R u le 1 0 o f t h e T e n n e sse e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p ro v id e s: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse
o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m em o randum o p i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue . W he n a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N " , shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any
r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON June 9, 200 5 S es sio n
PENNY CAROL FLETCHE R MORGAN v. B ENJ AMIN LO YAL MORGAN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. CT-006931-00 D onna M. Fie lds, Ju dge

No. W2004-02452-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jul y 20, 2005

This appea l arises fr om the trial court’ s order desig nating Mother the primary residential pa

rent of the pa rt ie s’ min or

c hil d a nda wa

rd ing F a the r l e ss tha n e qu a l pa re nti ng tim e . We a ff

ir m.
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; and Rem anded

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in whic h A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

Stuart M. Bre akstone, Z acha ry M. Moore a nd Kathy

D. B aker , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the appellant, B enjamin L oy al Morg an.

J eff rey J ones, B artlett, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, Penny

Carol Fle tcher

Morg an.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

Th is a pp e a l ari se s fr om a divor c e a c tio n. Th e pa rt ie s, Pe nn y

Caro l F le tc he r M or g a n ( Ms. Mo rg a n) a ndB e nja min L oy a l Mor g a n (Mr . Mor g a n) we re marrie d on Jan ua ry 26 , 1 99 7. On e c hil d
wa s b or n o f the marria g e in 1 99 8. I n Nov e mbe r 200 0, Ms. Mo rg a n fil e d a compla int fo r d ivo rc e in Shelby CountyCircuit Court. Betwe en Nove mber 2000 a nd M ay 2 0 03, howeve r, the pa rties separ ated and rec onciled at least t hree times befor e permanently separ ating in the spring of 2003.-2-

I n J une 2003, Ms. Morg an filed a petition to establish custody and seeking desig nation as the primary residential pa

rent. B etwee n the time the parties se parated in 2003 and June 2004, when the matter was hear d in the t rial court, the parties had equa l pare nting time with their minor child and both participate d in their child’s school eve nts and activities. Following the J une hearing , and af ter considering the re commendations of two psy cholog ists and t h e gu ar d i an ad litem, the trial court pr e pa re d it s o wn pa

re nti ng pla n. B y

or de r o f A ug us t 26 , 2 00 4, the tr ia l c ou rt g ra nte d th e pa

rt ie s a divorce upon stipulation of g rounds and desig nated Ms. Mor g an as primary residential pare nt. T he court a war ded Mr. Morg an vis itation every Wednesday from af ter school until 7:30 p.m. and from Thursday afte r school until 7:30 p.m. on S unday every other week during the sc hool y ear . The trial court fur ther orde red tha t the parties would alternate residential custody wee kly during the summer, and that they would share decision-making responsibilities, with Ms. M org an having final dec isionmaking authority subject to me diation in case of disag ree ment. Mr. Morg an filed a timely notice of appea l raising the sole issue of whether the trial court erre d in failing to properly compar e the r elative fitness of the pa

rties or a ct in the best intere sts of the child by awa rding unequal pa

renting time.

Stan dard of Revie w
We review the trial court's de termination of child custody under a n abuse of

d i s cr et ion standard, a ffor ding the trial court g reat defe renc e. He rre ra v . H e rre ra , 944 S.W .2d 379, 385 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 19 96 ). Th is Cou rt wi ll no t int e rf e re wi th t he tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e te rm inatio n a bs e nt a pa lpa ble abuse of discretion or unle ss the judgme nt is ag ains t t h e gre at we i g ht of the evide nce. Id. at 386. Th is d e fe re nti a l r e vie w i s p re mis e d o n th e a ssu mpt ion that th e tr ia l co urt fi rst c on sid e re d th e be st interests of the c hild in making the c ustody determination and did not act ar bitrarily

. Id. I n making
a c us tod y de te rm inatio n, the tr ia l c ou rt mus t e ng a g e in a co mpa

rativ e fi tne ss an a ly sis of the pa re nts

. Ga sk ill v . G as k ill , 9 3 6 S. W. 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 0 ( T e n n

. Ct

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 )

. I n s o d o in g , it mu s t c o n s id er the fac tors o u t l i n ed b ythe leg islature as c odified at Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-6- 106. Id. Custody determinations a

re thus ba sed on a combination of subtle fac tors, and require a fac t u al l yb as ed i n q u i r y. Id

. The trial court is in the best posi tion to weigh the fac ts presente d to it, and to assess the
cre dibilit y

of the pa

rties. Id. Simi larly , the details of visitation arr ang ements ar e wi thin the discretion of the trial court. Hogue v . Hogue , 147 S.W .3d 245, 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). Although the trial court’ s discretion is not without li mit and its determinations must be based on the evidenc e and a

ppropriate leg al principles, we will not disturb the trial court’ s determinations abse nt an abuse of discre tion. Id.

Discussion On appeal, Mr. Morg an does not a ssert that the trial c ourt err ed in desig nating Ms. Morg an as primary

residential pa

rent. Rather , he conte nds the trial court erre d i n awa rding unequal pare nting/visitation time and asserts the share d pare nting schedule followed during the pendenc y of the div or c e , w he re by

the min or

c hil d s pe nt a lte rn a te we e ks wi th e a c h p are nt, is i n th e c hil d’ s b e st interest.-3-

Upon re view of the rec ord, we ag ree with the trial court that the parties both appea r to love their minor child. Further, althoug h we do not find it nec essary or re levant to re view either party ’s rathe r serious patterns of ne g ative behavior here, we ag ree with the trial court that both parties have

“ iss ue s” wh ic h th e y

ne e d to a dd re ss. We c a nn ot s a y , h ow e ve r, that th e tr ial co urt a bu se d it s discretion by

awa rding Mr. Morg an visitation eve ry Wednesday

evening , every

other we ekend f

rom Thursday afte r school until Sunday

evening during the school y ear , and alternate holiday s and we eks during the summer.

Con tr ary to M r. Mo rg a n’ s a sse rt ion in this Cou rt , we be lie ve the tr ia l cou rt so ug ht to a c t in the child’s best interest by establishing a

visitation schedule that would addr ess some of the a ppare nt str e ss c a us e d b y

the pr ior a lternat in g resi de nti a l arr a ng e me nt a ndwh ic h w ou ld c a us e the le a st amount of disruption as the child beg an first g rade

. The trial court c onsidered the rec ommendations of t wo ps y cholog ists and the g uardia n ad li tem and, in light of those r ecommendations, found that it is i n the best intere sts of the child to ha ve one primary home setting during the school y ear . The tw o p sy cho log ist s a ndthe g ua rd ia n a d li te m a g re e d th a t th e a lte rn a tin g re sid e nti a l sc he du le wa s a c a us e o f s t r e s s t o t h e c h i l d a n d t h a to n e p r i m ar y h o m e w o u l d b e i n h i s b e s ti n t e r e s t s , p ar t i c u la rl y during the school y ear

. Upon re view of the rec ord, we cannot say the evidence preponder ates ag ainst the trial court’s finding s and find no abuse of discre tion in the trial court’s aw ard of v i sitation. According ly , we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Further, we join the trial c ourt in urg ing the se parties to seek
a ssi sta nc e in d e a lin g wi th the ir be ha vio ra l a ndc omm un ic a tio n is su e s a ndto c on du c t th e mse lve s in
a manne r that is in the best i n t er es t s o f t h eir c hild. Ms. Morga n’s re quest for attorney ’s fe es on app e a l is de nie d. Cos ts o f this app e a l ar e ta xed to the Ap pe lla nt, B e nja min L oy a l Mo rg a n, a ndhis
s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE