WPC nDfU+"I%8<BL(:M,d`~r^i1ĘF#Gr"2 FUU8%AW,ړԩHnlo9gS"E)ts1մ]-\aVG'Lgu]_?IGXb\O{3>ȏ|+ô,>v2OٱA%;Yc:UT&< נl*E~"nIʣ+C~zX и]zY=vEf$/hoX_3ꅧ}gpϖ6+fyb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 72~E 1u 72' 0 cYUNb                                     0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASi 0 0D& AjHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0e+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+:i+00 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|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G20m$ !.8Ad d 8         0  X0X d(|3$ !.8Ad d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ad d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Xd d8     _b8.XXdd 8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ AssignedonBrief,September19,2001 $ XXb #bXX#  VINCEARNOLDMULLINS,v.THERESADARNELLMULLINSXXb  " @   DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforGreeneCounty  " @N N No.99000279Hon.ThomasR.Frierson,II,Chancellor      `     h FILEDNOVEMBER5,2001    AV) ` dE<` A   @No.E200100912COAR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   TheTrialCourtgrantedpartiesadivorce,awardedcustodyofminorchildtomother,andordered < rehabilitativealimonyandattorneysfeestomother.Husbandappealed.Weaffirm. (x #bXX7#XXb Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  P HerschelPickensFranks#bX#XX.b,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich#bXi#XX.bCharlesD.Susano, ( Jr.,J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,#bX#XX.bԀJ.,joined.  LeRoyTipton,Jr.,Greeneville,Tennessee,forAppellant,VinceArnoldMullins.  EdwardKershaw,Greeneville,Tennessee,forAppellee,TheresaDarnellMullins. t @66' OPINION #bXXr#XXbԈ $ t #bXX#XXb   ` Inthisdivorceactionwherethepartieswereawardedadivorce,thehusbandappeals "8" andraisesthefollowingissues: #$#  (5h83"3"  0  0` (#(#3z 25h  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhethertheTrialCourterredinawardingcustodyofthepartiesminorchild % % totheappellee,asopposedtotheappellant?3z ݌&!& (# (# Ќ  "3"  0  0` (#(#3 25h  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhethertheTrialCourterredinawardingtheappelleerehabilitativespousal p(#( support?3 K ݌\)$) (# (# Ќ  "3"  0  0` (#(#3Z 25h  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhethertheTrialCourterredinawardingtheappelleeattorneysfees?3Z ݌4+&+ (# (# Ќ     ` Thepartiesweremarriedin1995andhaveonesixyearoldchild,Hayden.Itwas  -\(-$ thesecondmarriageforbothparties,andthehusbandhadcustodyofhistwochildren,ages8and  10,fromhisfirstmarriage,andthewifehasone13yearolddaughterfromherfirstmarriage.  Essentially,theevidenceestablishesthatallofthechildrenarewelladjusted,getalongwell,perform  wellinschool,andarecaredforbytheirparentsandextendedfamily. t    ` ThehusbandhasbeenemployedforthepastsixyearsbytheStateDepartmentof L  Safety,earning$2,650.00grosspermonth,plusbenefits.Thewifehasbeenprimaryhomemaker 8  andcaretakerofHaydenandherstepchildren.Shenowworksatacombinationofparttimejobs, $ t includingbabysitting,weekendshiftsataservicestation,andcleaninginamotelanddaycareata  ` church.Sheearnsapproximately$1,720.00permonthfromthesejobs,plus$419.00inSocial  L  Securitybenefitsforherdaughter.Shehasapproximately20hoursofcollegecredit.  8     ` TheTrialCourtgrantedanabsolutedivorcetobothparties,pursuanttoTenn.Code   Ann.364129(b).Hethenmadespecificfindingsoffact,andconcludedthatbaseduponthe   weighingofthestatutoryfactorsandacomparativefitnessanalysis,thatthebestinterestofthechild   wouldbeservedbyplacingcustodywiththewife.TheCourtfoundthataharmoniousand   cooperativerelationshipdidnotexistbetweentheparties,andthatthechildscontinuityandsecurity p needswouldbebestservedbycustodyremainingwiththewifewithliberalvisitationbythe \ husband,whichvisitationwasspelledoutintheMemorandumOpinion.Asmalldownward H deviationfromchildsupportguidelineswasorderedinviewofthehusbandsvisitationtimes. 4    ` TheCourtfoundthewifetobeeconomicallydisadvantaged,relativetothehusband,  \ butcapableofeconomicrehabilitation.Anawardofrehabilitativealimonyintheamountof$200.00 H permonthfor24monthswasordered,andshewasalsoawarded$750.00forattorneysfees. 4    ` Ourreviewoftheseproceedingsisdenovowithapresumptionofcorrectnessinthe   findingsoftheTrialCourt,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);  Ricev.Rice,983S.W.2d680,682(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Ontheissueofcustody,theCourts  comparativeanalysiscentereduponthestabilityandcontinuityaffordedthechild,theparenting  skillsofbothparentstoprovidephysicalandnurturingcare,andthecredibilityofwitnesses.The l Courtnotedthatwhileitwaspoorjudgmentthateachparentcohabitedwithotherpartnersaftertheir X  separation,subsequentmarriagewouldenhancethecasesforcustody. D!    ` Haydensmotherhasbeenhisprimarycaretaker.Allofthetestimonyofwitnesses, #l! includinghusband,statedshewasagoodmother.TheTrialCourtfoundbothparentshaveastrong, $X" lovingrelationshipwithHayden,andthathewasbeingraisedwell.Theevidenceisthatneitheris $D # abadparent.Wifeintendstomarrythepartnersheisnowlivingwith,andtheTrialCourt %0!$ determinedthattheevidencepreponderatesinfavorofthewifeasprimarycustodian.TheCourt &"% appliedthecomparativefitnesstest,andwefindtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrial '#& Judgesfindingontheissueofcustody.SeeBahv.Bah,668S.W.2d663,666(Tenn.Ct.App. (#' 1983). )$(    ` Astotheissueofalimony,thereisapreferenceforrehabilitativealimonyforan h+&* economicallydisadvantagedspouse,toenablethespousetobecomemoreselfsufficient,ifpossible.  Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(b);Crabtreev.Crabtree,16S.W.3d356,359(Tenn.2000).  Rehabilitativealimonyawardsarepresumedcorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise,  asanalyzedunderthestatutoryfactors.Crabtree. t    ` TheTrialCourtmadeextensivefindingsoffactregardingtherelativesituationofthe L  partiesinmakingitsawardofsupport.Wifewasresponsible,notonlyforHaydenandlargelyfor 8  herstepchildren,andshecontributedlabortowardsthehouseconstruction,laterfoundtobethe $ t husbandsseparateproperty.Shecurtailedheremploymentandeducationoptionsindeferenceto  ` herdomesticduties,includinghusbandsopportunitiesforjobrelatedtraining.Husbandhasa  L  steadyjobandastableincome,whileshepresentlyhasonlylowpaying,sporadicemployment.The  8  modestrehabilitativealimonywillprovidesomemeansforherbetterfinancialconditionandfuture $  earningcapacity.WeaffirmtheTrialCourtonthisissue.      ` Ontheissueofattorneysfees,anawardofattorneysfeesisproperwhenaparty   doesnothavesufficientassetstopayforrepresentation,orwouldberequiredtoextinguishor   depleteliquidassetsreceivedinthedivorce.Smithv.Smith,984S.W.2d606,610(Tenn.Ct.App. p 1997).Suchawardsarediscretionarywiththetrialcourt,andaredisturbedonlyiftheevidence \ preponderatesagainsttheaward,oramanifestinjusticewouldresultifallowedtostand.Batsonv. H Batson,769S.W.2d849(Tenn.Ct.App.1988);Longv.Long,957S.W.2d825,829(Tenn.Ct.App. 4 1997).  p    ` Clearly,thewifewasinneedoffundstodefrayherattorneysfees,andthemarital H estatecontainedverylittleassetsofsignificantvalueandnocashproceedswithwhichshecouldpay 4 herexpenses.WeaffirmtheTrialJudgesawardofattorneysfeesonthisissue.Onappeal,the   wifeseeksattorneysfeesincurredindefendingtheTrialCourtJudgment,arguingthattheappeal   isfrivolous.Wedonotfindtheappealtobefrivolous,buttakingintoaccountthewifes  circumstancesandhersuccessfuldefenseofthecustodyaward,wefindthatitisappropriateto  awardthewifeattorneysfeesfordefendingtheTrialCourtJudgmentonappeal.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.365103(a)(2)(c). l    ` TheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedwithcostsassessedtotheappellantVince D! ArnoldMullins. 0"     ` Uponremand,theTrialCourtwillestablishreasonableattorneysfeesincurredon $X" appealbywife,whicharetobeadjudgedagainstthehusband. $D #    `     h     _________________________ )$(    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. |*%)