### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n TAMMY HOPK INS L INDSAY v . DWIG HT K ELL EY LI NDSAY

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 00D-1778 C arol L. Soloman, Judge

No. M2005- 00207-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 25, 2006

Ta mm y H o p k i n s L i n d s a y ( “ M o t h e r ” ) a n d D w i g h t K e l l e y Li n d s a y ( “ F a t h e r ” ) w e r e d i v o r c e d in Dec ember

of 2000, but have returne d to court numerous times since then. Most of the post-divorc e controve rsy

cente rs ar ound the amount of F ather ’s child support payment and the a rre ara g es which have ac cr u ed s i n ce the divorce . After the most rece nt hearing, the Trial Court enter ed a de tailed order resolving competing petitions filed by the parties. The only issue in this appeal conc erns that po rt ionof the Tria l Co urt’ s o rd e r w hic h re qu ir e s Fathe r to p a y a n a dd iti on a l $5 0 e a c h ti me he fails to e xer c ise c o- pa

re nti ng tim e on a we e ke nd , a nd a n a dd iti on a l $2 5 fo r e a c h day that he fa il s to exercise c o-par enting time on a holiday or during the summer. We vac ate only this particular portion of the Trial Court’s Orde r, and a ffirm the or der a s so modified.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit Court Vac ated in Par t and Af fi rm ed as Modif

ied; Case Re m anded.

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.

T r a c e y R o b i n s o n
- C o f

f e e , N a s h v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e A p p e l l a n tD w i g h tK e l l e y Li n d s a y.

Mary Arline Evans and Alan D. J ohnson, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee Ta mmy

Hopkins L i n d s a y.-2- Bac kgr ound

The parties wer e divorce d in D ece mber of 2000. The pa rties had a

ten y ear old son and a six y ear

old daug hter at the time of the divorce . The F inal Dec ree o f Di v o rc e ad o p t ed a Permane nt Parenting Plan p reviouslyenter ed by the Trial Court. The Permane nt Parenting Plan desig nated Mother as the primary residential pa

rent a nd require d Father to provide he alth insurance for the c hildren and to pay child support of $228.70 per week. Fathe r’s c o-par enting time also was se t f orth. I n a dd iti on , F a the r w a s o rd e re d to pay $3 ,0 00 tow ardMo the r’ s atto rn e y fe e s. The pa rties were bac k in court num erous tim es over the nex t few y ear s. For example, in J une of 2001, the Trial Court enter ed an Orde r finding Father to be almost $2,200 in arr ear s on his child support pay men t s . Father a ppare ntly had not paid anything towa rd the attorney

fee s he p r e v i o u s l y w a s o r d e r e d t o p a y a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e T r i a l C o u r ta l s o a w ar d e d M o t h e r ’ s a t t o r n e y a judgme nt ag ainst Father for $3,000.
I n September of 2002, the parties wer e back in c ourt conce rning a d i s p u t e over Father’s not maintaining a life insura n ce policy as pre viouslyorder ed. The Trial Court orde red Mo the r t o p a y

the mon thl y

pr e miu ms f

or the lif e ins ur a nc e po lic y , but re qu ir e d Fathe r t o r e imb ur se Mother the sa me amount as a limony

.

I n J une of 2004, F ather

filed a Petition to Modify Child S upport. Acc ording to the petition, Father

had been laid off f

rom his job where he had be en ea rning approximately

$4,000 per month. Father claimed he was unable to secur e alternate e mploy ment despite his best eff orts. Father anticipated be ing eligible for unemploy ment compensation in the amount of $255 per wee k. Father also claimed that he w o u l d b e u n able to pay for he alth insurance on the childre n inasmuch as the COBRA pay ments would exceed $700 pe r month.

Mother responde d to F ather ’s petition by essentially

denying that Fathe r wa s entitled to a dec rea se in child support payments. Mother also filed a counter -petition seeking to have F ather he ld i n c ivi l c on te mpt

of c ou rt

. Mo the r c la ime d F a the r wa s in arr e ars on his c hil d s up po rt pay me nts , a ndthat he ha d faile d to pay his sh are of the c hil dr e n’ s me dic a l bil ls no t othe rw ise c ov e re d b y he a lth insurance

. A hearing was held on the competing petitions a fter w hich the Tria l Court entere d an Orde r which r educe d the wee kly amount Father wa s require d to pay , “althoug h the ac tual amount owed sha ll not be reduce d.” I n other wor ds, Father’s c hild support obligation re mained at $228.70 per w eek, w ith $75.00 being due and pay able each week and t he remaining $153.70 to acc rue as an arr ear ag e. Father wa s relieve d of his obligation to maintain health insurance on the childre n, but he wa s o rd e re d to re imb ur se Mo ther $5 6. 75 pe r w e e k f

or pay me nts sh e wa s ma

kin g tow ardhe a lth insurance for the c hildren.A s epar at e a pp eal was t ake n f r om t he order f

i ndi ng Fat her i n c r i mi nal cont emp t

. V i a a s epar at e opi ni on f i l ed 1
cont emp oran eous l y he r ewi t h, t he f i ndi ng of cr i mi nal cont emp t was va cat ed by t hi s C our t as al l par t i es ag r eed on a pp eal tha t F a the r w a s n o t p ro p e rly a d v ise d o f his c o n stitutio n a l righ t t o c o u n se l p rio r to b e ing he ld in c rim ina l co n te m p t. -3- I n Aug ust of 2004, Mother filed a petition se eking to ha ve Father h el d i n crimi nal contempt. Among other thing s, Mother cla imed Father y et ag ain was behind on child support payments and was not r eimbursing her for health insurance cover ag e on the c hildren. On Septembe r 16, 2004, the Tria l Court entere d an Or der f inding F ather

in criminal contempt on twelve char g es a ndor de re d F a the r t o s e rv e te n d a y s inja il f or e a c h v iol a tio n, fo r a

tot a l of 12 0 d a y s. 1
Another he aring was c onducted in De cembe r of 2004. A c omprehe nsive order d i s cu s sing in de tail eac h party ’s financ ial responsibilities reg arding the ca re of their childre n was issued fo l l o wi n g this hearing . I n this Order, the Trial Court spec ifically found that F ather

was “g rossl y u n dere mploy ed” and that he wa s “not a truthful or c redible w itness.” The Trial Court established how the parties wer e to c ommunicate with e ach other as we ll as Father’s c o-par enting tim e . T heTria l Co urt a lso e sta bli sh e d th e amo un t of F a the r’ s a rr e ara g e s inc hil d s up po rt , h e a lth insurance reimburse ment, and unpaid medic al bills, all of which totaled $5,031.31. As to Fathe r’s child support payments, the Trial Court conc luded:

• That for

a short period of time, until Fe bruary 4, 2005, Mr . Lind sa y

sh ou ld b e give n a n o pp ortun ity to c or re c t hi s un de re mpl oyme nt andthat c omm e nc ing imm e diate ly a ndun til Fe bruary 3, 2005, he should pay child support in acc ordanc e with the Guidelines base d upon his actua l, curr ent ea rning s, plus an additional Ten ($10.00) Dollars per

wee k based upon his non-visitation;

• T h atco m m en ci n g Fr i d ay De ce m b er1 0 , 2 0 0 4 t h ro u gh Thursday , Fe b ru ary

3, 2005, Dwig ht L indsay shall pay the sum of Ni ne ty -S ix an d 9 8/1 00 ($ 96 .9 8) Do lla rs pe r w e e k G uid e lin es chi ld support plus Te n ($10.00) Dollars additional, for a total payment of One Hundr ed Six and 98/100 ($106.98) D ollars per wee k;
* * *

• T h atM r. L i n d s ays h o u l d p ayt h e a fo re s ai d arre ar age judgme nt of $5,031.31 at the rate of $50.00 pe r we ek, commenc ing De c e mbe r 1 0, 20 04 , u nti l th e princ ipl e (s ic ) b a la nc e a nda ny int e re st a c c ru e d th e re on fr om a nd a ft e r D e c e mbe r 6 , 2 00 4 h a ve be e n p a id i n fu ll;
* * *-4- • That commenc ing F ebrua ry 4, 2005 , Dw i gh tLi n dsay ’s child support obligation shall return to the amount p r e v io u s ly O r dere d in N ovember 2000, to wit: Two Hundred Tw enty -Eig ht and 70/100 ($228.70) Dollar s per we ek;
* * *

• That in the eve n t Dwig ht L indsay misses a wee kend visitation with the two (2) minor children, he should w ithin ten ( 10) day s, pay Ta mmy L ind sa y the su m of

F if ty ($ 50 .0 0) Do lla

rs ;

• That in the event Dwig ht L indsay misses a holiday

or su mme r v isi ta tio n, he sh ou ld, wi thi n te n ( 10 ) d a y s, pay Tammy L indsay the sum of Twe nty -F ive ($25.00 ) Do l l ars pe r day for e ach day missed ....
Father a ppeals raising only the following issue: “Whether the lowe r court can or der a n u pw ardde viatio n o f a sp e c if ic a moun t e a c h ti me [the ] non -c us tod ia l pa re nt f a ils to v isi t hi s child.”
Discussion

Ou r r e vie w i s de novo up on the re c or d, a c c omp a nie d b y a pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss of the finding s of fa ct of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evide nce is other wise. Tenn. R. A pp . P. 13 (d ); Bogan v. Bogan , 60 S.W .3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001) . A trial court's c onclusions of law ar e subjec t to a de novo revie w with no presumption of cor rec tness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Count

y Bd. of Educ. , 58 S.W .3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001). We review child support decisions for a buse of discr etion. State ex re l. Vaughn v. Kaatrude , 21 S.W .3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Howeve r, a tria l court’s discr etion is lim ited beca use such “discre tion must be exerc ised within the strictures of the Child S upport Guidelines.” Berryhill v. Rhode s , 21 S.W .3d 188, 193 (Tenn. 2000) ; see also Jone s v. Jone s , 930 S.W .2d 541, 545 (Tenn. 1996)

.

The orde r at iss ue was filed on Dec ember 14, 2004. Shortly there afte r, on January 18, 2005, the Child Support Guidelines wer e revised substantially . The ve rsion of the Guide lines in e ff e c t w he n th e or de r w a s en te re d p ro vid e d th a t th e Gu ide lin e s w e rede sig ne d to app ly to situations whe re the non-custodial pare nt e x erc ised co-pa renting time at least eve ry other we ekend f r o mF r i d a y t o S u n d a y, t w o w e e k s d u r i n g t h e s u m m e r , a n d a n a d d i t i o n a l t w o w e e k s d u r i n g h o l i d a ys throug hout the y ear
. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1240-2-4-.02( 6). The G uidelines also provided that if the no n -custodial parent wa s not ex erc ising the minimum amount of visitation, t hen an amount should be added t o compensate t he “obligee for the c ost of providing car e for the child(re n) for the amount of time during the aver ag e visitation period that the child(r en ) i s / are not with the oblig o r
. ” T e n n
. Co mp
. R. & Re g s
. 1 2 4 0

- 2

- 4

- . 0 4 ( 1 ) ( b )

. Lik e w is e , a c o u r t c o u ld c onsider aI f t he p arent seeki ng a m o d i f i cat i o n i n a supp o rt o rder q ual i f i es as a l o w i nco m e p rovider, t hen a si gni f i cant 2 vari ance i s d ef

i ned as seven and o ne- hal f pe rcent (7. 5 % ). T enn. C o m p
. R

. & R egs. 12 4 0

- 2

- 4

- . 0 5 (7).

-5- downwar d deviation if the non-c ustodial parent wa s consistently providing mor e ca re and supervision than conte mplated in the rule. Id

.

The ne w Guidelines likewise pr esume that the non- custodial pare nt will ex erc ise copare nting time a minimum of eve ry other we ekend f

rom Fr iday to Sunday , two wee ks during the summer, and a n additional two wee ks during holiday s throug hout the y ear , “for a total of e ighty (80) day s pe r y e ar. ” Te nn
. Comp. R. & Re g s. 12 40 –2 -4 -. 03 (6 )( e )( 1) . T he ne w G uid e lin e s sp e c if ic a lly set forth a chart for dete rmining when and how m uch child support payments should be incre ased o r d ec re as ed b as ed o n t h e n o n -c u s t o d i al p ar en tex er ci s i n g m o re t h an o r l es s t h an t h e a v er age visitation conte mplated by the rules. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1240–2-4-.03(6) (e) (2) a nd (3). Howeve r, the ne w Guidelines a lso require there to be a “sig nificant va rianc e” be fore a party

can ha ve curr ent child support obligations modi fied. As of J anuary 1, 2006, a si g nificant va

rianc e is define d as “at least a fif

teen pe rce nt (15%) c hang e betwe en the a mount of the curr ent support orde r and the amount of the propose d support order ... .” Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1240-2-4-.05( 7). 2
We a g ree with F ather that the Trial Court e rre d when it se t f orth a specific d o llar amount Father would be penalized if, i n the future, he mi ssed any of hi s co-pa renting time. I f F ather does not exercise the amount of co- pare nting time conte mplated by the Guidelines, a nd the amount of F ather ’s re duced c o-par enting time is such that Mother is permitted under the Guidelines to seek a modification, she will be entitled at that time to seek such a modification. I n the meantime, F ather cannot be penalized in the manner set forth in the Trial Court’s order as such a penalty is inconsistent with the Guidelines. We also note that g iven these pa rt i es ’ h i s tory of numerous post-divorc e disputes, the proce dure c reated by th e Trial Court almost certainly would result in continuous disag ree ments betwee n Mother and F ather as to whethe r such a day or day s of visitation had been missed by Father a nd, there fore , what additional amount F ather owed. For example, what happe ns if Father misses a we ekend visitation day but has t he children for an unschedule d wee kday visitation th e n ext m onth? Compli ance with the Guidelines will preve nt giving Mother and F ather the additional opportunity to disa g ree about how much Father’s child support payment should be at any g iven time.
We here by vacate the portion of the Trial Court’s orde r which r equire s Father to pay an additional $50 ea ch time he f ails to ex erc ise co-pa

renting time on a wee kend, and an additional $ 2 5 f o r e a c h d a y t h a th e f a i l s t o e x e r c i s e c o
- p ar e n t i n g t i m e o n a h o l i d a y o r d u r i n g t h e s u m m e r
. In all other re spects, the judg ment of the Trial Court is affirmed.-6- Conclusion The judg ment of the Trial Court is va ca t ed i n part, a nd is affirme d as so modified. This case is remande d to the Trial Court for c ollection of the c osts below. Ex erc ising our disc retion, costs on appea l are taxed one-half to the Appellant Dwig ht Kelley Lindsay and his surety , and onehalf to the Appe llee Ta mmy Hopkins L indsay

.

___________________________________

D. MI CHAEL

SW INEY, JUDGE