ÿWPC¼ F¼LA7í8¯Õ‰èôw“Æ`o®… xˤ xm$7ƒ$á„!õ…@µ”yØQ£`>dñÃ|&–“~Ú%ÓšLÁ¹¹½SÕü½ÚÚS¾PXX×®1‡z÷Œ0DÍàÎø™‡¯¦®ç¶žg¡>2𓿦 ô.RÔ 4\žÂ°á˜œ)b*}cÿ·]೪[`ì§T3íL œ(‰'‹9<³s#Z‚ÐU@ €C+mÞ\¤„*´V¶o§m8Dür‚Î÷.£jÄŽ/„Žô«@ãé…,4™à!Î$x™:”ɊƇàö*ÿÕ2Œ` ä»62•õ¡L0;¤ =ïoÆÂªžÅî!âü´ŠpË„Ih–á¼[ø^ùݦÇÊŸšê ÑQË-^B‡A%Ú; ›³fŠìpEÚî ÅwÕ¥ÂÕÊ…•ä#cß_ëAìªÂõ…ïÓ¬5m¯(Ü¿[JÀp0ÕÕ — “»®tc]©ˆä´¹åyòçôiŸ]°¼i¡mÉñ)ªI£Sé¯Ô›!×»»q (q¶WÂí )úò™øÛ'Ât]¶#mœzE ²ãFþ8úO±×»BÚÙ,ÛÛ¢µõðú¬Ì:ù¶q´¼&ŒuÝþ9²b#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc U Në 0D9 9 z} Ò÷ ÷ ^ É NÕ ~× ÆU ÆÆáƧwmNq4s‡E–˜ mššššššššššššššššššššššb±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±± 0ë¹¹¹¹ B¤¤ 0¤Á D3e D-˜ 0KÅÅ ASÆc 0¤) 0DÍ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt“†‹-s  tÝ ƒR«D$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAppellant€Ô_ÔmischaracterizesÔ_Ô€the€trial€judgeððs€conclusion€by€stating€that€the€judge€found€€Ms.€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ôððs€òòminimumóóÐ ° Ðeconomic€needs€to€be€$7,500€per€month.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5š‚,-˜Cê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2«D$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷ ò»»Ô d(|3 i$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 i$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Lå»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Lå»»¼LåÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î‰ELåÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Lå»îî‰E+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€6,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼LåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Lå»XXé#ÔPETER€JOHN€Ô_ÔZABASKIÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€MARY€ANN€DALE€Ô_ÔZABASKIÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XéX»¼LåÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00D„130€€€€€€Marietta€M.€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02013„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌThe€trial€court€granted€a€divorce€to€the€parents€of€an€only€child€with€a€history€of€severe€medicalÐ xÈ  Ðproblems,€and€awarded€them€joint€custody.€€The€wife€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtððs€orderÐ d´ Ðof€custody€and€visitation€was€not€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€€She€also€argues€that€the€court€erred€byÐ P  Ðsetting€the€husbandððs€child€support€obligation€too€low,€and€by€failing€to€award€her€alimony€in€futuro.Ð <Œ ÐWe€affirm€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼Lå»XXéÒ#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼LåÔÐ (x ÐÌò òà@::ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€ˆÐ P Ðà@ ìàAffirmed€and€Remandedó óˆÐ ì< ÐÌòòÔ#†¼Lå»àXéq#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼LåÔBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,Ð Ä ÐJ.óó€and€òòThomas€W.€Graham,€Sp.€Jóó.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌMary€Frances€Lyle€and€David€Lyle,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mary€Ann€Dale€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô.Ð ˆØ ÐÌThomas€F.€Bloom,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Peter€John€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Lå»XXé}#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼LåԈР8!ˆ  ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Lå»XXéø #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼LåÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà@bb!ìàò òI.€€òòA€Beloved€Childó óóóˆÐ #`" ÐÌà  àPeter€John€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô€and€Mary€Ann€Dale€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô€married€on€August€7,€1982.€€Their€son€AlexÐ è$8 $ Ðwas€born€on€January€11,€1992,€when€Mr.€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô€was€forty„three,€and€Ms.€Ô_ÔZabaskiÔ_Ô€was€thirty„nine.Ð Ô%$!% ÐAlex€came€into€the€world€with€numerous€congenital€defects,€including€transposed€arteries€and€a€cleftÐ À&"& Ðpalate.€€The€child€underwent€his€first€heart€surgery€when€he€was€ten€days€old,€and€has€sinceÐ ¬'ü"' Ðundergone€fourteen€other€surgeries.€€Because€of€Alexððs€needs,€the€mother€gave€up€her€interior€designÐ ˜(è#( Ðbusiness€to€dedicate€herself€to€his€care€and€upbringing.€€The€father,€a€successful€businessman,Ð „)Ô$) Ðcontinued€to€work€to€support€the€family.€€He€testified€that€he€also€took€an€active€role€in€the€childððsÐ p*À%* Ðupbringing,€while€the€mother€claimed€that€his€participation€was€minimal€prior€to€the€institution€ofÐ \+¬&+ Ðdivorce€proceedings.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àDespite€his€medical€problems,€the€proof€shows€that€Alex€has€become€a€well„adjusted€andÐ ° Ðconfident€child.€At€the€time€of€trial,€he€was€a€fourth€grader€at€the€Ensworth€School.€€He€was€doingÐ œì Ðvery€well€academically,€participated€in€sports,€and€had€many€friends.€€The€mother€argues€that€hisÐ ˆØ Ðsuccess€is€largely€due€to€her€total€devotion€to€his€needs.€€The€father€argues€that€his€contribution€hasÐ tÄ Ðalso€been€important,€particularly€in€the€area€of€teaching€his€son€organizational€skills,€promptness€andÐ `° Ðself„control,€and€helping€him€academically.€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWhile€the€parents€may€not€have€been€in€total€agreement€on€some€child„rearing€questions,€theyÐ $ t Ðwere€usually€able€to€work€out€their€differences.€€Unfortunately,€they€found€it€more€difficult€to€agreeÐ  ` Ðabout€areas€not€directly€related€to€child„rearing,€especially€money,€about€which€they€frequentlyÐ ü L  Ðargued.€€Their€conflicts€intensified€in€1999,€which€was€a€difficult€year€for€Mr.€Zabaski.€€His€motherÐ è 8  Ðpassed€away€in€July€of€that€year.€€In€December,€the€company€he€worked€for€was€sold€to€anotherÐ Ô$  Ðcompany,€and€he€was€told€that€he€would€have€to€move€to€Dallas€if€he€wished€to€keep€working.€€Mr.Ð À  ÐZabaski€had€accumulated€nearly€$3€million€through€years€of€effort,€and€he€chose€not€to€make€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmove.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€January€14,€2000,€Peter€Zabaski€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce.€€The€complaint€allegedÐ pÀ Ðirreconcilable€differences€and€inappropriate€conduct€as€grounds,€without€further€elaboration.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðwifeððs€answer,€filed€on€March€3,€2000€denied€the€grounds,€but€alleged€as€an€affirmative€defense,Ð H˜ Ðagain€without€elaboration,€that€the€ill€conduct€of€the€husband€was€a€justifiable€cause€of€the€conductÐ 4„ Ðhe€complained€of.€€Mary€Ann€Zabaski€did€not€file€a€counter„claim€for€divorce.Ð  p ÐÌà  àDespite€the€filing€of€the€divorce€complaint,€both€parties€continued€to€live€with€their€son€inÐ øH Ðtheir€7,300€square€foot€home€on€Belle€Meade€Boulevard.€€In€June€of€2001,€the€parties€signed€aÐ ä4 Ðcontract€for€the€sale€of€the€marital€home.€€After€the€preliminary€hearing€on€the€complaint€and€theÐ Ð  Ðclosing€on€the€sale,€Mary€Ann€Zabaski€and€Alex€moved€into€a€recently€renovated,€but€somewhatÐ ¼  Ðsmaller€(2,026€square€foot)€house€on€Parmer€Avenue€that€the€parties€owned,€and€Mr.€Zabaski€movedÐ ¨ø Ðinto€a€rented€apartment.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà@s s ìàò òII.€€òòProceedings€in€the€Trial€Courtó óóóˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€court€conducted€a€preliminary€hearing€on€June€15,€2001.€€The€Zabaskisðð€attorneysÐ D!” Ðexplained€to€the€court€that€their€clients€had€reached€agreement€on€the€division€of€the€financial€assetsÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€marriage.€€Among€other€things,€they€decided€to€equally€divide€the€net€proceeds€of€over€$1Ð #l! Ðmillion€that€would€result€from€the€sale€of€the€marital€home.€€Mr.€Zabaski€agreed€to€quitclaim€to€hisÐ $X" Ðwife€his€interest€in€the€Parmer€Avenue€house,€a€Belle€Meade€residence€which€was€valued€atÐ ô$D # Ð$280,000,€and€the€court€agreed€to€allow€him€to€withdraw€$280,000€from€his€Trustmark€FinancialÐ à%0!$ Ðaccount€to€compensate€for€his€surrender€of€the€house€to€his€wife.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€court€also€agreed€to€name€Cathy€Griffin€as€a€mediator,€to€help€the€parties€reachÐ ¤(ô#' Ðagreement€on€a€child„rearing€arrangement€that€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€Alex.€€Ms.€Griffin€wasÐ )à$( Ðâ âa€counselor€who€had€worked€with€the€Zabaskis€for€several€years.€€The€court€awarded€Mary€AnnÐ |*Ì%) ÐZabaski€pendente€lite€custody€of€Alex,€with€reasonable€visitation€for€her€husband,€and€ordered€himÐ ° Ðto€pay€all€utilities€on€the€Parmer€Avenue€house,€as€well€as€pendente€lite€support€of€$350€per€week.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€court€held€a€hearing€on€July€24,€2001.€€The€testimony€of€the€parties€and€of€Ms.€GriffinÐ tÄ Ðmade€it€quite€evident€that€the€parties€exhibited€very€different€temperaments,€and€almost€oppositeÐ `° Ðapproaches€to€daily€life.€€It€appears€that€Mary€Anne€Zabaski€is€spontaneous€and€creative,€but€heedlessÐ L œ Ðof€financial€constraints€and€incapable€of€being€on€time,€while€Peter€Zabaski€is€hard„working,€highlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðorganized,€and€punctual,€but€has€been€impatient€and€prone€to€anger.€€Ms.€Griffin€testified€that€theseÐ $ t Ðdifferences€did€not€necessarily€work€to€Alexððs€disadvantage,€and€that€the€child€had€managed€to€blendÐ  ` Ðthe€positive€traits€of€both€of€his€parents.€€She€testified€that€Ms.€Zabaski€nurtured€his€creative€fun„Ð ü L  Ðloving€side,€while€Mr.€Zabaski€taught€strong€values€and€maintained€discipline.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àMary€Anne€Zabaski€asked€for€sole€custody€of€Alex,€with€normal€visitation€for€the€father.Ð À  ÐPeter€Zabaski€asked€the€court€to€order€joint€custody€of€Alex,€with€equal€time€for€both€parents.€€HeÐ ¬ü  Ðsubmitted€two€alternate€parenting€plans:€one€would€switch€custody€weekly,€the€other€would€haveÐ ˜è  Ðboth€parties€exercising€custody€for€half€of€each€school€week,€with€alternating€custody€on€weekends.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àMs.€Griffin€declined€to€make€a€recommendation,€because€she€considered€that€to€be€outsideÐ \¬ Ðthe€purview€of€her€role€as€mediator.€€She€stated,€however,€that€despite€their€other€conflicts,€bothÐ H˜ Ðparents€had€always€managed€to€cooperate€very€well€on€matters€involving€their€child,€and€had€doneÐ 4„ Ðan€excellent€job€of€raising€him.€€She€also€said€that€both€parties€needed€to€have€lives€and€interests€ofÐ  p Ðtheir€own,€and€that€it€was€not€in€the€childððs€best€interest€for€either€of€them€to€be€solely€focused€onÐ  \ Ðhis€welfare.€€She€further€observed€that€Alex€was€an€extremely€resilient€child,€but€expressed€concernÐ øH Ðthat€moving€too€frequently€from€one€parent€to€another€could€lead€to€difficulties.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThere€was€extensive€testimony€as€to€the€financial€affairs€of€the€parties,€which€we€need€notÐ ¼  Ðdiscuss€in€any€detail€in€this€section.€€Peter€Zabaski€argued€that€he€should€not€have€to€pay€any€alimonyÐ ¨ø Ðor€child€support,€in€light€of€the€income€from€the€investments€that€his€wife€would€be€receiving€as€herÐ ”ä Ðshare€of€the€marital€property,€and€of€his€proposal€that€Alex€spend€as€much€time€with€him€as€with€theÐ €Ð Ðmother.€€Ms.€Zabaski€argued€that€she€needed€much€more€support€than€the€marital€investmentÐ l¼ Ðproperty€would€generate,€because€of€the€standard€of€living€she€and€Alex€had€grown€accustomed€to,Ð X ¨ Ðand€the€need€to€keep€up€with€the€very€wealthy€families€of€the€childððs€classmates.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€court€granted€both€parties€a€divorce€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ #l! ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„129.€€In€accordance€with€the€partiesðð€wishes,€the€court€divided€the€marital€propertyÐ $X" Ðequally€between€them.€€As€a€result,€they€each€received€assets€worth€a€total€of€$1,493,395.€€Mary€AnnÐ ô$D # ÐZabaskiððs€share€included€$901,000€in€liquid€assets,€and€a€house€with€no€mortgage.€€There€is€noÐ à%0!$ Ðquestion€on€appeal€as€to€the€fairness€of€the€property€division.€€There€is€a€dispute,€however,€as€to€howÐ Ì&"% Ðmuch€income€the€financial€assets€can€be€reasonably€expected€to€generate.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€court€awarded€joint€legal€custody€of€Alex€to€both€parents,€with€the€wife€designated€asÐ )à$( Ðthe€primary€residential€parent.€€òòSeeóó€òòGray€v.€Grayóó,€78€S.W.3d€881€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€decree€includedÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€eight„page€Permanent€Parenting€Plan€with€a€Residential€Sharing€Schedule€that€divided€custodyÐ h+¸&* Ðequally€between€the€parties.€€While€the€division€of€time€for€holidays,€school€breaks,€and€summerÐ ° Ðvacations€followed€a€conventional€pattern,€the€schedule€for€the€school€year€was€somewhat€unusual.Ð œì ÐIt€provided€that€Alex€was€to€spend€Mondays€and€Tuesdays€with€the€mother,€Wednesdays€andÐ ˆØ ÐThursdays€with€the€father,€and€alternate€weekends€with€each€parent.Ð tÄ Ѐ€€Ð `° Ðà  àIn€calculating€child€support,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Zabaski€had€no€salary€income,€butÐ L œ Ðthat€his€investment€income€amounted€to€$6,600€per€month.€€The€court€used€this€figure€to€calculateÐ 8 ˆ Ða€presumptive€obligation€of€$1,389€under€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€The€court€then€deviatedÐ $ t Ðdownward€from€the€presumptive€amount€to€compensate€for€the€fact€that€the€husband€was€to€exerciseÐ  ` Ðgreater€than€standard€visitation,€and€set€the€final€child€support€obligation€at€$1,000€per€month.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðcourt€also€ordered€Mr.€Zabaski€to€pay€for€Alexððs€private€education€through€twelfth€grade,€and€hisÐ è 8  Ðmedical€insurance,€summer€camps€and€tutoring.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€court€wished€to€leave€the€question€of€alimony€open,€because€of€uncertainty€about€theÐ ¬ü  Ðreturn€on€Ms.€Zabaskiððs€investments,€and€the€possibility€that€Mr.€Zabaski€might€return€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðworkforce€someday.€€The€court€accordingly€awarded€Ms.€Zabaski€$1.00€per€month€as€nominalÐ „Ô  Ðalimony€in€futuro,€because,€ð ð[t]he€Court€is€not€expecting€to€award€alimony,€but€the€Court€does€notÐ pÀ Ðwant€to€preclude€it.ðð€€The€court€also€awarded€Ms.€Zabaski€$18,412€in€attorney€fees€as€alimony€inÐ \¬ Ðsolido.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMs.€Zabaski€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€order,€and€a€motion€to€stay€theÐ  p ÐResidential€Sharing€Schedule,€pending€the€result€of€that€appeal.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motionÐ  \ Ðon€December€7,€2001.€€Ms.€Zabaski€then€filed€a€motion€with€this€court€requesting€a€stay.€€AfterÐ øH Ðreviewing€the€motion€and€supporting€documents,€we€could€find€no€grounds€to€reverse€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourtððs€decision€regarding€the€stay,€and€we€denied€Ms.€Zabaskiððs€motion€on€January€22,€2002.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@oo!ìàò òIII.€€òòChild€CustodyóóˆÐ ¨ø Ðó óÌà  àMary€Ann€Zabaski€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€joint€custody€of€Alex.€€SheÐ €Ð Ðcontends€that€ð ðjoint€child€custody,€with€its€implied€joint€decision€making€is€generally€disfavored€inÐ l¼ Ðcontested€cases.ðð€€While€this€may€once€have€been€true,€the€Legislature€has€eliminated€any€legalÐ X ¨ Ðpresumption€against€joint€custody€with€the€1996€passage€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)(2),Ð D!” Ðwhich€declares,€Ð 0"€  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌð ð.€.€.€neither€a€preference€nor€a€presumption€for€or€against€joint€legal€custody,€jointÐ $X" Ðphysical€custody€or€sole€custody€is€established,€but€the€court€shall€have€the€widestÐ ô$D # Ðdiscretion€to€order€a€custody€arrangement€that€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.ððÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àWe€note€that€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€on€custody€are€considered€to€be€findings€of€fact,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðare€reviewed€by€this€court€with€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðotherwise.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.;€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€1984).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWe€also€note€that€this€case€presents€a€very€unusual€set€of€facts.€€Unlike€most€divorcingÐ ° Ðâ âcouples,€the€Zabaskis€experienced€a€very€short€period€of€separation€prior€to€the€final€hearing€of€theÐ œì Ðdivorce€complaint,€and€Alex€resided€with€both€his€parents€until€shortly€before€the€court€made€its€finalÐ ˆØ Ðcustody€determination.€€Thus€the€trial€court€was€compelled€to€deal€with€the€question€of€custodyÐ tÄ Ðbefore€any€of€the€parties€had€the€opportunity€to€explore€the€advantages€and€disadvantages€of€any€ofÐ `° Ðthe€possible€custodial€arrangements€that€the€divorce€might€require.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMs.€Zabaski€objects€to€every€aspect€of€the€residential€sharing€schedule.€€She€argues€that€it€isÐ $ t Ðnot€in€Alexððs€best€interest€for€the€parents€to€share€equally€in€decision„making;€that€since€she€has€beenÐ  ` ÐAlexððs€primary€caregiver,€the€trial€court€should€have€created€a€schedule€whereby€Alex€spent€theÐ ü L  Ðmajority€of€his€time€in€her€custody;€and€that€the€visitation€schedule€is€flawed,€because€it€requiresÐ è 8  ÐAlex€to€undergo€far€too€many€moves€from€household€to€household€during€the€school€year.€€We€willÐ Ô$  Ðexamine€each€of€these€arguments€in€turn.€Ð À  ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  à€Ms.€Zabaski€states€that€she€and€her€husband€have€always€had€a€hard€time€agreeing€aboutÐ pÀ Ðanything,€and€she€describes€several€incidents€which€she€claims€prove€that€any€disagreements€betweenÐ \¬ Ðthem€resulted€from€Mr.€Zabaskiððs€inflexible€and€unreasonable€nature.€€We€agree€that€it€wasÐ H˜ Ðunreasonable€for€Mr.€Zabaski€to€sulk€in€his€car€during€a€birthday€party€at€Chuck€E.€Cheese€for€oneÐ 4„ Ðof€Alexððs€friends,€and€to€yell€at€his€son€during€a€trip€to€Cleveland€undertaken€for€medical€reasons.Ð  p ÐIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€within€the€context€of€the€nine€years€that€the€parties€jointly€raised€Alex,Ð  \ Ða€few€such€incidents€should€not€disqualify€Mr.€Zabaski€from€participating€in€decision„making€on€anÐ øH Ðequal€basis€with€his€former€wife.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€parentsðð€own€testimony,€as€well€as€that€of€Ms.€Griffin€indicates€that€for€all€theÐ ¼  Ðdisagreement€between€them€on€other€matters,€they€have€done€remarkably€well€in€reaching€agreementÐ ¨ø Ðin€regard€to€Alex.€€Somehow,€when€it€comes€to€their€son,€they€are€usually€(although€not€always)€ableÐ ”ä Ðto€put€aside€their€personal€differences,€and€to€act€in€concert€for€Alexððs€benefit.€€Thus,€we€do€not€findÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€decision€to€give€the€parties€equalÐ l¼ Ðresponsibility€for€making€decisions.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àMary€Anne€Zabaski€insists€that€while€she€has€always€been€Alexððs€primary€caregiver,€herÐ $X" Ðhusband€functioned€primarily€as€a€breadwinner€prior€to€leaving€his€job,€and€that€he€had€very€littleÐ ô$D # Ðinvolvement€in€Alexððs€day„to„day€care.€€She€alleges€that€only€after€filing€for€divorce€has€he€taken€anÐ à%0!$ Ðactive€role€in€his€sonððs€life.€€Peter€Zabaski€admitted€that€his€wife€was€the€primary€caregiver,€butÐ Ì&"% Ðtestified€that€despite€the€demands€of€his€job,€he€has€always€participated€in€Alexððs€care€to€the€extentÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€his€schedule€allowed.€€The€trial€court€apparently€gave€credence€to€his€testimony.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àMr.€Zabaski€testified€that€when€Alex€was€a€baby,€he€and€his€wife€shared€the€duties€of€feedingÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€child,€getting€up€in€the€middle€of€the€night€when€he€was€ill,€and€changing€diapers.€€He€also€readÐ h+¸&* Ðto€Alex,€and€took€primary€responsibility€for€giving€him€a€bath€every€night.€€While€Ms.€Zabaski€tookÐ ° Ðmore€responsibility€for€Alexððs€routine€medical€care,€Mr.€Zabaski€was€almost€always€present€whenÐ œì ÐAlex€was€undergoing€surgery.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àMr.€Zabaski€further€testified€that€he€regularly€took€Alex€to€soccer,€basketball€and€footballÐ `° Ðpractice,€acted€as€an€assistant€basketball€coach,€participated€in€scouting,€attended€teacher€meetings,Ð L œ Ðschool€plays€and€pancake€breakfasts,€and€helped€with€homework.€€He€also€generally€took€Alex€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€appointments€with€the€orthodontist€and€the€ear€doctor.€€Obviously,€most€of€this€took€place€afterÐ $ t ÐMr.€Zabaski€stopped€working.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€mother€has€demonstrated€anÐ  ` Ðentitlement€to€sole€custody€on€the€basis€of€her€role€as€the€primary€caregiver,€for€both€parties€haveÐ ü L  Ðdemonstrated€the€ability€to€effectively€focus€their€energies€on€Alexððs€needs.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òC.ó óˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àA€schedule€whereby€custody€of€a€minor€child€alternates€between€the€parents€during€eachÐ ˜è  Ðschool€week€is€quite€unusual,€and€would€probably€be€unworkable€if€the€parties€lived€very€far€fromÐ „Ô  Ðeach€other,€but€they€apparently€live€quite€close.€€Mr.€Zabaski€testified€as€to€the€reason€he€suggestedÐ pÀ Ðsuch€an€arrangement:Ð \¬ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌð ðWell,€because€it€does€allow€Alex€a€schedule€thatððs€easy€for€him€to€understand€toÐ 4„ Ðwork€with€his€school€as€far€as€hook„ups;€other€parents€would€know€exactly€whereÐ  p ÐAlex€would€be€on€what€day€and€it€would€be€consistent.€€Whereas,€actually,€Friday€weÐ  \ Ðcould€run€hook„up,€Mary€Ann€and€me.€€So€we€would€be€in€control€of€whether€AlexÐ øH Ðis€with€us€or€not€on€that€day€and€that€wouldnððt€interfere€with€the€other€parents.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒWe€take€ð ðhook„upðð€to€be€a€car„pooling€arrangement,€perhaps€with€some€additional€responsibilitiesÐ ¼  Ðfor€the€parents€involved.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€negative€side€of€the€schedule€is€the€frequency€with€which€custody€of€Alex€is€transferredÐ €Ð Ðfrom€one€parent€to€another.€€Ms.€Zabaski€calls€this€a€ð ðrevolving„door€residential€schedule,ðð€andÐ l¼ Ðcomplains€that€Alex€is€required€to€sleep€in€a€different€bed€than€the€one€he€slept€in€the€night€beforeÐ X ¨ Ðseventeen€times€each€month.€€She€notes€the€reservations€Ms.€Griffin€had€expressed€about€such€anÐ D!” Ðarrangement€at€trial,€and€argues€that€it€can€lead€to€long„term€psychological€harm€to€a€child.€€Ms.Ð 0"€  ÐGriffin€had€mentioned€a€study€which€is€critical€of€such€joint€custody€arrangements,€ð ðThe€UnexpectedÐ #l! ÐLegacy€of€Divorce,ðð€by€Judith€Wallerstein€et€al€(Hyperion€2001).€€Ms.€Zabaski€included€a€copy€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€relevant€chapter€in€the€appendix€to€her€appellate€brief.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€questions€of€custody€and€visitation€are€very€fact„driven€andÐ Ì&"% Ðindividualized,€and€that€it€is€not€always€possible€to€find€an€ideal€solution.€€The€Wallerstein€studyÐ ¸'#& Ðmakes€the€very€same€points.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€had€to€balance€the€advantages€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðgiving€Alex€abundant€exposure€to€both€his€parents,€and€a€regular€and€predictable€school€schedule,Ð )à$( Ðâ âagainst€the€possibility€that€frequent€changes€of€household€could€introduce€a€disorienting€element€intoÐ |*Ì%) Ðhis€life.€€While€we€cannot€say€with€certainty€that€the€court€reached€the€best€possible€solution,€we€alsoÐ ° Ðdo€not€believe€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€its€decision.€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌÌÌà@ãã"ìàò òIV.€Child€Supportó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€the€three€years€immediately€preceding€his€filing€of€the€divorce€complaint,€Peter€ZabaskiÐ  ` Ðearned€an€average€of€$173,000€a€year€working€for€SEI€Management€Inc.€€After€he€lost€his€job,€heÐ ü L  Ðchose€not€to€go€right€back€to€work,€although€he€worked€for€a€new€company€for€three€months€in€theÐ è 8  Ðspring€of€2000,€at€an€annual€salary€of€$108,000.€€By€the€summer€of€2000,€he€decided€to€focus€hisÐ Ô$  Ðattention€on€the€divorce€and€on€his€son,€without€working€outside€the€home.€€He€was€able€to€do€soÐ À  Ðbecause€his€financial€assets€generated€income€which€the€trial€court€estimated€at€$6,600€per€month.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€court€used€the€figure€of€$6,600€as€a€basis€for€calculating€Mr.€Zabaskiððs€presumptive€childÐ „Ô  Ðsupport€obligation€of€$1,389€under€the€child€support€guidelines.€€In€light€of€the€amount€of€time€Mr.Ð pÀ ÐZabaski€would€be€caring€for€Alex,€the€court€reduced€the€actual€amount€of€the€obligation€to€$1,000Ð \¬ Ða€month.€€Mary€Ann€Zabaski€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€relying€on€Mr.€Zabaskiððs€investmentÐ H˜ Ðincome€alone€as€the€basis€of€its€calculations.€€She€correctly€points€out€that€the€Tennessee€ChildÐ 4„ ÐSupport€Guidelines€provides€that€ð ð[i]f€an€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€orÐ  p Ðunderemployed,€child€support€shall€be€calculated€based€on€a€determination€of€potential€income,€asÐ  \ Ðevidenced€by€educational€level€and/or€previous€work€experience.ðð€€Tenn.Comp.Rules€&€Regs.€ChÐ øH Ð1240„2„4„.03(d).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€us€that€Mr.€Zabaski€is€willfully€or€voluntarily€unemployed,€and€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðshould€have€so€found.€€òòSeeóó€òòGarfinkel€v.€Garfinkelóó,€945€S.W.2d€744€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€The€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€should€have€included€Mr.€Zabaskiððs€potential€net€salary€income€in€its€calculation,€and€itsÐ ”ä Ðwritten€findings€should€have€included€the€presumptive€child€support€obligation€resulting€from€itsÐ €Ð Ðinclusion.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€think€the€proof€shows€that€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐZabaski€has€the€potential€to€earn€$173,000€per€year€or€$14,416€per€month.€€That€may€or€may€notÐ X ¨ Ðtranslate€to€a€net€income€of€less€than€$10,000€per€month,€but€under€a€recent€amendment€to€Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(B),€child€support€cannot€be€based€on€an€amount€greater€than€thatÐ 0"€  Ðwithout€proof€that€a€greater€amount€of€support€is€reasonably€necessary€for€the€childððs€needs.€€ThereÐ #l! Ðis€no€such€proof€in€this€case;€therefore€the€maximum€child€support€Mr.€Duke€would€have€to€pay€onÐ $X" Ðhis€potential€income€would€be€$2100€per€month.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€calculations€under€the€child€support€guidelines€create€a€rebuttable€presumptionÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€correct€amount€of€child€support,€and€the€final€award€can€deviate€from€that€presumption€whenÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€strict€application€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð ¤(ô#' Ð101(e)(1)(A).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€purposes€set€out€in€the€child€support€guidelines€include€the€following:€ð ð[t]o€ensure€thatÐ ° Ðâ âwhen€the€parents€live€separately,€the€economic€impact€on€the€child(ren)€is€minimized€and€to€theÐ œì Ðextent€that€either€parent€enjoys€a€higher€standard€of€living,€the€child(ren)€share(s)€in€that€higherÐ ˆØ Ðstandard.ðð€€Tenn.Comp.Rules€&€Regs.€Ch€1240„2„4„.02(2)(e).€€Child€support€is€clearly€awarded€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€benefit€of€the€child,€and€any€benefit€to€the€obligee€parent€is€merely€incidental.Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€equal€division€of€the€abundant€marital€property€enables€Alex€to€shareÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€the€comfortable€standard€of€living€that€his€mother€and€his€father€both€enjoy.€€Under€theÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€of€equally€divided€custody,€strict€adherence€to€the€guidelines€might€enable€Mary€AnneÐ  ` ÐZabaski€to€enjoy€a€more€luxurious€lifestyle,€but€it€does€not€appear€to€us€that€it€would€result€in€anyÐ ü L  Ðincreased€benefit€to€Alex.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIt€is€self„evident€that€the€guidelines€provision€relating€to€unemployment€or€underemploymentÐ À  Ðis€designed€to€prevent€a€parent€from€evading€his€obligation€to€support€his€child€by€willfully€reducingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€amount€of€income€subject€to€the€guidelines,€and€to€make€certain€that€a€child€is€not€therebyÐ ˜è  Ðdeprived€of€support€necessary€to€his€well„being.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€proof€in€this€case€shows€that€Peter€Zabaski€has€never€evaded€his€obligation€to€supportÐ \¬ Ðhis€son.€€In€fact€he€has€gone€beyond€any€support€obligation€the€court€is€authorized€to€impose€uponÐ H˜ Ðhim€by€placing€$55,000€in€a€tax„deferred€college€savings€fund€for€Alex.€€There€is€no€indication€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€record€that€the€child€suffers€from€any€unmet€material€needs,€but€if€Mr.€Zabaski€were€compelledÐ  p Ðto€return€to€work€in€order€to€pay€the€presumptive€amount€of€child€support,€Alex€would€no€longer€beÐ  \ Ðable€to€enjoy€the€same€measure€of€attention€and€guidance€that€his€father€can€provide€under€theÐ øH Ðcustody€arrangement€fashioned€by€the€court.€€It€thus€appears€to€us€that€the€trial€court€set€the€properÐ ä4 Ðamount€of€support€for€Mr.€Zabaski€to€pay,€and€we€affirm€the€judgment€as€a€deviation€from€theÐ Ð  Ðguideline€amount€based€on€the€presumptive€income.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@¿¿%ìàò òV.€€òòAlimonyó óóóˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€purpose€of€alimony€is€ð ðto€aid€the€disadvantaged€spouse€to€become€and€remain€self„Ð l¼ Ðsufficient€and,€when€economic€€rehabilitation€is€not€feasible,€to€mitigate€the€harsh€economic€realitiesÐ X ¨ Ðof€divorce.ðð€òò€Anderton€v.€Andertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€675,€682€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€While€we€haveÐ D!” Ðno€doubt€that€the€emotional€consequences€of€divorce€are€almost€always€harsh,€any€economicÐ 0"€  Ðhardship€suffered€by€the€wife€in€the€present€case€has€been€mitigated€by€the€generous€provisions€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€property€settlement€ratified€by€the€court.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€there€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€alimony,€òòCrain€v.€Crainóó,€925Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€232€(Tenn.€Ct.€App€1996),€but€that€such€decisions€hinge€on€the€unique€facts€of€each€case,Ð Ì&"% Ðin€light€of€the€factors€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(d).€€Many€of€these€factors,€such€as€theÐ ¸'#& Ðduration€of€the€marriage€and€the€relative€earning€capacity€of€the€parties€would€appear€to€favor€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwife,€but€we€believe€they€are€outweighed€in€this€case€by€factor€(H),€ð ðthe€provisions€made€with€regardÐ )à$( Ðto€marital€property€as€defined€in€ðð€36„4„121.ðð€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAdditionally,€our€courts€have€stated€numerous€times€that€the€most€important€factors€toÐ ° Ðconsider€when€determining€an€alimony€award€are€the€demonstrated€need€of€the€disadvantaged€spouseÐ œì Ðand€the€obligor€spouseððs€ability€to€pay.òòóó€òò€Anderton€v.€Andertonóó,€988€S.W.2d€675,€683€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòVarley€v.€Varleyóó,€934€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€443€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€Our€courts€have€aòòóólso€stated€that€when€the€court€is€fashioningÐ `° Ðan€initial€alimony€award,€the€need€of€the€recipient€spouse€is€the€single€most€important€factor€toÐ L œ Ðconsider.€òò€Bogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721€(Tenn.€2001).€òòSee€alsoóó€òòCranford€v.€Cranfordóó,€772Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€48€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Legislature€has€explicitly€declared€its€preference€for€rehabilitative€alimony€over€alimonyÐ ü L  Ðin€futuro,€because€of€the€desirability€of€ending€the€dependence€of€one€spouse€on€another.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnn.€ðð€36„5„101(d).€€For€similar€reasons,€our€courts€have€approved€of€the€practice€of€awarding€theÐ Ô$  Ðobligee€spouse€a€greater€share€of€the€marital€property,€in€order€to€reduce€or€eliminate€the€need€forÐ À  Ðspousal€support.€òò€Robertson€v.€Robertson,óó€76€S.W.3d€337€(Tenn.€2002);€òòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€501€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€proof€shows€that€Ms.€Zabaski€is€capable€of€earning€only€a€modest€income€as€an€interiorÐ pÀ Ðdesigner.€€Thus,€if€earned€income€were€her€only€source€of€support,€she€would€be€a€prime€candidateÐ \¬ Ðfor€alimony€in€futuro,€given€the€vast€disparity€between€her€earning€capacity€and€that€of€her€husband.Ð H˜ ÐHowever,€the€courtððs€decree€granted€her€assets€worth€$1,493,000.€€These€included€$901,000€in€liquidÐ 4„ Ðassets,€a€$280,000€residence€unencumbered€by€mortgage,€and€a€half„interest€in€commercial€propertyÐ  p Ðfrom€which€she€will€receive€$2,700€in€monthly€rental€income.€€She€will€also€receive€$1,000€perÐ  \ Ðmonth€in€child€support.€We€believe€this€should€be€sufficient€for€her€to€avoid€any€further€financialÐ øH Ðdependence€on€her€husband,€even€if€she€chooses€never€to€go€back€to€work.€€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMary€Anne€Zabaski€argues,€however,€that€her€investment€income€will€not€be€adequate€forÐ ¼  Ðher€needs.€€Her€income€and€expense€statement€gives€us€a€revealing€glimpse€into€Ms.€ZabaskiððsÐ ¨ø Ðconcept€of€need.€€Her€statement€lists€monthly€expenses€of€$11,425.€€Items€in€the€statement€includeÐ ”ä Ða€mortgage€payment€of€$2,000,€even€though€there€is€no€mortgage€on€her€house,€$1,100€a€month€forÐ €Ð Ðcharitable€contributions,€$950€a€month€for€gifts,€$780€a€month€for€home€cleaning€and€maintenance,Ð l¼ Ð$750€a€month€for€Alexððs€clothing€and€shoes,€$500€a€month€for€travel€and€entertainment,€and€$270Ð X ¨ Ða€month€for€books,€newspapers€and€magazines.à  à€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€found€Ms.€Zabaskiððs€allowance€for€herself€to€be€ð ðquite€generousðð€and€forÐ #l! Ðpurposes€of€calculation,€she€reduced€the€monthly€expenses€to€$7,500,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€while€noting€that€it€couldÐ $X" Ðarguably€be€set€$2,000€lower.€€The€judge€suggested€that€a€reasonable€return€on€the€liquid€assetsÐ ô$D # Ðwould€be€6%,€which€would€result€in€a€monthly€income€of€about€$4,500.€€The€lease€income€and€childÐ à%0!$ Ðsupport€would€add€$3,700,€for€a€total€of€$9,200.€€It€is€thus€abundantly€clear€that€Ms.€Zabaski€doesÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€need€alimony€to€meet€her€reasonable€expenses.€€€€€€à p àÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àThe€wife€argues€that€the€assumption€of€a€6%€return€on€investment€is€not€supported€by€anyÐ ° Ðevidence€in€the€record,€but€this€is€untrue.€€Rodger€Reed,€a€certified€financial€planner,€testified€thatÐ œì Ðthe€historical€results€of€several€different€mixes€of€stocks€and€bonds€have€resulted€in€average€annualÐ ˆØ Ðreturns€between€5.13%€and€9.1%.€€Of€course€Mr.€Reed€conceded€that€he€couldnððt€guarantee€anyÐ tÄ Ðparticular€return€(the€familiar€disclaimer€that€ð ðpast€results€are€no€guarantee€of€future€performanceððÐ `° Ðcomes€to€mind),€and€Mr.€Reed€admitted€that€returns€for€the€past€three€years€were€considerably€belowÐ L œ Ðhistorical€averages.€€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€reasonable€to€us€for€the€trial€court€to€adopt€a€rate€of€return€within€the€range€testifiedÐ  ` Ðto€in€the€record.€We€also€believe€that€it€was€reasonable€for€the€trial€court€to€award€Ms.€ZabaskiÐ ü L  Ðnominal€alimony€of€$1.00€per€month,€to€maintain€jurisdiction€over€the€question€of€alimony,€in€caseÐ è 8  Ðthe€stock€marketððs€dismal€showing€over€the€past€three€years€continues.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€light€of€Ms.€Zabaskiððs€announced€intention€to€spend€$250,000€of€her€liquidÐ ¬ü  Ðassets€to€purchase€a€larger€house€for€herself€and€Alex,€we€would€like€to€offer€a€cautionaryÐ ˜è  Ðobservation.€€One€of€Ms.€Zabaskiððs€main€arguments€was€that€her€husband€stopped€working€just€soÐ „Ô  Ðhe€could€obtain€joint€custody€of€Alex€and€avoid€paying€child€support.€€While€we€cannot€evaluate€theÐ pÀ Ðtruth€of€this€assertion,€we€must€warn€the€appellant€against€retaliating€in€kind.€€If€she€dissipates€theÐ \¬ Ðassets€she€has€received€in€hopes€of€obtaining€a€larger€child€support€award€and€a€grant€of€alimony€inÐ H˜ Ðfuturo,€thereby€forcing€Mr.€Zabaski€to€go€back€to€work,€weððre€certain€that€the€courts€will€not€lookÐ 4„ Ðfavorably€upon€such€actions.€Ð  p ÐÌà@yy!ìàò òVI.€€òòAttorney€Feesó óóóˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àBoth€parties€have€submitted€arguments€related€to€the€award€of€attorney€fees.€Mr.€ZabaskiÐ Ð  Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€his€wife€attorney€fees€as€alimony€in€solido€in€the€amountÐ ¼  Ðof€$18,412.€€Ms.€Zabaski€argues€that€the€award€was€justified,€and€that€this€court€should€also€awardÐ ¨ø Ðher€the€attorney€fees€and€court€costs€she€has€incurred€on€appeal.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIt€has€long€been€established€that€attorney€fees€may€properly€be€allowed€in€divorce€cases€asÐ l¼ Ðpart€of€the€alimony€award.€òò€Raskind€v.€Raskindóó,€325€S.W.2d€617€(Tenn.€1959).€€The€reasoning€behindÐ X ¨ Ðsuch€awards€is€that€the€recipient€spouse€should€not€be€required€to€deplete€the€funds€necessary€forÐ D!” Ðsupport€in€order€to€pay€an€attorney.€€Several€of€our€cases€have€stated€that€such€awards€areÐ 0"€  Ðinappropriate€where€the€recipient€has€sufficient€funds€to€pay€his€or€her€legal€expenses.€òò€Wade€v.Ð #l! ÐWadeóó,€897€S.W.2d€702€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòHarwell€v.€Harwellóó,€612€S.W.2d€182€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $X" Ð1980).€€In€the€present€case,€the€property€division€has€provided€Ms.€Zabaski€with€enough€money€toÐ ô$D # Ðpay€her€attorney€and€still€maintain€a€reasonable€standard€of€living.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àHowever,€an€award€of€attorney€fees€is€considered€to€be€largely€within€the€discretion€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€court,€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal,€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdiscretion.€òò€Houghland€v.€Houghlandóó,€844€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòCrouch€v.€Crouchóó,Ð )à$( Ðâ â385€S.W.2d€288€(Tenn.€1964).€€In€light€of€the€courtððs€decision€to€grant€only€nominal€alimony€to€Ms.Ð |*Ì%) ÐZabaski,€we€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ordering€her€husband€to€pay€herÐ ° Ðattorney€fees.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAttorney€fees€are€sometimes€awarded€on€appeal€in€cases€involving€issues€of€child€support.Ð tÄ ÐThe€rationale€is€that€in€defending€a€child€support€award€or€in€winning€an€increase€in€child€support,Ð `° Ða€custodial€parent€incurs€costs€for€the€benefit€of€the€child.€€The€cost€of€obtaining€the€benefit€reducesÐ L œ Ðthe€funds€actually€available€to€the€child,€and€thus€it€is€considered€more€appropriate€for€the€non„Ð 8 ˆ Ðcustodial€parent€to€bear€the€expense.€òò€Huntley€v.€Huntleyóó,€61€S.W.3d€329€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);Ð $ t ÐòòRagan€v.€Raganóó€858€S.W.2d€332€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€€€€€€€€€à È àÐ  ` ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€husband€did€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€child€support,Ð è 8  Ðand€we€rejected€the€wifeððs€argument€that€she€was€entitled€to€an€increase€in€support,€because€we€foundÐ Ô$  Ðthat€such€an€increase€would€be€more€of€a€benefit€to€her€than€to€her€child.€€We€therefore€do€not€believeÐ À  Ðshe€should€be€awarded€any€attorney€fees€on€appeal.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@==(ìàò òVII.ó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€modified€to€find€that€Mr.€Zabaski€is€voluntarily€unemployed.€Ð \¬ ÐWe,€however,€affirm€the€amount€of€child€support€set€by€the€trial€court€due€to€the€uniqueÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances€of€this€case.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€RemandÐ 4„ Ðthis€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ  p Ðopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant,€Mary€Ann€Dale€Zabaski.Ô#†¼Lå»XXéV #ÔÔ€XéX»¼LåÔÐ  \ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.