ÿWPCƒ ¾ ± SGù§ áÛøË 95ƒ”J‰PùD˜‘¢ü…¶Ï±*"s׿ܻ[õN©úƒ(‚l‘”÷EzËæ¸ômÇdcÆ Eà÷# 4¸Œ$ÚåX‡ðˆVµ÷¸trÉ_€þª»ÒˆC¦éHÞ“3Ðmx`,·®ƒ**|Ù«Ntsn GÃA‚G¶Ì6µš.ÿðšÕ1q¬Â·y·Âp:—‡ö°ñ_—0‘o@ÎhLhÈÏ…”´H}º^þ¿Ñ0ÕßÎ>u³üK4u}CÈÊn|±ÓLð×!²¥ÅÈæ×œ&)¦ý/ùv¼ý+ª.„'°¬ÍŠ—†³yÉN% UDÐT kN‚ƒ­ ,çP4ÿ [•cR)p»Qòì]1Edw¯Vás˜Bù ô7ÿËM‹F=þ¶?Цˆy˜Öž¦;Ü ó,‚‡äø%Ôäôn¹‚ÐYhc9¾×¥HE‡¯ñ·W-ʹ-5 ê9ýk¨$-\ßÒW}Õc|ÚF£àw–УnHÛ°ºÿ„ÍŽŒš/ŠÿÙ~\“A¹ÝøfâÉ“>v¿(D.& N‡ {ÎGš|jD³UÓ^€oû®Î<ÅE懞¹Ò§`œ5?Çî›. /‘ìE¦Œ´cMP_BäYÔùôÍb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ— Æ] Æ#Æé 0D¯Nóõ[ýEXúZ|TÊОššU@888888888888888888bxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0뀀€€ Bkk 0¤ˆ D3, D-_ 0KŒŒ ASׯ* 0¤ð 0D” A«Ø˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»û}‡) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)ð  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ üÝ ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€ôî}òòôî}Ô€We€note€that€the€appellant€failed€to€include€a€transcript€of€the€evidence€sent€to€this€Court.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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  QÝ ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôî}òòôî}ÔThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€appellee€lacked€standing€to€initiate€this€suit€because€Mr.€Linville€was€notÐ ° Ða€party€to€the€action.€€However,€as€previously€stated,€we€cannot€find€that€Mr.€Linville€was€an€indispensable€party€to€thisÐ tÄ Ðaction.€€Additionally,€we€cannot€find€that€the€appellee€somehow€lost€standing€to€initiate€this€lawsuit€based€on€the€absenceÐ 8ˆ Ðof€Mr.€Linville. ðÝ ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôî}òòôî}ÔThe€appellant€references€her€previous€argument€regarding€joinder€and€asserts€that€the€trial€court€violated€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€when€it€did€not€join€Mr.€Linville€as€an€indispensable€party.€€As€we€have€alreadyÐ tÄ Ðaddressed€the€substance€of€this€issue,€we€will€not€revisit€this€issue. rÝ ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî}òòôî}Ô€€While€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ôóó€is€factually€distinguishable€from€the€case€at€bar,€we€can€find€no€reason€that€this€general€ruleÐ ° Ðwould€not€be€applicable€in€the€case€at€bar. ÀÝ ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî}òòôî}Ô€€In€this€section€of€her€brief€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€appellee€expertÐ ° Ðwitness€fees€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€However,€as€we€have€already€addressed€these€issues,€we€will€not€revisit€such€issues€inÐ tÄ Ðthis€section. ”Ý ƒRu¯$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôî}òòôî}Ô€€As€we€have€found€the€award€of€child€support€proper,€we€also€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€theÐ ° Ðappellee€child€support€arrearage€that€had€accumulated€since€the€filing€of€appelleeððs€petition€to€set€child€support.(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2u¯$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€LU»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî}ò»»Ô d(|3Ç}$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€LU»»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€LU»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€LU»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼LU»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼LU»»¼LUÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îMºî»¼LUÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼LU»îîMº+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€9,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÙX»¼LUÔÌò òÔ#†¼LU»XXÙ#ÔIN€RE:€€STEPHANIE€ANN€Ô_ÔLINVILLEÔ_Ô,€A€MINORòòóóÔ‡XÙX»¼LUÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€17847J€€€€€€Ben€Hall€McFarland,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01097„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€7,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€from€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€an€award€of€child€support€to€the€appellee,€the€childððsÐ xÈ  Ðpaternal€grandmother€and€legal€custodian,€from€the€childððs€mother.€€For€reasons€stated€herein,€weÐ d´ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð P  ÐÓñÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Juvenile€Court€Ð (x ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼LU»àXÙ¦#ÔÔ‡XÙX.¼LUÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌW.€Thomas€Schmitz,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Susan€Faye€Linville.Ð ° ÐÌTerry€A.€Fann,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Martha€Elizabeth€Linville.Ð ˆØ ÐÓÖÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼LU»XXÙ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼LUÔÐ `° Ðò òÌI.ó óÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼LU»XXÙí#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÙX»¼LUÔà  àIn€1991,€the€appellant€and€her€husband,€Ernest€Linville,€filed€a€petition€to€change€custody€ofÐ #`" Ðtheir€daughter€to€the€appellee,€Mr.€Linvilleððs€mother.€€The€child€was€seven€years€old€at€the€time€ofÐ ü#L# Ðthis€petition.€€The€petition€was€granted€by€the€juvenile€court.€€The€agreed€order€stated€that€theÐ è$8 $ Ðappellant€and€Mr.€Linville€would€provide€health€insurance€coverage€for€the€child€and€all€medical,Ð Ô%$!% Ðeye,€drug€or€dental€expenses.€€The€order€further€provided€the€parents€with€reasonable€visitation.€€Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àIn€October€of€1998,€the€appellee€filed€a€petition€in€the€juvenile€court€requesting€child€support€Ð ˜(è#( Ðbased€on€an€alleged€substantial€and€material€change€in€circumstances€since€the€agreed€order€wasÐ „)Ô$) Ðentered.€€Such€circumstances€included€the€appellantððs€employment€status€and€her€ability€to€pay€childÐ p*À%* Ðsupport€commensurate€with€the€Uniform€Child€Support€Guidelines.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýÿ Ðà  àThe€appellant€filed€an€answer€alleging€that€the€petition€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€whichÐ ° Ðâ ârelief€could€be€granted,€that€the€appellee€lacked€standing,€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction,€andÐ œì Ðthat€there€was€a€pending€divorce€action€between€the€appellant€and€Mr.€Linville€wherein€custody€andÐ ˆØ Ðchild€support€could€be€an€issue.€€The€appellant€also€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€further€alleging€that€anÐ tÄ Ðindispensable€party,€Mr.€Linville,€had€not€been€named€and€included€in€the€petition.Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€February€of€1999,€after€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€it€had€jurisdiction€to€establishÐ 8 ˆ Ðchild€support€for€the€child.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€set€child€support€at€$290.00€per€month,€an€amount€equalÐ $ t Ðto€21%€of€the€appellantððs€admitted€income,€and€awarded€the€appellee€child€support€arrearage€thatÐ  ` Ðhad€accumulated€since€the€petition€was€filed.€€The€trial€court€scheduled€a€second€hearing€toÐ ü L  Ðdetermine€the€issues€of€visitation,€counseling,€and€allocation€of€the€expense€of€counseling.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€subsequently€filed€a€motion€to€file€an€amended€answer,€counter€petition€andÐ À  Ða€third€party€complaint€against€Mr.€Linville.€€These€pleadings€requested€that€custody€of€the€child€beÐ ¬ü  Ðreturned€to€the€appellant,€that€service€of€process€be€served€upon€Mr.€Linville,€that€the€petition€againstÐ ˜è  Ðher€be€dismissed€or€that€this€cause€of€action€be€stayed€pending€the€final€divorce€hearing€between€theÐ „Ô  Ðappellant€and€Mr.€Linville.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAfter€a€second€hearing,€the€trial€court€issued€an€order€on€March€9,€1999€finding€that€the€childÐ H˜ Ðshould€be€enrolled€in€a€counseling€program€at€The€Rutherford€County€Guidance€Center€(ð ðTheÐ 4„ ÐGuidance€Centerðð)€and€that€the€appellant€would€be€responsible€for€one„half€of€the€cost€of€suchÐ  p Ðprogram.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€the€appellant€could€ð ðraise€the€issue€in€the€future€regardingÐ  \ Ðthe€fatherððs€obligation€or€reimbursements€regarding€medical€and€health€related€expenses.ðð€€The€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€then€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€to€file€an€amended€answer,€counter€petition€and€third€partyÐ ä4 Ðpetition.€€The€trial€court€further€awarded€the€appellee€a€judgment€against€the€appellant€for€a€portionÐ Ð  Ðof€her€attorneyððs€fees€based€on€the€finding€that€the€petitions€filed€by€the€appellee€were€for€the€benefitÐ ¼  Ðof€the€minor€child.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€March€12,€1999,€the€appellant€filed€an€affidavit€with€the€trial€court€alleging€that€theÐ €Ð Ðappellee€had€refused€to€allow€the€appellant€to€exercise€reasonable€visitation€with€the€child€inÐ l¼ Ðviolation€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€allowing€reasonable€visitation.€€The€appellant€then€asked€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€to€hold€the€appellee€in€contempt.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€appellee€wasÐ D!” Ðnot€in€contempt€and€dismissed€the€petition.Ð 0"€  Ðà  àÌà  àOn€June€22,€1999,€the€appellee€filed€a€motion€for€a€final€hearing€and€for€payment€of€expensesÐ $X" Ðalleging€that€the€appellant€had€not€yet€paid€the€previously€entered€judgments€and€that€there€were€stillÐ ô$D # Ðunresolved€issues.€€The€appellee€requested€that€the€appellant€be€ordered€to€pay€the€expenses€incurredÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€the€expert€testimony€of€the€counselor€from€The€Guidance€Center€in€an€earlier€hearing.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðappellee€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€payment€of€the€childððs€orthodontic€expenses.€€Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àIn€October€of€1999,€a€hearing€was€conducted€before€the€juvenile€court€referee.€€The€refereeÐ ° Ðâ âordered€that€the€appellant€would€pay€one„half€of€the€outstanding€medical€bills€and€child€supportÐ œì Ðarrearage€and€attorneyððs€fees€from€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€of€February€1999.€€The€referee€furtherÐ ˆØ Ðfound€that€the€motion€for€orthodontic€expenses€was€proper€and€therefore€granted.€€The€appellant€wasÐ tÄ Ðalso€ordered€to€pay€the€expenses€for€the€expert€testimony€of€the€counselor€from€The€GuidanceÐ `° ÐCenter.€€The€juvenile€court€subsequently€approved€the€refereeððs€order.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€now€appeals€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration:€Ð $ t ÐÌà  à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€over€this€matter;Ð ü L  Ðà  à2.€€Whether€the€appellee€had€standing€to€initiate€this€lawsuit;Ð è 8  Ðà8  à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€Rules€of€Juvenile€Procedure;€ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà  à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€appellee€child€support;Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  à5.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€appellee€child€support€arrearage,Ð ˜è  Ðwitness€fees,€orthodontic€fees€and€attorneyððs€fees.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌWe€will€address€each€of€these€issues€in€turn.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òà @ àII.€€Scope€of€Reviewó óóóÐ 4„ ÐÓ  Óà  àÌÓ  Óà  àOur€scope€of€review€in€this€case€is€pursuant€to€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ  \ ÐAppellate€Procedure.€€In€the€absence€of€a€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€mustÐ øH Ðconclusively€presume€that€every€fact€admissible€under€the€pleadings€was€found,€or€should€have€beenÐ ä4 Ðfound,€favorable€to€the€appellee.€€òòIn€re€Rockwellóó,€673€S.W.2d€512,€516€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€TheÐ Ð  Ðburden€is€upon€the€appellant€to€preserve€the€evidence€necessary€for€consideration€by€this€Court€onÐ ¼  Ðappeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€Jurisdictionó óóóÐ €Ð ÐÓä&ÓÌà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court,€a€juvenile€court,€did€not€have€jurisdiction€toÐ X ¨ Ðrewrite€the€1991€juvenile€court€agreed€order€and€order€the€appellant€to€pay€child€support€to€theÐ D!” Ðappellee.€€We€first€recognize€that€juvenile€courts€are€of€limited€jurisdiction€with€subject€matterÐ 0"€  Ðjurisdiction€defined€by€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„101€et.€seq.;€òòsee€also€Stambaugh€v.Ð #l! ÐPriceóó,€532€S.W.2d€929,€932€(Tenn.€1976).€€However,€we€also€recognize€that,€by€statute,€juvenileÐ $X" Ðcourts€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€probate€courts€to€determine€the€custody€or€appoint€aÐ ô$D # Ðguardian€of€a€child€and€that€juvenile€courts€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€other€courts€to€orderÐ à%0!$ Ðsupport€for€minor€children.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„104(a)(2),€(d)(1)(A)(Supp.€2000).€€Where,€asÐ Ì&"% Ðhere,€the€juvenile€court€is€modifying€its€own€previous€order€and€ordering€a€party€to€pay€child€supportÐ ¸'#& Ðand€where€no€other€court€has€assumed€jurisdiction€over€the€matter,€we€can€find€no€authorityÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsupporting€the€appellantððs€argument€that€the€juvenile€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€over€this€matter.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€the€original€agreed€order€was€a€complete€relinquishmentÐ ° Ðâ âof€the€appellantððs€parental€rights€thereby€emancipating€the€child€and€relieving€the€parents€of€theirÐ œì Ðlegal€duties.€€However,€the€original€order€stated€that€it€was€only€a€change€of€custody.€€There€was€noÐ ˆØ Ðmention€of€the€termination€or€relinquishment€of€any€parental€rights€or€duties.€€In€fact,€the€orderÐ tÄ Ðspecifically€set€out€that€the€parents€still€had€financial€obligations€with€regard€to€the€childððs€wellÐ `° Ðbeing.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€cannot€find€that€the€original€order€was€in€any€way€aÐ L œ Ðrelinquishment€or€termination€of€parental€rights.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€because€Mr.€Linville,Ð  ` Ðan€indispensable€party,€was€not€a€party€to€the€action€and,€in€the€absence€of€all€indispensable€parties,Ð ü L  Ðno€valid€decree€can€be€entered.€€Rules€19.01€and€19.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ è 8  Ðestablish€the€general€procedural€rules€for€requiring€the€joinder€of€indispensable€parties€in€all€typesÐ Ô$  Ðof€cases.€€Rule€19.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€in€part:Ð À  Ðà  àÌà8  àà ` àA€person€who€is€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€shall€be€joined€as€aÐ ˜è  Ðparty€if€(1)€in€the€personððs€absence€complete€relief€cannot€be€accorded€among€thoseÐ „Ô  Ðalready€parties,€or€(2)€the€person€claims€an€interest€relating€to€the€subject€of€the€actionÐ pÀ Ðand€is€so€situated€that€the€disposition€of€the€action€in€the€personððs€absence€may€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€asÐ \¬ Ða€practical€matter€impair€or€impede€the€personððs€ability€to€protect€that€interest,€or€(ii)Ð H˜ Ðleave€any€of€the€persons€already€parties€subject€to€a€substantial€risk€of€incurringÐ 4„ Ðdouble,€multiple,€or€otherwise€inconsistent€obligations€by€reasons€of€the€claimedÐ  p Ðinterest.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€first€point€out€that€while€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€to€file€a€third€partyÐ ä4 Ðpetition€against€Mr.€Linville,€for€reasons€not€made€clear€by€the€record€before€us,€the€appellant€neverÐ Ð  Ðfollowed€through€on€joining€Mr.€Linville€as€a€party€to€this€action.€€We€note€that,€in€construingÐ ¼  ÐFederal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€19,€which€very€closely€resembles€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ¨ø Ð19,€the€federal€courts€have€held€that€a€determination€concerning€joinder€is€a€practical€one€and€factÐ ”ä Ðspecific.€€òòSee€Washington€v.€Daleyóó,€173€F.3d€1158,€1165€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1999)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔMakahÔ_Ô€Indian€TribeÐ €Ð Ðv.€Verityóó,€910€F.2d€555,€558€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1990)).€€In€addition,€the€plaintiff/appellee€was€free€to€sue€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐLinville€but,€for€some€unknown€reason,€chose€not€to.€€òòSee€Mires€v.€Clayóó,€No.€02A01„9707„CV„Ð X ¨ Ð00172,€Ô_ÔWeakleyÔ_Ô€County€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€filed€August€18,€1999,€at€Jackson).€€Furthermore,€the€recordÐ D!” Ðis€inadequate€to€establish€whether€Mr.€Linville€was€even€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€trial€courtÐ 0"€  Ðthereby€implicating€Rule€19.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€rather€than€Rule€19.02.€Ð #l! ÐBased€on€the€state€of€the€record€before€us,€or€lack€thereof,€we€cannot€find€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔLinvilleÔ_Ô€was€anÐ $X" Ðindispensable€party€to€this€lawsuit.€òòóóTherefore,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdictionÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€Mr.€Linville€was€not€made€a€party.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òà @ àIV.€€Standingó óóóÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€appellee€did€not€have€standing€to€initiate€this€lawsuitÐ )à$( Ðbecause€the€original€consent€order€did€not€specifically€provide€for€child€support€and€the€consentÐ |*Ì%) Ðdecree€was€not€modifiable.€€The€appellant€correctly€points€out€that,€generally,€consent€decrees€areÐ h+¸&* Ðconclusive€upon€the€parties€and€can€be€amended€or€vacated€only€by€consent€in€the€absence€of€fraudÐ ° Ðor€mistake.€€òòÔ_ÔClinchfieldÔ_Ô€Stone€Co.€v.€Stoneóó,€254€S.W.2d€8,€12€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1952).€€However,€thisÐ œì ÐCourt€has€previously€pointed€out€that€ð ðwhile€the€sanctity€of€consent€decrees€remains€substantiallyÐ ˆØ Ðinviolate€in€the€field€of€domestic€relations,€particularly€as€pertains€to€alimony,€child€support,€andÐ tÄ Ðrelated€matters,€courts€have€upon€proper€showing€permitted€modification€of€consent€decrees.ðð€€òòWelchÐ `° Ðv.€Welchóó,€No.€2,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€filed€December€26,€1990,€at€Jackson)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔDillowÔ_ÔÐ L œ Ðv.€Ô_ÔDillowÔ_Ôóó,€575€S.W.2d€289€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978)€(holding€that€there€had€not€been€a€sufficientÐ 8 ˆ Ðchange€in€circumstance€to€warrant€changing€a€consent€decree€with€regard€to€child€support€and€thusÐ $ t Ðimplying€that,€upon€a€proper€showing,€a€consent€decree€is€modifiable€on€the€issue€of€child€support)).€Ð  ` ÐTherefore,€upon€a€proper€showing,€a€consent€decree€regarding€child€support€is€modifiable.€Ð ü L  ÐFurthermore,€the€appellant€cites€no€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€juvenile€court€could€notÐ è 8  Ðorder€child€support€where€the€original€consent€order€regarding€custody€did€not€provide€for€it.€Ð Ô$  ÐConsent€decrees€that€deal€with€the€issues€of€custody€and€child€support€must€remain€modifiable€inÐ À  Ðorder€to€accommodate€the€best€interest€of€the€child€at€the€time€of€the€decree€and€subsequent€to€suchÐ ¬ü  Ðdecree.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWe€must€next€determine€whether€the€appellee€had€standing€to€seek€such€child€support.€€AsÐ pÀ Ðthis€Court€has€previously€set€out,€the€standing€doctrine€provides€the€courts€with€a€vehicle€toÐ \¬ Ðdetermine€whether€a€particular€party€is€entitled€to€judicial€relief.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔKnierimÔ_Ô€v.€Leatherwoodóó,€542Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€806,€808€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€court€must€determine€whether€the€party€seeking€relief€has€aÐ 4„ Ðsufficient€stake€in€the€outcome€of€the€controversy€to€warrant€the€exercise€of€the€courtððs€authority€onÐ  p Ðits€behalf.€€òòSee€Metropolitan€Air€Research€Testing€Auth.,€Inc.€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€842€S.W.2dÐ  \ Ð611,€615€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòBrowning„Ferris€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Oak€Ridgeóó,€644Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€400,€402€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)).€€Clearly€the€appellee,€as€the€childððs€legal€custodian,€hadÐ ä4 Ðstanding€to€seek€child€support€for€the€childððs€care.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òV.€€Procedural€Rulesó óóó׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€juvenile€court€failed€to€follow€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ €Ð ÐCivil€Procedure€and€the€Rules€of€Juvenile€Procedure.€€The€appellant€initially€argues€that€her€right€toÐ l¼ Ða€jury€trial€was€denied.€€We€note€that€although€the€appellant€requested€a€jury€trial€in€at€least€two€ofÐ X ¨ Ðher€pleadings,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€appellant€was€ever€granted€a€jury€trial,€that€suchÐ D!” Ðrequest€was€denied,€that€the€appellant€in€any€way€followed€through€with€her€request€for€a€jury€by€wayÐ 0"€  Ðof€objection€or€motion,€or€that€she€brought€her€request€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€€Rule€36(a)Ð #l! Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€relief€will€not€be€granted€to€a€partyÐ $X" Ðresponsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€preventÐ ° Ðor€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.€€Therefore,€on€the€state€of€the€record€before€us,€we€cannotÐ œì Ðfind€that€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€her€request€for€a€stay€of€the€proceedings€until€Mr.€LinvilleÐ `° Ðwas€joined€as€a€third€party€respondent€was€reasonable€and€should€have€been€granted€to€preventÐ L œ Ðprejudice€to€the€appellantððs€right€to€try€her€divorce€from€Mr.€Linville€and€child€support€contributionÐ 8 ˆ Ðapportionment€with€Mr.€Linville€prior€to€the€determination€of€the€appellantððs€obligation€in€the€instantÐ $ t Ðcase.€€However,€as€we€have€previously€pointed€out,€the€record€is€sparse,€if€not€barren,€with€regardÐ  ` Ðto€any€evidence€as€to€why€the€appellant€failed€to€follow€through€with€her€petition€to€join€Mr.€LinvilleÐ ü L  Ðas€a€third€party€respondent.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€it€was€the€appellantððs€inaction€that€contributedÐ è 8  Ðto€Mr.€Linvilleððs€absence€and€that€the€appellant€has€not€supplied€this€Court€with€enough€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€record,€or€a€statement€of€the€evidence,€to€fully€review€this€issue,€she€is€not€entitled€to€relief€forÐ À  Ðany€harm€that€resulted€from€this€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b),€36(a).€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€further€argues€that€her€motion€to€dismiss€should€have€been€granted.€€However,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€appellant€fails€to€cite€any€law€or€evidence€to€support€such€argument.€€In€fact,€the€appellantððsÐ pÀ Ðargument€is€nothing€more€than€an€unsupported€assertion.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€coupled€with€theÐ \¬ Ðlack€of€evidence€in€the€record,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€refusing€toÐ H˜ Ðgrant€the€appellantððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€her€responsible€for€the€witnessÐ  \ Ðfees€of€the€counselor€from€The€Guidance€Center€because€the€appellee€failed€to€offer€proof€that€suchÐ øH Ðcosts€and€fees€were€reasonable€and€necessary€pursuant€to€Rule€54.04(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ä4 ÐCivil€Procedure.€€We€first€note€that€trial€judges€are€afforded€a€great€deal€of€discretion€whenÐ Ð  Ðconsidering€a€motion€for€discretionary€costs.€€Absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion,€appellate€courtsÐ ¼  Ðgenerally€will€not€interfere€with€a€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€costs.òò€€See€Perdue€v.€Green€BranchÐ ¨ø ÐMining€Co.óó,€837€S.W.2d€56,€60€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€juvenile€court€referee€ruled,€and€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðaffirmed,€that€the€expertððs€expenses€were€reasonable€and€necessary€and€€such€expenses€were€assessedÐ €Ð Ðagainst€the€appellant.€€The€appellantððs€argument€fails€because€the€appellant€did€not€provide€this€CourtÐ l¼ Ðwith€an€adequate€record€upon€which€to€review€this€issue.€€We€cannot€find€a€clear€abuse€of€discretionÐ X ¨ Ðon€the€part€of€the€trial€court€in€awarding€the€appellee€the€fees€of€the€expert€witness.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€appelleeððs€attorneyððs€feesÐ #l! Ðbecause€such€fees€are€not€generally€allowable€as€discretionary€costs€under€Rule€54.04€of€theÐ $X" ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€trial€court€found€that,€as€the€petitions€pursued€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðappellee€in€this€matter€were€for€the€benefit€of€the€minor€child,€the€appelleeððs€request€for€attorneyððsÐ à%0!$ Ðfees€was€reasonable€and€proper.€€We€first€note€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðawards€of€ð ðlegal€expenses€in€custody€or€support€proceedings€are€ððfamiliar€and€almostÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âcommonplace.ðððð€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)(quoting€òòDeas€v.€Deasóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð774€S.W.2d€167,€170€(Tenn.€1989)).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€In€addition,€such€awards€are€ð ðnot€primarily€for€the€benefit€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€custodial€parent€but€rather€to€facilitate€a€childððs€access€to€the€courts.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ôóó,€849€S.W.2d€atÐ œì Ð784.€€Furthermore,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„103(c)€states€that€the€person€to€whom€custodyÐ ˆØ Ðis€awarded€may€recover€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€any€action€concerning€the€initialÐ tÄ Ðadjudication€of€custody€or€support€or€a€subsequent€change€in€custody€or€support.€€òòSee€Dean€v.Ð `° ÐComptonóó,€No.€M1998„00052„COA„R3„CV,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€filed€March€30,€2000,Ð L œ Ðat€Jackson).€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðawarding€the€appellee€$450.00€in€attorneyððs€fees€or€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€anÐ $ t Ðaward.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔKincaidÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKincaidÔ_Ôóó,€912€S.W.2d€140,€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€finally€asserts€that€the€trial€court€violated€Rule€22€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ è 8  ÐJuvenile€Procedure.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€appellant€merely€quotes€the€rule.€€However,€theÐ Ô$  Ðappellant€makes€no€attempt€to€specifically€explain€how€the€trial€court€violated€this€rule.€€It€appearsÐ À  Ðthat€she€is€arguing€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€modify€its€previous€order.€Ð ¬ü  ÐHowever,€a€consent€order€may€be€modified€where€there€is€a€change€of€circumstances,€by€agreementÐ ˜è  Ðbetween€the€parties€with€the€approval€of€the€court,€or€by€order€of€the€court€upon€notification€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðparties€and€a€hearing.€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔJuvÔ_Ô.€P.€22(c).€€The€record€establishes€that€the€consent€order€wasÐ pÀ Ðmodified€by€an€order€of€the€trial€court€after€a€hearing€at€which€the€parties€were€present.€€As€such,€theÐ \¬ Ðjuvenile€court€did€not€violate€the€Rules€of€Juvenile€Procedure€by€modifying€its€earlier€order.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òà @ àVI.€€Child€Supportó óóóÐ  p ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€unjustly€and€inappropriately€applied€theÐ øH ÐTennessee€Child€Support€Guidelines€in€a€proceeding€between€a€legal€guardian€and€only€one€of€theÐ ä4 Ðchildððs€parents.€€We€first€note€that€parents€are€the€joint€natural€guardians€of€their€minor€children€andÐ Ð  Ðare€equally€and€jointly€charged€with€their€care,€nurture,€welfare,€education,€and€support.€€òòState€ex€rel.Ð ¼  ÐGrant€v.€Ô_ÔPrograisÔ_Ôóó,€979€S.W.2d€594,€600„01€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„Ð ¨ø Ð102(a)).€€However,€we€are€aware€of€no€law,€statutory€or€otherwise,€that€allows€for€one€parent€toÐ ”ä Ðevade€child€support€simply€because€the€other€parent€has€not€yet€been€held€accountable.€€One€of€theÐ €Ð Ðpurposes€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€is€to€decrease€the€number€of€impoverished€children€livingÐ l¼ Ðin€single€parent€families.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Ô_ÔRegsÔ_Ô.€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(2)(a).€€These€guidelines€areÐ X ¨ Ðtypically€engaged€when€one€parent€petitions€the€courts€for€an€order€of€child€support€against€theÐ D!” Ðchildððs€other€parent.€€However,€the€guidelines€state€that€they€are€applicable€ð ðin€any€action€broughtÐ 0"€  Ðto€establish€or€modify€child€support.ðð€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Ô_ÔRegsÔ_Ô.€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3).€€In€fact,€theseÐ #l! Ðguidelines€are€applicable€where€the€State€has€custody€of€a€child€and€is€seeking€an€order€of€childÐ $X" Ðsupport€from€one€or€both€parents.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€37„1„151(Supp.€2000);€36„5„Ð ô$D # Ð101(e)(Supp.€2000).€€Furthermore,€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]lthoughÔ_Ô€actions€for€reimbursement€are€usually€brought€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðname€of€the€supporting€parent,€the€proceeding€is€primarily€and€basically€on€behalf€of€the€minorÐ Ì&"% Ðchild.ðð€€òòGrantóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€601.Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€appellee€is€the€legal€custodian€of€the€child.€€The€appellee€is€in€theÐ ° Ðposition€of€a€custodial€parent€and€the€appellant€is€in€the€position€of€a€non„custodial€parent.€€As€such,Ð œì Ðthe€Child€Support€Guidelines€raise€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€appellant€owes€21%€of€her€netÐ ˆØ Ðincome€for€the€support€of€her€child.€€€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(5).€€The€fact€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€appellee€is€the€legal€custodian€of€the€child€is€irrelevant.€€A€ð ðchild€is€entitled€to€support€regardlessÐ `° Ðof€where€[she]€lives.€€The€[parentððs]€duty€of€support€is€owed€to€the€child,€not€to€the€[other€Ô_Ôparent].ððÔ_ԀРL œ ÐòòHite€v.€Hiteóó,€No.€03A01„9511„CV„00410,€Greene€County€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€filed€October€16,€1996,Ð 8 ˆ Ðat€Knoxville)€(citing€òòPickett€v.€Brownóó,€462€U.S.€1,€103€S.Ct.€2199€(1983)).€€In€fact,€the€GuidelinesÐ $ t Ðpresume€that€the€custodial€parent,€in€this€case€the€appellee€as€legal€custodian,€is€contributing€a€likeÐ  ` Ðamount€in€child€rearing€expenses.€€This€is€not€a€case€where€the€appellee€is€receiving€any€sort€ofÐ ü L  Ðunjust€enrichment.€€The€appellant€is€only€being€required€to€pay€the€amount€required€of€a€non„Ð è 8  Ðcustodial€parent€under€the€guidelines.€€The€child€is€entitled€to€support€from€the€appellant€regardlessÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€fact€that€the€child€is€in€the€custody€of€her€grandmother.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€it€was€properÐ À  Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€apply€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€in€determining€the€amount€of€child€supportÐ ¬ü  Ðowed€by€the€appellant.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Furthermore,€based€on€the€state€of€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€find€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthere€was€not€a€significant€variance€upon€which€to€base€an€award€of€child€support.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ „Ô  ÐAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)(Supp.€2000);€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3);€òòLeek€v.€Powellóó,Ð pÀ Ð884€S.W.2d€118,€121€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)(holding€that€in€the€absence€of€a€transcript€or€statementÐ \¬ Ðof€evidence,€the€appellate€court€must€conclusively€presume€that€every€admissible€fact€under€theÐ H˜ Ðpleadings€was€found€or€should€have€been€found€favorably€to€the€appellee).€€We€affirm€the€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourtððs€award€of€child€support€in€the€amount€$290.00€per€month.Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à¹Ó  Óòòò òVII.€€Feesó óóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð øH ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€appellee€the€childððsÐ Ð  Ðorthodontic€expenses€because€such€expenses€were€not€provided€for€in€the€original€order.€However,Ð ¼  Ðthe€original€order€specifically€sets€out€that€the€appellant€and€Mr.€Linville€are€to€ð ðpay€all€medical,€eye,Ð ¨ø Ðdrug,€or€dental€expenses€incurred€for€the€benefit€of€the€child€that€is€not€covered€by€insurance.ðð€€InÐ ”ä Ðaddition,€the€juvenile€court€referee€found€that€the€evidence€established€that€the€appellant€had€enteredÐ €Ð Ðinto€an€agreement€with€the€orthodontist€to€make€payments€on€the€childððs€braces.€€However,€theÐ l¼ Ðappellant€stopped€making€such€payments.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðabused€its€discretion€in€ordering€the€appellant€to€pay€such€fees.Ð D!” ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌÌÌÐ à%0!$ ÐVIII.€Conclusionó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÐ ˆØ ÐJuvenile€Court€for€Rutherford€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appealÐ tÄ Ðto€the€appellant,€Susan€Faye€Ô_ÔLinvilleÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.