ÿWPCÔ  ŠI¥AIþRMƒ…^,ËqN5ß—óQuKKþaÌ>e½Æ;æ¡8~Æ¥ÿ»¥a‚oÂÍÉ~±®ÂDÛzɘgàéµâ)aÀ‚<áv­t¢á©#€Ö~ÔVà3`¨¿¢/ áº~™Q\ôÏ ÚˆØæ„ÜàâIÀTŒ52vÌ) ·à†îDZšyNÑw­<ÓœÒ7w¢íŒ¯Í-kQ̇1¦­€O bÂ:|•û±÷Š5hí³Ërµc|¶ŒíÞ >çct[¯ßewRÖN‡? ŠÞ!Z"£’ìì™1#{Ù™*ÙãuA ÑE,&;êg¥Š@«µ`ÕÜÙchè ðœEË™ÈàÒ±áÓfÃ'Špsw¨¸øKâK·OmÈºËæ{ m?Ìyš"áë Éo~& 7¼g˜ÚÌ“ÄòÅ® n¡©›à¾¥ïzSð׆)Ãxä»Þ¸] O…Ô”ÆÌò\‡äæ ´HLœhWj„¡`—ðLb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ ™ ƨÆnÆ4Æú 0DÀNÑ#×EúéüâååååååååååååååååååååååbÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇ 0ëÏÏÏÏ Bºº 0¤× D5{ D-° 0KÝÝ AS(Æ{ 0¤A 0Då A«)»2„A1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularEbÜ0b014c13|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Ý ƒRÓ`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº™ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€was€Motherððs€second€petition€seeking€to€modify€the€custody€arrangement€initially€agreed€to€when€theÐ ° Ðparties€were€divorced.€€The€first€petition€was€filed€in€1999€and€was€denied€after€the€Trial€Court€concluded€Mother€hadÐ tÄ Ðfailed€to€prove€a€sufficient€ð ðchange€of€circumstances€to€justify€a€modification€of€the€original€custody€order€ð8ð.ðð€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÇÝ ƒRÓ`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº™ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Father€had€a€felony€conviction€from€1978€for€involuntary€manslaughter.€€ Ý ƒRÓ`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº™ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Father€was€held€without€bail€after€a€United€States€Magistrate€Judge€concluded€Father€was€a€danger€to€theÐ ° Ðcommunity€and€a€flight€risk.€ ßÝ ƒRÓ`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº™ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Of€course,€this€assumes€Father€has€no€meaningful€income€and€has€not€been€released€from€prison.€€  P.J.LaBarTullahoma t.r.s]inceVaughnKaatrude RegsPennington COAarrearages t]he- ù-(|G2Ó`$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº™ò»»Ô d(|39$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€@=XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îhÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îîh#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€8,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X@=X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XX@=#ÔKENNETH€MORGAN€JOHNSON€v.€Ð úJ ÐDOROTHY€LYNN€JOHNSON€(HOLT)Ô‡X@=X»¼Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌÔ#†¼»XX@=‘#ÔÔ€X@=X»¼Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Coffee€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„4€€€€€€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00866„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€1,€2004Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌKenneth€Morgan€Johnson€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Dorothy€Lynn€Johnson€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€divorced€in€1998.€Ð xÈ ÐThe€parties€have€two€minor€children€and€initially€agreed€to€equal€co„parenting€time€and€that€neitherÐ d´ Ðparty€would€seek€child€support€from€the€other.€€A€house€owned€by€Father€was€severely€damaged€ifÐ P  Ðnot€destroyed€by€fire,€and€the€proceeds€from€a€fire€insurance€policy€were€deposited€with€the€TrialÐ <Œ ÐCourt€in€a€separate€lawsuit.€€After€Father€was€sentenced€to€be€incarcerated€for€seven€years€for€federalÐ (x Ðdrug€violations,€Mother€filed€a€petition€claiming€entitlement€to€the€insurance€funds€being€held€by€theÐ d ÐTrial€Court€because€the€minor€children€were€in€need€of€support.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€MotherÐ P Ðshould€be€paid€$1,034€per€month€out€of€the€fire€insurance€proceeds€as€child€support€for€the€partiesððÐ ì< Ðtwo€minor€children.€€Father€appeals€claiming€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€the€amount€ofÐ Ø( Ðchild€support€he€should€be€required€to€pay€each€month€out€of€the€fire€insurance€proceeds.€€We€affirmÐ Ä Ðthe€decision€of€the€Trial€Court.Ð ° ÐÌÌÌà@µ µ ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ `!°  Ðà@¥ ¥ ìàChancery€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remandedó óˆÐ L"œ! ÐÌÌòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,óóÐ %` $ Ðjoined,€and€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€filed€a€separate€concurring€opinion.Ð ü%L!% ÐÌÌRoger€J.€Bean€and€John€R.€LaBar,€Tullahoma,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Kenneth€MorganÐ À($( ÐJohnson.Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÌÌGerald€L.€Ewell,€Jr.,€Tullahoma,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Dorothy€Lynn€Johnson€(Holt).Ð p,À', ÐÐ  \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà X àà ° àà  àà ` àThe€parties€were€married€on€August€17,€1990,€and€have€two€children€who€areÐ `° Ðcurrently€nine€and€thirteen€years€old.€€Father€filed€for€divorce€in€January€of€1998.€€ApproximatelyÐ L œ Ðtwo€months€later,€a€Final€Decree€was€entered€granting€the€parties€a€divorce€based€upon€the€stipulatedÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrounds€of€irreconcilable€differences.€€In€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement,€which€was€approvedÐ $ t Ðby€the€Trial€Court,€the€parties€agreed€to€joint€custody€of€their€two€minor€children€with€equal€co„Ð  ` Ðparenting€time.€€The€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€further€provided€that€ð ð[s]ince€the€parties€willÐ ü L  Ðhave€joint€custody€and€each€parent€will€have€the€children€every€other€week,€neither€party€seeks€childÐ è 8  Ðsupport€from€the€other.ðð€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€January€of€2002,€Mother€filed€a€Petition€to€Modify€and€for€Contempt.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðpetition,€Mother€claimed€Father€was€using€illegal€drugs,€had€been€fired€from€his€job€after€failing€aÐ ˜è  Ðdrug€test,€and€that€she€believed€Father€ð ðmay€be€supporting€himself€through€the€sale€or€distributionÐ „Ô  Ðof€drugs.ðð€€Mother€also€maintained€that€Father€was€having€an€ð ðinappropriate€relationshipðð€with€anÐ pÀ Ðunderage€female€who€was€spending€the€night€with€Father€in€the€presence€of€the€children.€€MotherÐ \¬ Ðrequested,€among€other€things,€to€be€designated€the€primary€residential€parent€for€their€two€minorÐ H˜ Ðchildren€and€that€the€Trial€Court€enter€a€temporary€restraining€order€prohibiting€Father€from€takingÐ 4„ Ðthe€children€out€of€the€state€or€otherwise€interfering€with€her€custody€and€control€of€their€children.€Ð  p ÐThe€Trial€Court€entered€a€temporary€restraining€order€prohibiting€Father€from€interfering€withÐ  \ ÐMotherððs€custody€and€control€of€their€children.€€Father€responded€to€the€petition,€generally€deniedÐ øH Ðthe€pertinent€allegations€contained€therein,€and€moved€to€quash€the€temporary€restraining€order.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€February€5,€2002,€the€Trial€Court€conducted€a€hearing€on€several€issues,€includingÐ ¼  Ðwhether€a€temporary€injunction€should€be€issued.€€At€the€hearing,€Father€was€questioned€about€hisÐ ¨ø Ðemployment€history€as€well€as€his€use€of€illegal€drugs.€€Father€admitted€to€using€drugs€in€the€past€andÐ ”ä Ðcontracting€Hepatitis€C€from€intravenous€drug€use.€€According€to€Father,€he€began€working€forÐ €Ð ÐNissan€in€October€of€1991.€€In€1993,€Father€was€convicted€of€felony€possession€of€cocaine€andÐ l¼ Ðsentenced€to€sixty€days€in€jail.€€Father€informed€Nissan€that€he€needed€a€sixty€day€leave€of€absence,Ð X ¨ Ðbut€he€lied€to€Nissan€about€the€reason€he€needed€to€be€absent€from€work€for€such€an€extended€periodÐ D!” Ðof€time.€€Fatherððs€request€for€a€leave€of€absence€was€approved.€€Father€then€returned€to€work€atÐ 0"€  ÐNissan€after€serving€sixty€days€in€jail.€€Father€testified€that€by€early€2000,€he€was€drug„free€exceptÐ #l! Ðfor€one€instance€when€he€took€ð ðthree€hits€off€of€one€joint€with€another€fellow€Nissan€employeeð8ð.ðð€Ð $X" ÐAs€luck€would€have€it,€two€weeks€later€Nissan€required€Father€to€undergo€a€drug€test,€and€he€testedÐ ô$D # Ðpositive€for€marijuana.€€Father€realized€his€employment€with€Nissan€was€in€jeopardy.€€According€toÐ à%0!$ ÐFather:Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€lied€on€my€application€[for€employment]€and€said€I€wasnððt€ð8ð€aÐ ° Ðfelon.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€we€left€this€courtroom€last€November,€within€twoÐ œì Ðmonths,€[Nissan]€asked€me€to€sign€a€release€of€my€background.€€InÐ ˆØ Ð1993,€I€lied€to€them€to€get€a€60„day€leave€of€absence€.ð8ð€€ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€Father€failed€the€drug„test,€Nissan€informed€him€that€he€would€have€to€completeÐ L œ Ða€thirty€day€drug€rehabilitation€program€if€he€wanted€to€remain€employed€with€Nissan.€€FatherÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€that€because€he€believed€Mother€would€attempt€to€seek€full€custody€of€their€children€if€sheÐ $ t Ðfound€out€he€was€in€a€drug€rehabilitation€program,€he€chose€to€voluntarily€resign€his€employmentÐ  ` Ðwith€Nissan.€€After€quitting€Nissan,€Father€worked€for€two€years€in€the€dry€wall€business€and€alsoÐ ü L  Ðrepaired€small€engines.€€Father€described€himself€as€a€ð ðhandyman.ðð€€According€to€Father,€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðunable€to€continue€working€in€the€dry€wall€business€due€to€medical€problems€with€one€of€his€hands.€Ð Ô$  ÐOn€the€day€of€the€hearing,€Father€was€set€to€begin€a€new€job€as€a€truck€driver€earning€$9.50€per€hour.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€February€5òòthóó€hearing,€Father€specifically€denied€having€any€current€involvementÐ ˜è  Ðwith€illegal€drugs.€€Father€was€arrested€the€following€week€for€violations€of€federal€drug€laws.€€WhenÐ „Ô  ÐMother€learned€Father€was€in€jail,€she€filed€a€motion€to€amend€her€petition€to€modify€custody€andÐ pÀ Ðbrought€Fatherððs€incarceration€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€attention.€€A€hearing€on€Motherððs€petition€toÐ \¬ Ðmodify€was€conducted€in€April€while€Father€was€held€in€jail€without€bail€after€being€indicted€underÐ H˜ Ðfederal€law€for€conspiracy€to€sell€fifty€or€more€grams€of€methamphetamine.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Not€surprisingly,€theÐ 4„ ÐTrial€Court€concluded€that€a€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€and€designated€MotherÐ  p Ðas€the€primary€residential€parent€of€the€two€minor€children.€€Since€Father€was€in€jail,€the€matter€ofÐ  \ Ðchild€support€was€stayed€pending€further€orders€of€the€court.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àPrior€to€the€February€5òòthóó€hearing,€a€house€owned€by€Father€suffered€extensive€fireÐ Ð  Ðdamage.€€The€insurance€company€still€was€investigating€the€fire€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€A€€lawsuitÐ ¼  Ðregarding€the€fire€insurance€proceeds€eventually€was€filed€and€was€pending€in€the€same€court€as€theÐ ¨ø Ðpresent€custody€matter.€€The€proceeds€from€the€fire€insurance€policy€eventually€were€deposited€withÐ ”ä Ðthe€Trial€Court.€€In€January€of€2003,€Mother€filed€a€Petition€to€Establish€Child€Support.€€MotherÐ €Ð Ðclaimed€she€was€entitled€to€the€funds€being€held€by€the€Trial€Court€because€the€minor€children€wereÐ l¼ Ðin€need€of€support.€€In€addition€to€Motherððs€claim€for€child€support,€it€appears€there€were€at€least€twoÐ X ¨ Ðother€claims€being€made€against€the€fire€insurance€proceeds.€€The€record€is€unclear€exactly€howÐ D!” Ðmuch€money€was€remaining€after€these€other€claims€were€satisfied,€although€it€appears€there€is€inÐ 0"€  Ðexcess€of€$70,000.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àA€hearing€was€held€on€Motherððs€Petition€to€Establish€Child€Support€and,€while€FatherÐ ô$D # Ðâ âwas€not€present€because€he€was€in€the€federal€penitentiary,€he€was€represented€by€counsel.€€After€theÐ à%0!$ Ðhearing€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€Order€requiring€Father€to€pay€child€support.€€As€relevant€to€thisÐ ° Ðappeal,€the€Trial€Court€stated:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[Based€upon€Fatherððs]€own€testimony€at€the€last€hearing,Ð tÄ ÐFebruary€5,€2002€and€in€his€deposition,€[Fatherððs]€after€tax€earningsÐ `° Ðwere€$788.80€per€week€on€November€1,€1999€and€that€[Father]Ð L œ Ðearned€over€$100,000€for€the€two€years€next€preceding€February€4,Ð 8 ˆ Ð2002.ð8ðÐ$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€thus€finds€[Fatherððs]€earning€ability€for€the€threeÐ ü L  Ðyears€next€preceding€his€incarceration€was€$51,733.33€or€$4,311.00Ð è 8  Ðper€month.€€This€computes€to€a€child€support€obligation€of€$1,034.00Ð Ô$  Ðper€month.€€ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àFather€appeals,€claiming€only€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€concluded€hisÐ ˜è  Ðmonthly€child€support€payment€should€be€based€on€the€average€of€his€earnings€for€the€three€yearsÐ „Ô  Ðimmediately€preceding€the€February€5,€2002,€hearing.€€According€to€Father,€his€child€supportÐ pÀ Ðpayment€should€be€based€on€wages€of€$9.50€per€hour,€which€is€how€much€he€was€earning€at€the€truckÐ \¬ Ðdriving€job€he€started€on€the€day€of€the€hearing€and€worked€for€approximately€one€week€before€beingÐ H˜ Ðarrested.€€If€Father€is€correct,€his€child€support€payment€would€be€reduced€to€approximately€$435€perÐ 4„ Ðmonth.€€While€the€parties€disagree€on€the€amount€of€the€monthly€payments€to€which€Mother€isÐ  p Ðentitled,€they€are€in€agreement€that€the€remaining€fire€insurance€proceeds€held€by€the€Court€shouldÐ  \ Ðbe€used€to€satisfy€Fatherððs€monthly€child€support€obligation.€€Ð øH ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòState€ex€rel.€Vaughn€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€244€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€this€CourtÐ ¨ø Ðacknowledged€the€Trial€Courtððs€discretion€in€setting€the€appropriate€amount€of€child€supportÐ ”ä Ðpayments,€stating:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àHaving€found€that€the€juvenile€court€properly€determined€thatÐ X ¨ ÐMr.€Kaatrude€should€pay€back€child€support,€we€turn€to€the€questionÐ D!” Ðof€the€proper€amount€of€the€support.€€Setting€child€support€is€aÐ 0"€  Ðdiscretionary€matter.€€òòSee€State€ex€rel.€Coleman€v.€Clayóó,€805€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ðat€755.€€Accordingly,€we€review€child€support€decisions€using€theÐ $X" Ðdeferential€"abuse€of€discretion"€standard€of€review.€€This€standardÐ ô$D # Ðrequires€us€to€consider€(1)€whether€the€decision€has€a€sufficientÐ à%0!$ Ðevidentiary€foundation,€(2)€whether€the€court€correctly€identified€andÐ Ì&"% Ðproperly€applied€the€appropriate€legal€principles,€and€(3)€whether€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdecision€is€within€the€range€of€acceptable€alternatives.òò€€See€BIF€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐService€Constr.€Co.óó,€No.€87-136-€II,€1988€WL€72409,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð )à$( ÐApp.€July€13,€1988)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐWhile€we€will€set€aside€a€discretionary€decision€if€it€rests€on€anÐ h+¸&* Ðinadequate€evidentiary€foundation€or€if€it€is€contrary€to€the€governingÐ ° Ðlaw,€we€will€not€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€courtÐ œì Ðmerely€because€we€might€have€chosen€another€alternative.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€goal€of€the€statutes€and€regulations€governing€childÐ `° Ðsupport€is€to€assure€that€children€receive€support€reasonablyÐ L œ Ðconsistent€with€their€parent€or€parents'€financial€resources.òò€€See€ShellÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Lawóó,€No.€03€A01-9608-CV-00251,€1997€WL€119581,€at€*4€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCt.€App.€March€18,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€dismissed€óó(Tenn.€Jan.€29,Ð  ` Ð1998).€€The€statutes€and€regulations€promote€this€goal€by€requiringÐ ü L  Ðthe€courts€to€set€child€support€using€guidelines€developed€by€theÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€Department€of€Human€Services€to€promote€both€efficientÐ Ô$  Ðchild€support€proceedings€and€dependable,€consistent€child€supportÐ À  Ðawards.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(e)€(Supp.€1999);€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐComp.€R.€&€Regs.€r.€1240-2-4-.02(2)(b),€(c)€(1994).Иè ` x` x ÐÌòòKaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€at€248„49.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` à€€At€the€hearing€to€establish€Fatherððs€child€support€payments,€the€parties€and€the€TrialÐ H˜ ÐCourt€discussed€the€impact€of€the€decision€in€òòCoates€v.€Coatesóó,€No.€M2001„01928„COA„R3„CV,Ð 4„ Ð2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€803€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€15,€2002),€òòno€appl.€perm.€appeal€filedóó,€a€recentÐ  p Ðunreported€opinion€from€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court.€€In€òòCoatesóó,€when€the€parties€wereÐ  \ Ðdivorced€the€father€was€serving€a€200€month€sentence€in€federal€prison€for€drug€trafficking.€€TheÐ øH Ðfather€was€earning€$5.00€per€month€while€in€prison.€€The€trial€court€determined€the€fatherððs€childÐ ä4 Ðsupport€obligation€should€be€based€on€an€annual€income€of€$80,000,€which€was€his€average€annualÐ Ð  Ðincome€for€the€three€years€preceding€his€incarceration.€€Using€the€child€support€guidelines,€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€concluded€that€the€fatherððs€monthly€child€support€payment€should€be€$1,497.€€2002€Tenn.€App.Ð ¨ø ÐLEXIS€803,€at€*2.€€The€trial€court€also€determined€that€the€marital€residence€should€be€sold,€withÐ ”ä Ðone„half€of€the€proceeds€going€directly€to€the€mother,€and€the€remaining€one„half€to€be€placed€in€aÐ €Ð Ðtrust€account€for€payment€of€the€fatherððs€monthly€child€support€obligation.€€The€trial€court€then€heldÐ l¼ Ðthat€if€the€funds€in€the€account€were€insufficient€to€pay€the€child€support€throughout€the€minority€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€younger€child,€the€fatherððs€child€support€obligation€would,€nevertheless,€continue€to€accrue.€€2002Ð D!” ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€803,€at€**€2,€3.€€After€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€became€final,€the€father€filed€aÐ 0"€  Ðpetition€for€reduction€on€his€child€support€payments,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€òòIdóó.,€at€*3.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€was€reversed€in€part€and€affirmed€in€part.€Ð ô$D # ÐThis€Court€discussed€the€standard€to€be€applied€when€determining€if€a€current€child€support€orderÐ à%0!$ Ðshould€be€modified.€€After€discussing€the€applicable€standard,€this€Court€concluded€that€the€fatherÐ Ì&"% Ðin€òòCoatesóó€had€established€he€was€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€his€child€support,€stating€it€was€clear€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€ð ðdifference€between€the€amount€which€would€be€due€under€the€guidelines€based€on€Father'sÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcurrent€monthly€income€of€$5.00€and€the€amount€of€current€support€under€the€court's€original€orderÐ )à$( Ðis€more€than€15%.ðð€€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€803,€at€*5.€€This€Court€then€addressed€the€trial€courtððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðapparent€conclusion€that,€even€though€the€father€was€earning€only€$5.00€per€month€while€in€jail,€heÐ h+¸&* Ðstill€should€be€required€to€pay€$1,497€per€month€in€child€support€because€he€was€willfully€andÐ ° Ðvoluntarily€unemployed€as€a€result€of€the€conduct€which€lead€to€his€incarceration.€€We€rejected€thisÐ œì Ðconclusion€by€the€trial€court,€stating€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€[trial]€court's€language€mirrors€that€of€the€guidelinesÐ `° Ðprovision€which€allows€the€setting€of€support€based€upon€potentialÐ L œ Ðincome€where€an€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðunderemployed.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240-2-4-.03(3)(d).Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àHowever,€willful€and€voluntary€unemployment€orÐ ü L  Ðunderemployment€must€result€from€an€intent€to€reduce€or€terminateÐ è 8  Ðincome.€€òòWilson€v.€Wilsonóó,€43€S.W.3d€495,€497€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð2000).€€This€court€has€rejected€the€proposition€that€a€parent'sÐ À  Ðdishonest€acts€which€lead€to€unemployment€constitute€willful€andÐ ¬ü  Ðvoluntary€unemployment.€€òòId.óó€€As€a€logical€extension€of€thatÐ ˜è  Ðprinciple,€we€have€also€held€that€unemployment€or€underemploymentÐ „Ô  Ðresulting€from€incarceration€is€not€willful€and€voluntary.€€òòPenningtonÐ pÀ Ðv.€Penningtonóó,€No.€W2000-00568-COA-R3-CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð \¬ ÐLEXIS€193,€at€*13€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€14,€2001)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð H˜ ÐP.€11€application€filed).Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àConsequently,€we€conclude€that€Father€has€demonstrated€aÐ  \ Ðsignificant€variance€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(a)(1)€and€wasÐ øH Ðentitled€to€a€reduction€in€his€child€support€obligation.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌòòCoatesóó,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€803,€at€**€6,€7.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€concluded€that€since€the€father€was€entitled€to€a€reductionÐ ”ä Ðin€his€child€support€obligation,€arrearages€could€not€accrue€based€on€his€inability€to€pay€due€to€hisÐ €Ð Ðincarceration.€€However,€we€went€on€to€add€that€this€did€not€mean€the€trial€court's€order€that€theÐ l¼ Ðfatherððs€one„half€of€the€net€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€marital€residence€could€be€used€to€supportÐ X ¨ Ðthe€children€was€error.€€This€was€so€because€the€trial€court€had€authority€to€enter€an€order€for€theÐ D!” Ðsupport€of€the€children€via€property€owned€by€the€father.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1).€Ð 0"€  ÐWe€then€stated:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWe€interpret€the€trial€court's€order€as€awarding€Father'sÐ ô$D # Ðinterest€in€half€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€marital€residence€asÐ à%0!$ Ðchild€support.€€Knowing€Father€was€not€available€for€gainfulÐ Ì&"% Ðemployment€and€would€remain€incapable€of€earning€more€than€aÐ ¸'#& Ðnominal€salary€for€the€duration€of€his€sentence,€the€trial€court€awardedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchild€support€out€of€Father's€property,€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€CodeÐ )à$( Ðâ âAnn.€ðð€36-5-101(a)(1).€€The€fact€that€the€court€ordered€regularÐ |*Ì%) Ðpayments€from€the€fund€established€with€the€proceeds€does€not€alterÐ ° Ðthe€fundamental€nature€of€the€order.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€foregoing€analysis,€we€affirm€the€trial€court'sÐ tÄ Ðdenial€of€a€reduction€in€support€with€regard€to€that€portion€of€the€trial€Ð `° Ðcourt's€order€awarding€Father's€half€of€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€house€as€child€support.€€We€reverse€the€trial€court's€order€denyingÐ 8 ˆ Ða€prospective€reduction€based€upon€Father's€actual€income€andÐ $ t Ðremand€for€a€determination€of€his€obligation,€if€any,€based€upon€thatÐ  ` Ðcurrent€income.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌ2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€803,€at€*€*8,€9.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€reliance€on€the€òòCoatesóó€opinion€and€the€relevant€statute,€the€parties€here€agreed€atÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€trial€court€level€and€on€this€appeal€that€the€funds€being€held€by€the€Trial€Court€constitutedÐ ˜è  Ðproperty€of€Father€that€could€be€used€to€support€his€two€children.€€Mother€does€not€claim€thatÐ „Ô  ÐFatherððs€child€support€obligation€will€continue€to€accrue€if€the€remaining€fire€insurance€proceeds€areÐ pÀ Ðexhausted.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Likewise,€Mother€does€not€argue€that€Father€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployedÐ \¬ Ðas€a€result€of€his€actions€leading€to€his€incarceration.€€As€stated€previously,€the€sole€issue€presentedÐ H˜ Ðby€Father€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€determined€the€amount€of€his€monthly€childÐ 4„ Ðsupport€payment€should€be€$1,034.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€in€òòCoatesóó€correctly€observed€that€typically,€ð ð[t]he€appropriate€amount€ofÐ øH Ðsupport€is€determined€by€applying€a€flat€percentage,€based€on€the€number€of€children€to€be€supported,Ð ä4 Ðto€the€obligor€parent's€net€income.€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.,€ch.€1240-2-4-.03(5).ðð€€òòCoatesóó,€2002Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€803,€at€*€5.€€€In€their€briefs,€the€parties€devote€most€of€their€argument€to€whetherÐ ¼  Ðor€not€Father€was€voluntarily€underemployed€when€he€accepted€employment€as€a€truck€driver€earningÐ ¨ø Ð$9.50€per€hour.€€Along€this€line,€we€note€that€Fatherððs€truck€driving€job€only€required€him€to€workÐ ”ä Ð36€hours€per€week,€although€he€was€paid€for€40€hours€of€work.€€Thus,€he€had€some€additional€timeÐ €Ð Ðeach€week€to€perform€ð ðhandymanðð€work€on€the€side,€and€in€fact€admitted€at€the€hearing€that€he€wasÐ l¼ Ðcontinuing€to€repair€small€engines.€€There€is€ample€proof€in€the€record€to€conclude€that€FatherððsÐ X ¨ Ðincome€was€not€limited€to€the€$9.50€per€hour€he€was€making€as€a€truck€driver.€€In€any€event,€we€areÐ D!” Ðreluctant€to€hold€that€Fatherððs€earning€potential€was€defined€solely€by€wages€earned€at€a€job€whichÐ 0"€  Ðhe€held€for€only€one€week€before€being€arrested.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àFather€is€incarcerated€and€presumably€now€has€very€little€income.€€His€child€supportÐ ô$D # Ðis€being€paid€from€property€held€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Because€his€monthly€child€support€payment€isÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€being€made€from€any€ð ðincomeðð,€an€argument€could€be€made€that€his€child€support€obligationÐ Ì&"% Ðneed€not€be€intertwined€with€the€guidelines€which€seem€to€focus€on€child€support€derived€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðincome.€€However,€we€need€not€and€do€not€reach€this€issue€for€two€reasons.€€First,€even€if€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðguidelines€require€a€trial€court€to€base€child€support€being€paid€from€property€solely€on€a€flatÐ )à$( Ðpercentage€of€the€obligor€parentððs€income€or€potential€income,€a€trial€court€nevertheless€must€deviateÐ ° Ðupward€in€certain€circumstances.€€As€relevant€to€this€case,€the€guidelines€provide€that€the€amount€ofÐ œì Ðchild€support€ð ðshallðð€be€increased€when€the€obligor€is€not€providing€health€insurance€for€the€childrenÐ ˆØ Ðand€when€the€obligor€parent€is€not€exercising€the€minimum€amount€of€visitation€contemplated€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€guidelines.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.04(1)(a)€and€(b).€€Accordingly,€even€if€theÐ `° ÐTrial€Court€should€have€based€Fatherððs€child€support€payment€solely€on€his€hourly€earnings€of€$9.50Ð L œ Ðas€argued€by€Father,€the€Trial€Court€would€have€been€required€to€increase€that€payment€after€takingÐ 8 ˆ Ðboth€of€these€factors€into€account.€€Second,€even€if€the€Trial€Court€was€not€required€to€determineÐ $ t ÐFatherððs€monthly€earning€capacity€and€then€apply€the€flat€percentage,€we€nevertheless€are€unable€toÐ  ` Ðconclude€that€the€Trial€Court€abused€its€discretion€by€doing€so.€€Given€the€facts€and€circumstancesÐ ü L  Ðof€this€case,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€Trial€Court€in€setting€Fatherððs€child€supportÐ è 8  Ðpayment€at€$1,034€per€month€to€be€paid€from€the€fire€insurance€proceeds€held€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ „Ô  ÐCourt€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Kenneth€MorganÐ pÀ ÐJohnson,€and€his€surety.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à__________________________________Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌ