### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 11, 200 5 S es sio n
JAM ES R OSS K EITH v. JORD AN AS HLEY SU RR ATT
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wilson County No. 12746 C.L. Roger s, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01835-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 31, 2006

I n thi s c h il d c u s to d y c a s e , F a th e r ap p e a ls a n d ar g u e s th a t th e tria l c o u r t e rr e d in a w ar ding Mothe r primary residential c ustody

of the pa rties' twin minor children. Mother also appea ls and arg ues that the tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d in se tti ng F a the r' s chil d s up po rt , in fa ili ng to a sse ss h e r atto rn e y ' s f e e s a g a ins t Father, a nd in chang ing the children' s surname to that of F ather . After car eful revie w of the e vidence
a ndapp lic able a uth or iti e s, we fi ndno e rr or a nda ff ir m th e jud g me nt of

the tr ia l c ou rt

in a ll r e sp e c ts.

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

Co ur t A ffirm e d; Ca use Rem anded

S HAR ON G. LEE , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in whic h H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., joined.

Fr ank L annom, L ebanon, T ennesse e, for the appe llant, J ames Ross Keith.

Ste ph e n W. Pa te , M ur fr e e sb or o, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , Jor da n A sh le y Sur ratt.
OP IN ION

I.

J ames Ross Keith, (" Fa ther" ) and Jordan Ashley Surratt, (" M o t h er ") , wer e mar ried on Fe bruary 14, 2002. The parties’ marriag e was short-lived and was annulled by order enter ed June 19, 2002. After

the m arriag e was annulled, Mot her briefly resided with another couple. How ever , within a short time, Mother and F ather reunited, a nd, althoug h they did not remarry

they resumed living tog ether

from August 2, 2002, until November 6, 2002. D uring this latter period of time, Mother bec ame pr eg nant with the parties’ childre n.
After the parties separ ated on Nove mber 6, 2002, Mother m o v ed to Savannah, Ge org ia, wh e re sh e re sid e d w ith he r fathe r a nd ste pmo the r. On Ap ri l 15 , 20 03 , Mo the r g a ve birth t o tw ins ,A t the tim e o f b irth the tw ins w e re g ive n the la st na m e “S u rr a tt”; h o w e v e r, this w a s su b se q u e n tly c h a n g e d to 1

“ K ei t h” as not ed bel ow. -2- Tucke r Chatham Surratt and Savannah Ashton Surratt

. On April 18, 2003, F ather was informed of 1 the birth, and he trave led to Savannah a nd submitt ed to a DN A test on April 30, 2003. On May 12, 2003, Father re ceive d the re sults of the test which confirmed that he was the twins’ biolog ical father.

On M ay14, 2003, Father pe titioned the Circuit Court of W ilson Count y , Tenne ssee f or leg itimation and custody of the twins upon alleg ations that, inter alia, M o t h erh ad t ak en i l l ega l d ru gs during her preg nancy and that she was not capa ble of providing the t wins with nece ssary car e. On that same da te, a r estraining order was e ntere d by presiding judge , Honora

ble Clara B yrd, dec ree ing that Mother g ive Father immediate c ustody of t he twins and restraining Mother from coming a round Father’s r esidenc e pending further order of the c ourt

. T h e court a lso ordere d that Mother appe ar befor e it on May

23, 2003, and show c ause w hy Father’s pe tition s hould not be g rante d. On May 22, 2003, Mother filed a motion disputing the trial court’s venue and re questing that the re straining order

be set a side pending a hea ring upon that issue and that the show c ause he aring be continued. T he motion also no t ed the employ ment of F ather ’s fa ther, Ga ry Keith, as he ad of courtroom se curity

in Wi l son Countyand re quested that the c ourt make a determination as to any potential conflict of inter est or appe ara nce of impropriety

with respec t to Father ’s ca se being hear d by that c ou rt

. On Aug ust 15, 2003, J udg e B yrd re cused he rself f rom the ca s e. However, the r estraining
or de r of Ma y 14 , 20 03 , wa s n ot s ta y e d, a ndc us tod y of the tw ins wa s tr a ns fe rr e d to F a the r o n A ug us t 15, 2003.

I n c on se qu e nc e of

Judg e B yrd ’s re c us a l, a n o rd e r w a s e nte re d b y the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court on Aug ust 29, 2003, pursuant to which the case was assigne d to the Honorable C.L . Roge rs a s sp e c ia l judg e fr om an oth e r dis tr ic t. Th e re a ft e r, Mo the r fi le d noti c e striki ng he r mot ion to d ism iss and submitting to the jurisdiction of the Wilson C ounty Circuit Court based upon her stated intent t o r e s i d e i n W i l s o n C o u n t y p e r m a n e n t l y. On September

8, 2003, Mother filed a

motion requesting that the restra ining order of May 14, 2003, be set a side; that she be ve sted with primary residential c are of the pa rt i es ’ t wi n minor
c hil dr e n s ub

je c t to F a the r’ s r e a so na

ble vis itatio n; a nd that Fa the r pa y c hil d sup po rt c on sis te nt w ith the Te nn e sse e Chi ld S up po rt Gu ide lin e s. By order enter ed S eptember 30, 2003, afte r a hearing on September 17, 2003, inter alia the trial court de cre ed that t h e o rd er of May 14, 2003 be set a side in its entirety , that Mother re ceive primary custody of the pa rties’ minor twin childre n pendente lite subject to spe cified visitation by Father, a nd that Fa ther pa y child support in the amount of $608.00 per month.-3-

On Octobe r 14, 2003, Mother responde d to Fathe r’s orig inal petition of May 14, 2003, by
a nswer andc ou nte r- pe tit ion wh e re in s he re qu e ste d, a mon g oth e r thin g s, tha t sh e be ve ste d w ith pr ima ry c us tod y of the tw ins a ndthat F a the r b e re qu ir e d to p ay chi ld su pp ort a ndbe joi ntl y re sp on sib le fo r the c hil dr e n’ s h e a lth c are e xpe ns e s.
The c ase c ame on for trial on J une 24 and 25, 2004, afte r which, on J uly 13, 2004, the trial court e ntere d its final order

. The order recited the parties’ ag ree ment that Father is the natur al fa ther of the twin minor childre n. Ba sed upon various stated finding s of fa ct, the trial c ourt g rante d the pa rt ie s jo int c us tod y of the tw ins a ndve ste d p ri mary re sid e nti a l r e sp on sib ili ty of the tw ins wi th Mo the r. Th e or de r f

urthe r r e qu ir e d th a t F a the r p a y c hil d s up po rt in the a mou nt of $4 76 pe r m on th eff ective July15, 2004, based upon a g ross annual salary of $26,000. The or der a lso decre ed that the twins’ surname be cha ng ed to “Ke ith” and that ea ch p ar t y b e re sponsible for his or her own a tto rn e y ’s fe e s w ith c ou rt c os ts b e ing a sse sse d to F a the r. F a the r a pp e a ls.

II.

Th e iss ue s a dd re sse d in thi s a pp e a l are re state d a s f

oll ow s:
1. Whether the e vidence preponde rate s ag ainst the trial court’s ruling vesting Mother, rather than Father, with primary residential r esponsibilityof the pa rties’ minor twin childre n.
2. Whether the trial court err ed in setting the amount of child support to be paid by Father.

3. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in cha ng ing the children’ s surname to “ Keith.”

4. Whether the trial court abused its discr etion in f ailing to r equire Father to pay Mother’s
a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.
III

. Our rev ie w o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion s o f l a w i s de novo u p o n th e r e c ord with no pres u m p t i o n o f cor

rec tness. Kendrick v . Shoemake , 90 S.W .3d 566, 569-570 (Te nn. 2002). Our
re vie w of the tr ia l cou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t is de novo upon the rec ord acc ompanied by a pre sumption of c or re c tne ss u nle ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s to the c ontr ary . T e nn . R. Ap p. 13 (d ); Bogan v. Bogan , 60 S.W .3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001)

. I V.

A.

The fir s t i s s u e we a ddress is whethe r the trial c ourt err ed in placing primary residential
r e s p o n s ib il it y o f th e p ar ti e s ’ mi n o r tw in c h il d r e n w ith M o th e r r a th e r th a n F a th e r
. Apply ing the
abo ve sta nd ardof

re vie w i n a dd re ssi ng thi s is su e , w e be ar i n mi nd that “ [t]ri a l c ou rt s a re ve ste d w ith-4-

wide dis cr et i o n in matters of c hild custody and the a ppellate c ourts will not int erf ere except upon a showing of e rrone ous exercise of that discretion.” Koch v. Koch , 87 4 S.W. 2d 57 1, 57 5 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1993). We further note that beca use “[c]ust ody and visitation dete rminations of ten hinge on subtle fac tors, including the pare nts’ demea nor and cre dibilit y during [t rial],” appellate courts “a re reluc tant to second-g uess a tria l court’s de cisions.” Ga sk ill v . G as k ill , 936 S.W .2d 626,631 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). The pa ramount consider ation in a child custody case such as this one is the best interest of the child in lig ht of the compar ative fitness of the par ents. In re C.K.G. , 173 S.W .3d 714, 732 (Tenn. 2005). As provide d by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-106, a c ourt is require d to cons i d er “all relevant fac tors” in making a custody determination, including the following which we find to be pertinent in this case: (1) The l o v e, affec tion and emotional ties exi sting be tween

the par ents and c hild; (2 ) The dis po sit ion of

the pa re nts to p ro vid e the c hil d w ith food, cl o thing, medic al ca re, e ducation and othe r nec essary car e and the degr ee to which a par ent has be en the primary
car eg iver; ( 3 ) T h e imp o r ta n c e o f c o n ti n u it y in th e c h il d ’ s li f e a n d the leng tho f ti me th e c h il d h a s li v e d in a s ta b le , s a ti s f

actor y environment ...; (4 ) T he sta

bil ity of the fa mil y

un it o f the pa

re nts ; (5 ) T he me nta l a ndph y sic a l he a lthof the pa re nts ; (6) The home, school and c ommunityrec ord of the c hild;

... (8 ) E vid e nc e of

ph y sic a l or

e mot ion a l abus e to the c hil d, to the other pa

rent or to a ny

other pe rson; ... . (9) The char acte r and be havior of a ny other pe rson who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and suc h person’ s interac tions with t he child; and (10) Ea ch par ent’s past a nd potential for f uture pe rformance of par enting responsibiliti es, i ncluding the willingne ss and ability of ea ch of the par en t s to fac ilitate and enc ourag e a close a nd continuing pa

rent-c hild relationship betwee n the child and the other pa

rent, c onsistent with the best interest of the child.

I n its fi n al order

of Jul y 13, 2004, the trial court indicated that it considere d the above statut ory fa c tor s in c on du c tin g a

c omp arativ e fi tne ss a na ly sis in thi s ca se a nd re lativ e to tha t a na ly sis
se t f orth the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s o f f a c t:-5- The twins, now 15 months old are in the M other[‘]s car e. The Mother, ag e 22, lives with her mother and s t epfather. The Fa ther, 34, lives with hi s mother and fathe r. The Mothe r has
a daug hte r, a g e 4, by a pr e vio us marria g e , sa id c hil d b e ing in the Maternal Gra ndmother’s legal cu stody . The F ather has leg al custody

of a da

ug hter, a g e 4, fr om a pre vious rela tionship. Both pare nts rely on the g randpa

rents for housing a nd childcar e. Both pare nts have a history of illeg al dr ug us e
. Th e F a the r, in June 20 03 , re sig ne d as a Dep uty Sheriff a fter acc usations of i nvolvement in drug dealing . The Fa ther ha s problems controlling his temper and conduct. The Fa ther ha s phy sicallyabused the Mother. The Father demand ed t hat the Mother a bort the twins. The F ather lied about this to the Court. The Father g ave no support, financia l or in kind for t h e twins until Court ordered in Septembe r 2003. T h e M atern a l G randpa rents have assisted their daug hter and the twins fr om birth. The Paterna l Grandf ather did not kn ow the na me s of the tw ins

. Th e Pa te rn a l G ra nd mothe r d id not appea r in Court. There was testimony that her phy sical health p roblems limited her child ca re a bility . The Mother
now lives at home with her mother a nd stepfathe r, the twins
a nd he r pr e vio us daug hte r. Th e F a the r l ive s a t ho me wi th h is mother and f

ather and his previous daug hter. Only on one sh ort occ a sio n ha s the F a the r liv e d aw a y fr om his pa re nts wi th his daug hter. The parties lived tog ether , wer e brie fly marrie d for se vera l months, during which time the Mother was the
car e g iver for

Fa ther’s f

irst daug hter. TheFa ther now w orks fo r h is f a the r e arn ing $2 6, 00 0. 00 a nn ua l gro ss a s a Se c ur ity Guar d. The Mother

has had num er o us jobs, she now works in a bar and g rill and attends cosme t o l o gyschool. The Mother ea

rns $8,400 annua l gr oss. T h e Fa ther made visitation di fficult for

Mother duri ng Father[‘]s brief period of a Te nnessee ex-parte, Cour t ordere d custody of the one
mon th o ld t wi ns wh o w e re bo rn a nd re sid e d in G e or g ia wi th Mother and he r father a nd stepmother. The Mother has had the twins since birth other than the interruption cause d by the ex-parte or der a nd the later rec usal of the issuing J udg e. The Mother has g iven prope r ca re a nd demonstrated pr oper pare ntal conduct wit h t h e t wins. The parties appea r to have calmed dow n since the Court orde r of Septembe r 2003 g iving Mo the r pr ima

ry re sid e nti a l pl a c e me nt a ndF a the r s pe c if ic resident i al t ime. Both now r eside in the same town. The Fa ther e x erc ises residential time a nd pay s child support. The-6- Fa ther a dmits t he Mother[‘]s child c are has been pr oper. The Fa the r f e ar s M o th e r

may le a v e w ith th e c h il d r e n
. T he Cus tod y arr a ng e me nt a ndre loc a tio n c on dit ions w ill a dd re ss thi s f e ar. Th e re ma ini ng c on fl ic t is the pa te rn a l g ra nd pa re nts who dislike the M o ther a nd the maternal g randpa rents who dis lik e the F a the r a ll w ith re a so n. No rm a lly thi s is no t a fac tor, but in this case, both Father a nd M o t h er stil l reside with the ir respe ctive pare nts. This f actor is considere d in the Cou rt ’s f inal de c isi on a ndc ou ld, in the fu tur e , c a us e thi s Cou rt to r e vie w its de c isi on if su c h a ff e c ts the c hil dr e n’ s b e st interests.

I n support of hi s arg ument that the t rial court err ed in vesti ng Mother with primary residential responsibilityof the twins, Father a sserts that Mother ha s shown a lac k of initiative in providing ba sic neces si ties fo r h e rs e lf a ndhe r f

ir st d a ug hte r b y

re lin qu ish ing c us tod y

of that c hil d to its materna l g randpa

rents and by failing to pr ovide her support. Father also notes in this reg ard tha t Mother has in the past failed to maintain “ consistent substantial employ ment” and a lso has a history of fa iling to maintain a stable and consistent residenc e, holdi ng eleve n differ ent re sidence s betwee n Au g us t 20 01 a ndAu g us t 20 03 . T he imp lic a tio n o f the se a sse rt ion s is that Mo the r wi ll n ot p ro pe rl y car e for the twins in a manner consistent with the ir best interests. We do not f ind that the evidenc e supports this conclusion.

As no te d, the tw ins we re bo rn on Ap ri l 15, 200 3, a nd we re in Mothe r’ s care fr om tha t ti me until they wer e tra nsfer

red to the te mporary

custody of F ather o n Aug ust 15, 2003. Mother was residing in Savannah, Georg ia, with her f ather and stepmother, Stac ey

Clay , for the f

irst three a nd a half months after the twins wer e born, and Ms. Clay testified that Mother “ did every thing a g ood mother does” during that period of time. F ather ’s fa ther, Ga ry Ke i t h , t es t i fied that on the da y the tw ins we re tr a ns fe rr e d to the c us tod y of F a the r, the c hil dr e n we re in g oo d p hy sic a l c on dit ion , w e ll fe d, a ndapp e are d to be pr op e rl y c are d f or . T he tw ins we re re turne d to the c us tod y of Mo the r i n September of 2003 and rema ined in Mother’s custody at the time of trial on June 24, 2004. During this pe riod of time the twins a nd Mother resided exclusively in the home of Mother’s biolog ical mothe r, Ga il A lle n, wh o te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Q. Te ll the Cou rt

wha t ha s - - w ha t ha ve y ou pe rs on a lly observe d [Mot her] do reg arding the car e for these twins [ sic] children, the children r eally at issue today , obviously , from S e p t e m b e r

u n t i l t o d a y?

A. S h e d o es ev er y t h i n g. Q. Whic h is ?-7- A. Fe ed, cha ng e diape rs, buy g roce ries, bathe , play . I mean, we a ll kind of pla y

with them, but I

do not assist in t he
nece ssary car e of the t wi ns; I

do not assist in t hat. [Mother] do e s a ll o f i t. Q. Do e s sh e a sk

y ou to d o th a t?

A. No , s he do e s n ot. Q. B ased on y our obser vation, does she need y our ca re, assistance , or g uidance ? A. No. She’s g ot her ha nds full, no doubt a bout it. Of course , a mothe r w ou ld a lw ay s li ke to thin k a c hil d n e e ds the ir g uidance , b ut y ou know, she doe s a g ood job. The childre n are car ed for, y ou know; and they ’re happy , healthy , laug hing lit tle ba bie s.
J oy ce T izdale has owned a nd operated Tizdale Preschool, a licensed a nd acc redited day car e fac ility , for twe nty

seven y ear s. She has known Mother for 15 y ear s and kept the twins on Mother’ s be ha lf be tw e e n July

of 20 03 a ndMa y

of 20 04 . M s. Ti zda le te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Q. Al l r ig ht. An d I

be lie ve y ou ’v e alr eady

sa id [M oth e r] i s responsible for

delivering and picking up [t he twins ]. Her mothe r i s n ot d oin g that?

A. No. Q. An d [F a the r] i s n ot d oin g that?

A. No. Q. All ri g ht. The appe ara nce of the childre n every

morning when they ’re broug ht to y our fa cility , how ar e they dresse d and g roomed? A. They wer e ver y well dre ssed, and sh e al wa y s had - - be c a us e I do n’ t f ur nis h th e ir

fo odor the ir bo ttl e s, or

the ir formula or anything - - she alway s had all that. The c hildren
wer e alway s dressed very well, were clean, and well g roomed. Q. No proble m with personal hy g iene?-8- A. No. Q. No p ro b l em s wi t h gro o m i n g?

A. No. Q. No p ro b l em wi t h i n ap p ro p ri at e c l o t h i n g?
A. No, none. Q. And her

choi ce o f food and bever ag e for the childre n - - was that a ppropriate ?

A I t was very

well d o n e, very

well thoug ht up, and very nu tr iti ou s. Q. All rig ht. And did that continue consistently with that pattern f rom J uly of ‘03 until May

of ‘04?

A. Ye s. Q. Was there e ver a single incident, a single day that y ou can tel l t h e C ourt that y ou wer e conc erne d about either appea ranc e, hy g ien e, clothing, the ir diet, their food or
a nythi ng lik e that?

A. No. She alway s had it toge ther. Q. And base d upon y our obser vation of [ Mother] during the past y ear when she would deliver the children in the morning or pick up c hildren in the af ternoon, how wa s her de meanor in her re lationship to her children?

A. Ve ry lov ing . Sh e ’dkis s th e m a lot

. Q. E v er y m o rn i n g?

A. Ever ymorning , and sometimes they would cry

afte r be c a us e the y

wo uldwa nt the ir

mom my . T ha t w a s ty

pic a l. Q. I n afte rnoons when she wo u l d come pick he r up, how would the childre n rea ct to her?-9- A. Very happy

. Q. An d h ow wo uldsh e re a c t to the m?

A. S h e wa s happy . She would put her a rms out and g ive them hug s, and they

would cra wl to her. Q. All rig ht. Ms. T izdale, c an y ou tell this Court this eve ning of a sing le fa ctor t h at y ou persona lly - - of which y ou are pe rs on a lly

a wa re that r e fl e c ts n e g a tiv e ly up on [Mot her ’s ] pa re nta l fitn e ss, a nythi ng ne g a tiv e or ba d a bo ut h e r a bil ity to car e for these c hildren.

A. I don’t know anything ne g ative as f ar as taking car e of the children.

F ina lly , F a the r h ims e lf

te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s r e g ard ing Mo the r’ s c are of the tw ins : Q. Fr om the date that these ch i l d re n obviouslyhave be en in it ia ll y u n d e r [M o th e r ’ s ] c ar e a n d c o n tr o l f r o m th e d a te of birth until August 15 of ‘03, and then from September 15, on or about - - I ’m sorry

- - w h at ev er the date wa s, from Se pte mbe r ‘0 3 to tod a y

wh e n th e c hil dr e n h a ve be e n a g a in i n [Mothe r’ s] c us tod y , are y ou a wa re of a ny ne g le c t of t he se c h il d r e n b y

[M o th e r ]? A. They ’ve ha d some rashe s that have be en - - y ou know,
every body is going to have diape r ra sh. Q. Rig ht.

A. Outside of that r ash being so sever e, no, I don’t know of
a ny mis tr e a tme nt. I

thi nk e ve rythi ng ha s w e nt w e ll.

... Q. To the be st of y our knowled ge, I m ean, has [Mot her] provided, y ou know, g ood - - I mean, not just basic c are , but go o d and loving car e for these c hildren re g arding fee di n g, c lothin g , b a thi ng , d e a lin g wi th the m, c ur ing the ir ill ne sse s?

A. L ike I said, I ’m not welcome to their house, but
e ve rythi ng app e ars to b e c or re c t.-10-

Whil e the r ecor d does conf irm a deg ree of instabilityin Mother’s beha vior in the past, there is s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e sh ow ing that pr e se ntl y Mo the r h a s th e abil ity

a ndde te rm inatio n to pr op e rl y c are fo r the tw ins , a ndsh e ha s su c c e e de d in thi s r e g arda t le a st f ro m the tim e of the ir birth i n A pr il
o f 2 0 0 3 u n t i l trial of the c ase in June of 2004 - a dur ation of appr ox imately thirteen months not counting the per iod of time the children w ere in the custody of F ather

. Father’s contention that he is c ompara tively more fit to have primary residential c are of the twins is without merit. I n particula r, we are compelled to this conclusion by two finding s of the trial
c ou rt

. First, the trial court found that Father failed t o provide the twins with financial support or inkind support until ordered to do so in September of 2003. I n his brief, Father notes that he ha d
c us tod y of the tw ins fr om A ug us t 15 , 20 03 , un til Se pte mbe r 17 , 20 03 , b ut o the rw ise a dmi ts tha t th is finding is corre ct and the e vidence does not preponde rate to the contra ry
. Second, the tria l court found that Father phy sically abused Mother. The incident to which this finding is related occ urre d when Mother returne d to F ather ’s residenc e on Nove mber 21, 2002,
a ft e r the pa

rt ie s’ fi na l se pa

ratio n o n N ov e mbe r 6 , 2 00 2. Mo the r t e sti fi e d a s f oll ow s:
I ’d bee n g one for

about two wee ks. So I

called [Father], and I sa id I ’dlik e to c ome a ndg e t so me my be lon g ing s b e c a us e I hadn’t take n anything with me - - a c ouple cha ng es of clothes. So I

show up over the re to get m y s t u ff, and then I walked in and sat down i n the living r oom. For the first few min ute s, we we re jus t ta lki ng , a ndI tol d h im I

wa s g oin g to g et some of my

stuff. So I ’d go ne into the laundry room which wa s on the side of t he house. A nd when I did, it made him mad for some re ason, I g uess bec au s e I was leaving . I was g etting my

belong ings; a nd that’s something t h at I ’d
never done, wa s packe d up all my belonging s and left. And he g rabbe d a hold of me from behind. And the g lass door wa s rig ht in front of me. So to keep him fr om throwing me out the door a nd down the steps, I put my fee t on either side of the door a nd pushed off

. And when I did, he just threw me on the floor, and he hit me i n the ey e. And i t busted some blood vessels, and my

ey e swe lled up.

Sheriff C h ri s Shockley

of the Tr ousdale Sherif

f’s De partment wa s dispatched to F ather ’s residenc e to investigate and testified t hat M other e x hibited injury consistent with her c omplaint that F a the r h a d h it h e r i n th e e y e . M oth e r, who a s w e ha ve no te d w a s p re g na nt at th e tim e of thi s incident, furthe r testified that the day afte r she wa s assaulted by Fa ther she went into pre-term labor. On appe al, Father doe s not c ontest the trial court’s finding that he abuse d Mother and the evidenc e does not preponde rate otherwise.-11-

I n sum, afte r caref

ul revie w of the record, it is our determination that the evidence doe s not preponde rate ag ainst the finding s of the trial c ourt in this case. It is our further determination that the trial court properly

considere d the rele vant statutory fac tors under Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 101 rela tive to these finding s and did not abuse its discretion in vesting Mother with prim ary residential responsibilityof the pa

rties’ twin childre n.
B.

Th e ne xt iss ue we a dd re ss i s w he the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in se tti ng the a mou nt o f c hil d support to be paid by

Fa ther.

The trial court decr eed that Father pa y child support in the amount of $476 per month based upon his curre nt annual g ross salary of $26,000. Ho weve r, Mother note s that Fa ther’s te stimony indicated that he earned an a vera g e annua l gr oss income in the two y ear s prec eding trial of approximately

$37,000 during which time he wa s employ ed by the Wils on’s County

Sheriff’ s Depa rtment. Mother a sserts that this a mounts to a g ross monthlyincome of $3,091 a nd that under the Tenne ssee Ch i l d S upport Guidelines, income at this l evel wa rra nts child support being set at $790 per month for the parties’ two minor c hildren. Mother obse rves that F ather conce ded that he voluntarily

resig ned fr om his position with the Wil son County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment and that he has not sought e q u i v al ent employ ment to compensate for the r esulting loss of income he has
e xpe ri e nc e d. I t f

oll ow s, Mo the r a

rg ue s, that F a the r i s in te nti on a lly un de re mpl oy e d, a ndc hil d support should be set at $790 per month based upon his prior income. We disag ree
. Father t es t i fi ed t hat in 1996, prior to his employ ment with the Wil son CountySheriff’ s Depa rtment, he obtained employ ment with K eith Professional Security Service s, a business owned by his fathe r. Whe n F a the r b e g a n e mpl oy me nt w ith the Wils on Cou nty She ri ff ’s De pa

rt me nt i n Marc h of 2002, he did not g ive up his job with Keith Professional Security Service s, and he te stified that he continued to work for both employ ers a nd as a c onsequenc e wor ked a total of

seventy -two to eig hty hours per

wee k. I t appea

rs that the annua l gr oss income of $37,000 re alized by Father during eac h of the two y ear s prec eding trial constituted the m o n ey h e ea rned f rom two employ ers by working extensive hours. Upon resig ning from the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment in J une of 2003, F ather continued to work at Keith Professional S ecurity Service s and maintained his employ ment there at the tim e of

tr ia l a t a n a nn ua l sa lary of $2 6, 00 0 p e r y e ar. Mo the r’ s a rg ume nt tha t F a the r i s underemploy ed is not based upon pr oof that he c ould obtain a more luc rative job, but rather upon the fa ct t hat Father no longe r realizes the salary he did when hehad two jobs. W e do not ag ree that
a pe rs on is v olu nta

ri ly un de re mpl oy e d b e c a us e he c ho os e s to wo rk le ss tha n se ve nty -t wo to e ig hty hours per wee k. Acc ording ly , we f ind no merit in Mother’s ar g ument the trial court erre d in setting the amount of F ather ’s child support obligation.-12- C.
Next, Mot her c ontend s t h at t he trial c ourt err ed in cha ng ing thetwins’ surname f rom “Surratt” to “Keith.”

The re cord shows tha t Mother’s surna me of “ Surratt” is not her ma iden name but r ather the
name she reta ined afte r divorcing her ex-husband, Wil liam A ndrew Surratt. Gary Keith testified as follows reg arding why

the parties’ twin children should bea r F ather ’s surname instead:

I f [M oth e r] g e ts r e marrie d, sh e ’s g oin g to hav e a na me dif fe re nt f ro m he r c hil dr e n; a ndsh e ’s g oin g to b e in the sa me shape as [Father] is rig ht now. Those kids are g oing to look
a t the mse lve s a nd sa y - - y ou kn ow , wh e n the y g o to sc ho ol, and they go t o the diffe rent func tions around, the sporting thi ng s, a ndsa y , “ W ell , ho w co me my na me is n ot the sa me [as] my mother’s, a nd it’s not the same as my fathe r’s? ” I thi nk it’ s g oin g to h a ve a

ve ry a dv e rs e re a c tio n o n th os e children.

I n its fina l or der the trial court states that “[t] he children shall car ry the surname of the na tural Father, Keith.” Although in its orde r the c ourt does not offe r g rounds for its dec ision in t his reg ard, the c ou rt didstate a s f

oll ow s a t tria l:

And the name - - we have an ag ree ment that the childre n are to b e le g iti ma te d. We d on ’t ha ve a g re e me nt o n th e na me s. Her e’s whe re I

am on that to g ive y ou s o m e input . The
c us tom a s f ar a s I kn ow in the wh ole Un ite d St a te s is the c hil d has the na me of its natura l father , g ood o r b ad

. And Ihave put thought into what Mr. Ke ith, Sr. was say ing a s far as the children ha ving the name of somebody that’s not their father
a ndmothe r. I

me a n, so y ou a ll s e e wh e re I ’m c omi ng fr om.
I n Ba ra ba s v . R og e rs , 868 S.W .2 d 283, 287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), w e re stated the law g ov e rn ing the c ha ng e of

a c hil d’ s su rn a me a s f

oll ow s:
The c ourts should not chang e a c hild’s s u rname unless the chang e promotes the c hild’s best interests

. Among the
c ri te ri a fo r d e te rm ini ng wh e the r a c hil d’ s su rn a me wi ll b e in the child’s best intere sts are: (1) the child’s prefer ence , (2) the chang e’s potential eff

ect on the child’s rela tionship with ea ch pare nt, (3) the leng th of time the child has had its pre sent su rn a me , ( 4) the de g re e of c omm un ity

re sp e c t a sso c ia te d w ith t h e p r e s e n t a n d p r o p o s e d s u r n a m e , a n d ( 5 ) t h e d i f f i c u l t y,-13- hara ssment, or embar

rassment that the child may experience from bea ring either its pre sent or its proposed surname . The pare nt seeking to chang e the c hild’s surname has the burde n of pr ov ing t ha t th e c ha ng e wi ll f urthe r the c hil d’ s b e st interests. (Citations omi tted).

Mother asse rts that “[n] either f ather nor hi s witnesses, including his own biologica l father , testified as to any

fac t rele vant t o the five criteria t o be conside red, r eg arding a child’s na me cha ng e.” Ho we ve r, the pr ima

ry qu e sti on that the c ou rt mus t ans we r be fo re c ha ng ing the su rn a me of a c hil d is w he the r the c ha ng e is i n th e c hil d’ s b e st i nte re sts . Wh ile the fi ve cr iter ia we re fe re nc e d in Ba ra ba s may

offe r a c ourt g uidance in answering that question, those five criteria a re not e x clusive and obviously

may not be re levant g ive n th e fa c ts of a pa rt ic ula r ca se
. I n th is c a se , w e fi nda s d id the tr ia l c ou rt

that th e te sti mon y

of Ga ry Ke ith con st it ut es suf

fi c ie nt p ro of

that it is i n th e be st int e re sts of

the pa rt ie s’ c hil dr e n th a t the ir su rn a me be c ha ng e d to “ Ke ith .” Th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y relied upon this testimony in rea ching its decision in that reg ard.

D.

The fina l issue w e addre ss is whether the trial court abused its discr etion in f ailing to require that Fa ther pa y

Mother’s attorney ’s fe es in this matter.

A trial court’s power

to awar d attorney ’s fe es in a c ustody p ro ceeding is codified at Te nn. Cod e An n. § 3 6- 5- 10 3( c ) a s f oll ow s: The plaintiff spouse may

rec over from the def

endant spouse, and the spouse or o ther pe rson to whom the custody of the child, or childre n, i s aw arde d may rec over f

rom the other spouse re asonable attorne y fe es incurr ed in enf orcing any decr ee f or alimony

and/or c hild s u p p o rt, or in re g ard to a ny suit or action conc erning the ad judication of the c ustody or the c ha ng e of

c us tod y of a ny c hil d, or c hil dr e n, of the pa rt ie s, both upon the orig inal divorce hearing, and at any subsequent h e ar i n g , w h i c h f

e e s m a y b e f i xe d a n d a l l o w e d b y

t h e c ou rt , befor e whom such a ction or proc eeding is pend i n g, i n the discretion of the court.
Mother’s a

rg ument that Father should be r equire d to pay her attorney ’s fe es is based upon her a ssertion that she wa s awa rded r esidential custody

of the pa rties’ c hildren and tha t Fathe r’s income amounts to an a vera g e of the $35,000 to $40,000 he ea rned i n 2002 and the $36,693 he-14-

e arn e d i n 20 03

. As we ha ve no te d a bo ve , F a the r r e sig ne d f

ro m hi s jo b w ith the Wils on Cou nty She ri ff ’s De pa

rt me nt in June of

20 03 , a ndhis a nn ua l in c ome a t th e tim e of tr ia l ha d d imi nis he d to $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 b ec au se he w as no long er w orking for two e mploy ers. Mother ’s ar g ument that Fa ther sh ou ld b e re qu ir e d to pa y he r atto rn e y ’s fe e s b a se d u po n a n a nn ua l sal ary wh ic h s ub sta nti a lly exceeds that whic h he ac tually rec eives is without merit. Ba sed upon our review of the re cord, w e do no t a g re e that th e tr ia l c ou rt abu se d it s d isc re tio n in fa ili ng to a wa rd Mo the r atto rn e y ’s fe e s in thi s case
. V.

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial court and rema nd for f urther action consistent with this o p i n i o n
. Costs on appeal ar e adjudg ed ag ainst J ames Ross Keith and J o r d a n A s h l e y S u rr a t te q u a l l y.

_________________________________________ SHARON G. LEE, J UDGE