Daniel Paschedag v. Patricia L. Paschedag, M2016-00864-COA-R3-CV

Parents (Daniel and Patricia Paschedag) divorced after separation; child born 2011 and has a speech delay. Father moved to San Antonio, Texas; Mother remained in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Father filed for divorce and asked to be named primary residential parent and to relocate child to Texas; Mother counterclaimed and sought primary residential parent designation.
Trial occurred Oct. 6, 2015; evidence concerned caregiving history, stability, child’s speech therapy, parental conduct, and effects of distance on parenting time.
Trial court (oral ruling) found both parents to be good and stable caregivers but emphasized continuity, structure, and the practical problems of a Texas–Tennessee residence split, and named Mother primary residential parent with a parenting plan modification.
Successor judge (after initial judge retired) reviewed the transcript and entered a final decree mirroring the oral ruling; Father appealed the custody designation.
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s best-interest determination and awarded Mother appellate attorney’s fees, remanding to trial court to set the amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred naming Mother primary residential parent	Father argued the best-interest factors favored him (he cited employment, speech therapy enrollment in TX, language exposure, and tallied factors as favoring him)	Mother argued she was primary caregiver, continuity and structure favored keeping child in Clarksville with her	Court affirmed: trial court’s best-interest analysis was proper, findings not preponderantly wrong, no abuse of discretion
Whether Mother should receive attorney’s fees on appeal	Father did not contest denial of fees; argued only custody	Mother sought appellate fees citing disparity in incomes and Tenn. Code	Court exercised discretion under applicable law, granted Mother appellate attorney’s fees and remanded to trial court to determine amount

Parker v. Parker, 986 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1999) (trial courts have broad discretion in custody arrangements)
Rountree v. Rountree, 369 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (credibility and demeanor can be decisive in custody cases)
In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (best-interest inquiry is fact-sensitive; weight of factors varies)
Koch v. Koch, 874 S.W.2d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (appellate interference limited absent abuse of discretion in custody matters)
Archer v. Archer, 907 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (appellate court’s discretion to award attorney’s fees)
Schofner v. Schofner, 181 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory provision applies to appellate attorney’s fees in family cases)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993) (standard of review in nonjury cases)
Campbell v. Florida Steel, 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996) (legal conclusions receive no presumption on appeal)