ÿWPC2 ÔѦX‚yœ^Ÿ™”ð¢Å?]j¢ö|`ØI8J[6nL (¼¸ _å! ²,w^áÔ¹×C¹"ѨBÞ^l‹A85|‘Lë-‰0·Xí‘%ºÄ»ü€DŽÌ¶Úߺ- ݴʬ³,Ïâ¿keŒO`= äSYDMßO’pJ_fLï½ñ.½»F[XÙHªªA½‰r&ŒN˜Î jÆ…¥HæU9ŠB;:ú÷; ²^œ-­ ‡Äi°š|]ðG§ár»%ÉŽÚÙ´–¦n­I m ¦H›HüI>]Ή»Õ“JÍoŸY*éØÚw­»÷âo¤YV¢MàQÂëÄ•äªcN[C·³G þŰ7¿€ z[(•k‘åÅ Ô=Ãå)ÍÁâ +‚z n W‚Ѷ㮺 ¹AKšê"AÕóWUÌZ´`¸"çÝ Xïðé]¤tôåv¦Rò`¦ve’@ãHJ;0\ ¸:ÒÒÿ R1%×|=Ô:(|F…Æ·] ®œMTM{é â3›„ú%¼Ò›MPn<äÏñ7Q&->¥ž¬Fz­úX¶*ø›÷Îâ‰ÅÝE%–Û·r¨RÑ`&ågÆ¥,o×)¤™cš*í{¶ÕE¬ÄºïïTI&àb %\qb 0ˆÓ UYN[ UN© UN÷ UNE z“ Ò Vß 5\TTưÆvÆ<Æ^ ÈNÔwÖ4ÚEîð 0DÿC mE#Á\\\\\\b%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 0ë---- B 0¤5 D5Ù D- 0K;; AS†ÆÙ 0¤Ÿ 0DC A«‡» gÝ ƒRç$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼Íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X@IXòô¼ÍÔÔ€ô¼ÍòXX@IÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-4-106(a)€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€€Ð ° Ðà8  àIn€cases€wherein€an€answer€is€filed,€the€court€shall,€on€motion€of€the€defendant,€require€theÐ tÄ Ðcomplainant€to€file€a€bill€of€particulars,€setting€forth€the€facts€relied€on€as€grounds€for€the€divorce,€withÐ 8ˆ Ðreasonable€certainty€as€to€time€and€place.€€ÐüLÐ Ð  Ð(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜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.wpt LÝ ƒRç$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼Íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòFoster€v.€Amcon€Int'l,€Incóó.,€621€S.W.2d€142,€145€(Tenn.€1981),€the€Supreme€Court€defined€"abuse€ofÐ ° Ðdiscretion"€as€follows:€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àThe€term€has€too€often€implied€intentional€wrong,€bad€faith€or€misconduct€on€the€part€of€a€trial€judge.Ð üL ÐIn€our€view,€"abuse€of€discretion"€was€never€intended€to€carry€such€a€meaning,€nor€to€reflect€upon€theÐ À Ðtrial€judge€in€any€disparaging€manner.€To€us€the€phrase€simply€meant€an€erroneous€conclusion€orÐ „Ô Ðjudgment€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge--a€conclusion€that€was€clearly€against€logic€(or€reason)€and€notÐ H ˜ Ðjustified.€€Ð \Ð Ð  Ð Ý ƒRç$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼Íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€was€styled€ð ðMotion€to€Vacate€or€Amend€Order€Entered€on€September€9,€1998€Regarding€theÐ ° ÐHearing€on€August€3,€1998.ðð RÝ ƒRç$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼Íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô¼Íòòô¼ÍÔOur€knowledge€of€the€unrecorded€August€3€hearing€comes€from€the€courtððs€order€entered€September€10Ð ° Ðregarding€the€issues€heard€August€3€and€from€the€transcript€of€a€September€10€hearing,€both€of€which€Ô#†ô¼Íòòô¼Í~#ÔÔ‡ô¼Íòòô¼ÍÔindicate€that€oralÐ tÄ Ðtestimony€was€taken€at€the€August€3€hearing€in€open€court€and€in€chambers.Ô#†ô¼Íòòô¼ÍŸ#ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5¡}.)â Š~&)#kq€Jca4J3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 - ù-(|G2ç$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼Íò»»Ô d(|3x$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼µ»»»ÔÑ8€@IXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î ÄµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼µ»îî Ä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€1999€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X@IX»¼µÔÌò òÔ#†¼µ»XX@Ió#ÔLISA€LEE€Ô_ÔLEVENHAGENÔ_Ô€v.€DARBY€Ô_ÔLONÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLEVENHAGENÔ_ÔÔ‡X@IX»¼µÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Lincoln€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.C9800050€€€€€€€Lee€Russell,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌNo.€M1998„00967„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€14,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓHusband€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€vacate€its€order€divorcing€the€parties,€claiming€the€orderÐ xÈ  Ðis€void€because€it€failed€to€include€an€affirmative€finding€that€the€parties€made€adequate€provisionÐ d´ Ðby€written€agreement€for€the€custody€and€maintenance€of€their€children.€€In€addition,€HusbandÐ P  Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€violated€his€due€process€rights€by€suspending€his€visitation€with€theÐ <Œ Ðcouple's€children€until€he€received€counseling,€and€then€ordering€supervised€visitation.€€He€alsoÐ (x Ðmaintains€that€the€trial€court€improperly€based€its€finding€that€he€was€guilty€of€criminal€contempt€forÐ d Ðfailure€to€pay€child€support€on€insufficient€evidence.€€Husband€claims€he€was€entitled€to€a€jury€trialÐ P Ðon€the€contempt€issue.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.Ð ì< ÐÔ#†¼µ»XX@IÄ#ÔÔ‡X@IX»¼µÔÓÞÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼µ»àX@I³#ÔÔ‡X@IX.¼µÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€€Ben€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,M.S.Ð œì ÐóóandÔ#†¼µ»XX@I #ÔÔ‡X@IX»¼µÔòò€W.€Frank€Crawford,€J.òòóóóó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌBilly€K.€Ô_ÔTollinsonÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Darby€Ô_ÔLonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLevenhagenÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÌNeil€Ô_ÔMorholtÔ_Ô,€Fayetteville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee€Lisa€Lee€Ô_ÔLevenhagenÔ_Ô.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓR ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼µ»XX@I† #ÔÐ #`" Ðà @ àà @ àÌÔ€X@IX»¼µÔÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€parties,€Darby€Ô_ÔLonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLevenhagenÔ_Ô€(ð ðHusband")€and€Lisa€Lee€Ô_ÔLevenhagenÔ_Ô€(ð ðWifeðð)€wereÐ ú%J!% Ðmarried€in€March€1989.€€They€have€two€minor€children.€€The€coupleððs€daughter€was€born€in€1992Ð æ&6"& Ðand€their€son€was€born€in€1993.€€Wife€filed€her€petition€for€divorce€on€March€4,€1998,€allegingÐ Ò'"#' Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€irreconcilable€differences.€The€petition€ð ðÔ_Ôrefrain[edÔ_Ô]€from€allegingÐ ¾($( Ðâ âany€specific€details€constituting€grounds€for€divorceðð€unless€Husband€made€proper€application€underÐ ª)ú$)ý ÐÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„106.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€Husbandððs€counsel,€Wife€did€not€wish€to€explain€theÐ ° Ðâ âdetails€of€her€allegations€ð ðfor€the€sake€of€the€children.ðð€€Husband€counterclaimed€on€the€sameÐ œì Ðgrounds€and€denied€that€he€had€been€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€her€response€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðcounterclaim,€Wife€agreed€that€irreconcilable€differences€existed,€but€denied€engaging€inÐ tÄ Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAfter€discovery€and€a€hearing€which€is€not€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal,€€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðentered€a€detailed€divorce€decree€on€July€6,€1998.€€In€the€decree€the€trial€court€found€that€the€partiesÐ $ t Ðshould€be€divorced€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„4„129(a),€but€did€not€specify€the€grounds.€€TheÐ  ` Ðdecree€granted€Wife€sole€custody€of€the€children€with€liberal€visitation€to€Husband€on€specific€daysÐ ü L  Ðand€times.€€The€decree€also€granted€the€parties,€òòinter€aliaóó,€€the€right€to€send€mail€to€the€childrenÐ è 8  Ðwithout€the€other€opening€or€censoring€it€and€the€right€to€be€free€from€unwarranted€derogatoryÐ Ô$  Ðremarks€made€about€the€other€parent€or€that€parent's€family.€The€decree€ordered€Husband€to€pay€theÐ À  Ðmonthly€sum€of€$410.55,€which€included€a€5%€clerk's€fee,€to€the€clerk's€office€on€"the€first€day€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðeach€and€every€month,€beginning€September€1,€1998."€€€It€divided€the€parties'€property€and€debts€andÐ ˜è  Ðrestrained€them€from€"coming€around,€about,€or€near"€each€other€at€their€respective€residences€exceptÐ „Ô  Ðas€necessary€to€comply€with€the€visitation€order.€€In€addition,€Husband€was€specifically€ð ðenjoinedÐ pÀ Ðfrom€taking€the€minor€children€to€any€mental€health€care€facility€while€they€are€in€his€physicalÐ \¬ Ðcustody.ðð€€Both€parties€were€prohibited€from€ð ðhaving€a€person€to€whom€he€or€she€is€not€married,Ð H˜ Ðunrelated,€stay€overnight€wherever€said€minor€children€are€also€present.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àJust€weeks€after€entry€of€the€decree,€Wife€filed€a€notice€for€a€hearing€requiring€Husband€toÐ  \ Ðshow€cause€why€he€should€not€be€held€in€contempt.€Two€of€the€issues€raised€in€this€appeal€stem€fromÐ øH Ðthe€post„divorce€proceedings€following€this€petition.€€One€issue,€however,€addresses€the€validity€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€divorce€decree€itself,€and€we€will€address€that€issue€before€proceeding€with€the€procedural€historyÐ Ð  Ðrelated€to€the€post„decree€issues.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  ÓI.Ð ”ä ÐÓÓÌÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà  àIn€September€of€1998,€after€hiring€new€counsel€and€in€the€midst€of€post„divorce€disputes,Ð l¼ ÐHusband€filed€a€motion€to€vacate€the€divorce€decree€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€He€arguedÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€decree,€which€was€approved€by€Husbandððs€counsel,€was€void€because€the€trial€court€failedÐ D!” Ðto€affirmatively€find€that€the€parties€made€adequate€and€sufficient€provision€by€written€agreementÐ 0"€  Ðfor€the€custody€and€maintenance€of€the€children€and€for€the€equitable€settlement€of€any€propertyÐ #l! Ðrights€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103(b)€(1996).€After€a€hearing€the€trialÔ‡¼µ»XX@IÔ€Ô#†X@IX»¼µ#ÔcourtÔ‡¼µ»XX@IÔ€Ô#†X@IX»¼µc#ÔdeniedÐ $X" Ðthe€motion€to€vacate.€Ô#†X@IXXX@IN#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€In€this€appeal,€€Ô#†X@IXXX@Iú#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔFather€asserts€that€this€denial€was€Ô#†X@IXXX@IN#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔerror.€€Ô#†X@IXXX@I´#ÔÐ %j # ÐÐ &V!$ ÐÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà8  àTo€set€aside€a€judgment€under€rule€60.02€the€burden€is€upon€the€movant€to€prove€thatÐ ° Ðhe€is€entitled€to€relief,€and€there€must€be€proof€of€the€basis€on€which€relief€is€sought.Ð œì ÐòòBrumlow€v.€Brumlow,óó€729€S.W.2d€103,€106€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986);€òòJefferson€v.Ð ˆØ ÐPneumo€Services€Corp.,óó€699€S.W.2d€181,€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€A€motion€forÐ tÄ Ðrelief€from€a€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€addresses€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ `° Ðtrial€judge;€the€scope€of€review€on€appeal€is€limited€to€whether€the€trial€judge€abusedÐ L œ Ðhis€discretion.€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€145€(Tenn.€1991);€òòTravis€v.€City€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐMurfreesboroóó,€686€S.W.2d€68,€70€(Tenn.€1985).€€€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àRule€60.02€"was€designed€to€strike€a€proper€balance€between€the€competingÐ ü L  Ðprinciples€of€finality€and€justice."€òòJerkins€v.€McKinneyóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.Ð è 8  Ð1976).€With€regard€to€the€purpose€of€the€rule,€this€Court€recently€stated,€€à8@ÈÐ Ð à"Rule€60.02€acts€as€an€escape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€theÐ Ô$  Ðunrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€our€procedural€rules."€òòThompson€v.Ð À  ÐFiremen's€Fund€Ins.€Co.,óó€798€S.W.2d€235,€238€(Tenn.€1990).€Because€of€the€importance€of€thisÐ ¬ü  Ð"principle€of€finality,"€the€"escape€valve"€should€not€be€easily€opened.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.,€Inc.,óó€817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.€1991)€(citingòò€Toneyóó,€810€S.W.2d€atÐ pÀ Ð146).€€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àFather€argues€that€the€divorce€decree€must€be€set€aside€as€invalid€because€it€did€not€meet€theÐ 4„ Ðstatutory€requirements€for€a€divorce€on€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences,€as€provided€in€Tenn.Ð  p ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103(b).€€That€statute€requires,€among€other€things,€that€the€trial€court€affirmativelyÐ  \ Ðfind€in€its€decree€ð ðthat€the€parties€have€made€adequate€and€sufficient€provision€by€written€agreementÐ øH Ðfor€the€custody€and€maintenance€of€any€children€of€that€marriage€and€for€the€equitable€settlement€ofÐ ä4 Ðany€property€rights€between€the€parties.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103(b).€While€Father€is€correctÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€decree€includes€no€such€finding,€that€requirement€only€applies€to€a€divorce€on€the€ground€ofÐ ¼  Ðirreconcilable€differences.€€The€record€herein€does€not€indicate€that€the€parties'€divorce€was€grantedÐ ¨ø Ðon€those€grounds,€making€the€statutory€requirements€inapplicable.Ð ”ä ÐÌÔ#†X@IXXX@I( #ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà  àThe€final€decree€of€divorce€stated:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àIt€.€.€.€satisfactorily€appearing€to€the€Court€that€a€decree€of€divorcement€should€beÐ D!” Ðentered€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€36„4„129(a)€granting€aÐ 0"€  Ðdecree€of€divorcement€to€the€plaintiff,€Lisa€Lee€Levenhagen,€and€the€defendant,Ð #l! ÐDarby€Lon€Levenhagen€.€.€.€It€is€therefore,€ordered,€adjudged€and€decreed€by€theÐ $X" ÐCourt€that€the€bonds€of€matrimony€uniting€.€.€.€[the€parties]€be€and€hereby€areÐ ô$D # Ðabsolutely€and€perpetually€dissolved.€.€.€.Ô#†X@IXXX@I€+#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÐà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThus,€the€decree€was€entered€pursuant€to€Ô#†X@IXXX@I6.#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X@IXXX@IÍ.#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€36„4„129(a),€which€provides:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à(a)€In€all€actions€for€divorce€from€the€bonds€of€matrimony€or€legal€separation,€theÐ )à$( Ðparties€may€stipulate€as€to€grounds€and/or€defenses.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÔ#†X@IXXX@I#/#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÐh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà  àBoth€parties€herein€alleged€the€other€was€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€and€theÐ ° Ðcourt€had€authority€to€declare€the€parties€divorced€upon€either€proof€of€or€stipulation€to€thoseÐ œì Ðgrounds.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b).Ô#†X@IXXX@Ik0#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà8 @, àÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€vacate,€Father€agreed€with€the€court€that€the€divorce€had€been€Ð `° Ðgranted€on€stipulated€grounds,€but€contended€that€those€grounds€were€irreconcilable€differences.€Ð L œ ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@Iñ1#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔFather€argues€that€the€partiesðð€pleadings€reflect€that€each€contested€the€allegation€of€inappropriateÐ 8 ˆ Ðmarital€conduct€against€him€or€her€but€each€agreed€that€they€had€irreconcilable€differences.€Ð $ t ÐHowever,€Father€has€provided€no€evidentiary€support€showing€that€the€parties€did€not€ultimatelyÐ  ` Ðstipulate€to€inappropriate€marital€conduct€as€grounds€for€the€divorce.€Ô#†X@IXXX@IK3#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€No€transcript€of€the€divorceÐ ü L  Ðhearing€has€been€filed.Ô#†X@IXXX@I75#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€€Further,€the€trial€courtððs€remarks€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€vacateÐ è 8  Ðindicate€that€it€interpreted€the€divorce€decree€as€based€on€stipulations€as€to€fault€grounds.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àÔ#†X@IXXX@IÂ5#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔThe€decree€on€its€face€establishes€that€the€divorce€was€not€granted€on€the€ground€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðirreconcilable€differences.€€First,€the€trial€court€specifically€referenced€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„Ð ˜è  Ð129(a)Ô#†X@IXXX@Iæ6#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ.€€Second,€the€trial€court€explicitly€and€painstakingly€divided€the€partiesðð€property€and€debtsÐ „Ô  Ðin€the€decree,€a€process€not€required€when€the€parties€agree€to€such€division€in€a€marital€dissolutionÐ pÀ Ðagreement€required€in€an€irreconcilable€differences€divorce.€€Similarly,€the€trial€court€made€an€awardÐ \¬ Ðof€custody€and€visitation€of€the€partiesðð€children.€€The€decree€does€not€mention€a€marital€dissolutionÐ H˜ Ðagreement,€again€a€requirement€of€an€irreconcilable€differences€divorce.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWithout€any€record€supporting€his€contention,€Father€would€have€us€presume€that€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt€ignored€the€statutory€requirements€for€granting€an€irreconcilable€differences€divorce€when€theÐ øH Ðmore€logical€conclusion,€and€that€supported€by€the€decree,€is€that€the€court€declared€the€partiesÐ ä4 Ðdivorced€on€the€basis€of€stipulations€to€the€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€On€the€recordÐ Ð  Ðbefore€us€we€must€assume,€as€we€did€in€òòMackie€v.€Mackieóó,€No.€01A01„9810„CV„00536,€1999€WLÐ ¼  Ð675134€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€1,€1999)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)Ô#†X@IXXX@I8#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ,€that€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt's€decree€of€divorce€was€supported€by€the€facts,€òòi.eóó.,€that€the€parties€stipulated€to€fault„basedÐ ”ä Ðgrounds.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòÔ#†X@IXXX@IK=#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔSherrod€v.€Wix,€óó849€S.W.2d€780,€783€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1992).€€This€precludes€usÐ €Ð Ðfrom€finding€that€the€trial€court€exceeded€its€discretion€in€denying€Husbandððs€Rule€60.02€motion.Ô#†X@IXXX@IP>#ÔÐ l¼ ÐÌÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÓ  ÓII.Ð D!” ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@Ip?#ÔÓ?ÓÌà  àAs€stated€above,€less€than€three€weeks€after€entry€of€the€final€decree,€Wife€filed€a€notice€forÐ #l! Ða€hearing€requesting€that€Husband's€rights€to€unsupervised€visitation€be€suspended,€that€the€childrenÐ $X" Ðbe€returned€to€Wife's€custody,€and€for€an€order€to€show€cause€why€Husband€should€not€be€held€inÐ ô$D # Ðcontempt€of€court.€€Wife€alleged€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔthat€Husband€had:€(1)€falsely€reported€to€the€Department€ofÐ à%0!$ ÐChildren's€Services€that€Wife€had€committed€child€abuse€against€the€youngest€child;€(2)€refused€toÐ Ì&"% Ðallow€Wife€unimpeded€telephone€conversations€with€the€children€during€visitation;€(3)€madeÐ ¸'#& Ðrepeated€derogatory€remarks€about€Wife€and€her€family€in€the€children's€presence;€(4)€made€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconcerted€effort€during€visitation€to€sway€the€children€against€Wife;€(5)€repeatedly€took€the€childrenÐ )à$( Ðto€a€mental€health€care€facility€during€visitation;€and€(6)€allowed€a€member€of€the€opposite€sex€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðstay€overnight€while€the€children€were€visiting.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àA€hearing€on€Wife's€petitionÔ#†X@IXXX@IvA#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€was€held€August€3,€and€a€transcript€of€that€hearing€is€not€a€partÐ ° Ðof€the€appellate€record.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€clear,€however,€that€the€August€3€hearing€resulted€in€an€immediate€Ð œì Ðsuspension€of€Husband's€visitation€and€an€order€€that€the€children€be€evaluated.€€In€an€August€4€letterÐ ˆØ Ðdiscussing€the€events€of€the€previous€day,€the€court€notified€counsel€for€the€parties€that€Mr.€KentÐ tÄ ÐLewis,€M.S.€D.Min.,€was€designated€to€meet€with€and€counsel€the€children.€€The€court€noted€that€Mr.Ð `° ÐLewis€was€to€assist€the€children€in€coping€with€the€divorce€and€"the€enormous€friction€between€theÐ L œ Ðparents."€€In€addition,€the€court€wanted€the€counselor€to€determine,€if€he€could,€whether€the€childrenÐ 8 ˆ Ðhad€been€coached€to€relate€stories€about€their€mother's€treatment€of€them.€€The€court€stated,€"I€wantÐ $ t Ðadvice€on€how€quickly€to€recommence€visitation€by€the€father€and€with€what€restrictions.€€ObviouslyÐ  ` Ðthe€father€will€need€to€have€visitation€again,€but€I€need€to€know€how€much€harm€is€being€done€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€father."€€The€court€observed€that€"the€children€have€been€the€ropes€in€a€psychological€tug€of€warÐ è 8  Ðbetween€the€parties.€€This€must€be€stopped.€€After€we€have€heard€from€the€counselor,€I€suggest€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€three€of€us€attempt€to€craft€a€visitation€agreement€that€will€minimize€the€problem."Ô#†X@IXXX@IÁD#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€€Ô#†X@IXXX@I4K#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔThe€letterÐ À  Ðalso€stated:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àIf€the€father€wants€to€communicate€information€to€the€counselor,€I€have€no€problemÐ „Ô  Ðwith€that.€€I€assume€that€the€mother€will€do€so.€€If€the€counselor€wants€to€meet€withÐ pÀ Ðthe€parents,€together€or€separately,€I€will€require€that€the€parties€do€so.€€If€theÐ \¬ Ðcounselor€prefers€to€receive€information€from€the€parents€only€through€theirÐ H˜ Ðattorneys,€that€is€also€fine.€€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAs€you€both€know,€I€was€uncertain€after€the€daughter€testified€whether€she€wasÐ  \ Ðtestifying€honestly€or€had€been€coached.€€After€the€testimony€of€both€parties,€I€beganÐ øH Ðto€believe€that€in€fact€the€daughter€had€been€coached.€€On€the€other€hand,€I€want€theÐ ä4 Ðinput€of€a€counselor€on€that,€and€as€soon€as€possible.€€If€you€can€agree€to€submit€aÐ Ð  Ðreport,€that€would€be€great,€but€if€you€cannot,€I€understand,€and€the€counselor'sÐ ¼  Ðdeposition€should€be€taken.€€I€think€you€should€be€allowed€to€talk€to€him€if€you€want.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@IxK#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÌà  àThe€trial€court€ultimately€found€that,€"the€defendant€[Husband]€is€actively€seeking€toÐ €Ð Ðundermine€the€relationship€between€the€plaintiff€[Wife]€and€the€parties'€minor€children,€that€theseÐ l¼ Ðefforts€by€the€defendant€have€created€a€threat€to€the€psychological€health€of€the€children€and€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðrelationship€between€the€plaintiff€and€the€children€.€.€.€"€€The€trial€court€then€suspended€all€Husband'sÐ D!” Ðvisitation€or€contact€with€the€children€until€Husband€"enter[ed]€into€ongoing€psychologicalÐ 0"€  Ðcounseling."€€The€court€held€that€supervised€visitation€would€be€permitted€only€upon€written€proofÐ #l! Ðby€a€licensed€therapist€that€Husband€had€entered€into€regular€counseling.€€The€court€indicated€that€Ð $X" Ðsupervised€visits€could€be€considered€transitional,€the€ultimate€goal€being€resumption€ofÐ ô$D # Ðunsupervised€visitation.Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âÔ#†X@IXXX@IhP#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àThe€designated€counselor,€Mr.€Lewis,€interviewed€both€parents€and€the€children€andÐ ° Ðâ âforwarded€a€report€to€the€trial€court.€€Both€parties€received€copies.€€Although€discussed€in€subsequentÐ œì Ðhearings,€the€report€was€never€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àA€hearing€was€set€for€September€10€on€Husband's€motion€for€an€order€to€set€visitation.€€ThatÐ `° Ðissue€was€deferred,€however,€at€the€request€of€Husband's€new€attorney€who€appeared€on€SeptemberÐ L œ Ð10€for€approval€of€substitution€of€counsel€and€to€request€a€continuance.€€At€the€September€10Ð 8 ˆ Ðhearing,€Husband's€new€counsel€informed€the€court€he€would€be€filing€several€motions.€€The€courtÐ $ t Ðremarked€that€the€hearing€had€originally€been€set€"in€order€to€get€visitation€reinitiated€because€it€wasÐ  ` Ðcut€off€until€we€could€have€the€evaluation."€The€court€expressed€a€willingness€to€set€up€visitation€forÐ ü L  ÐHusband€upon€proof€he€had€entered€counseling.Ô#†X@IXXX@I—T#Ô€Through€counsel,€Husband€asserted€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðdisputing€the€need€for€supervision€of€his€visitation.€€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔ€After€this€argument€was€presented,€the€courtÐ Ô$  Ðremarked€to€Husbandððs€attorney:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àThe€practical€effect€of€what€you€are€going€to€do€is€give€him€no€visitation€at€a€timeÐ ˜è  Ðwhen€I€would€give€him€supervised€visitation€.€.€.€But€thatððs€your€call,€if€you€want€toÐ „Ô  Ðdo€that.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àRather€than€responding€to€this€point,€Husband's€counsel€simply€reiterated€his€grounds€forÐ H˜ Ðchallenging€the€proceedings€in€order€to€create€a€record€for€appeal.€€The€hearing€concluded€withoutÐ 4„ Ða€lifting€of€the€suspension€of€visitation.€€However,€the€court€scheduled€a€hearing€for€September€22Ð  p Ðto€address€the€issue.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àHusband€then€filed€a€motion€to€vacate€or€amend€the€September€10€order׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€because€he€had€notÐ ä4 Ðhad€the€opportunity€to€provide€evidence€contradictory€to€Mr.€Lewis's€report€or€to€object€to€the€report.€Ð Ð  ÐA€hearing€was€held€on€this€motion€on€September€22,€along€with€Husband's€motion€requesting€anÐ ¼  Ðindependent€evaluation€of€the€children,€claiming€the€court€appointed€counselor€was€biased€towardÐ ¨ø ÐWife.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€vacate€the€September€10€order€and€granted€the€motionÐ ”ä Ðfor€an€evaluation€of€the€children€by€a€qualified€counselor€chosen€by€Husband€for€limited€purposes.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€court€reaffirmed€its€order€allowing€Husband€supervised€visitation€upon€proof€he€had€entered€intoÐ l¼ Ðcounseling,€amended€the€order€to€allow€supervision€by€Wife's€mother€and€Husband's€mother,€setÐ X ¨ Ðspecific€times€for€the€visitations,€and€ordered€that€unsupervised€visitation€proceed€in€accordance€withÐ D!” Ðthe€divorce€decree€after€eight€weeks€of€supervised€visitation.€€Because€Husband€had€still€notÐ 0"€  Ðpresented€evidence€that€he€had€begun€counseling,€the€court€did€not€order€visitation€reinstated€at€theÐ #l! Ðtime.€€At€the€hearing,€Husband€first€resisted€a€proposal€by€the€court€that€supervised€visitation€couldÐ $X" Ðresume€upon€Husband's€supplying€written€proof€he€had€started€counseling,€obviating€the€necessityÐ ô$D # Ðfor€another€hearing€and€its€attendant€delay.€€Husband€eventually€agreed€to€that€procedure.Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@I°Y#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÌà  àOn€appeal,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€vacate€its€September€10Ð ¸'#& Ðorder€suspending€visitation€because€the€failure€to€provide€him€with€the€opportunity€to€cross„examineÐ ¤(ô#' Ðor€provide€witnesses€to€counter€the€opinion€of€the€court€appointed€counselor€violated€his€due€processÐ ° Ðrights.€€€He€asserts€that€"the€due€process€violation€occurred€at€the€point€in€time€where€the€court€reliedÐ œì Ðupon€the€reports€and€recommendations€of€.€.€.€[the€counselor]€as€indicated€by€the€September€10,€1998Ð ˆØ Ðorder€when€deciding€to€suspend€Mr.€Levenhagen's€visitation€rights€with€his€children€without€firstÐ tÄ Ðgiving€Mr.€Levenhagen€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€.€.€.€[the€counselor]€Ô#†X@IXXX@IÙc#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔand€to€provide€evidenceÐ `° Ðof€his€own€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children€not€to€suspend€visitation€with€their€daddyÐ L œ Ðespecially€in€light€of€the€fact€that€.€.€.€[the€counselor's]Ô#†X@IXXX@IEg#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€reports€appear€on€their€face€to€be€bias€[sic]."€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThus,€Husband€objects€to€the€suspension€of€his€visitation€to€the€extent€that€suspension€resulted€fromÐ $ t ÐMr.€Lewisððs€report€and€recommendation.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àHusband's€argument€suffers€from€the€fatal€flaw€that€he€has€not€demonstrated€that€theÐ è 8  Ðsuspension€of€visitation€resulted€in€any€degree€from€Mr.€Lewisððs€report.€€To€the€contrary,€the€recordÐ Ô$  Ðis€clear€that€the€trial€court€suspended€visitation€immediately€on€August€3€as€a€result€of€evidence€atÐ À  Ðthe€hearing.€€The€court's€August€4€letter€stated€it€wanted€advice€from€the€counselor€on€"how€quicklyÐ ¬ü  Ðto€recommence€visitation€by€the€father,"€noted€the€father€obviously€needed€to€have€visitation€again,Ð ˜è  Ðand€suggested€that€the€attorneys€and€judge,€after€hearing€from€the€counselor,€attempt€to€draft€aÐ „Ô  Ðvisitation€agreement€that€would€minimize€the€effects€on€the€children€of€their€parents'€"tug€of€war"Ð pÀ Ðover€them.€€In€addition,€statements€made€by€counsel€and€the€court€at€the€various€subsequent€hearingsÐ \¬ Ðclearly€establish€that€Husband's€visitation€was€suspended€as€a€result€of€evidence€taken€at€the€AugustÐ H˜ Ð3€hearing.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àBased€on€that€evidence,€the€court€found€that€Husband€was€seeking€to€undermine€theÐ  \ Ðchildren's€relationship€with€their€mother,€thereby€creating€a€threat€to€their€psychological€health.Ð øH ÐOn€appeal,€Husband€does€not€challenge€these€findings.€€Further,€no€transcript€or€statement€of€theÐ ä4 Ðevidence€from€the€August€3€hearing€is€included€in€the€record.€€Therefore,€we€are€required€to€presumeÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€trial€court's€findings€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€ò òó óÔ#†X@IXXX@Ijh#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€òòSee€J.€C.€Bradford€&€Co.€v.€MartinÐ ¼  ÐConstr.€Co.óó,€576€S.W.2d€586,€587€(Tenn.€1979).€Ô#†X@IXXX@I'p#Ô€Presuming€these€findings€to€be€accurate,€we€findÐ ¨ø Ðno€error€in€the€trial€court's€suspension€of€Husband's€visitation€pending€counseling.€€€òòSee€€In€ReÐ ”ä ÐRockwellóó,€673€S.W.2d€512,€516€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€fact,€Husband€does€not€now€complain€of€the€initial€suspension€of€visitation.€€His€complaintÐ X ¨ Ðappears€to€arise€from€the€requirement€that€the€initial€visits€be€supervised,€even€though€the€court€madeÐ D!” Ðclear€its€intention€that€the€supervised€visits€be€a€temporary€transition€to€resumption€of€unsupervisedÐ 0"€  Ðvisits€pursuant€to€the€divorce€decree.€€He€asserts€the€requirement€of€supervised€visits€resulted€fromÐ #l! ÐMr.€Lewisððs€report€and€recommendation€and€that€Mr.€Lewisððs€report€was€favorable€to€Wife€andÐ $X" Ðbiased€against€Husband.€€Husband€has€not€provided€us€with€a€copy€of€Mr.€Lewisððs€report;Ð ô$D # Ðconsequently€he€has€failed€to€provide€any€support€for€these€allegations.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àTrial€courts€are€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€visitation.€€òòSee€Edwards€v.€Edwards,óóÐ ¸'#& Ðâ â501€S.W.2d€283,€291€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€Precedent€precludes€us€from€disturbing€a€lower€court'sÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdetermination€on€this€issue€absent€a€showing€that€the€court€below€abused€its€discretion.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€SuttlesÐ ° Ðâ âv.€Suttles,óó€748€S.W.2d€427,€429€(Tenn.€1988).€€In€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€expressed€concerns€thatÐ œì Ðthe€children€were€the€objects€of€a€psychological€tug€of€war€beÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔtween€the€parents€and€the€findings€thatÐ ˆØ ÐHusband€had€tried€to€undermine€Wifeððs€relationship€with€the€children,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€by€ordering€that€Husbandððs€visitation€temporarily€be€supervised.Ô#†X@IXXX@I³w#ÔÐ `° ÐÌÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà  àHusbandððs€argument€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€because€he€was€not€permittedÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€cross€examine€the€court€appointed€counselor€or€present€witnesses€to€oppose€him€lacks€merit.Ð $ t ÐHusbandððs€request€for€an€independent€evaluation€to€counter€the€court€appointed€counselorððs€opinionÐ  ` Ðwas€granted.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€Husband€sought€any€relief€based€on€theÐ ü L  Ðindependent€examination.€€Although€the€trial€courtððs€August€4€letter€invites€counsel€to€depose€theÐ è 8  Ðcourt€appointed€counselor€or€voice€objections€to€his€report,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€thatÐ Ô$  ÐHusband€did€so.Ð À  Ðà  àÌà  àMoreover,€"[a]n€essential€principle€of€due€process€is€that€a€deprivation€of€life,€liberty,€orÐ ˜è  Ðproperty€'be€preceded€by€notice€and€opportunity€for€hearing€appropriate€to€the€nature€of€the€case.'"Ð „Ô  ÐòòCleveland€Bd.€of€Educ.€v.€Loudermill,óó€470€U.S.€532,€542,€105€S.€Ct.€1487,€1493,€84€L.€Ed.€2d€494,Ô#†X@IXXX@I y#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IԀРpÀ Ð503€(1985)€(quoting€òòMullane€v.€Central€Hanover€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€339€U.S.€306,€313,€70€S.€Ct.Ð \¬ Ð652,€656,€94€L.€Ed.€865Ô#†X@IXXX@I¼}#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ,€873€(1950));€òòGay€v.€City€of€Somervilleóó,€878€Ô#†X@IXXX@I£~#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔS.W.2dÔ#†X@IXXX@I#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€124,€129€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€1994).€€We€are€unpersuaded€by€Husbandððs€due€process€argument€because€we€see€no€evidenceÐ 4„ Ðthat€Husband€was€deprived€of€adequate€notice€or€the€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€He€participated€withÐ  p Ðcounsel€in€the€August€3€hearing,€he€was€given€the€opportunity€to€question€the€counselor,€and€he€wasÐ  \ Ðallowed€to€choose€his€own€counselor€to€evaluate€the€children.Ô#†X@IXXX@Ia#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔÐ øH ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@Il#ÔÌà@vv(ìàIII.ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€November€12,€the€trial€court€heard€Wife's€request€that€Husband€be€held€in€contempt€and€Ð ¨ø Ðfound€him€guilty€of€criminal€contempt€for€failure€to€timely€pay€child€support.€€Husband€argues€thatÐ ”ä Ðthis€was€error€because€the€evidence€of€willfulness€was€insufficient.€€He€also€claims€that€the€fact€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€current€on€his€support€payments€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€shows€his€failure€to€pay€was€notÐ l¼ Ðwillful.€€At€the€contempt€hearing,€in€fact,€Husband€solely€relied€on€the€fact€he€had€paid€all€supportÐ X ¨ Ðowed,€as€of€the€day€of€the€hearing.Ð D!” Ðâ âÐ 0"€  Ðà  àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€a€criminal€contempt€case€is€raised€on€appeal,€thisÐ ° Ðâ âCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€proof€adduced€at€trial€supports€the€finding€of€theÐ œì Ðtrier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àWe€do€not€reweigh€the€proof.€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€thisÐ `° ÐCourt€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€A€guilty€verdictÐ L œ Ðremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€it€is€replaced€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.Ð 8 ˆ ÐWe€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€factsÐ $ t Ðcontained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€areÐ  ` Ðinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guiltyÐ ü L  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€[òòState€ex€rel.€Anderson€vóó.]€òòDaughertyóó,€137€Tenn.€[125]Ð è 8  Ðat€127,€191€S.W.€at€974€[(1917)];€òòState€v.€Creasy,óó€885€S.W.2d€829,€831.€ÓÓÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐòòBlack€v.€Blountóó,€938€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔS.W.2dÔ#†X@IXXX@Iœ‰#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€394,€399€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ¬ü  ÐÓÓà  àApplying€that€standard€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€evidence€was€clearlyÐ „Ô  Ðsufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€€The€trial€court€was€authorized€to€impose€punishmentÐ pÀ Ðfor€criminal€contempt€upon€a€finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€willful€disobedience€or€resistanceÐ \¬ Ðto€its€decree.€Ô#†X@IXXX@Iä‰#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€òòSee€id.óó;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X@IXXX@Iã‹#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€€29-9-102(3).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€July€6,€1998€Husband€was€ordered€to€pay€$410.55€in€child€support.€€By€court€order,€thisÐ  p Ðamount€was:Ð  \ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àdue€and€payable€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff€through€the€Circuit€Court€ClerkððsÐ ä4 Ðoffice€the€first€day€of€each€and€every€month,€beginning€September€1,€1998,€with€eachÐ Ð  Ðparty€supplying€to€the€other€party€continuing€wage€statements.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€at€the€contempt€hearing€showed€that€on€September€4,€10,€and€23,€1998,Ð ”ä ÐHusband€paid€$80€to€the€Clerkððs€office.€€He€paid€$194.24€on€October€28€and€$221.26€on€NovemberÐ €Ð Ð4.€€On€the€day€of€the€hearing,€November€12,€Husband€brought€his€arrearage€current€for€the€first€timeÐ l¼ Ðsince€the€support€order€was€imposed€with€a€payment€of€more€than€$596.€€On€appeal,€Husband€doesÐ X ¨ Ðnot€contest€his€ability€to€pay.€€Husband€did€not€even€raise€the€issue€in€the€trial€court,€and€presentedÐ D!” Ðno€evidence€that€he€had€been€unable€to€timely€pay€the€amounts€ordered.€€The€evidence€showed€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhe€did€not€make€the€payments€as€ordered.€€The€fact€that€he€brought€his€arrearage€current€on€the€dayÐ #l! Ðof€the€hearing€speaks€to€his€ability€to€pay€and€to€his€culpability€in€not€timely€paying,€and€HusbandÐ $X" Ðcan€point€to€no€evidence€in€the€record€of€his€inability€to€pay.€€Having€considered€the€evidence,€weÐ ô$D # Ðare€satisfied€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Husband€acted€willfully€when€heÐ à%0!$ Ðdisobeyed€the€trial€courtððs€order€to€pay€child€support€on€the€dates€and€in€the€amounts€ordered.€€òòSeeÐ Ì&"% ÐHaynes€vóó.€òòHaynes,óó€904€Ô#†X@IXXX@IIŒ#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔS.W.2dÔ#†X@IXXX@Iõ“#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€118,€120€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àHusband€maintains€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€on€the€contempt€issue.€€He€argues€that€Ð ˆØ Ðprosecution€under€Ô#†X@IXXX@I=”#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X@IXXX@Iœ•#Ô€36„5„104€for€failure€to€pay€child€support€entitles€him€to€a€juryÐ tÄ Ðtrial€ò òó óunderòò€Brown€v.€Latham,€óó914€S.W.2d€887€(Tenn.€1996).€€Husband€is€correct€in€his€reading€ofÐ `° ÐòòBrown€v.€Lathamóó,€and€had€he€been€prosecuted€for€the€criminal€offense€set€out€in€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð L œ ÐððÔ#†X@IXXX@I—#Ô€36„5„104,€he€would€have€been€entitled€to€a€jury.€However,€the€record€clearly€shows€he€was€foundÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€contempt€of€court€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð29-9-102.Ð $ t ÐÌÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà  àOur€Supreme€Court€recently€considered€the€same€argument€presented€by€Husband€herein.€Ð ü L  ÐIn€òòAhern€v.€Ahern,óó€15€S.W.3d€73,€82€(Tenn.€2000),€the€Court€stated:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àÔ#†X@IXXX@IK˜#ÔIn€òòBrown€v.€Lathamóó,€this€Court€distinguished€the€contempt€provisions€in€Tenn.€CodeÐ À  ÐAnn.€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔððÔ#†X@IXXX@Ià™#Ô€29„9„102€from€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔððÔ#†X@IXXX@IEš#Ô€36„5„104(a).€€òòBrownóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€889.€Ð ¬ü  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔðð€36„5„104€addresses€only€the€failure€to€pay€childÐ ˜è  Ðsupport.€€The€punishment€for€violation€of€this€statutory€provision€is€the€equivalentÐ „Ô  Ðof€punishment€for€committing€a€misdemeanor€offense.€€òòBrownóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€888.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àUnlike€Tenn.€Code€Ann€Ô#†X@IXXX@Ièš#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔððÔ#†X@IXXX@Isœ#Ô€36„5„104(a),€contempt€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔððÔ#†X@IXXX@Iîœ#ÔÐ H˜ Ð29„9„102€are€used€to€vindicate€the€authority€of€the€courts€either€by€punishment€or€byÐ 4„ Ðforcing€compliance.€€òòBrownóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€888.€The€ð ðoffensesðð€enumerated€in€Tenn.Ð  p ÐCode€Ann.€Ô‡X@IXXX@IÔððÔ#†X@IXXX@I/ž#Ô€29„9„102€are€wilful€affronts€to€the€court€and€include€the€wilfulÐ  \ Ðmisbehavior€of€an€individual€in€the€courtððs€presence,€the€wilful€disobedience€of€anÐ øH Ðindividual€to€a€court€order,€abuse€of€or€unlawful€interference€with€the€courtÐ ä4 Ðproceedings,€and€jury€tampering.€€Regardless€of€the€form€of€the€remedy€orÐ Ð  Ðpunishment,€it€is€the€court€and€its€administration€of€justice€that€are€offended€by€an€actÐ ¼  Ðof€contempt.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌÒe°Òà  àÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔNothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€Husband€was€charged€with€or€convicted€of€Ô#†X@IXXX@Iª #ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔthe€criminalÐ €Ð Ðoffense€Ô#†X@IXXX@I:¡#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔof€failure€to€comply€with€a€child€support€order€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X@IXXX@I¥¡#Ô€36„5„104.€€To€theÐ l¼ Ðcontrary,€the€record€shows:€(1)€The€petition€requested€that€Husband€be€required€to€show€cause€whyÐ X ¨ Ðhe€should€not€be€held€in€criminal€contempt€for€failing€to€pay€child€support€as€ordered;€(2)€an€orderÐ D!” Ðissued€for€Husband€to€appear€"to€show€cause€why€he€should€not€be€held€in€contempt€of€court€forÐ 0"€  Ðfailure€to€pay€child€support€as€ordered€by€this€Honorable€Court;"€(3)€in€its€final€order€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðfound€Husband€in€criminal€contempt.€€From€the€bench,€the€trial€court€stated:€€Ð $X" ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àIt€is€abundantly€clear€that€Mr.€Levenhagen€is€in€contempt€of€this€court€„€„€willfulÐ à%0!$ Ðcontempt€of€this€court.€He€did€not€pay€his€child€support€payments€when€he€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðordered€to€pay€them.€€When€a€court€order€tells€you€that€you€are€to€pay€something€atÐ ¸'#& Ða€particular€time,€it€does€not€give€you€the€option€of€selecting€when€you€are€going€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpay;€it€does€not€give€you€the€option€of€waiting€to€see€whether€a€contempt€action€isÐ )à$( Ðfiled€against€you€before€you€do€pay.€€And€I€do€find€him€to€be€in€willful€contempt€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt.Ðh+¸&*!! ЇÓ›¤Óà  àIn€addition,€while€arguing€that€the€contempt€action€against€Husband€should€be€dismissed€onÐ ° Ðground€not€relevant€to€this€appeal,€counsel€for€Husband€repeatedly€referred€to€the€proceeding€as€ð ðaÐ œì Ðcriminal€contempt.ðð€The€sentence€imposed,€€ten€days€in€jail€with€all€but€48€hours€suspended€long€asÐ ˆØ Ðtimely€payments€were€made,€is€a€sanction€ð ðtraditionally€utilized€to€vindicate€the€authority€of€theÐ tÄ Ðcourts,ðð€rather€than€a€punishment.€òò€State€ex€rel.€Richardson€v.€Richardsonóó,€No€01A01„9706„CV„Ð `° Ð00274,€1998€WL€652579€at€*€6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept€23,€1998)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ L œ Ðfiled).Ô‡X@IXXX@IԀР8 ˆ ÐÌà  àòòóóÔ#†X@IXXX@I7ª#ÔIn€òòAhernóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€"one€charged€with€criminal€contempt€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnn.€ðð€29-9-102€is€not€entitled€to€a€jury."€€òòAhernóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€82.€€The€Court€explained:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àThe€general€rule€is€that€a€constitutional€guaranty€of€jury€trial€does€not€apply€toÐ Ô$  Ðproceedings€to€punish€for€contempt€of€court€whether€in€a€court€of€law,€a€court€ofÐ À  Ðequity,€a€court€having€criminal€jurisdiction,€or€other€court.€Punishment€for€contemptÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€be€summary€whether€the€contempt€is€direct€or€indirect,€civil€or€criminal,€whetherÐ ˜è  Ðthe€contempt€consists€in€disobedience€of€an€order€of€the€court,€insult,€or€in€otherÐ „Ô  Ðconduct€or€omission,€whether€the€acts€constituting€the€contempt€constitute€alsoÐ pÀ Ðinfractions€of€the€criminal€law,€although€of€the€grade€of€felony€and€whetherÐ \¬ Ðimprisonment€or€fine€is€imposed€or€indemnity€of€an€adverse€party€is€decreed.€DueÐ H˜ Ðprocess€does€not€require€a€jury€trial€in€such€a€proceeding.€€€Ð4„!! ÐÌòòId.óó€at€81€(quoting€òòPass€v.€State,€óó181€Tenn.€613,€184€S.W.2d€1,€3€(1944)).€€òòAhern€óó€requires€us€to€rejectÐ  \ ÐHusband's€argument€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€in€this€situation.Ð øH ÐÌà  àÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔà@°°)àV.ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€its€entirety.€€This€case€is€remandedÐ ¨ø Ðfor€such€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.Ô#†X@IXXX@I&°#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔ€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€to€be€taxed€to€Mr.€Levenhagen,Ð ”ä Ðfor€Ó*S,X„Xz –X°œX*ÓÔ#†X@IXXX@I;±#ÔÔ‡X@IXXX@IÔwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†X@IXXX@Iø±#ÔÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà × àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à____________________________________Ð 0"€  Ðà ½ àà  àà × àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ #l! Ð