WPCA Uhw宬R(eYNC/Y|ԇdWnF٦8g5ub=iYjx]}G]mΨ9fLzmAby%ìyNCNߛmWg܃=lS'1s*}6__V6DR{o^˴I렉5-}&FiSo30跹GE%)=U8خ|Ő 2-yW5H~ xRۢ81 v^IHT1 bT1 0e# %G ^ M 0Y U!N w/ 43 zG    m UN    [!N7C9 0D|E 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0M 0/ 0 0 0 0 0 0` 06 0  0 0 0p 0Q! 0/" 0 # 0#b$ 0$ 0% 0`& 0,' 00' 0<%( 0a( 0>) 0v]) 0`) 0`3* 0`* 0`* 0`S+ 08+ 0+ 02, 0, 0:- 0Y%. 0_~. 0 . 0j/ 0Q1 B*2 D/2 0.3 D/4 04 065 05 0:6 0^'7 0<7U67 07U >8U* 9J9 B;< 0= D3Z> D-> 0K>> AS?X? 0@ 0D@ AAAAAHP LaserJet 40500u- (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*L C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5    9 R0$      2    _TheaffidavitcertifiedthatFathers basesalarywasasfollows:1995$53,350;1996$53,350;1997  $54,570;1998$56,375;1999$58,000;2000$60,500.(#$  0  2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanSG)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New(|G20$ !.8T}dd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  R0$      1    _RegardingFathersarbitrationaward,thepartiesMDAprovidesthat  8  8`   [t]hepartiesanticipatethat[Father]mayreceiveasubstantialsettlementasa 8 consequenceofthislitigation.Contingentuponreceiptofthelitigationproceeds, L [Father]shallpayto[Mother]thesumofTenThousandDollars($10,000).` x` x Afterhereceivedthelumpsumarbitrationsettlement,FatherpaidMother$10,000asperthisprovisionoftheMDA. d  R0$      3    _Duringoneweekendeachmonth,Fatherhasthreedaysofvisitation;theseweekendsrepresent36daysayear.  Theothertwoweekendsamountto4daysamonthoratotalof48daysayear.Thus,weekendvisitationtotals84days t ayear.(|3DŽ$ !.8T}dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3DŽ$ !.8T}dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  !.8T}dd8     _  T}8 XXdd8  Oa@ WT}INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#T}W#Ԉ &   May13,2002Session L X XT} #T}XX #APRILGRANTINGLEv.ROBERTWAYNEINGLEX XT}  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.97DR1960W.NeilThomas,III,Judge  6 FILEDAUGUST6,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102802COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisapostdivorcecase.Thepartiesweredivorcedin1998.OnSeptember21,2000,AprilGrant d Ingle( Mother)#T}XX |#X XT}Ԁfiledapetitiontomodifythepartiesdivorcejudgment.SheallegedthatRobert P WayneIngle( Father)#T}XX t#X XT}Ԁhadbeenunemployedatthetimeofthedivorce,and,consequently,wasnot < orderedtopaychildsupport.Shefurtherallegedthathehadsubsequentlybecomeemployedand (x thatheshouldnowbeorderedtopaychildsupportcomputedpursuanttotheTennesseeChild d SupportGuidelines( theGuidelines).MotheralsosoughttomodifyFathersvisitationassetforth P inthedivorcejudgment.Aftercomparingthepartiesrespectiveincomes,thetrialcourtordered < Fathertopaychildsupportof$177permonth.Motherappeals.Wevacatethetrialcourtschild ( supportawardandtheeffectivedateofthataward.Theremainderofthetrialcourtsorderis  affirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchadditionalproceedingsasmaybe  necessaryandfortheentryofanorderconsistentwiththisopinion.#T}XX =#X XT}   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt t AffirmedinPartandVacatedinPart;CaseRemanded  `   #T}X i #X X.T}CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,and 8!  D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. $"t! ArnoldA.Stulce,Jr.,Chattanooga,fortheappellant,AprilGrantIngle. #L# RichardA.SchulmanandBrendaR.Grant,Chattanooga,fortheappellee,RobertWayneIngle. %$!% Y  OPINION #T}XX #X XT} '"'   (#( I.  #T}XX r #  X XT}  Thepartieshaveoneminorchild,RobertCameronIngle(DOB:12/31/95).Thejudgment  ofdivorceprovidesthattheparties arevestedwithjointlegalandphysicalcustodyoftheparties t son[.]Whenthepartiesweredivorcedin1998,Fatherwasinvolvedinalabordisputewithhis ` employer,theTennesseeValleyAuthority( TVA).Becauseofthisdispute,Fatherhadbeen L  unemployedsinceApril,1995.TheMaritalDissolutionAgreement( theMDA)recitesthe 8  followingwithrespecttothepartiesrespectivetimeswiththeirchild: $ t 8  8`   [Mother]shallhavevisitationwiththepartiessonduringalltimes  L  thatthechildisnotwiththeFather(asthevisitationissetforth  8  herein).$ ` x` x 8  8`   [Father]shallhavevisitationwiththepartiessoneachweekday   duringthehoursthat[Mother]isworking. ` x` x 8  8`   [Father]shallhavevisitationwiththepartiessonbeginningat10:00 p a.m.onSundayandcontinuinguntilTuesdayevening(atthe \ completionof[Mothers]workday)atwhichtimeheshallreturnthe H childtothe[Mother].However,duringthosetimesthat[Mother]has 4 boardmeetingsafterwork(2Tuesdayspermonth),[Father]shall  p keeptheChildovernightandshallreturnhimtothe[Mother]  \ Wednesdaymorningpriortoschool.H` x` x    ` 8  8`      *0h` x` x0hxhx*0xx0pxx* pxpx 8  8`   If[Father]shouldobtainemploymentwhichwouldrequirehimto  workduringtheday,[Father]willhavevisitationwiththeChildfrom  Sundayat10:00a.m.untilWednesdayeveningand[Mother]will  havevisitationfromWednesdayeveninguntilSundayat10:00a.m.l` x` x 8  8`   If[Father]shouldobtainemploymentwhichwouldrequirehimto D! workduringtheevening,[Father]shallcontinuetocarefortheChild 0"  athishomeduring[Mothers]workhours.#l!` x` x 8  8`   ThepartieswillequallydivideallmajorholidaysuntiltheChild $D # becomesschoolage.%0!$` x` x 8  8`   OncetheChildbecomesschoolage,thepartieswillthenequally '#& divideallschoolbreaks,holidays,etc.(#'` x` x TheMDAfurtherprovidesthat [b]ecause[Father]iscurrentlyunemployedandwillbeproviding |*%) childcareservices,nochildsupportwillbepaidby[Father]orby[Mother]. h+&* Ї  In1999,FatherwonhislabordisputewithTVA.Hereceivedasubstantiallumpsum  paymentbywayofanarbitrationaward.Theawardwasdesignedtocompensatehimforwageslost  duringtheperiodofhisunemployment.FatherreturnedtoworkatTVAonOctober25,1999.He  receivedasmallerlumpsumpaymentfromTVAin2000. t   OnSeptember21,2000,Motherfiledherpetitionformodification.Followingcourtordered L  mediationthatwasnottotallysuccessful,thetrialcourtconductedahearingonMay21,2001.The 8  courtfoundthatasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstanceshadoccurredinlightofFathers $ t returntofulltimeemployment.Initsordermodifyingthejudgmentofdivorce,theMDA,andthe  ` permanentparentingplan,thetrialcourtdecreedasfollows:  L  8  8`   [T]hat[Mother]shallbedesignatedastheprimaryresidentialparent $  ofthepartiesson,...butthatthepartiesshallcontinuetocoparent   theChild. ` x` x 8  8`   ...[T]hat[Father]shallhaveparentingtimewiththeChildthree   weekendseachmonth.Duringthefirstweekendofhisthree p weekendspermonth,[Father]willpickupthechildatschoolon \ FridayafternoonandreturnhimtoschoolonMondaymorning. H Duringthesecondandthirdweekendsof[Fathers]threeparenting 4 weekendseachmonth,heshallhaveparentingtimewiththeparties  p minorchildfrom6:00p.m.onFridaytoSundayat6:00p.m. \` x` x 8  8`   [T]hat[Father]shallpaychildsupportintheamountof$177.00per 4 monthsincethepartiesarecoparentingandthereisadifferenceof   about$1,000.00permonthintheirrespectiveincomes.Accordingly,   thechildsupportisbaseduponthatdifferenceintheirincome.The  partieswillequallysharetheexpenseoftheirsonsprivateschool  tuition,booksandrelatedprivateschoolexpenses.` x` x   Motherarguesthatthetrialcourtutilizedanimpropermethodto_calculate_Ԁchildsupport. X  Motheralsoraisestherelatedissueofwhetherthetrialcourtshouldhaveincluded (1)overtimeand D! bonusesand(2)majorarbitrationawardsreceivedby[Father]initscalculationofFathersincome 0"  forchildsupportpurposes.Fatherraisestheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredinfindinga #l! materialchangeincircumstancesthatledtothecourtmodifyingtheMDAregardingcustodyand $X" visitationtime. $D #   II. &"% ' X XXX   Inthisnon-jurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow,with (#' apresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourt'sfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidence )$( preponderatesagainstthosefindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)#X XX X 9'# X XXX ; UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston , |*%) 854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995). h+&* Oa    Thetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw,however,areaccordednosuchpresumption. Campbellv.  FloridaSteelCorp .,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859  (Tenn.1993).#X XX X (#    III. ` A. 8  +  Wefirstaddressthequestionoftheproperamountofchildsupport.T.C.A.365101(a)  ` (1)(2001)providesasfollowsregardingthemodificationofapriordecreepertainingtochild  L  support:  8      8  8`   Incasesinvolvingchildsupport,uponapplicationofeitherparty,the   courtshalldecreeanincreaseordecreaseofsuchallowancewhen   thereisfoundtobeasignificantvariance,asdefinedinthechild   supportguidelinesestablishedbysubsection(e),betweenthe   guidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrentlyorderedunlessthe p variancehasresultedfromapreviouslycourt-ordereddeviationfrom \ theguidelinesandthecircumstanceswhichcausedthedeviationhave H notchanged.4` x` x ,   Id .TheGuidelinesdefinea significantvarianceas atleast15%ifthecurrentsupportisone  \ hundreddollars($100.00)orgreaterpermonthandatleastfifteendollars($15.00)ifthecurrent H supportislessthan$100.00permonth.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.02(3).Inthe 4 instantcase,Fatherwasunemployedatthetimeofthedivorceand,asfarastherecordshows,was   notreceivinganyincomeatthattime.Hisgrossincomeatthetimeofthemostrecent_hearing_Ԁbelow   wasinexcessoffivethousanddollarspermonth.Obviously,thereisa significantvarianceas  contemplatedbyT.C.A.365101(a)(1).Fatherdoesnotarguetothecontrary.    T.C.A.365101(e)(1)(A)(2001)providesthat l 8  8`   Inmakingitsdeterminationconcerningtheamountofsupportofany D! minorchildorchildrenoftheparties,thecourtshallapplyasa 0"  rebuttablepresumptionthechildsupportguidelinesasprovidedin #l! thissubsection.Ifthecourtfindsthatevidenceissufficienttorebut $X" thispresumption,thecourtshallmakeawrittenfindingthatthe $D # applicationofthechildsupportguidelineswouldbeunjustor %0!$ inappropriateinthatparticularcase,inordertoprovideforthebest &"% interestofthechild(ren)ortheequitybetweentheparties.Findings '#& thattheapplicationoftheguidelineswouldbeunjustorinappropriate (#' shallstatetheamountofsupportthatwouldhavebeenorderedunder )$( thechildsupportguidelinesandajustificationforthevariancefrom |*%) theguidelines.h+&*` x` x Ї Id .TheGuidelinesbasethechildsupportawardon aflatpercentageoftheobligors[i.e.,the  parentwithwhomthechilddoesnotprimarilylive]netincome.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.  124024.03(2).Inthecaseofanobligorwithonechild,theGuidelinescallforchildsupportinthe  amountof21%oftheobligorsnetincome.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.03(5). t   Thetrialcourtfoundthat thereisadifferenceofabout$1,000permonthin[theparties] L  respectiveincomes.Itbasedthe$177permonthfigure uponthatdifferenceintheirincome.In 8  therecentcaseof Grayv.Gray ,SCNo.M200000620SCR11CV,2002Tenn.LEXIS309(Tenn., $ t filedJuly9,2002),theSupremeCourtopinedasfollows:  ` 8  8`   Weholdthattheuseofacomparativeanalysisofthepartiesearnings  8  isimproperundertheChildSupportGuidelines.Rule124024 $  .03(2)specificallystatesthat theincomeoftheobligeeshouldnotbe   consideredinthecalculationoforasareasonfordeviationfromthe   guidelinesindeterminingthesupportawardamount.Consideration   ofthepartiesrelativeincomes,therefore,isprecludedby   TennesseesChildSupportGuidelines.p` x` x  Id .at*9.Seealso Robertsonv.Robertson ,C/ANo.03A019711CV00511,1998Tenn.App. H LEXIS761at*1112(Tenn.Ct.App._E.S._,filedNov.9,1998)(finding thatthetrialcourterred 4 whenitestablishedchildsupportbaseduponthepartiesrelativeearnings),_revd_Ԁinpartonother  p grounds,76S.W.3d337(Tenn.2002).Itisclearundertherubricof Gray thatonlytheobligors  \ incomeistobeconsideredand___child_ԀsupportundertheGuidelinesmustbecomputedbasedupon H hisorhernetincome. 4 V/  TheevidencepresentedtothetrialcourtestablishesthatFathersincomefromhisTVA   salaryfortheyear2000was$60,500.Fatherpresentedanaffidavitfromthemanagerofpayroll  operationsatTVAthatcertifiedthisfigure.FatheralsoprovidedaMarch,2001,paystubfrom  TVAreflectinghis2001salaryas$60,550.    InJuly,1999,Fatherreceivedhisfirstlumpsumarbitrationsettlementpayment.U #  1      ׀The X  affidavitfromTVAspayrolloperationsmanagerstatesthat [Father]receivedlumpsum D! paymentsof$290,212.00in1999,and$30,712.20in2000,inanarbitrationaward.The 0"  affidavitissomewhatconfusinginthatitalsostatesthatFathers1999 basesalarywas #l! $58,000andhis grosssalarywas$299,135.20. $X"  $D #   Therecordcontainslittletestimonyabouttheselumpsumpayments.Thetrialcourt  notedthatthetotalpaymentsamountedtosubstantiallymorethanthesumofthefigureslistedas  Fathers basesalaryfortheperiodhewasunemployed. #  2      ׀Thecourtspeculatedthatthelump  sumpaymentsmayhaveincludedanelementofinterest.Therecorddoesnotshowpreciselythe t elementsthatmakeupthesepayments.Wedonotethattherecordisdevoidofanyevidencethat ` FatherhaseverreceivedeitherovertimepayorabonusaspartofhissalaryfromTVA. L    MotherarguesforacalculationofFathersincomethatincludesthearbitrationaward $ t payments.Motherproposesthatthetotalamountoftheawardshouldbeaveragedovertheyears  ` thatFatherwasunemployed,which,accordingtoher,wouldresultinahighermonthlyincome  L  figure.Thetrialcourtaddressedthisargumentsuccinctlyandcorrectly: theproblemIhavein  8  thiscaseisifIdothatImdisregardingwhathisactualpayis. $    Incaseswhereacourtiscalledupontosetchildsupport,thegoalistoascertainthe   _obligor_struenetincomeasofthetimeofthecomputation.Thisisnecessarilyaforward   lookingcomputationinthesensethatsuchawardsaregenerally,orforthemostpart,prospective   innature.Whereanobligorsincomefluctuates,theGuidelinesprovidethat [v]ariableincome p suchascommissions,bonuses,overtimepay,dividends,etc.,shouldbeaveragedandaddedto \ theobligorsfixedsalary.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.03(3)(b). H   Inthepresentcase,asthetrialcourtnoted,therecordcontainsaprecisefigureasto  p Fatherssalaryincomeforboth2000and2001.ThereisnothingtosuggestthatFatherwill  \ receiveotherlumpsumpaymentsinthefuture,noranyotherrevenuesthatwouldcausehis H incometofluctuate.Asthecourtstatedin Smithv.Smith ,C/ANo.M200001094COAR3 4 CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS320(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedMay2,2001),   8  8`   SK SSX XXX courtsaretosettheamountofprospectivechildsupportsothat K childrenwillreceivesupportreasonablyconsistentwiththeir  parents'resourcesandabilitytoprovidesupport.Thesegoalsare  bestfulfilledbyuseofcurrent,accurateinformationregardingthe S obligorparent'sincome.  k  ` x` x  S#X XXSX &P# Id .at*14.Wefindthetrialcourt,whichdidusethemost current,accurateinformation,did !N  noterrinitscalculationofFatherssalaryincome.Theevidencepreponderatesinfavorofits ":! findingthatFathersmonthlysalaryincomeis$5,212.48.Fatherfiledanincomeandexpense #&" statementreflectingthathealsomakes$87.92permonthinrentalincome.Thisbringshistotal $ # grossmonthlyincometo$5,300.40. % $   TheGuidelinesallowacourttoorderadownwarddeviationintheamountofchild '"& support incaseswherephysicalcustodyofthechild(ren)ismoreequallydividedbetweenthe r(#' partiesthanoccursinasituationwhereonepartyhasanaverageamountofovernightvisitation  asdefinedin124024.02(6).Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.04(2)(b).The  Guidelinesprovideforan averagevisitationperiodof80daysperyear.Tenn.Comp.R.&  _Regs_.,ch.124024.04(1)(b)andch.124024.02(6);seealso Casteelv.Casteel ,C/ANo. t 03A019703CV00073,1997Tenn.App.LEXIS518(Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedJuly24,1997), ` perm.app.denied,March2,1998. L    Intheinstantcase,thevisitationscheduleorderedbythecourtprovidesthatFatherwill $ t haveovernightvisitationtotaling84daysperyear.W #  3      ׀Fatherpointsout,however,thatthistotal  ` doesnotincludehisvisitationtimeforholidaysandvacations.TheMDAprovidesthatthe  L  partieswill equallydivideallschoolbreaks,holidays,etc.Bothpartiestestifiedthatthey  8  customarilyworkedoutvisitationtimeforholidaysandvacationsbyagreementandgenerally $  splitsuchtimeequally.ThetrialcourtwasnotpresentedwithanestimateofFatherstimewith   thechildduringsummervacationandholidays.Wesuspectthat20additionaldaysisagenerous   estimateofFatherstimewiththechildduringtheseperiods.Thisisbasedontwoweeksinthe   summerandtwoweeksforholidays.Wehaveexcludedweekenddaysbecausetheyarealready   includedinthe84daycalculation.ThuswewouldestimateFatherstotalvisitationtimetobe p some104daysor28%ofthetotaltimeannually. \ @)B. 4   Webelievethatitisappropriatetoremandthiscasetothetrialcourtsothatthecourtcan  \ determinewhether,and,ifso,towhatextent,theGuidelinesmandatedsupportbasedonFathers H monthlysalary,asfoundbythetrialcourt,shouldbesubjecttoadownwarddeviation.Ifthe 4 courtdeterminesthatsuchadeviationisjustified,itshouldstateinwritingitsreasonsfordoing   so.See_T.C.A._Ԁ365101(e)(1)(A).SeealsoTenn.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.04(1)(b).   @)C.      Mothercomplainsthatthetrialcourt ignored[her]requestthat[Father]berequiredto l providehealthinsuranceforthechild.TheGuidelinesprovidethefollowingregardinghealth X  insurance: D! 8  8`   Ifthe_obligor_Ԁisnotprovidinghealthinsuranceforthechild(_ren_),an #l! amountequaltotheamountnecessaryforthe_obligee_Ԁtoobtainsuch $X" insuranceshallbeaddedtothepercentagecalculatedintheabove $D # rule.%0!$` x` x   &"% Tenn.R.&_Regs_.,ch.124024.04(1)(a).Fathertestifiedwithoutcontradictionthathebegan   providinghealthinsuranceforhissonassoonashereturnedtowork.TheMDAprovidesthe  followingregardinghealthinsurance:  F`  8  8`   [Mother]shallcausetheChildtocontinuetobecoveredunder ` medicalinsurance,...whichisprovidedfromtimetotimebyoron L  behalfofthe[Mothers]employer...Ifhealthinsurancecoverage 8  ceasestobeprovidedby[Mothers]employer,thenthepartiesshall $ t shareequallytheexpenseofobtaininganewhealthinsurancepolicy  ` onbehalfoftheChild. L ` x` x d  PursuanttotheGuidelines,thetrialcourtisdirectedonremandtomemorializethatwhichis $  apparentlyalreadyoccurring,i.e.,thatFatherisprovidinghealthinsuranceforhischild.Ifheisnot   providingsuchcoverage,heshouldbeorderedtodosoororderedtoreimburseMotherforher   expendituresforhealthinsurancecoverageforthepartieschild.   @)D. p   Inchildsupportmodificationcases,the trialcourthasthediscretiontoorderthe H modificationeffectiveasofthedateofthemodificationpetition,thedateofthefinalhearing,orany 4 appropriatedateinbetween. Huntleyv.Huntley ,61S.W.3d329,339(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)  p (citationomitted).Underthefactsofthiscase,webelievethatFathersnewchildsupportobligation  \ asdeterminedbythetrialcourtonremandshouldbeeffectiveasofthedateoffilingofthepetition H formodification.ThepartiestestifiedthatFatherbeganpayingchildsupportintheamountof$672 4 permonthinJanuary,2001.Therecordisnotclearastowhetherand,ifso,whenFatherstopped   makingthesepayments.Fatherisentitledtoacreditagainsthischildsupportobligation,as   determinedbythetrialcourtonremand,foranychildsupportpaymentsmadetoMotherafter  September21,2000,thedateoffilingofherpetition.Onremandthetrialcourtshoulddetermine  thecredittowhichFatherisentitled.  @)E. X    Fatherarguesonappealthatthetrialcourterredinfindingasubstantialandmaterialchange 0"  ofcircumstanceswarrantingachangeinthecustodyandvisitationarrangements.Wedisagree. #l!   TheSupremeCourthasrecentlyaddressedappellatereviewofavisitationorder: $D #     8  8`   [_T]he_Ԁstandardforappellatereviewofatrialcourt'schildvisitation &"% orderiscontrolledbyourdecisionin _Suttles_Ԁv._Suttles_ ,748S.W.2d '#& 427,429(Tenn.1988).There,wenotedthat"'thedetailsofcustody (#' andvisitationwithchildrenarepeculiarlywithinthebroaddiscretion )$( ofthetrialjudge.'" Id. at429(quoting Edwardsv.Edwards ,501 |*%) S.W.2d283,291(Tenn.Ct.App.1973)).Accordingly,weheldthat h+&* a"trialcourt'sdecision[onvisitation]willnotordinarilybereversed  absentsomeabuseofthatdiscretion." Id. ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x Ѐ0  0` (#(#   *0h` (#` (#0h(#h(#*0(#(#0p(#(#*tp(#p(# 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   Undertheabuseofdiscretionstandard,atrialcourt'sruling"willbe L  upheldsolongasreasonablemindscandisagreeastoproprietyofthe 8  decisionmade." Statev.Scott ,33S.W.3d746,752(Tenn.2000); $ t  Statev._Gilliland_ ,22S.W.3d266,273(Tenn.2000).Atrialcourt  ` abusesitsdiscretiononlywhenit"_applie[s_]anincorrectlegal  L  standard,or_reache[s_]adecisionwhichisagainstlogicorreasoning  8  that_cause[s_]aninjusticetothepartycomplaining." Statev.Shirley , $  6S.W.3d243,247(Tenn.1999).Theabuseofdiscretionstandard   doesnotpermittheappellatecourttosubstituteitsjudgmentforthat   ofthetrialcourt. _Myint_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co. ,970S.W.2d920,927   (Tenn.1998). ` x` x Xo _Eldridge_Ԁv._Eldridge_ ,42S.W.3d82,85(Tenn.2001). \     Thestandardformakingadeterminationregardingwhethertherehasbeenasubstantialand 4 materialchangeofcircumstances,suchthatthecourtshouldreexaminethecustodyandvisitation  p arrangements,wassetforthin Steenv.Steen ,61S.W.3d324,327(Tenn.Ct.App.2001):  \    H 8  8`   Childcustodyjudgmentsareresjudicatauponthefactsexistingat 4 thetimeofthehearing. Hicksv.Hicks ,26Tenn.App.641,176   S.W.2d371(Tenn.Ct.App.1943).Butthetrialcourtretainscontrol   overthecustodyofaminorchildandmaymakesuchchangesinthe  custodyorderastheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire. _Adelsperger_  v._Adelsperger_ ,970S.W.2d482(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Theparty  seekingtochangecustodymustprove(1)thatthechilds l circumstanceshavemateriallychangedinawaythatcouldnothave X  beenreasonablyforeseenatthetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecision, D! and(2)thatthechildsbestinterestswillbeservedbychangingthe 0"  existingcustodyarrangement. Id. at485.#l!` x` x  Id.  $D #   Inthepresentcase,Mothertestified,withoutcontradiction,thatforapproximatelythefirst &"% fivemonthsafterthedivorce,thepartiescustodyandvisitationarrangementwassubstantiallythat '#& ofthetermsoftheMDA.InJuly,1998,thepartiessonwasenrolledindaycare,soFatherwasnot (#' furnishingchildcareduringworkdaysasprovidedforintheMDA,notwithstandingthefactthathe )$( wasunemployed.BeginninginoraboutJuly,1998,thechildwasstayingwithFathertwonightsper x*%) week.Inlatesummerorearlyfall,1999,thepartiesagreedthatFatherwouldhavevisitationonly d+&* onSaturdayevenings.ThisarrangementcontinueduntilafterthemediationinDecember,2000,  whenFathersvisitationtimeincreased.    Thus,itcanbeseenthatapproximately1yearsaftertheentryofthejudgmentofdivorce, t Fatherwasexercisingonenightofvisitationperweek,whentheMDAcalledforroughlyequal ` childcareandvisitationtimebetweentheparties.Inaddition,atthetimeofMotherspetition, L  Fathersemploymentstatushadchangedfromunemployedtofulltimeemployment.Underthefacts 8  ofthiscase,wedonotfindthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfindingasubstantialandmaterial $ t changeofcircumstanceswarrantinganotherlookattheissueofFathersvisitation.  ` @)F.  8    Initsjudgment,thetrialcourtdecreedthat eitherpartymay,bymotion,seekreviewofall   portionsofthisOrder,includingbutnotlimitedto,parentingtimearrangements.Thisrulingwas   inresponsetoFatherstestimonythathisworkscheduleatTVAwasprobablygoingtochangerather   dramaticallyinthelatefallorearlywinterof2002.Thetrialcourtattemptedtoprovideawayto   reviewthevisitationarrangement,bymotion,ifFathersworkscheduledidinfactsochange.Ina p subsequentorder,afterahearingonMothersmotiontoalteroramendthejudgment,thecourt \ amendeditspreviousorder H 8  8`   toprovidethatuponanysuchreviewascontemplatedbyParagraph  p 5oftheOrderofAugust8,2001,thatthe_movant_Ԁshallhavethe  \ burdenofprovingamaterialchangeofcircumstancesandthebest H interestsofthechildwithrespecttoanysuchreviewbytheCourt,but 4 achangeindefendantsworkscheduleshallnotbeanticipatedforthe   purposeofachange. ` x` x   Motherarguesthatthetrialcourterredinpurportingtoallowareviewbymotion,ratherthan  byapetitionformodification.TheCourtofAppealswaspresentedwithasimilarargumentin   Gibsonv._Prokell_ ,C/ANo.W200001236_COA_ԄR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS609(Tenn.Ct. l App._W.S._,filedAugust15,2001),whereinthemother,Mrs.Gibson,arguedthatthetrialcourt X  shouldhavedeniedthefathersmotionformodificationbecause themotionshouldhavebeenfiled D! asapetitionformodificationwithserviceofprocessissuedandserveduponMrs.Gibson. Id .at 0"  *12.The Gibson courtrespondedasfollows: #l! 8  8`   SG% $D  SSX XXX Mrs.Gibsonhasnotprovideduswithanyauthoritythatstatesthata G% # PetitionforModificationmustbefiled.Additionally,ourown &_!$ researchleadsustonosuchconclusion.Asaresult,wefindthatthe &'"% trialcourtdidnoterrinentertainingMr._Prokell_'smotionforrelief. '"&  ` x` x  S#X XXSX # Id .Thecourt,afterabriefdiscussionoftheconceptofnotice,heldthat [_u]nder_Ԁtheuniquefacts )$( oftheinstantcase,wefindthatMrs.Gibsonwasprovidedwithsufficientnotice. Id .at*13.We n*%) agreewiththe Gibson courtthatitiswithinthetrialcourtsdiscretiontoentertainamotionfor Z+&* modification,solongasthe_nonmovant_Ԁisprovidedwithreasonablenotice,anopportunityto  respond,and,ifnecessary,ahearingonalldisputedrelevantissues.  @ll)IV. t   MotherhasaskedforanawardoffeesagainstFatherforhercounselsfeesandexpenses,if L  any,inconnectionwiththisappeal.Weawardsuchfeesandexpenses,butdirectthatthe 8  computationoftheamountdueMothershouldbesetbythetrialcourtonremand. $ t @)V.  L    P  SomuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentassetstheamountofFatherschildsupportat$177 $  permonthandestablishesthestartdateforhisnewsupportobligationisvacated.Theremainder   ofthejudgmentisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsas   maybenecessaryandfortheentryofanorder,allconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealare   assessedtotheappellee,RobertWayneIngle.      `     h     _______________________________ 4    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE