WPCg hZ[VEA"EAP<'vqAaE]1˔UGqicP7zPc䕻meCXLZ,j`K3 ՝B̯4)q*C lj%(B?zCb%h~h ¾:pn~cߐ*ȄYxӕ~7<7("Ń{ /&n (v (l 0+V=A$/Q_ +O)Np_Ev⺇h8Nb`0.cIvT!ɍE^77 0Un 0 0w 0<] 0X!t"#&% 04& 0& 0' 0;( 0( 0) 0r* 0%+ 0+ 0y,b- 0"- 0- 0R. 0. 0/ 0o0 01 01 0m2 0 3 03 054 04 0q5 0/6 0>6 0+7 0#8 09 09 0: 0; 0< 0G= 02> 0K> 0:G? 0Y? 0_? 0 9@ 0CA 0B B*D D/D 0$E 0*G D/H 0DH 06I B HI 0eI 0mJ D3K D-DK 0KqK 0:K ASKIL 0M 0DM AM 0^N 0<O 1e#XYXB= p    XYXXXYOurreviewofatrialcourtsfindingsoffactisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt H accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefindings,unlessthepreponderanceofthe 4 evidenceisotherwise.#XYXXXY@#XYXXXYTenn.R.App.P.13(d).Unlessthereisanerroroflaw,wemustaffirmthe  p trialcourtsdecisionaslongastheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindings.Umstotv.  \ Umstot,968S.W.2d819,821(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). H   Theweight,faithandcredittobegiventoawitnesstestimonylieswiththetrialjudgeina   nonjurycasebecausethetrialjudgehadanopportunitytoobservethemanneranddemeanorofthe   witnessduringtheirtestimony.Robertsv.Roberts,827S.W.2d788,795(Tenn.Ct.App.1991);  Weaverv.Nelms,750S.W.2d158,160(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).#XYXXXYB#XYXXXYԀThere#XYXXXYNE#XYXXXYԀisnopresumptionof  correctnesswithrespecttothetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw.#XYXXXYE#XYXXXYCampbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,#XYXXXYHF#XYXXXYԀ919  S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996)andTenn.R.App.P.13(d).#XYXXXYF##B=XXY@#XYXB= l #B=XXYaG#XYXB=@m m  TwoParents,ThreeChildrenandOneTooManyCourts  D!   WhenMotherfiledherparentageandchildsupportactionforthebenefitofthecouplesthird #l! childin2000,thejuvenilecourthadexclusive,originaljurisdictionoversuchproceedings.{ #  8      ׀#B=XXYG#XYXB=ԀThus, $X" Motherproperlyfiledtheactionintheonlycourtthathadjurisdiction,thejuvenilecourt.Shealso  filedformodificationofchildsupportforthetwoolderchildrenin2000intheonlycourtthathad  jurisdictionoverthatmatterbecausethatcourtpresidedovertheirdivorceandawardedchildsupport  forthetwoolderchildren#B=XXYI#XYXB=. Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1);Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(1); t Kanev.Kane,547S.W.2d559,560(Tenn.1977);Roblev.Roble,295S.W.2d817,818(Tenn.Ct. ` App.1956).#B=XXYxK#XYXB=ԀThereafter,in2001and2003,thelegislaturemadesignificantchangesinjurisdiction L  relativetoparentageactions.Asaresult,thecircuitandchancerycourtsnowhaveconcurrent 8  jurisdictionwiththejuvenilecourt.p #  9      #B=XXYL#XYXB=ԀSeeTenn.CodeAnn.#B=XXYGN#XYXB=Ԁ371104#B=XXYN#XYXB=Ԁand#B=XXYN#XYXB=362307.#B=XXY@O#XYXB=ԀThejuvenile $ t courtnolongerhasexclusive,originaljurisdiction.#B=XXYO#XYXB=ԀSee#B=XXY(P#XYXB=P.E.K.v.J.M.,52S.W.3d653,660(Tenn.  ` Ct.App.2001)(#B=XXYvP#XYXB=juvenilecourtnolongerhasexclusivejurisdictionoverpaternitymatters).#B=XXY Q#XYXB=Ԁ#B=XXYQ#XYXB=Nowthe  L  juvenilecourtand anytrialcourtwithgeneraljurisdictionmayhearparentagecases.#B=XXYQ#XYXB=ԀTenn.Code  8  Ann.#B=XXYR#XYXB=Ԁ#B=XXYS#XYXB=362307.#B=XXYHS#XYXB=ԀAsaresult,onecourt,nottwo,canandshouldhearmatterssuchasthisinthe $  futuresothatmuchofthecost,confusionandinconsistentrulingspresentedherecanbeavoided.   Ofmoresignificancetothepartieshere,onecourtcanandshallpresideoverallofthemattersat   issuefromthispointforward. #  10      ׀    @Supportforthreechildren  p   Fathersassertsthathissupportobligationforthethreechildren,allofwhomlivewith H Mother,shouldbebasedon41%ofhisnetincome,thepresumptiveamountintheguidelinesfor 4 threechildren,not53%.Fatheriscorrect.  p   Whentwoparentshavethreechildren,allofwhomresidewithoneparent,thesupportshould H besetat41%oftheobligorsnetincome,thepercentageestablishedintheguidelinesforthree 4 children,unlessadeviationisappropriate.Thisshouldbethecaseeventhoughtwocourtsare   responsibleforsettingsupport.Hadthetwocasesbeenheardbyonejudge,itisdoubtfulthat#B=XXYS#XYXB=Ԁjudge   couldhavejustifiedsettingFatherssupportbasedon53%ofhisnetincomeinsteadofthe  presumptive41%.#B=XXYY#XYXB=H#B=XXYY#XYXB=adonejudgepresidedoverbothcasesbyinterchangeordesignation,theparties  andthecourtswouldhaveavoidedtheunnecessaryexpenseoftimeandmoneyresultingfromtwo  courts,andtheirpersonnel,presidingovertwohearingswhereinthepartiespresentedbasicallythe l sameevidencetwice!particularlyevidencepertainingtoFathersincome.Mostimportantlysuch X  aprocedurewouldhaveavoidedtheinconsistentjudgments.We,however,recognizethiswasnot D! requiredofthepartiesorthecourts.Thus,itwasnoterrortohaveconductedseparatehearingsin 0"  separatecourts.However,sincejurisdictionchangedin2001and2003,futureactionssuchasthese  shouldbefiledinandpresidedoverbyonecourt.  #B=XXY+Z#XYXB=  Theguidelinesprovidethatthe childsupportawardisbasedonaflatpercentageofthe t obligorsnetincomeasdefinedinparagraph(4)belowdependingonthenumberofchildrenfor ` whomsupportisbeingsetintheinstantcase.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(2).#B=XXY]#XYXB=ԀThe L  guidelinesprovidethatthepercentageofnetincomeoftheobligorforthreechildrenis41%,fortwo 8  childrenis32%andforonechildis21%.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(5).#B=XXYy_#XYXB=ԀTheguidelines $ t furtherprovidethatthepercentagethatisapplicableshallcorrespondtothenumberofchildrenfor  ` whomsupportisbeingset intheinstantcase.Thejuvenilecourtsetsupportfortheinstantcase  L  itwasresponsibleforat21%,pursuanttotheguidelines,becausethatcourtwasresponsiblefor  8  settingsupportforthebenefitofonechild.Thecircuitcourtsetsupportfortheinstantcaseitwas $  responsibleforat32%,pursuanttotheguidelines,becausethatcourtwasresponsibleforsetting   supportforthebenefitoftwochildren.#B=XXY`#XYXB=ԀWebelievethetwocasesshouldbetreatedasonecase!the   instantcase!becausethechildsupportissuespertaintotheonefather,onemotherandtheirthree   children#B=XXYc#XYXB=. #  11      ׀#B=XXYd#XYXB=   #B=XXYKe#XYXB=#B=XXYe# XYXB=   ProceedingsinJuvenileCourt  \ f  Theactioninthejuvenilecourtwascommencedin2000whenMotherfiledapetitionto 4 establishpaternityforthecouplesthirdchild.OnDecember4,2001,thejuvenilecourtrefereeset  p childsupportintheamountof$523permonthbasedon Fathersadmittedabilitytoearn$40,000  \ ayear.OnFebruary13,2002,therefereeassessedchildsupportonFathersabilitytoearn$40,000 H peryear,madetheawardretroactivetothechildsbirth,foratotalawardof$23,273.50in 4 retroactivesupport,andsetFathersmonthlyarrearagepaymentat$523permonth.     Fatherthenfiledamotionforthejuvenilecourtrefereetoclarifyhisfindings,inresponse  towhichtherefereeessentiallyreaffirmedhisearlierfindings.Fatherappealedtherefereesorders  andrequestedthatthejuvenilecourtjudgehearallissuespertainingtocurrentandretroactivechild  support.OnSeptember16,2002,thejuvenilecourtjudgeconductedafullevidentiaryhearing l followingwhichsheaffirmedtherefereesrulings. X  #B=XXYe#XYXB=  D! hf  ImputedIncomevs.IncomeBasedonAbilitytoEarn  kh  #B=XXYk#XYXB=Fathertestifiedabouthisincomefortheyears1995through1997whichshowedyearly t incomesof$58,568for1995,$136,564for1996,and$84,310for1997.Eventhoughtheseyearly ` incomeswerefromyearsinwhichFatheroperatedalucrativetelephoneservicebusiness,these L  incomesareevidenceofFathersabilitytostartandsuccessfullyoperateabusiness.Suchskillshave 8  awiderangeofapplicationandcanbeusedforthebenefitofanotheremployer#B=XXYl#XYXB=Ԁand/orforFatherto $ t startanotherbusiness.ThereisalsoevidenceofFathersabilitytooperateabusinessotherthana  ` telephoneservicebusiness.Fathertestifiedthatheownedandoperatedavideostoreforsixyears  L  whichhelatersoldfor$76,000.  8    #B=XXYn#XYXB=Fatherseffortsatfindingajobareessentiallynonexistent.Hetestifiedthathelookedfor   ajobattheunemploymentofficeinFayetteville,Tennessee,wherehenowresides, everycouple   ofmonthssince1998.ThelasttimeheinquiredattheunemploymentofficewasinMarch,which   wassixmonthspriortothehearinginSeptember.Fatherslackofinterestinfindingworkisnot   limitedtothefewinquireshemade.Consistently,afterFatherwouldinquireaboutjobopportunities p hewouldnotevensendaresume.Heattemptedtojustifythisjobsearchprotocolbystatingthathe \ considereditpointless,believingthatallemployersrequiretheiremployeestohaveahighschool H diploma.WhileFatherarguesthathislackofahighschooldiplomaseverelylimitshisemployment 4 opportunitiesandvirtuallyclosesthedoortoemployment,hiseffortstoobtainaG.E.D.!toqualify  p forthetypeofjobhedesires!arenonexistent.Thisfindingisfullysupportedbythefactthat  \ FathertestifiedinthecircuitcourtproceedinginDecember2001thathewasattemptingtogethis H G.E.D.yetninemonthslater!whenhetestifiedinthejuvenilecourtproceeding!headmittedthat 4 hisattemptswerelimitedtostudyingfortheG.E.D.ontheinternet. #  12           TherecordrevealsthatthecourtwasobviouslyconcernedthatFatherwasclosingthedoor  toemploymentopportunities.Thisisevidentfromthefollowingexchange:  8  THECOURT:HaveyoulookedforjobsanywhereinTullahoma?l   8  FATHER:NotinTullahoma.BesidesArnold,itsprettyslim.X    8  THECOURT:Well,thereareanumberofbusinessesthatarerelatedtoArnold, D! though,overtherethataretechnical!technologicaltypesofbusinessesandIwas 0"  wondering.#l!   8  FATHER:YourHonor,whenitdidntmatterwhatmyeducationwas,nobodyasked $X" me.ImassumingtheyassumedbecauseofwhatIwasdoingIhadahighschool $D # education.Itsprettymuchselftrainedintelecommunications.%0!$   8  THECOURT:Butifyoudontgototheseplaces,arentyouassumingthattheycare  now?   8  FATHER:Imsorry?   8  THECOURT:Butifyoudontcalltheseplacesandinquire,arentyouassuming t thatthelackofahighschooldiplomawillstandinyourwayofworkingforthem?`     Fathersresponsetothecourtslastquestionwasquitelengthyandtoadegreenon 8  responsivebutforoneunintendedadmission.Headmittedthathepreviouslyobtainedajobwith $ t acompanyhenowclaimswouldnothirepersonslikehim,thosewithouthighschooldegrees,but  ` theydidhirehim.Henowclaimstheymadeamistakebyhiringhim.Whatheadmittedwithout  L  realizingitisthatbyapplyingforajobhewasabletoobtainthetypeofjobheclaimshecannotnow  8  obtain.  $    WearesimplynotpersuadedbyFathersargumentthattheclosureofhistelecommunications   businessconstitutesanindefinitebartohisabilitytoearnalivinginthetelephonebusinessor   anotherbusiness.Moreover,therecorddoesnotpreponderateagainsttherulingthat#B=XXYp#XYXB=Fatheris   underemployedandthathehasanabilitytoearn$40,000#B=XXY#XYXB=. p #B=XXYM#XYXB=@ DeNovoHearingBeforeJuvenileCourtJudge H   Thoughnotstatedasaseparateissueinhisbrief,Fatherarguesthathewasentitledtoade  p novohearingbeforethejuvenilecourtjudge.Fatherclaimshewasdeniedadenovohearingbecause  \ JudgeGreen,afterconductingafullevidentiaryhearing,affirmedtherefereesfindingthathehad H the admittedabilitytoearn$40,000peryear.Tenn.CodeAnn.371107(e)doesnotstatethat 4 apartyisentitledtoadenovohearing;however,thestatutehasbeeninterpretedbythiscourtto   entitleonetoatraditionaldenovohearing.Kellyv.Evans,43S.W.3d514,515516(Tenn.Ct.App.   2000).#B=XXY#XYXB=WhetherTenn.CodeAnn.371107(e)contemplatesatraditionalhearingdenovo,asinan  appealfromageneralsessionscourttoacircuitcourt,oradenovohearingbasedupontherecord  ofthehearingbeforetherefereewasaddressedinKelly,43S.W.3dat515516.Notfindingacase  directlyonpoint,thecourtheld#B=XXYV#XYXB= l 8  [T]helanguageintheStatute,"shallallowahearing"contemplatesatraditionalde D! novohearing.OurconvictioninthisregardisbuttressedbythecasesofJarrettv. 0"  Starkey,1998WL202491(Tenn.Ct.App.)andHickersonv.Finchum,1997WL #l! 21189(Tenn.Ct.App.),wherein,althoughtheissuewasnotspecificallyraised,itis $X" clearthatwitnessestestifiedbeforethejuvenilecourtonappeal.$D #   Kelly,43S.W.3dat515516#B=XXY1#XYXB=. &"%   Thejuvenilecourtconductedafullevidentiaryhearingwherethepartiespresentedwitnesses (#' whotestifiedbeforethecourt.Thereafter,thejuvenilecourtjudgemadeherrulingwhereinthe )$( judgeelectedtoaffirmtherefereesruling.Thoughthejudgeaffirmedtherefereesruling,thejudge |*%) nonethelessconductedafullevidentiaryhearing,onethatqualifiedasadenovohearing.Thefact h+&* thatthejudgeannouncedherrulingbyaffirmingtherefereespreviousrulingdoesnotvitiatethefact  thatFatherwasaffordedandparticipatedinadenovohearing.Thus,Fatherwasaffordedthetype  ofhearingcontemplatedinTenn.CodeAnn.371107(e)andKelly.#B=XXYω#XYXB=Ԁ  #B=XXYj#XYXB=Wl  CreditforSupportVoluntarilyPaidPriortoEntryofanOrder ` n  ThejuvenilecourtawardedMotheranarrearagejudgmentintheamountof$23,273.50.#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁ 8  #B=XXY# XYXB=Fatherassertedthathevoluntarilypaid$27,270insupportoftheyoungestchild#B=XXYY#XYXB=priortotheentry $ t ofthesupportordero #  13      ׀andsoughtanoffsetagainstthearrearageaward.#B=XXY#XYXB=ԀThejuvenilecourtruled  ` adversetoFather,denyinganycreditfortheallegedsupportpayments.  L     Mothercontendsthatthetestimonyraiseddoubtsastohowmuch,ifany,ofthemoneywas $  paidforthebenefitofthechild.SheclaimsthatFatheralreadyowedher$25,000.Shetestifiedthat   afterthedivorce#B=XXY#XYXB=shesoldherhomeanddeposited$25,000#B=XXY͒#XYXB=intoFathersaccountandthatFatherhad   notrepaidthemoney.ItisMotherscontentionthatthejuvenilecourtdidnotacceptFathers   testimonythatthesefundswerechildsupportpayments.Shefurthercontendsthatgreatweight   shouldbegiventothejuvenilecourtsrulingsincethecourthadtheopportunitytoobservethe p witnessesandassesstheircredibility. \   Thejuvenilecourtjudgedidnotmakefindingsoffactonthisissue;therefore,thereis 4 nothingfoundasafacttowhichwemayattachthepresumptionofcorrectness.Thus,wewill  p reviewtherecorddenovotodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies.Leev.Lee,  \ 66S.W.3d837,843(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)#B=XXY7#XYXB=(citingBrooksv.Brooks,992S.W.2d403,405(Tenn. H 1999)). ThejuvenilecourtjudgeruledinMothersfavorbyaffirmingtherefereesrulingonthis 4 issue;however,therefereereachedhisconclusionwithoutconsideringFathersevidenceontheissue   becausetherefereeexcludedFatherssevidence.Motherhadobjectedtotheentryofsuchevidence   becauseFatherhadfailedtolistitasanexhibit.TherefereesustainedMothersobjection.Thetrial  courtconsideredtheevidencethathadbeenexcludedbytherefereeandaffirmedthereferees  decision.    Basedonourdenovoreviewoftheevidence,wefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainst X  thecourtsruling.FathertestifiedthathepaidMotherspecificamountsofmoneyforaperiodof D! timefollowingthechildsbirth.Motherdidnotdenyreceivingthemoney;tothecontrary,she 0"  essentiallyadmittedreceivingthemoney.#B=XXY#XYXB=ԀMotherschallengetothepaymentsbyFatherarisesfrom #l! andpertainstotheirdisputeregardingthe$25,000shedepositedintohisaccountfollowingthesale $X" ofherhouse.SheclaimsFatherhasnotrepaidthe$25,000heallegedlyowesher.Shemayberight; $D # however,wearenotrulingonwhetherFatherowesher$25,000fromthesaleofherhouse.He %0!$ testifiedthathepaidheramountsinexcessofthearrearagejudgmentfollowingthechildsbirthas &"% supportforthechild.Shedoesnotdenyreceivingthefunds,sheonlychallengesthereasonforits '#& payment.Consideringalloftheevidencebeforeuswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesinfavor (#' ofthefindingthatFatherremittedfundsassupportinexcessofthearrearagejudgmentandtherefore  isentitledtocreditforthepayments.    #B=XXY#XYXB=  #B=XXY#XYXB=Fatherisentitledtoacreditinanamountnottoexceedtheretroactivechildsupportarrearage t setbythejuvenilecourt.Thatamountis$23,273.50#B=XXY6#XYXB=.However,Fatherisnotentitledtocreditfor ` moniespaidinexcessofthearrearageawardbecauseqXYXXXYamountsthatexceedthesupportorderare L  viewedasagratuityorvoluntarycontributions#XYXXqXY##B=XXY##XYXB=.#B=XXY#XYXB= qXYXXXYԀSee27C,C.J.S.Divorce672(FN74)(1986).s #  14      ׀#XYXXqXY#qXYXXXY#qB=XqXYѢ#qXYXqB=Ԁ 8  Here,thepaymentsweremadebyFathervoluntarilyandthereisnotestimonyintherecordto $ t establishthatthepaymentsinexcessoftherequiredamountwereforthechildsnecessaries.Thus,  ` Fatherisnotentitledtoacreditinexcessofthearrearage.#XYXXqXYˣ#qXYXXXY#qB=XqXY #qXYXqB=  L  #qB=XqXYԥ#qXYXqB=#XYXXqXY##B=XXY+#gXYXB=  AttorneyFees $  æ#B=XXY#XYXB=  FatherarguesthatMothershouldpayherownattorneyfeescontendingthathereffortswere   aimedatsettingsupportatanexcessivelevelandtopreventhimfromreceivingcreditforsupport   hevoluntarilypaid.Moreover,hearguesthatheractionsresultedinanunnecessaryincreaseinthe   legalfeesincurredbybothparties.MotherreliesonTenn.CodeAnn.365103tojustifythe p awardofattorneyfeesbecausesheincurredthefeesseekingtoenforcechildsupportandthatshe \ iswithoutmeanstopayallofthelegalfees.Shealsoassertsthatsheisentitledtoattorneysfees H onappealbecausesheisprotectingthechildsupportawardofthetrialcourt. 4   ThejuvenilecourtinthiscaseawardedMotherattorneyfeesof$2,500.Atrialcourtis  \ vestedwithwidediscretionastotheallowanceofattorneyfeesandthisCourtwillnotinterfere H exceptwhenanabuseofthatdiscretionisshown.Threadgillv.Threadgill,740S.W.2d419,426 4 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987)(citingMarminov.Marmino,238S.W.2d105,107(1950)).ThisCourtwill   notinterferewithsuchanawardunlesstheevidencepreponderatestothecontrary.Nelsonv.Nelson,   106S.W.3d20,25(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).Fatherhaspresentednoevidencethatsuggeststhatthe  trialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninmakingtheaward.    WedeclineMothersrequestforattorneyfeesonappeal.Anawardofattorneyfeesis l inappropriatewherebothpartiesarepartiallysuccessfulonappeal.Storeyv.Storey,835S.W.2d X  593,598(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Houghlandv.Houghland,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.Ct.App. D! 1992). 0"    #l!    `     h      p      x  #B=XXY8#XYXB=   ProceedingsinCircuitCourt   #B=XXY#IXYXB=  Thecircuitcourtappeal#B=XXY#XYXB=islimitedtoFathersobligationtosupportthetwoolderchildren. t #B=XXY4#XYXB=ThecircuitcourtsetFatherssupportobligationat$370permonthbasedonanimputedincomeof ` $25,000. #  15      ׀#B=XXYӱ#XYXB=Motherhadrequested$1,158permonth. L    MotherandFatherpresentedargumentsandevidencetothecircuitcourtthatwerenearly $ t identicaltothosepresentedtothejuvenilecourtconcerningtheabilitytoearnincomeversus  ` imputingincomepursuanttotheguidelines.#B=XXY#XYXB=  L    ThecircuitcourtfoundFatherunderemployedandsetsupportat$370basedon imputed $  incomepursuanttothechildsupportguidelines#B=XXY#XYXB=.#B=XXY#XYXB=ԀThecircuitcourtmadethreeadditionalfindings   thatincreasedFatherssupportobligationfrom$370to$771permonth.Thecourtfoundthatone   ofthechildrenhadextraordinarymedicalexpenses#B=XXY̵#XYXB=Ԁandawardedanadditional$151permonth.The   courtalso#B=XXY#XYXB=foundthatFatherhadfailedtoexercisehisvisitationprivileges#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁandincreasedtheaward   byanadditional$150permonth.Inaddition,thecourtawardedajudgmentforanarrearageand p orderedFathertopay$100permonthonthearrearagejudgmentforatotalof$771. #  16      #B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁ \ @ffImputedIncomevs.AbilitytoEarn 4   #B=XXY#XYXB=MotherclaimsFatheriswillfullyunderemployedandrefusesgainfulemploymenteven  \ thoughhisselfemploymentasastocktraderr #  17      ׀#B=XXY^#XYXB=hasyieldedlittletonoincomeintwoyears.Asstated H above,sheemphasizedthefactthatFatheradmittedheis ablebodiedandiscapableofearning 4 incomeifheweretogetajob.Shearguesthattherewassufficientevidencebeforethecourtforit   tohaveheldthatFathersabilitytoearnwasgreaterthantheimputedincomeof$25,000.     Fatherassertstherewasnoevidenceofhisabilitytoearnandthereforethecircuitcourt  correctlysethisincomeattheimputedincomestandard.Fatherspecificallyarguesthathisprevious  incomefromthetelephoneservicebusinessisirrelevantbecausethatability!opportunity l disappearedduetochangesintheindustryin1997.Hefurtherarguesthathisabilitytoearnincome X  isgreatlylimitedduetothefactthathehasaninthgradeeducation. D!  0"    ThecircuitcourtsetFatherssupportbasedontheimputedincomeinthechildsupport  guidelines.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(3)(e).#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁ#B=XXY#XYXB=Whenestablishinganinitialorderof  support,grossincomeforthecurrentandprioryearsshouldbedeterminedbyimputingannual  incomepursuanttotheguidelines#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁifthereisnoevidenceofincome,suchastaxreturns,checkstubs, t orotherinformationfordeterminingcurrentabilitytosupportorabilitytosupportinprioryears,and ` ifthecourthasnootherreliableevidenceoftheobligorsincomeorincomepotential.Tenn.Comp. L  R.&Regs.124024.03(3)(e)#B=XXY#XYXB=.WhenthecircuitcourtsetFatherssupport,theimputedincome 8  undertheguidelineswas$25,761.Id.Theguidelineshavesincebeenamendedandimputedincome $ t wasincreased.Itisnow$28,145.00.#B=XXY#XYXB=" #  18      ׀Id.#B=XXY#XYXB=  ` #B=XXYs#XYXB=  #B=XXY#XYXB=Imputingincomeisnotappropriateifthereis otherreliableevidenceofobligorsincome  8  orincomepotential.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(3)(e)#B=XXY#XYXB=.#B=XXY #XYXB=ԀTherecordcontainsevidence $  ofsubstantialearningsasrecentas1997.Specifically,therearetaxreturns#B=XXYd#XYXB=thatrevealFathersgross   incomewas$84,310in1997,$136,564in1996,$58,568in1995.Wefindthistobereliable   evidenceofFathersincomeorincomepotential,which#B=XXY(#XYXB=Ԁprecludesusingtheimputedincomeamount.   #B=XXYE#XYXB=  Inadditiontoprovidingthatimputingincomeisnotappropriateifthereisotherreliable p evidenceoftheobligorsincomeorincomepotential,theguidelinesalsoprovidethat [i]fanobligor \ iswillfullyandvoluntarilyunemployedorunderemployed,childsupportshallbecalculatedbased H onadeterminationofpotentialincome,asevidencedbyeducationalleveland/orpreviouswork 4 experience.#B=XXY#XYXB=Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(3)(d).#B=XXY#XYXB=ԀTheevidencebeforeusclearly  p establishedthatFathermadeaconsciouschoicetoabandontheskillshehadacquiredinthe  \ telecommunicationsindustry.Theevidencealsoclearlyestablishedthathehaslaboredbytrading H stocksforthepasttwoyearsandhasbeenrewardedwithnetearningsoflessthan$500overthese 4 twoyears.ThoughFatherslaborasastocktraderhasbeenatotalfailure,hetestifiedthathewanted   totradethemarketandthathewastakingcareofhisresponsibilitiesbutifhecouldnotmakea   livinghecouldgetajobinthephonebusiness.Thisenlighteningtestimonyresultedfromaseries  ofquestionspresentedtoFatherbythecourt,aportionofwhichisasfollows:  8  THECOURT:Phonesystems.Youknowallaboutphonesystems.Well,haveyou l madeapplicationtoX    8  FATHER:Idontknowaboutmostsystems,whateverchangestheyvemadesince D! 97.0"    8  THECOURT:Okay.Sowhyarentyouworkingforsomeofthesephone #l! companies?Haveyoufiledapplicationwiththem?Obviously,yourevery $X" knowledge[sic]inyourbusiness.Theywouldprovideinsuranceandhavean $D # employeepackage.Andyoucouldhavearegularjob.Withyourexpertise,why %0!$ haventyouappliedtothesethings?&"%   8  FATHER:Well,one,Iwantedtotradethemarket.'#&   8  THECOURT:Youwantedtotradestock.(#'   8  FATHER:Iwastakingcareofmyresponsibilities.   8  THECOURT:Butyoucantmakealiving.Youretellingmethatbecauseofyou  wantingtotradestocks,thatyoucantmakealivingreally   8  FATHER:Yes,maam,itis!t   8  THECOURT:!tosupportyourchildrenadequately.SoIwouldntdothatanymore ` ifIcouldntsupportmychildrenadequately.L    8  FATHER:Ifitcontinuesthewayitsgoing,yes,Illhaveto.IcangetaGEDand 8  gogetajobinthephonebusiness.#B=XXYt#XYXB=$ t     PerhapsthemostprofoundstatementbyFatherwasthat Ican...getajobinthephone  L  business.Ironically,Fatheragreedwiththecourtthatifhecouldnotsupporthischildrenbytrading  8  stocks,heshoulddothat getajobinthephonebusiness. $    ItisdifficulttocontemplatemorecompellingevidenceofanabilitytoearnthanFathersown   declarationthathecouldgetajobinthephonebusiness.Whilehisabilitytoearnmaynotbewhat   itwasinprioryears,Fatheradmitshecanearnaliving.Hetestifiedthathecould getajobinthe   phonebusiness. p   ThecourtsquestionsarealsosignificantfortheyrevealthecourtsfindingsthatFatherwas H  veryknowledgeableinhisbusiness,thathe couldhavearegularjob,andhehasexpertise.# #  19      ׀ 4 Thougheachwaspresentedintheformofaquestion,thecourtsquestionsexpressedtheaffirmative  p findingsthatFatherwasveryknowledgeableinthephonebusiness,hehadexpertise#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁandhecould  \ getajob.Thesefindingsbythecircuitcourtaresupportedbytherecord.Fatherisabletowork. H Heisjustnotreadyandwillingtoworktoearnalivingtosupporthischildren.#B=XXYF# XYXB= 4 #B=XXY#XYXB=  Fathersincomein1997,1996and1995,whenheworkedinthetelecommunicationindustry   andthevideobusinessxT #  20      ,qualifiesas otherinformationfordeterminingcurrentabilitytosupport  orabilitytosupportinprioryearsandasother reliableevidenceofFathersincomeorincome  potential.Itrevealsthathispotentialisashighat$136,564.However,Fathermayneedtore  establishhimselfintheindustry,eitherasanemployeeforanothersbusinessortostartuphisown l business(es).Whilewerecognizethispossiblelimitation,thoughtemporary,wearenotunmindful X  ofFatherswillfulunderemploymentforthepastfewyears,asevidencedbyhisexchangewiththe D! courtshownabove.#B=XXY#XYXB= 0"  #B=XXY#XYXB=  Basedupontheabove,wefindthatFathersabilitytoearn,whilenotasgreatasitwasin $X" 1997,1996and1995,isclearlygreaterthantheimputedincomeundertheguidelines.Accordingly, $D # wefindthatFathersabilitytoearnisatleast$40,000peryear.Therefore,Fatherssupport %0!$ obligationshouldbebasedonanabilitytoearnanincomeof$40,000peryear.#B=XXY7#XYXB=ԀAccordingly,we &"% reverseandmodifythecircuitcourtsdecisiontosetFathersincomebasedontheimputedincome  andholdthatFathersincomemustbebasedonhisabilitytoearn$40,000peryear.#B=XXY<#XYXB=   ۰  AdditionalSupport t   #B=XXYy#XYXB= Fatherchallengestheincreaseofhissupportobligationby$151.00permonthonthebasis L  thatoneofthechildrenhasextraordinarymedicalexpenses.Fathercontendsitwaserrortoaward 8  suchanincreasewithoutwrittenorspecificfindings.Healsocontendsthattheexpensesonwhich $ t theawardisbasedareitemsthatachildwouldnormallyrequireandforwhichanupwardadjustment  ` isnotappropriate.  L    Theguidelinesaretobe appliedasarebuttablepresumptioninallchildsupportcases. $  Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.02(7).#B=XXYM#XYXB=ԀThecourtmustmakea writtenorspecificfindingthat   theapplicationofthechildsupportguidelineswouldbeunjustorinappropriateinthatparticular   casei#B=XXY?#XYXB=fthecourtdeterminesthereisevidencesufficienttorebutthepresumption.Id.Findingsthat   rebuttheseguidelinesmuststateajustificationfordeviationfromtheguidelines.Id.Indoingso   thecourtmusttakeintoconsiderationthebestinterestofthechild.Id. p   Here,thecircuitcourtmadeafindingfromthebenchthatMotherincursadditionalmedical H expensesof$151.00permonthforoneofthechildren.Atrialcourtsoralfindingtojustifya 4 deviationfromtheguidelineswasapprovedinKochv.Koch,874S.W.2d571,578(Tenn.Ct.App.  p 1993).  \ 8   ` Thetrialcourtdeviatedfromthechildsupportguidelinesandstatedforthe 4 transcribedrecordthatthedeviationwasduetotheenlargedvisitationschedulehe   painstakinglyprepared.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt's   findingthatadeviationshouldbemadeandthatthedeviationmadewasproper.  Althoughthetrialcourtproperlyshouldhavemadeawrittenfindingconcerningthe  reasonforthedeviation,theoralpronouncementbythecourtsubsequently  transcribedshouldsufficeinthisinstanceratherthansendingthisprolonged,hotly l contestedcasebacktothetrialcourtsolelyforthepurposeofwrittenfindings.X    Id.at578. 0"  #B=XXYS#XYXB=  Fatheralsocontendsthatsomeofthechildsexpensesarenodifferentthanthoseofan $X" ordinarychild.#B=XXY#XYXB=ԀTherecordcontainstestimonybyMotherandthechildsphysicianconcerningthe $D # childsmedicalneeds. Bothtestifiedinsufficientdetailtoexplainthatthechildrequiresmore %0!$ medicalcarethanachildingoodhealth.Theyexplainedthatthechildmustbetubefedto &"% supplementherdietwhichrequiresadditionalmedicalsuppliesandthattubefeedingpresents '#& hygieneissuesandmakesthechildmorepronetoinfections.Further,thephysiciantestifiedthatthe (#' childisalsobeingtreatedbysixadditionalmedicalspecialistsanddescribesthechildasaspecial )$( needschild. #B=XXY#XYXB=ԀExtraordinarymedicalexpensesnotcoveredbyinsurancearegroundsforanupward |*%) deviation.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.04(1)(c).#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁ#B=XXY#XYXB=Accordingly,wefindthatthe_circuit h+&* courtsfinding,thoughnotinwriting,wassufficientandthatthereissubstantialevidenceinthe  recordtojustifyanupwarddeviationof$151permonth.#B=XXY #XYXB=   #B=XXYJ#XYXB= @$ InConclusion  t   #B=XXY#XYXB=WethereforemodifythejudgmentstoprovidethatFatherschildsupportobligationforall L  threechildrenshallbebasedonanabilitytoearn$40,000peryearandtheamountofchildsupport 8  tobepaidbyFathershallbebasedon41%ofhisnetincome(thepresumptiveamountforthree $ t children);affirmtheupwarddeviationintheamountof$151foroneofthechildrensextraordinary  ` medicalexpenses,whichamountshallbeinadditiontotheabovechildsupportaward;reversethe  L  decisionofthejuvenilecourtdenyingFatheranoffsetforsupportprovidedfortheyoungestchild  8  andawardFatheranoffsetequaltotheamountofthearrearage;andaffirmthejuvenilecourts $  decisionconcerningattorneyfees.    #B=XXY2#XYXB=  Furthermore,weherebytransfer#B=XXY#XYXB=thejuvenilecourtproceedingtotheFourthCircuitCourtof   DavidsonCounty,asauthorizedpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.#B=XXYa#XYXB=371103(c),#B=XXY4#XYXB=thusconsolidatingthese   twoactionsintooneaction#B=XXY#XYXB=Ԁforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.#B=XXY #XYXB=z #  21      #B=XXY#XYXB= p #B=XXY#XYXB=0  Costsofappealareassessedagainstthepartiesequally.H(#(#    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     FRANKG.CLEMENT,JR.,JUDGE