In Re: Maddox P., M2016-00569-COA-R3-JV

Parties: Mother (Anna Marsh) and Father (Joshua Parker) share a child born in 2009; 2012 agreed permanent parenting plan gave Mother 245 days/year and Father a minimum of 10 days/month. Father is an airline pilot with a shifting, bid-based schedule.
Father petitioned to modify the parenting plan in April 2014; Mother counter-petitioned. A magistrate found Father in contempt; Father appealed and a de novo Juvenile Court hearing occurred in July 2015.
Trial evidence showed frequent scheduling disputes and some missed or late pick-ups by Father (Mother testified ~70 incidents); Father explained many conflicts were work-related and sometimes could not be avoided given airline seniority/bidding.
Juvenile Court (Dec. 2015, amended Feb. 2016) preserved the 2012 plan largely but: required Father to provide upcoming work days/monthly availability; fixed procedures for Mother to select Father’s ten days/month (with forfeiture if Father cancels); allowed paternal grandparents limited pickup authority; found Father in contempt for one Halloween incident and awarded $600 in attorney fees for that contempt; adjusted vacation and holiday provisions.
Final Juvenile Court order (Apr. 2016) recalculated child support based on 2015 W-2 income, set support at $613/month retroactive to July 1, 2015, and resolved remaining issues. Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by failing to adopt Mother’s proposed fixed monthly one-week visitation schedule (best interests/consistency)	Marsh: Child needs consistent, structured, fixed weekly schedule; current flexible 10-days/month leads to instability and Father’s prioritization of work over child	Parker: As an airline pilot he cannot guarantee fixed days due to bidding/seniority; flexible schedule maximizes Father’s parenting time and accommodates work realities	Court affirmed: Juvenile Court did not abuse discretion; fixed schedule would likely reduce Father’s time and not be in child’s best interest given Father’s work; upheld modified flexible plan maximizing participation
Whether Juvenile Court abused discretion by denying Mother additional attorney’s fees (beyond $600 contempt award)	Marsh: Sought recovery of attorney fees under Tenn. Code Ann. §36-5-103(c) for custody modification litigation	Parker: Opposed; Mother largely lost her primary requested relief	Court affirmed: No abuse of discretion—Mother did not prevail on main issues so no additional fee award; $600 contempt award stands

Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate standard: factual findings presumed correct absent preponderance against them)
S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2001) (trial court conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for parenting schedule modifications)
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of Rule 52.01 findings and when appellate court may "soldier on")
Hawkins v. Hart, 86 S.W.3d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (issue-preservation on appeal; issues must be in statement of issues presented)