# FILED
March 05, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION

LISA AUSTIN, ) ) SHELBY JUVENILE Plaintiff/Appell

ant )

) v. ) Appeal No. 02A01- 9807-JV-00176 ) GREGORY GRAFLUND, ) ) Defendant/Appellee )

APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY AT MEMPHIS THE HONORABLE A.V. McDOWELL, SPECIAL JUDGE

For the Appellant: Valerie T. Corder 212 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 For the Appellee: David E. Caywoo

d Stacy A. Ingle 100 North Main, #2400 Memphis, TN 38103

AFFIRMED WILLIAM H. INM AN, Senior Jud

ge CONCUR: W. FRANK CRAWFORD, JU DGE DAVID R. FARMER, JUD GE2 The appellee sought a reduc tion in his child support ob ligation in a

ccordanc e with the mandates of

the Guidelines. A modest reduction w

as granted. This appeal resulted. Mother claims the trial Co urt heard no evidenc

e, and would not allow her to testify or to offer proof. The Father says, not so . His financial r ecords were tende

red to the C ourt without objection, and at no t

ime did the appellant

request totestify or

offer proof. There is no verbatim trans cript. The Stat ement of th e Evid ence presented by the appellant

was not approved by the

Court, but is nonethe

less included in the record on appeal. The Statement of the Evidence presented by the appellee was approved by the Court. In support of her insistence th at she was repelled and disdained by the trial Court, the appellant

refers to her unap

proved, really disa

pproved, Stateme

nt of the Evidence, to which the appellee takes understanda ble umbrage. We are content to hold that the unapproved S tatement of Eviden ce should not

have been included in the record. See

Rule 24, T.R.A .P. Consequently, we will not furthe

r notice it. Our de novo review is made a little dif ficult because the appellant refers us to a Statement of the Evidence w e cannot c onsider. The appellee refers us to an approved Statement of the E vidence, which re

cites that “no witne sses took the stand”; that, without objec tion, Mr. Graflund’s

1997 income and

projected income for 1998 were do cu mented and considered by the court; that the amount of Mr. Graflund’s monthly gross income was not disput ed, which was $3,021.11, and that the child support was set at $581.00, plus the Cle

rk’s fee, and this

includes $91.00 for an upward devia

tion occasioned by Mr.

Graflund’s refu sal to visit his child.3 There is no evidence that the appellant was not a

llowed to testify or

to offer proof. Conversely, the und isputed evidence is tha

t t he Court considered the documented income of the appellee for 1997 and projected for 1998 and fixed his obligation

in accord withthe Guidelines, having found that a significant variance, i.e., at least 15% existed. See, Tenn. Comp., R. & Regs., Ch. 1240-2-04-.02(3). We need not belabor the p oint. The appella

nt did not object t

o the procedures employed and made no effort to present evidence. The judgment is therefore affirmed at the c

osts of the appellant.

_______________________________

William H. Inma

n, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

_______________________________ W. Frank Craw

ford, Judge

_______________________________ David R. Farme

r, Judge