ÿWPCB …ˆð~_.ôøP¤M#ˆ§æÐrden\4¼§Fá‚èâ$ö¹e Še¶Ãû¬Ô[µ Ù廫OÇfŠ¢+~°ú‘}cô“f'꤇Q‚Ô¢w󌔀` š$-%^$£ mF¤'·ˆ‰µ• ÿü(ìvp^NÁ@ ¼'¨µ‚riŸ‚´69îÝ]ë¬4 zõmœêLÃÇ n`7J(±Ó¶óYœKíóÏšròî¤;PWcRÔdÉ8–ÍÒäm– ËË•ÒYCWÉUCò6¦É7šè‡íS¥ZدüôïKr/уt¹à¬L2¹Ú2w<92¥úŽñ+¼Þœ³¥ nþ˹›W*Â'Õ ãàiÿªÐßL,èfÙ—#ôô"«¥¤îØÅdgâ¯üÙÄV¤Hþ ‰æ$óRá²ãpscÂÙE’É/PÌÚP6^ô©}­é?ÁZvŽŽ³–̼ÀŽ À¨Ÿ0£ÃKÌä‹Ö&ÙÁ%1½O³|ø6=F¤h†Ö=>Ú[ðÊ’’ÕrV¼ívë븒I¿\ÀnÛ=©¬Häk¹2Üñ5‹cRÙ”hTÑŒ– ÛkCÊzªýÞÿ‰E œV^sñ(ëq°ŠÌz '%‹ªBæ-úÚÌ\L<=¦Ç¹gos,Rvâªab#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U:N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ U>™ Æ× Æ ÆcÆ)UNïN=¼??Eûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûbýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý 0: 0ë???? B** 0¤G D3ë D- 0KKK AS–Æé 0¤¯ 0DS A«—˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»dlT1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularéJE1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `‹&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular BOWDOINGRAYSONMARENCHIN C.K. COASwiney P.J.WeatherlyLoudonVaughnKaatrudeBerryhillobligorcaregiver t]o Regs renobligeeKendrickShoemakeBadenhope$non-perpetrating- ù-4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó(|G2|Q$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôúuò»»Ô d(|3‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÑ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼CÑ»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îA„CÑÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼CÑ»îîA„ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€8,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼CÑ»XXñ#ÔBOWDOIN€GRAYSON€SMITHòòóó€v.€GINGER€LEE€MARENCHIN€SMITHòòóóÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Smith€CountyÐ Ò " Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5800€€€€€€C.K.€Smith,€ChancellorÐ ¾   ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01218„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€20,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥ Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓBowdoin€Grayson€Smith€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Ginger€Lee€Marenchin€Smith€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€divorced€inÐ <Œ Ð1996.€€Mother€was€granted€sole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€four€minor€children,€and€Father€was€grantedÐ (x Ðvisitation€and€ordered€to€pay€child€support.€€Two€years€later,€Father€filed€a€petition€for€joint€custodyÐ d Ðand€later€a€petition€to€modify€child€support.€€After€a€hearing,€the€Trial€Court€found€that€Father€hadÐ P Ðfailed€to€prove€a€material€change€in€circumstances€and€denied€the€petition€for€joint€custody;€modifiedÐ ì< Ðthe€visitation€schedule;€granted€Father€telephone€and€e„mail€contact€with€the€children€at€specifiedÐ Ø( Ðtimes;€found€that€Mother€had€proved€monthly€expenses€of€$7,500€wereÔ#†¼CÑ»XXw#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ€reasonably€necessary€toÐ Ä Ðprovide€for€the€support€and€needs€of€the€children,€but€that€Father€would€be€responsible€for€payingÐ ° Ðonly€$5,000€in€monthly€child€support€with€Mother€responsible€for€the€remainder;€and€granted€MotherÐ œì Ðattorneyððs€fees.€€Mother€appeals€claiming€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€only€$7,500€per€monthÐ ˆØ Ðwas€reasonably€necessary€for€the€support€of€the€children€and€in€holding€that€Father€would€beÐ tÄ Ðresponsible€for€only€$5,000€of€these€expenses.€€Father€raises€additional€issues€claiming€the€TrialÐ `° ÐCourt€erred€in€dismissing€the€petition€for€joint€custody€and€in€awarding€Mother€attorneyððs€fees.€€WeÐ L œ Ðaffirm,€in€part;€modify,€in€part;€vacate,€in€part;€and€remand€solely€for€the€collection€of€the€costsÐ 8!ˆ  Ðbelow.€€€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÐ $"t! ÐÓ´ÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð è$8 $ ÐAffirmed,€in€part,€Modified,€in€part,€and€Vacated,€in€part;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼CÑ»àXÇ #ÔÔ‡XX.¼CÑÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.óó€andÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌJames€L.€Weatherly,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Ginger€Lee€Marenchin€Smith.Ð \+¬&+ ÐÌClark€Lee€Shaw,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Bowdoin€Grayson€Smith.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÓÑ Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼CÑ»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼CÑ»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÓÓò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÌà  àà ` àMother€and€Father€were€divorced€in€1996.€€They€have€four€minor€children.€€MotherÐ L œ Ðwas€granted€sole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children€and€Father€was€granted€visitation€and€ordered€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðpay€child€support.€€In€1998,€Father€filed€a€petition€for€joint€custody.€€In€2001,€Father€filed€a€petitionÐ $ t Ðfor€a€reduction€in€child€support.€€Prior€to€filing€his€petition€for€reduction€in€child€support,€Father€hadÐ  ` Ðbeen€ordered€by€the€Trial€Court€to€pay€$10,769.50€per€month€in€child€support.€€In€August€of€2002,Ð ü L  Ðthe€Trial€Court€dismissed€the€petition€for€a€reduction€in€child€support€and€granted€Father€leave€to€fileÐ è 8  Ðan€interlocutory€appeal.€€Fatherððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€was€denied€by€this€Court.€Ð Ô$  ÐFather€then€filed€a€motion€asking€the€Trial€Court€to€reconsider€its€dismissal€of€the€petition€forÐ À  Ðreduction€in€child€support.€€Subsequently,€the€Trial€Court€heard€both€the€petition€for€joint€custody,Ð ¬ü  Ðwhich€had€been€pending€since€1998,€and€the€petition€for€a€reduction€in€child€support€in€February€ofÐ ˜è  Ð2003.€Ô#†¼CÑ»XXd#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€hearing,€Father€testified€there€have€been€numerous€times€when€he€has€askedÐ \¬ Ðto€exchange€visitation€weekends€with€Mother€and€has€been€denied.€€He€also€testified€he€has€askedÐ H˜ Ðto€pick€the€children€up€thirty€minutes€early€to€take€them€to€the€circus€and€Mother€has€refused.€Ð 4„ ÐFurther,€Father€testified€that€when€his€father€died,€he€asked€Mother€if€he€could€keep€the€childrenÐ  p Ðovernight€to€take€them€to€their€grandfatherððs€funeral,€but€Mother€refused.€€However,€Mother€did€takeÐ  \ Ðthe€children€to€the€funeral€home€on€the€day€of€the€funeral€to€attend€the€services.€€Father€also€testifiedÐ øH Ðthat€on€many€occasions,€he€has€not€been€allowed€to€talk€to€the€children€on€the€phone.€€In€the€initialÐ ä4 Ðdecree,€Father€was€granted€visitation€with€the€children€on€alternating€birthdays,€in€addition€to€hisÐ Ð  Ðother€visitation,€but€has€exercised€none€of€these€birthday€visits.€Ð ¼  ÐÔ#†¼CÑ»XXÑ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àWhen€Father€filed€the€petition€for€joint€custody€in€1998,€he€was€married€to€RobinÐ ”ä ÐNixon.€€This€was€his€second€marriage€after€Father€and€Mother€divorced€in€1996.€€Prior€to€marryingÐ €Ð ÐMs.€Nixon,€Father€was€married€to,€and€divorced€from,€Beth€Boatman.€€Father€admitted€Ms.€NixonÐ l¼ Ðwas€addicted€to€crack€cocaine€and€he€later€divorced€her€sometime€after€filing€the€petition€for€jointÐ X ¨ Ðcustody.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€Father€had€been€married€to€Melissa€Smith€for€approximatelyÐ D!” Ðfourteen€months.€€Father€has€adopted€his€current€wifeððs€two€children,€who€are€in€the€same€age€rangeÐ 0"€  Ðas€the€minor€children€at€issue€in€this€case.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àEvidence€was€presented€that€the€private€school€the€children€attend€is€changing€itsÐ ô$D # Ðschedule€to€a€modified€block€schedule€with€nine€weeks€on€and€two€weeks€off,€and€a€summerÐ à%0!$ Ðvacation.€€This€change€makes€the€summer€break€a€little€shorter€and€gives€the€children€a€two„weekÐ Ì&"% Ðfall€break,€a€two„week€spring€break,€and€a€Christmas€break.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àBoth€Father€and€Mother€are€physicians.€€Exhibits€in€the€record€on€appeal€show€thatÐ )à$( ÐFatherððs€income€exceeds€$600,000€annually,€or€over€$50,000€monthly.€€Mother,€who€significantlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðcut€back€her€work€schedule€when€the€children€were€born,€now€practices€medicine€approximately€onlyÐ h+¸&* Ðone„half€a€day,€or€three€hours,€a€week.€€The€evidence€shows€that€all€four€children€are€in€schoolÐ ° ÐMonday€through€Friday€from€around€6:30€in€the€morning€until€4:00€in€the€afternoon.€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XXM#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÐ œì ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€testified€to€monthly€expenses€for€the€children€of€approximately€$12,500.€Ð tÄ ÐThese€expenses€included,€among€other€things,€the€mortgage€payment,€utility€payments,€schoolÐ `° Ðtuition,€car€expenses,€and€charges€for€band,€dance€lessons,€camp,€and€horseback€riding€lessons.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€its€order€entered€May€5,€2003,€the€Trial€Court€foundòòóó€that€Father€had€failed€to€proveÐ $ t Ða€material€change€in€circumstances€and€denied€the€petition€for€joint€custody;€modified€the€visitationÐ  ` Ðschedule€taking€into€account€the€schoolððs€new€modified€block€schedule;€granted€Father€telephoneÐ ü L  Ðand€e„mail€contact€with€the€children€at€specified€times;€found€that€Mother€had€proved€monthlyÐ è 8  Ðexpenses€of€$7,500€wereÔ#†¼CÑ»XXž #ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€support€and€needs€of€the€children,Ð Ô$  Ðbut€that€Father€would€be€responsible€only€for€$5,000€in€monthly€child€support€with€MotherÐ À  Ðresponsible€for€the€remaining€expenses;€and€granted€Mother€attorneyððs€fees.€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XX^$#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔFurther,€the€Trial€CourtÐ ¬ü  Ðfound€that€Mother€is€ð ðwillfully€underemployed€or€unemployedðð€and€is€ð ðqualified,€educated,€andÐ ˜è  Ðcapable€of€working,€but€she€chooses€to€stay€home.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€disallowed€several€expensesÐ „Ô  ÐMother€testified€to€including,€among€other€things,€a€mortgage€payment,€furniture€purchases,€painting,Ð pÀ Ðand€driveway€maintenance,€and€stated€it€was€taking€into€account€the€standard€of€living€of€theÐ \¬ Ðchildren,€Fatherððs€standard€of€living,€and€the€standard€of€living€of€Fatherððs€two€adopted€childrenÐ H˜ Ðð ðsince€theyððre€all€his€children€now,€they€should€all€ride€in€the€same€boat.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€made€theÐ 4„ Ðorder€for€child€support€effective€from€the€date€the€petition€was€filed,€in€August€of€2001.€€MotherÐ  p Ðappeals€to€this€Court.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòÌDiscussionóóó óÐ Ð  ÐÓ  ÓÌÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Mother€raises€three€issues€on€appeal:€1)€whetherÐ ”ä Ðthe€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€the€expenses€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€four€minor€children€were€limited€to€$7,500€per€month;€2)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÐ l¼ Ðreducing€Fatherððs€child€support€obligation€to€$5,000€per€month€given€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€thatÐ X ¨ Ðexpenses€of€$7,500€per€month€were€reasonable€and€necessary;€and€3)€whether€Mother€is€entitled€toÐ D!” Ðan€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€Father€raises€three€additional€issues€which€we€restate€as:€1)Ð 0"€  Ðwhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€for€joint€custody;€2)€whether€the€Trial€CourtÐ #l! Ðerred€in€awarding€Mother€attorneyððs€fees;€and€3)€whether€Father€is€entitled€to€an€award€of€attorneyððsÐ $X" Ðfees€on€appeal.€€We€will€consider€the€issues€in€turn€except€for€the€issues€regarding€an€award€ofÐ ô$D # Ðattorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€We€will€consider€the€issues€regarding€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€onÐ à%0!$ Ðappeal€after€we€discuss€all€the€other€issues.€€€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ‡ XXXXÔOur€review€is€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoóóÝ‚=ÿ%/ƒÝÝ  Ý€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐR.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€A€trial€court's€conclusions€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðlaw€are€subject€to€a€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoóóÝ‚=ÿß0ƒÝÝ  Ý€review€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝS.€Constructors,€Inc.€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐLoudon€County€Bd.€of€Educ.Ý‚=ÿÿÿd1ƒÝóóÝ  Ý,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€€We€review€child€support€decisionsÐ ° Ðfor€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòÔ#†XXX Xø.#ÔState€ex€rel.€Vaughn€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€244€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€Ð œì ÐHowever,€a€trial€courtððs€discretion€is€limited€because€such€ð ðdiscretion€must€be€exercised€within€theÐ ˆØ Ðstrictures€of€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.ðð€€òòBerryhill€v.€Rhodesóó,€21€S.W.3d€188,€193€(Tenn.€2000);Ð tÄ Ðòòsee€also€Jones€v.€Jonesóó,€930€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ô‡ XXXXÔÔ#† ¼CÑ»X X¾%#ÔÔ‡ XX» ¼CÑԀР`° ÐÔ#†XXX X*4#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÌà  àà ` àWe€first€will€consider€Ô#†XXXXÄ4#Ôwhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€the€expensesÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€four€minor€children€were€limited€to€$7,500€perÐ $ t ÐmonthÔ‡XXXXÔÔ#†¼CÑ»XXl4#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ.€€Ð  ` ÐÔ#†XXXX6#ÔÔ#†¼CÑ»XXD6#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€provides,€in€pertinent€part:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  à(B)€Notwithstanding€any€provision€of€this€section€or€any€other€law€or€rule€to€theÐ À  Ðcontrary,€if€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€perÐ ¬ü  Ðmonth,€then€the€custodial€parent€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÐ ˜è  Ðchild€support€in€excess€of€the€amount,€[calculated€by€multiplying€the€appropriateÐ „Ô  Ðpercentage€set€forth€in€the€child€support€guidelines€by€a€net€income€of€ten€thousandÐ pÀ Ðdollars€($10,000)€per€month],€is€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€theÐ \¬ Ðminor€child€or€children€of€the€parties.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€court€shallÐ H˜ Ðconsider€all€available€income€of€the€obligor,€as€required€by€this€chapter,€and€shallÐ 4„ Ðmake€a€written€finding€that€child€support€in€excess€of€the€amount€so€calculated€is€orÐ  p Ðis€not€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€minor€child€or€children€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€parties.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€(2001).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€child€support€guidelines€provide€that€an€obligor€with€four€children,€as€is€theÐ ¨ø Ðsituation€in€this€case,€pay€46%€of€his€or€her€net€income€in€child€support.€€Father€is€a€high€incomeÐ ”ä Ðobligor€whose€income€exceeds€$10,000€per€month.€€Calculated€on€a€monthly€net€income€of€$10,000,Ð €Ð ÐFather€would,€thus,€have€to€pay€$4,600€per€month€unless€Mother€proved€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ l¼ Ðevidence€that€child€support€in€excess€of€$4,600€was€reasonably€necessary€for€the€support€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðchildren.€€For€many€years,€one€of€the€stated€purposes€of€child€support€has€been€ð ð[t]o€ensure€that€whenÐ D!” Ðparents€live€separately,€the€economic€impact€on€the€child(ren)€is€minimized€and€to€the€extent€thatÐ 0"€  Ðeither€parent€enjoys€a€higher€standard€of€living,€the€child(ren)€share(s)€in€that€higher€standard.ðð€Ð #l! ÐTenn.€Comp.€Rules€&€Regs.€Ch.€1240„2„4„.02(2)(e)€(2003).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€Mother€testified€to€expenses€for€the€children€totaling€approximatelyÐ à%0!$ Ð$12,500€per€month.€€The€Trial€Court€disallowed€several€of€the€expenses€Mother€testified€about€andÐ Ì&"% Ðfound€that€only€$7,500€of€the€claimed€expenses€were€reasonably€necessary€for€the€support€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðchildren.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€reducing€the€Husbandððs€childÐ |*Ì%) Ðsupport€obligation€to€$5,000€per€month€given€the€finding€that€expenses€of€$7,500€per€month€wereÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonably€necessary€for€the€support€of€the€childrenÔ#†¼CÑ»XXÁ6#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ.€€The€Trial€Court€stated€it€ð ðbelieves€that€it€isÐ ° Ðproper€to€look€to€the€earning€capacity€of€the€Mother€in€determining€what€support€over€the€$4,600€perÐ œì Ðmonth€should€be€paid€by€the€Father.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€then€found€Mother€was€ð ðwillfullyÐ ˆØ Ðunderemployed€or€unemployedðð€and€used€this€finding€as€a€basis€for€reducing€Fatherððs€obligationÐ tÄ Ðfrom€$7,500€to€$5,000.€€€€€€€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€case€of€òòGray€v.€Grayóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àthat€the€use€of€a€comparative€analysis€of€the€partiesðð€earnings€is€improper€under€theÐ  ` ÐChild€Support€Guidelines.€€Rule€1240„2„4„.03(2)€specifically€states€that€ð ðthe€incomeÐ ü L  Ðof€the€obligee€should€not€be€considered€in€the€calculation€of€or€as€a€reason€forÐ è 8  Ðdeviation€from€the€guidelines€in€determining€the€support€award€amount.ðð€Ð Ô$  ÐConsideration€of€the€partiesðð€relative€incomes,€therefore,€is€precluded€by€TennesseeððsÐ À  ÐChild€Support€Guidelines.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòGray€v.€Grayóó,€78€S.W.3d€881,€884„85€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€hold€it€was€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€consider€Motherððs€income,€or€lack€thereof,Ð \¬ Ðand€to€use€this€as€a€basis€for€deviating€in€the€amount€of€child€support.€€Mother€proved€that€$7,500Ð H˜ Ðper€month€was€reasonably€necessary€for€the€support€of€the€children.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð 4„ Ð101(e)(1)(B)€does€not€purport€to€address€the€child€support€obligation€of€Mother€as€the€obligee.€Ð  p ÐRather,€the€statute€simply€assigns€Mother€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€expenses€are€reasonablyÐ  \ Ðnecessary€for€the€support€of€the€children,€which€she€did.€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XX4C#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔWe€also€note€that€this€statute€specificallyÐ øH Ðprovides€that€ð ð[i]n€making€its€determination,€the€court€shall€consider€all€available€income€of€theÐ ä4 Ðòòobligoróó,€as€required€by€this€chapter€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€(2001)€(emphasisÐ Ð  Ðadded).€€The€Legislature€in€enacting€this€statute€made€no€mention€of€considering€all€available€incomeÐ ¼  Ðof€the€obligee.€€Therefore,€we€modify€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding€to€direct€that€Father€shall€pay€$7,500Ð ¨ø Ðper€month€in€child€support.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€dismissing€the€petition€for€jointÐ l¼ Ðcustody.€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XXûJ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔIn€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ða€trial€court€may€modify€an€awardÐ X ¨ Ðof€child€custody€when€both€a€material€change€of€circumstances€has€occurred€and€a€change€of€custodyÐ D!” Ðis€in€the€childððs€best€interests.ðð€€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€90€S.W.3d€566,€568€(Tenn.€2002).€€TheÐ 0"€  ÐòòKendrickóó€Court€stated:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àAs€explained€in€òòBlairóó,òòóó€the€ð ðthreshold€issueðð€is€whether€a€material€change€inÐ ô$D # Ðcircumstances€has€occurred€after€the€initial€custody€determination.€€òòIdóó.€at€150.€€WhileÐ à%0!$ Ðð ð[t]here€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€when€a€childððs€circumstances€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðchanged€sufficiently€to€warrant€a€change€of€his€or€her€custody,ðð€the€following€factorsÐ ¸'#& Ðhave€formed€a€sound€basis€for€determining€whether€a€material€change€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcircumstances€has€occurred:€the€change€ð ðhas€occurred€after€the€entry€of€the€orderÐ )à$( Ðâ âsought€to€be€modified,ðð€the€change€ð ðis€not€one€that€was€known€or€reasonablyÐ |*Ì%) Ðanticipated€when€the€order€was€entered,ðð€and€the€change€ð ðis€one€that€affects€theÐ ° Ðchildððs€well„being€in€a€meaningful€way.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòIdóó.€at€570€(quoting€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€77€S.W.3d€137€(Tenn.€2002)).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€making€a€determination€regarding€the€best€interest€of€the€child€for€purposes€ofÐ L œ Ðmodifying€custody:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€including€the€following€where€applicable:Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€andÐ è 8  Ðchild;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,Ð ¬ü  Ðmedical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€hasÐ ˜è  Ðbeen€the€primary€caregiver;Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€life€and€the€length€of€time€theÐ \¬ Ðchild€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environment;€provided,€that€where€there€is€aÐ H˜ Ðfinding,€under€ðð€36„6„106(8),€of€child€abuse,€as€defined€in€ðð€39„15„401€or€ðð€39„15„Ð 4„ Ð402,€or€child€sexual€abuse,€as€defined€in€ðð€37„1„602,€by€one€(1)€parent,€and€that€aÐ  p Ðnon„perpetrating€parent€has€relocated€in€order€to€flee€the€perpetrating€parent,€thatÐ  \ Ðsuch€relocation€shall€not€weigh€against€an€award€of€custody;ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferencesÐ D!” Ðof€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weight€than€those€of€youngerÐ 0"€  Ðchildren;Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parentÐ ô$D # Ðor€to€any€other€person;€provided,€that€where€there€are€allegations€that€one€(1)€parentÐ à%0!$ Ðhas€committed€child€abuse,€[as€defined€in€ðð39„15„401€or€ðð€39„15„402],€or€childÐ Ì&"% Ðsexual€abuse,€[as€defined€in€ðð€37„1„602],€against€a€family€member,€the€court€shallÐ ¸'#& Ðconsider€all€evidence€relevant€to€the€physical€and€emotional€safety€of€the€child,€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdetermine,€by€a€clear€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€whether€such€abuse€hasÐ )à$( Ðâ âoccurred.€€The€court€shall€include€in€its€decision€a€written€finding€of€all€evidence,€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðall€findings€of€fact€connected€thereto.€€In€addition,€the€court€shall,€where€appropriate,Ð ° Ðrefer€any€issues€of€abuse€to€the€juvenile€court€for€further€proceedings;МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€orÐ tÄ Ðfrequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€personððs€interactions€with€the€child;€andÐ`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(10)€Each€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parentingÐ 8 ˆ Ðresponsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€toÐ $ t Ðfacilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuing€parent„child€relationship€between€theÐ  ` Ðchild€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)€(2001).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àFatherððs€appellate€brief€argues,€that€Mother€ð ðwill€never€ðð€.€.€.€€encourage€a€close€andÐ ¬ü  Ðcontinuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€children€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðbest€interest€of€the€child.ðððð€Fatherððs€brief€also€argues€that€ð ðTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(8)€regardingÐ „Ô  Ðemotional€abuse€applies€in€this€caseðð€because€ð ðthe€motherððs€use€of€these€children€to€punish€theirÐ pÀ Ðfather€is€tantamount€to€emotional€abuse.ðð€€However,€Fatherððs€argument€deals€with€whether€a€changeÐ \¬ Ðof€custody€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€Father€failed€toÐ H˜ Ðprove€a€material€change€in€circumstances.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€Ð 4„ ÐÔ#†¼CÑ»XX1N#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔAs€Father€did€not€make€this€threshold€showing,€we€need€not€reach€the€best€interest€analysis.€Ð  p ÐTherefore,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€joint€custody.€€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€awarding€Mother€attorneyððs€fees.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€Trial€Court€specifically€found€that€Mother€ð ðhas€substantial€earning€ability€and€is€willfullyÐ Ð  Ðunderemployed€or€unemployed.ðð€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€GivenÐ ¼  Ðthis€finding,€along€with€the€fact€that€Father€was€successful€in€having€his€child€support€reduced€fromÐ ¨ø Ðthe€$10,769.50€per€month€now€to€$7,500,€we€hold€that€it€was€error€to€award€Mother€attorneyððs€fees.€Ð ”ä ÐWe,€therefore,€vacate€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Mother.€€Ô#†¼CÑ»XXÛf#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€consider€whether€either€Mother€or€Father€is€entitled€to€an€award€ofÐ X ¨ Ðattorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€In€the€exercise€of€our€discretion,€we€decline€to€award€either€partyÐ D!” Ðattorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÔ#†¼CÑ»XX¦j#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÓ  Óò òòòÌÌConclusionóóó óÐ ô$D # ÐÓ  ÓÌÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€as€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexpenses€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€four€minor€children€were€limited€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ð$7,500€per€month,€and€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€joint€custodyÔ#†¼CÑ»XX%l#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔ;€modified€as€toÐ )à$( Ðthe€amount€of€monthly€child€support€Father€is€ordered€to€pay€by€setting€Fatherððs€child€support€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð$7,500;€vacated€as€to€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€Mother;€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ h+¸&* ÐCourt€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellee,Ð ° ÐBowdoin€Grayson€Smith.€€Ð œì ÐÔ#†¼CÑ»XXþm#ÔÔ‡XX»¼CÑÔÌÌÌÔ#†¼CÑ»XXýo#ÔÔ€XX»¼CÑÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE