ÿWPCl +# jU:u %¯ 04µ4éý w@ 0xT 0DÌUJ 0JZ 0T¤ 0^ø 0hV 0r¾ 0|0 0†¬ 02 1uÂU,7 0dc U,Ç U*ó î B I( q x~v~vÓ™˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó©U!tÔôÔô3|xß  Ö À× [Ø ¿Ù Ú «Û Ü DÝ Þ Dß U(((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó5mÀ¢ AZ‹2Antique Olive 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒThis€order€applies€only€to€the€period€from€November€1991€to€JulyÏ1994.€€On€the€next€day,€December€7,€1994,€the€trial€court€entered€anotherÏorder€in€which€it€directed€Dorothy€Jones€to€pay,€as€of€July€1,€1994,€support€ofÏ$1,087€per€month€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines.€€à àÌ d ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€method€for€computing€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€is€set€forth€inÏà àà àTenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)€and€(4).Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€percentages€are€contained€in€Tenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs..€Ch.€1240„2„4„.03(5).Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€guidelines€are€based€upon€a€number€of€assumptions,€one€of€them€beingÏthat€à àthat€the€child(ren)€live€primarily€with€the€obligee€and€visit€the€obligor€every€otherÏà àweekend,€two€weeks€during€the€summer,€and€two€weeks€during€the€holidaysÏà àthroughout€the€year.€€Tenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs..€Ch.€1240„2„4„.02(6).Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€If€the€child(ren)€spend€more€time€with€the€obligor€than€is€assumed€byÏà àà àTenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4.02(6),€see€note€4€òòsupraóó,€theÏobligorððs€child€à àsupport€payments€should€be€reduced.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ7€wˆXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌ€€Ìà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€ÌÌÌÌÌDOROTHY€CAROLINE€JONES,à àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà àœ)€à à€€€€Filed:€September€16,€1996›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ€€€€€€HAMILTON›€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCURTIS€LAMAR€JONES,à àà àà à)à àHon.€Howell€N.€Peoples,ÏChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03S01„9601„CH„00002ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àœà à›à àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:Ìœà à›ÌWilliam€H.€Hallà àà àœà à›à àà àSelma€Cash€PatyÌSoddy„Daisy,€Tennesseeà àà àœà à›à àPaty,€Rymer€&€Ulin,€P.C.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àChattanooga,›€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€"„ÔÌÌà@ àÔ€ Ôò òÔ€ èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔó óÔ€"ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€AND€COURT€à àà àà àà àà àÌOF€APPEALS€REVERSED.à àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÌÓӜ̛à àThis€child€support€case€presents€a€single€issue€for€our€consideration:Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€child€support€guidelines€wereÏinapplicable,€and€thereafter€setting€the€child€support€at€an€amount€approximatelyÏ30%€less€than€that€called€for€in€the€guidelines.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€weÏconclude€that€the€grounds€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€are€insufficient€to€justify€aÏdownward€deviation€from€the€guidelines;€therefore,€we€reverse€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€Court€of€Appeals.€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌòòò òÓ  ÓFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYóóà àó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€of€this€case€are€undisputed.€€On€May€5,€1987,€theÏparties€were€granted€a€divorce€in€the€Hamilton€County€Chancery€Court.€€CustodyÏof€the€partiesðð€two€minor€sons€was€given€to€the€father,€Curtis€Lamar€Jones,€andÏthe€mother,€Dorothy€Caroline€Jones,€was€ordered€to€pay€child€support€in€theÏamount€of€$220€every€two€weeks.€€The€mother€was€granted€visitation€on€everyÏother€weekend€and€€for€two€weeks€during€the€summer.€€ÌÌà àSome€months€later€Congress€passed€the€Family€Support€Act€of€1988,Ïwhich€provided€federal€funding€to€assist€states€in€securing€and€enforcingÏjudgments€for€child€support.€€In€order€to€receive€those€funds,€however,€statesÏwere€required,€among€other€things,€to€ð ðestablish€guidelines€for€child€supportÏaward€amounts€within€the€state.ðð€42€U.S.C.€ðð€667(a).€€In€response€to€thatÏcongressional€mandate,€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services€(DHS)Ïpromulgated€its€guidelines,€Tenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.01€„„€1240„2„4„.04,€which€were€then€adopted€by€the€General€Assembly.€€These€guidelines,Ïwhich€are€to€be€applied€by€the€trial€court€unless€the€court€makes€a€specific€writtenÍfinding€that€they€should€not€apply,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e),€specify€that€aÏcertain€percentage€of€the€noncustodial€parentððs€income€is€to€be€paid€as€childÏsupport,€the€percentage€being€dependent€on€the€number€of€children€for€whichÏsupport€is€ordered.€€The€guidelines€became€effective€on€October€13,€1989.ÌÌà àIn€June€1991€Curtis€Jones€filed€a€petition€seeking€an€increase€in€childÏsupport.€€In€January€1992,€the€trial€court€found€that€there€had€been€a€materialÏchange€in€circumstances€because€of€(1)€the€increased€cost€of€caring€for€olderÏchildren,€and€(2)€the€fact€that€the€motherððs€income€had€risen€substantially€sinceÏthe€divorce.€€The€trial€court€thus€increased€the€child€support€to€$320€every€twoÏweeks.€€Although€the€amount€was€approximately€30%€below€that€contemplatedÏby€the€guidelines,€the€court€declined€to€apply€them,€stating€that€ð ðthis€is€aÏpreguidelines€case.ðð€ÌÌà àCurtis€Jones€then€appealed,€and€after€an€affirmance€by€the€Court€ofÏAppeals,€this€Court€considered€this€case€for€the€first€time.€€In€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€870ÏS.W.2d€281€(Tenn.€1994),€we€pointed€out€that€the€child€support€guidelinesÍexplicitly€provide€that€they€are€to€be€applied€in€any€action€brought€to€establish€orÏòòmodifyóó€child€support.€€Tenn.Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3)€(emphasisÏadded).€€Since€the€fatherððs€June€1991€petition€sought€a€modification€of€the€1987Ïaward,€we€reversed€the€judgment€and€remanded€the€case,€directing€the€trial€courtÏto€either€apply€the€guidelines€or€to€enter€a€written€finding€explaining€why€it€wouldÏbe€ð ðunjust€or€inappropriateðð€to€apply€them.€€ÌÌà àOn€December€6,€1994,€the€trial€court€filed€its€order€on€remand.€€That€orderÏprovides,€in€pertinent€part:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThis€cause€is€before€the€court€on€remand€from€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€Tennessee€on€the€issue€of€the€proper€amount€of€child€support€toÏbe€paid€by€the€plaintiff.€€At€the€previous€trial,€the€court€found€aÏchange€of€circumstances€but€did€not€increase€the€support€to€theÏamount€specified€under€the€child€support€guidelines.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€remanded€...ÌÌà8 àThe€evidence€presented€to€the€court€on€November€25,€1991Ïestablished€the€following€facts:ÌÌà8 à1.€At€the€time€of€the€divorce€on€April€6,€1987€plaintiff,€DorothyÏCaroline€Jones,€was€employed€by€the€Tennessee€Valley€AuthorityÏearning€a€salary€of€$30,186€per€year.€€Her€salary€in€November€1991Íwas€$52,000€per€year,€an€increase€of€approximately€$22,000.ÌÌà8 à2.€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€defendant,€Curtis€Lamar€Jones,€wasÏearning€a€salary€of€$20,400€per€year.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing€onÏthe€Complaint€to€Modify€in€November€1991,€he€filed€a€swornÏstatement€showing€his€income€to€be€$35,820€per€year.€€UnderÏcross„examination,€it€was€established€through€his€income€taxÏreturns€that€his€income€for€the€prior€two€years€was€$39,982€in€1989Ïand€$45,222€in€1990,€and€his€rate€of€pay€had€not€been€decreasedÏat€the€time€of€the€hearing.ÌÌà8 à3.€Plaintiff€was€using€her€increased€pay€to€obtain€schooling€and€forÏthe€purchase€of€a€house€in€a€safe€area€in€Atlanta€at€a€cost€ofÏ$119,000.ÌÌà8 à4.€Since€the€divorce,€defendant€had€added€a€van€and€a€motorcycleÏto€the€pickup€truck€and€boat€and€house€which€he€was€awarded€inÏthe€divorce.ÌÌà8 à5.€Defendant€had€taken€a€number€of€expensive€vacations€with€theÏchildren€and€had€taken€one€trip€to€the€Virgin€Islands€without€theÏchildren.€€ÌÌà8 à6.€The€monthly€expense€figures€which€defendant€claimed€on€hisÏsworn€income€and€expense€statement€were€shown€to€be€inflatedÏfigures.ÌÌà8 à7.€Plaintiff€proved€that€her€monthly€expense€figures€were€both€trueÏand€reasonable.ÌÌà8 à8.€Defendantððs€misrepresentation€of€income,€exaggeration€of€needs,Ïand€somewhat€extravagant€use€of€funds€combined€with€plaintiffððsÍuse€of€increased€income€for€education€and€housing€renderÏinappropriate€the€application€of€the€child€support€guidelines€andÏplaintiff€should€pay€only€the€amount€proved€to€be€reasonablyÏneeded€by€defendant€for€support€of€the€children.ÌÌà8 àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€court€set€the€child€support€at€$320.00Ïevery€two€weeks€after€the€hearing€on€November€25,€1991€andÏaffirms€that€disposition€on€remand€from€the€Supreme€Court.œ× ƒ# ××  ×›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àCurtis€Jones€again€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€a€majority€of€thatÏcourt€affirmed€the€judgment.€€The€majority€explained€that€trial€courts€haveÏdiscretion€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines€in€an€appropriate€case;€and€it€believedÏthat€deviation€was€appropriate,€primarily€because€of€the€fact€that€the€motherððsÏnew€higher€paying€job€required€a€college€degree,€and€thus€necessitated€herÏeducational€expenses.€€ÌÌà àJudge€Susano,€however,€dissented€from€the€majorityððs€treatment€of€theÏissue.€€He€began€by€stating€his€belief€that€the€adoption€of€the€guidelines€hadÍcompletely€changed€the€older€law,€in€which€trial€courts€were€vested€with€almostÏtotal€discretion€in€setting€the€amount€of€the€child€support€award.€€While€concedingÏthat€trial€courts€have€limited€discretion€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines,€JudgeÏSusano€argued€that€allowing€deviation€in€the€case€before€the€court€would€be€ð ðtoÏretreat€to€a€methodology€in€vogue€at€an€earlier€time€„„€a€case„by„caseÏmethodology€that€has€been€discredited€and€supplanted€by€the€GeneralÏAssemblyððs€adoption€of€the€guidelines.ðð€€He€concluded€by€stating€that€ð ðI€believeÏthe€time€has€come€for€the€Supreme€Court€to€comprehensively€address€theÏconcept€of€deviation€embodied€in€the€guidelines.ððÌÌà àThe€issue€of€the€trial€courtsðð€authority€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines€hasÏbeen€problematic,€resulting€in€the€disagreement€in€this€case€and€in€differingÏinterpretations€among€the€sections€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€Therefore,€weÏgranted€Curtis€Jonesððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€order€to€addressÏthe€issue.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌ€à àInitially,€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€guidelines€promulgated€by€DHSÏand€adopted€by€the€General€Assembly€are€radically€different€from€the€older€lawÏgoverning€child€support€awards.€€Whereas€the€lack€of€standards€in€the€older€lawÏresulted€in€widely€divergent€awards€in€similar€factual€circumstances,€seeÏMargaret€Campbell€Haynes,€ð ðUnderstanding€the€Guidelines€and€the€Rulesðð,€16ÏòòABA€Family€Advocate€óó14€(1993),€the€guidelines,€by€contrast,€are€designed€toÏmake€awards€more€equitable€by€providing€a€standardized€method€ofÏcomputation.€€That€method€is,€moreover,€very€straightforward:€the€court€calculatesÏthe€net€income€of€the€parent€with€whom€the€child(ren)€do€not€primarily€live,€calledÏthe€ð ðobligor,ðð× ƒ% ××  ×€and€then€multiplies€that€figure€by€the€percentage€whichÏcorresponds€to€the€number€of€children€for€whom€support€is€being€set.× ƒ& ××  ×€€€ThatÏamount€is€then€payable€to€the€ð ðobligee,ðð€the€parent€with€whom€the€child(ren)Íprimarily€live.× ƒ' ××  ×Ìà àÌà àThere€can€also€be€no€doubt€that€the€General€Assembly€intended€that€theseÏguidelines€control€the€amount€awarded€as€child€support.€€The€enablingÏlegislation,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1),€provides€that:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€making€its€determination€concerning€the€amount€of€support€of€anyÏminor€child€or€children€of€the€parties,€the€court€shall€apply€as€aÏrebuttable€presumption€the€child€support€guidelines€as€provided€inÏthis€subsection.€€If€the€court€finds€that€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebutÏthis€presumption,€the€court€shall€make€a€written€finding€that€theÏapplication€of€the€child€support€guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÏinappropriate€in€that€particular€case,€in€order€to€provide€for€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child(ren)€or€the€equity€between€the€parties.€€FindingsÏthat€the€application€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÏinappropriate€shall€state€the€amount€of€support€that€would€haveÏbeen€ordered€under€the€child€support€guidelines€and€a€justificationÏfor€the€variance€from€the€guidelines.ÌÌÌÌÓÓFurthermore,€this€directive€is€set€forth€twice€more€in€the€guidelines€themselves.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs..€ch.€1240„2„4.01(3)€and€1240„2„4.02(7).ÌÌà àAlthough€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€and€the€accompanying€rules€clearly€embodyÏthe€legislatureððs€intention€that€the€guidelines€govern€the€amount€of€child€supportÏawarded,€the€fact€that€the€presumption€is€rebuttable€implies€that€the€trial€courtsÏhave€limited€discretion€to€deviate€from€the€guidelines.€€The€subject€of€deviation€isÏaddressed€in€Tenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs..€ch.€1240„2„4„.04.€€That€rule,€entitledÏð ðCriteria€For€Deviation€From€Guidelines,ðð€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€Since€these€percentage€amounts€[expressed€in€Rule€1240„2„4„.03(5)]€are€minimums,€the€court€shall€increase€the€award€calculatedÏin€Rule€1240„2„4„.03€for€the€following€reasons:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(a)€If€the€obligor€is€not€providing€health€insurance€forÏthe€child(ren),€an€amount€equal€to€the€amountÏnecessary€for€the€obligee€to€obtain€such€insuranceÏshall€be€added€to€the€percentage€calculated€in€theÏabove€rule.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€If€the€child(ren)€is/are€not€staying€overnight€with€theÏobligor€for€the€average€visitation€period€of€every€otherÏweekend€from€Friday€evening€to€Sunday€evening,€twoÍweeks€during€the€summer€and€two€weeks€duringÏholiday€periods€throughout€the€year,€then€an€amountÏshall€be€added€to€the€percentage€calculated€in€theÏabove€rule€to€compensate€the€obligee€for€the€cost€ofÏproviding€care€for€the€child(ren)€for€the€amount€of€timeÏduring€the€average€visitation€period€that€the€child(ren)Ïis/are€not€with€the€obligor.ÌÌà8 àà8 àðð€Extraordinary€educational€expenses€andÏextraordinary€medical€expenses€not€covered€byÏinsurance€shall€be€added€to€the€percentage€calculatedÏin€the€above€rule.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€Any€other€extraordinary€expenses€for€the€child(ren)Ïmay€justify€increasing€the€support€calculated€in€theÏabove€rule€if€the€court€finds€that€equity€requires€it.ÌÌà8 àà8 à...ÌÌà8 àà8 à(f)€Valuable€assets€and€resources€[that€would€notÏnormally€be€included€in€the€computation€of€netÏincome]€of€the€obligor€should€be€considered€for€theÏpurpose€of€imputing€income€and€increasing€theÏsupport€award€in€any€case€if€the€court€finds€that€equityÏrequires€it.ÌÌà8 à(2)€Deviation€from€the€guidelines€may€be€appropriate€in€other€casesÏwhen€the€court€finds€it€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child(ren)Ïincluding,€but€not€limited€to,€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(a)€In€cases€where€the€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏhas€taken€custody€of€the€child(ren)€pursuant€to€aÍneglect,€dependant€[sic],€or€abuse€action€and€whereÏthe€parent(s)€is/are€making€reasonable€efforts€toÏsecure€the€return€of€the€child(ren)€to€the€family;€and/orÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€In€cases€where€physical€custody€of€the€child(ren)€isÏmore€equally€divided€between€the€parties€than€occursÏin€a€situation€where€one€party€has€an€average€amountÏof€overnight€visitation€as€defined€in€1240„2„4„.02(6).ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 à(4)€In€instances€of€extreme€economic€hardship,€such€as€in€casesÏinvolving€extraordinary€medical€needs€not€covered€by€insurance€orÏother€extraordinary€special€needs€for€the€children€of€the€obligorððsÏcurrent€family,€[children€living€in€the€home€with€the€obligor€for€whomÏthe€obligor€is€legally€responsible]€deviation€from€the€guidelines€mayÏbe€considered€in€order€to€achieve€equity€between€the€parties€whenÏthe€court€so€finds.ÌÌà8 à(5)€In€deviating€from€the€guidelines,€primary€consideration€must€beÏgiven€to€the€best€interest€of€the€child(ren)€for€whose€support€theÏguidelines€are€being€utilized.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWith€the€regulatory€background€in€mind,€we€turn€now€to€the€contentions€ofÏthe€parties.€€Curtis€Jones€argues€that€trial€courts€have€only€limited€discretion€toÏdeviate€from€the€guidelines,€and€because€the€guideline€percentages€areÏð ðminimums,ðð€the€discretion€that€exists€pertains€mainly€to€upward,€not€downward,Ídeviation.€€He€argues€that€the€factors€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€to€justify€theÏsubstantial€downward€deviation€here€„„€the€fatherððs€slight€misrepresentation€ofÏincome,€his€exaggerated€needs€and€ð ðsomewhat€extravagant€use€of€funds,ððÏcoupled€with€the€motherððs€use€of€her€increased€income€for€housing€andÏeducation€„„€are€not€contemplated€by€the€guidelines.€€Thus,€he€asserts,€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€not€awarding€support€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€Dorothy€Jones€points€out€that€trial€courts€are€authorizedÏto€deviate€from€the€guidelines€when€their€application€would€be€ð ðinappropriateðð€orÏð ðunjustðð;€and€she€notes€that€this€authority€may€be€employed€not€only€to€further€theÏbest€interest€of€the€child,€but€also€to€achieve€ð ðequity€between€the€parties.ðð€€SheÏargues€that€this€power€encompasses€downward€as€well€as€upward€deviation,Ïciting€in€support€of€this€contention€òòNash€v.€Mulleóó,€846€S.W.2d€803,€805€(Tenn.Ï1993),€where€we€stated€that€ð ð[the€guidelines]€are€subject€to€deviation€upward€orÏdownward€when€the€assumptions€on€which€they€are€based€do€not€pertain€to€aÏparticular€situation.ðð€€Dorothy€Jones€then€contends€that€the€trial€court€found,€forÏthe€reasons€stated€in€its€order,€that€application€of€the€guidelines€wasÍinappropriate€because€the€equities€of€the€situation€demanded€otherwise.€ÏTherefore,€she€concludes,€its€judgment€should€be€affirmed.ÌÌà àThis€latter€argument€construes€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€deviateÏdownward€too€broadly.€€While€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€does€authorize€deviation€in€orderÏto€ensure€equity€between€the€parties,€and€while€downward€deviation€is€clearlyÏnot€prohibited,€€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€do€so€must€be€considered€in€light€ofÏthe€provisions€dealing€with€such€deviation€„„€Rule€1240„2„4„.04(2)€and€(4).€ÏAlthough€not€œexclusive,›€those€subsections€provide€for€downward€deviation€inÏthree€instances:€(1)€where€DHS€has€taken€custody€of€the€child(ren)€pursuant€to€aÏneglect,€dependency,€or€abuse€action;€(2)€where€the€child(ren)€spend€moreÏvisitation€time€with€the€obligor€than€is€assumed€by€the€guidelines× ƒ( ××  ×;€and€(3)€inÏcases€in€which€the€obligor€is€subjected€to€an€ð ðextreme€economic€hardship,ðð€suchÏas€where€other€children€living€with€the€obligor€have€extraordinary€needs.€ÏTherefore,€the€guidelines€expressly€provide€for€downward€deviation€where€theÍobligee€has€utterly€ceased€to€care€for€the€child(ren);€where€the€obligee€clearlyÏhas€a€lower€level€of€child€care€expense€than€that€assumed€in€the€guidelines;€andÏwhere€the€obligor€is€saddled€with€an€ð ðextreme€economic€hardship.ðð€€Although€theÏrule€does€not€purport€to€set€forth€an€exhaustive€list€of€instances€in€whichÏdownward€deviation€is€allowed,€these€specific€instances€nevertheless€are€aÏpowerful€indication€as€to€the€òòtypesóó€of€situations€in€which€it€is€contemplated€underÏthe€guidelines.€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€has€failed€to€articulate€sufficient€grounds€toÏrebut€the€presumption€that€the€guidelines€are€applicable.€€Dorothy€Jones€is€underÏno€economic€hardship€whatsoever;€her€income€has€nearly€doubled€since€theÏdivorce€was€granted,€and€she€has,€to€our€knowledge,€no€other€dependents.€€TheÏrecord€indicates,€moreover,€that€her€work€and€school€schedule€œhave›€preventedÏher€from€visiting€her€children€on€a€regular€basis;€therefore,€she€is€not€entitled€toÏpay€less€than€the€guideline€percentage€on€that€ground.€€In€short,€while€CurtisÏJones€may€not€have€been€perfectly€forthright€concerning€his€finances€and€childÏcare€expenses,€and€while€his€spending€habits€may€not€be€a€model€of€restraint,Íthese€grounds€are€clearly€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€downward€deviation€from€theÏguidelines.€€Because€the€trial€court€has€failed€to€make€ððwritten€finding[s]€that€theÏapplication€of€the€child€support€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€inÏ[this]€case,€in€order€to€provide€for€the€best€interest€of€the€children€or€the€equityÏbetween€the€parties,ðð€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1),€the€judgment€is€reversed,€and€the€causeÏremanded€for€further€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÓÓœ________________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌœConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.€J.ÌAnderson,›€Reid,€œWhite.€JJ.›à àà àà àà àà àà à