ÿWPCG 6# UN %] 0GcU:ªw@ä4$8LG 0‹“ 0DbjU:r 0J¬ 0Tö 0^J 0h¨ 0r 0|‚ 0†þ 0„ 1u 0d‰ 0@í D3- U>` Bž U*» AQå Æ6 0Dü 0D@ D/„ B³ B)Ð DCù AM<‰fv~övÓt˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular õ ö g÷ Uø Uù ú Eû ü Ó€  B\J#xddd3|x C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(;(3¬­$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X÷XXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó_"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd* 0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òNovember€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€LæXXdðXXdð7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌCINDY€L.€STUBBS,à àà àà à)€€ÌÙ€*ÙœßR€120A1-j|; ` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Obion€Chancery€No.€18„737Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9703„CH„00050Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWOODROW€W.€STUBBS,€III,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€OBION€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€UNION€CITY,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WILLIAM€MICHAEL€MALOAN,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òSTEPHEN€C.€CROFFORDó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌò òBRUCE€MOSSó óÌò òCONLEY€CAMPBELL€MOSS€SMITHÌó óUnion€City,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òœAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà àœÌÓÓà àPlaintiff,›€Woodrow€Wilson€Stubbs€III€(ð ðFatherðð),€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€inÏÑ7€ø½XXdðXXdð7Ñfavor€of€Cindy€Stubbs€(ð ðMotherðð)€dismissing€his€petition€to€change€custody.€€ForÏreasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€œjudgment€and€remand€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€a€determination€of€the€amount€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€award€Mother€asÏnecessitated€by€this€appeal.›ÌÌÓ  Óò òœFACTSó ó›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€September€3,€1996,€Father€filed€a€petition€to€change€custody€and€aÏtemporary€restraining€order.€€Thereafter,€on€September€17,€1996,€Mother€filed€aÏresponse€œto€the›€petition.€€œThis€cause€came€to€trial€on€September›€24,€1996,œ€in€which,Ïthe›€trial€court€rescinded€the€temporary€restraining€order€and€dismissed€FatherððsÏpetition€to€change€custody.ÌÌà àMother€and€Father€were€married€in€œJuly,›€1990€and€were€cohabitating€in€FloridaÍas€of€œFebruary›€1994.€€€€There€are€two€children€of€the€marriage„„Cody,€age€5,€andÏSavannah,€age€3.€€Mother€and€the€two€children€moved€to€Union€City,€Tennessee,€inÏœFebruary›€1994.€€œMother›€filed€for€divorce€in€œApril›€1995.€€œThe›€final€decree€of€divorce€wasÏgranted€December€21,€1995.€€œMother›€was€granted€custody€of€the€children€by€virtue€of€aÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement.€€œFather›€remained€in€Florida.€ÌÌà àOn€August€10,1996,€Mother€contacted€Father€by€placing€a€call€to€FatherððsÏfianc,€Robin€Beach€(€ð ðBeachðð)€€œMother›€asked€Beach€if€Father€would€come€get€theÏchildren€and€enroll€them€in€school.€€œThere›€is€some€dispute€as€to€when€and€if€theÏchildren€were€to€be€returned.€€Mother€contends€that€she€told€Father€and€Beach€that€theÏchildrenððs€stay€would€be€for€two€weeks€or€a€month€at€the€most.€€œBeach›€contends€thatÏMother€made€no€mention€of€the€length€of€the€stay.€€œBeach›€further€asserts€that€MotherÏstated€that€she€wanted€the€children€to€live€with€Father€for€a€while.€€œThereafter,›€FatherÏdrove€to€Tennessee€to€pick€up€œÌÌthe›€children.€€€Subsequently,€Father€sought€to€have€custody€of€the€children€changedÏfrom€Mother€to€himself.€€ÌÌà àDuring€this€time€frame,€Mother€was€seeing€a€psychiatrist€for€problems€withÏbulimia€and€depression.€€œMother›€was€taking€various€prescribed€medications€œfromÏvarious€doctors€such›€as€hydrocodone,€depakote,€prozac,€œdiazepam,›€andÏœbutalbital/APAP/Caffeine.€›€Father€contends€the€medication€has€affected€Motherððs€abilityÏto€take€care€of€the€children.€€Mother€admitted€that€a€certain€medication,€depakote,€wasÍmaking€her€sleep€but,€otherwise,€denies€that€her€medication€interferes€with€her€abilityÏto€care€for€the€children€in€any€way.€€œMother›€testified€that€she€discontinued€her€usage€ofÏdepakote.€ÌÌà àœFather€›€tendered€various€depositions€and€witnesses€to€establish€that€MotherÏwas€not€properly€taking€care€of€the€children.€€Fatherððs€sister€and€brother„in„lawÏtestified,€via€deposition,€that,€on€one€occasion€while€they€were€picking€up€the€childrenÏfor€a€visit,€Mother€was€ð ðhigh,ðð€ð ðgroggy,ðð€and€ð ðstumbling.ðð€€Fatherððs€sister€stated€that€theÏchildren€were€physically€dirty,€and€that€Cody€was€wearing€cowboy€boots€with€no€socksÏand€had€terrible€blisters€on€his€feet.€€€œMoreover,›€she€stated€that€there€were€no€shoes€inÏMotherððs€house€for€Savannah.€€œFatherððs›€mother€testified€that€she€had€visited€severalÏtimes€in€the€home€of€Mother€and€that€it€was€unkept€and€in€want€of€food.€€œFatherððs›€fatherÏtestified€that€sometimes€Motherððs€house€was€clean€and€other€times€it€was€not.€ÌÌà àSeveral€witnesses€testified€on€Motherððs€behalf.€€The€Central€Elementary€SchoolÏPrincipal,€Joyce€Stephens,€testified€through€stipulated€trial€œexhibit›€that€Mother€enrolledÏCody€in€kindergarten€on€March€5,€1996,€attended€registration€night€on€August€19,Ï1996,€and€attended€parent€night€on€August€29,€1996.€€œFurthermore,›€Ms.€Stephens€wasÏtold€by€Mother€that€Cody€would€return€to€Tennessee€and€be€in€school€on€SeptemberÏ16,€1996.€€ÌÌà àNadine€Lyons,€Motherððs€mother,€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€children€three€toÏfour€times€per€week€and€witnessed€no€deficiencies€in€the€care€that€Mother€was€givingÍto€theÑ€3ÑÇchildren.€€œMs.›€Lyons€stated€that€the€children€had€ample€food€and€clothing€and€thatÏMother€was€able€to€take€care€of€them.€ÌÌà àVicky€Delassus,€a€friend€of€Motherððs€for€eighteen€years€who€recently€movedÏback€€to€Union€City,€testified€that€she€had€been€around€Mother€several€times€over€theÏlast€few€months€preceding€this€cause€and€that€the€children€were€well„behaved,€well„nourished,€and€clean.€€œMs.›€Delassus€stated€that€the€house€was€not€dirty,€the€floorsÏwere€clean,€and€the€beds€were€made.€ÌÌà àSusan€McManus,€a€friend€and€former€babysitter,€testified€that€she€has€beenÏaround€Mother€and€the€children€weekly€for€the€last€two€years€and€that€the€childrenÏwere€full€of€energy,€playful,€well„behaved,€lovable,€and€wonderful.€€œShe›€further€statedÏthat€the€children€never€seemed€undernourished€or€inadequately€clothed.€ÌÌà àAnnette€Voker,€a€friend€of€Motherððs€for€thirteen€years,€testified€that€she€had€seenÏMother€and€the€children€once€a€week€for€the€last€year€preceding€this€cause.€€œShe›Ïdescribed€the€œchildren›€as€well€taken€care€of,€happy,€normal,€typical€children.€€œShe›Ïstated€that€the€childrenððs€clothing€was€adequate€and€the€home€not€filthy€or€strewn.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€there€was€no€firm€agreement€as€to€the€children€going€toÏFlorida€to€live€or€visit.€€œFurther,›€the€trial€court€found€that€there€was€not€sufficientÏevidence€to€warrant€a€change€œin€custody.›€€œSpecifically,›€the€trial€court€found€that€FatherÏknew€what€Mother€was€like,€and€agreed€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€that€Mother€was€toÍhave€custody€of€the€children.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€Motherððs€present€situation,Ïwhile€not€commendable,€was€nothing€that€was€unforeseeable€or€that€did€not€exist€atÏthe€time€of€the€divorce.€€Because€of€the€above€findings,€the€trial€court€rescinded€theÏtemporary€restraining€order€and€dismissed€Fatherððs€petition€for€change€of€custody.€ÏThis€appeal€ensued.ÌÌÓ  Óò òœÌLAW›€œAND›€œDISCUSSIONòò›ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óóóThe€paramount€consideration€in€a€custody€proceeding€is€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild.€€When€a€petition€to€change€custody€is€brought€before€the€trial€court,€custodyÏshould€not€be€altered€for€the€well„being€or€gratification€of€the€either€parent€or€toÏcastigate€either€parent,€but€to€foster€and€preserve€the€welfare€of€the€child(ren).€œ€A›Ïchange€in€custody€is€only€warranted€where€continuation€of€the€adjudicated€custodyÏwould€pose€substantial€harm€to€the€child(ren).€€As€in€all€non„jury€cases,€a€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€of€what€circumstances€warrant€a€grant€or€denial€of€a€petition€to€changeÏcustody€is€reviewed€by€us€òòde€novoóó;€however,€the€record€developed€below€comes€to€usÏaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€that€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€supporting€the€œtrial›€courtððs€judgment.€€òòHassÏv.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€In€making€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€doÏnot€pass€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòBowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€567Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Credibility€is€an€issue€for€the€trial€court€who€saw€and€heard€theÏwitnesses€testify€and€is,€therefore,€in€the€premier€position€to€determine€credibility.€€òòId.€óóÌÌà àIn€order€to€justify€a€change€in€a€custodial€arrangement,€there€must€be€ð ðsuch€aÏchange€in€circumstances€as€will€directly€affect€the€welfare€of€the€minor.ðð€€òòDailey€v.ÏDaileyóó,€635€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€isÏnot€changeable€except€for€ð ðchange€of€circumstancesðð€which€is€defined€as€that€whichÏrequires€a€change€to€prevent€substantial€harm€to€the€child.€€òòWall€v.€Wallóó,€907€S.W.2dÏ829,€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Custody€is€not€changed€because€one€parent€canÏfurnish€a€more€suitable€or€pleasant€environment€than€the€other,€but€where€continuationÏof€the€adjudicated€custody€will€substantially€harm€the€child.€€òòId.€€óóThis€Court€inÏòòMusselman€v.€Acuffóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€923€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€quoted€theÏMississippi€Supreme€Court€which€provided:ÌÓÓà0 àœà8 àIt›€must€be€recognized€that€uprooting€a€child€from€his€mother,Ïschool€and€environment€was€a€jolting,€traumatic€experience.€€It€isÏonly€that€behavior€of€a€parent€which€clearly€posits€or€causesÏdanger€to€the€mental€or€emotional€well„being€of€a€child€(whetherÏsuch€behavior€is€immoral€or€not),€which€is€sufficient€basis€toÏseriously€consider€the€drastic€legal€action€of€changing€custody.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àœEssential›€to€Fatherððs€petition,€although€certainly€not€the€only€basis,€was€MotherððsÏpsychiatric€difficulties€and€her€alleged€abuse€of€medication.€€Father€relied€heavily€onÏthe€testimony€of€Cynthia€Hodges€and€Howard€Schwartz,€Fatherððs€sister€and€brother„in„law,€and€upon€the€prescription€records€of€Mother.€€Ms.€Hodges€and€Mr.€SchwartzÏtestimony€was€received€by€the€trial€court€in€the€form€of€depositions€taken€onÏSeptember€11,€1996.€€These€depositions€were€primarily€concerned€with€MotherððsÏmental€state€and€the€childrenððs€physical€conditions€when€Ms.€Hodges€and€Mr.ÍSchwartz€went€to€pick€up€the€children€for€a€visit€in€August€of€1996.€€The€evidenceÏrendered€from€these€two€depositions€was€acutely€disputed€by€evidence€propoundedÏby€Mother.€€The€testimony€of€Ms.€Hodges€and€Mr.€Schwartz€was€circumstantial€inÏnature€and,€clearly,€did€not€impress€the€trial€court€sufficiently€to€merit€a€change€inÏœcustody.›€ÌÌà àœAlso€essential€to€Fatherððs€petition€is€his€assertion€that€Mother€requested€that€theÏchildren€live€with€Fatherððs€family€in€Florida€because€Mother€was€experiencing€difficultyÏin€properly€caring€for€the€children.€€We€find€the€record€devoid€of€such€evidence.€€WhatÏthe€evidence€does€show€is€that€there€was€no€absolute€agreement€between€Father€andÏMother€€as€to€whether€the€childrenððs€stay€in€Florida€was€merely€a€visit€or€a€change€inÏcustody.€€The€evidence€from€Father€and€Mother€are€adverse€to€each€other€on€thisÏpoint.€€The€trial€court€heard€testimony€on€this€point€and€found€that€the€parties€had€notÏcome€to€a€ð ðfirm€agreement.ðð€€We€agree.€€ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€evidence€in€this€case.€€The€burden€to€prove€aÏchange€in€circumstances€resulting€in€a€substantial€harm€to€the€child(ren)€is€upon€theÏnon„custodial€parent.€€The€testimony€and€depositions€tending€to€support€FatherððsÏpetition€for€change€of€custody€were€sharply€disputed€by€the€testimony€of€Mother€andÏthe€witnesses€presented€on€her€behalf.€€These€conflicts€not€only€required€the€trial€courtÏto€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€who€appeared€before€it€at€trial€or€in€the€formÏof€depositions€€but€also€to€determine€whether€or€not€Father€carried€his€burden€of€proof.€ÏThe€trial€court€resolved€these€issues€in€favor€of€Mother.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€trialÍcourt€was€wrong€in€its€assessment€of€the€witnessesðð€credibility.€€As€we€have€previouslyÏindicated,€credibility€of€the€various€witnesses€is€for€the€trial€court€to€determine.ÌÌà àAs›€œmentioned›€above,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€not€changeable€unless€aÏchange€in€circumstances€occurs€œsufficient€to€cause€substantial€harm€to€the€children.€›ÏœAfter›€œa€careful€examination€of€the€record,›€we€find€that€Father€failed€to€carry€his€burdenÏof€proof€in€establishing€a€change€in€circumstances€which€would€threaten€substantialÏharm€to€the€children.€€Considering€the€importance€of€credibility€in€this€cause,€weÏcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€factÏsupporting€its€conclusion€that€there€had€not€been€a€sufficient€change€in€circumstancesÏto€justify€a€change€in€custody.€€We€œtherefore€affirm›€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àConcerning€attorney€fees€requested€by€Mother,€T.C.A.€ðð€œ36„5„103(c)›€governsÏawards€of€attorney€fees€in€proceedings€relating€to€child€custody.€€This€statute€providesÏthat€a€spouse€may€recover€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€in€any€action€concerningÏthe€adjudication€€of€the€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€the€parties,€both€upon€theÏoriginal€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequent€hearing€before€whom€such€action€orÏproceeding€is€pending,€in€the€discretion€of€such€court.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€Father€has€instigated€œactions€both›€at€the€trial€and€appellateÏœlevels.›€€Fatherððs€petition€to€change€custody€has€proven€unsuccessful€both€at€trial€andÏon€this€appeal.€€As€a€result,€Father€has€necessitated€Motherððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€€It€isÏwithin€our€discretion€to€grant€or€deny€Motherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€necessitatedÍby€this€appeal.€ÌWe€find€that€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€necessitated€by€this€appeal€is€œjust€andÏequitable.›€€We€remand€this€issue€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€amount€of€attorneyððsÏfees€to€award€Mother.€€In€making€this€determination,€we€emphasize€that€the€award€isÏonly€for€attorneyððs€fees€necessitated€by€this€œappeal.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€foregoing€analysis,€we€hereby€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏand€remand€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€amount€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€whichÏMother€is€entitled€on€appeal.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌÌà à€€ÌÌÌ€€€€€