### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on

Brief F ebruary

3, 2003 JOHN PAUL MOOR

E v. TERESA AN N MOORE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Greene County No. 01CV362 Ben K. Wexler, Judge FILED MARCH 18, 2003 No. E2001-03028-COA-R3-CV

John Paul Moore appeals a judgment in a divorce proceedings, complaining that the Trial Court should have awarded him primary parenting rather than shared paren ting with the child’s mother, Te r esa Ann Moore . He also

complain s that the C ourt err ed in awa rding a n attorne y f ee to Ms. Moore in t

he amount

of $300. O ur standa

rd of review as to

both issues is whether the Trial Court abused it s discre

tion. We fin d the Tria

l Court pro

perly exercise d its discr

etion and affirm.
Tenn.R.App. P. 3 Appe al as of Right ; Judgme nt of the Cir

cuit Cour

t Affirme d; Cause Remanded
H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., JJ., joined. Edward Kershaw, Greeneville, Te nnessee, for the Appellant, John Paul Moore No Brief was filed by

the Appellee, Teresa Ann Moore

MEMORAN

DUM OP

INION

As is ofttimesthe case , the proo f relati ve to which parent should have primary

custody is sharply divided. A s an aid to

resolvin g this appeal, we rely upon the admonishm

ent of our Supreme Courtin Eldridge v. Eldridge , 4 2 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tenn. 2001). Although Eldridge addresses visitation, we believe the reasoning employ ed applies here: It is not the function of

appellate courts to tweak a visitation order in the hopes of achievi ng a mor

e reaso nable re sult than th e trial c ourt. App ellate c ourts correct errors. When no error i n the t rial c ourt's ruling is evident from the record, the trial court's ruling must stand. This maxim has spec ial sig nificance in cases-2-

reviewed under the abuse of

discretion standard. The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that the trial cou rt is in a bette r position t

han the a ppellate court to make certain

judgments. The abuse of discretion standard does not require a trial court to render an ideal order, even in matters involving visitation, to withstand revers al. Reversa

l should not

result sim

ply because the appe llate cou rt found a "better" resolution. See State v. Frankl in, 714 S .W.2d 252, 258 (Tenn. 1986) ("appe llate court should not redetermine in retrospect and on a cold reco rd how the case co

uldhave be en bette

r tried" ); cf. State

v. Pappas

, 754 S.W.2d 620, 625 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987) (affirming trial court's ruling under abuse of discretion standardwhile noting that action contrary to action taken by the

trial court was the better practic e); Bradford v . Bradford , 51 Tenn.App. 101, 364 S.W.2d 509, 512- 13 (1962) (same). An abuse of discretion can be found only when the

trial court 's ruling falls outs ide the sp ectrum o f ruling s that mig ht reaso nably

result from an application of the correct

legal standards to the

evidence found in the record. See, e.g., State ex. rel Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, as already

not ed, th at the Tr

ial Court d

id not abus e its discretion relative to the shared p arentin g nor a ttorney fees, given the m

odest, al most de minimi

s , am ou nt aw ar de d i n a pr oc ee di ng la st in g o ne da y an d a t l ea st pa rt of an ot he r d ay. We conclude it is appropriate that this case be affirme d under Rule 10 of th is Court. Th

e case is remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against John Paul Moore an d h is su re ty.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDI NG JUDGE