F IL ED

N ovem ber 2, 1998

C eci l C r o w son, Jr .

A ppel l a t e C our t C l e r k

I N TH E CO U RT O F APPEALS OF TEN N ESSEE

AT JAC K S O N

PHYL L I S RE NEE BROW N , ) 

)

P l a i n t i f f / Respondent , ) Shel by Ci r cui t N o . 136582 R. D .

)

VS. ) A ppeal N o . 02A 01- 9709- C V - 00228

)

CHARLE S CHANDLE R BROW N , SR. , )

)

Def endant / Pet i t i oner . )

APPEA L FROM THE C I R C U I T CO U R T OF SH ELBY C O U NTY

AT M E M PHI S , TENN ESSEE

T H E H O N O R A BLE JAM ES F. RU SSE LL, JU D G E

J OY TANNER BOM A R

M e m phi s , Tennessee

Att o r ney f o r Pet i t i oner

J OHN D. HORNE

M e m phi s , Tennessee

Att o r ney f o r Respondent

AFFI R M ED A S M O D I F I E D

A L AN E. HI G H ERS , J .
2

CON CUR:

W . F RANK CRAW F ORD, P. J . , W . S .

DAVI D R. F ARM ER, J . ( con curs separat e l y )

Charl e s Chandl e r Brow n , Sr . ( Fat her ) , appeal s t he t r i a l cour t ’ s or der denyi ng hi s

pet i t i o n t o m odi f y t he cust ody ar r angem ent pr evi ousl y agr eed t o by t he par t i es and s e t f o r t h

i n t hei r f i nal di vor ce decr ee. For t he r easons st a t ed he r e i naf t e r , w e af f i r m t he t r i a l cour t ’ s

j udg m ent w i t h ce r t a i n m odi f i cati ons.

I . Fact ual and Pr ocedur a l H i s t o r y

The part i es w e r e di v o r ced i n D ece m ber 1991. Pe r t he p a r t i es’ agreem ent, Ph y l l i s

Renee Brow n ( M o t her ) w as aw a r ded cust ody of t he pa rti es’ m i nor chi l d , Charl es Chandl e r

Brow n , Jr . ( Chandl e r ) , t hen f our year s of age. The Fat her w as aw a r ded speci f i ed vi s i t a t i on,

i ncl udi n g ever y ot her w eekend, begi nni ng at 6: 00 p. m . on Fr i day and endi ng at 6: 00 p. m . on

Sunday, and f i ve w eeks i n t he sum m e r .

The M o t her w as r e m a r r i ed i n Apri l 1992 t o Joe O m edeo. The M o t her began seei n g

O m edeo w h i l e she w as st i l l m a r r i ed t o t he Fat her and, at t he t i m e of her r e m a r r i age, t h e

M o t her al r eady w as pr egnant w i t h O m edeo’ s chi l d . D esp i t e t he M o t her ’ s r e m a r r i age, t h e

Fat her and t he M o t her m a i n t a i ned a spor adi c sexual r e l a t i onshi p over a per i od of al m ost t h r e e

years. These sexual encount e r s began i n August 1992, w hen t he M o t her w as sev e n m ont h s

p r egnant w i t h O m edeo’ s chi l d , and cont i nue d unt i l Jul y 1995. Duri ng one or t w o such

enc oun t e r s , t he Fat her vi deot aped t he M o t her engagi n g i n s exual act i v i t y i n t he Fat her ’ s
3

k i t chen. Chandl e r w as pr esent i n t he Fat her ’ s hom e dur i ng t h e t api ng, but he appar ent l y di d

not w i t ness the sexu a l acti v i t y .

The M o t her ’ s secon d chi l d , Joey Om edeo, w as bor n i n N ovem ber 1992. The M o t her ’ s

m a r r i age t o Joe O m edeo w as shor t - l i ved, how ever , and she f i l ed f o r di vor ce i n June 1993. The

M o t her ’ s sexual r e l a t i onshi p w i t h t he Fat her f i nal l y ended dur i ng t h e sum m e r of 1995, w hen

she m e t her cur r ent par a m our, R i cha r d S t ace y . O ne eveni ng w hen t h e Fat her w as r e t u r n i n g

Chandl e r fro m v i s i t a t i on, t he Fat her encount e r ed Joe O m edeo, and t he t w o m en began t a l k i ng.

I n r espons e t o a speci f i c quest i on f r o m O m edeo, t he Fat her adm i t t ed t hat he had engaged i n

sexual r e l a t i ons w i t h t he M o t her. Th e Fa t her al s o answ e r ed ot her quest i ons pos ed t o hi m by

O m edeo. As a r esul t of t h i s exchange of i n f o r m a t i on, t he Fat her agr eed t o appear i n a

M i ssi ssi ppi cour t and t est i f y on behal f of O m edeo, w ho w as seek i ng cust ody of Joey O m edeo.

I n Febr uar y 1996, t he Fat her f i l ed t h i s pet i t i on t o change cust ody of Chandl e r f r o m t h e

M o t her t o t he Fat her . I n suppor t of hi s pet i t i on, t h e Fat her al l eged t he f o l l o w i ng changes of

c i r cum s t anc es:

3 . That si nce t he ent r y of t h e Fi nal Decree of Di vor ce,

t h e M o t her has r e m a r r i ed and has had anot her chi l d . Fur t her , t h e

M o t her has se t about a cour se of conduct , w h i ch i s det r i m ent a l

t o th e bes t i n t e r est s of t he m i nor chi l d , i ncl udi ng, w i t hout

lim ita tio n , havi ng ext r a m a r i t a l af f a i r s and [ cohabi t i ng] w ith a

m an - - not her husband.

4 . That t h e M o t her i s pr esent l y i n a cust ody di sput e

over si m i l a r i ssues i nvol v i ng her second chi l d bor n t o t he M o t her

s i nce t he ent r y of t he Fi nal Decree i n t h i s m a t t e r .

5 . That upon i n f o r m a t i on and bel i e f , t he M o t her ’ s

p r esent par a m our has physi cal l y abuse d t h e m i nor chi l d , and t h e

M o t her he r s e l f i s gui l t y of usi ng i m p l e m ent s ( s w i t ches) on t h e

m i nor chi l d f o r di sci p l i ne. Addi t i onal l y , t he M o t her does not

p r ovi d e pr oper super v i s i on f o r t he m i nor chi l d i n t he apar t m ent

com p l e x w her e she l i ves, ei t her af t e r school or dur i ng t h e
4

sum m e r vacat i on m ont hs, nor does s he pr ovi de t he m i nor chi l d

w i t h adequat e f unds w i t h w h i ch t o buy l unches at school .

6 . S i nce t he [ M o t her ’ s ] i nvol vem ent w i t h her pr esent

par a m our , and even m o r e so si nce t he [ Fat her ] has been

subpoenaed t o t est i f y i n t h e col l a t e r a l cust ody cas e , t he M o t her

has set about a pat t e r n of i n t e r f e r ence w i t h [t he F a t her’ s ]

physi cal cont act and t e l ephone vi s i t a t i on w i t h t he m i nor chi l d .

I n h i s peti t i on, t he F a t her m oved f o r t he a ppo i n t m ent of a gu a r d i an a d l i t e m t o r eprese n t

Chandl e r ’ s i n t e r est s . The t r i a l cour t gr ant ed t he m o t i on, appoi n t i ng at t o r ney Pam e l a Pi e r c e

as Chandl e r ’ s guar d i an ad l i t e m .

Som e t i m e bet w een Januar y an d Apri l 1 996, t he Fat her t est i f i ed i n t he M i ssi ssi ppi

cust ody pr oceedi ngs i nvol v i ng Joey Om edeo. I n addi t i on t o t est i f y i ng about hi s af f a i r w i t h th e

M o t her w h ile she st i l l w as m a r r i ed t o O m edeo, t he Fat her pr ovi ded O m edeo w i t h t he sexual l y

expl i c i t vi deot ape he had t aken of t he M o t her i n hi s ki t chen, and O m ede o pl ayed t h e

v i deot ape i n t he cour t r oom dur i n g th e t r i a l . I n N ovem ber 1996, t he M i ssi ssi ppi cour t aw a r ded

O m edeo cust ody of Joey Om edeo, w ho w as t hen f our year s of age. I n suppor t of i t s r u l i ng,

t h e M i ssi ssi ppi cour t r e l i ed, i n par t , on t he Fat her ’ s t est i m ony and t he vi deot ape. The

M o t her ’ s di vor ce f r o m O m edeo becam e f i nal i n Decem ber 1996.

I n Decem ber 1 996, t he t r i a l cour t i n t h i s case ent e r ed a t e m por a r y or der w h i ch, i n

addi t i o n t o cont i nui ng t he case unt i l af t e r t h e 1996- 97 sch ool year , r esponded t o concer n s

expr essed by t he G uar d i a n Ad Li t e m i n her i n i t i a l r epor t by i m posi ng seve r a l condi t i ons on th e

part i es’ behavi o r pendi ng t hese pr oceedi ngs. O ne o f t he condi t i ons w as t hat t he par t i e s

engage i n f a m i l y couns e l i ng w i t h Dr. Roy G r eenber g , w h o al r eady w as t r eat i ng Chandl e r . The

t r i a l cour t al so i m posed, i n t e r al i a , t he f o l l o w i ng c ond i t i ons o n t he p a r t i es:

- The par t i e s shal l cal l Chandl e r no m o r e t han once

per day w h i l e t he chi l d i s i n t he car e of t he o t her par ent , and
5

t hose cal l s shoul d be pl aced t o Chandl e r bet w een t he hour s of 7

p . m . and 8 p. m . M i ssed ca l l s t o t h e chi l d w i l l be r e t u r ned t h e

sam e day and pr i o r t o t he chi l d ’ s bedt i m e . The ca l l s shoul d b e

lim ite d i n l engt h so as not t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t he consi s t ency of

t h e chi l d ’ s eveni ng pr epar a t i on f o r school and bedt i m e . Thi s

does not l i m i t l e t t e r s , post car ds, car ds or E- m a i l t o t he chi l d

f r o m ei t her par ent .

- . . . B o t h pa r ents ar e t o de posi t Tw enty- F i v e

( $25. 00) Dol l a r s w i t h t he school of f i ce or t eacher t o cover

f o r gott en o r unp a i d l unc h m one y and / o r scho o l supp l i es.

- . . . .

- N e i t her parent i s t o d i scuss t he ot her par ent i n

Chand l e r ’ s l i s t eni ng pr esence. To t he ext ent possi b l e , each

par ent i s t o pr event ot her f a m i l y m e m ber s or f r i ends f r o m

d i scuss i ng t he ot her par ent i n Chandl e r ’ s l i s t eni ng pr esence.

- . . . [ N ] e i t her par ent i s t o di scuss t hes e

p r oceedi ngs, t hei r pr ogr ess or t hei r r esul t s w i t h Chandl e r . The

par ent s ar e author i zed onl y t o r e f e r Chandl e r t o t he G uar d i an ad

L i t e m or t o D r . G r een berg t o ob t a i n an s w e r s t o hi s que s t i ons.

- N e i t her par ent i s t o sm oke in Chandl e r ’ s pr esence,

a t any pl ace or at any t i m e , w het her i ndoor s or ot her w i se.

- N e i t her par ent i s t o have an adul t m e m ber of t h e

opp osi t e sex, w ho i s unr e l a t ed t o t hat par ent , r e m a i n i n t he hom e

w i t h Chandl e r pr esent past 10 p. m . or ar r i ve i n t he hom e pr i o r to

C han d l e r ’ s br eak f ast .

I n addi t i on t o i m posi ng t hese condi t i ons, t he t r i a l cour t i ncr eased t he Fat her ’ s vi s i t a t i o n tim e

w i t h Chandl e r . W her eas t he Fat her ’ s vi s i t a t i on w eekends w i t h Chand l e r f o r m e r l y began on

F r i day at 6: 00 p. m . and ended on Sunday at 6: 00 p. m . , t he t r i a l cour t ’ s t e m por a r y or der

p r ovi ded t hat such v i s i t a t i ons wo u l d begi n “ Thur sday af t e r school ” and end “ t he f o l l o w i n g

M onday m o r n i ng. ” Addi t i onal l y , on al t e r nat e w eeks, t he Fat her w as gr ant e d vi s i t a t i on w i t h

Chandl e r “ f r o m Thur sday af t e r school and over n i ght unt i l t he next m o r n i ng. ”

The t r i a l r e l a t i ve t o Chandl e r ’ s cust ody t ook pl ace i n Jul y 1997. Duri ng t he t r i a l , t h e

M o t her adm i t t ed t hat she h ad p e r m i t t ed h e r param our, R i cha r d S t ace y , t o spe nd a t l east tw o
6

n i ght s i n her apar t m ent w h i l e Chandl e r w as pr esent i n t he hom e . The M o t her t est i f i ed t hat

S t acey al so cam e t o t h e apar t m ent ever y m o r n i ng t o dr i nk cof f ee w i t h her on t he pat i o . The

M o t her deni e d t hat St acey ev e r physi cal l y di sci p l i ned Chandl e r , but she acknow l edged t hat ,

i n t he past , St acey had m ade Chandl e r si t i n “ t i m e out ” f o r m i sbehav i ng. M o r eover , t h e

M o t her adm i t t ed t hat she once had l i e d w hen t he G uar d i an Ad Li t e m asked her i f St acey had

spent t he ni ght and t hat she had com m i t t ed p e r j u r y i n t he M i ssi ssi ppi custody proceedi ngs.

The M o t her adm i t t ed sm oki n g i n Chandl e r ’ s pr esence, but she m a i n t a i ned t hat t h i s onl y

occur r e d out door s and w as unav o i dabl e because Chandl e r i nsi s t ed on bei ng ar ound her .

F i nal l y , t he M o t her adm i t t ed t hat she had t a l ked t o Chandl e r about l osi ng cust ody of Joey

O m edeo and t hat she had t o l d Chandl e r t hat t he Fat her w as at l east par t l y t o bl a m e f o r t h i s

l oss.

The Fat her adm i t t ed t hat he t oo had sm oked i n Chandl e r ’ s pr esence, but he i nsi s t e d

t hat t h i s occur r ed onl y w hen he w as out door s or w hen he w as “i n t he back” and Chandl e r w a s

“ a t t he ot her end of t he house. ” The Fat her a l so adm i t t ed t hat he had decl i ned t o keep

Chandl e r dur i ng t he day t hat sum m e r , despi t e t he f act t hat t he Fat her w as unem p l oyed f o r

several m onths. The Fat her def ended hi s r e f usal by expl a i n i ng t hat he w as hel p i ng hi s new

w ife st a r t her ow n busi ness. The Fat her com p l a i ned t hat Chandl e r r a r e l y r e t u r ned hi s phone

cal l s , and he appear ed t o bl a m e t he M o t her f o r t h i s ci r cum s t ance.

Psyc hol ogi s t Roy G r eenber g t est i f i ed t hat t he f a m i l y t her apy or der ed by t he t r i a l cour t

ended w hen t he par t i es r eached an i m passe i n t hei r com m uni cat i ons r egar d i ng Chandl e r ’ s

w e l f a r e . Speci f i cal l y , t he M o t her st i l l har bor ed host i l i t y an d r esent m e n t t o w a r d t he Fat her

f o r hi s par t i c i pat i on i n t he M i ssi ssi ppi cust ody pr oceedi ngs, and she expr essed h e r bel i e f t hat

she coul d never f o r g i ve t he Fat her f o r hi s r o l e i n her l oss of cust ody of Joey. Dr. G r eenber g
7

w a s concer ned about t he ef f ect of t he cust ody pr oceedi ngs on Chandl e r bec ause t he M o t her

had di scuss ed t he pr oceedi ngs w i t h Chandl e r and had com m uni cated her gr i e f over t he l oss

o f Joe y ’ s custody.

D r . Gr e e n b e r g no t ed that , earl y i n t he M o t her’ s r e l a t i onsh i p w i t h R i cha r d S t ace y ,

Chandl e r com p l a i ned t hat St acey w a s puni shi ng hi m . Dr. G r eenber g r a i sed t h i s i ssue w i t h t h e

G uar d i a n Ad Li t e m , how ever , and he bel i eved t hat t he pr obl e m had been r esol ved. The M o t her

her sel f had been excess i ve and ov e r l y negat i ve i n her di sci p l i n i n g of Cha ndl e r , but Dr.

G r eenber g t est i f i ed t hat t h i s pr obl e m w as addr essed and , at l east w i t h r egar d t o any phy s i cal

puni shm ent , r esol ved bef o r e t he Fat her f i l ed hi s pet i t i o n t o change cust ody. Dr. G r eenber g

a l s o not ed t hat pr evi ous f a t her f i gur es i n Chandl e r ’ s l i f e had l e f t , i.e . t he Fat h e r and Joe

O m edeo, and he expr essed c oncer n about t he ef f ect t hat such abandonm ent m i ght have on

Chandl e r .

Despi t e t hes e concer n s , Dr. G r eenber g t est i f i ed t hat Chandl e r w as “ a happy chi l d ” w h o

w a s “ copi ng ver y w e l l . ” W i t h t he except i on o f st r ess a ssoci a t ed w i t h t he cust ody

p r oce edi ngs, Dr. G r eenber g di d not bel i eve t hat Chandl e r w as “ exhi b i t i ng or exper i enci ng any

t r aum a , dur ess or cr i s i s at t h i s t i m e . ” Dr. G r eenber g opi ned t hat Chandl e r w oul d “ do w e l l i n

e i t her [ par ent ’ s ] hom e , ” and he decl i ned t o char act e r i z e t he envi r onm ent i n t he M o t her ’ s hom e

a s ei t her heal t hy or unhe a l t hy. D r . G r eenber g expl a i ned t hat “ [ i ] t ’ s not abusi ve, i t ’ s not

chaot i c , t her e i s l ove and s uppor t , t her e ar e t h i ngs t hat pr obabl y ar e w o r t h changi ng, sur e ,

and I t h i nk t hat i s t r ue i n a l o t of hou seho l ds. ” D r . G r eenber g al so decl i ned t o gi ve an opi n i o n

a s t o w hether a ch ang e of custody w oul d b e har m f u l t o Chandl e r , but he di d opi ne t hat

Chandl e r “ f eel s gr eat l ove t o w a r ds [ t he M o t her ] and i t j ust f o l l o w s t hat any chi l d r e m oved

fro m a par ent [ he] l ove[ s ] i s goi ng t o be hur t . ” Al t hough Dr . G r eenber g expr essed h i s concer n
8

over t he M o t her ’ s f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h r ough w i t h t her apy r ecom m endat i ons, Dr. G r eenber g

t e s tifie d t hat t he M o t her had w o r ked ver y har d , t hat she w as t r u t h f u l abo u t her f a i l u r es t o

acc o m p l i sh t herapy goa l s , and t hat she di d no t bl a m e other s f o r t hese f a i l u r es.

The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m agr eed t hat Chandl e r w as “ not an abused chi l d . ” The G uar d i a n

A d Li t e m t est i f i ed t hat , al t hough Ri char d Stacey ha d di sci p l i ned C han d l e r harshl y i n t he p ast ,

such di sci p l i ne di d not r i se t o t he l evel of abuse. By t he t i m e of t r i a l , St acey no l onger w a s

d i sci p l i n i n g Chandl e r . The Fat her ’ s new w i f e , Debora h Brow n , al so had pl ayed a di sci p l i nar y

r o l e i n Chandl e r ’ s l i f e , but t he G uar d i an Ad Li t e m bel i eved t hat Chandl e r had adj ust ed w e l l t o

t h e Fat her ’ s r e m a r r i age and t o t he new r u l es est abl i shed i n t h e Fat her ’ s hom e . Chandl e r had

benef ite d f r o m t he i ncr eased v i s i t a t i on w i t h t he Fat her as pr ovi ded i n t he t r i a l c our t ’ s

t e m por a r y or der .

The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m expr essed c o n cer n over t h e f a i l u r e of bot h par ent s t o f u l l y

com p l y w i t h t he t r i a l cour t ’ s pr ohi b i t i o n on sm oki ng i n Chandl e r ’ s pr esence. The G uar d i a n

A d Li t e m al so expr essed c oncer n over t he degr ee t o w h i ch t h e M o t her had i nvol ved Chandl e r

i n t he cust ody pr oceedi ngs. At one p o i n t , t he G u a r d i an Ad Li t e m ur ged t he M o t her t o seek

counsel i n g t o deal w i t h her anger over t he l oss of cust ody of Joey i nst ead of com m uni cat i n g

t h i s anger t o Chandl e r . The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m t est i f i ed that C han d l e r “ ver y m uch st i l l

m our n [ ed] t he l oss of Joe y , ” and she bel i eved t hat nei t her par ent had adequat e l y addr essed

t h i s l oss.

A l t hough t he G uar d i a n Ad Li t e m decl i ned t o m ake a cust ody r ecom m endat i on, she di d

not bel i eve that an i m m edi a t e or dr ast i c ch ang e i n cu s t ody o r vi s i t a t i on w oul d be i n
9

Chandl e r ’ s best i n t e r est . The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m r ecom m ended t hat any changes be

accom p l i shed gr adual l y and w i t h t he gui dance of a counsel o r .

A t t he t r i a l ’ s concl usi on, t he t r i a l cour t f ound t hat t he Fat her had f a i l ed t o car r y hi s

bur den of pr oof t o suppor t a change of cust ody and, accor d i ngl y , t h e cour t ent e r ed an or der

den y i ng the Father ’ s peti t i on. Sp eci f i cal l y , t he tr i a l cou r t m ade t he f o l l o w i ng f i ndi ngs:

The pr oof w i t h r espect t o i n t e r f e r e n ce w i t h t e l ephone

cont act , unr e t u r ned t e l ephone cal l s , t he pr oof f r o m [ t h e Fat her ]

w a s t hat he w oul d cal l and l eave m essage s on an ans w e r i n g

m achi n e t hat w e r e not r e t u r ned. The r eason f o r t hei r not bei n g

r e t u r ned i s unknow n t o t he Cour t . I t coul d be t hat Chandl e r

s i m p l y di d not w ant to re t u r n t he t e l ephone cal l s as f a r as t h i s

Court coul d t e l l . I n any ev ent , i f t h ey w e r e pr event ed by [ t h e

M o t her ] , t he Cour t [ w oul d ] not base a change of cust ody on t hat

a l one.

Ther e ’ s t he al l egat i on r egar d i ng t he use of s w i t ches f o r

d i sci p l i ne or i m p r oper super v i s i on or adequat e f unds f o r school

l unc hes. Ther e w as a su ggest i on or an or der , par t of a t e m por a r y

o r der , t hat each of t he par t i es depos i t $25 f o r t he assi s t ance of

t h i ngs at school . Ther e ’ s no i ndi cat i on f r o m any of t h e evi dence

o r of t he pr oof t hat t hat ’ s been a pr obl e m .

W i t h r egar d t o i nappr opr i a t e di sci p l i ne, i t app ears t o th e

Cour t t h r ough w o r k w i t h Dr. G r eenber g t hat w het her i t m i ght

have been i nappr o p r i a t e under t hose ci r cum s t ances, as t hey

com e up, t hey get cor r ect ed. That i ncl ude s t he al l egat i ons of

physi cal abuse f r o m t he p a r a m our, M r . Stacey. The pr oof has not

got beyond t he adm i ssi ons by M r . St acey w i t h r espect t o ear l i e r

d i sci p l i nar y m easur e s a fte r l ear n i n g t h a t hi s i nvol vem ent w as not

appr opr i a t e t o t he Cour t .

Then t her e ’ s t he cust ody di sput e i n M i ssi ssi ppi over

s i m ila r i ssues and t he ext r a m a r i t a l af f a i r s and c o habi t i ng. The

Court can onl y w onder w hat m ust have been goi ng t h r ough [ t h e

Fat her’ s ] mi nd dur i ng t hat per i od f r o m t he t i m e of t he di vor c e

t h r ough t he M i ssi ssi ppi di vor ce pr oceedi ngs. The f act t hat he

w a s engaged i n an ongoi ng r e l a t i onshi p and af f a i r w i t h hi s exw ife i ndi c a t es t o t he Cour t t hat he had l i t t l e r egar d f o r her

m a r r i age at t he t i m e . . . .

. . . [ T ] he Cour t f i nds t hat t he M i ssi ssi ppi Court based hi s

r u lin g and aw a r d of cust ody of Joey Om edeo t o M r . O m edeo . . .
1 0

i n l a r ge m easur e upon t he t e s tim ony and behav i o r t hat w a s

e lic ite d t h r ough [ t he Fat her ] . I n t hat case, cust ody w as aw a r ded

appar ent l y to M r . O m edeo based i n l a r ge m easur e upon evi dence

o f [ t he Fat her ’ s ] ongoi ng r e l a t i onshi p w i t h hi s ex- w i f e , t he ver y

conduct of w h i ch he com p l a i ns of f r a m i ng t he basi s f o r a change

o f ci r cum s t ances i n t h i s case.

Ther e i s t he m a t t e r of t he vi deo. [ The Fat her ] says t hat

[th e M o t her ] consent ed t o t he vi deo because s h e bel i eved it w a s

a bi r t hday gi f t t o h i m , if t he Cour t under s t ands t he t est i m ony

corr ectl y . The Court onl y w onder s how t h i s m i ght have been

d i f f e r ent i f [ t he F a t her’ s ] ul t i m a t e go a l , t hat i s , th e r e t u r n of hi s

ex- w i f e and chi l d t o hi s hom e , had occur r ed, t hen w her e w e

w oul d be?

Then th e Court has t o consi der t he ef f ect of change upon

a chi l d . The C our t i s m o s t per suaded by t he t est i m ony of Dr.

G r eenber g w her e he say s t he chi l d i s copi n g and t he chi l d ’ s onl y

s t r ess i s t he ongoi ng l i t i gat i on i nvol v i ng hi s m o t her and he f eel s

i t w oul d be hur t f u l f o r t he chi l d t o be r e m oved f r o m t he m o t h e r

a t t h i s t i m e .

The Court i s , t her e f o r e , o f t he opi n i on t hat [ t he Fat her ]

f a ile d t o car r y t he bur den of pr o o f ; t her e f o r e , t her e w i l l be no

cha nge of custody.

I I . The C hange of Cust ody I ssue

A t r i a l cour t ’ s i n i t i a l aw a r d of cust ody r e m a i ns “ sub j ect t o such changes or

m odi f i cat i o n as t h e exi genci es of t he case m ay r equi r e . ” T. C . A . § 36- 6 - 101( a ) ( 1 ) ( Supp. 1997) .

A j udgm ent or or der aw a r d i ng c ust ody, how ever, “ i s r es j udi cat a as t o t he f act s i n exi s t ence

a t t he t i m e of t h e aw a r d . ” Eber har t v. Eber har t , N o . 03A01- 9612- C V - 00374, 1997 W L 406378,

a t * 2 ( Tenn. App. Jul y 22, 1997) . Accor d i ngl y , a par t y seeki ng t o change t h e cust odi a l

a r r angem ent bea r s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat a m a t e r i a l change i n ci r cum s t ances has

occur r e d si nce ent r y of t he i n i t i a l cust ody decr ee. M ussel m an v. Acuf f , 826 S. W . 2d 920, 922

( Tenn. App. 1991) .
1

I n W a ll v . W a l l , supr a , perm i ssi on to appe a l w as de n i ed b y t he Supr e m e C our t .

The W a l l c ase has been f o l l o w ed consi s t ent l y by t he C our t of A ppeal s , i ncl udi ng t h e

1 1

I n M ussel m an v . A cuf f , 826 S. W . 2d 920 ( Tenn. App. 1991) , t h i s cour t set f o r t h t h e

s t and a r d of r evi e w i n cu s t ody m odi f i cati on p r oce edi ngs:

The scope of r evi e w i n custody case s i s de novo upon t h e

r ecor d accom pani e d by a p r esum p t i on o f corr ectness, unl ess th e

p r eponder ance of th e evi dence i s ot her w i se. H ass v . K n i ght o n ,

676 S. W . 2d 554 ( Tenn. 1984) . The par a m ount consi der a t i on i n a

cust ody pr ocee d i ng i s t he best i n t e r est of t he chi l d . W hen t h e

i ssue bef o r e t h e Court i s w het her t o m odi f y a pr i o r cust ody or der ,

i t need not r epeat t he com par a t i ve f i t ness an a l ysi s t hat i s

appr opr i a t e at t he t i m e of t he or i g i nal cust ody [ decr ee] . See e. g . ,

Bah v. Bah , 668 S. W . 2d 663 ( Tenn. App. 1983) . I nst ead, i n a

m odi f i cat i o n pr oceedi ng, t he t r i a l j udge m ust f i nd a m a t e r i a l

change i n ci r cum s t ances t hat i s com pel l i ng e n o ugh t o w a r r ant

t h e dr a m a t i c r e m edy o f cha nge d cu s t ody. See , Tenn. Code A nn.

§ 36- 6 - 101( a ) ; W oodar d v. W oodar d , 783 S. W . 2d 188 ( Tenn. App.

1989) ; D a i l ey v . D a ile y , 635 S. W . 2d 391 ( Tenn. App. 1981) .

M o r eover , t he b u r den i s on the non - custodi a l parent t o prove

cha nge d ci r cum s t anc es.

M ussel m a n , 826 S. W . 2d at 922.

B eca use a ch ang e of custody i s consi der ed a “ d r ast i c l egal act i on, ” not ever y change

i n ci r cum s t ances w i l l be suf f i c i ent l y m a t e r i a l t o w a r r ant m odi f i cat i on of a pr i o r cust ody

decr ee. Eber har t v. Eber har t , 1997 W L 406378, at * 2 ( quot i ng M ussel m an v. Acuf f , 826 S . W . 2 d

a t 92 3 ) . N o “ h a r d an d f ast ” r u l e ex i s t s as t o w hat consti t u t es ch ang ed c i r cum s t anc es.

Dantz l e r v. Dantz l e r , 665 S. W . 2d 385, 387 ( Tenn. App. 1983) . The par t y seeki ng a change of

custody, how ever , m u s t pr ove t hat “ som e new f act has occur r ed w h i ch has al t e r ed t h e

c i r cum s t ances i n a m a t e r i a l w ay so t hat t he w e l f a r e of t he chi l d r equi r es a change of

custody. ” G rif fin v . S t o n e , 834 S. W . 2 d 300, 302 ( Tenn. App. 1992) . I n or der t o be com pel l i n g

enough t o w a r r ant t he dr a m a t i c r e m e d y o f changed cust ody, t he change of ci r cum s t ances

m ust be such t hat “ cont i nuat i o n of t he adj udi cat ed cust ody w i l l subst ant i a l l y har m t he chi l d . ”

W a l l v. W a l l , 9 07 S. W . 2d 829, 834 ( Tenn. App. 1995) .

1

 W hen t he r equest ed m odi f i cat i on i s
f o llo w i n g : G r een e v. G r eene , N o . 03A 01- 9503- C V - 00091, 1996 W L 165098 ( Tenn. A pp.

A p r i l 9, 1996) ; I ngram v. I ngr a m , N o . 02A 01- 9501- C H - 00005, 1996 W L 138443 ( Tenn. A pp.

M a r . 27, 1996) ; S t r oud v. St r oud , N o . 01A 01- 9607- C H - 00291, 1997 W L 266846 ( Tenn. A pp.

M a y 21, 1997) ; Stubbs v. St ubbs , N o . 02A 01- 9703- C H - 00050, 1997 W L 266846 ( Tenn. A pp.

N ov. 25, 1 997) ; C ook v. D avi dson , N o . 02A 01- 9607- C H - 00173, 1997 W L 459727 ( Tenn.

A pp. A ug. 12, 1997) ; Eber h a r t v. Eber har t , N o . 03A 01- 9612- C V - 00374, 1997 W L 406378

( Tenn. A pp. Jul y 22, 1997) ; W illia m s v . W illia m s , N o . 0 1 A 0 1 - 9610- C V - 00468, 1997 W L

272458 ( Tenn. A pp. M ay 23, 1997) .

2

The G uar d i an A d Li t e m ’ s i n i t i a l r epor t i ndi cat e d t hat C handl e r ’ s t eacher s agr eed

t he f o r got t en m oney and s uppl i es w e r e “ no m o r e t han any av e r age ki d . ”

1 2

based on the beh avi o r of t he c ust odi a l parent , such beh avi o r m ust cl earl y posi t o r cau s e

danger t o t he m ent a l or em o t i onal w e l l - bei ng of t h e chi l d . M ussel m an v. Acuf f , 826 S. W . 2d at

924 ( quot i ng Bal l a r d v. Bal l a r d , 434 So. 2d 1357, 1360 ( M i ss. 1983) ) .

Appl y i n g t he f o r egoi ng st andar d , w e af f i r m t he t r i a l cour t ’ s deci s i on t o deny t h e

Fat her ’ s peti t i on to chan ge c ust ody. R ega r d i ng m any o f t h e c hanges i n ci r cum s t ances al l eged

b y t he Fat her , t he t r i a l cour t f ound t hat t he Fat her si m p l y f a i l ed t o car r y hi s bur den of pr oof ,

and w e concl ude t hat t he evi dence does not pr eponder a t e agai nst such a f i ndi ng. Al t hough

R i char d St acey and t he M o t her had puni shed Chandl e r i nappr opr i a t e l y i n t he past , t h e

evi dence show ed t hat t h i s pr obl e m had been addr essed a nd l a r gel y r esol ved by t h e t i m e of

trial. The evi dence show ed t hat bot h par t i es had vi o l a t e d t he t e m por a r y or der ’ s pr ohi b i t i o n

aga i nst sm oki ng i n Chandl e r ’ s pr esence. The pr oof f a i l ed t o suppor t t h e Fat her ’ s cont ent i o n

t hat t he M o t her negl ect ed t o pr ovi de Chandl e r w i t h adequat e f unds t o buy l unches and ot her

needed i t e m s at school ,

2

 o r th a t th e M o t her pr event ed Chandl e r f r o m r e t u r n i ng t he Fat her ’ s

t e l eph one cal l s .

W e ar e concer ned, how ever , by cer t a i n event s w h i ch w e r e pr oven t o have t r anspi r e d

s i nce ent r y of t he i n i t i a l cust ody decr ee. The r ecor d cont a i ns undi sput ed evi dence t hat t h e

M o t her engaged i n ext r a m a r i t a l af f a i r s w h i ch cont r i but ed t o t he f a i l u r e of her m a r r i age t o Joe
1 3

O m edeo and t he r esul t i ng l oss of anot her f a t her f i gur e i n Chandl e r ’ s l i f e . The M o t her

addi t i onal l y adm i t t ed that she h ad i nvol ved C han d l e r i n cu s t ody p r oce edi ngs b y d i s c ussi n g

t h e p r ocee d i ngs w i t h Chandl e r and t e l l i ng hi m t hat t he Fat her w as par t l y t o bl a m e f o r t h e

p r oceedi ngs’ out com e . Both Dr . G r eenber g and t he G uar d i a n Ad Li t e m expr essed c oncer n s

t hat t hese ci r cum s t ances had har m ed Chandl e r .

N evert hel ess, w e af f i r m t he t r i a l cour t ’ s r e f usal t o c hange cust ody. Al t hough Dr .

G r eenber g and t he G uar d i an Ad Li t e m agr eed t hat t h e f o r egoi n g event s had har m ed Chandl e r ,

t h e i r t est i m ony al so i ndi cat ed t hat a change i n cust ody w oul d not necess a r i l y ben e f i t

Chandl e r at t he p r ese n t tim e . The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m di d not bel i eve t hat an i m m edi a t e or

d r ast i c change i n cust ody or vi s i t a t i on w oul d be i n Chandl e r ’ s best i n t e r est s . Dr. G r eenber g

t e s tifie d t hat Chandl e r w as “ a happy chi l d ” w ho w oul d “ do w e l l i n ei t her hom e ” and, fu rth e r ,

t h a t t h e M o t her ’ s househ o l d , despi t e som e pr obl e m s , pr ovi ded Chandl e r w i t h l ove and s uppor t .

 W hen gi ven t h e oppor t uni t y , Dr. G r eenber g decl i ned t o char act e r i z e t h e envi r onm ent i n t h e

M o t her ’ s hom e as an unheal t hy one. Dr. G r eenber g r epo r t ed that , w i t h t he e xce p t i on o f st r ess

associ a t e d w i t h t he cust ody pr oceedi ngs, Chandl e r di d not a ppear t o be exper i enci ng any

par t i cul a r “ t r aum a , dur ess or cr i s i s at t h i s t i m e . ”

W h ile w e do not w i sh t o condone t he t ype of behavi o r w h i c h m ay have pr eci p i t a t ed t h i s

litig a tio n , w e al s o ar e m i ndf u l t hat cust ody deci s i ons sho u l d not be desi gned t o puni sh one

par ent o r to r e w a r d t he ot her . W a ll v . W a l l , 907 S. W . 2d 829, 834 ( Tenn. App. 1995) . I nst ead,

our par a m ount concer n r e m a i ns t he w e l f a r e and best i n t e r est of t he m i nor chi l d . I n re

Par sons , 914 S. W . 2d 889, 893 ( Tenn. App. 1995) . I n t he absence of any com pet ent t est i m ony
3

The pr i nci p l e enunci a t ed i n W a ll v . W a l l , supr a , i s not at odd s w i t h t he t r adi t i onal

“ best i n t e r est s ” t est . Pi ng- pong cust ody adj udi cat i ons ar e not i n a c h i l d ’ s best i n t e r est s .

Thi s pr obl e m has been addr essed w i t h unani m i t y by A aby , M ussel m a n , and C ont r e r a s ,

a s w e l l as by W a l l . A aby , a par ent a l r e l ocat i on case, speci f i cal l y hel d t hat “ Tennessee

a llo w s cust ody t o be cha nged i f t h e behavi o r of t he cust odi a l par ent c l earl y posi t s a

danger t o t he physi cal , m ent a l or em o t i onal w e l l - bei ng of t h e chi l d [ c i t a t i on om i t t ed] . ”

[ E m pha s i s suppl i ed] . A aby v. St r ange , 924 S. W . 2d 623, 629 ( Tenn. 1996 ). M u ssel m a n ,

c itin g B a l l a r d v. B a l l a r d , 434 So. 2 d 1357, 1360 ( M i ss. 1983) , hel d : “ I t i s onl y t hat behavi o r

o f a par ent w h i ch c l ear l y posi t s or causes danger t o t he m ent a l or em o t i onal w e l l - bei n g

o f a ch i l d . . . w h i ch i s suf f i c i ent basi s t o s e r i ousl y consi der t he dr ast i c l egal act i on of

changi n g cust ody. ” [ E m phasi s suppl i ed] . M usse l m an v . A cuf f , 826 S. W . 2d 920, 924

( Tenn. A pp. 1991) . C ont r e r a s , quot i ng Sar t oph v. Sar t oph , 354 A . 2d 467, 473 ( M d . A pp.

1976) , st a t ed: “ T h e cu s t ody of chi l d r en shoul d not be di s t u r bed unl ess t her e i s som e

s t r ong r eason a f f ect i ng t he w e l f a r e of t he chi l d . To j ust i f y a change i n cust ody, t h e

change i n co ndi t i ons m ust have occur r e d w h i c h af f ect s t he w e l f a r e of t he chi l d and not

t hat of t he par ent s . ” [ E m phasi s suppl i ed] . C ont r e r as v. W a r d , 831 S. W . 2d 288, 290 ( Tenn.

A pp. 199 1 ) . Th ese cases a r e al l i n accor d w i t h t he l anguage of W a ll v . W a l l , supr a , t hat ,

once a val i d cust ody det e r m i nat i on i s m ade, such cu s t ody i s not subj ect t o change

unl ess t her e i s a “ change of ci r cum s t anc e s . . . w h i ch r equi r es a change t o pr event

subst ant i a l har m t o t he chi l d . ” W a ll v . W a l l , 907 S. W . 2 d 829, 834 ( Tenn. A pp. 1995) . “ I n

shor t , w hen al l goes w e l l w i t h chi l d r en, st abi l i t y , not cha nge , i s i n t hei r best i n t e r est s . ”

C ont r e r as v. W a r d , supr a , c i t i ng Sar t oph v. Sar t oph .

1 4

t hat a cont i nuat i on of t he cur r ent cust ody ar r angem ent pr esent s a danger of subst ant i a l har m

t o C han d l e r , w e de c l i ne to di s t u r b t he tr i a l cou r t ’ s dec i s i on to deny a cha nge of custody. 3

I n af f i r m i ng the t r i a l cou r t ’ s deci s i on, w e al so f eel com pel l ed t o poi n t out t hat t h e

Fat her hi m sel f pl ayed a r o l e i n som e of t he event s w h i ch he cont ended const i t u t ed changes

i n ci r cum s t ances. The Fat her adm i t t e d t hat he engaged i n a cour se of sexual conduct wi t h

t h e M o t her w h i ch onl y coul d have under m i ned, r a t her t han pr eser ved, her m a r r i age t o Joe

O m edeo. M o r eover , t he r ecor d cont a i ns evi dence t hat t h e Fat her vol unt a r i l y i nvol ved hi m sel f

i n t he M i ssi ssi ppi cust ody pr oceedi ngs w her eby t he M o t her l ost cust ody of Joey Om edeo and

Chandl e r l ost t he com pani onshi p of hi s onl y br o t her .

I n chal l engi ng t h e t r i a l cour t ’ s deni a l of hi s pet i t i on, t he Fat her cont ends t hat t he t r i a l

cour t er r ed i n f a i l i ng t o pl ace gr eat e r em phasi s on t he M o t her ’ s ver aci t y . At t r i a l , f o r exam p l e ,

t h e M o t her adm i t t ed that she h ad b een di shon est on a t l east t w o occasi ons, once w hen she

lie d t o t he G uar d i an Ad Li t e m about Ri char d St acey spendi ng t he ni ght i n her apar t m ent and,
4

T h e t e m porar y or der and t he f i nal or der w e r e en t e r ed b y di f f e r ent t r i a l j udg es.

1 5

agai n , wh e n she com m i t t ed per j u r y i n t he M i ssi ssi ppi cust ody pr oceedi ngs i nvol v i ng Joey

O m edeo.

W e r ecogni z e t hat a “ par ent ’ s hones t y r e f l ect s on h i s o r her f i t ness t o be a good

cust odi an. ” G aski l l v. G aski l l , 936 S . W . 2 d 626, 634 ( Tenn. App. 1996) . W e not e , how ever , t hat

t h i s char act e r t r a i t i s m e r e l y one of t he f act o r s t o be consi der ed by t he t r i a l cour t i n m aki n g

its cust ody det e r m i nat i on, and t hat a par ent ’ s ver aci t y , or l ack t her eof , does not necess a r i l y

cont r o l t he out com e of a cust ody pr oceedi ng. See, e. g . , Rubi n v. K i r shner , 948 S . W . 2 d 742,

746 ( Tenn. App. 1997) ; S t r oud v. St r oud , N o . 01A01- 9607- C H - 00291, 1997 W L 266846, at * 4

( Tenn. App. M ay 21, 1997) . W e al so not e t hat t he t r i a l cour t m ade no negat i ve f i ndi ngs

concer n i n g t he M o t her ’ s cr edi b i l i t y i n t h i s case . I n f act, t he tr i a l cou r t ’ s f i ndi ngs su gge s t j ust

t h e opposi t e because, i n denyi ng t he Fat her ’ s pet i t i on, t he co u r t ci t ed Dr. G r eenber g ’ s

t est i m ony t hat t he M o t her had been t r u t h f u l about her f a i l u r es t o accom p l i sh cer t a i n t her apy

goa l s .

A l t hough w e af f i r m t he t r i a l cour t ’ s or der denyi ng t he Fat her ’ s pet i t i on, w e agr ee t hat

Chandl e r ’ s best i n t e r est s r equi r e t he cont i nued ef f ect i veness of som e of t he con d i t i ons

i m posed i n t he t r i a l cour t ’ s t e m por a r y or der .

4

 Accor d i ngl y , w e m odi f y t he t r i a l cour t ’ s fi nal

o r der t o i ncl ude t he f o l l o w i ng c ond i t i ons:

- The par t i es shal l cal l Chandl e r no m o r e t han once

per day w h i l e t he chi l d i s i n t he car e o f t he ot her par ent , and

t hose cal l s shoul d be pl aced t o Chandl e r bet w e e n t he h our s of

7 : 0 0 p. m . and 8: 00 p . m . M i ssed c a l l s t o t he chi l d w i l l be r e t u r ned

t h e sam e day and pr i o r t o t he chi l d ’ s bedt i m e . The cal l s shoul d

b e l i m i t ed i n l engt h so as not t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t he consi s t ency of

t h e chi l d ’ s eveni ng pr epar a t i on f o r school and bedt i m e . Thi s

doe s not l i m i t l e t t e r s , post car ds, car ds, or E- m a i l t o t he chi l d

f r o m ei t her par ent .
5

A ppa r entl y , t he Fat her i s at t e m p t i ng t o r a i se t h i s i ssue on behal f of t he G uar d i an Ad Li t e m and t he Att o r ney

A d Li t e m . The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m w as l i s t ed, al ong w i t h t he Fat her , as an appel l ant i n a j o i n t not i ce of appeal f i l e d

b y t he Fat her ’ s at t o r ney and t h e Att o r ney Ad Li t e m . Addi t i onal l y , t he Att o r ney Ad Li t e m ’ s si gnat u r e appear s on t h e

appel l a t e bri e f f i l ed b y t he F ather ’ s att orney. Th e bri e f doe s not m ake cl e a r , how ever , w het her t he G uar d i an Ad

L i t e m i s j o i n i ng i n al l of t he i ssues rai sed i n the Father’ s bri e f , or j ust t he i ssue c onc erni ng c osts.

1 6

- N e i t her par ent i s t o di scuss t he ot her par ent i n

Chandl e r ’ s l i s t eni ng pr esence. To t he ext ent possi b l e , each

par ent i s t o pr event ot her f a m i l y m e m ber s or f r i ends f r o m

d i scuss i ng t he ot her par ent i n Chandl e r ’ s l i s t eni ng pr esence.

- N e i t h e r par e n t i s t o di scuss t hese ( o r any ot her )

cust ody pr oceedi ngs, t hei r pr o g r ess, or t hei r r esul t s w i t h

Chandl e r .

- N e i t her parent i s t o sm oke i n Chandl e r ’ s pr esence,

a t any pl ace or at any t i m e , w het her i ndoor s or ot her w i se.

- N e i t her par ent i s t o have an adul t m e m ber of t h e

opp osi t e sex w ho i s unr e l a t ed t o t hat par ent r e m a i n i n t he hom e

w i t h Chandl e r pr esent past 10: 00 p. m . or ar r i ve i n t he hom e pr i o r

t o C han d l e r ’ s br eak f ast .

W e al s o m odi f y t he t r i a l cour t ’ s f i nal or der t o r e i nst a t e t he vi s i t a t i o n schedul e set f o r t h i n t h e

trial cour t ’ s t e m por a r y or der , w h i ch pr ovi ded t hat t he Fat her “ shal l have Chandl e r ever y ot her

w eekend f r o m Thur sday af t e r school unt i l t he f o l l o w i n g M onday m o r n i ng, at w h i c h tim e th e

Fat her shal l del i ver Chandl e r t o school ” and t hat , on a l t e r nate w eek s , t he F a t her “ shal l have

Chandl e r f r o m Thur sday af t e r school and over n i ght unt i l t he next m o r n i ng at w h i ch t i m e t h e

Fat her shal l del i ver Cha ndl e r t o school . ” The r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat Chandl e r has benef i t e d

f r o m t h i s i ncr eased v i s i t a t i on t i m e w i t h t he Fat her .

I I I . Cost s and Ot her I ssues

O n appeal , t he Fat her al so cont ends t hat t he t r i a l cour t er r ed i n desi gnat i ng t he f ees

due t o t h e G uar d i an Ad Li t e m and t he Att o r ney Ad Li t e m as cos t s r a t her t han as chi l d

suppor t .

5

 R u l e 17 . 03 o f t he T enn essee R u l es of C i v i l Pr ocedur e aut hor i z e s t he t r i a l cour t , i n
6

B o t h par t i es appear t o agr ee t hat t h i s aut hor i z a t i on i ncl u d es t he A t t o r ney A d

L i t e m ’ s f ee.

1 7

its di scr e t i on, t o aw a r d t he G uar d i a n Ad L i t e m a r easonabl e f ee f o r her ser v i ces, w h i ch f e e

i s “ t o be t axe d as c ost s . ” T . R . C . P . 17. 03. 6 W e have f ound no aut hor i t y , and t he Fat her has

c i t e d no aut hor i t y , w h i ch per m i t s t he t r i a l cour t t o desi gnat e such f ees as chi l d suppor t r a t her

t han as co s t s . Th e au t hori t y of t he tr i a l cou r t t o order a pa r t y t o m ake chi l d suppor t paym ent s

i s st a t u t o r y . See B l ackbur n v. Bl ackbur n , 526 S. W . 2d 463, 466 ( Tenn. 1975) ; see a l s o

Tow ner v. Tow ner , 858 S. W . 2d 888, 890 ( Tenn. 1993) ; Penl and v. Penl and , 521 S. W . 2d 222, 224

( Tenn. 1975) ; N obl e v. St ubbl e f i e l d , 755 S. W . 2 d 454, 458 ( Tenn. App. 1988) . I n t he absence of

such st a t u t o r y aut hor i t y , w e concl ude t hat t he t r i a l cou r t pr oper l y ass essed t hese f ees as

costs.

The Mo t h e r has r a i sed i ssues concer n i ng t he t r i a l cour t ’ s f a i l u r e t o aw a r d he r

a t t o r ney’ s f ees and t he cour t ’ s ass essm ent of one- hal f of t he cost s agai nst her . Al t hough t h e

p r evai l i n g par t y i n a ci v i l act i on gener a l l y i s ent i t l ed t o an aw a r d of cost s ( see T. C . A .

§ 20- 12- 101 ( 1994) ; T. R . C . P . 54. 04( 1 ) ) , t h i s r u l e i s not absol u t e . The asses s m ent of cost s l i e s

w ith i n t he r easonabl e di scr e t i on of t he t r i a l cour t , and t he cour t m a y appor t i on cost s bet w een

t h e par t i es as t he equi t i es of each case dem and. Per due v. G r een Bra nch M i n i ng Co. , 83 7

S . W . 2d 56, 60 ( Tenn. 1992) ; T. C . A . § 20- 12- 119 ( 1994) ; T. R . C . P . 54. 04( 2 ) .

I n t h i s case, w e f i nd no abuse of di scr e t i on i n r equi r i ng t h e M o t her t o pay one- hal f of

t h e cost s i ncur r ed i n t hese pr oceedi ngs. W e r ecogni z e t hat t he M o t her w as t he pr e vai lin g

par t y bel o w . The t est i m ony of bot h Dr. G r eenber g and t he G uar d i a n Ad Li t e m , how ever ,

r eveal s t hat t he Fat her ’ s m odi f i cat i on pet i t i on w as pr o m p t ed at l east i n par t by l egi t i m a t e

concer n s f o r Chandl e r ’ s w e l f a r e . Al t hough t he Fat her ul t i m a t e l y f a i l ed t o m eet hi s bur den of
1 8

p r ovi n g t hat t hese concer ns r equi r ed a change of c u s t ody, w e concl ude t hat t he t r i a l cour t

act e d wi t h i n i t s equi t a b l e di scr e t i on i n r equi r i ng each of t he par t i es t o pay one- hal f of t h e

costs.

W e l i kew i se concl ude t hat t he t r i a l cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr e t i on i n denyi ng t h e

M o t her ’ s r equest f o r an aw a r d of at t o r ney’ s f ees. The M o t her ’ s r equest f o r at t o r ney’ s f ees

w a s gover ned by Tennessee Code A nnot a t ed sect i on 36- 5 - 103( c ) , w h i ch aut hor i z e s t h e trial

cour t t o aw a r d at t o r ney’ s f ees t o a par t y w ho succes s f u l l y pur sues or def ends a change of

cust o d y pet i t i on. See D v . K , 917 S. W . 2d 682, 686 ( Tenn. App. 1995) ; G addy v. G addy , 861

S . W . 2 d 236, 241 ( Tenn. App. 1992) ; Aki ns v. Aki n s , 805 S. W . 2d 377, 379- 80 ( Tenn. App. 1990) ;

Fenl e y v. Fenl e y , N o . 03A01- 9604- C H - 00121, 1996 W L 469683, at * 4 ( Tenn. App. Aug. 19, 1996) .

A s w i t h an aw a r d of cost s , how ever , a pr evai l i ng par t y ’ s r i ght t o an aw a r d of at t o r ney’ s f ees

under t h i s sect i on i s not absol u t e . Deas v. Deas , 774 S. W . 2d 167, 169- 70 ( Tenn. 19 89) .

I nst ead, t he st a t u t e pr ovi des t hat such an aw a r d l i es w i t h i n t he t r i a l cour t ’ s di scr e t i on. See

T . C . A . § 36- 5 - 103( c ) ( 1996) ; see a l s o S h e r r od v. W i x , 849 S. W . 2d 780, 785 ( Tenn. App. 1992) ;

Archer v. Archer , 907 S. W . 2d 412, 419 ( Tenn. App. 1995) ; Brew e r v. Brew e r , 869 S. W . 2d 928,

936 ( Tenn. App. 1993) ; F l o r i an v. Edenf i e l d , N o . 03A01- 9406- C V - 00217, 1996 W L 310018, at * 5

( Tenn. App. June 11, 1996) . The t r i a l cour t ’ s deci s i on t o aw a r d or den y at t o r ney’ s f ees m ust

onl y be j ust and equi t abl e under t he ci r cum s t ances of each case. S h e r r od v. W i x , 849 S. W . 2 d

a t 785; B j o r k v. Bj o r k , N o . 01A01- 9702- C V - 00087, 1997 W L 653917, at * 7 ( Tenn. App. O c t . 22,

1997) . As w i t h t he t r i a l cour t ’ s ass essm ent of cost s , w e conc l ude t h a t , under t h e

c i r cum s t ances of t h i s case, t he c o u r t act ed w i t h i n i t s equi t abl e di scr e t i on i n denyi ng t h e

M o t her’ s r equ est f o r at t o r ney’ s f ees.
1 9

I V . Concl usi o n

A s m odi f i ed, t h e t r i a l cour t ’ s j udgm ent i s her eby af f i r m ed. Cost s of t h i s appeal ar e

t axe d t o t he F a t her, f o r w h i ch e xec u t i on m ay i ssue i f nec essary.

 

H I G H ERS , J .

CONCU R :

 

CRAW F ORD, P. J . , W . S .

 

F A R M E R , J. ( concur s s epar a t e l y )