ÿWPCf  s¿LS±-½D >½A &×AOÒ:®Hßðx&* Ðreview:Ð ×+''+ Ð‡Ó °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€aÐ ° Ðjury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumptionÐ ™é Ðof€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€theÐ ‚Ò Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absentÐ k» Ðerror€of€law.Ð T¤ ÐÌÓ °j.ÓÓ °\.ÓòòWatters€v.€Wattersóó,€22€S.W.3d€817,€820€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(2003).€Ð & v Ðð ðQuestions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumption€of€correctness.ððòò€€Hoback€v.€Hobackóó,Ð  _ ÐNo.€M2001„01913„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€205,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€5,€2004)Ð ø H Ð(citing€òòMurdock€Acceptance€Corp.€v.€Jonesóó,€362€S.W.2d€266,€268€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1961)).€€We€haveÐ á 1  Ðgreater€latitude€when€determining€whether€a€lower€courtððs€findings€as€to€mixed€questions€of€fact€andÐ Ê   Ðlaw€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€addition,Ð ³  Ðwhen€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€child€support€we€apply€the€following€standard€ofÐ œì  Ðreview:Ð …Õ  ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[W]e€review€child€support€decisions€using€the€deferential€ð ðabuse€ofÐ W§  Ðdiscretionðð€standard€of€review.€€This€standard€requires€us€to€considerÐ @ Ð(1)€whether€the€decision€has€a€sufficient€evidentiary€foundation,€(2)Ð )y Ðwhether€the€court€correctly€identified€and€properly€applied€theÐ b Ðappropriate€legal€principles,€and€(3)€whether€the€decision€is€withinÐ ûK Ðthe€range€of€acceptable€alternatives.€€òòSee€BIF€v.€Service€Constr.€Co.óó,Ð ä4 ÐNo.€87„136„II,€1988€WL€72409,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€13,€1988)Ð Í Ð(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€While€we€will€set€asideÐ ¶ Ða€discretionary€decision€if€it€rests€on€an€inadequate€evidentiaryÐ Ÿï Ðfoundation€or€if€it€is€contrary€to€the€governing€law,€we€will€notÐ ˆØ Ðsubstitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€merely€because€weÐ qÁ Ðmight€have€chosen€another€alternative.Ð Zª ÐÌÒ°` ´3ÒÒ°` ¦3ÒòòState€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€244,€248€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€Ð ,| ÐÌÓ  Óò òUpward€Deviation€for€Non„Visitationó óÐ þN ÐÌò òó óÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€On€appeal,€Mother€contests€the€chancellorððs€ruling,€denying€her€an€upward€deviation€inÐ Ñ!!  Ðchild€support€due€to€Fatherððs€failure€to€exercise€his€rights€to€overnight€visitation€under€the€originalÐ º" ! Ðparenting€plan.€€Mother€directs€our€attention€to€rule€1240„2„4„.04(b)€of€the€Guidelines,€arguing€thatÐ £#ó" Ðthis€rule€is€mandatory€and€requires€a€trial€court€to€enter€an€upward€deviation€when€the€visitationÐ Œ$Ü# Ðexercised€by€a€non„custodial€parent€is€less€than€that€set€forth€in€the€rule.€Ð u%Å $ ÐÌà  àð ðThe€child€support€guidelines€were€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€HumanÐ G'—"& ÐServices,€pursuant€to€ðð€36„5„101(e)(2),€and€have€force€of€law.ðð€€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€984€S.W.2d€606,€608Ð 0(€#' Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó,€846€S.W.2d€803,€804€(Tenn.€1993)).€€The€GuidelinesÐ )i$( Ðare€intended€to€represent€the€minimum€base€at€which€the€trial€court€must€begin€when€determiningÐ *R%) Ðchild€support€obligations.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„24„.02(5);€òòDwight€v.€Dwightóó,€936Ð ë*;&* ÐS.W.2d€945,€948€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€ð ðThese€guidelines€are€designed€to€apply€to€situations€whereÐ Ô+$'+ Ðchildren€are€living€primarily€with€one€parent€but€stay€overnight€with€the€other€parent€at€least€as€oftenÐ ° Ðas€every€other€weekend€from€Friday€to€Sunday,€two€weeks€in€the€summer€and€two€weeks€duringÐ ™é Ðholidays€throughout€the€year.ðð€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.€1240„2„4„.02(6).€€The€average€overnightÐ ‚Ò Ðvisitation€schedule€set€forth€in€the€Guidelines€amounts€to€approximately€eighty€(80)€days€per€year.€Ð k» ÐòòShell€v.€Lawóó,€No.€03A01„9608„CV„00251,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€183,€at€*12ð!ð13€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð T¤ ÐMar.€18,€1997).€€The€Guidelines€also€provide€the€criteria€that€a€trial€court€must€utilize€whenÐ =  Ðdeviating€from€the€minimum€base€award€reached€under€the€Guidelines.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.Ð & v Ð1240„2„4„.04.€€One€of€these€criteria€specifically€addresses€the€lack€of€overnight€visitation€by€a€non„Ð  _ Ðcustodial€parent,€and€provides€as€follows:€€Ð ø H ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(1)€Since€these€percentage€amounts€are€minimums,€the€court€òòshallÐ Ê   Ðincreaseóó€the€award€calculated€in€Rule€1240„2„4„.03€for€the€followingÐ ³  Ðreasons:Ð œì  Ð.€.€.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌ(b)€If€the€child(ren)€is/are€not€staying€overnight€with€the€obligor€forÐ W§  Ðthe€average€visitation€period€of€every€other€weekend€from€FridayÐ @ Ðevening€to€Sunday€evening,€two€weeks€during€the€summer€and€twoÐ )y Ðweeks€during€holiday€periods€throughout€the€year,€then€an€amountÐ b Ðòòshall€be€added€óóto€the€percentage€calculated€in€the€above€rule€toÐ ûK Ðcompensate€the€obligee€for€the€cost€of€providing€care€for€theÐ ä4 Ðchild(ren)€for€the€amount€of€time€during€the€average€visitation€periodÐ Í Ðthat€the€child(ren)€is/are€not€with€the€obligor€[reference€1240„2„4„Ð ¶ Ð.02(6)].€€The€court€òòmayóó€consider€a€downward€deviation€from€theÐ Ÿï Ðguidelines€if€the€obligor€demonstrates€that€he/she€is€consistentlyÐ ˆØ Ðproviding€more€care€and€supervision€for€the€children€thanÐ qÁ Ðcontemplated€in€the€rule.Ð Zª ÐÌÓ °ÛAÓÓ °ÍAÓTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.€1240„2„4„.04(1)(b)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð ,| ÐÌà  àThe€portion€of€the€Guidelines€dealing€with€less€than€average€overnight€visitation€by€a€non„Ð þN Ðcustodial€parent€is€mandatory.€€òòHobackóó,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€205,€at€*12€(ð ðThe€guidelinesÐ ç 7 Ðprovide€that€since€the€percentage€awards€are€minimum€the€court€shall€increase€child€support€ifÐ Ð!   Ðovernight€parenting€time€is€less€than€80€days€per€year,€but€if€parenting€of€the€obligor€is€more€thanÐ ¹" ! Ð80€days€the€Court€may€consider€a€downward€deviation.ðð);òò€see€also€Rogers€v.€Rogersóó,€No.€E2002„Ð ¢#ò" Ð02300„COA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€494,€at€*10€n.3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€14,€2003);€òòSmithÐ ‹$Û# Ðv.€Smithóó,€No.€M2000„02186„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€673,€at€*20€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð t%Ä $ ÐSept.€11,€2001);òò€Dwightóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòPiper€v.€Andrewsóó,€No.€01A01„9612„CV„00570,€ò òó ó1997Ð ]&­!% ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€907,€at€*12€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€17,€1997);òò€Kimble€v.€Kimbleóó,€No.€02A01„9503„Ð F'–"& ÐCV„00049,€1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€453,€at€*4ð!ð5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€8,€1996);€òòLindberg€v.Ð /(#' ÐLindbergóó,€No.€02A01„9407„CV„00169,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€668,€at€*13ð!ð14€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð )h$( ÐOct.€17,€1995).€€Therefore,€if€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€obligor€parent€is€not€exercising€overnightÐ *Q%) Ðvisitation€for€the€average€period€set€forth€in€the€Guidelines,€then€the€court€must€award€an€increaseÐ ê*:&* Ðin€child€support.€€òòóóSuch€an€increase€reflects€the€economic€realities€faced€by€the€obligee/custodialÐ Ó+#'+ Ðparent€who,€in€addition€to€having€a€larger€share€of€custody€than€contemplated€by€the€parenting€plan,Ð ° Ðalso€assumes€a€larger€share€of€the€financial€burden€in€caring€for€the€children.€€òòSmithóó,€2001€Tenn.Ð ™é ÐApp.€LEXIS€673,€at€*25€(ð ðIf€the€child€is€constantly€in€the€care€of€Wife,€the€amount€of€child€supportÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€she€receives€should€reflect€the€same.ðð);òòóó€òòDwightóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòLindberg€v.€Lindbergóó,€No.Ð k» Ð02A01„9407„CV„00169,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€668,€at€*13ð!ð14€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€17,€1995)Ð T¤ Ð(ð ðWhen€the€obligor€fails€to€exercise€this€amount€of€visitation,€the€child€support€award€should€beÐ =  Ðadjusted€upward€to€compensate€the€custodial€parent€for€additional€expenses€incurred€as€a€result€ofÐ & v Ðkeeping€the€child[ren]€on€days€that€the€noncustodial€parent€would€have€otherwise€kept€theÐ  _ Ðchild[ren].ðð);€òòHawk€v.€Hawkóó,€No.€03A01„9407„GS„00249,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€755,€at€*3Ð ø H Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€20,€1994)€(ð ð[T]o€permit€lowering€or€elimination€of€support€obligations€becauseÐ á 1  Ðof€less€than€average€or€non„visitation,€would€result€in€a€windfall€or€reward€to€a€noncustodial€parent,Ð Ê   Ðshould€he€or€she€decide€to€discontinue€or€reduce€visitation,€in€contravention€of€the€goals€espousedÐ ³  Ðby€the€guidelines.ðð).€€òòóóÐ œì  ÐÌà  àFather€asserts€that€he€has€made€every€effort€to€visit€with€the€Children€but€believes€that€theÐ n¾  ÐChildren€are€thwarting€his€attempts€at€overnight€visitation.€€Father€alleges€that€he€has€repeatedlyÐ W§  Ðattempted€to€spend€time€with€the€Children,€but€they€refuse€to€either€call€or€spend€time€with€him.€€OurÐ @ Ðreview€of€the€record,€however,€indicates€that€the€evidence€does€not€entirely€support€FatherððsÐ )y Ðposition.€€At€the€hearing€conducted€by€the€chancellor€on€July€10,€2003,€Father€testified€as€follows:Ð b ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓQ.à0 ¸ àNow,€you€were€divorced€October€9,€2001;€is€that€correct?Ðä4¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes.Ð͸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€you€entered€a€Parenting€Plan€which€provided€you€forÐ ¶ Ðsome€visitation€with€your€children;€is€that€right?ÐŸï¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes.Јظ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àYou€got€time€in€the€summer,€during€the€spring€vacation€andÐ qÁ Ðother€times;€is€that€right,€that€you€wanted€visitation?ÐZª¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àAccording€to€the€Parenting€Plan.ÐC“¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àOkay.€€And€since€the€time€that€you€were€divorced€andÐ ,| ÐParenting€Plan€was€entered€on€October€9,€2001,€how€manyÐ e Ðovernights€have€you€had€the€children€with€you?ÐþN¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àOne€week€during€the€summer.€€It€was€when€I€lived€in€theÐ ç 7 ÐDallas€metroplex€area.ÐÐ!  ¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àAll€right.€€Now,€between€October€9th,€2001€and€I€think€youÐ ¹" ! Ðsaid€May€6th,€2002,€did€you€come€back€to€Memphis€onÐ ¢#ò" Ðweekends€every€so€often?Ћ$Û#¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes.Ðt%Ä $¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€did€you€see€your€children€then?Ð]&­!%¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àYes,€sometimes.€€I€canððt€tell€you€exactly€when€and€whatÐ F'–"& Ðdates,€but€yes,€some€I€did.Ð/(#'¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€then€sometimes€you€came€back€to€Memphis€and€youÐ )h$( Ðdidnððt€see€them;€is€that€right?Ð*Q%)¸ x¸ x Ðâ âA.à0 ¸ àYes.€€Ðê*:&*¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àNow,€did€you€ever€have€them€come€down€to€ð!ð€beside€fromÐ ° Ðâ âthe€one€week€weððve€talked€about,€did€you€ever€have€themÐ ™é Ðcome€down€to€Dallas€at€any€other€times?ЂҸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àNo.€€Ðk»¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ °VÓÓ °VÓFather€alleged€that€he€has€repeatedly€called€the€Children€and€leaves€voice€messages,€but€they€do€notÐ =  Ðreturn€his€calls.€€Regarding€his€attempts€to€call€the€Children,€Father€stated:Ð & v ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓQ.€€à0 ¸ àHow€many€times€have€you€called€them,€Mr.€Parrish?Ðø H¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àIððve€called€them€several€times.Ðá 1 ¸ x¸ x ÐQ.à0 ¸ àSeveral€times€in€the€last€couple€of€years?ÐÊ  ¸ x¸ x ÐA.à0 ¸ àNo.€€Since€Iððve€been€back€to€Memphis€and€over€the€lastÐ ³  Ðcouple€of€months.Ðœì ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ °_ÓÓ ° _ÓFather€testified€that€Mother€is€also€responsible€for€his€lack€of€overnight€visitation€with€the€ChildrenÐ n¾  Ðbecause€she€does€not€notify€him€of€the€Childrenððs€extracurricular€activities.€€Father€testified€that€heÐ W§  Ðmoved€to€Marion,€Arkansas,€in€May€of€2002€to€be€closer€to€the€Children€and€re„establish€aÐ @ Ðrelationship.€€Father€admitted€at€the€hearing€that€he€has€never€requested€overnight€visitation€with€theÐ )y ÐChildren€and€been€turned€down.€€Yet,€Father€testified€that€he€has€not€contacted€Mother€since€heÐ b Ðmoved€to€Arkansas€to€ascertain€the€Childrenððs€extracurricular€activities€schedule,€has€not€spokenÐ ûK Ðwith€his€sonððs€coach,€and€has€not€spoken€with€the€Childrenððs€teachers€about€their€schoolÐ ä4 Ðperformance.€Father€testified€that€he€also€has€not€sent€the€Children€Christmas€or€birthday€presents.€Ð Í ÐWhen€asked€why€he€did€not€tell€Mother€that€he€wanted€the€Children€to€come€stay€with€him€in€theÐ ¶ Ðsummer,€Father€stated€that€he€was€in€a€one„bedroom€apartment€and€did€not€know€how€many€hoursÐ Ÿï Ðhe€would€be€working€at€his€new€job.€€Fatherððs€position€at€the€hearing€was€that,€if€the€Children€do€notÐ ˆØ Ðwant€to€see€him,€he€does€not€want€to€force€them€to€do€so.€Ð qÁ Ѐ€Ð Zª Ðà  àFather€stated€that€he€primarily€communicates€with€Mother€by€email.€€Mother€corroboratedÐ C“ Ðthat€the€parties€primarily€communicate€by€email,€but€offered€that€this€was€necessary€because€FatherÐ ,| Ðdid€not€give€her€his€new€address€in€Dallas€when€he€moved€and€did€not€inform€her€that€he€wasÐ e Ðmoving€back€to€Arkansas.€€Mother€testified€that€after€Father€moved€back€to€Arkansas,€he€told€herÐ þN Ðshe€could€find€his€new€address€on€a€check€that€he€sent€to€her.€€Mother,€however,€stated€that€theÐ ç 7 Ðaddress€on€the€check€was€not€Fatherððs€address.€€Mother€stated€that€she€does€not€discourage€theÐ Ð!   ÐChildren€from€staying€overnight€with€Father.€€She€testified€that€she€spoke€to€Father€at€their€sonððs€ballÐ ¹" ! Ðgame€and€told€him€that€since€he€was€in€the€Memphis€area€they€would€work€out€a€schedule€forÐ ¢#ò" Ðvisitation,€but€that€Father€stated€he€did€not€want€to€make€the€Children€see€him€if€they€did€not€wantÐ ‹$Û# Ðto.€€On€the€one€occasion€that€the€son€did€return€Fatherððs€call,€Mother€stated€that€she€made€their€sonÐ t%Ä $ Ðreturn€the€call€before€she€would€take€him€out€to€celebrate€his€birthday.€€The€chancellor€also€spokeÐ ]&­!% Ðto€the€partiesðð€minor€son€in€chambers€concerning€his€relationship€with€Father.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РF'–"& Їà  àWhatever€the€reasons€put€forth€by€Father,€the€record€clearly€reveals€that€Father€has€notÐ ° Ðexercised€his€right€to€overnight€visitation€with€the€Children.€€Our€focus,€as€well€as€the€trial€courtððs,Ð ™é Ðmust€be€directed€toward€the€best€interest€of€the€Children,€and€economic€support€plays€a€vital€role€inÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€endeavor.€€While€we€are€cognizant€of€Fatherððs€assertion€that€he€has€chosen€to€take€a€lowerÐ k» Ðpaying€job€in€order€to€move€closer€to€the€Children€in€hopes€of€repairing€their€relationship,€we€areÐ T¤ Ðbound€by€the€mandatory€language€of€the€Guidelines.׃Ó×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€Smithóó,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€673,€atÐ =  Ð*25€(ð ðWhile€we€acknowledge€that€Husbandððs€military€career€involving€relocation€may€haveÐ & v Ðprevented€visitation€with€his€child€to€some€degree,€and€recognize€that€there€may€have€been€difficultyÐ  _ Ðbetween€the€parties€in€making€visitation€arrangements,€the€fact€remains€that,€for€what€ever€reasons,Ð ø H ÐHusband€failed€to€visit€the€child€for€a€significant€period€of€time,€and€that€the€child€needs€to€beÐ á 1  Ðsupported.ðð);€òòDwightóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€947€(remanding€for€an€upward€deviation€in€child€supportÐ Ê   Ðdespite€fatherððs€assertion€that€his€job€duties€as€a€pilot€prevented€him€from€exercising€overnightÐ ³  Ðvisitation);€òòHawkóó,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€755,€at€*4€(stating€that€a€fatherððs€voluntary€assumptionÐ œì  Ðof€new€obligations€cannot€be€a€basis€for€reduction€in€a€child€support€obligation).€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€the€chancellorððs€denial€of€an€upward€deviation€in€child€support€for€non„Ð W§  Ðvisitation€was€in€contravention€of€the€law€applicable€to€this€case€and€constitutes€an€abuse€ofÐ @ Ðdiscretion.€€Therefore,€we€remand€to€the€chancery€court€with€instructions€to€award€Mother€anÐ )y Ðupward€deviation€in€child€support€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€In€granting€an€upward€deviation,€theÐ b ÐGuidelines€provide€that€the€trial€court€shall€set€ð ðan€amount,ðð€thereby€vesting€the€trial€court€withÐ ûK Ðconsiderable€discretion.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.€1240„2„4„.04(1)(b).€€In€exercising€this€discretion,Ð ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€must€be€guided€by€the€aforementioned€purpose€behind€granting€an€upward€deviationÐ Í Ðfor€non„visitation.€€òòSee€Lindbergóó,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€668,€at€*14.€€The€record€before€us€onÐ ¶ Ðappeal€contains€scant€evidence€regarding€Motherððs€actual€expenses€incurred€as€a€result€of€FatherððsÐ Ÿï Ðnon„visitation.€€While€Mother€testified€that€she€has€had€to€pay€for€the€Childrenððs€extracurricularÐ ˆØ Ðactivities,€food,€and€other€expenses,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€regarding€amounts.€€On€remand,Ð qÁ Ðthe€chancellor€is€instructed€to€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€concerning€Motherððs€costs€associatedÐ Zª Ðwith€caring€for€the€Children€during€those€times€that€Father€is€not€exercising€visitation€as€outlinedÐ C“ Ðin€the€Permanent€Parenting€Plan.׃`×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ,| ЇÓ  Óò òAttorney€Fees€and€Court€Reporter€Feesó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€her€petition€for€contempt,€Mother€asked€the€chancery€court€for€her€fees€and€costsÐ ƒÓ Ðassociated€with€pursuing€this€matter€against€Father.€€In€the€order€entered€on€August€12,€2003,€theÐ l¼ Ðchancellor€ruled€that€Father€was€to€pay€the€costs€associated€with€pursuing€the€motion€for€contemptÐ U¥ Ðand€modification€of€child€support,€Father€was€to€pay€the€$75.00€filing€fee,€and€Father€was€to€beÐ > Ž Ðresponsible€for€one„half€of€the€court€reporterððs€fee.€€In€her€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Mother€alleged€thatÐ ' w Ðthe€chancellor€erred€in€not€awarding€her€$350.00€in€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€from€the€hearing,€as€wellÐ  ` Ðas€the€entire€amount€of€the€court€reporterððs€fee.€€The€chancellorððs€order€addressing€Motherððs€motionÐ ù I Ðfor€a€new€trial€denied€her€request€for€additional€attorneyððs€fees€and€the€entire€amount€of€the€courtÐ â 2  Ðreporterððs€fee.€€On€appeal,€Mother€asks€this€court€to€reverse€the€chancellorððs€ruling€in€this€regard.€Ð Ë   ЀÌà  àMotherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€is€premised€upon€section€36„5„103(c),€which€provides:Ð í  ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÌThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,€and€theÐ o¿  Ðspouse€or€other€person€to€whom€the€custody€of€the€child,€or€children,Ð X¨  Ðis€awarded€may€recover€from€the€other€spouse€reasonable€attorneyÐ A‘ Ðfees€incurred€in€enforcing€any€decree€for€alimony€and/or€childÐ *z Ðsupport,€or€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudicationÐ c Ðof€the€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€ofÐ üL Ðthe€parties,€both€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€anyÐ å5 Ðsubsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixed€and€allowed€by€theÐ Î Ðcourt,€before€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÐ · Ðdiscretion€of€such€court.Ð  ð ÐÌÓ ° ÓÓ °ü~ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(2003).€€ð ðThere€is€no€absolute€right€to€such€fees,€but€their€award€inÐ r Ðcustody€and€support€proceedings€is€familiar€and€almost€commonplace.ðð€€òòDeas€v.€Deasóó,€774€S.W.2dÐ [« Ð167,€170€(Tenn.€1989).€€As€set€forth€in€the€statute,€the€decision€of€whether€to€award€attorneyððs€feesÐ D” Ðis€entirely€a€discretionary€function€of€the€trial€court.€€òòIdóó.;€òòHuntley€v.€Huntleyóó,€61€S.W.3d€329,€341Ð -} Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€(citing€òòRichardson€v.€Richardsonóó,€969€S.W.2d€931,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð f Ð1997));òò€Norton€v.€Nortonóó,€No.€02A01„9901„CH„00030,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€13,€at€*28ð!ð29Ð ÿO Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€10,€2000).€€ð ðThese€awards€are€appropriate€when€the€parent€seeking€to€defendÐ è 8 Ðor€to€enforce€a€child€support€obligation€prevails€or€when€requiring€the€prevailing€spouse€to€pay€hisÐ Ñ!!  Ðor€her€legal€expenses€would€inequitably€reduce€the€amount€of€support€the€child€receives.ðð€€òòChorostÐ º" ! Ðv.€Chorostóó,€No.€M2000„00251„COA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€441,€at€*41€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð £#ó" ÐJune€17,€2003)€(citing€òòRichardson€v.€Richardsonóó,€969€S.W.2d€931,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)).€€TheÐ Œ$Ü# Ðpurpose€of€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€pursuant€to€the€statute€is€to€protect€the€childrenððs,€not€theÐ u%Å $ Ðparentððs,€legal€interests.€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€ð ðA€spouseÐ ^&®!% Ðwho€is€otherwise€entitled€to€an€award€for€legal€expenses€should€not€be€prevented€from€collectingÐ G'—"& Ðthem€simply€because€he€or€she€might€be€financially€able€to€pay€these€fees€on€their€own.ðð€€òòChorostóó,Ð ° Ð2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€441,€at€*41€(citing€òòGaddy€v.€Gaddyóó,€861€S.W.2d€236,€241€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ™é Ð1992));€òòsee€also€Sherrodóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€785.€€Regarding€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€under€theÐ ‚Ò Ðstatute,€we€have€stated:Ð k» ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThere€is€no€exhaustive€list€of€the€factors€a€trial€court€should€take€intoÐ =  Ðaccount€in€exercising€its€discretion€on€the€question€of€attorneyððs€fees.€Ð & v ÐSuch€an€award€would€seem€to€be€most€appropriate,€however,€whereÐ  _ Ðthe€plaintiff€proves€that€she€is€entitled€to€an€award€for€the€benefit€ofÐ ø H Ðher€minor€child,€and€where€the€cost€of€vindicating€that€right€producesÐ á 1  Ðan€inequitable€reduction€in€the€actual€amount€the€child€receives.€€Ð Ê   ÐÌÓ °ÙŠÓÓ °ËŠÓòòRichardson€v.€Richardsonóó,€969€S.W.2d€931,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€ð ð[T]rial€courts€may€awardÐ œì  Ðattorneyððs€fees€without€proof€that€the€requesting€party€is€unable€to€pay€them€as€long€as€the€award€isÐ …Õ  Ðjust€and€equitable€under€the€facts€of€the€case.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àð ðUnless€it€ððaffirmatively€appears€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€was€against€logic€or€reasoning,Ð @ Ðand€caused€an€injustice€or€injury€to€the€party€complaining,ðð€the€trial€courtððs€exercise€of€discretionÐ )y Ðwill€not€be€reversed€on€appeal.ðð€€òòHuntley€v.€Huntleyóó,€61€S.W.3d€329,€341€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)Ð b Ð(quoting€òòMarcus€v.€Marcusóó,€993€S.W.2d€596,€601€(Tenn.€1999)).€€To€be€upheld,€ð ð[t]he€trial€courtððsÐ ûK Ðaward€of€attorneyððs€fees,€or€denial€of€an€award,€need€only€be€just€and€equitable€under€theÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances.ðð€€òòBjork€v.€Bjorkóó,€No.€01A01„9702„CV„00087,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€712,€atÐ Í Ð*22ð!ð23€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€22,€1997)€(citing€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¶ Ð1992)).€€ð ðWe€will€not€interfere€with€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€[deny]€attorney€fees€under€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ÿï ÐAnn.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€absent€some€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòTinsley€v.€Tinsleyóó,€No.€M2001„02319„COA„Ð ˆØ ÐR3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€778,€at€*24€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€1,€2002)€(citing€òòGarfinkel€v.Ð qÁ ÐGarfinkelóó,€945€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)).€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àMother€submitted€an€affidavit€to€the€chancery€court€setting€forth€the€attorneyððs€fees€that€sheÐ ,| Ðincurred€as€a€result€of€the€hearing€on€her€petition.€€While€awarding€litigation€expenses€in€cases€suchÐ e Ðas€these€is€commonplace,€the€trial€court,€in€its€discretion,€may€find€that€the€petitioning€party€shouldÐ þN Ðbear€some€of€the€litigation€expenses.€€òòSee€Joiner€v.€Griffithóó,€No.€M2003„00536„COA„R3„JV,€2004Ð ç 7 ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€375,€at€*27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€14,€2004).€€Our€review€of€the€record€does€notÐ Ð!   Ðreveal€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€Mother€additional€litigation€expensesÐ ¹" ! Ðbeyond€those€already€ordered€by€the€court.€€This€is€especially€true€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€recordÐ ¢#ò" Ðdoes€not€reveal€whether€the€reasonableness€and€necessity€of€Motherððs€litigation€expenses€wasÐ ‹$Û# Ðsufficiently€proven.€€òòSee€Tinsleyóó,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€778,€at€*25ð!ð27.€€òòóóÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌÓ  Óò òAttorneyððs€Fees€on€AppealÐ F'–"& Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àð ðThe€discretion€of€whether€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€for€an€appeal€is€within€our€discretion.ðð€Ð )i$( ÐòòHarris€v.€Harrisóó,€83€S.W.3d€137,€141€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103Ð *R%) Ð(2000)).€€We€find€that€Motherððs€appeal€was€necessary€in€order€to€secure€the€Childrenððs€financial€wellÐ ë*;&* Ðbeing,€therefore,€we€award€Mother€her€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€associated€with€this€appeal.€€òòSeeÐ Ô+$'+ Ðidóó.€€On€remand,€the€chancery€court€is€instructed€to€set€a€reasonable€fee€for€the€services€rendered€toÐ ° ÐMother€by€counsel€on€appeal.€€Ð ™é ÐÌò òÓ  ÓConclusionÐ k» Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThe€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€as€it€pertains€to€an€upward€deviation€of€Fatherððs€childÐ > Ž Ðsupport€obligation€for€non„visitation€is€reversed,€and€we€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistentÐ ' w Ðwith€this€opinion.€€The€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€related€to€the€denial€of€Motherððs€additionalÐ  ` Ðlitigation€expenses€is€affirmed.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally€against€Appellee,€GregoryÐ ù I ÐParrish,€and€Appellant,€Linda€Kurts„Parrish,€and€her€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ â 2  Ðnecessary.€€€€Ô#†XÓ/XXX7Þ#ÔÔ#†¼’q»XXÓ/é#ÔÔ€XÓ/X»¼’qÔÐ Ë   ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð o¿  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE