FILED

June 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

TERRI G. BOWERS, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00008

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , ) KNOX LAW

)

v. ) HON. BI LL SWANN,

) J UDGE

FREDERI CK ALLAN BOWERS, )

) AFFI RMED AS MODI FI ED

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. ) AND REMANDED

L. CAESAR STAI R, I I I , BERNSTEI N, STAI R & Mc ADAMS, a nd

ELI ZABETH K. B. MEADOWS, SCHMI D, J ONES & MEADOWS, PLLC,

Knoxville , for Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt .

ROBERT R. SI MPSON a nd J AMES H. VARNER, J R. , ESHBAUGH, SI MPSON

AND VARNER, Knoxvi l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s c us t ody di s put e , t he Tr i a l J udge gr a nt e d

c us t ody of t he pa r t i e s ’ c hi l d t o t he f a t he r , a nd t he mot he r

ha s appeal e d.

Te r r i Bowe r s and Fr e de r i c k Bowe r s we r e di vor ced i n

Ke nt uc ky i n 1992. The y a gr e e d t o j oi nt c us t ody of t he i r t he n

t hr e e ye a r ol d da ught e r , Che l s e a , wi t h pr i ma r y r e s i de nc e wi t h

t he mot he r . The f a t he r , who ha d move d t o Okl a homa Ci t y, ha d

vi s i t a t i on one out of e ve r y f i ve we e ks , wi t h a ddi t i ona l t i me

on hol i da ys a nd dur i ng s umme r . 

Mot he r , t he n move d t o Knoxvi l l e , a nd s he ha s

t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he c hi l d e xpe r i e nc e d be ha vi or a l c ha nge s , s uc h
2

a s be c omi ng li s t l e s s , c l i ngi ng to he r mot he r , we t t i ng, a nd

pa r r ot i ng whome ve r s he wa s s pe a ki ng wi t h, f ol l owi ng t he

f a t he r ’ s vi s i t a t i on pe r i ods . The mot he r dome s t i c a t e d t he

Ke nt uc ky di vor c e de c r e e a nd f i l e d a pe t i t i on i n J uve ni l e Cour t

t o ha ve c us t ody c ha nge d t o he r a nd vi s i t a t i on wi t h t he f a t he r

s us pe nde d. The J uve ni l e Cour t a wa r de d t e mpor a r y c us t ody t o

t he mot he r a nd limite d the f a t he r ’ s vi s ita tion to a n

uns pe c i f i e d a mount of t i me i n Knoxvi l l e a s ?a gr eed t o? by t he

Te nne s s ee De pa r t me nt of Huma n Se r vi ces , t he f a t he r , t he

mot he r , a nd the c hild’ s the r a pi s t. Thos e vi s its tha t we r e

a l l owe d we r e t o be s upe r vi s e d by t he Te nne s s e e De pa r t me nt of

Huma n Se r vi ces .

Ultima t e l y, the f a t he r a ppe a l e d the J uve nile Cour t ’ s

a c tion to the Ci r c uit Cour t, whe r e the Ci r c uit Cour t gr a nt e d

s ol e c us t ody of t he c hi l d t o t he f a t he r . The ba s i s of t he

Tr i a l J udge ’ s de c i s i on wa s hi s f i ndi ng t ha t t he f a t he r ha d

be e n a nd woul d c ont i nue t o e nc our a ge t he c hi l d t o ma i nt a i n a

l ovi ng r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h bot h s i de s of t he f a mi l y, whi l e t he

mot he r s e e me d i nt e nt on e xc l udi ng f a t he r a nd hi s f a mi l y f r om

t he c hild’ s lif e . The Cour t a wa r de d s ubs t a ntia l vi s ita tion to

t he mot he r , i nc l udi ng t he f i r s t a nd t hi r d we e ke nd of e ve r y

mont h, e a c h s pr i ng br e a k, Tha nks gi vi ng a nd Chr i s t ma s , a nd

s i xt y c ons e c ut i ve da ys i n t he s umme r .

The mot he r i ns i s t s t he Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng

c us t ody t o t he f a t he r . Whe r e i t i s de mons t r a t e d t ha t a n

e xi s t i ng j oi nt c us t odi a l a r r a nge me nt i s not i n t he be s t

i nt e r e s t of the c hild, it is a ppr opr i a t e f or the Cour t to

a l t e r t he c us t ody a r r a nge me nt e s t a bl i s he d i n t he or i gi na l

decr ee. Dalton v . Dalton, 858 S. W. 2d 324, 326 ( Te nn. App.
1

 Th e t r i a l cour t cr e d i t e d t e s t i mony t h a t mo t h e r ’ s s i s t e r and a t t o r n e y ,

Li nda We l c h , had s t a t e d t h a t s h e woul d ?b r e a k hi m? i n j uve n i l e cour t .

Appe l l a n t ar gue s t h a t t h e t r i a l cour t er r e d i n r e f u s i ng t o al l o w Ms .

We l c h t o t e s t i f y a n d refu t e t h i s st a t e me n t . It i s fi rst n o t e d t h a t Ms .

We l c h was gi v e n a ch a n ce t o t est i f y an d d eci d e d n o t t o , t h e n came b ack

l a t e r and a s k e d t o t a k e t h e s t a nd. Ev e n i f t h e Tr i a l Cour t s houl d have

l e t h e r t est i f y at t h i s po i n t , i t wo u l d b e h a r ml ess er r o r . Th e al l e g e d

s t a t e me n t i s not det e r mi n a t i v e t o t h e f i ndi ng t h a t mo t h e r t r i e d t o

e x c l u d e t h e f a t h e r an d h i s f a mi l y f r o m h e r ch i l d ’ s l i f e . 

Th e act i o n s of t h e mo t h e r i n at t e mp t i n g t o h a v e t h e f a t h e r

c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ‘ n e g l e c t f u l ’ ar e mu c h mo r e s i gni f i c a n t i n t h i s r e g a r d ,

a l t h o u g h we n o t e t h a t we d o n o t ag r ee wi t h Ap p e l l a n t ’ s add i t i o n a l

a r g u me n t t h a t she i s bei n g p u n i shed f o r p u r sui n g such ch a r g es. Wh i l e a

r e v i e w of t h e s t a t u t o r y def i n i t i ons of ?a bus e ? and ?d e p e nde n t and

n e g l e c t e d chi l d , ? i n T. C. A. § 3 7 - 1 - 1 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) an d ( 1 2 ) d e mo n s t r a t es t h a t

t h e y ar e me a n t t o appl y t o ca s e s wh e r e s ubs t a n t i a l l y mo r e s i gni f i c a n t

h a r m i s bei n g i n f l i c t e d b y a p a r e n t , t h e t r i a l co u r t d o es no t ap p ear t o

h a v e ma d e t h i s i s s u e det e r mi n a t i v e i n t h e cus t ody dec i s i on. We not e

t h a t t h e r e we r e nume r ous i t e ms we i ghe d and c ons i d e r e d i n hi s opi n i on and

t h i n k i t i s f a i r e r t o ch a r act e r i ze t h e j u v e n i l e co u r t p r o ceed i n g s me r e l y

a s evi d e n c e of t h e cons i d e r a b l e ani mo s i t y f e l t by t h e mo t h e r t o wa r d s t h e

f a t h e r . 

3

1993) . The de c i s i on of t he Tr i a l J udge r e ga r di ng c us t ody i s

a c c ompa ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s unl e s s t he r e c or d

pr e ponde r a t e s ot he r wi s e . Ni c hol s v . Ni c hol s , 792 S. W. 2d 713

( Te nn. 1990) . 

The f a t he r a nd hi s mot he r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he mot he r

wa s c ont i nua l l y a t t e mpt i ng t o s hut t he m out of t he c hi l d’ s

lif e . The mot he r ’ s te s timony s hows tha t s he ma de little

e f f or t t o put t he c hi l d a t e a s e r e ga r di ng he r pa r e nt s ’

r e l a t i ons hi p. The mot he r ne ve r i ni t i a t e d di s c us s i ons

r e ga r di ng t he f a t he r a nd ne ve r s ugge s t e d t ha t t he c hi l d c a l l

he r f a t he r . Thi s s i l e nc e c onf us e d t he c hi l d, who wa s uns ur e

whe t he r t o s how a f f e c t i on a nd t o whom whe n bot h pa r e nt s we r e

i n t he s a me r oom. The s e ma t t e r s woul d be s i gni f i c a nt e ve n

wi t hout t he c a mpa i gn wa ge d by mot he r , t o c ha r a c t e r i z e t he

f a t he r as ?a bus i ve . ?

1

 I n c ont r a s t , t he e vi de nc e s uppor t s t he

c our t ’ s f i ndi ng t ha t t he f a t he r ha s e nc our a ge d t he c hi l d t o

s how a f f e c t i on t o he r mot he r a nd ha s a t t e mpt e d t o ma i nt a i n a

wor ki ng r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h t he mot he r ’ s f a mi l y. 
4

Ta ki ng i nt o a c c ount t hi s de t e r mi na t i on, a l ong wi t h

t he t e s t i mony of nume r ous ps yc hol ogi s t s a nd ne i ghbor s

r e ga r di ng t he c l os e r e l a t i ons hi p of t he c hi l d wi t h bot h

pa r e nt s , t he e vi de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t t he

c us t ody de c i s i on ma de by t he Tr i a l Cour t . T. R. A. P. Rul e

13( d) .

The mot he r a l s o a r gue s t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n

he a r i ng t he ma t t e r whe n t he j uve ni l e c our t or de r wa s not

f i na l , r e qui r i ng t he pa r t i e s t o pr e s e nt t he i r c a s e on a

?witne s s by witne s s ? ba s i s , a nd or de r i ng t he t r i a l t o go

f or wa r d on a n e xpe di t e d ba s i s .

The or de r i n J uve ni l e Cour t wa s f i na l e xc e pt f or t he

de t e r mi na t i on of gua r di a n a d l i t e m f e e s , pur s ua nt t o T. R. C. P.

Rul e 54. 02 a nd T. R. A. P. Rul e 3. See ge ne r al l y Fox v. Fox , 657

S. W. 2d 747 ( Te nn. 1983) . The s e t t i ng of f e e s c a nnot be s a i d

t o a f f e c t t he me r i t s of t he c a s e a nd f or t he pur pos e s of

a ppe a l i n t he Ci r c ui t Cour t , t he j uve ni l e c our t or de r wa s

f i na l. Se e Saunde r s v . Me t r opol i t an Gov ’ t of Nas hv i l l e , 214

Te nn. 703, 383 S. W. 2d 28 ( Te nn. 1964) .

The ma t t e r of e s t a bl i s hi ng t he or de r of pr oof i s

wi t hi n t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s s ound di s c r e t i on a nd wi l l be r e ve r s e d

onl y whe n t he t r i a l j udge ha s a bus e d t ha t di s c r e t i on a nd whe r e

i t can de mons t r a t e d t ha t t he er r or ha s af f ect e d t he

s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s of one or bot h pa r t i e s . Cas t e lli v . Li e n,

910 S. W. 2d 420 ( Te nn. App. 1995) . The mot he r wa s a l l owe d t o

pr e s e nt a l l of he r non- c umul a t i ve wi t ne s s e s . See Cor de l l v.

War d Sc hool Bus Mf g. , I nc . , 597 S. W. 2d 323 ( Te nn. App. 1980) ;

Ki r k s ey v. Over t on Pub, I nc . , 804 S. W. 2d 68 ( Te nn. App. 1990) .

Two duplic a tive witne s s e s ha d the i r te s timony s tipul a t e d to
2

 I n i t s or d e r d e t e r mi n i n g cu s t o d y , t h e Tr i a l Co u r t o r d e r e d t h a t al l

t r a n spo r t a t i o n ar r a n g e me n t s and co s t s be b o r n e b y t h e mo t h e r .

5

a nd we do not f i nd a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on e f f e c t i ng t he

mot he r ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s . 

Re ga r di ng t he e xpe di t e d t r i a l , t he mot he r ’ s a t t or ne y

wa s not abl e t o at t e nd t he hear i ng whe r e t he da t e wa s s e t .

She f i l e d a mot i on r e que s t i ng t ha t t he Cour t r e c ons i de r t he

da t e , whi c h wa s de ni e d. She s t a t e s t ha t s he wa s t he r e f or e

de pr i ve d of s uf f i c i e nt t i me t o c ompl e t e di s c ove r y. Howe ve r ,

t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s de c i s i on t o s e t t he da t e wa s c ons t r a i ne d by

T. C. A. § 37- 1- 159, whi c h r e qui r e s t ha t a ppe a l s f r om a pa r e nt ’ s

l os s of c us t ody be he a r d wi t hi n f or t y- f i ve da ys . I n a ddi t i on,

t he mot he r ha d not f i l e d a ny mot i ons t o c ompe l di s c ove r y or

t a ke ot he r a c t i ons whi c h woul d i ndi c a t e t ha t t he e a r l y t r i a l

da t e af f ect e d and pr e j udi ced t he pr e s e nt a t i on of he r cas e .

Thi s i s s ue we c onc l ude i s wi t hout me r i t .

The r e ma i ni ng i s s ue f or c ons i de r a t i on i s whe t he r t he

Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n a l l owi ng t he mot he r t o of f s e t he r c hi l d

s uppor t pa yme nt s wi t h t he c os t of t r a ns por t a t i on f or

vi s i t a t i on. The Tr i a l Cour t a dopt i ng t he de t e r mi na t i ons of a

Re f e r e e , s e t t he mot he r ’ s c hi l d s uppor t obl i ga t i on a t $894. 00

pe r mont h, out of he r mont hl y i nc ome of $6, 055. 00. Gi ve n t ha t

vi s i t a t i on wa s gr a nt e d f or 37 da ys a bove t he a ve r a ge numbe r

us e d i n t he gui de l i ne s , he r mont hl y obl i ga t i on wa s r e duc e d t o

$778. 71. Be c a us e of mot he r ’ s t e s t i mony t ha t t r a ve l e xpe ns e s

2

f or vi s i t a t i on woul d e xc e e d he r a nnua l c hi l d s uppor t

obl i ga t i on, t he t r i a l c our t or de r e d t ha t t he mot he r c oul d

de duc t he r vi s i t a t i on e xpe ns e s f r om t he c hi l d s uppor t

obl i ga t i on. Thi s woul d e f f e c t i ve l y ne ga t e a ny c hi l d s uppor t
6

pa yme nt s by t he mot he r .

The c i r c ums t a nc e s i n whi c h downwa r d de vi a t i ons a r e

a ppr opr i a t e f r om t he c hi l d s uppor t gui de l i ne s , a r e l i mi t e d.

See Jone s v. Jone s , 930 S. W. 2d 541, 545 ( Te nn. 1996) . Whi l e

t he lis t s e t f or t h in J one s is not e xc l us i ve , it gi ve s a

?powe r f ul i ndi c a t i on? of t he t ype s of s i t ua t i ons i n whi c h t he

gui de l i ne s a l l ow de vi a t i on downwa r d. I d.

Cl e a r l y, t he r e duc t i on i n s uppor t t o a c c ount f or t he

mot he r ’ s a bove a ve r a ge vi s i t a t i on i s a l l owe d unde r t he

gui de l i ne s . Te nn. Comp. R. &Re gs . , Ch. 1240- 2- 4- . 04( 2) ( b) . The

r e duc t i on t o of f s e t t r a ns por t a t i on c os t s , howe ve r , i s not

a na l ogous t o t he s i t ua t i ons i n J one s . Ac c or di ngl y, we do not

be l i e ve i t i s a ppr opr i a t e t o f ur t he r r e duc e t he c hi l d s uppor t

pa yme nt s ba s e d upon t r a ve l e xpe ns e s .

Howe ve r , t hi s cas e pr e s e nt s a l a r ge di s pa r i t y i n t he

pa r t i e s ’ i nc ome . The f a t he r , a phys i c i a n, ear ns appr oxi ma t e l y

$430, 000. 00 pe r ye a r . The mot he r , a nur s e a ne s t he t i s t , e a r ns

a ppr oxi ma t e l y $72, 000. 00 pe r ye a r . I n t hi s c a s e , t he mot he r

ma y s pe nd ha l f of he r i nc ome i n s uppor t i ng a nd vi s i t i ng wi t h

he r c hi l d. As s i gni ng t r a ve l e xpe ns e s f or vi s i t a t i on i s a n

i s s ue on whi c h t he r e l a t i ve f i na nc i a l r e s our ces of t he pa r t i e s

ma y be c ons i de r e d. Dodd v . Dodd, 737 S. W. 2d 286, 292

( Te nn. App. 1987) ; Re z ni cek v. Re z ni cek , 1991 WL 156407

( Te nn. App. 1991) . I t i s i n t he c hi l d’ s be s t i nt e r e s t t ha t

s he s pe nd t i me wi t h he r r e s pe c t i ve pa r e nt s , a nd we c onc l ude

unde r a l l of t he c i r c ums t a nc e s t ha t i t i s a ppr opr i a t e f or t he

f a t he r t o de f r a y t he t r a ve l a nd l odgi ng e xpe ns e s of t he mot he r

whe n vi s i t i ng t he c hi l d i n Okl a homa . Ac c or di ngl y, t he

j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t wi l l be modi f i e d t o r e qui r e t he
7

mot he r t o pa y t he c hi l d s uppor t of $778. 71. Howe ve r , t he

f a t he r wi l l r e i mbur s e on a mont hl y ba s i s , t he mot he r f or he r

t r a ve l a nd l odgi ng e xpe ns e s i n c onne c t i on wi t h c hi l d

vi s i t a t i on, i n a c c or da nc e wi t h t he gui de l i ne s e s t a bl i s he d by

t he Re f e r ee and t he Tr i a l J udge as t o t he r eas ona bl e ne s s of

t he c os t of t r a ve l a nd l odgi ng.

The j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t i s a f f i r me d, a s

modi f i e d, a nd t he c os t of t he a ppe a l i s a s s e s s e d one - ha l f t o

each pa r t y.

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .
FILED

June 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

TERRI G. BOWERS, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00008

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , ) KNOX LAW

)

v. ) 

) 

FREDERI CK ALLAN BOWERS, )

) 

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. ) 

O R D E R

Thi s c a us e wa s r e gul a r l y he a r d a nd c ons i de r e d by t he

c our t . I T I S NOW ORDERED t ha t t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t

i s af f i r me d, as modi f i e d, and t he caus e r e ma nde d. The cos t s

of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d one - ha l f t o e a c h pa r t y, f or whi c h

e xecut i on ma y i s s ue i f necess a r y.

PER CURI UM