# F I L E D
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 to modi f y t he cust ody ar r angement

pr evi ousl y agr

eed t o by t he par t i es and s

e t f o rt 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

te 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 rta 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 ta 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 ma r r i ed i nApri 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 to t he Fat her and, at t he t i m e of

her r e ma 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 te t he M o t her’ s r e ma r r i age, t h e Fat her and t he M

o t her m a i n ta 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 te r s , t he Fat her

vi deotaped 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’ s3

k i tchen. Chandl e r

w as pr esent i n t he Fat her’ s hom

e dur i ng t h e

tapi 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

dchi l d , Joey Om edeo, w as bor n i n N ovember

1992. The M

o t her’ s m a r r i age to 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 summ e r of 1995, w hen she m e t her cur r ent para m our, R i cha r

d S tace 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 ta t i on, t he Fat her

encount e r ed Joe O m edeo, and t he t w o men began t

a l k i ng. I n r espons e to a speci f

i c quest i on f r o m O m edeo, t he Fat her

adm i t ted t hat

he had engaged i n sexual r e l a t i ons wi 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 to 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 andtesti 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 Februar y 1996, t he Fat her

f i l ed t h i s pet i t i on to change cust

ody of Chandl e r

f r o m t h e M o t her to t he Fat her . I n suppor t of hi s pet i t i on, t h e Fat her al l egedt he f

o l l o w i ng changes of c i r cum s tanc 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 ma 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 menta l t o th e bes t

i n te 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 ma r i ta 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 dborn to 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 te 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 mour 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 ment

s ( s w i tches) 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 te r school or

dur i ng t h e4 summ e r vacat i on mont 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 to 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 mour , and even m

o r e so si nce t he [ Fat her ] has been subpoenaed

to testi f y i n t h e col l a te r a l cust ody cas e , t he M o t her has set about a patte r n of

i n te 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 ta t i on w

i t h t he m i nor

chi l d . I nh 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 te mto r eprese n t Chandl e r’ s

i n te r est s . The t r i a l cour

t gr anted t he mo t i on, appoi n t i ng atto r ney Pame l a Pi e r c e as Chandl e r’ s guar

d i an ad l i te m .
Som e t i m e

bet w een Januar

y an d Apri l 1 996, t he Fat her test 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 to testi 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 to 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 deotape he had t

aken of t he M o t her i n hi s ki tchen, and O m ede o pl ayed th 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 ovember

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 ts r u l i ng, t h e M i ssi ssi ppi cour

t r e l i ed, i n part , on t he Fat her’ s t esti m ony and t

he vi deotape. 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 ente r

ed a t e m por a r y or der w h i ch, i n addi t i o n to cont i nui ng t he case unt i l af te r t h e 1996- 97 school year

, r esponded t

o concern s expr essed by t he G uar d i a n Ad Li te 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 te 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 mo 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 , and5 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 echi l d w

i l l be r e t u r ned t h e sam e day and pr

i o r to t he chi l d ’ s bedt

i m e . The ca l l s shoul d b e lim ite di n l engt h so as

not to 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 te r s , post car ds, car ds or E- m a i l to 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 teacher to 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 to 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 ts w i t h Chandl e r . The par ent s ar e author i zed onl y to

r e f e r Chandl e r

to t he G uar

d i an ad L i te mor to D r . G r een berg t

o ob ta i n an s w

e r s to 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 te sex, w ho i s unr e l a ted to t hat

par ent , r e ma i n i n t he home w i t h Chandl e r

pr esent past 10 p. m . or ar r i ve i n t he home pr i o r to C han d l e r ’ s br eak f

ast . I n addi t i on to 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 ta t i o n

tim e w i t h Chandl e r . W

her eas t he Fat her’ s vi s i ta 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 dedt hat

such vi s i ta t i ons

wo u l d begi n “ Thursday af te 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 te r nate w eeks, t he Fat her

w as gr ante dvi s i ta t i on w

i t h Chandl e r “ f r o m Thursday af

te 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 took 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 ted t hat

she h ad p e r m i t ted h e r

param our, R i cha r

d S tace y , to spe nd a t

l east tw o6

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 home . The M

o t her testi f i ed t hat S t acey al so cam

e to t h e apar t m ent ever y m o r n i ng to dr i nk cof

f ee w i t h her on t he pat i o . The M o t her deni e dt 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 sbehavi ng. M

o r eover , t h e M o t her adm i t ted t hat

she once had l i e dw

hen t he G uar

d i an Ad Li te m

asked her

i f St acey had spent t he ni ght

andt hat she had com m i t ted p e r j u ry i n t he Mi ssi ssi ppi custody proceedi ngs. The M o t her adm i t ted sm

oki n g i n Chandl e r’ s pr

esence, but

she m a i n ta i ned t hat

t h i s onl y occurr e doutdoor

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 ted 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 dChandl e r

t hat t he Fat her

w as at l east par t l y t o bl a me f o r t h i s l oss.

The Fat her

adm i t ted t hat

he too 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 admi t ted t hat

he had decl i ned t

o keep Chandl e r dur i ng t he day t

hat summ e r , despi te 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 rt 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 to bl a me t he M

o t her f o r t h i s ci r cums t ance.
Psyc hol ogi s t

Roy G r eenber g testi 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 endedw 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 sti l l harbor

ed host i l i t y an d r esentm e n t

to 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 g7

w a s concerned 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 haddi scuss

ed t he pr oceedi ngs

w i t h Chandl e r

andhad com m uni cated her gri e f over t he l oss o f Joe y ’ s custody.

D r . Gr e e n b e r g no ted 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 tace 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 te 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 excessi 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 testi 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 to 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 to change cust

ody. Dr. G r

eenber g a l s o noted 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 oncern about

t he ef f ect t hat such abandonm

ent m i ght have on Chandl e r . Despi te t hes e concer

n s , Dr. G r eenber g testi 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 ted w

i t h t he cust

ody p r oce edi ngs, Dr. G r

eenber g di dnot bel i eve t hat Chandl e r w as “ exhi b i t i ng or

exper i enci ng any t r auma , dur

ess or cr i s i s at t h i s ti 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 ]home , ” andhe decl i ned t o char acte r i z e t he envi r onment 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 suppor

t , t her e ar e t h i ngs t

hat pr obabl y ar e w o rt h changi ng, sur

e , andI 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 to w hether a ch ang e of

custody w

oul d b e harmf

u l to 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 moved fro m a par ent [ he] l ove[

s ]i s goi ng to be hur

t . ” Al t hough Dr . G r

eenber g expr essed h i s concer n8

over t he M

o t her’ s f a i l u r e to 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 tifiedt 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 te m

agr eedt hat Chandl e r

w as “ not an abused chi l d . ” The G uar d i a n A dLi te m testi f i ed t hat , al t hough Ri char dStacey 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 dnot

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 te m

bel i eved t

hat Chandl e r

had adj ust

ed w e l l to t h e Fat her’ s r

e ma r r i age and t

o t he new

ru l es est abl i shed i n t h e Fat her’ s hom

e . Chandl e r

had benef ite df r o m t he i ncr eased vi s i ta 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 ourt ’ s te m por a r y or der .
The G uar d i an Ad Li te 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 dLi te m al so expr

essed c oncern over

t he degr ee to 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 te m

ur ged t he M

o t her to seek counsel i n g

to 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 to Chandl e r . The G uar d i an Ad Li t e m

test 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 te m decl i ned t

o make 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 tody o r vi s i ta t i on w

oul d be i n9

Chandl e r’ s

best i n te r est. The G uar

d i an Ad Li te 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 to carr

y hi s bur den of pr oof to suppor

t a change of

cust ody and, accor

d i ngl y , t h e

cour t ente 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 rt m ade t he f

o l l o w i ng fi ndi ngs: The pr oof w i t h r espect to i n te r f e r e n ce w i t h te l ephone contact , 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 nedi s unknow

n to 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 nt he te l ephone cal l s as f a r as t h i s Court coul d te 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 tches 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 te 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 to i nappr

opr i a te 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 eunder

t hose ci r

cums t ances, as t

hey come up, t hey get

corr ected. 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 to ear l i e r d i sci p l i nar

y m easur e s a fte r l earn i n g t h a t

hi s i nvol vem

ent w as not appr opr i a te to 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 ma r i ta 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 Mi 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 tes 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

to M r . O m edeo . . .1 0 i n l a r ge measur

e upon t he te s tim

ony and behav

i o r t hat w a s e lic ite dt 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 measur

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 cums t ances i n t h i s case. Ther e i s t he ma t te r

of t he vi deo. [

The Fat her

] says t hat [th e M o t her ] consent ed to t he vi deo because sh e bel i eved it w a s a bi rt hday gi f

t to h i m , if t he Cour t

under s t ands t he testi m ony corr ectl y . The Court

onl y w onder s how t h i s mi 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 eandchi l d to hi s hom e , had occurr

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 testi 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 andhe f eel s i t w oul d be hur

t f u l f o r t he chi l d to be r

e moved f r o m t he m o t h e r a t t h i s ti m e . The Court

i s , t her e f o r e , of t he opi n i on t hat

[ t he Fat her

] f a ile dto carr

y t he bur den of pr oo 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 ma i ns “ sub

j ect to 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 udgment

or or der aw

a r d i ng c ust ody, how

ever, “ i s r

es j udi cata 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 to change t h e cust odi a l a r r angement

bea r s t he bur

den of pr ovi ng t hat

a ma te r i a l change i n ci r cums t ances has occurr e dsi 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 rt h t h e s tand a r d of

r evi e w i n cu s tody 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 daccom pani e dby 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 ghto n , 676 S. W . 2d 554 ( Tenn. 1984)
. The para mount consi der a t i on i n a cust ody pr ocee d i ng i s t

he best i n te 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 to modi 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 te 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 ma te r i a l change i n ci r cums t ances t hat i s compel 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 tody. 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

to prove cha nge d ci r

cum s tanc 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 asti c l egal act i on, ” not

ever y change i n ci r cums t ances w i l l be suf f i c i ent l y m

a te r i a l to 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 923 )
. N o “ h a r

d an d f ast ” ru 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 tanc es. Dantzl e r v. Dantzl 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 that “ som e new f act has occur

r ed w h i ch has al te r

ed t h e c i r cums t ances i n a ma te 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 d300, 302 (

Tenn. App. 1992)
. I n or

der to be com pel l i n g enough to w a r r ant t he dr a ma t i c r e me d y o f changed cust

ody, t he change of

ci r cums t ances m ust be such t hat “ cont i nuat i o n

of t he adj udi cated 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 modi f i cat i on i sf 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 to t he menta l or

emo 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 to 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 cums 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 to carr

y hi s bur den of pr oof , andw e concl ude

t hat t he evi dence does not

pr eponder a te agai nst such a f i ndi ng. Al t hough R i char dSt acey and t

he M o t her had puni shed Chandl e r i nappr opr i a te l y i n t he past

, t h e evi dence show ed t hat t h i s pr obl e m hadbeen 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 te dt he te 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 to suppor

t t h e Fat her’ s cont

ent i o n t hat t he M o t her negl ected to

pr ovi de Chandl e r

w i t h adequat

e f unds t o buy l unches and ot

her needed i te ms 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 te l eph one cal l s .

W e ar e concerned, how

ever , by cer ta 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 ma r i ta l af

f a i r s w h i ch cont r i buted to t he f a i l u r e of her m a r r i age t

o Joe1 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 ted that

she h ad i nvol ved C han d l e r i n cu s tody 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 me f

o r t h e p r oceedi ngs’

outcome . Both Dr . G r

eenber g and t he G uar

d i a n Ad Li te m

expr essed c oncern s t hat t hese ci r

cums 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 te 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 testi m ony al so i ndi cated 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 te m

di d not bel i eve t

hat an i m m edi a te or d r ast i c change i n cust

ody or vi s i ta t i on w

oul d be i n Chandl e r’ s best

i n te r est s . Dr. G r eenber g t e s tifiedt 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

home ” and, fu rth e r , t h a t t h e M

o t her ’ s househ o l d , despi te som

e pr obl e ms , pr

ovi ded Chandl e r

w i t h l ove and suppor

t . W hen gi ven t

h e oppor t uni t y , Dr. G r eenber g decl i ned t

o char acte r i z e t h e envi r onment i n t h e M o t her’ s home as an unheal t hy one. Dr. G r eenber g r epo rted that , w

i t h t he e xce p t i on o f

st r ess associ a te dw

i t h t he cust

ody pr oceedi ngs, Chandl e r

di d not a ppear t o beexper i enci ng any par t i cul a r “ t r auma , dur

ess or cr i s i s at t h i s ti 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 ta ted 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 concern r

e ma i ns t he w e l f a r e and best

i n te 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 petent testi m ony3 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 ft 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 curr ent cust ody ar r angement

pr esent s a danger

of subst ant i a l harm to 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 rt ’ 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 rt ’ s deci s i on, w e al so f eel com pel l ed to poi n t

out t hat t h e Fat her hi msel 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 ted changes i n ci r cums t ances. The Fat her

adm i t te dt 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 unta r i l y

i nvol ved hi msel 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 to pl ace gr eate 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 ted that

she h ad b een di shon est on a t l east t w o occasi ons, once w

hen she lie dto t he G uar

d i an Ad Li te 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 ted 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 d626, 634 (

Tenn. App. 1996)
. W

e not e , how ever , t hat t h i s char acte r t r a i t i s m e r e l y one of

t he f acto r s to be consi der

ed by t he t r i a l cour

t i n maki 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

come of a cust ody pr oceedi ng. See, e. g . , Rubi n v. K i r shner , 948 S . W . 2 d742, 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 concern 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 rt ’ s f

i ndi ngs su gge s t

j ust t h e opposi te because, i n denyi ng t he Fat her’ s pet i t i on, t he co u rt

ci ted Dr. G r

eenber g ’ s testi m ony

t hat t he M o t her hadbeen 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

ta 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 te 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 modi 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 mo 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 to

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 to t he chi l d ’ s bedt

i m e . The cal l s shoul d b e l i m i ted i n l engt h so as

not to i n t e r f e r e w i t h t he consi s t

ency of t h echi 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 te r s , post car ds, car ds, or E- m a i l to t he chi l d f r o m ei t her par ent .5 A ppa rentl y , t he Fat her i s at t e m p t i ng t o ra i se th i s i ssue on behal f of t he G uard i an Ad Li t e m and t he Att o r ney A d Li t e m . The G uard 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 re appear s on th 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 uard 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 og r ess, or

t hei r r esul ts w

i t h Chandl e r .

- N e i t her

parent i s to 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 te sex w ho i s unr e l a ted to t hat

par ent r e ma i n i n t he home w i t h Chandl e r

pr esent past 10: 00 p. m . or

ar r i ve i n t he home pr i o r to 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 to r e i nst a te t he vi s i ta t i o n

schedul e set

f o rt 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 Thursday af

te 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

to school ” and t hat , on a l te r nate w eek s , t he F a t her “ shal l have Chandl e r f r o m Thursday af

te r school andover

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

to school . ” The r ecor

d i ndi cates t

hat Chandl e r

has benef

i te d f r o m t h i s i ncr eased v i s i ta 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 to t h e G uar

d i an Ad Li te m

and t he Att

o r ney Ad Li te m

as cos ts 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 n6 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, to aw

a r d t he G uar

d i a n Ad L i te m

a r easonabl e f

ee f o r her ser v i ces, w h i ch f e e i s “ to be taxe 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 te dno aut hor i t

y , w h i ch perm i ts t

he t r i a l cour

t to desi gnate such f

ees as chi l dsuppor

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 rt to order a pa rt y to m ake chi l d suppor

t paym ent s i s sta t u t o ry . See B l ackburn v. Bl ackburn , 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 d454, 458 (

Tenn. App. 1988)
. I n t he absence of such st a t u to r y aut hor i t y , w e concl ude t hat

t he t r i a l cou rt

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

concern i ng t he t r i a l cour t ’ s f a i l u r e to aw a r dhe r a t to 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 to 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 te . 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 , andt 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 to pay one-

hal f of t h e cost s i ncurr 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 evai lin g par t y bel o w . The t esti 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 ted at

l east i n par t by l egi t i m a te concern 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 te l y f

a i l ed to m eet hi s bur den of1 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 acte dwi t h i n i ts 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 ts 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 to r ney’ s f

ees. The M

o t her’ s r equest f o r at to r ney’ s

f ees w a s gover ned by Tennessee Code A nnota ted sect i on 36- 5 -103( c ) , w h i ch aut hor i z e

s t h e trial cour t to aw a r d at to 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 d236, 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 to an aw a r d of at to r ney’ s f

ees under t h i s sect

i on i s not

absol u te . Deas v. Deas , 774 S. W . 2d 167, 169-70 (

Tenn. 19 89)
. I nst ead, t he st

a t u te 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 to aw

a r d or den y at to r ney’ s f

ees m ust onl y be j ust and equi tabl e under

t he ci r cums 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. Oc 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 cums t ances of t h i s case,t he c o u rt

acted w i t h i n i ts equi tabl 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 to 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 udgment

i s her eby af f i r m ed. Cost s of

t h i s appeal ar

e taxe 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 )