ÿWPCÚ "‡ ¶â/®â73ï¹çy†É‰ œ¬“ßøë2êG8>ŠÝÎ/|ésÜ$O-«ÔÈŽF˾¨·QsD–@‚‡±¯Ç7æú0_Cs9—¬Ì­3ZzǨ Ñ?™Å[øwy›ì™è{w†¸" Ú,è¤euï(¬íΩ¼(%7ÏeMϧ²¬í;3®jèv¦8ù},Ñž›Jà úc§âp×­2*ˆ‰€½~éW¶(0ôàNHDá­Ê>„ËqåÏfÆ2Ùéa’o´¾c™êPú¢cRMA, ÓxÆZMâ‘ýRúaAº)ÎÚ‚=ï¤*•6IS>ЉI~å[ƒ¿Ë-fûÁOå7ßi>S&`ƒVâ¥øéWcMèž¡’<L2?”˜ùé ¼‹pE´Ä%ý“BYC7ØáA \Å&8^àñ©#ÙËø"E†©Hokºûòž›PTÄÛpóë¼,ûýhP@4‰cÞn”f+×èˆ{¦9ìrŸEr=&é–ÖªxI[ò^ôR+¥1ŠÙþlŠ÷ æüZ¡==.ìÔ…¡bÊ{ÕáüìïØÆ3,úgTË/¥•õ½¸6tÌŠ÷7d#wû±õ¯OK® ÙÅFƒfaV¨/èk~_Ýp#Á %Ï Õ 0ˆÝ UNe ^ ³ w¿ zà Ò= 4 # 2 m4 ÆK ÆÆ×ÆÒcN5 0D77E{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{b}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} 0ë………… Bpp 0¤ D31 D-d 0K‘‘ ASÜÆ/ 0¤õ 0D™ A«ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ D5ˆ B½˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¢)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.wptö~ì(¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÈÝ ƒRô§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€June€of€2000€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€enacted€Tennessee€Public€Law€889€amending€Title€36,Ð ° ÐChapter€6€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€This€amendment€made€parenting€plans€applicable€statewide;€however€this€amendmentÐ tÄ Ðwas€not€funded€by€the€General€Assembly.€€òòSeeóó€2000€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€889.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ô§$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôìEò»»Ô d(|3Ç{$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç{$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK€€€€)ûÿ!dxdxüÿP PdÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼G½»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îOlG½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼G½»îîOl #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XáX»¼G½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼G½»XXáî#ÔTANYA€R.€(WENGER)€KIBBYòòóó€v.€JASON€M.€KIBBYÔ‡XáX»¼G½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sequatchie€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6790€€€€€€€€Buddy€D.€Perry,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00906„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€Ô_ÔAugustÔ_Ô€31,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€presents€a€dispute€of€custody,€visitation,€and€attorney€fees.€€The€parties€are€parents€ofÐ xÈ  Ðone€child,€Ian€Kibby,€who€is€the€subject€of€this€dispute.€€The€father€was€awarded€primary€custodyÐ d´ Ðwhen€the€parties€divorced€in€May€of€1996.€€The€mother€filed€a€Petition€for€Contempt€andÐ P  ÐModification€seeking€primary€residential€placement€of€Ian€and€later€requested€that€the€court€refer€thisÐ <Œ Ðmatter€to€mediation.€€The€father€filed€a€counter„petition€requesting€a€change€in€the€motherððsÐ (x Ðvisitation€privileges€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€motherððs€petition€but€grantedÐ d Ðthe€fatherððs€petition€reducing€the€motherððs€visitation€rights.€The€court€also€refused€to€refer€this€matterÐ P Ðto€mediation€and€did€not€award€attorney€fees€to€the€father.€€The€mother€now€appeals€the€courtððsÐ ì< Ðdismissal€of€her€petition,€failure€to€refer€the€matter€to€mediation,€and€change€in€visitation;€the€fatherÐ Ø( Ðalso€appeals€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€award€attorney€fees€to€him.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtÐ Ä Ðon€all€issues€and€affirm€its€ruling.€€We€also€award€attorneyððs€fees€necessitated€by€this€appeal€to€theÐ ° Ðfather€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€this€amount.Ð œì ÐÓ£ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð tÄ ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ `° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼G½»àXác#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼G½ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBòòENóó€H.€CòòANTRELLóó,€P.J.,óó€andÐ 8!ˆ  ÐòòPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóó,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌMitchell€A.€Byrd,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tanya€R.€(Wenger)€Kibby.Ð ü#L# ÐÌM.€Keith€Davis,€Ô_ÔDunlapÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Jason€M.€Kibby.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓð ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌI.€€FACTSÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÓ  Óà  àTanya€R.€Kibby€(ð ðthe€motherðð)€and€Jason€M.€Kibby€(ð ðthe€fatherðð)€were€divorced€on€6€MayÐ \+¬&+ Ð1996€in€Walker€County,€Georgia.€€Their€only€child,€Ian€Kibby,€was€born€on€1€February€1995.€€TheÐ H,˜', ÐGeorgia€court€awarded€primary€custody€of€Ian€to€the€father,€granting€the€mother€standard€visitationÐ 4-„(-ý Ðprivileges.€€Three€months€following€the€final€divorce€decree,€in€July€of€1996,€the€mother€filed€aÐ ° ÐComplaint€for€Modification€in€Sequatchie€County,€Tennessee€seeking€primary€custody€of€Ian.€€AsÐ œì Ða€result€of€this€complaint,€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreed€order€on€4€June€1997.€€This€orderÐ ˆØ Ðprovided€that€primary€custody€would€remain€with€the€father;€however,€the€motherððs€visitation€wasÐ tÄ Ðincreased€from€a€standard€visitation€schedule€to€a€schedule€which€included€visitation€every€otherÐ `° Ðweek€from€Wednesday€to€Sunday€and€additional€summer€visitation.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFour€months€following€entry€of€the€agreed€order,€the€mother€filed€a€Petition€for€ContemptÐ $ t Ðand€Modification,€which€is€at€issue€here.€€She,€once€again,€sought€primary€residential€placement€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€child.€€The€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€Petition€for€Modification€on€10€July€1998,€but€reservedÐ ü L  Ðits€ruling€until€October€of€1999€so€that€all€parties€could€undergo€a€custodial€evaluation.€€On€July€1,Ð è 8  Ð1999,€almost€a€year€after€the€hearing€in€the€case,€the€mother€filed€a€motion€to€refer€parties€toÐ Ô$  Ðmediation.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€mother€testified€that€she€and€the€father€were€having€problems€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðvisitation€schedule€and€she€had€lost€visitation€as€a€result.€€She€also€alleged€that€the€father€had€madeÐ „Ô  Ðharassing€phone€calls€and€sent€her€harassing€letters.€€In€addition,€there€was€testimony€of€cigaretteÐ pÀ Ðburns€on€Ian.€€The€mother€alleged€that€these€burns€were€made€by€the€father,€and€she€placed€a€medicalÐ \¬ Ðrecord€in€evidence€which€stated€that€Ian€told€a€doctor€that€his€father€burned€him€with€a€cigarette.€€SheÐ H˜ Ðalso€claimed€that€the€Department€of€Human€Services€was€called€regarding€the€burn;€however,€thereÐ 4„ Ðwas€no€record€of€an€investigation€of€this€incident.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination€the€mother€admitted€that€she€was€actually€denied€no€visitation,€theÐ øH Ðweekends€had€just€become€confused.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€did€not€attempt€to€contact€the€fatherÐ ä4 Ðto€straighten€out€any€misunderstanding€regarding€visitation€since€ð ðphone€calls€do€not€go€very€well.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐThere€was€no€evidence€that€the€fatherððs€phone€calls€were€harassing,€and€the€only€letter€placed€in€theÐ ¼  Ðrecord€was€a€letter€from€the€father€attempting€to€explain€the€father€and€stepmotherððs€attempts€toÐ ¨ø Ðpotty„train€Ian€and€requesting€the€motherððs€assistance€regarding€the€pattern€set€by€the€father€in€theÐ ”ä Ðpotty€training€process.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€father€testified€that€he€had€remarried€and€had€another€child€by€his€new€wife.€€In€addition,Ð X ¨ Ðthere€were€two€other€children€living€in€the€household,€these€children€being€from€his€wifeððs€firstÐ D!” Ðmarriage.€€The€father€and€stepmother€both€worked,€so€Ian€and€his€younger€sister€were€both€placedÐ 0"€  Ðin€day€care€during€the€week€days€he€was€in€his€fatherððs€custody.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€father€further€testified€regarding€two€alleged€burns€on€Ianððs€face.€€The€first€burnÐ ô$D # Ðapparently€occurred€some€time€in€December€of€1997.€€When€the€father€obtained€custody€of€IanÐ à%0!$ Ðfollowing€the€motherððs€visitation,€he€noticed€a€small€round€burn€mark€on€Ianððs€chin.€€The€fatherÐ Ì&"% Ðcontacted€the€emergency€room€and€was€informed€that,€as€this€was€not€an€emergency,€they€would€notÐ ¸'#& Ðhave€time€to€see€Ian.€€Therefore,€the€father€took€Ian€to€the€police€station€to€file€a€police€report€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhave€pictures€taken€of€the€mark.€€This€picture€and€the€police€report€were€placed€in€evidence.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€following€day,€the€father€took€Ian€to€a€prescheduled€appointment€with€a€psychologist€forÐ ° Ðâ âdevelopmental€testing.€€The€psychologist€also€noticed€the€burn€mark€on€Ianððs€chin,€identified€it€asÐ œì Ða€possible€cigarette€burn€and€talked€with€the€child€regarding€how€he€received€the€burn.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðpsychologist,€Gail€Carson€Webb,€testified€on€the€witness€stand€that€Ian€told€her€he€received€the€burnÐ tÄ Ðfrom€the€motherððs€husband,€David€Lawson,€and€that€Ian€showed€a€great€amount€of€hostility€towardÐ `° ÐMr.€Lawson.€€The€psychologist€further€testified€that€the€burn€looked€relatively€fresh,€only€a€few€daysÐ L œ Ðold,€and€that€she€was€obligated€to€contact€the€Department€of€Human€Services€regarding€this€matter.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€father€and€Ianððs€daycare€worker€both€testified€that€Ian€had€no€mark€on€his€chin€prior€to€beingÐ $ t Ðtaken€to€his€mother€for€visitation.€€The€mark€was€only€noticed€upon€Ianððs€return.€€In€addition,€theÐ  ` Ðmother€did€not€report€the€burn€or€seek€treatment€for€Ian€while€he€was€in€her€custody.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àRegarding€a€second€mark,€which€the€mother€alleges€Ian€had€on€his€chin€in€May€of€1998,€theÐ Ô$  Ðfather€testified€that€he€never€saw€this€mark€and€has€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€mark€or€how€IanÐ À  Ðreceived€it.€€(It€was€during€this€time€that€the€mother€did€not€return€Ian€to€his€father€at€the€appropriateÐ ¬ü  Ðtime,€but€took€Ian€camping€at€a€location€unknown€to€his€father€for€several€days.€€The€father€had€noÐ ˜è  Ðidea€where€Ian€was€and€required€court€assistance€to€have€him€returned.)€€Ô#†¼G½»XXá #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼G½ÔThe€mother€and€her€husbandÐ „Ô  Ðboth€testified€to€seeing€the€mark€and€that€it€looked€like€a€cigarette€burn€similar€to€the€December€burn.€Ð pÀ ÐIn€addition,€medical€records€reflected€that€Ian€was€seen€by€a€doctor€for€the€mark€on€his€chin€and€thatÐ \¬ Ðhe€told€the€doctor€his€father€burned€him.€€There€was€further€testimony€regarding€these€two€burnsÐ H˜ Ðfrom€the€fatherððs€landlord,€Sandra€Ramsey.€€Ms.€Ramsey€testified€that€she€overheard€Ian€telling€hisÐ 4„ Ðdaycare€worker€that€David€Lawson,€the€motherððs€husband,€gave€him€the€burns.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAdditional€testimony€in€the€record€reflects€that€the€father€tried€on€numerous€occasions€toÐ øH Ðcommunicate€with€the€mother€to€clear€up€various€problems€with€visitation€or€make€slight€changesÐ ä4 Ðin€visitation€when€there€was€a€conflict€with€his€or€his€wifeððs€schedule.€€The€mother€refused€to€callÐ Ð  Ðthe€father€on€the€telephone€and€made€little€or€no€effort€to€cooperate€in€any€visitation€adjustments€thatÐ ¼  Ðneeded€to€be€made.€€She€had€even€taken€the€child€to€locations€unknown€to€the€father€on€twoÐ ¨ø Ðoccasions€and€made€no€attempt€to€contact€the€father€to€let€him€know€where€Ian€was.€€She€had€alsoÐ ”ä Ðgone€to€the€pick€up€site€on€several€occasions,€waited€for€Ian€and€filed€police€reports€even€though€sheÐ €Ð Ðjust€had€visitation€the€week€before€and€knew€he€would€not€be€there.€€At€no€time€did€she€attempt€toÐ l¼ Ðcall€the€father€to€work€out€any€visitation€discrepancies.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€psychologist€Ian€saw€for€testing€at€the€recommendation€of€his€father,€allÐ 0"€  Ðparties€were€also€seen€by€a€psychologist€at€the€request€of€the€judge€for€a€court€ordered€custodialÐ #l! Ðevaluation.€€The€psychologist,€David€A.€Solovey,€examined€both€households€including€all€childrenÐ $X" Ðin€the€fatherððs€household€and€both€current€spouses.€€He€recommended€that€primary€residentialÐ ô$D # Ðcustody€remain€with€the€father€and€that€the€mother€have€significant€visitation.€€He€also€recommendedÐ à%0!$ Ðmediation€and€counseling€for€the€parents€and€counseling€for€the€mother€to€address€her€depression.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€psychologistððs€recommendations€did€not€address€any€of€the€child€abuse€issues.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThere€was€also€testimony€from€the€father,€Ianððs€stepmother,€and€his€daycare€worker€that€IanÐ )à$( Ðsuffered€from€personality€and€emotional€changes€following€visits€with€his€mother.€€Ianððs€father€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðstepmother€testified€that€he€became€withdrawn€and€did€not€interact€with€the€other€children€normallyÐ h+¸&* Ðfollowing€his€visits.€€He€also€refused€to€eat€the€food€placed€in€front€of€him,€wanting€candy€and€cokesÐ ° Ðinstead.€€Ianððs€daycare€worker€testified€that€Ian€was€withdrawn€and€distant€from€the€other€childrenÐ œì Ðfollowing€his€visits.€€These€witnesses€all€testified€that€after€a€few€days€Ian€would€return€to€normal.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àII.€€ISSUESÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€issues€on€appeal€are€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€motherððs€motion€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðmediation;€(2)€whether€the€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€motherððs€complaint€requesting€custodyÐ $ t Ðand/or€modification€of€the€June€4,€1997€court€order;€(3)€whether€the€court€erred€in€changing€theÐ  ` Ðmotherððs€visitation€to€limit€her€time€with€the€child€as€opposed€to€expanding€this€visitation;€(4)Ð ü L  Ðwhether€the€court€erred€in€awarding€primary€residential€placement€of€Ian€to€the€father;€and€(5)Ð è 8  Ðwhether€the€court€should€have€awarded€the€father€reasonable€attorney€fees€in€his€matter.€€With€regardÐ Ô$  Ðto€all€of€these€issues,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€Ð À  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€CUSTODY€AND€VISITATIONÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€law€which€governs€changes€in€custody€orders€is€very€well€settled€and€requires€a€changeÐ pÀ Ðof€circumstances€so€that€the€present€situation€is€no€longer€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€Further,Ð \¬ Ðgreat€deference€is€given€to€the€trial€judge€regarding€custody€decision.Ð H˜ ÐÌò òó óà8  àIn€recognition€of€the€importance€of€stability€and€continuity,€custody€and€visitationÐ  p Ðdecisions,€once€made€and€implemented,€are€res€judicata€upon€the€facts€in€existenceÐ  \ Ðor€reasonably€foreseeable€when€the€decision€was€made.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  à.€.€.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1)(Supp.€1997)€empowers€the€courts€to€changeÐ ä4 Ðcustody€ð ðas€the€exigencies€of€the€case€may€require,ðð€and€courts€will€change€custodyÐ Ð  Ðwhen€the€party€seeking€to€change€custody€proves€(1)€that€the€childððs€circumstancesÐ ¼  Ðhave€materially€changed€in€a€way€that€could€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen€at€theÐ ¨ø Ðtime€of€the€original€custody€decision,€and€(2)€that€the€childððs€best€interests€will€beÐ ”ä Ðserved€by€changing€the€existing€custody€arrangement.€Ð€ÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àCustody€decisions€are€factually€driven€and€require€the€careful€consideration€ofÐ l¼ Ðnumerous€factors.€€Since€these€decisions€often€hinge€on€the€partiesðð€credibility,Ð X ¨ Ðappellate€courts€are€reluctant€to€second„guess€trial€judges€who€have€observedÐ D!” Ðwitnesses€and€assessed€their€credibility.€€Accordingly,€we€decline€to€disturb€custodyÐ 0"€  Ðdecisions€unless€they€are€based€on€a€material€error€of€law€or€the€evidenceÐ #l! Ðpreponderates€against€them.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ôóó,€970€S.W.2d€482,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(citations€omitted).Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÌà  àWe€cannot€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€leaveÐ ¸'#& Ðprimary€custody€with€the€father€and€reduce€visitation€of€the€mother.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€findings€of€the€trial€court€which€are€dependent€upon€determining€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal.€€òòTown€of€Alamo€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐÔ_ÔForcumÔ_Ô„James€Co.óó,€205€Tenn.€478,€483,€327€S.W.2d€47,€49€(1959).€€The€reason€forÐ ° Ðthis€is€that€the€trial€judge€alone€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€andÐ œì Ðdemeanor€of€the€witness€while€testifying.€€Indeed,€the€trial€judge,€on€an€issue€whichÐ ˆØ Ðhinges€on€witness€credibility,€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€is€found€in€the€recordÐ tÄ Ðconcrete€and€convincing€evidence,€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€the€witnesses,Ð `° Ðwhich€contradicts€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryóó,Ð L œ Ð526€S.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.€1974).Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòBowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€judge€was€able€toÐ  ` Ðwitness€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€and€determine€their€truthfulness€and€credibility.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€record€contains€ample€evidence€from€the€father€and€other€witnesses€to€find€a€change€ofÐ è 8  Ðcircumstances€that€makes€the€motherððs€previous€visitation€arrangement€not€in€Ianððs€best€interest.€€InÐ Ô$  Ðaddition,€there€is€virtually€no€evidence€to€warrant€a€change€of€primary€custody€to€the€mother.€€As€weÐ À  Ðcannot€find€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€we€affirm€its€decisionÐ ¬ü  Ðregarding€custody€and€visitation€in€this€matter.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€MEDIATIONÐ pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€mother€requested€a€referral€to€mediation€pursuant€to€Supreme€Court€Rule€31€andÐ H˜ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„6„401€(Supp.€1999).€€We€find€that,€pursuant€to€Rule€31,€thisÐ 4„ Ðdecision€was€within€the€judgeððs€discretion,€and€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€theÐ  p Ðjudge€in€denying€the€request€for€mediation.€€Further,€section€36„6„401€does€not€apply€to€SequatchieÐ  \ ÐCounty,€the€county€in€which€this€litigation€arose׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×;€therefore,€there€is€no€requirement€that€the€courtÐ øH Ðfollow€this€statute.€€The€judge€had€the€opportunity€to€hear€testimony€and€view€the€parties€toÐ ä4 Ðdetermine€the€likelihood€that€mediation€would€be€successful.€€Based€on€evidence€in€the€record,€weÐ Ð  Ðcan€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€judge.€€Therefore,€we€also€affirm€the€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðdecision€not€to€refer€this€matter€to€mediation.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  ÓV.€€ATTORNEY€FEESÐ €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„103(c)(Supp.€1999)€governs€the€award€of€anyÐ X ¨ Ðattorney€fees€in€proceedings€regarding€child€custody.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àThis€statute€provides€that€a€spouse€may€recover€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€inÐ #l! Ðany€action€concerning€the€adjudication€of€the€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€theÐ $X" Ðparties,€both€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequent€hearing€beforeÐ ô$D # Ðwhom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€the€discretion€of€such€court.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% ÐòòÔ_ÔStubbsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔStubbsÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02A01„9703„CH„00050,€1997€WL€730247,€at€*€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€25,Ð ° Ðâ â1997).€€The€trial€judge,€after€viewing€all€witnesses€and€evidence,€determined€not€to€award€attorneyÐ œì Ðfees€to€the€father.€€As€there€were€allegations€of€child€abuse€and€a€request€for€modification€from€bothÐ ˆØ Ðparties,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€in€denying€attorneyððs€fees.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àHowever,€as€in€the€òòÔ_ÔStubbsÔ_Ôóó€case,€Appellant,€the€mother,€instigated€actions€on€both€the€trial€andÐ L œ Ðappellate€levels.€€The€mother€filed€the€second€request€for€change€in€custody€only€four€and€one€halfÐ 8 ˆ Ðmonths€after€an€agreed€order€regarding€custody€and€visitation€had€been€entered€into€by€both€partiesÐ $ t Ðand€signed€by€the€judge.€€She€once€again€alleged€a€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurredÐ  ` Ðin€the€four€and€one€half€months€since€the€agreed€order€was€entered.€€In€addition,€she€stated€that€theÐ ü L  Ðfather€was€in€contempt€of€court€for€failure€to€abide€by€the€restraining€order,€visitation€schedule,€andÐ è 8  Ðinsurance.€€However,€the€proof€in€this€matter€showed€her€allegations€to€be€without€any€foundationÐ Ô$  Ðor€merit.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àShe€testified€to€two€instances€where€she€had€been€denied€her€visitation.€€But€upon€review€ofÐ ˜è  Ðher€cross€examination€and€testimony€of€the€father,€it€was€obvious€that€she€had€not€actually€beenÐ „Ô  Ðdenied€visitation.€€In€the€first€instance,€the€weekends€for€her€visitation€had€become€confused€due€toÐ pÀ Ðan€extended€summer€visitation€period.€€Instead€of€calling€in€an€attempt€to€straighten€this€matter€outÐ \¬ Ðwith€the€father,€the€mother€went€to€the€pickup€location€every€weekend.€€She€accepted€her€visitationÐ H˜ Ðon€the€incorrect€weekend,€then€returned€the€following€weekend,€knowing€the€child€would€not€beÐ 4„ Ðbrought€because€she€had€Ô_ÔhadÔ_Ô€her€visitation€the€week€before,€and€filed€a€report€at€the€policeÐ  p Ðdepartment€stating€that€the€father€was€in€violation€of€a€court€order€for€not€bringing€the€child€on€theÐ  \ Ðappropriate€weekend.€€However,€the€mother€never€attempted€to€discuss€this€problem€with€the€fatherÐ øH Ðat€the€time€of€pickup€nor€were€any€phone€calls€ever€made€to€straighten€out€the€schedule.€€Apparently,Ð ä4 Ðthe€father€was€not€aware€for€some€time€that€the€visitation€schedule€had€gone€afoul.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€the€second€occasion,€the€mother€testified€that€she€missed€her€Memorial€Day€visitationÐ ¨ø Ðcompletely.€€However,€on€cross€examination€and€direct€examination€of€the€father,€it€was€shown€that,Ð ”ä Ðonce€again,€this€was€merely€a€mix€up€about€times€and€was€actually€the€motherððs€mistake.€€The€fatherÐ €Ð Ðand€his€wife€both€had€to€work€on€Memorial€Day€and€requested€the€mother€take€the€child€early€onÐ l¼ ÐSunday€night€rather€than€Monday€morning€to€prevent€problems€with€the€father€and€stepmotherððsÐ X ¨ Ðwork€schedule.€€The€mother€refused€to€cooperate€and€insisted€that€they€follow€the€court€orderÐ D!” Ðexactly.€€The€child€was€brought€by€the€stepmother€at€8:00€on€Monday€morning€per€court€order;Ð 0"€  Ðhowever,€the€mother€did€not€arrive€until€9:00.€€At€that€point,€the€child€had€been€taken€to€his€fatherððsÐ #l! Ðplace€of€employment€so€the€stepmother€could€go€to€work€€The€father€then€called€and€left€a€messageÐ $X" Ðon€the€motherððs€answering€machine€informing€her€of€where€the€child€was€taken,€but€the€mother€neverÐ ô$D # Ðcalled€to€arrange€another€pick€up.€€Both€of€these€mix€ups€in€visitation€were€caused€by€a€combinationÐ à%0!$ Ðof€honest€mistake€and€lack€of€communication€on€the€part€of€the€mother.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àOn€one€other€occasion,€when€the€father€was€confused€about€the€date€for€picking€up€Ian€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€not€at€the€pick€up€location€when€the€mother€arrived,€she€took€Ian€to€a€location€unknown€to€theÐ )à$( Ðfather€and€failed€to€notify€him€for€over€24€hours.€€The€father€did€not€determine€the€location€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðchild€until€the€following€day€and€had€to€send€an€officer€to€retrieve€him€due€to€the€restraining€orderÐ h+¸&* Ðagainst€the€father.€€The€mother€never€attempted€to€contact€the€father€to€let€him€know€where€Ian€was,Ð ° Ðtell€him€that€he€had€missed€his€pick€up€time,€or€work€out€a€suitable€arrangement€to€return€Ian€to€hisÐ œì Ðfather.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€mother€was€completely€unsuccessful€in€showing€any€change€of€circumstances€that€mightÐ `° Ðremotely€justify€a€change€in€the€childððs€primary€custodial€residence€from€the€father€to€her.€€Then,Ð L œ Ðafter€the€trial,€the€mother,€probably€knowing€that€she€had€shown€no€evidence€of€change€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances€to€justify€her€complaint,€asked€for€court€ordered€mediation.€€This€request€was€denied.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAfter€the€courtððs€final€ruling,€the€mother€filed€this€appeal€requesting€that€the€court€of€appealsÐ ü L  Ðorder€mediation€and€a€parenting€plan€as€well€as€anger€management€and€parenting€classes€with€aÐ è 8  Ðpsychiatrist.€€She€argued€that€these€are€reasonable€conditions€and€restrictions€that€should€have€beenÐ Ô$  Ðplaced€on€their€visitation€by€the€trial€judge.€€She€further€argued€that€her€time€with€Ian€should€haveÐ À  Ðbeen€expanded€rather€than€limited€and€that€the€court€was€in€error€in€continuing€primary€residentialÐ ¬ü  Ðplacement€with€the€father.€€However,€the€appellant€cites€no€evidence€in€the€record€showing€a€materialÐ ˜è  Ðchange€of€circumstance€such€that€a€change€in€the€primary€custodial€residence€would€be€in€the€childððsÐ „Ô  Ðbest€interest.€€Appellantððs€appeal€focuses€solely€on€the€courtððs€failure€to€follow€section€36„6„401€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€Code€to€require€mediation€and€parenting€classes.€€Nowhere€in€the€appeal€were€facts€pointing€toÐ \¬ Ða€change€in€circumstances€nor€were€facts€relating€to€the€childððs€bests€interests€discussed.€€HerÐ H˜ Ðallegations€and€appeal€focused€primarily€on€relationship€problems€between€her€and€the€father€andÐ 4„ Ðtheir€new€families.Ð  p ÐÌà  àJust€as€the€motherððs€petition€to€change€the€custody€arrangement€proved€unsuccessful€at€trialÐ øH Ðdue€to€lack€of€evidence,€this€appeal€is€a€pure€credibility€challenge€without€merit.€€Thus,€we€grant€theÐ ä4 Ðfather€attorney€fees€necessitated€by€this€appeal.€€We€further€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€forÐ Ð  Ða€determination€of€the€amount€of€attorney€fees€to€award€the€father.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€judge€on€all€issues.€€The€evidence€in€this€case€did€not€preponderate€againstÐ l¼ Ðthe€trial€judgeððs€finding€that€custody€should€remain€with€the€father€and€that€the€motherððs€visitationÐ X ¨ Ðshould€be€reduced€from€a€more€liberal€visitation€agreed€to€in€the€previous€order€to€a€standardÐ D!” Ðvisitation€schedule.€€We€also€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€judge€in€deciding€not€toÐ 0"€  Ðrefer€this€matter€to€mediation€and€not€to€award€attorney€fees€to€the€father.€€However,€we€find€that€anÐ #l! Ðaward€of€attorney€fees€necessitated€by€this€appeal€is€just€and€equitable€and€remand€this€issue€to€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€judge€for€a€determination€of€the€amount€of€attorney€fees€to€award€to€the€father,€Jason€M.€Kibby.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€Ô_ÔJUDGEÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ |*Ì%) Ð