒbšûЇZdšŽßpœè;:Q(âœE+ÏÉòžÚÿât‘E× øñŠ?C¶l_dþÝ®½.øÄe2'½¤sYp:îj}hñ8ì/n»®»èh¡šlÿå¿W³½è>Í,b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ñNt 0DvvEººººººººººººººººººººººººb¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ 0ëÄÄÄÄ B¯¯ 0¤Ì D3p D-£ 0KÐÐ ASÆn 0¤4 0DØ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¸t) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)`|Ÿ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ¹Ý ƒR¾ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€issue€of€child€support€is€not€before€us€on€this€appeal.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2¾ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëò»»Ô d(|3G$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÕ»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îIVÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼VÕ»îîI #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€12,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼VÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÕ»XXõ#ÔCLIFTON€DEAN€FAINòòóó€v.€SUSAN€LORRAINE€FAINòòóóÔ‡XX»¼VÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€25074€€€€€€Russ€Ô_ÔHeldmanÔ_Ô,€Chancellor€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02261„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€29,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€post„divorce€proceeding,€Clifton€Dean€Fain€(ð ðFatherðð)€filed€a€petition€seeking€sole€custodyÐ xÈ  Ðof€the€partiesðð€minor€child.€€Susan€Lorraine€Fain€(ð ðMotherðð)€counterclaimed€for€a€modification€ofÐ d´ Ðthe€joint€custody€arrangement€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€sole€custody€of€the€child.€€The€trial€courtÐ P  Ðawarded€Mother€sole€custody.€€Father€appeals€the€award€of€sole€custody€to€Mother.€He€alsoÐ <Œ Ðchallenges€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Mother€and€questions€the€fairness€of€the€quantum€of€hisÐ (x Ðvisitation€time€with€the€child.€€Mother€seeks€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.€€We€affirm.Ð d ÐÓÔÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VÕ»àXo#ÔÔ‡XX.¼VÕÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ ° ÐòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌLew€Conner,€Grant€C.€Ô_ÔGlassfordÔ_Ô,€and€Bryan€E.€Ô_ÔPieperÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð tÄ ÐClifton€Dean€Fain.Ð `° ÐÌCharles€G.€Ô_ÔBlackardÔ_Ô,€III,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Susan€Lorraine€Fain.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓRÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VÕ»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼VÕÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VÕ»XX #ÔÔ€XX»¼VÕÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ§ ÓÌà  àClifton€Dean€Fain€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Susan€Lorraine€Fain€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€divorced€by€judgmentÐ À&"& Ðof€the€trial€court€entered€March€6,€1998.€€Pursuant€to€the€partiesðð€marital€dissolution€agreement,€theyÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwere€awarded€joint€custody€of€Clifton€Dean€Fain,€II€(DOB:€December€27,€1989)€(ð ðDeanðð),€the€onlyÐ ˜(è#( Ðchild€of€this€marriage.€€Father€was€designated€as€the€primary€custodian.€€The€marital€dissolutionÐ „)Ô$) Ðagreement€sets€forth€the€childððs€residential€schedule€as€follows:Ð p*À%* ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€child€shall€reside€with€his€mother€each€week€from€after€school€onÐ H,˜', ÐMonday€to€Tuesday€morning€before€school€and€from€Wednesday€afterÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôschool€to€Thursday€before€school.€€In€the€event€there€is€no€school,€theÐ ° Ðtime€shall€run€from€5:00€p.m.€in€the€afternoon€until€8:00€a.m.€in€theÐ œì Ðmornings.€€The€mother€shall€have€the€child€on€alternate€weekendsÐ ˆØ Ðfrom€Friday€after€school€(or€5:00€p.m.)€through€Tuesday€beforeÐ tÄ Ðschool€(or€8:00€a.m.).Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àOn€July€29,€1998,€Father€filed€a€petition€seeking€sole€custody€of€the€child.€€Mother€filed€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðanswer,€denying€that€a€material€change€of€circumstances€had€occurred€that€would€warrant€a€changeÐ $ t Ðof€joint€custody€and€requesting€that€the€joint€custodial€arrangement€not€be€dissolved.€€In€aÐ  ` Ðcounterclaim,€however,€Mother€requested€a€modification€of€the€residential€schedule€so€that€the€childÐ ü L  Ðwould€reside€with€her€during€the€school€week€and€with€Father€on€the€weekends.€€Mother€also€statedÐ è 8  Ðin€her€counterclaim€ð ðthat€if€the€Court€finds€a€change€of€circumstance€that€it€would€be€in€the€bestÐ Ô$  Ðinterest€of€the€minor€child€that€custody€be€placed€with€her€and€that€the€Father€have€visitation.ðð€€AÐ À  Ðhearing€was€held€on€the€competing€petitions€to€change€the€custodial€arrangement€on€March€3,€1999.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€testimony€at€trial€revealed€the€facts€that€follow.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àFather€is€a€computer€analyst€and€lives€in€Brentwood,€Tennessee.€€He€remarried€in€April,Ð pÀ Ð1998.€€His€new€wife,€Connie€Fain,€has€two€children€by€a€prior€marriage.€€In€addition,€one€child€hasÐ \¬ Ðbeen€born€to€Father€and€Connie€Fain.€€By€all€accounts,€Dean€is€very€close€to€his€stepsiblings€and€getsÐ H˜ Ðalong€well€with€his€stepmother.€€Father€admitted€that€he€had€lived€with€Connie€Fain€prior€to€theirÐ 4„ Ðmarriage.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àMother€is€employed€by€General€Electric€Health€Care€and€lives€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€AfterÐ øH Ðthe€partiesðð€divorce,€she€began€dating€Brian€Baker.€€Because€Mr.€Baker€resides€in€Florida,€MotherÐ ä4 Ðand€the€child€have€made€trips€to€Florida€to€visit€him.€€Mr.€Baker€also€visits€Mother€in€Tennessee,Ð Ð  Ðoften€staying€for€a€week€at€a€time.€€Dean€testified€that€during€these€visits,€Mr.€Baker€and€MotherÐ ¼  Ðshared€a€room€together.€€Mother€testified€that€she€and€Mr.€Baker€intended€to€marry,€but€had€noÐ ¨ø Ðdefinite€plans€because€of€his€inability€to€transfer€his€employment€to€Tennessee.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àFather€and€Connie€Fain€both€testified€that€they€felt€their€household€offered€more€structureÐ l¼ Ðand€routine€for€Dean.€€Father€claimed€that€Mother€rarely€cooks€and€often€takes€the€child€toÐ X ¨ Ðrestaurants€for€meals.€€Father€testified€that€he€has€always€been€Deanððs€primary€caregiver,€even€whenÐ D!” Ðthe€parties€were€married.€€Several€of€Fatherððs€relatives€also€testified€that€they€considered€Father€toÐ 0"€  Ðbe€Deanððs€primary€caregiver.€€Mother€disputed€Fatherððs€testimony.€€She€described€Deanððs€dailyÐ #l! Ðroutine€while€at€her€home€and€testified€that€they€eat€out€only€occasionally.€€Mother€asserted€that€theÐ $X" Ðcaregiving€responsibilities€were€always€shared€by€the€parties€during€their€marriage.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àBoth€Mother€and€Father€testified€that€the€current€custodial€arrangement€ð!ð€essentially€a€day„to„Ð Ì&"% Ðday€ð ðswapðð€ð!ð€is€not€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€Mother€testified€that€a€week„to„weekÐ ¸'#& Ðarrangement€would€be€better€than€a€day„to„day€exchange.€€Father€rejected€the€alteration€of€the€jointÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcustody€arrangement€to€a€week„to„week€rotation,€opining€that€such€an€arrangement€would€still€resultÐ )à$( Ðâ âin€instability€and€confusion€for€Dean.€€Connie€Fain€testified€that€she€did€not€think€a€week„to„weekÐ |*Ì%) Ðarrangement€would€be€appropriate€because€it€would€not€settle€the€ð ðconflict€of€different€parentingÐ ° Ðstyles.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àBy€all€accounts,€Dean€is€performing€well€in€school€and€is€involved€in€several€extracurricularÐ tÄ Ðactivities.€€Father€was€an€assistant€coach€of€Deanððs€football€team.€€Mother€often€attended€DeanððsÐ `° Ðfootball€practices,€even€though€Dean€was€not€in€her€custody€on€those€particular€days.€€Dean€testifiedÐ L œ Ðthat€Father€would€get€upset€with€him€for€talking€to€Mother€at€practice.€€Father€testified€that€he€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðno€problem€with€Mother€attending€Deanððs€football€games;€however,€he€admitted€that€he€did€not€likeÐ $ t ÐMother€attending€the€daily€practices€because€it€ð ðputs€[Dean]€in€the€middleðð€and€forces€him€to€chooseÐ  ` Ðbetween€his€parents.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMother€testified€that€she€often€calls€or€sends€e„mails€to€Dean€while€he€is€at€Fatherððs€home.€Ð Ô$  ÐDean€testified€that€Father€often€gets€angry€when€Mother€calls.€€Dean€also€stated€that€he€does€not€getÐ À  Ðto€call€Mother€from€Fatherððs€home€ð ð[b]ecause€itððs€my€day€to€be€over€there,€and€my€dad€doesnððt€likeÐ ¬ü  Ðit€when€I€call€her.€€Unless€itððs€something€that€I€really€need,€then€I€can€call€her.ðð€€Father€testified€thatÐ ˜è  ÐMotherððs€frequent€calls€ð ðjust€keeps€[Dean]€stirred€up.ðð€€Connie€Fain€testified€that€Motherððs€calls€andÐ „Ô  Ðe„mails€ð ðstress[]€Dean€out.ðð€€Father€stated€that€he€desires€less€contact€from€Mother€while€Dean€is€inÐ pÀ Ðhis€custody€because€ð ðthat€is€our€time€to€be€with€him.ðð€€On€the€other€hand,€Dean€reported€that€MotherÐ \¬ Ðdoes€not€get€angry€whenever€he€calls€Father€and€that€she€in€fact€encourages€him€to€call.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àConnie€Fain€admitted€that€she€used€derogatory€language€toward€Mother€on€one€occasion€andÐ  p Ðthat€her€remarks€were€overheard€by€the€child.€€The€incident€occurred€on€Christmas€Eve,€1998,€threeÐ  \ Ðmonths€prior€to€trial.€€Mother€brought€Dean€to€Fatherððs€residence€for€his€holiday€visitation.€€SheÐ øH Ðtestified€that€Dean€had€asked€to€bring€his€opened€Christmas€presents€to€Fatherððs€house€and€that€sheÐ ä4 Ðhad€agreed.€€When€they€arrived,€however,€Father€told€Mother€that€he€did€not€want€the€childððs€giftsÐ Ð  Ðfrom€Mother€there.€€Mother€and€Father€had€a€heated€argument,€which€greatly€upset€the€child.€€LaterÐ ¼  Ðthat€day,€Connie€Fain€called€Mother€and€they€began€to€argue.€€At€one€point,€Connie€Fain€calledÐ ¨ø ÐMother€a€ð ðbitchðð€and€a€ð ðhorrible€mother.ðð€€These€comments€were€overheard€by€Dean.€€FatherÐ ”ä Ðexplained€that€he€was€upset€because€he€felt€that€it€was€unfair€for€Dean€to€have€opened€gifts€when€hisÐ €Ð Ðstepsiblings€had€not€opened€their€presents.€€Connie€Fain€testified€that€she€had€not€intended€for€DeanÐ l¼ Ðto€hear€her€remarks.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àDean€is€currently€in€counseling€to€help€him€adjust€to€his€parentsðð€divorce€and€his€FatherððsÐ 0"€  Ðsubsequent€remarriage.€€His€counselor€testified€that€the€current€custodial€arrangement€is€confusingÐ #l! Ðfor€the€child€and€increases€his€anxiety.€€It€was€her€opinion€that€the€parties€were€ð ðequally€goodÐ $X" Ðparents.ððÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAfter€the€parties€rested,€the€trial€court€articulated€several€factors€it€would€consider€in€makingÐ Ì&"% Ðits€decision.€€Among€those€factors€was€Motherððs€relationship€outside€of€marriage€with€Mr.€Baker.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThe€court€declared€that€it€would€take€the€case€under€advisement€for€30€days€and€that€ð ð[i]n€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmeantime,€if€someone€notifies€the€Court€that€one€of€the€factors€that€Iððve€articulated€today€is€nowÐ )à$( Ðmoot,€that€may€change€how€I€rule.€€Thatððs€all€Iððm€saying.ððÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€March€23,€1999,€Mother€filed€an€affidavit,€along€with€a€copy€of€a€marriage€certificate,Ð ° Ðdemonstrating€that€she€and€Mr.€Baker€had€married€on€March€20,€1999.€€The€court€admitted€theseÐ œì Ðdocuments€as€a€late€filed€exhibit.€€On€March€24,€1999,€the€trial€court€filed€its€memorandum€opinion,Ð ˆØ Ðin€which€the€court€found€that€the€child€needs€ð ðone€residence,€one€havenðð€and€that€the€joint€custodyÐ tÄ Ðarrangement€originally€agreed€upon€by€the€parties€had€ð ðbroken€down.ðð€€The€court€noted€that€althoughÐ `° Ðit€was€ð ða€close€caseðð€and€it€found€that€ð ð[b]oth€parents€were€impressive,ðð€the€court€decided€thatÐ L œ Ðultimately€the€evidence€tilted€ð ðever€so€slightlyðð€in€favor€of€Mother.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€FatherÐ 8 ˆ Ðshould€ð ðhave€a€considerable€amount€of€time€with€the€childðð€and€that€his€visitation€ð ðclearly€shouldÐ $ t Ðbe€ððmore€than€standard.ðððð€€The€trial€court€requested€that€each€party€file€a€written€proposal€as€toÐ  ` ÐFatherððs€visitation€and€the€amount€of€child€support€to€be€paid.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ü L  Ðà  àÌà  àAfter€the€parties€submitted€their€respective€proposals,€the€trial€court,€by€entry€of€an€order€onÐ Ô$  ÐJune€24,€1999,€adopted€Motherððs€visitation€proposal.€€Father€was€awarded€visitation€every€otherÐ À  Ðweekend€from€Friday€at€6:00€p.m.€until€Tuesday€at€8:00€a.m.;€four€ten„day€periods€in€the€summer;Ð ¬ü  Ðone€week€at€Christmas,€with€all€other€holidays€alternating€between€the€parties;€and€alternating€springÐ ˜è  Ðbreaks.€€The€court€also€awarded€Mother€one„half€of€her€attorneyððs€fees.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àFather€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€a€new€trial.€Ð \¬ ÐSpecifically,€Father€asked€the€court€to€set€aside€the€judgment€and€award€him€sole€custody€of€the€childÐ H˜ Ðor,€in€the€alternative,€to€grant€joint€custody€to€the€parties.€€In€the€ð ðfurther€alternative,ðð€Father€askedÐ 4„ Ðfor€a€new€trial.€€Upon€considering€Fatherððs€motion,€on€September€16,€1999,€the€trial€court€orderedÐ  p Ða€new€trial€on€the€basis€ð ðof€certain€statements€made€at€trial€by€counsel€on€behalf€of€[Mother],Ð  \ Ðstatements€which€may€not€be€binding€at€a€later€time.ðð€€The€trial€court€did€not€specify€whichÐ øH Ðstatements€by€Motherððs€counsel€warranted€the€granting€of€a€new€trial.€€The€court€ordered€that€ð ð[t]heÐ ä4 Ðevidence€at€the€new€trial€shall€be€supplemental€only€and€limited€to€evidence€dated€or€occurring€afterÐ Ð  ÐMarch€2,€1999.ðð€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFather€filed€a€motion€to€modify€and/or€clarify€the€trial€courtððs€September€16,€1999,€orderÐ ”ä Ðgranting€a€new€trial.€€Mother€filed€a€response,€arguing€that€the€courtððs€order€awarding€her€soleÐ €Ð Ðcustody€should€not€be€set€aside.€€By€entry€of€an€order€dated€November€15,€1999,€the€trial€courtÐ l¼ Ðreaffirmed€its€order€awarding€custody€to€Mother€and€vacated€the€portion€of€its€September€16,€1999,Ð X ¨ Ðorder€granting€Father€a€new€trial.€€The€court€denied€ð ðin€its€entiretyðð€Fatherððs€motion€to€alter€or€amendÐ D!” Ðor,€in€the€alternative,€for€a€new€trial.€€It€further€awarded€Mother€additional€attorneyððs€fees€incurredÐ 0"€  Ðas€a€result€of€Fatherððs€post„judgment€motions.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð #l! ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð ô$D # ÐÓO>ÓÌà  àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€is€òòde€novoóó;€however,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcase€comes€to€us€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€ð!ð€a€presumption€weÐ ¸'#& Ðmust€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€Tenn.€R.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐApp.€P.€13(d);€ò òòòMusselman€v.€Acuff,ó óóó€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Our€search€forÐ )à$( Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€tempered€by€the€principle€that€the€trial€court€is€in€the€bestÐ ° Ðposition€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses;€accordingly,€such€determinations€are€entitled€toÐ œì Ðgreat€weight€on€appeal.€€ò òòòMassengale€v.€Massengale,ó óóó€915€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);Ð ˆØ Ðò òòòBowman€v.€Bowman,ó óóó€836€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAn€initial€award€of€custody€is€ð ðsubject€to€such€changes€or€modification€as€the€exigencies€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€case€may€require.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1999).€€This€court€has€noted€that€the€initialÐ 8 ˆ Ðjudgment€awarding€custody€ð ðis€òòres€judicataóó€and€is€conclusive€in€a€subsequent€application€to€changeÐ $ t Ðcustody€unless€some€new€fact€has€occurred€which€has€altered€the€circumstances€in€a€material€wayÐ  ` Ðso€that€the€welfare€of€the€child€requires€a€change€of€custody.ðð€€ò òòòGriffin€v.€Stone,ó óóó€834€S.W.2d€300,Ð ü L  Ð301„02€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€best€interest€of€the€child€is€the€paramount€consideration.€Ð è 8  Ðò òòòMusselman,ó óóó€826€S.W.2d€at€922.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àð ðCustody€decisions€are€factually€driven€and€require€the€careful€consideration€of€numerousÐ ¬ü  Ðfactors.ðð€€ò òòòAdelsperger€v.€Adelsperger,ó óóó€970€S.W.2d€482,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€A€petition€toÐ ˜è  Ðmodify€a€custodial€arrangement€addresses€itself€to€the€wide€and€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ð „Ô  Ðand€ð ðwe€will€not€tamper€with€that€discretion€unless€the€facts€demonstrate€that€the€trier€of€fact€hasÐ pÀ Ðabused€his€or€her€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòBrumit€v.€Brumit,ó óóó€948€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð 4„ ÐÓïGÓÌà  àThe€joint€custodial€arrangement€incorporated€in€the€partiesðð€divorce€judgment€contemplatesÐ  \ Ðessentially€a€day„to„day€exchange€of€the€child€during€the€week.€€It€is€not€disputed€that€thisÐ øH Ðarrangement€has€proven€to€be€problematic€for€the€partiesðð€child.€€The€trial€court€was€therefore€correctÐ ä4 Ðin€finding€a€material€change€of€circumstances€warranting€a€modification€of€the€custodialÐ Ð  Ðarrangement.€€òòSee€ò òRubin€v.€Kirshner,ó óóó€948€S.W.2d€742,€745€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€ò òòòDalton€v.Ð ¼  ÐDalton,ó óóó€858€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòò òDodd€v.€Dodd,ó óóó€737€S.W.2d€286,€290€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCt.€App.€1987).€€Having€found€a€material€change€of€circumstances,€we€must€now€determine€whetherÐ ”ä Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€awarding€custody€to€Mother.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFather€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€him€sole€custody€of€the€child.€€HeÐ X ¨ Ðcontends€that€under€a€comparative€fitness€analysis,€he€is€the€more€appropriate€custodian.€€He€arguesÐ D!” Ðthat€Mother€presented€no€evidence€at€trial€to€establish€that€an€award€of€custody€to€her€would€be€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€childððs€best€interest.€€In€the€alternative,€Father€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€simplyÐ #l! Ðaltered€the€joint€custody€arrangement€to€a€week„to„week€rotation€between€the€parties.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€custody€toÐ à%0!$ ÐMother.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€court,€utilizing€the€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106Ð Ì&"% Ð(Supp.€1999),€noted€that€it€was€a€very€ð ðclose€caseðð€and€that€both€Mother€and€Father€wereÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðimpressive.ðð€€The€court,€however,€placed€particular€emphasis€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106€(10),€whichÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcalls€upon€the€court€to€consider€ð ð[e]ach€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€ofÐ )à$( Ðparenting€responsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðencourage€a€close€and€continuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,Ð h+¸&* Ðconsistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.ðð€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourtððs€finding€that€Mother€is€more€willing€and€able€to€encourage€a€positive,€meaningful€relationshipÐ œì Ðbetween€the€child€ð ðand€the€other€parent.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Upon€reviewing€all€the€evidence,€we€cannot€say€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€awarding€custody€to€Mother.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFather€argues€that€the€trial€court€gave€little€consideration€to€Motherððs€admitted€cohabitationÐ L œ Ðwith€Mr.€Baker€prior€to€their€marriage€in€March,€1999.€€A€parentððs€cohabitation€outside€of€marriage,Ð 8 ˆ Ðhowever,€is€but€one€factor€a€court€considers€in€determining€what€custodial€arrangement€would€be€inÐ $ t Ðthe€best€interest€of€the€child.€€ò òòòMusselman,ó óóó€826€S.W.2d€at€922.€€Motherððs€sexual€behavior€alone€isÐ  ` Ðnot€a€basis€for€a€change€of€custody€unless€there€is€a€showing€that€such€behavior€adversely€affectedÐ ü L  Ðthe€child.€€òòSee€ò òid.€ó óóóat€923.€€Upon€reviewing€the€evidence,€we€do€not€find€any€indication€that€MotherððsÐ è 8  Ðbehavior€has€had€an€adverse€affect€upon€Dean.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€Father€admitted€that€he€livedÐ Ô$  Ðwith€Connie€Fain€for€several€weeks€prior€to€their€marriage.€€The€comparative€fitness€analysis€is€notÐ À  Ðaffected€by€one€parentððs€cohabitation€if€in€fact€both€parents€have€engaged€in€the€same€type€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðconduct.€€òòò òGaskill€v.€Gaskill,€ó óóó936€S.W.2d€626,€634€n.7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Furthermore,€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€acted€within€its€discretion€when€it€obviously€took€into€account€the€fact€that€Mother€is€nowÐ „Ô  Ðmarried.€€òòCf.ò ò€Musselman,ó óóó€826€S.W.2d€at€922.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAlternatively,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€maintained€joint€custody€butÐ H˜ Ðaltered€the€schedule€to€a€week„to„week€rotation.€€This€argument€is€contrary€to€Fatherððs€ownÐ 4„ Ðtestimony€to€the€effect€that€a€week„to„week€arrangement€would€be€no€less€confusing€or€difficult€forÐ  p Ðthe€child.€€Fatherððs€argument€is€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ä4 ÐÓ¿ZÓÌà  àFather€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€him€essentially€only€standard€visitationÐ ¼  Ðwhen€the€court€specifically€found€that€Fatherððs€visitation€ð ðclearly€should€be€ððmore€than€standard.ðððð€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àA€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€with€respect€to€the€matter€of€visitation.€€ò òòòJahn€v.€Jahn,ó óóó€932Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€939,€941€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€the€instant€case,€Father€was€awarded€extended€every„Ð l¼ Ðother„weekend€visitation,€from€Friday€at€6:00€p.m.€until€Tuesday€at€8:00€a.m.;€four€ten„day€periodsÐ X ¨ Ðduring€the€summer;€one€week€at€Christmas,€with€all€other€holidays€alternating€between€the€parties;Ð D!” Ðand€alternating€spring€breaks.€€We€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€settingÐ 0"€  ÐFatherððs€visitation.€€This€schedule€grants€Father€considerably€more€time€with€the€child€than€isÐ #l! Ðcontemplated€by€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€Ch.€1240„2„4„.02(6)Ð $X" Ð(describing€standard€visitation€as€every€other€weekend€Friday€through€Sunday,€two€weeks€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðsummer,€and€two€weeks€during€the€holidays).€€Fatherððs€argument€is€without€merit.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ4`ÓÌà  àFather€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Mother€attorneyððs€fees€that€she€incurredÐ )à$( Ðas€a€result€of€the€post„judgment€motions€filed€by€Father.€€He€contends€that€such€an€award€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðimproper€because€(1)€his€post„judgment€motions€were€proper€and€meritorious;€(2)€the€trial€courtððsÐ h+¸&* Ðprior€opinions€had€ð ðcried€outðð€for€modification€and€clarification;€(3)€Mother€made€a€request€forÐ ° Ðattorneyððs€fees€only€in€her€original€counterclaim€and€not€in€any€post„judgment€motion;€and€(4)€theÐ œì Ðfee€was€awarded€òòex€parteóó€based€solely€upon€a€supplemental€affidavit€from€Mother€with€no€right€ofÐ ˆØ Ðcross€examination€or€other€contest€by€Father.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€a€post„divorce€proceeding€such€as€the€one€now€before€us€isÐ L œ Ðgoverned€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„103,€which€states,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,€and€theÐ  ` Ðspouse€or€other€person€to€whom€the€custody€of€the€child,€or€children,Ð ü L  Ðis€awarded€may€recover€from€the€other€spouse€reasonable€attorneyÐ è 8  Ðfees€incurred€in€enforcing€any€decree€for€alimony€and/or€childÐ Ô$  Ðsupport,€or€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudicationÐ À  Ðof€the€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€parties,€both€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€anyÐ ˜è  Ðsubsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixed€and€allowed€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðcourt,€before€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€of€such€court.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌT.C.A.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(Supp.€1999).€€An€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€soundÐ 4„ Ðdiscretion.€€ò òòòRichardson€v.€Richardson,ó óóó€969€S.W.2d€931,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€UponÐ  p Ðreviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€awardingÐ  \ ÐMother€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€as€a€result€of€Fatherððs€post„judgment€motions.€€Furthermore,€weÐ øH Ðfind€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€Father€asked€the€trial€court€to€cross„examine€Mother€or€herÐ ä4 Ðcounsel€with€respect€to€the€formerððs€requested€fees.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMother€seeks€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€on€this€appeal.€€We€find€that€she€is€entitled€to€suchÐ ¨ø Ðan€award€and€therefore€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€a€reasonable€fee.€Ð ”ä ÐòòSee€ò òD€v.€K,ó óóó€917€S.W.2d€682,€687€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(on€petition€for€rehearing).Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð X ¨ ÐÓøkÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.€€ThisÐ 0"€  Ðcase€is€remanded€for€a€determination€of€an€award€to€Mother€of€her€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€on€thisÐ #l! Ðappeal,€for€collection€of€costs,€and€for€enforcement€of€the€judgment€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicableÐ $X" Ðlaw.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE