ÿWPCß zå?ì±X‹€ù¥‘S´|óE–™æË`GÆC½ní=ª“Ö/C d”Z™[Èea|Æ"¡+7ú”èí¤Ùòý ;Vú„ÕEIë¿bóЀ»7B fö5{¼ÆÏ{œ¢–ˆPŠþµ ïýÍåý g¢ÌbÙÖj_Í3íg8Q9®ÊnÏóøÇ®ó«Æ¼|ÛFêà9@A±³\#›¦¢£¨¡¨ñê'­ åÁd¶ê¡½—ZZQe˦k=ôL›e)Tð÷í%öúɎȨ6õõ@;hdD mF÷a·ŸM¡%è÷Ö¥gIiÒsäa,­ÊtÆ3Lç'ÅWn*ª8{Ô4$Î9ÛÙW‰s À-_înIOj;Ù—b&Ž“vˆÒeï(Üo´Gqà ²¬ ŠmT^™³Kþƒ÷¾óýJnºnú‹‡w »-4ÀÊoªCÂØþ7jC¿¢ÏâSry»R¤Ø)ôƹ#”Pr8x# $5Æ·µÇŽëV.7§„>`Ê‚úÿf_òx%&}䢛 eGk.ÊY6NE˜O ®7©8IHÔ1që}¶’-öÒK¦œÏºLYraÍ7 ^S3A:|/o•(`# @UNK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * 2 n­: ç bï :÷ U:1 k ¢q 0P @Lc om¯ U: AQYƪ 0Dpp 0D´´ D/ø B' BD D3aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0D””””””””” AØ D?Y BG˜˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÐUÑDÒÓÓÔDÕÖÓ×ÓØÓ€âÖ…#%xtttttt3|xâ«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@- ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH ˜Ý ƒ/Q+ÝÔ d ÔÝ  Ýßq€];+'h 0  ` Á{ â gæ€E°°x@8[ x‰°°x@8qß((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d ÔC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPGÿWPC°°—D%&1—D%&1'Ø'3XXXX,,51ÿÿÿ.+3ÿ– `! ¦Ù'¦Ù'þi(²­(S)õc)°«)"G*"G*Óñ)Óñ)|œ)|œ)|œ)-). )–¨(k(×<(yÚ'›ô&[ú%Þ{%U %<I%&|”&¶'½‹'Üj'æ\'3'3'T‰'T‰'¦Ù'1ÿÿÿ3ÿÿÿN `"0(0(¡ª''r&è%äÌ%‚+&\O&=“&9Ê&6'b{'¶Ò'<](Ìx(0(0(13ÿê `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+ÜO+ÜO+ÜO+»-++†×*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n*¸*¸*eÊ)eÊ)eÊ)±)œ™)¹„)öQ)5)4)gæ( ¨(:(:(R‘(R‘(R‘(§ã(§ã(ê)ê)ê)­¼)™á)•*“=*º“*èÃ*û×*ó*I+I+ÿ `$ñ c,ñ c,â h,Ý i,Ð u,Á ^,± H,¥ ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D,ƒ Ç,ƒ Ç,H -H -H -1 -û$-Ç-…û,-¹,ÐY,lñ+6 +ò++þ*5ò*5ò*?ý*?ý*Te+€¶+Ð ,/k,•,Åa,áF,Ñ,…¸+5O++ãÛ*[*|ú)±Ç)÷ƒ)„¸) J*p ¬*§ +Ç x+ k+; ~+ˆ Î+¯ ÷+Ç ,ñ c,ñ c,1ÿÿÿ3ÿÿÿN `%e É+e É+ˆ ¨+‘ ˆ+„ \+t #+M â* ²*Ê[*r?*Cl*œ*)í*œ†+××+àæ+ &, &,13ÿJ `&Û 50Û 50º 0ž ð/ Þ/U •// F/! ü. ˜. G.\ .\ .v õ-v õ-B Â-1 °-ôw-ôw- e- e- e- N- N- N-k ¢-k ¢-k ¢-š Ò-š Ò- k- k- k-\ -Ž â, [, [,R µ,R µ,¨ -¨ -¨ - -â ¯-} .} .( e.( e.( e.v ¸.v ¸.v ¸.ã $/ã $/ã $/Ë 5/Ë 5/¹ L/¹ L/¹ L/h ó.P ×. ˆ.É ’.± ž.“ ».` í.k 8/± €/Ì œ/è ­/ Ã/ Ã/( Ù/( Ù/ ç/ ç/ ç/ý 0ó 0Û 50Û 50ÿ `'·/·/»/û »/è Ã/Æ ‡/² k/’ J/t +/O /1 / õ.õ ù.Ñ /¹ ,/‹ U/j u/j u/Ê 0Ê 0 a0> †0« î0« î0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 ®0ð …0£ 50q h0` }0, À0 c0ò F0¶ ë/æ Ë/ö ¿/ ¡/ç s/Ô c/™ +/™ +/± /± /Ç /Ç /Ç /þ ;/ O/< |/< |/Ý à.Ý à.P m.P m.P m.Ž ..õ W.{ â.» #/á U/·/·/ ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÂoXXXÔÔ€/XXÂoÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÂoX/ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€27,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒñÒñÔ‡¼¼¼XXÔñÒñÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ ¦4ÑœñÒñÔ#†XÖIX¼¼¼8#ÔÔ‡¼¼¼XXÔÔ#†XÖIX¼¼¼#ÔñÒñÔ‡¼,q¼XXÔñ×ññÒñÖ€ÿÿÖñÒññ×ññâññØñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñØññâññâñßt€ )>.*jxþe` `€€@Eò` 8ttxP*°‚ e tßñâñSHANNON€RENEE›€THOMPSON,à  àœ)›Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àœPlaintiff/Appellee,›à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9712„CV„00695Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àœSumner›€CircuitÐ  P МBRAD€KENT€THOMPSON,›à  à)à  àNo.€€13822„CÐ  ` Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àœDefendant/Appellant.›à  à)Ð 0 € Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X†>X¼¼,qj#ÔÔ‡»¬r»XX†>ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ pÀ  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€œSUMNER›€COUNTYÌÌAT€œGALLATIN›,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€œGOODALL›,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌœñ×ññÖñÖ€ìÖñÖññ×ñ›ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓœÔ#†X†>X»»¬r€#ÔÔ‡¼,q¼XX†>ÔDENNIS›€W.€POWERSÐ P   МMcClellan›,€Powers,€œEhmling›€&€œDix›Ì116€Public€SquareÌœGallatin›,€Tennessee€€37066Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€œPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE›ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓœÔ#†X†>X¼¼,qì#ÔÔ‡»¬r»XX†>ÔF.€DULIN€KELLYÐ À'#! ÐANDY€L.€ALLMANÌKelly€&€KellyÌ629€East€Main€StreetÌHendersonville,€Tennessee€€37075ÌÔ#†X†>X»»¬ró#ÔÔ‡¼,q¼XX†>Ôà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÐ -`(& ÐÌÔ#†X†>X¼¼,q« #ÔÔ‡¼,q¼XX†>ԛ̛̜ÌÌœÓ  ÓREVERSED€IN€PART,Ì€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌñØñÑ ¦4ÑÑ7€†>XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¦4ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñØñÓ  ÓÌñØñÑ ¦4ÑÑ7€†>XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñØñà @ àà @ì àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063g ÐÑ ¦4ÑÑ7€†>XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñØñÑ ¦4ÑÑ7€VFXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñØñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X†>X¼¼,q¨ #ÔÔ‡°qc°XX†>ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X†>X°°qc¢ #ÔÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÓ€Óà  àÔ€¼,q¼XX†>ÔThe€parties€are€the€parents€of€two€minor€children€whose€custody€is€atÐ T¤ Ðissue€in€this€post„divorce€proceeding.€€The€trial€court€modified€the€joint€legal€andÏphysical€custody€arrangement€delineated€in€the€parties'€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement€resulting€in€the€Mother€being€awarded€primary€care€and€control€of€theÏchildren.€€The€Father€now€appeals€the€court's€decision€to€modify€custody€as€wellÏas€its€decision€to€award€the€Mother€part€of€her€attorney€fees.€€We€reverse€theÏdecision€of€the€court€below€both€with€regard€to€custody€and€attorney€fees.€ÏFurthermore,€we€remand€to€the€trial€court€the€issue€of€whether€the€child€supportÏpaid€to€the€Mother€need€be€increased.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€FACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÐ D” ÐÓ4ÓÌà  àShannon›€Renee€œGupton›€Thompson€("the€Mother")€and€€Barry€KentÏThompson€("the€Father")€were€divorced€by€œfinal€decree€entered€July€18,€1995.€ÏThe€final€decree€incorporated€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€(MDA)€whichÏprovided€that€the€parties€"share€joint€legal€and€physical€custody€of€their€minorÏchildren,"€Zachary€(born€October€15,€1991)€and€Whitney€(born€September€7,Ï1993),€with€neither€party€being€designated€as€the€primary€legal€custodian.€ÏPursuant€to€the€MDA,€the€Father€had€physical€custody€of€the€children€every€otherÏweek€from€Wednesday€at€5:00€p.m.€until€Sunday€at€6:00€p.m.€and€the€Mother€hadÏphysical€custody€from€6:00€p.m.€on€Sunday€until€5:00€p.m.€on€Wednesday.€€OnÏthe€alternating€weeks,€the€Father€would€have€the€children€from€Wednesday€at€5:00Ïp.m.€until€Friday€morning€when€he€returned€them€to€day€care€and€the€MotherÏwould€have€them€from€Friday€afternoon€when€she€picked€them€up€from€day€careÏuntil€Wednesday€at€5:00€p.m.€€The€parties€alternated€major€holidays€with€theirÏchildren€and€each€had€two€full€weeks€free€of€the€other's€custody€in€the€summers.€ÏÌà  àRegarding€child€support,€the€MDA€provided€that€the€Father€was€to€payÏ$460€per€month€to€the€Mother€and€that€the€parties€"would€review€such€childÏsupport€payment€periodically€and€make€adjustments€as€they€agree€need€to€beÏmade."€€The€Father€was€to€maintain€health€insurance€on€the€children€and€theÏparties€were€to€each€pay€half€of€the€reasonable€medical€expenses€and€deductibles.€Ð ¹9 5@ ÐAt€the€time€of€the€September€1997€hearing,€the€Father€continued€to€live€in€theÏmarital€residence,€and€the€Mother€lived€approximately€one€mile€away.€€By€thisÏtime,€the€parties€had€been€functioning€under€the€custody€arrangement€outlined€inÏthe€MDA€for€over€two€years.ÌÌà  àThe€problems€in€this€case€seemed€to€have€begun€when,€by€letter€datedÏOctober€4,€1996,€the€Mother€requested€that€the€Father€increase€child€support€toÏ$730€per€month.€€The€Father€stated€that€when€he€asked€what€the€increase€was€for,Ïthe€Mother€responded€that€it€was€for€"toilet€paper€and€groceries."€€After€the€FatherÏdenied€the€Mother's€requests€for€increased€support,€the€Mother€filed€her€"PetitionÏfor€an€Increase€of€Child€Support€and€Amended€Visitation€Schedule"€on€NovemberÏ5,€1996.€€The€court€suggested€in€a€subsequent€order€that€the€Mother€amend€herÏPetition›€in€order€to€make€allegations€with€regard€to€the€need€for€a€"primaryÏcustodial€parent"€as€there€was€no€such€designation€in€the€œfinal€decree.›ÌÌà  àThe€Mother€filed€an€Amended€Motion€on€August€11,€1997€asking€theÏcourt€to€order€that€Zachary€be€enrolled€in€the€elementary€school€zoned€for€theÏMother's€residence.€€On€August€26,€1997,€the€court€ordered€instead€that€ZacharyÏbe€enrolled€in€the€school€that€was€zoned€for€the€Father's€residence.€€On€SeptemberÏ23,€1997,€the€Mother€again€amended€her€petition€as€suggested€by€the€Court€askingÏthe€court€to€award€her€primary€physical€custody€of€the€children€and€to€establishÏa€specific€drop„off€and€pick„up€time€for€visitation.ÌÌà  àAt€the€September€30,€1997€hearing,€the€Mother€testified€that€she€madeÏ$1710€per€month€working€at€the€Tennessee€School€Board€Association.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€children€were€in€day€care€at€La€Petite€Academy€which€costsÏ$543.40€per€month€and€for€which€she€was€financially€responsible.€€The€FatherÏtestified€that€he€owned€a€business.€€He€agreed€that€he€had€paid€the€Mother€$460Ïper€month€since€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€He€said€that€in€addition,€he€carried€theÏchildren's€health€insurance.€€He€affirmed€that,€at€the€time€the€Mother€requested€anÏincrease€in€support,€he€had€$43,000€in€savings€and€that€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,Ïhe€had€at€least€$20,000.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Mother€stated€that€she€could€only€think€of€one€substantial€changeÐ H9˜4B Ðin€circumstances€since€1995€when€the€parties€agreed€to€share€custody€which€wasÏthat€Zachary,€her€oldest€child,€had€started€school.€€When€the€Mother€wasÏquestioned€regarding€her€concern€about€the€feasibility€of€joint€custody€with€herÏson€in€school,€she€gave€the€following€testimony:ÌÓ€Óà8  àI€just€have€a€fear€for€when€he€gets€a€little€older€that€„„€I€mean,ÏI€can€see€him,€€"Well,€no,€Teacher,€I€don't€have€myÏhomework.€€I€was€at€my€dad's€last€night€and€I€was€at€my€mom'Ïthis€night,€so€it's€at€my€dad's,€and€I€don't€have€my€bookÏbecause€I€left€it€here."€€I€can€see€something€like€thatÏhappening,€and€I€just€think€it€is€a€real€strain€on€him€to€be€inÏone€place€one€night€or€two€nights€and€then€another€place€twoÏother€nights.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€NÓThe€Mother€did€confirm€that€she€and€the€Father€live€a€mile€apart€and€thatÏZachary's€school€is€a€little€more€than€a€mile€from€her€residence€and€a€half€of€mileÏfrom€the€Father's€residence.€€She€testified€that€the€parties€had€been€able€to€workÏout€holiday€visitation€without€€problems€under€the€prior€custody€arrangement.€€SheÏsaid€that€she€could€only€remember€once€in€the€past€where€the€parties€had€re„¼arranged€their€scheduled€time€with€the€children.€ÌÌà  àWhen€asked€why€she€had€asked€for€primary€care€of€the€children,€theÏMother€replied€that€"there€is€nothing€like€the€nurturing€of€the€mother€.€.€.€and€[she]Ïjust€œfe[lt›]€that€[she€was]€the€one€œthat,›€the€majority€of€the€time,€takes€them€to€theÏdoctor,€and€[she]€œcook[s›]€for€them€when€[she]€œha[s›]€them,€and€[she]€just€œfeel[s›]Ïthat€[she]€can€take€care€of€them€like€a€mother€should."€€The€Mother€did€agree€thatÏthe€Father€is€a€good€parent€and€that€he€had€done€a€good€job€providing€for€theÏchildren€both€financially€and€emotionally.€ÌÌà  àWhen€the€Father€was€asked€what€problems€they€had€experienced€withÏthe€current€custody€arrangement,€he€made€the€following€statement:€œ€"I›€don't€seeÏany€problems€at€all.€It's€going€very€smoothly.€€The€children€know,€you€know,Ïwhen,€you€know,€my€daddy€comes€and€picks€me€up.€€They€know€exactly€who€isÏcoming€to€get€them,€and€you€know,€it€goes€over€fine."€€Later,€in€response€to€aÏquestion€from€the€bench,€the€Father€stated€that€the€actual€weekly€exchange€of€theÏchildren€was€also€working€out€well.€€However,€he€had,€at€an€earlier€deposition,Ïgiven€several€reasons€why€the€Mother€should€not€be€the€primary€care€giver.€€HeÏhad€stated€that€he€felt€that€the€children€were€in€a€more€stable€environment€withÐ H9˜4? Ðhim€and€at€his€home,€that€the€Mother€had€moved€three€times€since€the€divorce,€andÏthat€the€Mother€did€not€give€adequate€attention€to€the€children's€extra„curricularÏactivities.€€ÌÌà  àIn€its€final€order,€the€trial€court€found€that€there€had€been€a€sufficientÏchange€of€circumstances€since€the€entry€of€the€œfinal€decree€to€modify€custody€suchÏthat,€while€the€parties€shall€retain€joint€custody,€the€Mother€is€to€have€primary€careÏand€control€of€the€children.€€The€Court's€order€awarded€the€Father€visitation€everyÏother€weekend€and€provided€for€nightly€phone€visitation.€€Based€upon€the€Father'sÏ1996€tax€return€showing€income€of€$85,000€plus€additional€income€by€way€ofÏdepreciation€deductions,€the€court€set€child€support€at€$1,492€per€month.€€TheÏcourt€stated€its€finding€that,€at€the€time€the€Mother€made€the€request€for€additionalÏchild€support,€the€Father€had€$40,000€in€savings.€€However,€it€was€the€court'sÏposition€that€based€on€the€shared€custody€arrangement€at€that€time,€the€childÏsupport€payments€need€not€be€retroactive.€€Rather,€they€should€begin€onÏNovember€1,€1997.€€Furthermore,€the€court€found€that€since€the€Father€had€inÏexcess€of€$20,000€in€the€bank€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€the€Mother€should€not€beÏresponsible€for€all€of€her€attorney€fees.€€Thus,€the€court€ordered€the€Father€to€payÏ$3000€of€the€attorney€fees€incurred€by€the€Mother.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓII.€€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óà @ àÐ $Ý( ÐÓk,ÓÌà  àAppellate€review€of€custody€cases€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÏcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€€òòò òHass›€v.Ð ê*:&0 МKnighton›ó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984);€œòòò òNichols›€v.€œNichols›ó óóó,€792€S.W.2dÐ …,Õ'2 Ð713,€716€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€cases€where€the€issue€is€modification€of€custody,€theÏburden€is€on€the€non-custodial€parent€to€prove€changed€circumstances.€Ïòòò òœMusselman›€v.€œAcuff›ó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€Ct.€€App.€1991).Ð P1 ,8 ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€CUSTODYó óà @h àÐ ƒ4Ó/< ÐÓK/ÓÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Father€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€thatÏthere€was€a€material€change€in€circumstances€warranting€a€change€of€custody.€Ð H9˜4B ÐEven€if€there€were€a€material€change,€it€is€the€Father's€position€that€he€is€the€properÏparent€to€have€primary€care€and€control€of€the€children.€€Because€we€agree€withÏthe€Father€that€there€was€no€change€of€circumstances€warranting€a€change€ofÏcustody,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€address€the€question€of€which€parent€is€moreÏfit.ÌÌà  àThe€law€is€well€settled€that€"where€a€decree€has€been€entered€awardingÏcustody€of€children,€that€decree€is€res€œadjudicata›€[sic]€and€is€conclusive€in€aÏsubsequent€application€to€change€custody€unless€some€new€fact€has€occurredÏwhich€has€altered€the€circumstances€in€a€material€way€so€that€the€welfare€œof›€theÏchild€requires€a€change€in€custody."€€òòò òœNichols›ó óóó,€792€S.W.2d€at€715„16€(citing€òòò òDoddÐ  ð Ðv.€Doddó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€286,€290€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1987)).€€This€court€has€discussedÐ ;‹ Ð"changed€circumstances"€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThis€decision€[regarding€custody]€is€not€changeable€except€forÏ"change€of€circumstances"€which€is€defined€as€that€whichÏrequires€a€change€to€prevent€substantial€harm€to€the€child.€ÏCustody€is€not€changed€for€the€welfare€or€pleasure€of€eitherÏparent€or€to€punish€either€parent,€but€to€preserve€the€welfareÏof€the€child.€€Custody€is€not€changed€because€one€parent€isÏable€to€furnish€a€more€commodious€or€pleasant€environmentÏthan€the€other,€but€where€continuation€of€the€adjudicatedÏcustody€will€substantially€harm€the€child.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ѐ€ÌÓ€è3Óòòò òWall€v.€Walló óóó,€907€S.W.2d€829,€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ð $^$ ÐÌà  àÔ% € ÔThe€statutory€standard€for€modifying€child€custody€is€embodied€inÏœsection›€36-6„101€of€the€Tennessee€Code€and€provides€for€"modification€as€theÏexigencies€of€the€case€may€require."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-6-101(a)€(œSupp›.1998).€ÏOur€supreme€court€has€defined€"exigencies"€under€the€statute€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àfacts€and€conditions€which€have€emerged€since€the€decree,Ïnew€facts€and€changed€conditions€which€were€not€determinedÏand€could€not€be€anticipated€by€the€decree;€œand›€that€the€decreeÏis€final€and€conclusive€upon€all€the€facts€and€conditions€whichÏexisted€and€upon€which€the€decree€was€made.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ѐ€€ÌÓ€æ7Óòòò òSmith€v.€œHaase›ó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€49,€50€œ(Tenn.€1975);›€òòò òsee€alsoó óóó€òòò òœMcDaniel›€v.Ð 4Q/6 МMcDanieló óóó,€743›€S.W.2d€167,€œ168›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€œIn›€other€words,€asÐ œ5ì08 Ðarticulated€by€this€court€in€the€case€of€a€party's€attempt€to€modify€an€alimonyÏagreement,€"[œc]hanges›€in€circumstances€are€not€material€if€such€changes€wereÐ Ï84< Ðcontemplated€by€the€parties€at€the€time€they€entered€into€the€alimony€and€supportÏagreement."€€òòò òSeal€v.€Sealó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTo€reiterate,€the€trial€court€found€that€there€has€been€a€"sufficient€changeÏof€circumstances"€and€modified€custody€such€that,€while€the€parties€retained€jointÏcustody,€the€Mother€was€awarded€primary€care€and€control€of€the€minor€children.€ÏAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€record€in€this€case€does€notÏsupport€a€conclusion€that€there€has€been€a€change€of€circumstances€which€warrantsÏthe€change€of€physical€custody€of€the€children.€€œAt›€the€hearing,€the€MotherÏtestified€that€she€knew€of€only€one€changed€circumstance€which€was€that€theÏoldest€child€Zachary€had€started€school.€€While€the€Mother€speculated€that€thisÏmight€in€the€future€pose€a€logistical€problem€for€the€child€regarding€his€ability€toÏkeep€up€with€his€books€and€homework,€there€was€neither€allegation€nor€proof€thatÏthe€child€was€having€problems€with€school€due€to€the€custody€arrangement.€ÏIndeed,€œthe›€evidence€was€that€Zachary's€school€was€just€over€a€mile€from€theÏMother's€residence€and€a€half€of€mile€from€the€Father's.€€Moreover,€at€the€time€thatÏthey€entered€the€joint€physical€custody€agreement,€the€parties€certainlyÏcontemplated€the€fact€that€Zachary€would€start€school€when€he€reached€theÏappropriate€age,€thereby€precluding€this€change€of€circumstance€from,€in€and€ofÏitself,€justifying€a€change€of€custody.òòò ò€€See€Smith€v.€œHaase›ó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€at€50;Ð û"K& Ðòòò òSealó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€at€620.Ð –$æ( ÐÌà  àOur€courts€have€held€that€the€mere€fact€that€joint€custody€is€not€workingÏand€is€adversely€affecting€children€may€be€a€change€of€circumstance€whichÏjustifies€modifying€custody.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Rubin€v.€œKirshner›ó óóó,€948€S.W.2d€742,€745Ð ù*I&0 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€However,€the€facts€in€this€case€simply€do€no€show€that€theÏjoint€custody€agreement€was€not€working€for€these€parties.€€Both€parties€testifiedÏthat€there€have€been€few€problems€with€the€joint€physical€custody€arrangementÏincluding€exchanging€the€children€from€one€home€to€the€other€and€schedulingÏholiday€visitation.€€The€Mother€remembered€only€one€time€in€which€the€partiesÏhad€needed€to€re„arrange€the€custody€schedule.€€The€Father€commented€that€theÏchildren€were€well„adjusted€to€the€arrangement€and€always€knew€which€parentÏwas€coming€to€pick€them€up€from€day€care.€€ÌÐ T9¤4B Ðà  àIt€may€be€the€better€practice€to€specifically€provide€in€an€MDA€for€aÏprimary€physical€custodial€parent.€€Such€was€not€done€in€this€case€and€byÏapproving€the€MDA€in€the€œFinal€Decree€of€Divorce,€the€trial€court€approved€theÏpure€joint€custody€arrangement.Ì€Ìà  àThe€Mother€asserts€that€since€the€trial€court's€order€€retained€joint€legalÏcustody,€the€court€did€not€actually€modify€custody€in€this€case.€€The€Mother€claimsÏshe€already€had€more€responsibility€for€the€children€under€the€MDA€and€thus€theÏcourt's€award€to€her€of€primary€care€of€the€children€was€not€a€material€change.€ÏCustody€has€both€a€legal€and€a€physical€aspect.€€òòò òSee€Ford€v.€Fordó óóó,€No.€CA€1123,Ð X Ð1987€WL€28394€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(distinguishing€between€physical€and€legalÏcustody€in€a€case€where€the€appellant€only€appealed€the€issue€of€physical€custody).€ÏWhen€section›€36-6-101(a)(1)€of€the€code€provides€for€"modification€[of€a€custodyÏdecree]€as€the€exigencies€of€the€case€may€require,"€it€is€referring€to€the€precedingÏstatutory€language€indicating€a€decree€reflecting€the€court's€award€of€"the€care,Ïcustody€and€control"€of€minor€children.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-6-101(a)(1)€(œSupp›.Ï1998).€€It€is€indisputable€that€the€arrangement€for€physical€custody€or€"care"€of€theÏchildren€to€which€the€parties€had€agreed€in€their€MDA€was€greatly€altered€by€theÏcourt's€order.€€The€Father€went€from€spending€almost€half€of€his€time€with€theÏchildren€to€spending€every€other€weekend€with€them.€€We€therefore€reject€theÏMother's€contention€that€custody€was€not€modified€by€the€trial€court's€final€order.€ÏÌà  àIn€conclusion,€we€find€that€the€trial€court's€order€modified€the€custodyÏarrangement€to€which€the€parties€had€agreed€in€their€MDA.€€We€hold€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€that,€since€the€time€that€the€partiesÏentered€their€agreement,€circumstances€have€changed€such€that€custody€need€beÏmodified€to€prevent€substantial€harm€to€the€children.€€Since€the€proof€was€that€theÏparties'€prior€custody€arrangement€was€working€well,€we€reinstate€the€custodyÏarrangement€as€set€out€in€the€MDA€and€incorporated€by€the€œfinal€decree.›€€à  # àÐ S1£,8 ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€ATTORNEY€FEESó óÐ ƒ4Ó/< ÐÓ{MÓÌà  àLastly€we€turn€to€the€trial€court's€award€of€attorney€fees.€€As€stated,Ïfollowing€the€court's€assertion€that€it€found€that€the€Father€had€in€excess€ofÐ H9˜4B Ð$20,000€in€the€bank€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€it€concluded€that€the€Mother€shouldÏnot€be€responsible€for€all€of€her€attorney€fees.€€The€court€then€ordered€the€FatherÏto€pay€$3000€of€the€Mother's€attorney€fees.ÌÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„103€governs€the€award€of€attorneyÏfees€in€cases€involving€alimony,€child€support€and€custody.€€That€œstatuñÔññÓñyñÓññÔññÕñtñÕñe›€providesÏas€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,Ïand€the€spouse€or€other€person€to€whom€the€custody€of€theÏchild,€or€children,€is€awarded€may€recover€from€the€otherÏspouse€reasonable€attorney€fees€incurred€in€enforcing€anyÏdecree€for€alimony€and/or€child€support,€or€in€regard€to€anyÏsuit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudication€of€the€custody€or€theÏchange€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€of€the€parties,Ïboth€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€any€subsequentÏhearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixed€and€allowed€by€the€court,Ïbefore€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÏdiscretion€of€such€court.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€PÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c)€(œSupp›.€1998).€€The€statute€by€its€language€limitsÏthe€trial€court's€discretion€to€award€attorney€fees€to€"the€spouse€.€.€.€to€whom€theÏcustody€of€the€child,€or€children,€is€awarded."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Indeed,€this€court€has€statedÐ È Ðthat€"[œt]his›€statute€authorizes€an€award€of€attorney's€fees€to€a€party€whoÏsuccessfully€pursues€or€defends€a€change€of€custody€petition."€€òòò òœBjork›€v.€œBjork›ó óóó,Ð û"K" ÐNo.€œ01A01›„9702„CV„00087,€1997€WL€653917,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)Ï(citingò òòò€D€v.€Kó óóó,€917€S.W.2d€682,€686€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)).€€Other€opinions€haveÐ .&~!& Ðheld€that€œsection›€36„5„103€entitles€only€the€"prevailing"€party€to€attorney€fees.€Ïòòò òBrewer€v.€œWeibel›ó óóó,€Nos.€œ02A01›-9703-CH-00067,€œD14591›-1,€1998€WL€158779,Ð a)±$* Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(reversing€the€trial€court's€award€of€attorney€fees€toÏthe€mother€in€a€case€where€the€father€had€successfully€sought€a€change€of€custodyÏfrom€the€mother€to€him);€òòò òsee€alsoó óóó€òòò òWallace€v.€Wallaceó óóó,€No.Ð ,.|)0 М02A01›-9702-CH-00029,€1998€WL€74256,€at€*6„7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€ÌÌà  àBased€on€the€statute€itself€and€the€foregoing€case€law€and€based€on€thisÏcourt's€conclusion€that€there€were€not€changed€circumstances€to€support€a€changeÏof€custody,€we€find€that€œsection›€36„5„103(c)€does€not€authorize€an€award€ofÏattorney€fees€to€the€Mother.€€We€therefore€reverse€the€trial€court's€decision€toÏaward€the€Mother€$3000€of€her€attorney€fees€and€we€reject€her€assertion€that€sheÐ W9§4> Ðshould€be€awarded€any€of€the€expenses€of€this€appeal.€€Although€we€recognize€theÏfinancial€inequality€of€the€parties,€this€fact€can€be€considered€with€regard€to€childÏsupport.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d)€(œSupp›.€1998).€€Under€the€parties'Ð à0 ÐMDA,€the€Father€was€paying€only€$460€per€month€to€the€Mother€and€the€MotherÏwas€completely€responsible€for€the€cost€of€day€care€which€was€over€$500.€€TheÏMDA€envisioned€changed€economic€circumstances€and€assumed€futureÏagreements€between€the€parties.€€Agreement€on€child€support€was€not€forthcomingÏand€the€Mother€petitioned€for€an€increase.€€In€view€of€the€action€of€this€courtÏrelative€to€the€custody€and€attorney€fee€issues,€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€further€consideration€of€the€Mother's€November€1996€petition€forÏincreased€child€support.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ Ó# ÐÓ€\ÓÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€trial€court's€modification€ofÏcustody€as€well€as€its€award€of€attorney€fees€to€the€Mother.€€We€remand€this€causeÏto€the€œSumner›€County€Circuit€Court€for€determination€of€the€issue€of€whether€theÏchild€support€paid€by€the€Father€to€the€Mother€should€be€increased.€€Tax€the€costsÏon€appeal€to€the€parties€equally.ÌÔ‡¼Ow¼¼¼<ÔÌÔ#†¼<¼¼¼Ow2^#ÔÌñ×ñœñ×ñÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà  àà  àœÔ€XVFX¼¼<Ô______________________________________›Ð "&r!* Ðà  àà  àœWILLIAM›€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌœñÎñÌñÎñ›Ìœ_________________________________________›ÌœBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌñÏñÌñÏñÌ_________________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€€€à  àÐ  3Z.8 ÐñÐñÌÌÌÌÌÌñÐññÑññÐñÐ ~9Î4? ÐñÐññÑñà8  àà  à›