ÿWPC½p aS\*L÷¬ÈR ž¦1u\µe÷ÉR xÙŸU4ÈnÞj¯rÕôÜmêûŸV÷Ü–7øƒ‡¬§¢oÚ½Öðc”{Ãeˆž¦!Â+F™)îm>lîîœHNW&ÑD`¯q·ƒ‘Åȃ­úŽ–Òõ‰‚㕇ö KV•ižìa£ðõÊ;ÒCo—L| z:®Œ ÷µôLƒ´c_ „ä4ÓnQ)O‘Y–[›’VS¨T±V~û©LËß*?£ˆ¤_ô[ƒŸ˜E÷-p‘V–– à#zK§^&0éüÿ,&'Ä„nÖß)ä-êð]í8Dc¥¾eê4«­Ò3Ó)>˜—/AðªÁÛÁ—¦K'*f(ÑÑpÍO·×Þ«¢$u¨„ZoŒ¹§;kÙ$xw³lÒÖ?3\1 ä“tUýŒ/‚VºÔ–Gw¥Ë3Ýɱ¼bëÁÜælÒŒ’Kt¯ ¼Ä,– P11¯ÌUŠe~:H^¥CTK <,xX½á>ñ;¡!ˆò-f\~¿ö,’ ïV·ñ+ÿxöàlºÁŒ/rE•+̦Üÿ”Ë'¦¾4;ŒëÄÜ#„%žèr†pñÊFân]¬ç£0XuÆK„»ÅKO Œ³§x@^¬k5už#ɤ %m ^ s 0ˆ wU)N 4Y zmÒç¹È mÊ¶áÆ—Æ]Æ#Æé 0D¯Nó<õ 1u1E¦ 72¨ Ú 0Åú 0Ñ¿ 0³ 0­C 0§ð 0¡— 0›8! 0•Ó! B-h"1•" 0UÆ$ 0ã% 0Åþ% 0¿Ã& 0¹‚' 0³;( 0­î( 0§›) 0¡B* 0ã* 0Âp+b2, 0Î:, 0°- 0ª¸- 0¤b. 0ž/ 0˜¤/ 0’<0 0ŠÎ0 0²X1 0¾ 2 0¾È2 0Y†3 0>ß3 0ø4 0â5 0â÷5 0âÙ6 0â»7 0â8 0º9 0Ò9: 02 ; 0ü=; 0:9< 0_s< 0 Ò< 0‚Ü= 1e^? 0Ã? B*ÉA D/óA 0"B D/(DËWD 0Î"F 0ëðF 06ÛG 0H 0:I BSI 04pI 0¤¤I D5HJ D-}J 0KªJ 0^õJ ASSKƦK 0¤lL 0DM A«TM 0<ÿMU6;NU>qNU*¯NHÙN 0c!P 0¤„P¹(QáR+ùTùT‰$WA­YÝî\î\Ë_Õáf$¶h¶hæÚjÚjÚjÚjÚj6ÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÀmÕönönönönönönönönönönönòËo˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ë„—1î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularINŽ1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  P.J.HerbisonHollinsWeatherlypendentespousalrecused NuttIntlAabakusHamblenAssn Liab CasHohenbergMcAdamsMcBee S.W.Ganzevoort$mischaracterizedHoalcraft w]ew]henPankowPendergrass EvidHarwell I]tt]heseChernWm F]orCansecoKiehlMergentimeShipleyGaskillhad hadt]hisStidhamEldridgeBookoutAssocsCollierville AabyNicholsRogeroAdelspergerPlacenciaBaggettrebuttableHelsonGorskiRagainsDeskbookPottsLentzDantzlerKalitzAlyssaKaliszShofnerLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 2Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Kalisz€asserted,€for€example,€that€Dr.€Shofner€Ô_Ôð ðkickedððÔ_Ô€her€in€anger.€€Dr.€Shofner€characterized€thisÐ 8 Ðconduct€Ô_ÔthuslyÔ_Ô:€ð ðI€gave€her€a€pat€with€my€foot€on€her€derriere€.€.€.€[I]t€Ô_ÔwasnððtÔ_Ô€a€kick.€€A€kick€to€me€is€what€you€do€to€aÐ üÄ Ðfootball€fifty€Ô_Ôyards.ððÔ_Ô€€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€118€Tenn.€430,€437„38,€220€S.W.2d€627,€630€(1949);€òòRubin€v.€Ô_ÔKirshneróóÔ_Ô,€948€S.W.2d€742,Ð 8 Ð747€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔNorfleetÔ_Ô€v.€Dobbsóó,€No.€01A01„9805„CV„00228,€1999€WL€43260,€at€*4€(Tenn.Ð üÄ ÐCt.€App.€Feb.€1,€1999)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó)Hairline d 'Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôòòóó12€Ô_ÔòòMooreððsÔ_Ô€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€63.04€Ô_Ô(ð ðBeforeÔ_Ô€succeeding€a€judge€who€is€unable€to€proceed,€a€successorÐ 8 Ðjudge€must€certify€familiarity€with€the€record€and€determine€that€the€proceedings€may€be€completed€before€the€successorÐ üÄ Ðjudge€without€prejudice€to€the€Ô_Ôparties.ðð).Ô_Ô*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó- ù-(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡c<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡c<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡c<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€M(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡e%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d dL)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€O(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡e%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓL)2dxd ÁÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRecounting€in€detail€all€the€evidence€regarding€the€Ô_ÔpartiesððÔ_Ô€conduct€both€before€and€after€their€separation€servesÐ 8 Ðno€useful€purpose.€€We€have€included€in€this€opinion€only€those€specific€incidents€necessary€to€illustrate€or€support€ourÐ üÄ Ðreasoning.€0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡c<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|G2Õ§$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»Ô0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡c<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡dô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó d&c$"ð"ðà0 à(|3Ïž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ïž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial >Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€12òòóó€Ô_ÔòòMooreððsÔ_Ô€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€63.05;€sòòee€also€United€States€v.€Kiehlóó,€460€F.€Supp.€1282€(S.D.€Tex.Ð 8 Ð1978).(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(|3Ïž$§§Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý ¯Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô12òòóó€òòJames€Wm.€Moore€et€al.,€Mooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€63.04€(3d€ed.€1998)€(ð ðòòMooreððs€FederalÐ 8 ÐPracticeóóðð)€(ð ðTo€certify€familiarity€with€the€record,€a€successor€judge€must€read€and€consider€all€relevant€portions€ofÐ üÄ Ðthe€record.ðð). Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔParents€do€not€have€the€right€to€importune€the€courts€with€constant€updates€regarding€the€minor€details€of€aÐ 8 Ðchildððs€day„to„day€existence€or€with€trivial€complaints€regarding€the€other€parent.€€Accordingly,€the€courts€may€conditionÐ üÄ Ða€parentððs€request€to€present€evidence€regarding€a€childððs€circumstances€on€a€prior€showing€of€relevancy€and€purpose.€ !Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€testimony€did€not€reflect€well€on€either€parent.€€Dr.€Shofner,€for€example,€complained€that€Dr.€KaliszÐ 8 Ðfrequently€would€not€have€the€two€youngest€children€ready€for€school€when€he€arrived€in€the€morning.€€For€her€part,€Dr.Ð üÄ ÐKalisz€complained€that€Dr.€Shofner€would€ring€the€door€bell€incessantly€while€waiting€for€her€to€get€the€children€readyÐ Àˆ Ðfor€school. Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€directed€Dr.€Kalisz€to€ð ðspend€at€least€10€hours€per€week€in€either€part„time€employment,Ð 8 Ðeducation€or€significant€volunteer€activityðð€because€she€was€now€only€responsible€for€Robert.€€The€court€also€expressedÐ üÄ Ðits€hope€ð ðthat€she€[Dr.€Kalisz]€will€eventually€retain€at€least€part„time€employment€or€full„time€employment€in€her€chosenÐ Àˆ Ðprofession.€€That€will€be€discussed€at€a€later€hearing€or€at€the€review€hearing€in€May€2003.ðð 7Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€order€reflects€that€this€arrangement€was€by€no€means€the€final€word€with€regard€to€custody.€€The€trial€courtÐ 8 Ðobserved:Ð üÄ Ðà8  àà ` àIf€the€court€sees€progress€in€both€of€these€parents€as€learning€good€parenting€skills,€the€courtÐ Àˆ Ðwill€readily€consider,€whether€the€economy€of€the€family€is€better€served€by€the€three€children€beingÐ „L Ðtogether€with€Ms.€Dr.€Shofner€or€continuing€to€live€separately.€€By€the€same€token,€if€Ms.€Dr.€ShofnerÐ H Ðand€Robert€do€not€do€well€together,€the€court€may€consider€placing€all€three€children€with€Dr.€ShofnerÐ  Ô Ðor€some€alternative€plan. ÓÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€based€this€decision€on€our€conclusions€that€the€trial€Ô_ÔjudgeððsÔ_Ô€characterization€of€Dr.€Kalisz€created€anÐ 8 Ðappearance€of€bias€and€that€nothing€could€erase€the€Ô_ÔpartiesððÔ_Ô€perception€of€bias€created€by€the€content€of€the€trial€Ô_ÔjudgeððsÔ_ÔÐ üÄ Ðnotes€that€had€been€inadvertently€revealed€to€them.€€òòShofner€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Shofneróó,€No.€M2002„02803„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CV€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Àˆ ÐDec.€3,€2002).€€ Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€the€successor€trial€judge€had€an€ex€parte€communication€with€Dr.€Kaliszððs€lawyerððs€paralegal€priorÐ 8 Ðto€the€hearing€in€which€she€stated€that€she€would€not€allow€Dr.€Kaliszððs€lawyer€to€proceed€with€this€motion.€€AccordingÐ üÄ Ðto€the€transcript€of€the€June€10,€2003€hearing,€the€successor€trial€judge€and€Dr.€Kaliszððs€lawyer€had€the€followingÐ Àˆ Ðexchange:Ð „L Ðà8  àà ` àMS.€POUNDERS:€€I€had€filed€earlier€a€motion€for€review€which€was€referenced€in€theÐ H Ðmemorandum€of€opinion€of€Judge€Shipley,€i.e.,€of€review€of€the€three€children€who€are€now€ages€11,Ð  Ô Ð9,€and€6.€€And€pursuant€to€my€understanding,€Your€Honor€contacted€my€office,€spoke€with€myРИ Ðparalegal.€€You€and€I€never€had€a€conversation€about€it.€€I€want€the€record€to€be€clear€about€the€statusÐ ” \ Ðof€this.ÐX Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTHE€COURT:€€Right.Ð ä Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àMS.€POUNDERS:€€I€then€spoke€to€someone€in€your€office€and€understood€that€Your€HonorÐ à ¨  Ðwas€not€going€to€allow€me€to€proceed€on€that€motion.Ф l Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTHE€COURT:€€Right.€€We€can€do€the€motion€today.€€But€what€my€information€was,€was€thatÐ h 0  ÐI€would€not€grant€that€motion,€that€since€Judge€Shipley€recused€herself,€that€was€not€my€order,€and€IÐ ,ô  Ðwould€not€do€the€review.€€And€so€thatððs€most€respectfully€denied,€if€youððre€making€that€motion€to€meÐ ð¸  Ðtoday,€and€that€can€be€part€of€the€record. ËÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Kaliszððs€lawyer€requested€ð ðthat€there€at€least€be€an€offer€of€proof€from€my€client€in€regard€to€herÐ 8 Ðunderstanding€of€the€status€of€the€children€presently.ðð€€The€trial€court€responded,€ð ðThatððs€most€respectfully€denied,€butÐ üÄ Ðyou€can€address€that€with€the€Court€of€Appeals.ðð Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€granted€Dr.€Ô_ÔShofnerððsÔ_Ô€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14€motion€to€include€the€information€regarding€the€post„appealÐ 8 Ðproceedings€in€the€trial€court€and€the€juvenile€court.€€Dr.€Kalisz€also€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14€motion€requesting€thisÐ üÄ Ðcourt€to€consider€other€criminal€proceedings€she€commenced€against€Dr.€Shofner.€€We€have€denied€this€motion. ÜÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòHoalcraft€v.€Smithsonóó,€19€S.W.3d€822,€827„28€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(a€trial€Ô_ÔcourtððsÔ_Ô€statement€that€it€wouldÐ 8 Ðplace€the€custody€arrangement€on€its€ð ðreview€Ô_ÔdocketððÔ_Ô€did€not€undermine€the€finality€of€the€order);€òòDailey€v.€Daileyóó,€No.Ð üÄ Ð03A01„9409„CH„00340,€1995€WL€11179,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€12,€1995)€(a€trial€Ô_ÔcourtððsÔ_Ô€characterization€of€aÐ Àˆ Ðcustody€decision€as€ð ðtemporaryðð€did€not€undermine€the€finality€of€the€order).€ ,Ý ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€indicates€that€at€one€time,€Dr.€Shofner€lost€over€$400,000.€€Dr.€Shofner€admitted€his€addiction€andÐ 8 Ðhas€sought€professional€help€to€address€it. ËÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€deferred€ruling€on€the€other€issues€in€the€case€until€a€later€date. èÝ ƒRÕ§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNo€useful€purpose€would€be€served€by€recounting€the€details€of€Dr.€Pottsððs€evaluations€in€this€opinion.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„Í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8°ÑÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼„Í»»»ÔÑ8€ÓqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îŠü„ÍÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ 8 Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼„Í»îîŠü(#ԈР^& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€9,€2004€SessionÐ „L ÐÔ‡XÓqX»¼„ÍÔÌò òÔ#†¼„Í»XXÓq#ÔROBERT€STEWART€SHOFNER€v.€ANN€MARGARET€KALISZ€SHOFNERÔ‡XÓqX»¼„ÍÔó óÐ ‚J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ‚ J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01D„971€€€€€€Muriel€Robinson,€JudgeÐ n 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<E ` AßÐ F   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01550„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€23,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ A  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óÐ á  ÐÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€an€acrimonious€dispute€over€the€custody€of€three€children€between€the€ages€ofÐ Ü  Ðeight€and€twelve.€€Following€a€contentious€ten„year€marriage,€the€childrenððs€parents€both€sought€aÐ È  Ðdivorce€and€custody€of€the€children€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County.€€The€trial€judgeÐ ì´ Ðoriginally€assigned€to€the€case€devised€a€temporary€parenting€plan€that€placed€the€eldest€child€withÐ Ø  Ðhis€mother€and€the€two€youngest€children€with€their€father.€€Thereafter€the€original€trial€judgeÐ ÄŒ Ðdisqualified€herself,€and€the€case€was€assigned€to€a€new€trial€judge.€€The€newly€assigned€trial€judgeÐ °x Ðdeclined€to€revisit€her€predecessorððs€custody€and€support€order€and€eventually€entered€a€final€decreeÐ œd Ð(1)€declaring€the€parents€divorced€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€(2001),€(2)Ð ˆP Ðapproving€the€parentððs€marital€dissolution€agreement,€and€(3)€making€the€temporary€parenting€planÐ t< Ðpermanent.€€On€this€appeal,€the€mother€takes€issue€with€the€decision€to€designate€the€father€theÐ `( Ðprimary€residential€parent€of€the€two€youngest€children.€€We€have€determined€that€the€successor€trialÐ L Ðjudge€erred€by€(1)€failing€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€after€the€case€wasÐ 8 Ðreassigned,€(2)€declining€to€consider€the€pending€post„trial€motions,€and€(3)€refusing€to€permit€theÐ $ì Ðmother€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€children.€€Despite€these€seriousÐ Ø Ðprocedural€errors,€we€have€conducted€our€own€independent€review€of€the€record€and€have€determinedÐ üÄ Ðthat€it€contains€no€factual€or€legal€basis€for€overturning€the€parenting€plan€at€this€time.Ð è° ÐÌÔ#†¼„Í»XXÓq#ÔÔ‡XÓqX»¼„ÍÔÓÍÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ À ˆ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼„Í»àXÓqv #ÔÔ‡XÓqX.¼„ÍÔWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€P.J.,€M.S.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòPatricia€J.Ð ˜"`" ÐCottrellóó€and€òòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð „#L# ÐÌJohn€E.€Herbison,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ann€Margaret€Kalisz€Shofner.Ð \%$!% ÐÌJohn€J.€Hollins,€Sr.,€and€James€L.€Weatherly,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€RobertÐ 4'ü"' ÐStewart€Shofner.Ð  (è#( ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼„Í»XXÓq@ #ÔÔ‡XÓqX»¼„ÍÔÐ ø)À%* ÐÌÔ#†¼„Í»XXÓql#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÓqX»¼„ÍÔà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ Ð+˜', ÐÌà  àAnn€Margaret€Kalisz€Shofner€(now€referred€to€as€ð ðDr.€Kaliszðð)€and€Robert€Stewart€Shofner€Ð ¨-p). Ð(ð ðDr.€Shofnerðð)€were€married€in€July€1991.€€Both€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€Shofner€are€physicians.€€Dr.Ð ”.\*/ý ÐShofner€is€a€practicing€ophthalmologist,€and€Dr.€Kalitz€is€an€internist.€€They€had€three€childrenÐ 8 Ðduring€their€marriage€ð!ð€Robert€born€in€1992,€Alyssa€born€in€1994,€and€Andrew€born€in€1996.€€Dr.Ð $ì ÐKalisz€stopped€practicing€medicine€after€Alyssa€was€born€to€devote€her€full„time€attention€to€theÐ Ø Ðpartiesðð€children.€Ð üÄ ÐÌà  àAll€was€not€well€in€the€Shofner„Kalisz€family€despite€the€advantages€that€accompanyÐ Ôœ Ðprofessional€educations€and€financial€success.€€The€marriage€was€fraught€with€marital€conflict,€asÐ À ˆ Ðwell€as€physical€and€emotional€abuse.€€Dr.€Kalisz€insists€that€Dr.€Shofner€had€difficulty€managingÐ ¬ t Ðhis€anger,€that€he€physically€and€mentally€abused€her€and€Robert,€and€that€he€was,€at€times,€roughÐ ˜ ` Ðwith€the€youngest€children.€€She€also€asserts€that€Dr.€Shofner€had€a€serious€gambling€addiction.׃z×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.Ð „ L  ÐShofner€admits€to€acting€inappropriately€with€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Robert€but€disagrees€with€theÐ p 8  Ðcharacterization€that€his€conduct€was€abuse.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Drs.€Kalisz€and€Shofner€also€had€diametricallyÐ \$  Ðopposite€views€with€regard€to€disciplining€their€children.€€Dr.€Shofner€favored€physical€punishment,Ð H  Ðwhile€Dr.€Kalisz€favored€rewarding€good€behavior€and€taking€away€privileges€for€bad€behavior.Ð 4ü  ÐÌà  àDr.€Shofner€insists€that€much€of€the€family€discord€stemmed€from€Robertððs€physical€abuseÐ  Ô  Ðof€Alyssa€and€Dr.€Kaliszððs€consistent€refusal€to€discipline€Robert€when€he€misbehaved€or€to€protectÐ øÀ ÐAlyssa€from€Robert.€€Robert€has€a€history€of€inflicting€severe€physical€abuse€on€Alyssa,€includingÐ ä¬ Ðhitting€her,€pushing€her€down€stairs,€and€at€one€point,€knocking€her€over,€causing€her€to€break€herРИ Ðarm.€€Despite€Robertððs€behavioral€problems€at€school€and€in€other€social€settings,€Dr.€Kalisz€reactedÐ ¼„ Ðdefensively€and€angrily€when€the€childrenððs€teachers,€physicians,€relatives,€and€friends€tried€to€offerÐ ¨p Ðher€advice€or€criticism€about€her€parenting.€€She€eventually€developed€strained€relations€with€mostÐ ”\ Ðof€the€familyððs€support€group.€€At€the€slightest€hint€of€disapproval€or€concern,€Dr.€Kalisz€moved€theÐ €H Ðchildren€from€one€school€to€another€or€withdrew€them€from€various€activities.€€She€also€refused€toÐ l4 Ðfollow€school€rules,€and€she€caused€the€children,€especially€Alyssa,€to€be€excessively€absent€fromÐ X  Ðschool.Ð D  ÐÌà  àIn€other€circumstances,€conduct€of€the€sort€occurring€in€the€Shofner„Kalisz€home€would€haveÐ ä Ðprompted€intervention€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services€to€protect€the€children.׃P,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð ÐIt€may€very€well€have€been€the€parentsðð€socioeconomic€status€that€enabled€them€to€avoid€a€referralÐ ô¼ Ðand€thereby€permitted€the€domestic€dysfunction€to€continue€for€far€too€long.€€Finally,€in€April€2001,РਠÐafter€ten€years€of€confrontation,€abuse,€and€discord,€Dr.€Shofner€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÐ Ì ” ÐDavidson€County€seeking€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences€and€inappropriateÐ ¸!€  Ðâ âmarital€conduct.€€He€also€sought€to€be€designated€as€the€childrenððs€primary€residential€parent.€€Dr.Ð ¤"l! ÐKalisz€responded€with€a€counterclaim€for€divorce€and€also€sought€to€be€designated€the€childrenððsÐ 8 Ðprimary€residential€parent.Ð $ì Ðâ âÌà  àAt€first,€Dr.€Kalisz,€Dr.€Shofner,€and€their€children€continued€to€reside€in€the€marital€home.€Ð üÄ ÐDuring€this€time,€the€trial€court€required€Dr.€Shofner€to€pay€child€support€and€spousal€support€to€Dr.Ð è° ÐKalisz.€€In€November€2001,€after€the€living€arrangements€proved€unworkable,€the€trial€court€orderedÐ Ôœ ÐDr.€Shofner€to€leave€the€marital€home€pending€a€final€hearing.€€The€trial€court€granted€Dr.€ShofnerÐ À ˆ Ðliberal€visitation€and€ordered€him€to€be€responsible€for€taking€Alyssa€and€Andrew€to€school€eachÐ ¬ t Ðmorning.€€The€court€also€ordered€Dr.€Kalisz€to€take€Robert€to€school€each€morning€and€to€pick€upÐ ˜ ` Ðall€three€children€from€school€in€the€afternoon.€Ð „ L  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€conducted€four€days€of€custody€hearings€between€July€and€August€2002.€Ð \$  ÐThese€hearings€provided€both€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€Shofner€with€an€opportunity€to€complain€about€theÐ H  Ðdifficulties€they€had€experienced€with€the€temporary€custody€arrangement׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€inveigh€againstÐ 4ü  Ðeach€otherððs€parental€shortcomings€during€the€marriage.€€Dr.€Kalisz€described€how€Dr.€Shofner€hadÐ  è  Ðneglected€the€children€when€she€was€absent€and€insisted€that€he€lacked€the€knowledge,€ability,€orÐ  Ô  Ðinclination€to€care€for€the€children.€€She€testified€in€graphic€detail€about€the€injuries€she€and€RobertÐ øÀ Ðreceived€at€Dr.€Shofnerððs€hands.Ð ä¬ ÐÌà  àIn€his€own€defense,€Dr.€Shofner€conceded€that€he€had€previously€relied€too€heavily€onÐ ¼„ Ðphysical€punishment€and€that€he€had€been€unable€to€care€for€the€children€on€his€own.€€He€also€statedÐ ¨p Ðthat€he€had€heeded€the€recommendations€and€advice€of€the€childrenððs€teachers€and€physicians€andÐ ”\ Ðthat€he€now€believed€that€physical€punishment€was€not€an€appropriate€way€to€discipline€children.€Ð €H ÐHe€also€testified€that€he€had€hired€a€nanny€to€assist€him€with€the€children.€€While€Dr.€ShofnerÐ l4 Ðexhibited€genuine€concern€for€the€childrenððs€welfare€and€a€desire€to€improve€his€parenting€skills,€heÐ X  Ðwas€extremely€critical€of€Dr.€Kaliszððs€adamant€refusal€to€accept€any€help€or€advice€from€theÐ D  Ðchildrenððs€teachers,€physicians,€and€others€interested€in€the€childrenððs€welfare.€€He€describedÐ 0ø Ðnumerous€instances€of€Dr.€Kaliszððs€disagreeing€with€practically€everyone€involved€with€theÐ ä Ðchildrenððs€lives.Ð Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€received€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Elmer€Ray€Potts,€a€psychologist€who€hadРਠÐbeen€appointed€by€the€court€to€evaluate€both€the€parents€and€the€children.€€Dr.€Potts€had€interviewedÐ Ì ” Ðand€evaluated€all€members€of€the€family€and€had€prepared€detailed€reports€regarding€each€member.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¸!€  ÐDr.€Potts€concluded€that€both€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€Shofner€were€extremely€defensive€and€overlyÐ ¤"l! Ðcautious€about€their€own€faults€and€that€both€parents€always€believe€that€they€are€right.€€He€creditedÐ #X" ÐDr.€Shofner€with€admitting€that€he€needed€outside€help€and€support.€€Dr.€Potts€also€diagnosed€bothÐ |$D # ÐDr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€Shofner€with€personality€disorders.€€He€concluded€that€while€these€disorders€didÐ h%0!$ Ðnot€necessarily€mean€that€they€did€not€possess€adequate€parenting€skills,€they€played€a€large€role€inÐ T&"% Ðthe€dysfunctional€family€relationships.€Dr.€Potts€also€detailed€the€negative€effects€that€Dr.€ShofnerððsÐ 8 Ðand€Dr.€Kaliszððs€dysfunctional€relationship€has€had€on€their€children€and€strongly€recommended€thatÐ $ì Ðall€the€children€receive€counseling.€Ð Ø ÐÌà  àOn€September€19,€2002,€the€trial€court€filed€a€16„page€memorandum€opinion€and€an€orderÐ è° Ðlimited€to€the€custody€of€the€children.׃’×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€court€relied€heavily€on€Dr.€Ô_ÔPottsÔ_Ôððs€reports€and€testimony.€Ð Ôœ ÐThe€court€determined€that€the€children€had€been€trained€to€be€dysfunctional€by€living€with€Drs.Ð À ˆ ÐShofner€and€Kalisz€and€that€it€could€possibly€be€dangerous€to€require€the€children€to€continue€to€liveÐ ¬ t Ðtogether€in€light€of€the€evidence€of€Robertððs€abuse€of€Alyssa.€€Accordingly,€the€court€concluded€thatÐ ˜ ` Ðthe€children€should€be€separated.€€Based€on€its€understanding€of€the€childrenððs€preferences,€the€trialÐ „ L  Ðcourt€determined€that€Dr.€Kalisz€would€be€Robertððs€primary€residential€parent€and€that€Dr.€ShofnerÐ p 8  Ðwould€be€Alyssaððs€and€Andrewððs€primary€residential€parent.€€It€prepared€a€detailed€parenting€planÐ \$  Ðfor€this€arrangement€that€included€visitation€for€both€parents.€€The€court€also€ordered€Dr.€ShofnerÐ H  Ðto€continue€to€pay€spousal€support€and€child€support€for€Robert.׃mT×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€the€court€determined€thatÐ 4ü  Ðð ð[t]his€arrangement€will€be€reviewed€in€May€2003.ðð׃n,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  è  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€entry€of€the€trial€courtððs€memorandum€opinion€and€order,€Dr.€Kalisz€filedÐ øÀ Ðseveral€post„trial€motions,€including€an€amended€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€€However,€beforeÐ ä¬ Ðthe€trial€court€could€address€these€motions,€Dr.€Kalisz€moved€to€disqualify€the€trial€judge€based€onРИ Ðderogatory€characterizations€of€her€appearing€in€the€judgeððs€personal€notes,€which€had€been€placedÐ ¼„ Ðinadvertently€in€the€official€case€file.€€Following€a€hearing€in€November€2002,€the€trial€judgeÐ ¨p Ðdeclined€to€recuse€herself€but€granted€Dr.€Kalisz€permission€to€file€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€applicationÐ ”\ Ðfor€an€interlocutory€appeal€with€this€court.€€On€December€3,€2002,€this€court€granted€the€interlocutoryÐ €H Ðappeal,€reversed€the€trial€judgeððs€denial€of€the€recusal€motion,€and€remanded€the€case€with€directionsÐ l4 Ðthat€it€be€reassigned€to€another€trial€judge.׃oP ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€remand,€the€original€trial€judge€recused€herself€andÐ X  Ðwas€replaced€by€a€successor€trial€judge.Ð D  ÐÐ 0ø Ðà  àIn€February€2003,€Dr.€Kalisz€filed€a€motion€to€vacate€the€September€19,€2002€memorandumÐ 8 Ðorder€and€opinion€regarding€custody€and€to€grant€her€custody€of€the€children€pending€a€final€hearing.€Ð $ì ÐOn€March€11,€2003,€the€successor€trial€judge€denied€the€motion€because€the€original€trial€judge€hadÐ Ø Ðalready€addressed€the€issues€regarding€child€custody€and€support.€€Several€weeks€later,€Dr.€KaliszððsÐ üÄ Ðattorneys€withdrew€and€were€replaced€by€a€lawyer€practicing€in€Memphis.€€In€April€2003,€Dr.€KaliszÐ è° Ðrequested€the€trial€court€to€set€a€hearing€to€review€the€parenting€plan€established€by€the€SeptemberÐ Ôœ Ð19,€2002€memorandum€opinion€and€order.Ð À ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€June€10,€2003,€the€successor€trial€judge€addressed€all€the€remaining€issues€in€the€divorceÐ ˜ ` Ðcase,€including€Dr.€Kaliszððs€motion€to€review€the€existing€parenting€plan.€€She€declared€the€partiesÐ „ L  Ðdivorced€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€based€on€their€written€stipulation€that€they€hadÐ p 8  Ðboth€engaged€in€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€addition,€she€approved€the€partiesðð€maritalÐ \$  Ðdissolution€agreement€that€resolved€all€the€financial€issues.€€However,€the€successor€trial€judge€Ð H  Ðrefused€to€consider€Dr.€Kaliszððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€or€her€motion€to€review€the€parentingÐ 4ü  Ðplan€because€the€September€19,€2002€order€was€not€her€order.׃q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€She€also€refused€to€permit€Dr.€KaliszÐ  è  Ðto€make€an€offer€of€proof€with€regard€to€her€motion€to€review€the€parenting€plan.׃rÐ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€courtÐ  Ô  Ðentered€a€final€decree€immediately€following€the€hearing.Ð øÀ ÐÌà  àDr.€Kalisz€perfected€an€appeal€to€this€court.€€The€appeal€did€not,€however,€bring€a€respite€toРИ Ðthe€partiesðð€legal€skirmishes.€€Their€internecine€warfare€continued€in€other€forums.€€While€the€appealÐ ¼„ Ðwas€pending,€Dr.€Shofner€requested€the€trial€court€to€order€Dr.€Kalisz€to€pay€child€support€and€toÐ ¨p Ðrestrain€her€from€interfering€with€his€parenting.€€Dr.€Kalisz€responded€by€requesting€the€trial€courtÐ ”\ Ðto€modify€the€parenting€plan€that€was€the€subject€of€this€appeal.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ €H Ðordered€Dr.€Kalisz€to€pay€child€support€for€Alyssa€and€Andrew€and€restrained€her€from€interferingÐ l4 Ðwith€Dr.€Shofnerððs€parenting€efforts.€€The€court€also€denied€Dr.€Kaliszððs€motion€to€modify€theÐ X  Ðparenting€plan€on€the€ground€that€no€material€change€in€the€partiesðð€or€the€Ô_ÔchildrenððsÔ_Ô€circumstancesÐ D  Ðhad€occurred.Ð 0ø Їà  àThereafter,€Dr.€Kalisz€filed€a€verified€petition€in€the€Davidson€County€Juvenile€Court€seekingÐ 8 Ðto€have€Alyssa€and€Andrew€declared€dependent€and€neglected€children.€€Both€a€referee€and€theÐ $ì Ðjuvenile€judge€dismissed€Dr.€Kaliszððs€petition€because€it€dealt€with€the€ð ðsame€issues€.€.€.€[that]€areÐ Ø Ðpresently€part€of€pending€litigation€in€another€Court.ðð€€Dr.€Kalisz€appealed€the€denial€of€her€petitionÐ üÄ Ðto€the€circuit€court.€€When€the€case€was€assigned€to€the€successor€trial€judge,€Dr.€Kalisz€requestedÐ è° Ðthe€trial€judge€to€recuse€herself.€€After€the€successor€trial€judge€declined€to€step€aside,€Dr.€KaliszÐ Ôœ Ðvoluntarily€dismissed€her€appeal€from€the€juvenile€courtððs€decision.׃s×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À ˆ ÐÌà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ˜ ` Ðà@ ìàòòò òThe€Successor€Trial€Judgeððs€Compliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63ó óóóˆÐ „ L  ÐÌà  àWe€turn€first€to€Dr.€Kaliszððs€argument€that€the€successor€trial€judge€erred€by€failing€to€complyÐ \$  Ðwith€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€when€the€case€was€assigned€to€her€following€the€recusal€of€the€original€trialÐ H  Ðjudge.€€Dr.€Shofner€defends€the€successor€trial€judge€by€arguing€that€her€oversight€should€be€excusedÐ 4ü  Ðbecause€Dr.€Kalisz€did€not€ask€her€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63.€€Dr.€Kalisz€has€the€betterÐ  è  Ðargument.€€Trial€courts€have€a€duty€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€when€the€circumstancesÐ  Ô  Ðrequire,€and€the€successor€trial€judge€erred€by€failing€to€discharge€her€duty.Ð øÀ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàòòò òA.ó óóóˆÐ И ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€governs€situations€when€a€case€must€be€assigned€to€another€judge€becauseÐ ¨p Ðthe€judge€originally€presiding€over€the€case€is€unable€to€proceed.€€The€rule€provides:Ð ”\ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIf€a€trial€or€hearing€has€been€commenced€and€the€judge€isÐ l4 Ðunable€to€proceed,€any€other€judge€may€proceed€upon€certifyingÐ X  Ðfamiliarity€with€the€record€and€determining€that€the€proceedings€in€theÐ D  Ðcase€may€be€completed€without€prejudice€to€the€parties.€In€a€trial€orÐ 0ø Ðhearing€without€a€jury,€the€successor€judge€shall€at€the€request€of€aÐ ä Ðparty€recall€any€witness€whose€testimony€is€material€and€disputed€andÐ Ð Ðwho€is€available€to€testify€again€without€undue€burden.€In€any€trial€orÐ ô¼ Ðhearing,€with€or€without€a€jury,€the€successor€judge€may€recall€anyРਠÐwitness.ÐÌ ”` x` x ÐÌTennesseeððs€courts€have€not€had€many€occasions€to€construe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63.€€However,€itsÐ ¤"l! Ðlanguage€is€essentially€identical€to€that€of€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€63.€€Accordingly,€the€decisions€of€theÐ #X" Ðfederal€courts€construing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€can€provide€helpful€guidance€in€interpreting€our€ownÐ |$D # Ðrule.€€òòSee€Frazier€v.€East€Tenn.€Baptist€Hospóó.,€55€S.W.3d€925,€929€(Tenn.€2001);€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó,Ð h%0!$ Ð33€S.W.3d€741,€745€n.2€(Tenn.€2000);€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2dÐ T&"% Ð946,€952€n.7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€òòÐ @'#& Ðâ âÐ ,(ô#' Ðóóà  àBoth€the€state€and€the€federal€versions€of€Rule€63€apply€to€situations€in€which€a€trial€judgeÐ 8 Ðâ âis,€for€some€reason,€unable€to€proceed€in€a€case.€€These€situations€include€disqualification€or€recusal.€Ð $ì ÐThe€newly€assigned€judge€must€either€certify€familiarity€with€the€record€and€determine€that€theÐ Ø Ðproceedings€may€continue€without€prejudice€to€the€parties€or€grant€a€new€trial.׃i×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€successor€judgeÐ üÄ Ðmay€not€proceed€in€a€case€without€making€the€requisite€certifications.׃"Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€As€the€1991€AdvisoryÐ è° ÐCommittee€Note€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€states:Ð Ôœ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTo€avoid€the€injustice€that€may€result€if€the€substitute€judge€proceedsÐ ¬ t Ðdespite€unfamiliarity€with€the€action,€the€new€Rule€provides,€inÐ ˜ ` Ðlanguage€similar€to€Federal€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€25(a),€that€theÐ „ L  Ðsuccessor€judge€must€certify€familiarity€with€the€record€and€determineÐ p 8  Ðthat€the€case€may€be€completed€before€that€judge€without€prejudice€toÐ \$  Ðthe€parties.€€ÐH ` x` x ÐÌThe€advisory€committeeððs€note€further€states€that€the€successor€judgeððs€certification€is€an€ð ðefficientÐ  è  Ðmechanismðð€to€prevent€the€unnecessary€expense€and€delay€of€a€second€trial.€€A€successor€judge€needÐ  Ô  Ðonly€certify€familiarity€with€those€portions€of€the€record€that€relate€to€issues€before€the€judge.€€Ð øÀ ÐòòCanseco€v.€United€Statesóó,€97€F.3d€1224,€1227€(9th€Cir.€1996).€€As€long€as€the€successor€judgeÐ ä¬ Ðcertifies€familiarity€with€the€record€and€determines€that€continuing€the€proceedings€may€beРИ Ðaccomplished€without€prejudice€to€the€parties,€the€judge€may€carry€on€the€duties€of€the€original€judgeÐ ¼„ Ðwith€wide„ranging€power€and€with€the€same€discretion€as€the€original€judge.׃fð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¨p ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ €H ÐÌà  àThis€record€contains€no€indication€that€the€successor€trial€judge€ever€certified€her€familiarityÐ X  Ðwith€the€record€of€the€proceedings€that€had€occurred€before€the€original€trial€judge.€€Dr.€ShofnerÐ D  Ðseeks€to€excuse€this€oversight€by€arguing€that€Dr.€Kalisz€waived€her€right€to€insist€on€complianceÐ 0ø Ðwith€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€because€she€failed€to€request€the€trial€court€to€make€the€requiredÐ ä Ðcertification.€€This€argument€overlooks€the€fact€that€there€is€no€room€for€discretion€regardingÐ Ð Ðcompliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63.€€The€plain€language€of€the€rule€demonstrates€that€it€applies€toÐ ô¼ Ðall€cases€in€which€a€successor€trial€judge€replaces€a€trial€judge€who€is€unable€to€proceed.€Ð ਠÐAccordingly,€the€successor€trial€judge€had€a€duty€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€whetherÐ Ì ” Ðrequested€to€do€so€or€not.€€It€necessarily€follows€that€she€erred€by€presiding€over€the€case€withoutÐ ¸!€  Ðeither€ordering€a€retrial€or€certifying€that€she€was€familiar€with€the€record€of€the€prior€proceeding€andÐ ¤"l! Ðthat€continuing€the€proceeding€without€a€retrial€would€not€prejudice€the€parties.Ð #X" Їà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ 8 Ðà@RR ìàòòò òThe€Successor€Trial€Judgeððs€Refusal€to€Consider€the€Custody€Issueó óóóˆÐ $ì ÐÌà  àDr.€Kalisz€also€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€categorical€refusal€to€revisit€the€2002Ð üÄ Ðparenting€plan€because€it€had€been€devised€by€the€original€trial€judge.€€She€argues€that€the€successorÐ è° Ðtrial€judge€erred€by€(1)€considering€the€original€trial€judgeððs€September€19,€2002€order€to€be€beyondÐ Ôœ Ðreview€or€reconsideration,€(2)€refusing€to€rule€on€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€she€had€filedÐ À ˆ Ðbefore€the€original€trial€judge€recused€herself,€and€(3)€refusing€to€permit€her€to€make€an€offer€of€proofÐ ¬ t Ðat€the€June€10,€2003€hearing€regarding€the€current€status€of€the€children.€€Again,€we€agree€with€Dr.Ð ˜ ` ÐKalisz€on€all€points.Ð „ L  ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ \$  ÐÌà  àThe€successor€trial€judge€decided€that€she€would€not€consider€or€review€the€original€trialÐ 4ü  Ðjudgeððs€September€19,€2002€parenting€plan€because€it€was€ð ðfinal.ðð€€Dr.€Kalisz€takes€issue€with€theÐ  è  Ðsuccessor€trial€judgeððs€characterization€because€the€original€trial€judge€had€stated€that€she€wouldÐ  Ô  Ðreview€the€parenting€plan€again€in€May€2003.€€Dr.€Shofner€responds€that€reserving€the€right€to€reviewÐ øÀ Ðthe€parenting€plan€does€not€undermine€the€planððs€finality.€€While€Dr.€Shofner€is€correct,€both€partiesððÐ ä¬ Ðfocus€on€the€legal€significance€of€the€original€trial€judgeððs€intention€to€revisit€the€parenting€planРИ Ðmisses€the€point.€€The€September€Ô_Ô19,Ô_Ô€2002€order€was€not€final€for€two€simple€reasons.€€First,€it€didÐ ¼„ Ðnot€resolve€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€Second,€the€original€trial€judge€did€not€certify€itÐ ¨p Ðas€final€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.Ð ”\ ÐÌà  àA€final€judgment€is€primarily€one€that€fully€adjudicates€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€Ð l4 ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(a);€òòAetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€Milleróó,€491€S.W.2d€85,€86€(Tenn.€1973);€òòWilson€v.Ð X  ÐWilsonóó,€58€S.W.3d€718,€725€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€630€n.4Ð D  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€It€leaves€nothing€else€for€the€trial€court€to€resolve.€€òòIn€re€Estate€ofÐ 0ø ÐHendersonóó,€121€S.W.3d€643,€645€(Tenn.€2003);€òòVineyard€v.€Vineyardóó,€26€Tenn.€App.€232,€241,€170Ð ä ÐS.W.2d€917,€920€(1942).€€Until€a€judgment€becomes€final,€it€remains€within€the€trial€courtððs€controlÐ Ð Ðand€may€be€modified€any€time€prior€to€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment.€€òòStidham€v.€Fickle€Heirsóó,€643Ð ô¼ ÐS.W.2d€324,€328€(Tenn.€1982);€òòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€137€S.W.3d€1,€20€n.10€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002);РਠÐòòHall€v.€Bookoutóó,€87€S.W.3d€80,€85€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).Ð Ì ” ÐÌà  àA€judgment€that€does€not€resolve€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties€may€nevertheless€beÐ ¤"l! Ðconsidered€a€final€judgment€if€the€trial€court€certifies€it€as€final€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð #X" Ð54.02.€€A€judgment€that€completely€resolves€one€of€multiple€claims€or€that€completely€resolves€allÐ |$D # Ðthe€claims€against€one€of€multiple€parties€is€eligible€for€certification€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€Ð h%0!$ ÐòòBayberry€Assocs.€v.€Jonesóó,€783€S.W.2d€553,€558€(Tenn.€1990);òò€Town€of€Collierville€v.€NorfolkÐ T&"% ÐSouthern€Ry.óó,€1€S.W.3d€68,€70€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€However,€finality€arises€only€when€the€trialÐ @'#& Ðcourt€has€expressly€directed€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment€because€no€just€reason€for€delaying€theÐ ,(ô#' Ðentry€of€a€final€judgment€exists.€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àThe€September€19,€2002€memorandum€opinion€and€order€clearly€did€not€resolve€all€theÐ ð*¸&* Ðdisputed€matters€in€the€pending€divorce€litigation.€€By€their€own€terms,€they€dealt€with€only€oneÐ Ü+¤'+ Ðmatter€ð!ð€custody€of€the€children.€€Accordingly,€the€order€can€be€deemed€final€only€if€it€contains€theÐ È,(, Ðexpress€determination€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02€that€there€is€no€just€reason€for€delaying€theÐ 8 Ðentry€of€a€final€judgment€regarding€the€custody€issue.€€The€order€does€not€contain€such€aÐ $ì Ðdetermination.€€Therefore,€despite€the€successor€trial€judgeððs€apparent€distaste€for€addressing€an€issueÐ Ø Ðalready€addressed€by€the€original€trial€judge,€the€September€19,€2002€order€is€not€final.€€In€the€wordsÐ üÄ Ðof€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02,€it€remained€ð ðsubject€to€revision€at€any€time€before€the€entry€of€theÐ è° Ðjudgment€adjudicating€all€the€claims€and€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€all€the€parties.ðð€Ð Ôœ ÐÌà  àBoth€partiesðð€briefs€contain€lengthy€discussions€regarding€the€significance€of€the€portion€ofÐ ¬ t Ðthe€September€19,€2002€memorandum€opinion€stating€that€the€trial€court€intended€to€revisit€theÐ ˜ ` Ðparenting€plan€in€May€2003.€€Dr.€Kalisz€asserts€that€this€language€means€that€the€parenting€plan€wasÐ „ L  Ðnot€ð ðfinal.ðð€€Dr.€Shofner€takes€the€contrary€position.€€On€two€occasions,€this€court€has€determinedÐ p 8  Ðthat€a€statement€in€a€divorce€decree€reflecting€the€courtððs€intention€to€review€the€custody€arrangementÐ \$  Ðat€a€later€date€does€not€undermine€the€finality€of€the€decree.׃u×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€These€opinions€have€no€relevance€toÐ H  Ðthis€case€because€they€involved€divorce€decrees€that€disposed€of€all€the€claims€between€all€theÐ 4ü  Ðparties.€€The€September€19,€2002€order€did€not;€it€addressed€only€the€custody€issue.òòóóÐ  è  ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ øÀ ÐÌà  àDr.€Kalisz€also€takes€issue€with€the€successor€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€consider€the€amendedРИ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€that€was€filed€before€the€original€trial€judge€recused€herself.€€SheÐ ¼„ Ðinsists€that€the€successor€trial€judge€stepped€into€the€shoes€of€the€original€trial€judge€and€was€requiredÐ ¨p Ðto€consider€any€motions€the€original€judge€would€have€been€required€to€consider.€€We€agree.Ð ”\ ÐÌà  àWhile€trial€courts€enjoy€wide€discretion€to€grant€or€deny€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motions,€òòAli€v.Ð l4 ÐFisheróó,€145€S.W.3d€557,€564„65€(Tenn.€2004),€they€cannot€refuse€to€exercise€that€discretion.€€Thus,Ð X  Ðbecause€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€requires€the€successor€trial€judge€to€step€into€the€shoes€of€the€originalÐ D  Ðtrial€judge,€the€successor€trial€judge€must€consider€and€resolve€any€post„trial€motions€that€the€originalÐ 0ø Ðtrial€judge€would€have€been€required€to€consider.€€òòRogers€Group,€Inc.€v.€Anderson€Countyóó,€113Ð ä ÐS.W.3d€725,€727€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).€€As€one€court€construing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€has€observed,Ð Ð Ðð ð[i]t€would€be€unfair€to€ððdeny€a€litigantððs€right€to€try€to€persuade€the€court€that€it€has€erred€simplyÐ ô¼ Ðbecause€the€judge€who€rendered€the€original€decision€is€unavailable€and€cannot€be€called€on€toРਠÐreconsider€the€matter.ðððð€òòMergentime€Corp.€v.€Washington€Metro.€Area€Transit€Auth.óó,€166€F.3d€1257,Ð Ì ” Ð1263€(D.C.€Cir.€1999)€(quoting€12€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practice€óóðð€63.05[1]).€Ð ¸!€  ÐÌà  àThe€decisions€construing€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€63€and€its€federal€counterpart€make€it€clear€thatÐ #X" Ðif€a€successor€trial€judge€decides€to€permit€a€legal€proceeding€to€continue,€the€judge€must€considerÐ |$D # Ðand€dispose€of€any€post„trial€motions€made€either€before€or€during€the€successor€judgeððs€involvementÐ h%0!$ Ðin€the€case.€€If€the€successor€judge€is€satisfied€that€he€or€she€cannot€perform€the€duties€imposed€byÐ T&"% Ðthe€procedural€rules€with€respect€to€the€particular€case,€the€successor€judge€is€empowered€to€andÐ @'#& Ðmust€order€a€new€trial.€€See€12€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practice€óóðð€63.05.€€When€the€successor€trialÐ ,(ô#' Ðjudge€in€this€case€decided€that€a€new€trial€would€not€be€necessary,€she€assumed€the€original€trialÐ 8 Ðjudgeððs€obligation€to€consider€Dr.€Kaliszððs€outstanding€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€and€erredÐ $ì Ðwhen€she€refused€to€consider€it.Ð Ø ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òC.ó óˆÐ è° ÐÌà  àThe€final€procedural€issue€raised€by€Dr.€Kalisz€involves€the€successor€trial€judgeððs€refusalÐ À ˆ Ðto€permit€her€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€at€the€June€10,€2003€trial€regarding€the€current€circumstancesÐ ¬ t Ðof€the€children.€€Dr.€Shofner€does€not€undertake€to€defend€the€successor€trial€judgeððs€action€ð!ð€withÐ ˜ ` Ðgood€reason.€€The€trial€court€committed€clear€error€by€preventing€Dr.€Kalisz€from€making€an€offerÐ „ L  Ðof€proof€regarding€the€childrenððs€circumstances€in€June€2003.Ð p 8  ÐÌà  àAs€a€matter€of€law,€the€custody€arrangements€for€the€partiesðð€three€children€remained€an€openÐ H  Ðquestion€at€the€June€10,€2003€hearing.€€Because€the€custody€decision€was€not€yet€final€and€nineÐ 4ü  Ðmonths€had€elapsed€since€the€entry€of€the€initial€custody€order,€any€evidence€regarding€the€childrenððsÐ  è  Ðcurrent€circumstances€was€relevant,€and€the€successor€trial€judge€should€have€permitted€either€Dr.Ð  Ô  ÐKalisz€or€Dr.€Shofner€to€present€any€evidence€they€had€regarding€this€matter.€€Even€after€it€decidedÐ øÀ Ðnot€to€hear€any€evidence€regarding€the€custody€issue,€the€trial€court€should€have€permitted€the€partiesÐ ä¬ Ðto€make€an€offer€of€proof.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2);€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€815€(Tenn.РИ ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€Ð ¼„ ÐÌà  àA€trial€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€evidence€is€not€prejudicial€unless€it€affects€a€partyððsÐ ”\ Ðsubstantial€rights.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a).€€The€exclusion€of€evidence€regarding€the€custody€ofÐ €H Ðminor€children€when€the€matter€of€custody€is€not€finally€resolved€and€the€custody€arrangement€is€stillÐ l4 Ðsubject€to€revision€affects€not€only€the€rights€of€the€parents€but€also€the€interests€of€the€children.€Ð X  ÐChildren€of€divorcing€and€divorced€parents€are€entitled€to€protection€by€the€courts,€and€the€courtsÐ D  Ðmust€look€out€for€their€interests.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Courts€cannot€effectively€discharge€their€obligation€to€look€outÐ 0ø Ðfor€the€interests€of€children€of€divorcing€parents€when€they€arbitrarily€decline€to€consider€theÐ ä Ðchildrenððs€present€circumstances€before€fashioning€a€final€custody€arrangement.׃jÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ð ÐÌà  àThe€successor€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€permit€a€timely€offer€of€proof€also€undermines€thisРਠÐcourtððs€ability€to€determine€not€only€whether€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€the€evidence€but€alsoÐ Ì ” Ðwhether€the€parenting€plan€is€in€the€childrenððs€best€interests.€€By€inviting€Dr.€Kalisz€to€raise€the€issueÐ ¸!€  Ðwith€the€denial€of€her€offer€of€proof€on€appeal,€the€successor€trial€judge€has€effectively€forced€us€toÐ ¤"l! Ðtravel€to€an€unknown€destination€without€a€map.€€Despite€the€voluminous€record€in€this€case,€it€isÐ #X" Ðnot€possible€for€us€to€ascertain€the€status€of€the€children€at€the€time€of€the€June€2003€hearing.€€TheÐ |$D # Ðsuccessor€trial€judge€erred€when€she€refused€Dr.€Kaliszððs€request€to€make€an€offer€of€proof.€Ð h%0!$ Їà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ 8 Ðà@> > ìàòòò òThe€Existing€Custody€Arrangementó óóóˆÐ $ì ÐÌà  àThe€principal€substantive€issue€in€this€case€is€the€propriety€of€the€custody€arrangement€thatÐ üÄ Ðhas€been€in€place€for€over€two€years.€€Dr.€Kalisz€asserts€that€the€portion€of€the€September€19,€2002Ð è° Ðorder€placing€Alyssa€and€Andrew€in€Dr.€Shofnerððs€custody€is€not€in€their€best€interests€because€Dr.Ð Ôœ ÐShofner€is€unfit€to€be€the€childrenððs€primary€custodial€parent.€€Having€carefully€reviewed€theÐ À ˆ Ðvoluminous€record,€we€determined€that€it€does€not€contain€sufficient€evidence€to€warrant€overturningÐ ¬ t Ðthe€existing€custody€arrangement.Ð ˜ ` ÐÌà  àWe€note€at€the€outset€of€our€discussion€of€this€issue€that€the€successor€trial€judgeððs€proceduralÐ p 8  Ðerrors€discussed€in€Section€III€of€this€opinion€have€effectively€placed€important€and€relevant€evidenceÐ \$  Ðbeyond€our€reach.€€At€the€time€of€the€final€hearing€in€this€case€in€June€2003,€the€custody€arrangementÐ H  Ðat€issue€on€this€appeal€had€been€in€place€for€approximately€nine€months.€€As€a€result€of€the€successorÐ 4ü  Ðtrial€judgeððs€refusal€to€permit€Dr.€Kalisz€to€make€an€offer€of€proof,€this€record€contains€no€evidenceÐ  è  Ðregarding€the€effect€the€custody€arrangement€had€had€on€the€children€up€to€that€point.€€It€would€serveÐ  Ô  Ðno€practical€purpose€to€remand€the€case€to€supply€the€evidence€that€should€have€been€introduced€inÐ øÀ ÐJune€2003.€€That€evidence€is€now€dated,€and€the€parties€would€be€hard„pressed€to€present€it.€€DespiteÐ ä¬ Ðour€knowledge€that€much€has€transpired€during€the€past€two€years,€we€have€determined€that€the€mostРИ Ðappropriate€course€is€to€review€the€propriety€of€the€existing€custody€arrangement€in€light€of€theÐ ¼„ Ðrecord€as€it€has€been€provided€to€us.Ð ¨p ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ €H ÐÌà  àCreating€a€parenting€plan€is€one€of€the€most€important€decisions€confronting€a€trial€court€inÐ X  Ða€divorce€case.€€òòSteen€v.€Steenóó,€61€S.W.3d€324,€327€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Courts€must€strive€toÐ D  Ðdevise€parenting€plans€that€promote€the€development€of€the€childrenððs€relationship€with€both€parentsÐ 0ø Ðand€interfere€as€little€as€possible€with€post„divorce€family€decision„making.€€òòAaby€v.€Strangeóó,€924Ð ä ÐS.W.2d€623,€629€(Tenn.€1996);€òòTaylor€v.€Tayloróó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€331„32€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€needsÐ Ð Ðof€the€children€are€paramount;€the€desires€of€the€parents€are€secondary.€€òòLentz€v.€Lentzóó,€717€S.W.2dÐ ô¼ Ð876,€877€(Tenn.€1986).€€Parenting€plans€should€never€be€used€to€punish€or€reward€the€parents€forРਠÐtheir€human€frailties€or€past€mis„steps,€òòEarls€v.€Earlsóó,€42€S.W.3d€877,€885€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€Ð Ì ” ÐòòTurner€v.€Turneróó,€919€S€.W.2d€340,€346€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1995);€òòLong€v.€Longóó,€488€S.W.2d€729,€733Ð ¸!€  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1972),€but€rather€they€should€be€used€to€advance€the€childrenððs€best€interests€byÐ ¤"l! Ðplacing€them€in€an€environment€that€best€serves€their€physical€and€emotional€needs.€òòLuke€v.€Lukeóó,Ð #X" Ð651€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1983).Ð |$D # ÐÌà  àThere€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€devising€a€parenting€plan.€€òòSeeóó€òòTaylor€v.€Tayloróó,€849Ð T&"% ÐS.W.2d€at€327;€òòDantzler€v.€Dantzleróó,€665€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1983).€€The€process€isÐ @'#& Ðfactually€driven€and€requires€the€courts€to€carefully€weigh€numerous€considerations.€€òòNichols€v.Ð ,(ô#' ÐNicholsóó,€792€S.W.2d€713,€716€(Tenn.€1990);€òòRogero€v.€Pittóó,€759€S.W.2d€109,€112€(Tenn.1988).€€TheÐ )à$( ÐTennessee€General€Assembly€and€the€courts€have€identified€many€of€the€factors€that€trial€courtsÐ *Ì%) Ðshould€consider.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)€(2001);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„404(b)€(Supp.Ð ð*¸&* Ð2004);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„406(d)€(2001);€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Ü+¤'+ ÐApp.1983).Ð È,(, Їà  àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€to€fashion€parenting€plans€that€best€serve€the€interests€ofÐ 8 Ðthe€children.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(2)(A)€(Supp.€2004).€€They€must,€however,€base€theirÐ $ì Ðdecisions€on€the€evidence€presented€to€them€and€upon€the€proper€application€of€the€relevantÐ Ø Ðprinciples€of€law.€€òòD€v.€Kóó,€917€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1995).€€While€we€are€reluctant€toÐ üÄ Ðsecond„guess€a€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€a€parenting€plan,€òòseeóó€òòAdelsperger€v.€Adelspergeróó,Ð è° Ð970€S.W.2d€482,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1997),€we€will€not€hesitate€to€do€so€if€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ Ôœ Ðcourtððs€decision€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence,€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€rests€on€an€error€ofÐ À ˆ Ðlaw,€or€that€the€childððs€interests€will€be€best€served€by€another€parenting€arrangement.€€òòEldridge€v.Ð ¬ t ÐEldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001);€òòSteen€v.€Steenóó,€61€S.W.3d€at€328;€òòPlacencia€v.€Placenciaóó,Ð ˜ ` Ð3€S.W.3d€497,€499€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ð „ L  ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ \$  ÐÌà  àDr.€Kalisz€first€asserts€that€she€is€comparatively€more€fit€than€Dr.€Shofner€to€be€the€primaryÐ 4ü  Ðresidential€parent€for€all€three€children.€€She€compares€her€self„described€accomplishments€as€aÐ  è  Ðparent€€with€Dr.€Ô_ÔShofnerÔ_Ôððs€inappropriate€conduct€during€the€marriage.€€Dr.€Shofner€reciprocates€byÐ  Ô  Ðemphasizing€the€efforts€he€has€made€to€be€a€better€parent€along€with€Dr.€Kaliszððs€own€inappropriateÐ øÀ Ðbehavior€and€resistence€to€change.Ð ä¬ ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case,€we€have€kept€in€mind€that€these€parents,€likeÐ ¼„ Ðall€parents,€have€their€own€strengths€and€weaknesses.€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€630.€€ItÐ ¨p Ðwould€be€unrealistic€to€measure€them€against€the€standard€of€perfection€because,€in€reality,€thisÐ ”\ Ðstandard€is€unattainable.€€òòEarls€v.€Earlsóó,€42€S.W.3d€at€885;€òòRice€v.€Riceóó,€983€S.W.2d€680,€682„83Ð €H Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1998).€€The€evidence€in€this€case€underscores€the€shortcomings€of€both€parents.€Ð l4 ÐThey€have€not€always€used€proper€judgment,€and€they€have€frequently€failed€to€act€in€the€bestÐ X  Ðinterests€of€their€children.€€In€fact,€no€conclusion€can€be€drawn€from€the€evidence€other€than€that€Dr.Ð D  ÐShofnerððs€and€Dr.€Kalitzððs€inabilities€to€maintain€a€civil€relationship€with€each€other€has€severelyÐ 0ø Ðdisrupted€their€childrenððs€lives€and€has€affected€their€children€in€ways€that€may€not€be€fully€realizedÐ ä Ðfor€many€years.Ð Ð ÐÌà  àThe€record€clearly€shows€that€the€children€are€Dr.€Kaliszððs€first€priority.€€She€is€motivatedРਠÐby€a€commendable€desire€to€nurture€and€protect€her€children€from€the€vagaries€of€the€world.€€Yet,Ð Ì ” Ðparadoxically,€Dr.€Kalisz€has€been€unwilling€or€unable€to€realize€that€many€of€her€parentingÐ ¸!€  Ðstrategies€have€proved€to€be€ineffective€and€actually€detrimental€to€her€children.€€She€has€reactedÐ ¤"l! Ðdefensively€and€hostilely€to€the€advice€and€suggestions€of€persons€who€are€concerned€about€theÐ #X" Ðchildrenððs€welfare,€including€their€teachers,€physicians,€and€family€members.€€Her€inability€toÐ |$D # Ðappreciate€how€her€conduct€has€affected€the€partiesðð€children€is€troubling.€Ð h%0!$ ÐÌà  àDr.€Shofner€also€has€many€shortcomings.€€Some€of€his€conduct€during€the€marriage€isÐ @'#& Ðinexcusable,€and€his€parenting€strategies,€especially€his€early€penchant€for€physical€discipline,€haveÐ ,(ô#' Ðproved€to€be€ineffective€and€counterproductive.€€However,€unlike€Dr.€Kalisz,€Dr.€Shofner€hasÐ )à$( Ðadmitted€his€shortcomings€and€has€been€actively€seeking€outside€assistance€to€improve€his€parentingÐ *Ì%) Ðskills€and€to€assist€him€with€his€parenting€responsibilities.€€He€has€hired€a€nanny;€he€has€receivedÐ ð*¸&* Ðparenting€skill€training;€and€he€has€elicited€and€followed€the€advice€from€the€childrenððs€teachers€andÐ Ü+¤'+ Ðphysicians.€Ð È,(, Їà  àWe€have€compared€the€fitness€of€both€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€Shofner€to€parent€their€childrenÐ 8 Ðbased€on€the€evidence€in€the€record.€€While€we€find€troubling€drawbacks€with€both€parents,€we€haveÐ $ì Ðnot€found€evidence€indicating€that€either€parent€is€unfit€to€be€a€primarily€residential€parent€or€thatÐ Ø ÐDr.€Kalisz€is€comparatively€more€fit€than€Dr.€Shofner€to€be€Alyssaððs€and€Andrewððs€primaryÐ üÄ Ðresidential€parent.€€In€fact,€the€record€shows€that€Dr.€Shofner€has€demonstrated€a€genuine€desire€toÐ è° Ðbe€a€better€parent;€while€Dr.€Kalisz€has€refused€to€recognize€her€own€shortcomings€or€the€effects€thatÐ Ôœ Ðthese€shortcomings€have€had€on€all€her€children.€€Accordingly,€we€have€concluded€that€the€evidenceÐ À ˆ Ðdoes€not€support€Dr.€Kaliszððs€claim€that€she€is€comparatively€more€fit€than€Dr.€Shofner€to€beÐ ¬ t ÐAlyssaððs€and€Andrewððs€primary€residential€parent.€€Ð ˜ ` ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òC.ó óˆÐ p 8  ÐÌà  àDr.€Kalisz€also€insists€that€the€September€19,€2002€order€must€be€set€aside€because€it€requiresÐ H  Ðthat€Robert€be€separated€from€Alyssa€and€Andrew.€€She€asserts€that€separating€siblings€is€inherentlyÐ 4ü  Ðharmful€and€that€the€childrenððs€interests€would€be€best€served€by€allowing€them€to€live€together€withÐ  è  Ðher.€€While€we€agree€that€siblings€should€ordinarily€not€be€separated,€this€case€is€one€of€the€relativelyÐ  Ô  Ðrare€exceptions€to€that€rule.Ð øÀ ÐÌà  àSeparating€siblings€is€a€drastic€remedy.€€While€there€is€a€presumption€against€separatingРИ Ðsiblings,€òòRay€v.€Rayóó,€83€S.W.3d€726,€738€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòBaggett€v.€Baggettóó,€512€S.W.2dÐ ¼„ Ð292,€293„94€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973),€this€presumption€is€rebuttable€and€must€give€way€to€otherÐ ¨p Ðconsiderations€in€appropriate€circumstances.€€òòRice€v.€Riceóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€684.€€The€facts€in€aÐ ”\ Ðparticular€case€may€require€that€siblings€be€separated.€€òòRay€v.€Rayóó,€83€S.W.3d€at€726;€òòIn€re€S.B.óó,€No.Ð €H ÐM1999„00140„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€575934,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€12,€2000)€(No€Tenn.€R.Ð l4 ÐApp.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòMills€v.€Millsóó,€No.€02A01„9711„CV„00295,€1998€WL€802011,€at€*4Ð X  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€18,€1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð D  ÐÌà  àThe€record€contains€troubling€information€regarding€Robertððs€aggressive€conduct€and€Dr.Ð ä ÐKaliszððs€inability€or€disinclination€to€control€it.€€Robert€has€committed€a€series€of€violent€acts€onÐ Ð ÐAlyssa.€€He€has€struck€her€on€many€Ô_Ôoccasions;Ô_Ô€he€has€pushed€her€down€two€separate€staircases€atÐ ô¼ Ðtheir€grandmotherððs€house;€and€he€caused€her€to€break€her€arm.€€No€court€in€good€conscience€couldРਠÐpermit€Robert€and€Alyssa€to€live€together€under€these€facts€in€the€absence€of€a€cohesive€plan€toÐ Ì ” Ðaddress€Robertððs€aggressiveness€and€to€prevent€future€abuse€of€his€sister.€€No€such€plan€is€evidentÐ ¸!€  Ðin€this€record.€€Dr.€Kalisz€prefers€to€allow€the€children€to€work€out€their€problems,€while€Dr.€ShofnerÐ ¤"l! Ðadvocates€punishing€Robert€for€his€behavior.€€Until€Dr.€Shofner€and€Dr.€Kalisz€can€agree€toÐ #X" Ðparticipate€in€a€plan€that€protects€Alyssa€and€assures€that€Robert€can€control€his€aggressive€conduct,Ð |$D # Ðit€is€in€both€Robertððs€and€Alyssaððs€best€interests€that€they€live€in€separate€households.€€Ð h%0!$ ÐÌà  àRobert€is€clearly€dependent€on€Dr.€Kalisz€and€has€expressed€his€preference€to€live€with€herÐ @'#& Ðrather€than€with€Dr.€Shofner.€€This€desire€is€understandable€in€light€of€the€manner€in€which€Dr.Ð ,(ô#' ÐShofner€has€physically€disciplined€Robert€in€the€past€and€the€resulting€deterioration€of€theirÐ )à$( Ðrelationship.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€supports€designating€Dr.€Kalisz€as€Robertððs€primaryÐ *Ì%) Ðresidential€parent€and€Dr.€Shofner€as€Alyssaððs€primary€residential€parent.Ð ð*¸&* Ðâ âÐ Ü+¤'+ Ðà  àAccording€to€Dr.€Potts,€Andrew,€the€partiesðð€youngest€child,€is€the€ð ðbest€survivor€of€thisÐ 8 Ðâ âdysfunctional€group.ðð€€Although€he€is€only€eight€years€old,€Andrew€has€expressed€a€preference€toÐ $ì Ðlive€with€Dr.€Shofner.€€It€was€appropriate€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€Andrewððs€preference€alongÐ Ø Ðwith€the€other€factors€relevant€to€devising€a€parenting€plan.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)(7)Ð üÄ Ð(2001);€òòHelson€v.€Cyrusóó,€989€S.W.2d€704,€707€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€The€record€contains€noÐ è° Ðevidence€that€Dr.€Shofner€has€abused€Andrew.€€At€the€same€time,€the€record€contains€evidence€thatÐ Ôœ ÐAndrew€has€a€close€relationship€with€Alyssa.€€In€light€of€these€facts,€we€decline€to€second„guess€theÐ À ˆ Ðdecision€to€permit€Andrew€to€live€with€Alyssa€and€to€designate€Dr.€Shofner€has€his€primaryÐ ¬ t Ðresidential€parent.Ð ˜ ` ÐÌà  àWhen€courts€are€required€to€separate€siblings,€they€should€minimize€the€potentially€harmfulÐ p 8  Ðeffects€of€this€separation€by€including€liberal€visitation€rights€and€other€provisions€enabling€andÐ \$  Ðencouraging€the€siblings€to€continue€their€relationship€with€each€other.€€òòRay€v.€Rayóó,€83€S.W.3d€atÐ H  Ð738;€òòRice€v.€Riceóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€685.€€The€parenting€plan€contained€in€the€September€19,€2002€orderÐ 4ü  Ðallows€for€the€children€to€spend€every€weekend€together€and€grants€both€Dr.€Kalisz€and€Dr.€ShofnerÐ  è  Ðliberal€visitation€rights.€€Taking€into€consideration€the€overriding€need€to€protect€Alyssa€from€RobertÐ  Ô  Ðuntil€he€demonstrates€that€he€is€better€able€to€control€his€aggression,€the€parenting€plan€accomplishesÐ øÀ Ðthe€goal€of€enabling€the€siblings€to€maintain€their€relationship€with€each€other€as€much€as€theÐ ä¬ Ðcircumstances€will€permit.РИ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òD.ó óˆÐ ¨p ÐÌà  àThe€fact€that€the€parenting€plan€at€issue€in€this€case€has€been€in€place€since€September€2002Ð €H Ðhas€influenced€our€analysis€of€the€issues€in€this€case.€€Children€have€the€best€opportunity€to€thriveÐ l4 Ðwhen€they€live€in€stable€environments.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„401(a)€(2001);€òòAaby€v.€Strangeóó,€924Ð X  ÐS.W.2d€at€627;€òòGorski€v.€Ragainsóó,€No.€01A01„9710„GS„00597,€1999€WL€511451,€at€*4„5€(Tenn.Ð D  ÐCt.€App.€July€21,€1999)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);€National€InterdisciplinaryÐ 0ø ÐColloquium€on€Child€Custody,€òòLegal€and€Mental€Health€Perspectives€on€Child€Custody€Law:€AÐ ä ÐDeskbook€for€Judges€óóðð€5:1,€at€51€(1998).€€As€a€result€of€the€current€parenting€plan,€the€childrenÐ Ð Ðcaught€up€in€the€dispute€between€Drs.€Shofner€and€Kalisz€have€at€least€had€some€measure€ofÐ ô¼ Ðstability.РਠÐÌà  àOur€decision€in€this€case€is€a€narrow€one.€€We€have€not€decided€that€some€other€parentingÐ ¸!€  Ðplan€would€not€have€been€more€appropriate€in€2003€had€the€trial€court€considered€additionalÐ ¤"l! Ðevidence€regarding€the€childrenððs€circumstances€at€that€time.€€Nor€have€we€foreclosed€the€possibilityÐ #X" Ðof€altering€the€current€parenting€plan€should€either€party€present€evidence€of€a€material€change€inÐ |$D # Ðcircumstance€warranting€an€alteration.€€We€have€determined€only€that€the€present€record€does€notÐ h%0!$ Ðsupport€Dr.€Kaliszððs€assertion€that€the€2002€parenting€plan€is€not€in€the€best€interests€of€the€partiesððÐ T&"% Ðchildren.€€Ð @'#& ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ó óˆÐ )à$( Ðà@W W ìàòòò òDr.€Shofnerððs€Claim€for€Attorneyððs€Feesó óóóˆÐ *Ì%) ÐÌà  àDr.€Shofner€has€requested€that€this€court€award€him€a€judgment€against€Dr.€Kalisz€for€theÐ Ü+¤'+ Ðlegal€fees€and€costs€he€has€incurred€on€this€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(Supp.€2004)Ð È,(, Ðvests€in€this€court€the€discretionary€authority€to€award€these€fees€and€costs€in€proper€cases.€€òòSee€HoltÐ 8 Ðv.€Holtóó,€995€S.W.2d€68,€78€(Tenn.€1999);€òòArcher€v.€Archeróó,€907€S.W.2d€412,€419€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $ì Ð1995).€€In€determining€whether€an€award€for€attorneyððs€fees€is€warranted,€we€should€consider,€amongÐ Ø Ðother€factors,€the€ability€of€the€requesting€party€to€pay€his€or€her€own€attorneyððs€fees,€the€requestingÐ üÄ Ðpartyððs€success€on€appeal,€and€whether€the€requesting€party€has€been€acting€in€good€faith.€€òòParchmanÐ è° Ðv.€Parchmanóó,€No.€W2003„01204„COA„R3„CV,€2004€WL€2609198,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€17,Ð Ôœ Ð2004).Ð À ˆ ÐÌà  àWhile€Dr.€Kaliszððs€decision€to€seek€relief€in€many€different€courts€simultaneously€gives€usÐ ˜ ` Ðsome€pause,€we€decline€to€find€on€the€facts€before€us€that€she€has€been€pursuing€this€appeal€in€badÐ „ L  Ðfaith.€€We€have€agreed€with€her€contentions€that€the€trial€court€committed€several€serious€proceduralÐ p 8  Ðerrors,€and€while€we€have€determined€that€her€efforts€to€set€aside€the€parenting€plan€in€the€SeptemberÐ \$  Ð19,€2002€order€fall€short€of€the€mark,€we€cannot€conclude€that€her€arguments€lack€no€factual€or€legalÐ H  Ðsupport.€€Accordingly,€we€deny€Dr.€Shofnerððs€request€that€Dr.€Kalisz€be€ordered€to€pay€his€appellateÐ 4ü  Ðlegal€expenses.Ð  è  ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òVI.ó óˆÐ øÀ ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€portion€of€the€June€10,€2003€order€making€the€parenting€plan€in€the€SeptemberРИ Ð19,€2002€order€permanent€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistentÐ ¼„ Ðwith€this€opinion.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€in€equal€proportions€to€the€parties€and€theirÐ ¨p Ðsureties€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.Ð ”\ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________€Ð D  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€P.J.,€M.S.