ÿWPC¢) ?UB‚ %Ä®Ê 0tx 0Åì 0\± 0 0rš 0 D+™ ÆÄ 0Š 0= 0T AQá 0¶2 0Dè# ,7nG 0 rJU:¼w@ö46LJ– 0Jž Bè 0T 0^Y 0h· 0r D3‘ 0|Ä 0†@ 0Æ 1uV 0dË/U *7B)aDCŠ AKÍ!:v~Q"vÓÏ#ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ<5Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓP††ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔV!ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô`‰‰ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ(e2ã$©©Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÔÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÞ2ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2ã$££Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÔÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÞ2ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2ã$¢¢Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÔÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÞ2ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý   Cþÿ<< cÿÿ(f(3L$¤¤Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÔÔ€ôÞ2ôôôÞ2ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ3|x«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTomanTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(Jä$¡¡Ô€ô~4ôôôÔÔ€ô~4ôôô~4ÔÓ  Ó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular  g  î D U gÓ€zƒ=#VC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô d2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#%&'(*+, ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd 8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌOctober€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ÔAs€amended,€the€statute€provides€that:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àExcept€as€provided€in€the€following€sentence,€neither€aÏpreference€nor€a€presumption€for€or€against€joint€legal€custody,€jointÏphysical€custody€or€sole€custody€is€established,€but€the€court€shall€haveÏthe€widest€discretion€to€order€a€custody€arrangement€that€is€in€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child.€€Unless€the€court€finds€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€to€the€contrary,€there€is€a€presumption€that€joint€custody€is€inÏthe€best€interest€of€a€minor€child€where€the€parents€have€agreed€to€jointÏcustody€or€so€agree€in€open€court€at€a€hearing€for€the€purpose€ofÏdetermining€the€custody€of€the€minor€child....€€The€burden€of€proofÏnecessary€to€modify€an€order€of€joint€custody€at€a€subsequentÏproceeding€shall€be€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð36„6„101(a)(2)€(1996).Ô€ÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ÔWe€likewise€decline€to€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€modifying€the€FatherððsÏvisitation€schedule€on€the€weekends€he€takes€the€children€to€church.€€Although€the€Mother€raised€this€inÏher€statement€of€the€issues€presented€for€review,€the€argument€portion€of€the€Motherððs€brief€fails€to€setÏforth€her€contentions€with€respect€to€this€issue.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlairv.ÏBadenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576„77€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€T.R.A.P.27.€€In€any€event,€we€find€the€trialÏcourtððs€resolution€of€this€issue€to€be€an€equitable€one.Ô€ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` Ü›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€6ÔÔ€6XÔ›Ñ7€Þ2ôôdÈXXdð7ÑœÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌNANCY€RENEE€à àà àà àà à)ÌMcREYNOLDS€(DELBRIDGE),à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Bedford€Chancery€No.€19,185Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9702„CH„00064Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌROBERT€IRVING€McREYNOLDS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌ›ÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€BEDFORD€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SHELBYVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€TYRUS€H.€COBB,€CHANCELLOR̜ـ ÙßR€9:8A1-j|sø¶` : `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òTERRY€A.€FANNó óÌò òR.€STEVEN€WALDRONó óÌò òWALDRON€AND€FANNÌó óMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€NORTON,€IIIó óÌò òNORTON€&€SMITHó óÌShelbyville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌœ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óà àœÌÑ7€þXXdðôôdÈ7ÑÓÓà àNancy›€Renee€McReynolds€Delbridge€(Mother)€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏdenying€her€counterpetition€to€modify€the€joint€custody€arrangement€previously€agreedÏto€by€the€parties€and€set€forth€in€their€final€divorce€decree.€€For€the€reasons€statedÏhereinafter,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€Mother€and€Appellee€Robert€Irving€McReynolds€(Father)€were€divorced€inÏBedford€County€in€July€1994.€€œPer›€their€agreement,€the€final€divorce€decree€awardedÏthe€parties€joint€custody€of€their€two€minor€daughters.€€œAlthough›€the€decree€awardedÏthe€Mother€primary€physical€custody€of€the€children,€the€decree€set€forth€anÏarrangement€whereby€the€children€spent€three€nights€per€week€(Wednesday,ÏThursday,€Friday)€with€the€Father€and€the€remaining€four€nights€per€week€with€theÏMother.€€Additionally,€the€decree€permitted€the€Father€to€pick€up€the€children€and€takeÏthem€to€church€every€other€Sunday.€€ÌÌà àIn€March€1995,€the€Father€filed€a€petition€to€change€custody€in€which€he€askedÏthe€trial€court€to€terminate€the€joint€custody€arrangement€and€to€award€him€soleÍcustody€of€the€children.€€œAs›€grounds€for€this€change,€the€Father€alleged€that€the€MotherÏwas€engaging€in€overnight€visits€with€a€male€friend€while€the€children€were€presentÏand,€further,€that€the€Mother€was€consuming€intoxicants€around€the€children.€€œThe›ÏFatherððs€petition€also€described€conflicts€over€joint€custody€issues€which€had€arisenÏbetween€the€parties€since€the€divorce.€ÌÌà àThe€Mother€answered€and€filed€a€counterpetition€in€which€she€similarlyÏrequested€the€trial€court€to€modify€the€joint€custody€arrangement€by€awarding€her€soleÏcustody€of€the€children.€€œThe›€Motherððs€counterpetition€alleged€that€the€followingÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances€warranted€modification€of€the€joint€custodyÏarrangement:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àà8 àThat€[the€Father]€constantly€harasses€[the€Mother]€to€theÏpoint€where€she€has€been€forced€to€place€a€block€on€herÏtelephone.€€That,€further,€[the€Father]€intentionally€places€theÏminor€children€of€the€parties€in€the€middle€of€an€argumentÏwith€[the€Mother]€even€though€[the€Mother]€has€repeatedlyÏadvised€him€that€doing€so€causes€emotional€harm€to€theÏchildren.€€That,€[the€Mother]€has€tried€to€cooperate€with€[theÏFather]€in€every€respect€in€order€to€assure€that€the€childrenððsÏbest€interests€are€preserved;€however,€[the€Fatherððs]€attitudeÏmakes€cooperation€impossible.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€partiesðð€daughters€were€six€and€seven€years€old,€respectively,€in€AugustÏ1996€when€the€custody€modification€hearing€took€place.€€œAt›€the€hearing,€the€MotherÏtestified€that€the€Fatherððs€hostility€toward€her€had€increased€since€the€partiesðð€divorceÏand€had€made€the€joint€custody€arrangement€unworkable.€€œAccording›€to€the€Mother,Ïthese€problems€began€in€August€1994,€the€month€following€the€divorce.€€œWhen›€theÍFather€arrived€at€the€Motherððs€house€one€day€to€pick€up€the€children,€the€FatherÏdiscovered€that€a€male€friend€of€the€Mother€was€there€working€on€an€air€conditioner.€ÏœThe›€Father€became€very€hostile€and€initiated€a€loud,€verbal€confrontation€with€the€man,Ïwhose€name€was€Tom€Delbridge.€€œThe›€Father€terminated€the€confrontation€only€afterÏDelbridge€reminded€him€that€the€children€were€present.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€Father€filed€his€modification€petition,€the€Mother€married€Delbridge€andÏmoved€to€the€Rockvale€community€of€neighboring€Rutherford€County.€€The€MotherððsÏrelationship€with€the€Father€has€continued€to€deteriorate€since€the€divorce.€€œAs›€recentlyÏas€July€1996,€the€month€before€the€hearing,€another€angry€confrontation€occurredÏbetween€the€Father€and€Delbridge€at€a€ballpark.€€œThe›€Father€coached€the€childrenððsÏsoftball€team,€and€the€Mother€and€Delbridge€were€there€to€watch€the€game.€€€After€theÏgame,€the€Father€and€Delbridge€argued€over€what€time€the€Father€was€going€to€pickÏup€the€children€for€visitation€the€next€evening.€€œAgain,›€with€the€children€present,€theÏFather€became€very€loud€and€made€threatening€statements€toward€Delbridge.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€Fatherððs€confrontations€with€Delbridge,€the€Mother€testified€thatÏthe€Father€had€made€joint€custody€difficult€in€other€ways.€€For€example,€the€MotherÏtestified€that€the€Father€had€enrolled€the€children€in€a€soccer€camp€and€other€programsÏwithout€first€consulting€the€Mother.€€œGenerally,›€the€Father€is€35€to€40€minutes€lateÏreturning€the€children€to€the€Motherððs€house.€€œA›€dispute€also€arose€after€the€divorceÏover€whether€the€Father€had€paid€his€share€of€the€childrenððs€child„care€expenses.€€œThe›ÏMother€testified€that€she€blocked€her€telephone€from€receiving€calls€from€the€FatherÍbecause€he€called€so€many€times€when€the€Mother€had€the€girls€that€the€Mother€felt€theÏFather€was€harassing€them.€ÌÌà àDespite€these€conflicts€with€the€Father,€the€Mother€acknowledged€that€bothÏchildren€were€healthy€and€were€very€good€students.€€œAlthough›€both€children€areÏstudents€in€the€Bedford€County€school€system,€and€both€the€Mother€and€Delbridge€areÏemployed€by€the€school€system,€the€Mother€and€Delbridge€live€over€30€miles€away€inÏRutherford€County.€€œAccordingly,›€on€the€three€school€mornings€each€week€when€sheÏhas€the€children,€the€Mother€drives€over€60€miles€round€trip€to€Bedford€County.€€TheÏMother€expressed€a€desire€to€enroll€the€children€in€Rutherford€County€schools€theÏfollowing€school€year.€€œThe›€Mother€also€acknowledged€that€the€Fatherððs€problem€ofÏreturning€the€children€late€began€after€the€Mother€moved€to€Rutherford€County.€ÏœDespite›€the€inconvenience€to€the€Father€and€the€extra€travel€time€for€the€children,€onÏthe€weekends€when€the€Father€was€permitted€to€take€the€children€to€church€on€SundayÏmorning,€the€Mother€still€insisted€that€the€Father€return€the€children€at€the€scheduledÏtime€on€Saturday€evening.€€œThe›€Mother€justified€this€decision€by€explaining€that€herÏtime€with€the€children€was€ð ðvery€preciousðð€to€her.€ÌÌà àIn€his€testimony,€the€Father€acknowledged€that€he€had€engaged€in€hostileÏconfrontations€with€Delbridge,€including€the€incident€at€the€ballpark€the€month€beforeÏthe€hearing,€but€the€Father€denied€being€the€aggressor€in€these€situations.€€œThe›€FatherÏbelieved€that€the€initial€confrontation€with€Delbridge€occurred€before€the€partiesððÏdivorce€was€final.€€œThe›€Father€testified€that€there€was€hostility€between€the€parties€atÍthe€time€of€the€divorce€and€that,€if€anything,€he€was€not€as€vocal€in€his€animosity€nowÏas€he€used€to€be.€€œThe›€Father€believed€that€the€Mother€put€the€block€on€the€phone,€notÏbecause€his€calls€were€harassing,€but€because€the€Mother€did€not€want€him€to€talk€toÏthe€children.€€œThe›€Father€admitted€telling€the€Mother€about€the€childrenððs€soccer€campÏon€the€Friday€before€the€Monday€the€camp€started,€and€he€admitted€often€returning€theÏchildren€as€much€as€20€minutes€late.€€œThe›€Father€testified,€however,€that€he€aloneÏhandled€the€responsibility€of€transporting€the€children€between€his€house€in€BedfordÏCounty€and€the€Motherððs€house€in€Rutherford€County.€€œThe›€Father€further€testified€thatÏthe€children€had€always€attended€school€and€church€in€Bedford€County€and€that€mostÏof€their€relatives€lived€there.€ÌÌà àThe€Father€filed€his€petition€to€change€custody€primarily€because€of€hisÏobjection€to€the€Motherððs€overnight€visits€with€Delbridge€in€the€presence€of€theÏchildren.€€œNow›€that€the€Mother€and€Delbridge€were€married,€this€asserted€ground€forÏmodification€no€longer€existed.€€œIn›€closing€arguments,€therefore,€the€Fatherððs€attorneyÏargued€that€no€material€change€in€circumstance€had€been€shown€and€that€the€jointÏcustody€arrangement€should€be€continued,€ð ðwith€the€exception€that€[the€Father]€oughtÏto€have€the€ability€on€his€Sundays€when€he€takes€the€children€to€church,€to€keep€themÏover€that€Saturday€night,€so€that€the€[children]€are€not€on€the€road€four€or€five€timesÏduring€that€two„day€period.ðð€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€custody€hearing,€the€trial€court€orally€ruled€that€it€wasÏdeclining€to€terminate€the€joint€custody€arrangement.€€œIn›€doing€so,€the€trial€courtÍspecifically€rejected€the€Wifeððs€claim€that€hostility€between€the€parties€constituted€aÏchange€of€circumstance€which€warranted€a€change€of€custody.€€€The€trial€court€insteadÏfound€that€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÔ&  Ô[T]here€was€hostility€at€the€time€[of]€the€divorce....ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à....Ô'  ÔÌÌà8 àà8 àà à...I€donððt€see€that€there€has€been€any€increase€inÏhostility€since€the€time€of€the€separation.€€I€think€it€probablyÏhas€lessened.€€ÓÓÌIn€determining€that€continuation€of€the€joint€custody€arrangement€was€in€the€childrenððsÏbest€interests,€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à...I€havenððt€heard€any€proof€that€[joint€custody]€hasÏadversely€affected€these€children.€€Both€parents€say€theÏchildren€are€happy;€the€children€are€healthy.€ÌÌÓÓœThe›€court€found€that€joint€custody€should€be€continued€at€least€for€the€next€school€yearÏbecause€the€children€were€closer€to€their€school€when€they€stayed€with€the€Father€atÏhis€home€in€Bedford€County.€€œThat›€way,€the€children€only€had€to€make€the€64„mileÏround€trip€three€days€per€week€rather€than€five€days€per€week.€€œThe›€trial€courtÏsubsequently€entered€a€written€order€setting€forth€its€rulings€on€the€custody€issue€andÏrelated€issues.€ÌÌà àThe€Mother€has€appealed,€challenging€virtually€every€ruling€and€findingÏcontained€in€the€trial€courtððs€written€order.€€Specifically,€the€Mother€contends€that€theÏfollowing€rulings€and€findings€are€in€error:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àC.à à...[T]he€Court€specifically€[finds]€that€thereÏhas€not€occurred€such€a€material€and€substantial€change€inÏcircumstances€as€to€warrant€the€entry€of€a€modificationÍorder€changing€custody€from€joint€to€sole.€€There€is€no€proofÏthat€joint€custody€has€had€an€adverse€impact€on€the€welfareÏof€the€children.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àD.à àThe€Court,€though€finding€some€hostilityÏbetween€the€parties,€does€not€find€that€the€hostility€level€hasÏincreased€since€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€divorce.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àE.à àThe€Court€does€find€some€slight€change€inÏcircumstances€due€to€the€move€by€[the€Mother]€of€herÏresidence€to€Rutherford€County,€Tennessee.€€Accordingly,Ïon€those€alternating€weeks€when€[the€Father]€has€the€rightÏto€take€the€children€to€church€on€Sunday,€he€will€not€beÏobligated€to€return€the€children€from€the€time€he€receivesÏthem€on€Wednesday€at€5:00p.m.€until€the€following€SundayÏat€1:00p.m.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àF.à àThe€parties€should€continue€to€share€the€jointÏcustody€of€their€children,€at€least€for€the€next€year€since€[theÏMother]€testified€that€the€children€will€be€attending€BedfordÏCounty€schools€for€the€current€1996„1997€school€year.€ÏShould€[the€Mother]€choose€to€enroll€the€children€in€someÏschool€system€other€than€the€Bedford€County€school€systemÏfor€the€1997„1998€school€year,€either€party€may€petition€theÏcourt€to€modify€the€joint€custody€situation€at€that€time.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àG.à àThe€parties€are€ordered€to€continue€the€childÏsupport€agreement€as€specified€in€their€marital€dissolutionÏagreement€with€[the€Father]€being€ordered€to€continueÏpaying€$500.00€per€month€as€child€support....€€The€CourtÏspecifically€finds€that,€due€to€the€joint€custody€arrangement,Ïthis€is€an€appropriate€case€for€deviating€from€the€TennesseeÏChild€Support€Guidelines.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àH.à àEach€party€shall€pay€his€or€her€own€attorneysÏfees€and€litigation€expenses.€œÌ›ÌÓÓÌà àIf€this€were€an€appeal€from€an€original€custody€proceeding,€we€might€be€hesitantÏto€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€these€parties€joint€custody€of€their€children,Ïgiven€some€of€the€difficulties€related€by€the€parties€at€the€hearing.€€We€note,€however,Íthat€the€parties€agreed€to€this€arrangement€in€the€final€divorce€decree€and€that€this€isÏnow€a€proceeding€to€modify€that€arrangement.€€In€a€proceeding€to€modify€a€priorÏcustody€order,€the€party€seeking€a€change€of€custody€has€the€burden€of€proving€aÏmaterial€change€in€circumstances€compelling€enough€to€warrant€such€a€change.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMusselmanv.€Acuffóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€T.C.A.Ïðð36„6„101(a)(1)€(1996)€(providing€that€trial€court€retains€jurisdiction€over€custodyÏorders€subject€to€such€changes€or€modification€as€ð ðexigenciesðð€of€case€may€require).€ÏA€change€of€circumstances€warranting€a€modification€of€custody€includes€ð ðany€materialÏchange€of€circumstances€affecting€the€welfare€of€the€child€or€childrenðð€and€requires€aÏshowing€of€ð ðnew€facts€or€changed€conditions€which€could€not€be€anticipated€by€theÏformer€decree.ðð€€òòDaltonv.€Daltonóó,€858€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àIn€òòMassengalev.€Massengaleóó,€915€S.W.2d€818€(Tenn.€App.€1995),€this€court€setÏforth€the€applicable€standard€for€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€determination€of€the€issue€ofÏchanged€circumstances€in€a€custody€modification€proceeding:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àIn€order€to€justify€a€change€in€a€custodialÏarrangement,€there€must€be€ð ðsuch€a€change€inÏcircumstances€as€will€directly€affect€the€welfare€of€theÏminor.ðð€€òòDaileyv.€Daileyóó,€635€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€App.Ï1981).€€As€in€all€non„jury€cases,€a€trial€courtððs€determinationÏon€this€issue€is€reviewed€by€us€òòde€novoóó;€however,€theÏrecord€developed€below€comes€to€us€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€that€we€must€honor€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€factÏsupporting€the€lower€courtððs€judgment.€€òòHassv.€Knightonóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€In€making€our€òòde€novoóóÏreview,€we€ð ðdo€[]€not€pass€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses.ðð€ÏòòBowmanv.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€567€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991).€€ð ðCredibility€is€an€issue€for€the€trial€court€who€sawÏand€heard€the€witnesses€testify€and€is€therefore€in€theÍpremier€Ô&  Ôposition€to€determine€credibility€(citation€omitted).ðð€ÏòòIdóó.ÌÌÓÓœòòMassengaleóó,›€915€S.W.2d€at€819.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àBased€on€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€no€material€change€of€circumstance€hadÏoccurred€since€the€partiesðð€divorce,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€MotherððsÏcounterpetition€to€change€custody.€€In€the€past,€we€have€held€that€the€ð ðunworkability€ofÏjoint€custody€because€of€the€recalcitrance€of€one€or€both€partnersðð€may€constitute€aÏchange€of€circumstances€warranting€a€change€of€custody.€€òòDaltonv.€Daltonóó,€858ÏS.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòaccordóó€òòCheekv.€Cheekóó,ÏNo.03A01„9503„CV„00092,€1995€WL€507793,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Aug.29,€1995),€òòperm.Ïapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.8,€1996);€òòPhillipsv.€Phillipsóó,€No.01A01„9407„CH„00363,Ï1995€WL€336973,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€June7,€1995).€€In€the€present€case,€however,€theÏtrial€court€found€that,€if€anything,€the€hostility€between€the€parties€had€actually€lessenedÏsince€the€time€of€the€final€divorce€decree€and,€thus,€that€no€material€change€ofÏcircumstance€had€been€shown.€€The€trial€court€also€found€no€evidence€that€theÏchildren€had€been€adversely€affected€by€the€joint€custody€arrangement.€€œIn›€accordanceÏwith€the€foregoing€standard€of€review,€we€must€presume€that€these€findings€are€correct,Ïunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€the€evidence€concerning€the€level€of€hostility€between€theÏparties€in€this€case€was€disputed€at€the€custody€hearing.€€The€trial€court,€however,€wasÏin€a€position€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€at€the€hearing,€and€the€courtÍapparently€resolved€this€dispute€in€favor€of€the€Father.€€As€in€òòMassengaleóó,€ð ðwe€cannotÏsay€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€supportingÏits€conclusion€that€there€had€not€been€a€sufficient€change€in€circumstances€to€justify€aÏchange€in€custody.ðð€€òòMassengaleóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€820.ÌÌà àAt€the€custody€hearing,€the€Father€acknowledged€that€there€had€beenÏdisagreements€between€the€parties€relating€to€the€childrenððs€clothing,€exchanging€theÏchildren€for€visitation,€and€other€matters.€€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€was€undisputedÏthat€the€parties€have€experienced€some€problems€with€the€joint€custody€arrangement.€ÏIn€òòDeVaultv.€DeVaultóó,€No.01A01„9601„CV„00012,€1996€WL€482968,€at€*3€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Aug.28,€1996),€however,€this€court€recently€held€that€an€award€of€joint€custody€isÏnot€precluded€by€the€fact€that€the€parties€may€experience€some€problems€with€the€jointÏcustody€arrangement;€an€award€of€joint€custody€does€not€require€that€the€parties€be€onÏfriendly€terms.€€This€holding€was€based,€in€part,€on€the€legislatureððs€1996€amendmentÏof€the€child€custody€statutes,€an€amendment€which€œeffectively›€eliminated€the€judicially„created€presumption€against€joint€custody€awards€which€previously€existed€in€thisÍstate.€€òòDeVaultóó,€1996€WL€482968,€at€**2„3€(citing€1996€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts.€1046).× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌà àAlthough€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€a€change€of€custody,€weÏremind€the€parties€that€the€trial€court€is€empowered€to€revisit€its€decision€if€futureÏcircumstances€warrant.€€As€this€court€previously€has€cautioned€parties,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€Trial€Court€retains€the€power€to€change€the€form€ofÏcustody.€€Such€change€will€undoubtedly€militate€against€theÏcustodial€rights€of€one€of€the€parents.€€It€therefore€behoovesÏÔ&  Ôboth€parents€to€strive€mightily€to€make€joint€custody€work.ÌÌÓÓœòòGray›v.€Grayóó,€885€S.W.2d€353,€355€(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ô'  ÔÌÌà àInasmuch€as€the€trial€court€always€retains€jurisdiction€to€modify€its€child€custodyÏorders,€we€regard€as€superfluous€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that,€ð ð[s]hould€[the€Mother]Ïchoose€to€enroll€the€children€in€some€school€system€other€than€the€Bedford€CountyÏschool€system€for€the€1997„1998€school€year,€either€party€may€petition€the€court€toÏmodify€the€joint€custody€situation€at€that€time.ðð€€œWe›€know€of€no€procedural€impedimentÏto€either€party€filing€a€future€petition€to€change€custody.€€The€trial€court€may€only€grantÍsuch€a€petition,€however,€if€the€petitioner€meets€the€burden€of€proving€that€a€materialÏchange€of€circumstance€has€occurred€which€justifies€changing€custody.€€òòMusselmanv.ÏAcuffóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Although€we€question€whether€theÏMotherððs€decision€to€change€the€children€from€Bedford€to€Rutherford€County€schoolsÏwould€constitute€such€a€change€in€circumstances,€we€note€that€this€issue€is€notÏproperly€before€the€court€at€this€time.œ× ƒ< ××  ×›ÌÌà àIn€light€of€our€affirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€continue€the€joint€custodyÏarrangement,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€increase€the€Fatherððs€childÏsupport€obligation€at€this€time.€€Per€the€partiesðð€marital€dissolution€agreement,€the€finalÏdivorce€decree€required€the€Father€to€pay€$500€per€month€in€child€support.€œ€Admittedly,›Ïthis€amount€is€less€than€the€presumptive€amount€established€by€the€Child€SupportÏGuidelines.€€Due€to€the€continued€joint€custody€arrangement,€however,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€found€that€this€was€an€appropriate€case€for€deviating€from€the€Guidelines.€ÏœòòSeeóó›€òòGrayv.€Grayóó,€885€S.W.2d€353,€356€(Tenn.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àWe€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€the€Motherððs€request€for€anÏaward€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„103(c)Ígoverns€awards€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€proceedings€relating€to€child€support€and€childÏcustody:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendantÏspouse,€and€the€spouse€or€other€person€to€whom€theÏcustody€of€the€child,€or€children,€is€awarded€may€recoverÏfrom€the€other€spouse€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€inÏenforcing€any€decree€for€alimony€and/or€child€support,€or€inÏregard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudication€ofÏthe€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€orÏchildren,€of€the€parties,€both€upon€the€original€divorceÏhearing€and€at€any€subsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€beÏfixed€and€allowed€by€the€court,€before€whom€such€action€orÏproceeding€is€pending,€in€the€Ô&  Ôdiscretion€of€such€court.ÌÌÓÓœT.C.A.›€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(1996).Ô'  Ô€€Courts€have€held€that,€under€the€foregoing€statute,€aÏparty€who€successfully€pursues€or€defends€a€change€of€custody€petition€is€entitled€toÏan€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.€€òòSeeóó€òòDv.€Kóó,€917€S.W.2d€682,€686€(Tenn.€App.€1995);ÏòòGaddyv.€Gaddyóó,€861€S.W.2d€236,€241€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòFenleyv.€Fenleyóó,ÏNo.03A01„9604„CH„00121,€1996€WL€469683,€at€*4€(Tenn.€App.€Aug.19,€1996).€€InÏthe€present€case,€however,€the€Mother€did€not€successfully€pursue€her€counterpetitionÏto€modify€custody€because€the€petition€was€denied.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€theÏtrial€court€that€the€Mother€was€not€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.ÌÌà àAs€a€final€matter,€we€deny€the€Fatherððs€motion€for€damages€for€frivolous€appeal.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòAndersonv.€Dean€Truck€Lineóó,€682€S.W.2d€900,€902„03€(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÏAppellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô€6ôÔÔ€ÔœÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ€6ÔÔ€6XÔHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.