ÿWPC³* £°iný<µE»Tã!ÛßB86WT ¬È/µ@»ö2ðêô—AÒóN&'Øü’©KCÚ„·¤ÂA ›GLu¶— k¥™ì1 ëëÓÐ$òÉ\}÷`÷é°ì° ˆ‰+ZœÏr¦0tʉ*ù‘y·ÆpoôWú¢¶Ÿ/8ÜùJWÚ&3M »¢lî}Úlù;ÔºKw¶½L%ãĸ-#w…DJ|òE(~Ý%Äc)ñ¢tøòÂÆ2j GMÔ“>¿ü ¾Gè½T 6³‚‚”ZSÇË‘²3|*Y•2 uš&§?¸uR±|Ê“BA€©ã¿<¿нînÒXã£ÙvÑ|Ñt–Yê<–æ;7ÔÆXÎ V¯ôs t×Kèª6¦ƒÀÝ÷ßAEºEØ–lO Æv'%MKQnë{:üÏG¾øƒz´­Vq¡Ýô¼žcVOë²´bµ1fëlÝÛÑ';‰ð‘…X$E B$X"¬‡¹×LkßÛLNÕÚã6ÓÁ@$]ë©>„SZé²À é`ÓùÎ,Þ^—!{,`G˜„Þ3_¸|˜$ŠéX3†8ƒ¯E¥S9(€£DÊľàê}ˆõñâd_Á`ã°Ý1¡ëlH3¥}:Æhµ°,È™“Ó)W#ÉÂU#N‹ %Ù 0:ß U N U>g UN¥ bó ^ û w 4  . m0 0 0 ÜG ‘# # 0D´øEÏÞäZÂÝ 0ù)ù)ù)ù) B–*˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularô\  `‹&Times New Roman(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- ù-—t[1Ï 6hö0B013C13|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÒÝ ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔChancellor€Morris€died€on€April€27,€2003,€before€Motherððs€motion€was€heard. ‡Ý ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€for€contempt€asserted€that€Father€had€failed€to€pay€the€required€life€insurance€premiumsÐ ° Ðð ð[Ô_Ôs]inceÔ_Ô€June,€2001,ðð€which€would€mean€that€Father€had€been€in€arrears€for€nineteen€months€and€had€accrued€anÐ qÁ Ðarrearage€of€$475.€€The€motion€also€indicated,€however,€that€the€amount€of€Fatherððs€total€arrearage€was€$175.€€TheÐ 2‚ Ðpartiesðð€appellate€briefs€assert€that€Fatherððs€total€arrearage€was€$175,€not€$475.€€Therefore,€we€will€assume€forÐ óC Ðpurposes€of€this€Opinion€that€Fatherððs€total€arrearage€was€$175,€and€that€Fatherððs€alleged€failure€to€pay€the€requiredÐ ´ Ðlife€insurance€premiums€began€in€June€2002,€not€June€2001.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMother€also€argued€that€Fatherððs€child€support€obligation€should€be€increased€because€of€an€increase€inÐ ° ÐFatherððs€income.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Fatherððs€income€had€increased€less€than€15%€and€that,€therefore,€thereÐ qÁ Ðwas€no€significant€variance€in€Fatherððs€income€so€as€to€justify€an€increase€in€child€support.€€In€addition,€MotherÐ 2‚ Ðrequested€that€Father€be€required€to€show€proof€of€life€insurance€on€his€own€life,€and€Father€did€so€to€the€satisfactionÐ óC Ðof€the€trial€court.€Mother€did€not€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€decision€with€respect€to€those€issues.€€€€ ÅÝ ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€no€transcript€of€this€hearing€in€the€appellate€record.€€ Murchison COAHighersMiddlebrookss]houldHornsbysKendrickShoemake HassKnightonGanzevoort JahnBadenhopeSolimaHoalcraftnoncustodiale]videncePurvisVaccarellacaregiverb]othMackie PÝ ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€also€clarified€the€partiesðð€holiday€parenting€schedules.€€It€appears€that€Mother€does€notÐ ° Ðobject€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€the€holiday€schedules.€€€ ÓÝ ƒR |$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThose€factors€are€as€follows:Ô‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ÓÓÔ#†ômòòôÑì¡#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔÐ ° ÐÓÁÓà8  à€€€(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€and€child;Ð2‚Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,€medical€care,Ð ´ Ðeducation€and€other€necessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€been€the€primaryÐ uÅ Ðcaregiver;Ð6 †Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€life€and€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€aÐ ¸  Ðstable,€satisfactory€environment;€provided,€that€where€there€is€a€finding,€under€Ô#†ômòòôÑìö#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑìÕ#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€36„6„106(8),€ofÐ y É  Ðchild€abuse,€as€defined€in€Ô#†ômòòôÑì#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑìž#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€39„15„401€or€Ô#†ômòòôÑìå#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑì5#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ39„15„402,€or€child€sexual€abuse,€as€defined€in€Ô#†ômòòôÑì|#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑìî#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€37„Ð : Š  Ð1„602,€by€one€(1)€parent,€and€that€a€non„perpetrating€parent€has€relocated€in€order€to€flee€theÐ û K  Ðperpetrating€parent,€that€such€relocation€shall€not€weigh€against€an€award€of€custody;м Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ð>Ž Ð Ð  Ðà8  à€€€(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parentsÐÿO Ð Ð  Ð;Ð À  Ðà  à€€€(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð Ñ  ÐÌà8  à€€€€(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€€The€court€mayÐ S Ðhear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferences€of€older€children€shouldÐ Ä Ðnormally€be€given€greater€weight€than€those€of€younger€children;Ð#…ÕÐ Ð   #Їà8  à€€€(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parent€or€to€any€otherÐ ° Ðperson;€provided,€that€where€there€are€allegations€that€one€(1)€parent€has€committed€child€abuse,Ð qÁ Ð[as€defined€in€Ô#†ômòòôÑì5#ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑì #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€39„15„401€or€Ô#†ômòòôÑìU #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑì¥ #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€39„15„402],€or€child€sexual€abuse,€[Ô#†ômòòôÑìì #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔas€defined€in€€ððÔ#†ômòòôÑìS #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔ€37„1„602],Ô#†ômòòôÑì¨ #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔÐ 2‚ ÐÔ#†ômòòôÑìõ #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔagainst€a€family€member,€the€court€shall€consider€all€evidence€relevant€to€the€physical€andÐ óC Ðemotional€safety€of€the€child,€and€determine,€by€a€clear€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€whetherÐ ´ Ðsuch€abuse€has€occurred.€€The€court€shall€include€in€its€decision€a€written€finding€of€all€evidence,Ð uÅ Ðand€all€findings€of€facts€connected€thereto.€€In€addition,€the€court€shall,€where€appropriate,€referÐ 6 † Ðany€issues€of€abuse€to€the€juvenile€court€for€further€proceedings;€Ð÷ GÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€aÐ y É  Ðparent€and€such€personððs€interactions€with€the€child;€andÐ: Š Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€(10)€Each€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parenting€responsibilities,Ð ¼  Ðincluding€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€andÐ }Í  Ðcontinuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€theÐ >Ž  Ðbest€interest€of€the€child.€.€.€.Ô#†ômòòôÑìL #ÔÔ‡ôÑìòòômÔÐÿO Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)€(2001).Ð Ñ  ÐÔ#†ômòòôÑì4#Ô(.G2 |$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômòXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXÔÔ‡¼»XXÆïÔÑ€ÑÑ8€t¶XXdédÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ#†XÆïX»¼\#ÔÔ‡îknîXXÆïÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†XÆïXîîkn#ÔÔ‡¼»XXÆïԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓSubmitted€on€Briefs€May€17,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ#†XÆïX»¼¨#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼»XXÆïÔROY€HUGH€RUSHING,€II€v.€JILL€MARIANNE€RUSHINGÔ#†XÆïX»¼E#ÔÐ ï? ÐÌAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ê : Ðà@@øøìàNo.€57012€€€€€€John€Franklin€Murchison,€Chancellor€Ð Ô $ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<‘` AßÐ ’â  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„01413„COA„R3„CV€Ô_Ô„€Filed€October€27,€2004Ô_ÔÐ ‹Û  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<^` AßÐ _¯  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€post„divorce€child€custody€case.€€The€parties€were€divorced€by€a€final€decree€whichÐ W§  Ðincorporated€the€partiesðð€marital€dissolution€agreement€(ð ðMDAðð).€€The€MDA€provided,€among€otherÐ @ Ðthings,€that€the€parties€would€have€joint€custody€of€their€two€minor€children,€and€that€the€motherÐ )y Ðwould€be€the€primary€residential€parent.€€The€MDA€also€stated€that€the€father€would€provide€lifeÐ b Ðinsurance€on€the€childrenððs€lives,€and€that€the€maternal€grandmother€would€arbitrate€the€partiesððÐ ûK Ðdisputes.€€Approximately€two€years€later,€the€mother€filed€a€motion€for€contempt,€claiming€that€theÐ ä4 Ðfather€had€failed€to€provide€the€required€life€insurance€on€the€childrenððs€lives.€€In€response,€the€fatherÐ Í Ðfiled€a€motion€to€increase€his€residential€time€with€the€children€and€also€sought€court€approval€toÐ ¶ Ðprovide€term„life€insurance€as€opposed€to€whole„life€insurance€on€the€childrenððs€lives.€€In€addition,Ð Ÿï Ðthe€father€asked€the€court€to€strike€the€MDA€provision€stating€that€the€maternal€grandmother€wouldÐ ˆØ Ðbe€the€final€arbiter€of€the€partiesðð€child€rearing€disputes.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motherððs€motionÐ qÁ Ðfor€contempt€and€granted€the€fatherððs€motion€for€modification€of€the€MDA.€€The€mother€nowÐ Zª Ðappeals.€€We€affirm.€€€€€Ð C“ ÐÓ¬ÓÌò òà @ àTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ e ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.,€óóand€òòDavidÐ è 8  ÐR.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ñ!!! ÐÌMary€Jo€Middlebrooks€and€Betty€Stafford€Scott,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jill€MarianneÐ £#ó# ÐRushing.€€€Ð Œ$Ü$ ÐÌLisa€A.€Houston,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Roy€Hugh€Rushing.€Ð ^&®!& ÐÓ" ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ 0(€#( ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€November€1992,€Plaintiff/Appellant€Roy€Hugh€Rushing,€II€(ð ðFatherðð),€andÐ *S%* ÐDefendant/Appellant€Jill€Marianne€Rushing€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€married.€€Two€children€were€bornÐ ì*<&+ Ðduring€the€marriage,€Molly€Danielle€Rushing€(born€April€15,€1994)€and€River€Jacob€Rushing€(bornÐ Õ+%', ÐOctober€20,€1995).€€On€February€8,€2000,€Father€filed€for€divorce.€€On€February€28,€2000,€the€partiesÐ ¾,(- Ðfiled€with€the€trial€court€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€(ð ðMDAðð).€€The€MDA€provided€that€theÐ §-÷(. Ðparties€would€have€joint€custody€of€the€children,€but€that€Mother€would€be€the€primary€residentialÐ ° Ðparent€and€Father€would€have€parenting€time€every€other€weekend.€€Father€agreed€to€pay€MotherÐ ™é Ð$185.50€per€month€in€child€support.€€The€parties€also€agreed€that€each€would€pay€ð ðone„half€of€theÐ ‚Ò Ðpremium€for€the€childrenððs€life€insurance€policy€with€both€Husband€and€Wife€as€irrevocableÐ k» Ðbeneficiaries€until€the€partiesðð€minor€children€reach€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€or€are€otherwiseÐ T¤ Ðemancipated.ðð€€Finally,€the€MDA€stated€that,€ð ð[s]hould€the€parties€not€be€able€to€agree€on€a€childÐ =  Ðrearing€decision€they€agree€to€appoint€Sandra€Hornsby[,€Motherððs€mother,]€as€arbitrator€and€that€herÐ & v Ðdecision€be€final.ðð€€On€May€22,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€a€final€decree€of€divorce€on€the€groundsÐ  _ Ðof€irreconcilable€differences,€incorporating€the€partiesðð€MDA€into€the€final€decree.Ð ø H Ѐ€Ð á 1  Ðà  àOn€December€16,€2002,€Mother€filed€a€ð ðMotion€For€Civil€Contempt€and€to€Increase€ChildÐ Ê   ÐSupport.ðð€€Mother€alleged,€among€other€things,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€Father€had€violated€the€terms€of€the€final€decreeÐ ³  Ðby€failing€to€pay€half€of€the€$50€monthly€premium€for€the€childrenððs€life€insurance€policies€for€theÐ œì  Ðperiod€from€June€2002€through€December€2002,€and€that€Fatherððs€total€arrears€for€the€life€insuranceÐ …Õ  Ðwas€$175.׃U×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àOn€December€27,€2002,€Father€filed€a€response€and€a€ð ðCounter„Motion,ðð€seeking€to€modifyÐ @ Ðthe€residential€arrangement€for€the€children€set€forth€in€the€divorce€decree,€requesting€that€he€haveÐ )y Ðresidential€parenting€time€with€the€children€for€a€full€week€on€alternating€weeks.€€Father€also€soughtÐ b Ðto€have€the€arbitration€provision€in€the€decree€eliminated.€€Father€explained€that€he€no€longer€feltÐ ûK Ðcomfortable€having€Mrs.€Hornsby,€his€former€mother„in„law,€as€the€arbitrator€because,€after€entryÐ ä4 Ðof€the€divorce€decree,€Mr.€Hornsby,€Motherððs€father,€had€assaulted€him.€€Father€argued€that€thisÐ Í Ðwould€likely€cause€Mrs.€Hornsby€to€be€biased€towards€Mother€in€the€resolution€of€any€parentingÐ ¶ Ðdispute.€€In€response€to€Motherððs€claim€that€he€was€in€arrears€on€his€life€insurance€obligation,€FatherÐ Ÿï Ðsaid€that€he€had€procured€alternative,€less€expensive€life€insurance€policies€for€the€children€at€hisÐ ˆØ Ðown€cost€and€therefore€was€not€in€contempt.Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àOn€January€5,€2003,€Mother€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€Fatherððs€counter„motion,€arguing€thatÐ C“ Ðno€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€to€justify€a€modification€of€the€divorce€decree.€Ð ,| ÐMother€asserted€that€Father€was€required€to€arbitrate€any€grievances€regarding€the€children€inÐ e Ðaccordance€with€the€arbitration€provision€in€the€MDA.€€The€trial€court€scheduled€a€hearing€on€bothÐ þN Ðpartiesðð€motions€for€January€17,€2003.Ð ç 7 Їà  àBoth€parties€testified€at€the€hearing.€€In€her€testimony,€Mother€explained€the€partiesððÐ ° Ðarrangement€for€parenting€time€when€they€initially€entered€into€the€MDA.€€Mother€stated€that€FatherÐ ™é Ðinitially€kept€the€children€on€Tuesday€and€Thursday€nights,€in€addition€to€his€regular€scheduledÐ ‚Ò Ðparenting€time€every€other€weekend,€because€she€was€in€school€at€that€time€and€needed€child€care.€Ð k» ÐWhen€Mother€was€no€longer€in€school,€she€no€longer€needed€Father€to€keep€the€children€on€thoseÐ T¤ Ðdays.€€Mother€indicated€that€on€his€Tuesday€and€Thursday€night€visits€with€the€children,€FatherÐ =  Ðbecame€inconsistent€in€the€times€he€would€pick€up€the€children€and€take€them€home,€and€that€theÐ & v Ðchildren€at€times€did€not€want€to€go€with€him.€€As€a€result,€Mother€told€Father€that€she€no€longerÐ  _ Ðwanted€him€to€have€parenting€time€with€the€children€on€those€two€extra€days.€€The€MDA€providedÐ ø H Ðonly€that€Father€would€have€residential€parenting€time€with€the€children€every€other€weekend,€andÐ á 1  ÐFather€wanted€to€have€more€parenting€time€than€that€which€was€provided.€€The€parties,€however,Ð Ê   Ðwere€unable€to€agree€on€an€alternative€arrangement.€€Mother€testified€that€she€would€not€agree€toÐ ³  Ðallow€Father€to€have€the€children€for€a€full€week€on€alternating€weeks.€€She€also€testified€that€sheÐ œì  Ðwould€not€agree€to€allow€Father€to€have€parenting€time€with€the€children€for€the€two€extra€weekdaysÐ …Õ  Ðthat€the€parties€initially€adhered€to,€because€the€children€were€now€school€age€and€it€would€beÐ n¾  Ðdisruptive,€their€grades€would€go€down,€and€Father€frequently€did€not€get€them€to€school€on€timeÐ W§  Ðwhen€he€had€responsibility€for€doing€so.Ð @ ÐÌà  àMother€also€testified€about€Fatherððs€life€insurance€obligation.€€She€said€that,€when€theÐ b Ðchildren€were€very€young,€she€and€Father€had€obtained€whole„life€insurance€policies€on€both€of€theÐ ûK Ðchildren€through€John€Hancock€insurance.€€Those€policies€guaranteed€death€benefits€of€$50,000€forÐ ä4 Ðeach€child.€€In€addition,€the€whole„life€policies€were€projected€to€earn€money€over€the€course€of€theÐ Í Ðchildrenððs€lives€for€college€or€other€necessities.€€Mother€explained€that€the€parties€got€the€policiesÐ ¶ Ðbecause€River€had€breathing€problems,€and€a€whole„life€policy€would€guaranty€that€he€would€alwaysÐ Ÿï Ðbe€insurable.€€The€premium€for€the€whole„life€policies€was€$50€per€month,€and€Mother€said€thatÐ ˆØ ÐFather€had€stopped€paying€his€half€of€the€premium.€€His€failure€to€pay€his€half€of€this€premiumÐ qÁ Ðresulted€in€the€arrearage€she€claimed.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àMother€also€testified€about€the€altercation€between€Father€and€Motherððs€father,€Mr.€Hornsby.Ð ,| ÐSometime€after€the€divorce,€Father€came€to€the€Hornsbysðð€house€pick€up€the€children.€€Mother€wasÐ e Ðthere€at€the€time.€€After€the€children€and€Father€were€in€Fatherððs€car€and€about€to€leave,€Father€andÐ þN ÐMother€began€to€argue.€€The€partiesðð€daughter,€Molly,€became€upset€and€went€into€the€HornsbyððsÐ ç 7 Ðhouse€crying€to€her€grandparents.€€Mr.€Hornsby€ran€outside€and€saw€Father€attempting€to€pushÐ Ð!   ÐMother€away€from€his€car.€€Mr.€Hornsby€then€reached€into€Fatherððs€car€and€hit€Father.€€Despite€thisÐ ¹" ! Ðevent,€Mother€testified,€Mrs.€Hornsby€had€never€indicated€that€she€could€not€be€fair€to€Father€as€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðarbitrator€of€their€parenting€disputes.€€Mrs.€Hornsby€also€testified€at€trial.€€She€said€that€there€hadÐ ‹$Û# Ðbeen€no€change€in€her€relationship€with€Father€since€the€MDA€was€executed,€and€that€she€would€notÐ t%Ä $ Ðtend€to€favor€Mother€over€Father€in€the€resolution€of€any€parenting€dispute.€Ð ]&­!% ЀÌà  àFather€also€testified€at€the€hearing.€€He€indicated€that€he€has€remarried€since€the€partiesððÐ /(#' Ðdivorce,€and€that€he€now€has€a€much€more€ð ðstable€situationðð€at€home.€€Father€said€that€his€seven„Ð )h$( Ðyear„old€stepdaughter€lives€with€him€and€his€current€wife,€and€that€all€of€the€children€get€along€well.€Ð *Q%) ÐFather€said€that,€when€the€children€are€with€him,€he€takes€them€to€church,€attends€their€ball€games,Ð ê*:&* Ðand€assists€in€their€homework.€€Father€testified€that€he€had€worked€at€Proctor€and€Gamble€sinceÐ Ó+#'+ Ðbefore€the€divorce,€and€that€his€job€required€him€to€work€odd€schedules.€€He€explained€that€there€areÐ ° Ðtimes€when€he€is€off€work€for€the€entire€work€week,€but€then€has€to€work€on€the€weekend.€€ThereÐ ™é Ðare€also€times€when€Father€works€during€the€week,€and€then€is€off€on€the€weekend.€€He€soughtÐ ‚Ò Ðresidential€parenting€time€with€the€children€for€a€full€week€on€alternating€weeks€with€Mother,€so€asÐ k» Ðto€maximize€the€time€he€spends€with€the€children€and€give€them€some€continuity.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€childrenððs€life€insurance,€Father€testified€that€he€was€able€to€get€term„lifeÐ & v Ðinsurance€policies€for€both€of€the€children€through€his€work€for€$2.34€per€year€for€both€children.€Ð  _ ÐThe€policies€did€not€accumulate€value€as€a€whole„life€policy€would,€but€the€term„life€policiesÐ ø H Ðprovided€death€benefits€to€cover€any€funeral€expenses€in€the€event€the€child€died.€€Father€did€notÐ á 1  Ðtestify€about€the€amount€of€the€death€benefits€on€the€term„life€policies,€but€indicated€that€he€couldÐ Ê   Ðincrease€the€coverage€at€minimal€expense.€€Father€said€that€he€and€Mother€did€not€originally€discussÐ ³  Ðthe€accrued€value€of€the€whole„life€policies€as€being€a€source€for€college€tuition,€but€agreed€thatÐ œì  Ðbuying€the€policies€was€part€of€a€plan€for€the€children€to€have€money€when€they€got€older.€€In€anyÐ …Õ  Ðevent,€Father€sought€court€approval€to€provide€the€cheaper€term„life€policies€rather€than€continuingÐ n¾  Ðto€maintain€the€expensive€whole„life€policies.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àFather€testified€that€he€had€not€seen€Mr.€Hornsby€nor€had€he€been€to€the€Hornsbysðð€houseÐ )y Ðsince€the€altercation€with€Mr.€Hornsby.€€Father€said€that,€after€the€confrontation,€he€filed€a€reportÐ b Ðwith€the€local€sheriffððs€department,€but€then€dropped€the€matter€to€prevent€any€further€ð ðbad€bloodððÐ ûK Ðbetween€the€families.€€Father€explained€that,€when€he€signed€the€MDA,€he€and€Mother€were€gettingÐ ä4 Ðalong€well,€and€that,€at€that€time,€he€was€willing€to€agree€to€allow€Mrs.€Hornsby€to€arbitrate€disputesÐ Í Ðbetween€Mother€and€him.€€He€indicated€that€his€relationship€with€Motherððs€parents€had€becomeÐ ¶ Ðstrained€since€his€confrontation€with€his€former€father„in„law.€€Consequently,€Father€asked€that€theÐ Ÿï Ðarbitration€provision€be€stricken€from€the€MDA,€because€he€felt€that€Mrs.€Hornsby€could€not€fairlyÐ ˆØ Ðresolve€any€dispute€between€them.Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àOn€April€2,€2003,€the€trial€court,€Chancellor€Joe€C.€Morris,€entered€an€order€denyingÐ C“ ÐMotherððs€motion€for€contempt€and€granting€Fatherððs€request€for€modification€of€the€MDA.€€The€trialÐ ,| Ðcourt€held€that€Fatherððs€request€to€provide€the€less€expensive€term„life€insurance€rather€than€theÐ e Ðwhole„life€insurance€was€ð ðreasonable€under€the€circumstances€and€should€be€granted.ðð€Ð þN ÐNevertheless,€the€trial€court€ordered€Father€to€pay€Mother€his€half€of€the€whole„life€policy€premiumsÐ ç 7 Ðup€to€January€31,€2003,€and€ordered€Mother€to€pay€half€of€the€term„life€insurance€premium.€€InÐ Ð!   Ðaddition,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€arbitration€provision€in€the€MDA€be€stricken€ð ðas€being€anÐ ¹" ! Ðunreasonable€interference€with€the€powers€of€the€Court€and€the€rights€of€the€parties€to€equal€accessÐ ¢#ò" Ðto€the€Court€.€.€.€.ðð€€Finally,€the€trial€court€modified€the€partiesðð€parenting€schedule€and€allowedÐ ‹$Û# ÐFather€to€have€residential€parenting€time€with€the€children€for€a€full€week€on€alternating€weeks.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ t%Ä $ Ðtrial€court€explained:Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà8  àThe€Father€has€testified€as€to€his€work€schedule€at€Procter€&€Gamble,€and€hasÐ /(#' Ðprovided€the€Court€with€a€general€schedule€of€his€time.€€The€Father€has€stated€thatÐ )h$( Ðbecause€of€his€work€schedule,€he€is€unable€to€spend€the€normal€amount€of€time€withÐ ° Ðthe€children€under€the€currently€existing€schedule.€.€.€.€€Both€children€are€of€schoolÐ ™é Ðage,€and€both€parties€have€remarried€and€have€adequate€homes.€€The€Court€hasÐ ‚Ò Ðexamined€the€Fatherððs€schedule€and€finds€the€current€parenting€schedule€is€notÐ k» Ðconducive€to€a€full€parent/child€relationship€and€therefore€Orders€that€the€scheduleÐ T¤ Ðbe€changed€to€provide€that€the€Father€have€the€children€with€him€during€theÐ =  Ðalternating€weeks€.€.€.€.Ð& vÐ Ð  Ѐ€€€€Ð  _ ÐTherefore,€based€on€the€ages€of€the€children,€the€fact€that€both€parents€had€remarried,€and€theÐ ø H Ðcircumstances€of€Fatherððs€work€schedule,€the€trial€court€granted€Father€custody€of€the€children€forÐ á 1  Ða€full€week€on€alternating€weeks.€€The€parties€were€deemed€responsible€for€their€own€attorneyððs€fees.€Ð Ê   ÐOn€April€22,€2003,€Mother€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€trial€courtððs€decision€pursuant€toÐ ³  ÐRule€59€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€May€19,€2003,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÐ œì  Ðhearing€on€Motherððs€motion€to€alter€or€amend.׃Q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€May€23,€2003,€the€trial€court,€Judge€FranklinÐ …Õ  ÐMurchison,€entered€an€order€denying€Motherððs€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€From€that€order,€MotherÐ n¾  Ðnow€appeals.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mother€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€modifying€the€provisions€in€the€finalÐ )y Ðdivorce€decree,€because€the€trial€court€cited€no€change€in€circumstances€to€warrant€the€modification,Ð b Ðnor€did€the€trial€court€find€that€the€modification€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€Ð ûK ÐBecause€there€was€no€change€in€circumstances€nor€any€best€interest€analysis,€Mother€argues,€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourt€erred€in€modifying€the€MDA€with€respect€to€the€partiesðð€parenting€time€arrangement,€lifeÐ Í Ðinsurance€provision,€and€arbitration€requirement.€€Mother€also€seeks€her€attorneyððs€fees€for€the€trialÐ ¶ Ðcourt€proceedings€as€well€as€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€in€this€appeal.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€those€findingsÐ qÁ Ðare€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeó óóó,€90€S.W.3d€566,Ð Zª Ð570€(Tenn.€2002);€ò òòòHass€v.€Knightonó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€Ð D” ÐHowever,€when€the€trial€court€makes€no€specific€findings€of€fact,€this€Court€must€review€the€recordÐ .~ Ðto€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€ò òòòKendrickó óóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€570.€€The€trialÐ g Ðcourtððs€decision€regarding€custody€and€visitation€will€be€afforded€great€weight,€because€the€trialÐ  Q Ðjudge€had€the€opportunity€to€hear€the€witnesses,€observe€their€demeanor,€and€judge€their€credibility.€Ð ê : Ðòòò òSee€Bah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€665€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€lawÐ Ó!#  Ðare€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ô_Ôò òòòGanzevoortÔ_Ô€v.€Russelló óóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,Ð ½" ! Ð296€(Tenn.€1997);Ô#†Xt¶XXXÆï=#ÔÔ‡Xt¶XXXt¶Ô€òòò òJahn€v.€Jahnó óóó,€932€S.W.2d€939,€941€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð §#÷" ÐÔ#†Xt¶XXXt¶PO#ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXt¶ÔÌà  àWhen€a€decree€has€been€entered€providing€for€the€custody€and€care€of€minor€children,€thatÐ z%Ê $ Ðdecree€is€òòres€judicata€óóand€is€conclusive€in€a€subsequent€petition€for€a€change€in€the€decree,€ð ðunlessÐ c&³!% Ðsome€new€fact€has€occurred€which€has€altered€the€circumstances€in€a€material€way€to€make€theÐ L'œ"& Ðwelfare€of€the€children€require€a€change€in€custody.ðð€€òòò òLong€v.€Longó óóó,€488€S.W.2d€729,€731„32€(Tenn.Ð 5(…#' ÐCt.€App.€1972).€€Thus,€the€ð ðthreshold€issueðð€is€whether€a€material€change€in€circumstances€hasÐ ° Ðoccurred€since€the€decree€was€entered.€€ò òòòBlair€v.€Badenhopeó óóó,€77€S.W.3d€137,€150€(Tenn.€2002).€€TheÐ ™é ÐSupreme€Court€in€òòò òBlairóóó ó€explained€factors€to€consider€in€determining€whether€a€change€inÐ ƒÓ Ðcircumstances€has€occurredòòò òó óóó:Ð m½ ÐÌà8  àð ðThere€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€when€a€childððs€circumstances€haveÐ ?  Ðchanged€sufficiently€to€warrant€a€change€of€his€or€her€custody.ðð€òòò òSolima€v.€Solimaó óóó,Ð ( x Ð7€S.W.3d€30,€32€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€Nevertheless,€the€following€factors€haveÐ  b Ðformed€a€sound€basis€to€determine€whether€such€a€change€has€occurred:€the€changeÐ û K Ðhas€occurred€after€the€entry€of€the€order€sought€to€be€modified€and€the€change€is€notÐ ä 4  Ðone€that€was€known€or€reasonably€anticipated€when€the€order€was€entered,€òòò òsee€SmithÐ Í   Ðv.€Haaseó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€49,€50€(Tenn.€1975),€and€the€change€of€circumstances€is€oneÐ ·  Ðthat€affects€the€childððs€well-being€in€a€meaningful€way,€òòò òHoalcraft€v.€Smithsonó óóó,€19Ð ¡ñ  ÐS.W.3d€822,€829€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ó>ÓÐ‹Û Ð Ð  ÐÓGWÓòòò òBlairó óóó,€77€S.W.3d€at€150.ò òó ó€€In€ò òòòKendrickó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€ð ðthat€a€parentððs€change€inÐ ]­  Ðcircumstances€may€be€a€material€change€in€circumstances€for€the€purposes€of€modifying€custody€ifÐ G— Ðsuch€a€change€affects€the€childððs€well„being.ðð€€ò òòòKendrickó óóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€570.€€In€addition,€ð ð[e]videnceÐ 0€ Ðthat€an€existing€custody€and€visitation€arrangement€is€not€working€is€sufficient€to€support€a€findingÐ j Ðof€material€change€of€circumstances.ððò òòò€€Turner€v.€Purvisó óóó,€M2002„00023„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WLÐ S Ð1826223,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€9,€2003)€(citing€ò òòòVaccarella€v.€Vaccarellaó óóó,€49€S.W.3d€307,€315„Ð í= Ð16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)).€€ð ðIf€a€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred,€it€must€then€beÐ ×' Ðdetermined€whether€the€modification€is€in€the€childððs€best€interestsðð€according€to€the€factorsÐ À Ðenumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„6„106.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€ò òòòKendrickó óóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€570.€€Ô#†Xt¶XXXÆïìO#ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXt¶ÔTheÐ ©ù Ðdetermination€of€a€childððs€best€interest€turns€on€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€ò òòòTaylor€v.Ð ° ÐTayloró óóó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€326€(Tenn.€1993);òòò ò€In€re€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð šê Ð1995).Ð „Ô ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Mother€argues€that,€since€the€entry€of€the€partiesðð€divorce€decree,€there€has€beenÐ V¦ Ðno€change€in€circumstances€sufficient€to€warrant€the€modifications€made€by€the€trial€court.€€SheÐ ?  Ðpoints€out€that€Father€did€not€indicate€that€he€had€a€problem€with€the€terms€of€the€MDA€until€afterÐ ( x Ðshe€filed€her€motion€for€contempt.€€Father€cannot€rely€on€his€variable€work€schedule€as€a€changedÐ  a Ðcircumstance,€Mother€argues,€because€his€employer€and€his€schedule€remained€the€same€as€whenÐ ú J Ðthe€divorce€decree€was€entered.€€Mother€also€points€out€that€Mrs.€Hornsby€testified€that€herÐ ã 3  Ðrelationship€with€Father€has€not€changed€since€the€entry€of€the€final€decree,€and€that€she€still€has€theÐ Ì   Ðchildrenððs€best€interest€at€heart.Ð µ  ÐÌà  àIn€its€April€2003€order,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€made€some€findings€of€fact,€but€did€notÐ ‡×  Ðidentify€a€specific€ð ðmaterial€change€in€circumstances.ðð€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€did€not€expresslyÐ pÀ  Ðdetermine€that€modification€of€the€decree€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€In€such€a€situation,Ð Y©  Ðin€which€the€trial€court€does€not€identify€a€specific€change€in€circumstances€and€fails€to€articulateÐ B’ Ða€best€interest€analysis,€ð ðour€task€of€reviewing€the€decision€[is€made]€more€difficult.ðð€€òòò òKendrickóóó ó,€90Ð +{ ÐS.W.3d€570„71.Ô#†Xt¶XXXÆïŒ\#ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXt¶Ô€€In€any€event,€where€no€specific€findings€have€been€made,€ð ðwe€must€review€theÐ e Ðrecord€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€lies.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€570.Ð þN Ѐò òòòóóó óÐ è8 Ðà  àFather€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€modify€the€original€parenting€time€arrangementÐ Ñ! Ðwas€justified€by€several€changes€in€the€partiesðð€circumstances.€€He€claims€that€both€parties€believeÐ º  Ðthat€the€original€arrangement€is€not€workable€because€of€his€work€schedule.€€In€addition,€he€contendsÐ £ó Ðthat€the€amicable€relationship€that€once€existed€between€Mother€and€him€has€deteriorated€in€the€pastÐ ŒÜ Ðyear,€especially€since€Mother€refused€to€allow€Father€to€see€the€children€on€Tuesday€and€ThursdayÐ uÅ Ðnights.€€Father€argues€that€the€childrenððs€best€interest€is€served€by€allowing€them€to€stay€at€his€houseÐ ^® Ðwhen€he€is€home,€rather€than€when€he€is€at€work.€€He€points€out€that€he€has€remarried€and€enjoys€aÐ ° Ðmore€stable€home€environment,€with€sufficient€space€for€Molly€and€River,€along€with€their€seven„Ð ™é Ðyear„old€stepsister.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€a€material€change€in€circumstances€can€be€established€by€showing€that€anÐ T¤ Ðexisting€parenting€time€arrangement€is€not€working.€€See€ò òòòTurner€v.€Purvisó óóó,€2003€WL€1826223,€atÐ =  Ð*4.€€In€addition,€an€improvement€in€the€circumstances€of€the€noncustodial€parent€can€be€deemed€aÐ ' w Ðmaterial€change€in€circumstances.€€ò òòòSee€Scales€v.€Mackieó óóó,€No.€M2001„03161„COA„R3„CV,€2003Ð  ` ÐWL€43355,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€7,€2003).€€In€this€case,€the€testimony€submitted€at€the€hearingÐ ú J Ðbelow€shows€that,€while€Mother€and€Father€once€enjoyed€an€amicable,€cooperative€relationship,€€theÐ ã 3  Ðparties€are€now€at€loggerheads€for€a€variety€of€reasons.€€Although€it€is€not€written€into€the€partiesððÐ Ì   ÐMDA,€initially€Father€routinely€enjoyed€parenting€time€with€the€children€while€Mother€was€inÐ µ  Ðschool€on€Tuesdays€and€Thursdays.€€When€Mother€was€no€longer€in€school€and€did€not€need€theÐ žî  Ðchild€care,€from€her€standpoint,€the€additional€time€for€Father€to€be€with€the€children€becameÐ ‡×  Ðunacceptable.€€This€meant€that€Fatherððs€only€residential€parenting€time€was€every€other€weekend.€Ð pÀ  ÐIf€his€variable€work€schedule€required€him€to€work€that€weekend,€he€had€no€parenting€time€with€theÐ Y©  Ðchildren.€€Thus,€in€light€of€the€increasingly€uncooperative€relationship€between€Mother€and€FatherÐ B’ Ðand€the€elimination€of€the€Tuesday€and€Thursday€night€parenting€time,€the€original€parentingÐ +{ Ðarrangement€became€unworkable.€€Moreover,€although€Mother€claimed€that€Father€was€unable€toÐ d Ðstay€on€a€regular€schedule€and€unable€to€get€the€children€to€school€on€time€when€he€had€them€on€theÐ ýM Ðextra€days,€the€evidence€does€not€support€Motherððs€apparent€assertion€that€Father€cannot€adequatelyÐ æ6 Ðhandle€parenting€responsibilities.€€Ô#†Xt¶XXXÆï%d#ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXt¶ÔThe€trial€court€observed:€€ð ð[b]oth€children€are€of€school€age,€andÐ Ï Ðboth€parties€have€remarried€and€have€adequate€homes.ðð€€Thus,€Fatherððs€remarriage€and€his€homeÐ ¸ Ðsituation€had€improved€the€circumstances€for€Father€since€the€parties€entered€into€the€MDA.€€TheÐ ¡ñ Ðtrial€court€further€noted€that€giving€Father€the€additional€residential€parenting€time€would€beÐ ŠÚ Ðð ðconducive€to€a€full€parent/child€relationship,ðð€indicating€that€the€modification€would€be€in€the€bestÐ sà Ðinterest€of€the€children.€€Thus,€considering€all€of€the€circumstances€and€the€factors€in€TennesseeÐ \¬ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€36„6„106(a),€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€a€findingÐ E• Ðthat€a€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred,€and€that€modifying€the€original€decree€to€giveÐ .~ ÐFather€residential€parenting€time€with€the€children€for€a€full€week€on€alternating€weeks€is€in€the€bestÐ g Ðinterest€of€the€children.Ð  P ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€arbitration€provision,€Mother€argues€that€the€altercation€between€FatherÐ Ò!"  Ðand€Mr.€Hornsby,€on€which€Father€relies,€did€not€change€the€partiesðð€relationships€or€any€otherÐ »" ! Ðcircumstances€that€existed€when€the€MDA€was€signed.€€She€cites€Mrs.€Hornsbyððs€testimony€that€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðincident€did€not€affect€her€ability€to€fairly€arbitrate€the€partiesðð€disputes.€€Thus,€Mother€argues,€theÐ $Ý# Ðtrial€court€erred€in€modifying€the€MDA€to€eliminate€the€arbitration€provision.€€The€trial€court€statedÐ v%Æ $ Ðonly€that€striking€the€arbitration€provision€was€ð ðreasonable€under€the€circumstances.ðð€€In€doing€so,Ð _&¯!% Ðthe€trial€court€implicitly€discredited€Mrs.€Hornsbyððs€testimony€and€found€reasonable€FatherððsÐ H'˜"& Ðconcern€that€Mrs.€Hornsby€could€no€longer€impartially€arbitrate€the€partiesðð€parenting€disputes.€Ð 1(#' ÐCertainly€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€this€conclusion.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€trialÐ )j$( Ðcourtððs€decision€to€strike€the€arbitration€provision€in€the€partiesðð€MDA.Ð *S%) Ðâ âÐ ì*<&* Ðà  àFinally,€Mother€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Father€to€provide€term„lifeÐ ° Ðâ âinsurance€rather€than€keeping€the€whole„life€policy€originally€procured€by€the€parties.€€The€MDAÐ ™é Ðprovides:€Ð ‚Ò Ѐ€€Ð k» Ðà8  àÔ#†Xt¶XXXÆïWq#ÔÔ‡XÆïXXXt¶Ôà ` àò òòòChildrenððs€Life€Insuranceóó:ó ó€Each€party€agrees€to€pay€one„half€of€theÐ T¤ Ðpremium€for€the€childrenððs€life€insurance€policy€with€both€Husband€and€Wife€asÐ @  Ðirrevocable€beneficiaries€until€the€partiesðð€minor€children€reach€the€age€of€eighteenÐ ) y Ð(18)€or€are€otherwise€emancipated.Ð bÐ Ð  ÐÌFather€points€out€that€the€MDA€does€not€require€that€he€provide€whole„life€insurance,€as€opposedÐ ä 4  Ðto€term„life€insurance.€€Thus,€Father€argues,€the€trial€court€did€not€modify€the€life€insuranceÐ Í   Ðprovision€in€the€partiesðð€MDA.€€Mother€argues€that€the€testimony€at€trial€shows€that€the€partiesÐ ¶  Ðintended€to€maintain€the€whole„life€policies€for€the€children.€€Father€admitted€this€fact,€MotherÐ Ÿï  Ðclaims,€when€he€testified€that€getting€the€whole„life€insurance€ð ðwas€a€plan€to€have€ð!ð€for€them€to€haveÐ ˆØ  Ðsome€money€when€they€were€older.ðð€€Under€these€circumstances,€she€argues,€Father€should€not€beÐ qÁ  Ðpermitted€to€decide€unilaterally€to€provide€term„life€insurance€instead€of€the€whole„life€insuranceÐ Zª  Ðthat€the€parties€contemplated€when€they€signed€the€MDA.Ð C“ ÐÌà  àThe€MDA€in€this€case€unambiguously€requires€Mother€and€Father€to€provide€insurance€onÐ e Ðthe€childrenððs€lives,€with€Mother€and€Father€to€be€the€irrevocable€beneficiaries.€€It€does€not€specifyÐ þN Ðwhole„life€insurance.€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððs€order€permitting€Father€to€procure€the€lessÐ ç7 Ðexpensive€term„life€policies€was€consistent€with€the€terms€of€the€MDA.€€We€find€no€error€in€thisÐ Ð  Ðdecision.Ð ¹  ЀÌà  àConsidering€the€above€holdings,€Motherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€for€the€trial€courtÐ ‹Û Ðproceedings€and€for€this€appeal€is€declined.Ð tÄ ÐÌ€€€€à  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€to€be€taxed€to€Appellant€JillÐ F– ÐMarianne€Rushing,€and€her€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð / ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ó!#  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEÔ#†Xt¶XXXÆïó{#Ô