WPCL fKDAF J`Hivd8a/3-;89H{mԱ3\?=[]SQ*f*^@G>z|iËdolgH<;K6q#. %  0 0De UN 0 z'^ sw4N_%N mEUN&+QQ 0U 0F 0)U @ 0. 0 0 0Y!P" 0V" 0" 0# 0c$ 04% 0% 0&b;' 0C' 0' 0( 0) 0) 0c* 01+ 0+ 0, 0/- 0- 0e. 0. 0/ 030 00 0>1 01 02 03 04 05 0m6 0O7 0 8 028 0 9 0: : 0YC: 0_: 0 : 0< 0= B*? D/? 0(? 0A D/C 0CC BD 06.D 0dD D5&E D-[E 0KE 0E ASF.G 0G 0DH AH 0:I 0^I 0<=J 1eyJU6JU>KU*RK 1u|K 72KKKKKK 0c#L\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0  R o$    #ddd!    1  !!  _ԀOralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonJune2,2004,inCookeville,PutnamCounty,Tennessee,aspartof  thisCourt'sS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents)project.(~$..8dXXd8      #ddd(#$  0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular & R o$    #ddd!    2  !!  _ԀWenote,however,thatproposedamendmentstotheChildSupportGuidelinesallowforacomparative  analysisofthepartiesincomesindeterminingchildsupport.SeeSubstanceofProposedRulesoftheTennessee t DepartmentofHumanServices,Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs._1240-2-_4. 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„;1 Eb0\P:i+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU(I Z6Times New Roman Regular  R o$    #ddd!    3  !!  _ԀThedesignationofaprimaryresidentialparentisalsoimportantforpurposesotherthanthedetermination  ofchildsupport.Forexample,otherstateandfederalstatutesrequirethatoneparentbenamedthechildscustodian. t SeeTenn.CodeAnn._36-6-_410(2001).  04 ' AOCUSER0AOCUSER .     R o$    #ddd!    4  !!  _Insteadofapplyingtheguidelines,thedissentwouldrevertto thelawthatwasinexistencepriortothe  enactmentoftheguidelines.Thecasesonwhichthedissentrelies,however,involvestatutesfoundtobe t unconstitutional.Inthiscase,theconstitutionalityofneitherthestatutenortheguidelineshasbeenraisedbytheparties 8 oraddressedbythedissent.Thedissentcitestonocaseholdingthatdifficultyinapplicationwarrantsignoringastatute L infavorof equitableprinciples.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  (I Z(Times New Roman *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h  SYNTHIARassasGallaher ren*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  - -*// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7Q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dP)1dxd(G2 o$ !.8dXXd8      #ddd  !    0  !!<:zTop of For7T(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  P)2dxd0KS.SampleKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS d0.Strong (3$ !.8dXXd8      #ddd  VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  8dl6TypewriterKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !.8dXXd8      #ddd  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  )*+,-/01 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ii)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !.8dd8      #ddd  _t   8XXdd8@ TINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE & @   HEARDATCOOKEVILLE #  1      #T8#Ԉ L   June2,2004Session "r XX #XX#SYNTHIAM.HOPKINSv.VICTORL.HOPKINS   p XX@@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals F  ChanceryCourtforMontgomeryCounty 2  @@No.2001010072CarolCatalano,Chancellor n    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ 2  @Z Z No.M200202233SCR11CVFiledSeptember27,2004 -  AV) ` dE<` A     Theissueinthiscaseiswhetherchildsupportmaybeawardedwhenneitherpartyhasbeen  designatedtheprimaryresidentialparent.TheCourtofAppealsmodifiedthetrialcourtsjudgment  toawardequalparentingtimebetweentheparties.Neitherpartyconteststhismodification.We  holdthattheCourtofAppealserred,however,inawardingchildsupporttoonepartywhenneither t partywasdesignatedtheprimaryresidentialparent.Weremandtothetrialcourtforthedesignation ` ofaprimaryresidentialparent,fortheconsiderationoftheamountofchildsupporttobepaid,and L forentryofaparentingplan. 8 j   Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission; ` JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmedinPartandVacatedinPart; L CaseRemandedtotheTrialCourt  8   JaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,  andE.RileyAnderson,and_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,JJ.,joined.WilliamM.Barker,J.,filed   adissentingopinion. !  SharonT.MasseyandGregoryD.Smith,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellantdefendant,Victor p#" L.Hopkins. \$# MarkA.RassasandJuliaP.North,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappelleeplaintiff,SynthiaM. 4&!% Hopkins.  'p"&  {   (\#' _   @66' OPINION     @VVFactualandProceduralBackground    InJanuary2001,SynthiaM.Hopkins( Mother)filedacomplaintseekingadivorcefrom ` herhusband,VictorL.Hopkins( Father).Fatherfiledananswerandcountercomplaint.Both L  partiesfiledproposedparentingplansinthetrialcourt.Fathersubmittedtwoparentingplans,one 8  moredetailedthantheother.BothplansfiledbyFathercalledforthepartiestodividetheresidential $ t scheduleoftheirthreeminorchildrenequally,andthesecondplanrequiredFathertopayMother  ` $800permonthinchildsupport.Mothersparentingplanlistedherastheresidentialcustodianof  L  thethreechildrenandrequiredFathertomakechildsupportpaymentsintheamountof$1,262.15  8  permonth. $    InJuly2002,thetrialcourtgrantedMotheradivorceonthegroundofinappropriatemarital   conduct.Thetrialcourtdidnotadoptaparentingplanproposedbyeitherparty.Althoughthetrial   courtstatedthatitwasadoptingitsownparentingplan,noformalparentingplanwassignedbythe   partiesorsetforthinthefinaldivorcedecree.Initsruling,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedemands p ofMothersmastersdegreeprogram,whencombinedwithherfulltimeteachingposition,would \ necessarilylimitthetimeshehadavailabletomeetherchildrensneeds.Thetrialcourtfoundthat H Fathersjobwasflexibleandthatheneedednofurthereducation.Thetrialcourtsdivorcedecree, 4 ineffect,grantedprimaryphysicalcustodyofthepartiesthreechildrentoFather.Motherwas  p orderedtopaychildsupporttoFatherintheamountof$681.37permonth.Thechildrenwere  \ orderedtoresidewithFatherduringtheschoolyearandwithMotherduringthesummer.Mother H objectedtotheresidentialscheduleandfiledaMotiontoAlterandAmend,inwhichshestatedthat 4 shewouldbepursuinghermastersdegreestudiesonaparttimebasisandthatherclassschedule   wouldtakeawayonlylimitedparentingtime.Themotionwasdenied.Mothersubsequently   appealed.    TheCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsresidentialprovisionsanditschildsupport  ruling.TheintermediateappellatecourtadoptedoneoftheparentingplanssubmittedbyFather. l ThecourtthusdividedtheresidentialscheduleofthechildrenbetweenMotherandFatherequally, X  withbothpartiesalternatingphysicalcustodyonaweeklybasis.Thisalternatingcustody D! arrangementisgreatlyfacilitatedbythefactthatFatherbuiltahousenextdoortothemaritalhome 0"  whereMotherresides.Inaddition,FatherwasorderedtopaychildsupporttoMotherintheamount #l! of$800permonth,theamountFathersuggestedtothetrialcourtinoneofhisparentingplans.The $X" courtdidnotdesignateaprimaryresidentialparent. $D #   FatherassertsthattheCourtofAppealserredindeterminingtheproperamountofchild &"% support.Wegrantedpermissiontoappeal. '#&     Analysis )$(   ItisimportanttonotethatneitherpartytakesissuewiththeCourtofAppealsdetermination h+&* thatthepartiesshouldshareequaltimewiththeirchildren.Theonlyissuebeforeusisthatof T,'+ support.FatherarguesthattheCourtofAppealserredincalculatinghischildsupportobligation.  Heproposestwoalternativesfordeterminingtheproperamountofchildsupportinacaseinwhich  custodyofminorchildrenisdividedequallybetweentwoparents.First,Fathersuggeststhatthe  incomeofbothparentsbeconsideredincalculatingthechildsupportaward.Second,Father t suggeststhatneitherpartyshouldberequiredtopaychildsupport. `   InGrayv.Gray,78S.W.3d881,882(Tenn.2002),weheldthat theuseofacomparative 8  analysisofthepartiesearningsisimproperundertheChildSupportGuidelines.UndertheChild $ t SupportGuidelinesapplicableinthepresentcase,theincomeoftheobligee(theparentwithwhom  ` thechildrenprimarilylive)isnottobeconsideredinthecalculationoftheamountofchildsupport  L  awarded.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.1240-2-4-.03(2).Thus,werejectFatherssuggestionthatthe  8  incomeofbothpartiesshouldhavebeenconsideredincomputingchildsupport. #  2       $    Fatherssecondsuggestionisequallyflawed.Childsupportpaymentsareforthebenefitof   thechild,andbothparentshaveadutytosupporttheirminorchildren.See,e.g.,Gallaherv.Elam,   104S.W.3d455,461(Tenn.2003).Wedeclinetoadoptabrightlinerulethatnochildsupportis   owedwhenachildsresidentialtimeisdividedequallybetweentheparents. p   TheChildSupportGuidelinesdonotexpresslyprovideforanequaldivisionofresidential H time.Instead,theGuidelinesaddresssituationsinwhichachildresidesprimarilywithoneparent. 4 SeeTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.1240-2-4-.02(6)(providingthattheChildSupportGuidelines are  p designedtoapplytosituationswherechildrenarelivingprimarilywithoneparentbutstayovernight  \ withtheotherparentatleastasoftenaseveryotherweekendfromFridaytoSunday,twoweeksin H thesummerandtwoweeksduringholidaysthroughouttheyear).Accordingly,aprimary 4 residentialparentisdefinedas theparentwithwhomthechildresidesmorethanfiftypercent(50%)   ofthetime.Tenn.CodeAnn.36-6-402(4)(2001)(emphasisadded).However,wedonot   interpretthisdefinitionasprecludingachildsresidentialschedulefrombeingdividedequally  betweentheparents.Whilesilentonthispreciseissue,theGuidelines aredesignedtoconsiderthe  actualphysicalcustodyofthechild(ren),regardlessofwhethercustodyisawardedtooneparentand  visitationtotheotherorsuchanarrangementisorderedtobejointcustodyorsplitcustody.Tenn. l Comp.R.&Regs.1240-2-4.02(6). X    HavingdecidedthatanequaldivisionoftimeispermissibleundertheGuidelines,wemust 0"  addressthemannerinwhichchildsupportistobecalculatedinsuchasituation.Insituationsin #l! whichovernighttimeisdividedmoreequallybetweentheparents,courtsshouldmakeacaseby $X" casedeterminationastotheappropriateamountofsupport.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs. $D # 1240-2-4-.02(6);seealsoGray,78S.W.3dat884;Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.1240-2-4-.04(2)(b). %0!$ Therefore,itmaybeappropriatetoawardlesschildsupporttotheprimaryresidentialparentwhen &"% residentialtimeisdividedequally. '#& Ї  Inthepresentcase,however,theCourtofAppealsdidnotdesignateaprimaryresidential  parent.Tennesseesstatutesrequirebotharesidentialschedule,seeTenn.CodeAnn.36-6-404(b)  (2001),andthedesignationofaprimaryresidentialparent,seeTenn.CodeAnn.36-6-402(5)  (2001).AswestatedinGray, theChildSupportGuidelinescontemplatethatchildsupportmaybe t awardedonlytotheprimaryresidentialparent.78S.W.3dat884.WeholdthattheCourtof ` Appealserredinawardingchildsupportwithoutdesignatingaprimaryresidentialparent. #  3       L    WeaffirmtheCourtofAppealsdeterminationandthepartiesdesirethattheparentsshare $ t equalresidentialtime.However,wevacatetheintermediatecourtsawardofchildsupport.We  ` remandthiscasetothetrialcourttodeterminewhichpartyshouldbedesignatedtheprimary  L  residentialparent.ThetrialcourtmustthenapplytheChildSupportGuidelinestodeterminethe  8  amountofchildsupport,ifany,thatthenonprimaryresidentialparentshouldpaytotheprimary $  residentialparent. #  4      ׀Finally,thetrialcourtshoulddirectthepartiestosubmittothecourtapermanent   parentingplanthatincorporatestherequirementssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection   36-6-404.       Conclusion p     Insummary,weholdthatundertheChildSupportGuidelines,onlytheprimaryresidential H parentmaybeawardedchildsupport.Inreviewingthetrialcourtsjudgment,theCourtofAppeals 4 erredinfailingtodesignateaprimaryresidentialparent.Weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtfor  p furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Onremand,thetrialcourtshallconsiderallofthe  \ relevantstatutoryfactorsindesignatingaprimaryresidentialparentandincalculatingchildsupport H andshallenteraparentingplan.Costsofthisappealaretaxedequallytotheappellant,VictorL. 4 Hopkins,andtheappellee,SynthiaM.Hopkins,andtheirsureties,forwhichexecutionmayissue   ifnecessary.      `     h     ___________________________________ l    `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE