ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€éªv~“vÓ Bä D3 0@4 AOtÆÃ 0D‰ D/Í Bü˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ VWUX Y Z [ \]£^_Ó€f|œ$3|xj2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òßR€ "A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€Ìà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òBONNIE€WEBSTER€GODFREYó ó,à à)à àKnox€County€Chancery€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€127361„2Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€03A01„9708„CH„00319Ìà à)Ìò òJOSEPH€MORKHAM€GODFREYó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Knox€County€at€Knoxville.Ìò òHonorable€Frederick€D.€McDonald,€Chancelloró óÌÌÌÌò òVirginia€A.€Schwammó ó,€TOWLE€&€SCHWAMM,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€œPlaintiff/Appellant.›ÌÌÌò òWanda€G.€Sobieskió ó,€SOBIESKI,€MESSER€&€ASSOCIATES,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓœà àPlaintiff€Bonnie€Webster€Godfrey€(the€Mother)€appeals€the€final€decree€of€divorceÏentered€by€the€trial€court€which€dissolved€the€partiesðð€marriage,€distributed€their€property,€awardedÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€two€minor€daughters€to€Defendant/Appellee€Joseph€Markham€Godfrey€(theÏFather),€and€ordered€the€Mother€to€pay€child€support.€€On€appeal,€the€Mother€challenges€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€award€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children€to€the€Father€and€the€trial€courtððs€failureÏto€award€the€Mother€any€proceeds€of€the€Fatherððs€pension€which€he€had€liquidated€during€theseÏproceedings.€€We€affirm.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòI.€€Factual€and€Procedural€Historyó óóóÌÌà àThe€parties€were€married€in€1978€when€both€were€nineteen€years€of€age.€€Ô'  ÔTheÏpartiesðð€older€daughter,€Rachel,€was€born€in€September€1988,€and€Megan,€was€born€in€MarchÏ1992.€€In€the€fall€of€1993,€the€Mother€decided€to€attend€law€school€at€the€University€of€TennesseeÏin€Knoxville.€€Per€the€partiesðð€agreement,€the€children,€then€ages€one€and€four,€remained€with€theÏFather€in€the€marital€home€in€Nashville€while€the€Mother€attended€school.€€During€her€first€year€inÏlaw€school,€the€Mother€lived€in€an€apartment€in€Knoxville€during€the€week€and€returned€to€theÏmarital€home€in€Nashville€every€weekend.ÌÌà àAfter€school€was€out€in€May€1994,€the€children€moved€to€Knoxville€to€live€with€theÏMother.€€The€Father€remained€in€Nashville€to€make€repairs€on€the€marital€home€prior€to€selling€theÏhome.€€Although€the€parties€sold€the€marital€home€in€October€1994,€the€Father€continued€to€workÏand€reside€in€Nashville€because€he€did€not€believe€that€he€could€earn€a€comparable€salary€inÏKnoxville.€€During€this€time,€the€Father€traveled€to€Knoxville€every€weekend€to€visit€the€family.€ÍAfter€a€time,€the€Father€convinced€his€employer€to€allow€him€to€work€in€Knoxville€on€MondaysÏand€Fridays.€€Thereafter,€the€Father€lived€with€the€family€in€Knoxville€four€days€per€week.€€ÌÌà àIn€January€1995,€the€Mother€told€the€Father€that€she€was€unhappy€and€wanted€to€goÏto€marriage€counseling€because€the€marriage€ð ðwas€not€working€out.ðð€€At€first,€the€Father€refused€toÏgo€to€counseling,€but€he€agreed€when,€in€May€1995,€the€Mother€told€him€that€she€did€not€want€toÏbe€married€anymore.€€The€parties€attended€marriage€counseling€for€about€three€months€during€theÏsummer€of€1995,€during€which€time€the€Mother€failed€to€reveal€either€to€the€Father€or€to€theÏcounselor€that€the€Mother€was€engaging€in€an€adulterous€affair€with€a€fellow€law€student.€€InÏAugust€1995,€the€Mother€instituted€these€proceedings€by€filing€a€petition€for€divorce.€€ÌÌà àThe€Father€moved€to€Knoxville€to€live€with€the€family€in€October€1995.€€AccordingÏto€the€Father,€the€move€was€one€last€attempt€to€save€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€The€Mother€denied€thatÏthe€Fatherððs€move€to€Knoxville€was€part€of€a€reconciliation€attempt,€but€she€acknowledged€that€theÏparties€continued€to€have€sexual€relations€after€the€Father€moved€in€with€the€family.€€In€order€toÏmove€to€Knoxville,€the€Father€accepted€a€position€with€an€engineering€firm€making€$6,500€perÏyear€less€than€he€made€at€his€firm€in€Nashville.€€Around€this€time,€the€Mother€told€the€Father€aboutÏher€adulterous€affair;€however,€the€Father€continued€to€live€with€the€Mother€and€the€childrenÏbecause€he€wanted€the€marriage€to€succeed.€€ÌÌà àDespite€the€Fatherððs€efforts,€the€Mother€decided€in€January€1996€that€she€wanted€toÏproceed€with€the€divorce.€€Consequently,€in€February€1996,€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreementÏto€share€joint€custody€of€the€children€pending€these€proceedings.€€After€graduation€from€law€schoolÏin€May€1996,€however,€the€Mother€was€unable€to€find€a€legal€position€in€Knoxville.€€In€AugustÏ1996,€therefore,€the€Mother€accepted€a€position€as€a€nursing€instructor€at€East€Tennessee€StateÏUniversity(ETSU)€in€Johnson€City.€€The€Mother€signed€a€nine„month€contract€with€ETSU€onÏAugust€1,€1996,€and,€on€that€date,€filed€a€motion€to€revise€the€partiesðð€ð ðvisitation€scheduleðð€inÍwhich€she€stated€her€desire€to€move€to€Johnson€City€and€requested€the€trial€court€to€modify€theÏpartiesðð€ð ðvisitation€arrangementðð€accordingly.€€The€Mother€did€not€deliver€a€copy€of€the€motion€toÏthe€Fatherððs€attorney€until€August€8,€1996,€and,€shortly€thereafter,€she€moved€with€the€children€toÏJohnson€City.€€The€move€occurred€so€quickly€that€the€children€were€not€given€an€opportunity€toÏsay€goodbye€to€their€school€friends€until€a€later€date.€€ÌÌà àAfter€conducting€a€hearing€on€the€Motherððs€motion,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏpermitting€the€Mother€to€move€to€Johnson€City,€finding€that,€(1)although€the€Mother€had€appliedÏfor€over€100€legal€and/or€medical€positions,€the€only€job€offer€the€Mother€had€received€was€theÏoffer€from€ETSU,€and€that€(2)the€Motherððs€move€ð ðwas€not€an€effort€to€defeat€co„parenting€time,Ïbut€[was]€the€result€of€economic€necessity.ðð€€The€Mother€later€was€offered€a€legal€position€by€anÏattorney€in€Oak€Ridge;€however,€she€did€not€accept€this€position€because€she€had€just€moved€toÏJohnson€City€and€did€not€want€to€break€her€contract€with€ETSU.€€In€the€fall€of€1996,€the€chancellorÏhearing€this€case€recused€himself,€and€the€partiesðð€divorce€proceeding€was€assigned€to€anotherÏchancellor.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€Motherððs€move€to€Johnson€City,€the€Father€faithfully€exercised€visitationÏwith€the€children.€€Despite€living€two€hours€away,€the€Father€frequently€traveled€to€Johnson€City€toÏattend€basketball€games,€choir€performances,€and€field€trips€and€other€school€activities€with€theÏchildren.€€Upon€the€recommendation€of€Rachelððs€counselor,€the€Mother€offered€the€FatherÏadditional€visitation€time€on€Thursday€evenings.€€Consequently,€the€Father€began€taking€theÏchildren€to€dinner€on€Thursday€evenings,€even€though€to€do€so€required€him€to€drive€over€fourÏhours€in€one€evening.€€Although€the€Mother€offered€additional€visitation€time€to€the€Father,€theÏMother€would€not€permit€the€Father€to€pick€up€or€return€the€children€at€the€Motherððs€apartmentÏcomplex.€€Instead,€the€Mother€insisted€on€exchanging€the€children€at€a€nearby€shopping€mall.€€OneÏnight€when€the€Father€returned€the€children€early,€instead€of€going€to€the€mall,€he€went€to€theÏMotherððs€apartment€complex,€where€he€called€her€from€the€parking€lot.€€Rather€than€coming€to€theÍparking€lot€to€meet€the€children,€the€Mother€called€the€police,€who€arrived€and€questioned€theÏFather.€€This€incident€upset€the€children,€and€they€later€asked€the€Mother€why€she€had€called€theÏpolice.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€Father€testified€that€he€believed€he€should€be€the€childrenððs€custodianÏbecause€the€children€always€had€been€his€priority€in€life€and€he€had€never€put€his€job€before€theÏchildren.€€The€Father€indicated€that,€if€awarded€custody,€he€would€continue€to€reside€in€theÏSequoyah€area€of€Knoxville,€where€the€children€could€attend€the€same€schools€and€church€whichÏthey€had€attended€in€the€past.€€ÌÌà àThe€Mother€testified€that€she€hoped€to€continue€teaching€at€ETSU€and€that€she€hadÏmade€no€further€efforts€to€find€employment€in€Knoxville.€€She€acknowledged€that,€when€sheÏenrolled€the€children€in€day„care€in€Johnson€City,€she€neglected€to€provide€the€day„care€facilityÏwith€the€Fatherððs€name,€either€as€a€parent€or€as€an€emergency€contact.€€The€Mother€alsoÏacknowledged€that€she€did€not€notify€the€Father€of€special€events€taking€place€at€the€childrenððs€day„care.€€The€Mother€formerly€allowed€the€Father€to€pick€up€the€children€from€day„care€on€the€FridaysÏof€his€visitation€weekends,€but€she€now€insisted€that€he€pick€them€up€at€6:00p.m.€because€that€wasÏð ðwhat€the€agreement€said.ððÌÌà àIn€connection€with€these€divorce€proceedings,€each€party€hired€a€psychologist€toÏperform€a€custody€evaluation.€€The€Fatherððs€expert,€Dr.€ThomasP.€Hanaway,€testified€that€bothÏparties€were€good€parents€and€that€the€children€were€well„adjusted.€€The€Motherððs€expert,€Dr.ÏBernardF.€Lyons,€Jr.,€agreed.€€Dr.€Lyons€did€not€recommend€any€changes€in€the€current€custodyÏarrangement,€whereas€Dr.€Hanaway€testified€that€the€ideal€situation€would€be€if€both€parties€stillÏlived€in€the€same€city€and€shared€joint€custody.€€Neither€expert,€however,€was€willing€toÏrecommend€one€parent€over€the€other€as€the€childrenððs€custodian.€€The€experts€also€agreed€that,Ïalthough€the€Mother€had€suffered€from€depression€in€the€past,€this€condition€did€not€currentlyÍpresent€a€problem€for€the€Mother€and€would€not€impede€her€ability€to€parent€the€children.€€ÌÌÔ&  Ôà àIn€awarding€the€Father€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children,€the€trial€court€made€theÔ'  ÔÏfollowing€findings:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à20.à àAs€to€custody€and€visitation,€the€parties€have€eachÏchosen€a€psychologist€who€has€seen€the€parties€and€their€children.€ÏThose€experts€both€filed€reports€and€testified€but€did€not€recommendÏa€custodian€for€the€children.€€Dr.€[Hanaway]€testified€that€he€hadÏrarely€seen€such€competent€parents,€such€well€adjusted€children€andÏsuch€a€strong€bond€between€the€children€and€both€of€their€parents.€ÏDespite€the€troubles€that€led€to€the€divorce,€he€said€both€employedÏvery€good€parenting€skills€with€their€children.€€Dr.€Lyonsðð€testimonyÏwas€substantially€in€accord.ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà à22.à à...€€The€parties€currently€have€an€Order€providingÏfor€joint€custody€of€their€children.€€The€[Mother],€however,€objectsÏto€the€joint€custody€provision€being€made€permanent€because€ofÏproblems€that€have€occurred.€€The€Court€agrees€with€the€[Mother]Ïthat€joint€custody€would€not€be€appropriate€in€this€case....ÌÌà8 àà à23.à àThe€Court€finds€that€the€[Father]€is€low„keyed.€€TheÏchildrenððs€counselor€in€Johnson€City€recommended€that€they€seeÏhim€more.€€He€has€shown€a€degree€of€interest€and€taken€part€in€theÏchildrenððs€lives,€...ÌÌà8 àà à....ÌÌà8 àà à25.à àThe€[Father],...€has€been€available€to€take€care€ofÏthe€children€when€[the€Mother]€was€pursuing€her€education.€€HeÏkept€the€children€in€Nashville€for€an€extended€period€of€time.€€HeÏthen€left€Nashville€and€moved€to€Knoxville€to€be€with€them.€€He€hasÏargued€that€he€has€placed€the€childrenððs€interest€above€his€personalÏcareer€goals,€and€the€evidence€tends€to€support€that.ÌÌà8 àà à26.à àThis€was€a€close€case€based€upon€the€present€law.€€InÏthe€past,€custody€would€be€awarded€to€the€mother€under€the€TenderÏYears€Doctrine.€€That€Doctrine€no€longer€prevails.€€There€are€manyÏconsiderations€in€deciding€comparative€fitness.€€One€consideration€isÏwho€has€been€the€primary€caretaker€of€the€children.€€Due€to€theÏCourt€Order€of€August€1996,€the€[Mother]€has€been€the€primaryÏcaretaker,€as€she€was€permitted€to€take€the€children€to€Johnson€City.€ÏHowever,€the€[Father]€came€in€a€close€second,€even€during€thatÏperiod,€in€view€of€the€extraordinary€effort€he€made€to€have€theÏchildren€with€him€and€visit€them.€€The€evidence€shows€that€he€hasÏbeen€a,€if€not€the,€primary€caretaker.€€ÌÌà8 àà à27.à àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€this€Court€concludes€thatÏcustody€should€be€awarded€to€[the€Father]€with€very€extensiveÏvisitation€to€the€[Mother].€€ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àÔ&  Ôò òòòII.€€Custody€and€Visitationóóó óÌÌà àIn€devising€initial€custody€and€visitation€arrangements,€trial€courts€are€required€toÏengage€in€aÔ'  Ô€ð ðcomparative€fitnessðð€analysis,€which€requires€the€courts€to€determine€which€parent€is€aÏcomparatively€more€fit€custodian€than€the€other.€€ò òòòGaskillv.€Gaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€630Ï(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€This€inquiry€is€factually€driven€and€requires€the€courts€to€carefully€weighÏnumerous€considerations,€includingÌÌÓÓà8 àthe€age,€habits,€mental€and€emotional€make„up€of€the€child€and€thoseÏparties€competing€for€custody;€the€education€and€experience€of€thoseÏseeking€to€raise€the€child;€their€character€and€propensities€asÏevidenced€by€their€past€conduct;€the€financial€and€physicalÏcircumstances€available€in€the€home€of€each€party€seeking€custodyÏand€the€special€requirements€of€the€child;€the€availability€and€extentÏof€third„party€support;€the€associations€and€influences€to€which€theÏchild€is€most€likely€to€be€exposed€in€the€alternatives€afforded,€bothÏpositive€and€negative;€and€where€is€the€greater€likelihood€of€anÏenvironment€for€the€child€of€love,€warmth,€stability,€support,Ïconsistency,€care€and€concern,€and€physical€and€spiritual€nurture.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€630€(quoting€ò òòòBahv.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983));Ïò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòRuylev.€Ruyleó óóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€App.€1996).ÌÌà àBecause€ð ð[c]ustody€and€visitation€determinations€often€hinge€on€subtle€factors,Ïincluding€the€parentsðð€demeanor€and€credibility€during€the€divorce€proceedings€themselves,ððÏappellate€courts€ð ðare€reluctant€to€second„guess€a€trial€courtððs€decisions.ðð€€ò òòòGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€atÏ631.€€Our€review€of€these€decisions€is€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,Ïwhich€require€us€to€review€the€trial€courtððs€decision€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.;ÍT.R.A.P.13(d).ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€principles,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€custodyÏdecision€in€this€case€must€be€affirmed.€€Apparently,€neither€of€the€partiesðð€experts€considered€oneÏof€the€parties€to€be€a€comparatively€more€fit€custodian€than€the€other.€€The€trial€court,€therefore,Ïwas€called€upon,€after€observing€the€parentsðð€demeanor€and€judging€their€credibility,€to€make€theÏdetermination€of€which€parent€should€be€awarded€custody.€€After€observing€the€parties€andÏlistening€to€their€testimony,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Father€had€demonstrated€the€ability€toÏserve€as€the€childrenððs€primary€caretaker€and€to€place€the€childrenððs€interests€above€his€personalÏinterests.€€Although€this€was€a€ð ðclose€case,ðð€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€Father€should€be€theÏcustodian€of€the€children,€and€we€decline€to€disturb€this€ruling.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Mother€insists€that€the€trial€court€did€not€place€great€enoughÏemphasis€upon€the€factors€of€stability€and€continuity,€and€she€points€out€that€she€has€been€theÏprimary€custodian€and€caretaker€of€the€children€since€her€move€to€Johnson€City€in€August€1996.€ÏBecause€ð ðstability€is€important€to€any€childððs€well„being,€the€courts€have€emphasized€theÏimportance€of€continuity€of€placement€in€custody€and€visitation€cases.ðð€€ò òòòGaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€atÏ630.€€As€this€court€has€noted,€however,€continuity€ð ðdoes€not€trump€all€other€considerations.€ÏDepending€on€the€facts,€a€parent€who€has€been€a€childððs€primary€giver€may€not€necessarily€beÏcomparatively€more€fit€than€the€other€parent€to€have€permanent€custody€of€the€child.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€630„31.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€Mother€herself€disrupted€the€stability€and€continuity€in€theÏchildrenððs€lives€when€she€chose€to€move€to€Johnson€City€to€accept€employment€there.ÌÌà àThe€Mother€also€complains€that€the€visitation€schedule€set€forth€in€the€trial€courtððsÏfinal€decree€does€not€award€the€Mother€sufficient€visitation€time€during€the€summer€months.€€TheÏMother€contends€that,€inasmuch€as€she€teaches€at€ETSU€for€only€nine€months€per€year,€theÏchildren€should€spend€their€summers€with€the€Mother.€€As€with€the€trial€courtððs€custodyÍdetermination,€however,€we€decline€to€disturb€the€visitation€schedule€set€forth€by€the€trial€court.€Ïò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòJahnv.€Jahnó óóó,€932€S.W.2d€939,€942€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€In€affirming€this€aspect€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€decree,€we€note€that€the€visitation€schedule€grants€the€Mother€three€separate€two„weekÏperiods€of€visitation€in€the€summer,€for€a€total€of€six€weeks€each€summer.€€In€addition€to€the€sixÏweeks€of€summer€visitation,€the€decree€also€grants€the€Mother€visitation€with€the€children€on€theÏfirst€and€third€weekends€of€every€month€throughout€the€year,€including€the€summer€months.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòIII.€€Distribution€of€the€Fatherððs€Pension€Fundóóó óÌÌà àAs€a€final€issue,€the€Mother€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€anÏequitableÔ'  Ô€division€of€the€Fatherððs€retirement€funds,€which€constituted€a€marital€asset.€€TheÏtestimony€at€trial€showed€that€the€Father€received€$21,979€when€he€liquidated€a€pension€fund€fromÏa€former€employer.€€The€Father€testified€that€he€used€these€funds€to€pay€his€legal€fees€in€thisÏdivorce€proceeding.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€make€a€distribution€of€the€pension€fund,€findingÏthatÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€funds€were€used€for€litigation€expenses€in€which€the€[Father],€toÏa€significant€extent,€has€prevailed.€€The€funds€were€not€used€for€hisÏpersonal€benefit,€but€to€see€to€the€well„being€of€the€children.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court,€in€its€discretion,€was€authorized€to€make€an€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÏto€the€Father€because€the€primary€issue€adjudicated€in€the€divorce€proceedings€below€was€theÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€children€and€because€the€Father€ultimately€was€awarded€custody€of€theÏchildren.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€ðð36„5„103(c)€(1996)€(authorizing€trial€court€to€award€spouse€to€whomÏcustody€of€children€is€awarded€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€actionÏconcerning€adjudication€of€custody,€both€upon€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequentÏhearing).€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€Father€to€retain€theÏMotherððs€portion€of€his€pension€fund€as€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€adjudicating€theÍcustody€issue€below.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Mother€insists€that€the€award€must€be€reversed€because€the€FatherÏfailed€to€submit€sufficient€proof€of€the€amount€of€his€attorneyððs€fees.€€After€reviewing€the€evidenceÏpresented€below,€however,€we€conclude€that€the€record€contains€a€sufficient€basis€to€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€award.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòKahnv.€Kahnó óóó,€756€S.W.2d€685,€696„97€(Tenn.€1988);Ïò òòòHennesseev.€Wood€Group€Enters.,€Inc.ó óóó,€816€S.W.2d€35,€36„37€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€AtÏtrial,€the€Father€testified€that€he€spent€the€entire€proceeds€of€the€pension€on€funding€this€litigation.€ÏMoreover,€the€Mother€herself€testified€that€she€had€incurred€over€$10,000€in€attorneyððs€fees€andÏcourt€costs€even€prior€to€the€commencement€of€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€theÏaward€of€attorneyððs€fees€made€by€the€trial€court€represents€a€reasonable€and€proper€fee€in€this€case.€ÏWe€decline,€however,€to€award€the€Father€any€additional€attorneyððs€fees€which€he€may€haveÏincurred€on€appeal.ÌÔ&  ÔÌà àThe€final€divorce€decree€entered€by€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appealÔ'  ÔÏare€taxed€to€the€Mother,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)›