WPCZh D6!\zZh]=oz5,1]$. ~i8BdEN$' ^a>>$~pJlc-a"ן4? 4b"؜3<|$udҩx<,ܕz⻏H8qn*7AXSخߪ[{Ro[H7t#VۖI)8G\>?"ʣOu AM])yv>*=pS-RW4FCÂIBt Wv4X}C‘&@^Dk:~6Q<i*J:"WOOfOovfp$2+K"fpV'[I!m,7fD1?_fU)7-cdN敟Zw_vpT#3ly³;n7kY/H7x[7D|;$űp % ^ & 02U'Nw 4  z/  { m} # ] j0 0DN:<$ E' 0U'0W' 0' 0j( 0/) 0) 0* 0Z+ 0, 0, 0O- 0. 0. 0/ 0E0 00 01 0(2 02 0J3 0 4 04 05b46 0<6 06 0~7 08 08 029 09 0: 0>`; 0; 0< 0x= 0Z> 0I D/hI 0I D/K 0K 06L 0L 0:M 0^N 0<pN 0N 1eOU6OU >2P BpPU*P 0P D5[Q D-Q 0KQ 0NR ASVRR 0oS 0DT AWT 1uU 72wUU@UUWY\kJ^ 0c_`Dbcd:etfJ}1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 w R$      5    _Throughoutthependencyoftheseproceedings,Motherfiledseveraladditionalmotionsseekingtocompel  FathertotakevariousactionspertainingtoCarolinesmedicalandpsychiatriccare.OnFebruary18,2002,Motherfiled t amotiontorequirepsychologicalcounselingforCarolineduetoheranxiety.FatherrespondedonMarch1,2002, 8 indicatingthatCarolinealreadyhadanappointmentscheduledwithBrendaNiel,oneofthetherapiststowhomCaroline L hadbeenreferred.Consequently,thecourtorderedthatFatherensurethatCarolineseethetherapistatthescheduled  timesforaslongaswassuggestedbyMs.Niel.OnAugust29,2002,Motherfiledamotionseekingauthorizationto  takeCarolinetoseeDr.MarkJennings,apsychiatristrecommendedbyMs._Niel_,andaskingforpermissiontoadminister H  anymedicationhemightprescribe.Byorderofthecourt,enteredSeptember9,2002,itappearsthatthepartiesagreed  \ thatMotherwouldtakeCarolinetoDr.Jenningsfortreatmentandwouldadministermedicationsasdeemednecessary.   MothersoughtauthorizationfromthecourtagainonFebruary6,2003,forCarolinetobetreatedby_gastroenterologist_    Dr.David_DeVoid_,towhomCarolinehadbeenreferredforherstomachproblems.Fatherrespondedbyseeking X   injunctiverelief,arguingthatMotherhad  l    8 ` usurpedthemedicaldecisionmaking[ofFather]oralternatively,hasundermined   themedicaldecisionsmadeby[Father].Asaconsequence,thehealthofthe h  childrenisbeingcompromisedby[Mother]sinappropriateandunwarrantedinter ,|  meddlinginthemedicaldecisionsmadeby[Father].Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      6    _Fatheralsofiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,contendingthatbyvirtueofMothersagreementto notfile  ...andbeenjoinedfromfilinganycollateralordirectaction,including...anyotheractionchallengingthevalidityor t correctnessoftheFinalJudgmentofDivorceandtheincorporatedPermanentParentingPlan,sherelinquishedherright 8 tochallengetheresidentialschedule.Thecourtdeniedthesummaryjudgmentmotion,findingthatthelanguage L containedintheDecember6,2001,orderdidnotprecludeapetitionformodificationoftheparentingplanandthatto  preventsuchamotionwhentherehadbeenachangeincircumstanceswouldbecontrarytolaw.  R$      9    _ThecurrentversionofTenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2)(C)providesasfollows:    8 ` d= Iftheissuebeforethecourtisamodificationofthecourt'spriordecreepertaining 8 toaresidentialparentingschedule,thenthepetitionermustprovebya L preponderanceoftheevidenceamaterialchangeofcircumstanceaffectingthe  child'sbestinterest.Amaterialchangeofcircumstancedoesnotrequireashowing  ofasubstantialriskofharmtothechild.Amaterialchangeofcircumstancefor H  purposesofmodificationofaresidentialparentingschedulemayinclude,butisnot  \ limitedto,significantchangesintheneedsofthechildovertime,whichmay   includechangesrelatingtoage;significantchangesintheparent'slivingorworking    conditionwhichsignificantlyaffectparenting;failuretoadheretotheparenting X   plan;orothercircumstancesmakingachangeintheresidentialparentingtimeinthe  l  bestinterestofthechild. 0 ` x` x Whileadifferentverisonofthisstatutewasineffectatthetimeofthehearing,thedifferencesinthetwoversionsare h  notmaterialgiventhefactsofthiscase.Theearlierversionofthestatuteprovidedasfollows: ,|    8 ` Iftheissuebeforethecourtisamodificationofthecourtspriordecreepertaining   tocustodyoraresidentialparentingarrangement,thepetitionermustprovebya x  preponderanceoftheevidenceamaterialchangeincircumstance.Amaterial < changeofcircumstancedoesnotrequireashowingofasubstantialriskofharmto P thechild.Amaterialchangeofcircumstancemayinclude,butisnotlimitedto,  failurestoadheretotheparentingplanoranorderofcustodyandvisitationor  circumstanceswhichmaketheparentingplannolongerinthebestinterestofthe L child.# d=#`` x` x U= Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2)(B)(Supp.2003).  # U= #*+ (_2623  .. &gastreoentologist*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` - -(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2$ !.8@dd8         0  !"#$%&'( 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman d%2A`Arial(|3z$ !.8@dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (O$^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3z$ !.8@dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi)(9 Z(Times New Roman   R$      10    _Inhisbrief,FatheralsoarguesthatMothershouldnotberewardedforperpetuatingthislitigation,asthe  conflictwasadverselyaffectingthechildren.However,thisargumentisnotpertinenttoourdeterminationofwhether t ornotthetrialcourtappliedtheappropriatelegalanalysis.  R$      4    _OnMarch4,2002,_Hulett_ԀB._Siniard_ԀandJoyceH._Siniard_,thepaternalgrandparentsofthechildren,filedas  _intervenors_ԀamotiontosetasidetheorderofDecember6,2001,onthegroundsoffraudandmisrepresentationby t Mother.Inparticular,thesenior_Siniards_Ԁcontendedthatitwasactuallytheywhoforgave$40,000inmortgagesinorder 8 toavoidalengthyappealandenableMothertofinishcollege.However,accordingtothesenior_Siniards_,Motherhad L appliedhersavedfundstowardthepursuitofthislitigation.Mothersoughttodismisstheirmotionallegingthatthey  didnothavestandingandthatthemotionfailedtosatisfythecriteriaforaRule60motion.Thetrialcourtdeniedthe  grandparentsmotion.  R$      11    _Ms.NieltestifiedthatCarolinehadaskedhertoconveytothetrialcourtCarolinespreferencethatshespend  moretimewithMother.Ms.NielexplainedthatCarolinewasconcernedaboutmakingherFatherangrybyexpressing t suchadesire,and,consequently,shewantedMs.Nieltoconveythisinformationforher. a R$      13    _OnJune4,2004,Fatherfiledamotiontostayorenjoinfurthertrialcourtproceedingsthatwerefiledinthe  trialcourtpendingthiscourtsdecisiononthematterbeforeus.Thisissueisnowmoot.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      3    _Theamendedprovisionprovidesasfollows:    8 ` [Mother]willnotfileandagreestobeenjoinedfromfilinganycollateralordirect 8 action,includingbutnotlimitedto,anyRule60motions,anyseparateaction L allegingfraudinthepresentationof[Father]sfacts,oranyotheractionchallenging  thevalidityorcorrectnessoftheFinalJudgmentofDivorceandtheincorporated  PermanentParentingPlan. : R$      7    _Thetrialjudgewhopresidedoverthedivorcehearingandthesubsequentmotiontoalteroramend_recused_  herselfonNovember5,2002. R$      1    _Foreaseofreference,wewillrefertothechildrenbytheirfirstnames.Nodisrespectisintended. R$      8    _Thetermsofthisagreementarenotchallengedonthisappeal. 0 R$      12    _Therecordreflectsthatcounselforthepartieswerepresentforatleastoneofthemediationsessionsandthat  othersessionsconcernedfinancialissues. j R$      2    _Initsorder,thetrialcourtfirstindicatedthatMothersmotiontoalteroramendshouldbedenied.However,  itwasupontheagreementofthepartiesthatthecourtproceededtomodifythejudgmentofdivorce. !.8@dd8     _  @8XXdd8  @ K@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#@K #Ԉ &   June8,2004Session L XX@ #@XX#JEANNETTE_CUTRER_ԀDAY_SINIARD_v.MARKALAN_SINIARD_XX@  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.99D2440L.MarieWilliams,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200301960_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDNOVEMBER29,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Inthispostdivorcecase,Jeannette_Cutrer_ԀDay_Siniard_Ԁ( Mother)soughttomodifytheparties x  residentialschedulepertainingtotheirchildren.ThatscheduleprovidedthatCaroline_Siniard_Ԁand d Wesley_Siniard_Ԁ(collectively thechildren)wouldalternateweeksbetweenMothershomeandthe P homeoftheirfather,MarkAlan_Siniard_Ԁ( Father).ThetrialcourtgrantedMothersrequestinpart < bydesignatingherastheprimaryresidentialparentofCaroline.l #  1      ׀Inasubsequentordergranting (x Motherchildsupport,thetrialcourtwentfurtheranddesignatedMotherastheprimaryresidential d parentofbothchildren.Fatherappeals,contending,amongotherthings,thatMotherfailedtoshow P amaterialchangeincircumstanceswarrantingamodificationoftheresidentialschedule.Weaffirm. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded.   #@XX#XX@  #@X͸ #XX.@CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._,  andWilliamH._Inman_,_Sr.J._,joined. t _Glenna_ԀM._Ramer_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MarkAlan_Siniard_. L  PhillipC.Lawrence,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Jeannette_Cutrer_ԀDay_Siniard_. $"t!   OPINION #@XX #XX@ #L# #@XX#  XX@@)I. %$!%   InthejudgmentofdivorceenteredonFebruary7,2001,Fatherwasgrantedadivorcefrom '"' Motheronthegroundofinappropriatemaritalconduct.Thecourtsmemorandumopinionindicates (#( thatduringtheperiodofthepartiesseparationprecedingtheirdivorce,thepartiesagreedthatthe )$) childrenwouldalternateweeksbetweenthem.However,atthetimeofthedivorcehearing,Mother p*%* complainedthatthisarrangementwasnotworking.Sheclaimedthereweretimeswhenthechildren \+&+ _appearedunkemptwhileinFatherscare;thatthepartieshaddifficultyindiscussingeducationaland  medicaldecisionsregardingthechildren;andthatFatherhadfailedattimestofurnishthechildren  theirmedications.Thetrialcourtreceivedthetestimonyofthepartiesandotherwitnesses,including  thechildrenstherapist.ThelatterwitnesstestifiedthatMotherhadpreventedthesharedparenting t planfromworking. `   Thetrialcourtorderedthat theparamountbestinterest[]ofthe[c]hildren[][is]servedby 8  designating[Father]astheprimaryresidentialparent.Fatherwasalsoauthorizedtomakemajor $ t decisionsregardingthechildren.Thetrialcourtdeterminedthattheevidenceamplydemonstrated  ` thatFatherwas comparativelymorefittocareforthe[c]hildrenthan[Mother],asMothers  L  maturitylevelwas suspectgivenherchoicetopursuea freerlifestyleinwhichherchildren,  8  accordingtothetrialcourt,werenotherfirstpriority.ThetrialcourtdiddecreethatMotherwasto $  havethechildrenwhentheywereoutofschoolandFatherwasnotavailabletocareforthemfrom   theendoftheschooldayuntil6:00p.m.Inaddition,Motherwasgrantedtheoptionofcaringfor   thechildrenwhenFatherwasotherwiseunavailable.Allofthiswassetforthinthejudgmentof   divorceandtheincorporatedparentingplan.     Aftersecuringanewattorney,Motherfileda MotiontoAlterorAmendJudgmentorinthe \ AlternativeforaNewTrialandtoReopenEvidenceonMarch19,2001,inwhichsheallegedthe H following:thatthetrialcourtsjudgmentwascontrarytotheweightoftheevidence;thatMothers 4 casewaspresentedinawaythatfailedtosafeguardthebestinterestofthechildren;andthata  p guardianorattorneyadlitemshouldhavebeenappointedtocounteracttheinequitiesinthequality  \ ofthepartiesrespectivelegalrepresentation.FatherrespondedbydenyingMothersallegationsand H filinghisownmotiontoalteroramendinwhichherequestedthatthecourteliminatetheprovision 4 oftheparentingplanthatenabledMothertohavetheoptionofcaringforthechildrenduringdaytime   hourswhenFatherwasnotavailable.FathercontendedthatMotherusedhertimewiththechildren   to indoctrinatethechildrenagainst[Father]andtheCourtsdecision.Hesoughttorestrict  Motherstimewiththechildrentoeveryotherweekendandoneeveningduringtheweek.Thetrial  courtenteredanordero #  2      ׀onDecember6,2001,modifyingthejudgmentofdivorcebyagreementof  theparties,sinceatthatpointMotherandFatherhadstartedtocooperatewithoneanother.The l amendedplanprovidedthat,inconsiderationofMotherrelinquishingherfirstoptiontocareforthe X   childrenandheragreementnottofile anycollateralordirectaction,j #  3      ׀FatherreleasedMotherfrom D! certainmortgagestotalingnearly$40,000.f #  4      ׀Atthattime,thepartiesagreedthatfurtherlitigation   couldharmthechildren.    OnFebruary4,2002,Motherfiledacomplainttomodify  #  5      ,whichpleadingformsthebasis t ofthemattersnowbeforeus.Thecomplaintwasbaseduponallegationsthattherehadbeena `  substantialandmaterialchangeinthecircumstancesofthepartiesrequiringthatthejudgmentof L  divorcebemodified.Inparticular,Motherallegedthefollowingchangedcircumstances:thatthe 8  childrenwereexhibitingsymptomsofillnessthatMotherbelievedtobeassociatedwith(1)their $ t separationfromher,and(2)Fatherslackofparentingskills;thatwhenthechildrenspediatrician  ` suggestedacounselorforCaroline,FatherrefusedtoallowCarolinetokeeptheappointmentand,  L  consequently,hehad donenothingtoseetothechildrensmentalhealthneeds;thatWesley,who  8  turned12inMay,2001,shouldbepermittedtoexpressherpreferenceastotheparentwithwhom $  shewishedtolive;thatWesleywantedtoattendGirlsPreparatorySchool( GPS),butthatFather   wouldnotgivehispermission;thatFather demonstratedaninabilitytocareforthechildren   properly,andthat theyarebeingharmedbytheirpresentresidentialarrangement;andthatMother   isthemoreinvolvedparent,yetherinvolvementisallegedlycurtailedbyherlimitedtimewiththe   children.Motherprofferedanamendedparentingplanthatprovided,amongotherthings,that p Motherbedesignatedastheprimaryresidentialcustodianofbothchildren;thatFatherpayMother \ childsupportpursuanttotheChildSupportGuidelines;thatthechildrenhaveresidentialtimewith H Fatheronalternateweekends;andthatWesleybepermittedtoattendGPSandthatFatherbe 4 requiredtopayforhertuition.Fatherdeniedtheallegationscontainedinthecomplainttomodify,  p andraisedasanaffirmativedefensethatinthelastorderenteredbythecourt,Motherhadagreednot  tochallengethecurrentresidentialschedule,andthatbyreceivingmoneyinexchangeforherright  tofurthercontestthecourtscustodialdecision,Motherwaivedherrighttochallengethecourts  judgment. #  6       t   Bythetimeofthehearing,k( #  7      ׀thepartieshadagreedtofollowtherecommendationof L  Carolinestherapist,BrendaNiel,i.e.,thatthechildrenwouldalternateresidencesonaweeklybasis. 8  FollowingthehearingonMothersmodificationcomplaint,thetrialcourtmemorializeditsjudgment $ t inanorderenteredMay22,2003.Initswrittenfindings,thetrialcourtordered,baseduponthe  ` evidencepresented,thatFatherwouldremaintheprimaryresidentialparentofWesley,andthat  L  Wesleywouldcontinuetoalternateresidencesonaweeklybasis.However,thetrialcourt  8  designatedMotherastheprimaryresidentialparentofCaroline.Consequently,Carolinewould $  adheretothesamealternatingscheduleasWesleyexceptthatfollowingMothersweek,Caroline   wouldremainwithMotherfromSundaynightthroughWednesdayafterschool.Theonlyother   modificationmadeastotheparentingplanwasthathealthcaredecisionsrelativetoCarolinenot   coveredbytheprovisionsintheparentingplanwouldbemadebyMother.     FollowingthetrialcourtsMay22,2003,order,whichamendedtheresidentialscheduleas \ toCaroline,MothersoughtchildsupportforCarolinebywayofamotiontoalteroramendthe H judgment.OnJuly3,2003,thetrialcourtgrantedMothersmotion.Itorderedthatchildsupport 4 becalculatedforbothchildren,anddesignatedMotherastheprimaryresidentialparentofboth  p WesleyandCaroline,althoughFatherwouldretainprimarydecisionmakingauthorityforWesley.  \ Followingasubsequentunderstandingoftheparties,thetrialcourtenteredanorderapprovingthe H partiesagreementmx #  8      ,bythetermsofwhichFatherwouldpaychildsupporttoMotherretroactiveto 4 May22,2003,thedateofthecourtsordermodifyingtheresidentialplan,anddecreeingthatthe   costsofthecase,notpreviouslytaxedbyotherordersofthecourt,aretaxedtoFather.     Onappeal,Fatherchallengesthetrialcourtsmodificationoftheresidentialscheduleand  designationofMotherastheprimaryresidentialparentofbothchildren.Motherseeksherattorneys  fees. l  0"  Ї@)II.    Courtsgenerallyfavorexistingcustodyarrangements. Taylorv.Taylor ,849S.W.2d319,  328(Tenn.1993).Generallyspeaking,oncecustodyisestablishedandimplemented,itisres t judicatauponthefactsexistingatthetimeofthehearing. Steenv.Steen ,61S.W.3d324,327 ` (Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(citing Hicksv.Hicks ,176S.W.2d371(Tenn.Ct.App.1943)).However, L  despitethispreferenceforcontinuingcustodyarrangements,courtshaverecognizedthat 8  circumstancesmaychangesuchthatamodificationoftheexistingcustodyarrangementmaybe $ t warranted. Davisv.Davis ,No.M200302312COAR3CV,2004WL2296507,at*2(Tenn.Ct.  ` App.M.S.,filedOctober12,2004).Aparentseekingtomodifyaresidentialschedulemust  L  demonstrate,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thattherehasbeena materialchangeof  8  circumstanceaffectingthechildsbestinterest.Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2)(C)(2004). #  9      ׀ $  Thereareno brightlinerulesfordeterminingiftheallegedchangeincircumstancesismaterial.    Davis ,2004WL2296507,at*3(citationsomitted).However,asguidanceinmakingthese   decisions,theSupremeCourthasestablishedatwoparttestfordeterminingwhetherornotthe   allegedchanges,infact,sufficetomeritachangeintheresidentialschedule.See Kendrickv.   Shoemake ,90S.W.3d566,570(Tenn.2002).First,thecourtmustdetermineifamaterialchange p incircumstanceshasoccurredbyconsideringthefollowingfactors:(1)whetherthechangearose \ aftertheentryoftheinitialcustodydetermination;(2)whetherthechangewasunknownornot  reasonablyanticipatedwhentheorderwasentered;and(3)whetherthechange affectsthechilds  wellbeinginameaningfulway. Id. (citing Blairv.Badenhope ,77S.W.3d137,150(Tenn.  2002)).Ifthecourtdecidesthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred,itmustthen t determinewhetherthemodificationisinthechildsbestinterest.Inconductingthisinquiry,thetrial ` courtshouldrelyuponthefactorsenumeratedinTenn.Code.Ann.366106(a)(2001). Id. Those L  factorsincludethefollowing: 8    8 ` (1)Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweenthe  ` parentsandchild; L ` x` x   8 ` (2)Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood, $  clothing,medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthe   degreetowhichaparenthasbeentheprimarycaregiver; ` x` x   8 ` (3)Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslifeandthelengthof   timeUXXXXԀthechildhaslivedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment;...#XXXUXD#UXXXXp` x` x   8 ` (4)Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;H` x` x   8 ` (5)Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents; p` x` x   8 ` (6)Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;H` x` x   8 ` (7)Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofage   orolder.Thecourtmayhearthepreferenceofayoungerchildupon   request.Thepreferencesofolderchildrenshouldnormallybegiven  greaterweightthanthoseofyoungerchildren;` x` x   8 ` (8)Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheother l parentortoanyotherperson;...X ` x` x   8 ` (9)Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinor 0"  frequentsthehomeofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththe #l! child;and$X"` x` x   8 ` (10)Eachparentspastandpotentialforfutureperformanceof %0!$ parentingresponsibilities,includingthewillingnessandabilityof &"% eachoftheparentstofacilitateandencourageacloseandcontinuing '#& parentchildrelationshipbetweenthechildandtheotherparent, (#' consistentwiththebestinterestofthechild.#XXXUXD#C  C  C  C  C  )$(` x` x   |*%) Tenn.CodeAnn.366106(a).Itisincumbentupontheparentseekingamodificationto   demonstrate boththatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedmateriallyandthatthebestinterests  ofthechildrequireachangeintheexistingcustodyarrangement. Davis ,2004WL2296507,at*  3(citationsomitted). t   Ourreviewofthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactisdenovoupontherecord,accompaniedby L  apresumptionofcorrectness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceistothecontrary.Tenn.R. 8  App.P.13(d); Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Wherethe $ t trialcourtmakesnospecificfindingsoffact,wemustreviewtheevidenceanddeterminewherethe  ` preponderanceoftheevidencelies. Ganzevoortv.Russell ,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997).  L  Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretionindevelopingandimplementingcustodyandvisitation  8  arrangementsthataresuitedtothespecificfactsofeachcase,asthetrialcourthasthebenefitof $  observingthepartiesdemeanorandassessingcredibilityintheproceedingsbelow. Davis ,2004WL   2296507,at*3(citationsomitted).Therefore,itisnottheroleofanappellatecourtto tweak[these   decisions]...inthehopesofachievingamorereasonableresultthanthetrialcourt,butrather,   suchcourtsshouldonlysetasidethetrialcourtsjudgmentwhenit fallsoutsidethespectrumof   rulingsthatmightreasonablyresultfromanapplicationofthecorrectlegalstandardstotheevidence p foundintherecord. Eldridgev.Eldridge ,42S.W.3d82,88(Tenn.2001). \ @vv(III. 4 @)A.  \   Fatherraisesseveralissuesonappealrelativetowhythetrialcourtsjudgmentdesignating 4 Motherastheprimaryresidentialparentofthechildrenwasinerror:(1)that,withrespectto   designatingMotherastheprimaryresidentialparentofCaroline,therewasno substantialand   materialchangeofcircumstancewarrantingthecourtsinitialmodificationoftheresidential  schedulesince,accordingtoFather,thechangesrelieduponbyMotherhadpreviouslybeenraised  attrial;(2)thatBrendaNiel,Carolinestherapist,shouldnothavebeenpermittedtotestify,since  shehadservedasamediatorinthiscase;(3)thatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveinterviewed l Caroline,whowasnineatthetime,sinceMs.NielhadalreadyindicatedCarolinescustodial X  preference;and(4)thatitwaswrongtostripFatherofhisdesignationasprimaryresidentialparent D! ofWesleywithoutarticulatingthecourtsjustificationfordoingso.Weaddresseachcontentionin 0"  turn. #l!    $X" @)B. $D #   Inhercomplainttomodify,Motherprofferedthefollowingchangedcircumstances:thatthe &"% childrenwereexhibitingsymptomsofillnesswhichMotherbelievedtobeassociatedwiththeir '#& separationfromherandFatherslackofparentingskills;thatwhenthechildrenspediatrician (#' suggestedacounselorforCaroline,Fatherrefusedtoallowthechildtokeeptheappointmentand )$( hehasotherwise donenothingtoseetothechildrensmentalhealthneeds;thatWesley,who |*%) turned12inMay,2001,shouldbepermittedtoexpresshercustodialpreference;thatWesleywanted h+&* toattendGPS,butFatherwouldnotallowherto;thatFather demonstratedaninabilitytocarefor  thechildrenproperly,andthat theyarebeingharmedbytheirpresentresidentialarrangement;  andthatMotheristhemoreinvolvedparent,yettheefficacyofherinvolvementisadversely  affectedbyherlimitedtimewiththechildren.FathercontendedRLԀthatsince,accordingtohim,allof t theseallegedchangeshadbeenraisedandlitigatedatthetimeofthedivorce,theywerenotan ` appropriatebasisformodifyingthejudgmentofdivorce.e #  10      ׀Insupportofhisargument,Fatherargues L  thatthetrialcourtsfindingofamaterialchangeincircumstancesisinconsistentwiththeTennessee 8  SupremeCourtsdecisionin Kendrick ,whichheldthattheallegedchangemusthaveoccurredafter $ t theordersoughttobemodifiedandmustnothavebeenknownorreasonablyanticipatedatthetime  ` thecontestedorderwasentered. Kendrick ,90S.W.3dat570.Intheinstantcase,Fatherargues  L  therearenopostorderfactsthathavebeenalleged.Certainly,Fathersargumenthassomemerit  8  asevidencedbythetrialcourtsstatementthat [t]heprimaryissuesrelieduponby[Mother]asa $  basisformodificationofthecomplaintwereraisedinthedivorcecase.However,t^hetrialcourt   foundthatachangeincircumstanceshadoccurredpostdivorcejudgmentasevidencedbythe   followingfindingsofthatcourt:     8 ` TheCourtfindsthatthemodificationofthescheduleisinthebest p interest[]ofCarolineandthatthepresentPermanentParentingPlan \ isnolongerinthebestinterest[]ofCaroline.Whereas,Wesleyis H dealingadequatelywithmorefrequentchangesinherprimary 4 residence,Carolineissufferingilleffects.BrendaNeal[sic]has  p testifiedCarolinehasexpressedanddisplayedneeds[sic]tospend  \ moretimewithherMother.TheevidencehasshownCarolinehasa H strongbeliefthatherFatherwillnotbeflexibleintheamountoftime 4 shemayspendwithherMother;whereas,herMotherwillbeflexible   intheamountoftimeCarolinemayspendwithherFather.The   CourtsfindingtheMotherisamenabletoflexibilityintheschedule  toexpandCarolinestimewithherFatherisasignificantfactorinthe  Courtsdecisiontochangetheresidentialarrangementasitdisplays  theMothersinterestinmaintainingastrongrelationshipbetween l CarolineandherFatherandfosteringthatrelationship.TheCourt X  alsofindstheconflictbetweentheparentscontinuestobea D! significantfactordetrimentaltobothchildrenandfeelsthe 0"  modificationofthescheduleinthisregardwillpermittheparentsto #l! moreadequatelymeettheneedsofthechildren.$X"` x` x Fatherarguesthatthisreasoningwasnotappropriatesinceitreliesuponfactsnotallegedwith %0!$ specificityinMotherscomplainttomodify.WecannotagreewithFathersargument.Evidence &"% thatanexistingresidentialscheduleisnotworkingcanconstituteamaterialchangeincircumstances, '#&   asdoesevidencethatthenoncustodialparentscircumstanceshaveimprovedsincetheoriginal  residentialschedulewasestablished  . Rushingv.Rushing ,No.W200301413COAR3CV,2004  WL2439309,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filedOctober27,2004)(citationsomitted).Intheinstant  case,itappearsthatthetrialcourtbelievedthattheresidentialschedulewasnolongerworkingfor t Carolineforthereasonsstatedbythetrialcourt.cThelowercourtalsonotedinitsopinionthat ` nMothersadulterousrelationship,whichwascitedbythetrialcourtfollowingthedivorce L  proceedingsinsupportofitsdecisiontodesignateFatherastheprimaryresidentialparent,wasno 8  longeranexistingfactandhencenolongerafactoradverselyimpactingMothersabilitytoserve $ t asacustodian.Under Kendrick anditsprogeny,thereissufficientevidenceofamaterialchange  ` incircumstances.Accordingly,wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrial  L  courtsorderchallengedonthisappeal.  8    Wemustdefertothetrialcourtsassessmentofthepartiescredibility. SeeAdelspergerv.   Adelsperger ,970S.W.2d482,485(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thetrialcourtnotedthattherewere   severalconflictsinthetestimonypresentedbytheparties.Thecourtobservedthattheseconflicts   appearedtobe aresultmoreofdifferentperceptionsthandifferentrealities,citing,forexample,   thefactthatwhereMotherismorereceptivetoemotionalcommunicationfromthechildren,Father p  perceivesherresponsetothechildrenasoveremotionalandhysterical.Thetrialcourtdetermined \ thatFathersreactiontoMotherwas interferingwithhisabilitytoaccuratelyinterpret H communicationsofemotionalneedfromthechildren.ThecourtexpresslyfoundMothers 4 credibilitytobegreaterthanthatofFathers.Thetrialcourtsassessmentofthewitnesses,coupled  p withevidencepresentedthroughtestimonyrelatingtothepartiesinteractionsandCarolines  \ physicalailments,demonstratethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourts H judgmentthatMothershouldbedesignatedastheprimaryresidentialparentofCaroline. 4   Fathercontendsthattheonlynewevidencefromwhichthetrialcourtfoundachangein   circumstancesstemsfromCarolinestestimony.AsFatherargues, [i]nlightoftheimpression  abilityofanineyearold,thisconsiderationshouldnothavebeensufficienttotrumptheneedtoend  theyearsoflitigationbetweentheparties.    Theexpressedpreferenceofachild,standingalone,isinsufficienttoestablishachangein X  circumstances,sinceitisonlyafterthecourthasdeterminedthattherehasbeenamaterialchange D! incircumstancesthatthecourtisauthorizedtoconsiderthepreferenceofachildasapartofthebest 0"  interestanalysis. SeeMulkeyv.Mulkey ,No.E200400590COAR3CV,2004WL2412610,at #l! *5(Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedOctober28,2004).However,thereasonsunderlyingthechilds $X" preferencemayconstituteachangeincircumstances.See id. Acourtmaylistentothepreference $D # ofachildunder12,althoughthestatuteinstructsthatgreaterweightbegiventothetestimonyofa %0!$ childwhois12orolderoveronewhoisyounger.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.366106(a)(7).)oInthe &"% instantcase,thetestimonyshowed,andthetrialcourtfound,thatCarolinewantedtolivewith '#& MotherbecauseofFathersinflexibilityinpermittinghertoseeMotherduringFathersdesignated (#' residentialtime.AsthecourtappearstohavelinkedCarolinesanxietytothisissue,itisrelevant )$( tothechangeincircumstancesanalysis. |*%)  h+&*   Thecourtdidnotstatewithspecificityitsfindingsrelativetothebestinterestofthechild  analysis,butitisclearthatitcontemplatedthestatutoryfactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.366  106(a).The willingnessandabilityofeachoftheparentstofacilitateandencourageacloseand  continuingparentchildrelationshipbetweenthechildandtheotherparent,Tenn.CodeAnn.36 t 6106(a)(10),isobviouslyrelevantinthiscase.Thisfactorwassignificanttothetrialcourts ` decisionasevidencedbyitsstatementthat [t]heCourtsfindingtheMotherisamenableto L  flexibilityinthescheduletoexpandCarolinestimewithherFatherisasignificantfactorinthe 8  CourtsdecisiontochangetheresidentialarrangementasitdisplaystheMothersinterestin $ t maintainingastrongrelationshipbetweenCarolineandherFatherandfosteringthatrelationship.  ` Although,generallyspeaking,itshouldnotbetheonlyfactorthatacourtemploysinitsanalysis,  see  L   Harrisv.Harris ,832S.W.2d352,354(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),achildsexpressedpreferenceasto  8  whichparentheorshepreferstolivewithiscertainlyrelevanttothecourtsdetermination.Tenn. $  Code.Ann366106(a)(7)./}   @)C.     FatherssecondissueonappealisthatthetrialcourterredinpermittingBrendaNieltotestify \ abouttheneedsofthechildren.Ms.Nielisthe playtherapistwhoCarolinesawonaweeklybasis. H Ms.NieltestifiedregardingCarolinesissuesandtheprogressshehadmade.Attherequestof 4 Caroline,thetherapisttestifiedastothechildscustodialpreference.g #  11      ׀>Fatherconcedesthat,  p generallyspeaking,itwouldhavebeenappropriateforMs.Nieltotestifyinhercapacityas  \ Carolinescounselor.However,FathercontendsthatsinceMs.Neilactedasanagreedupon H mediatorn #  12      ׀fortheparties,sheshouldnothavetestifiedinthiscase.ƇFatherconcludesfromallofthis 4 thatMs.Nielsroleasmediatordisqualifiedherfromtestifying.ThetrialcourtallowedMs.Niel   totestify,butprecludedherfromtestifyingaboutanythingthattranspiredinthemediationsessions.   Fathernowcontendsthatthiswaserrorbecause,althoughMs.NielisnotcertifiedasaRule31  mediator,thesameconfidentialityrestrictionsshouldapply.Hecontendsthatsheshouldnothave  beenpermittedtotestifyastoeventsthatoccurredafterthemediationsessions.    AlthoughMs.NielisnotcertifiedasaRule31mediatorandmediationwasnotcourt X  ordered,FatherseekstoinvoketheconfidentialityrestrictionsplaceduponmediatorsbySupreme D! CourtRule31.ThatruleprovidesthatRule31neutralsmust [p]reserveandmaintainthe 0"  confidentialityofallinformationobtainedduringRule31ADRProceedingsandshallnotdivulge #l! informationobtainedbythemduringthecourseofRule31ADRProceedingswithouttheconsent $X" oftheparties,exceptasotherwisemayberequiredbylaw.Tenn.Sup.Ct.R.31,10(d).Even $D # ifMs.NielhadbeenaRule31certifiedmediator,wedonotfindthatthetrialcourterredby %0!$ permittinghertotestify.Atthecommencementofhertestimony,Ms.Nielwasinstructedtoconfine  hertestimonytohercounselingsessionswithCaroline.Fatherdidnotraiseanobjectiontothese  instructions.Furthermore,hedidnotobjectduringhertestimonyorotherwiseindicatethather  testimonyimplicatedthesubjectmatterofthepartiesmediationsessions.Therefore,weholdthe t courtdidnoterrinallowingMs.Nieltotestify.AlthoughSupremeCourtRule31makesclearthat ` amediatormaynottestifyastoeventsthatoccurredduringthemediationsessions,thismandateis L  notimplicatedsinceMs.Nielsuccessfullylimitedhertestimonytohercounselingsessionswith 8  Caroline.ThisissueisfoundadversetoFather. $ t @)D.  L    FatheralsochallengesthetrialcourtsdecisiontointerviewCarolinewho,atthetime,was $  agenine.HecontendsthatthedecisiontointerviewherwasinerrorbecauseMs.Nielhadalready   conveyedCarolinespreferenceonthechildsbehalf.Hecomplainsthattheinterviewonlyprovided   thechildanopportunitytomakestatementstothecourtthatFathercharacterizesasbeingfavorable   toMotherandadversetohim.Insupportofhisargument,Fatherdirectsustothestandardofreview   articulatedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtin Eldridgev.Eldridge ,42S.W.3dat85.Althoughthe p courtin Eldridge bestowedbroaddiscretiononthetrialcourtinfashioningcustodyarrangements, \ Fathercontendsthatacourtisalsodirectedtoremedyanyinjustice. H   The Eldridge courtheldthatanappellatecourtisauthorizedtoreverseatrialcourtsdecision  p wherethecourt applie[s]anincorrectlegalstandard,orreache[s]adecisionwhichisagainstlogic  \ orreasoningthatcause[s]aninjusticetothepartycomplaining. Id. at85(quoting Statev.Shirley , H 6S.W.3d243,247(Tenn.1999))(emphasisadded).Wedonotfindthatthecircumstancesbefore 4 uspresentsuchaninjustice.DespiteFatherscontentionthat thetrialcourtsshouldbeloatheto   interviewchildrenunlessaninterviewiscriticaltotheoutcomeofthecase,wefindthatthetrial   courtactedwellwithinitsdiscretionwhenitinterviewedCaroline.Asdiscussedabove,Tenn.Code  Ann.366106(a)(7)providesthat,inmakingitsdeterminationastowhatisinthebestinterestof  thechild,atrialcourt mayhearthepreferenceofayoungerchilduponrequest.Tenn.CodeAnn.  366106(a)(7)(emphasisadded).Althoughitisnotproperforacourttorelysolelyuponthe l expressedpreferenceofachild,itiscertainlyonefactortoconsider.See Harris ,832S.W.2dat354. X  Aswehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtpredicateditsjudgmentprimarilyonitsfindingthat D! CarolinewastroubledbyherFathersinflexibilityinallowinghertoseeMother,andnotsimply 0"  CarolinesexpressionthatshewishedtospendmoretimewithMother,wecannotsaythatthetrial #l! courtabuseditsdiscretion. $X" @)E. %0!$   Lastly,FatherconteststhetrialcourtsJuly3,2003,orderinwhichitdesignatedMotheras '#& theprimaryresidentialparentofbothWesleyandCaroline,andawardedchildsupporttoMother. (#' TheorderenteredMay22,2003,whichaddressedthecomplainttomodify,orderedthatMotherbe )$(  designatedtheprimaryresidentialparentofCaroline,andthatFatherwouldremaintheprimary |*%) residentialparentofWesley.However,initsorderenteredonJuly3,2003,inresponsetoMothers  motionseekingchildsupport,thetrialcourtalteredthedesignationasfollows:     8 ` Thecalculationofsupportandtheappropriatedeviationsinthiscase t arecomplicatedbythefactthatonechildspendsequalamountsof ` timewitheachparent;whereas,theotherchildspendsinexcessof L  theChildSupportGuidelinesassumedaveragedays,butnotequal 8  timeswitheachparent.Themotiontoalteroramendissustainedin $ t that[Mother]isdesignatedtheprimaryresidentialparentforboth  ` children,but[Father]shallretainprimarydecisionmakingauthority  L  forWesley. 8 ` x` x Fatherarguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindecreeingassetforthabovewithout   articulatinganyfactstosupportsuchadecree.Fathercontendsthatifthefactswarrantedsucha   change,thesefactsshouldhavebeenincludedintheorder.Motherrespondsbyarguingthatin   makingthisdetermination,thetrialcourt obviouslyfeltthatthereneededtobeaconsistent   decisionmakertoaddresstheissuesthatmightariserelatingtoimportantdecisionsforthechildren. p Althoughwedonotfindthetrialcourtsdecisiontobeinerror,ourdecisionisnotbaseduponthe \ reasonsprofferedbyMother. H   Initsorder,thetrialcourtdescribedhowthechildsupportwouldbecalculatedsincethe  p parentshaveequalparentingtimewithWesley.Thetrialcourtcited Calhounv.Calhoun ,No.  \ E200101242COAR3CV,2002WL554471(Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedApril15,2002),insupport H ofitsorderthat [t]hedifferencebetweenthechildsupportobligationsforWesleyofeachparent 4 shallbecalculatedanddividedinhalftodeterminetheamountofchildsupportowedby[Father]   to[Mother]forWesley.In Calhoun ,thepartiessharedequalparentingtime,butthecourt   designatedthemotherastheprimaryresidentialparent. Id. ,at*1.Thecourtnotedthatalthough  a primaryresidentialparentisdefinedas theparentwithwhomthechildresidesmorethanfifty  percent[]ofthetime,Tenn.CodeAnn.366402(4)(2001),thetrialcourtmayonlyawardchild  supporttotheparentdesignatedastheprimaryresidentialparent.See Grayv.Gray ,78S.W.3d881, l 884(Tenn.2002).Similarly,tfhesituationcreatedbyWesleysresidentialarrangementdoesnotfit X  undertherubricofthestatutorydefinitionofaprimaryresidentialparentsinceshespendsfifty D! percentofhertimewitheachparent.Therefore,sinceaparentmustbedesignatedinordertoreceive 0"  childsupport,itappearstousthatthetrialcourtdesignatedMotherastheprimaryresidentialparent #l! ofWesleysothecourtcouldordersupportforWesleyaswellasCaroline.TheSupremeCourthas $X" recentlyaddressedananalogoussituationandremandedamatterwheresupporthadbeenawarded $D # inthecaseofanequalresidentialschedulebecausethetrialcourtneglectedtodesignateoneparent %0!$ asthe primaryresidentialparent.See Hopkinsv.Hopkins ,No.M200202233SCR11CV,2004 &"% WL2151200,at*3(Tenn.,filedSeptember27,2004).Whilethetrialcourtintheinstantcasedid '#& notstatewithspecificityitsreasonsfordesignatingMotherastheprimaryresidentialparentof (#' Wesley,wefindnoerrorinthisomission.Inanyevent,wecannotsaythattheevidence )$( preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdecisiontodesignateMotherastheprimaryresidentialparent |*%) ofbothchildren. h+&* Ї@ll)IV.    Motherasksustoremandthismattertothetrialcourtforadeterminationofwhetherornot  sheshouldrecovertheattorneysfeesincurredbyherrespondingtoFathersappeal.Exercisingour t discretion,wefindthatanawardofattorneysfeesinthiscaseisnotappropriate. ` @)V. 8    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.h #  13      ׀Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,Mark  ` AlanSiniard.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthatcourtsjudgmentand  L  forcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.  8  P   `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE