Session March 6, 2019
from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County No. 17CV-281
Howard W. Wilson, Chancellor.
a divorce case. Wife filed for divorce in February 2017 after
twelve years of marriage. Following a three-day trial, the
trial court ordered Husband to pay $1000 in transitional
alimony to Wife for six months and $500 per month for the
following six months. The trial court also entered a
permanent parenting plan for the parties' two minor
children naming Husband primary residential parent. Husband
received 233 days of parenting time, and Wife received 132
days. Wife appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.
R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court
is Affirmed and Remanded.
Mitchell E. Shannon, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the
appellant, April H. 
Heather G. Parker, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Armstrong, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Arnold B. Goldin, J.,
H. ("Appellant" or "Wife") and Scott H.
("Appellee" or "Husband") were married on
August 20, 2005. Two minor children, J.H. (age 11) and L.H
(age 6), were born to the marriage. Wife has two children
from previous relationships, K.S. (age 20) and D.S. (age 16).
During the marriage, Wife worked small jobs (i.e., fast
food), but she was primarily a stay-at-home mom. Husband
works for TVA; his gross monthly income was approximately $9,
332.12 at the time of trial. In 2011, Wife earned an online
bachelor's degree in marketing. At the time of the
hearing, Wife was 37 years old, and Husband was 41 years old.
filed a complaint for divorce on February 23, 2017 alleging
irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.
Prior to filing her complaint, Wife filed a petition for an
order of protection alleging that Husband abused J.H. and
D.S. The trial court entered an ex parte order of
protection, which was subsequently consolidated with the
divorce case. On March 8, 2017, Husband filed an answer to
Wife's petition for order of protection denying any
abuse. Husband also filed a proposed parenting plan, wherein
he asked the court to grant equal parenting time to the
parties. On March 10, 2017, Husband filed an answer and
counter-complaint for divorce alleging irreconcilable
differences and inappropriate marital conduct. The
pendente lite matters were heard by a special
master, who dismissed the order of protection and granted a
temporary parenting schedule giving each parent equal
parenting time according to Husband's proposed parenting
plan. The parties settled the division of marital property in
mediation but were unable to agree on a parenting plan and
to Wife, one of the major problems in the marriage was the
way Husband treated her son D.S. D.S. exhibited severe
behavioral issues throughout the parties' marriage and
was removed from multiple schools for fighting. At times,
D.S.'s behavior was so volatile that he was confined to
his bedroom for his own safety and the safety of others in
the home. D.S.'s behavior and the parties' attempts
to manage his behavior strained the marital relationship. At
one point, D.S. went to live with his grandmother in
Michigan; however, this arrangement did not last. Wife then
sent D.S. to live at Good Sheppard Children's Home.
parties separated in April 2017, and Husband moved into an
apartment near J.H. and L.H.'s school. In June 2017,
following the parties' separation, D.S. returned to live
with Wife in the marital home. On August 11, 2017, Husband
filed an emergency motion for a restraining order to keep
D.S. away from the two younger children. According to Wife,
L.H. made an allegation that D.S. had done "something
down there." There was a DCS investigation, and the
matter was eventually heard by a special master, who held
that there was no proof that D.S. had harmed the children.
The emergency motion was dismissed, but the special
master's ruling, which was later confirmed by the trial
court's order of September 27, 2017, provided that D.S.
was not to be left unsupervised with the minor children.
November 1, 2, and December 21, 2017, the trial court heard
all pending matters. On January 29, 2018, the trial court
issued its memorandum and order. As is relevant to this
appeal, the trial court named Husband primary residential
parent for L.H. and J.H. Under the permanent parenting plan,
Husband received 233 days of parenting time, and Wife
received 132 days. The trial court ordered Husband to pay
transitional alimony in the amount of $1, 000 per month for
six months and $500 per month for the following six months.
Wife filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court
denied. She appeals.
presents the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred in its award of alimony to
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in
significantly reducing Appellant's parenting time.
posture of Appellee, Husband requests attorneys' fees on
Standard of Review
case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. As such,
we review the trial court's findings of fact de
novo on the record with the presumption that those
findings are correct, "unless the preponderance of the
evidence is otherwise." Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). We
review the trial court's conclusions of law de
novo with no presumption of correctness. Gonsewski
v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105-106 (Tenn. 2011);
Hyneman v. Hyneman, 152 S.W.3d 549, 553 (Tenn. Ct.