WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@ 0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r B 0|; 0 0= 1u 0dBU>U6B) D3CDCv AM 0@U*Fp&v~v= AO_ 0D% D/i BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDDDDӀ^!3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23   d2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d'dxd))))7Border 1dd-+C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial  !#d#'  ..   YYY FILED.X January14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr..AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#'   $       ((Foreaseofreference,wewillrefertothechildbyherfirstname.Nodisrespectisintended.  !#d#'   $       ((Thereareonlytwovolumesintherecordofpapersfiledwiththetrialcourtclerk.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . '  ݛ P \RA'\\RA'\(7eIXXdd7  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEESTEFANIELYNNEBRUMIT,  )C/ANO.03A019512CH00453      ) PlaintiffAppellee,  )      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.      )GREENECOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      )      )WALTERJESSEEBRUMIT,  )      )HONORABLEDENNISH.INMAN,̜R,/+A1-j| `  `@Rߛ DefendantAppellant. )CHANCELLORForAppellant     ForAppelleeT.WOODSMITH     EDWARDL.KERSHAWGreeneville,Tennessee   Leonard&Kershaw       Greeneville,Tennessee@    OPINION((XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Thispostdivorcelitigationpresentsissuesrevolvingaroundthecustodyofthepartiesonlychild,EmilyConstanceBrumit(Emily) 0   כ(DOB:November22,1989).Atthetimeofthepartiesdivorcein1993,StefanieLynneBrumit(Mother)wasawardedsolecustody.Inthepresentchapterofthislitigation,WalterJesseeBrumit(Father)seekstochangethechildscustodialarrangementtothatofjointcustody.ThetrialcourtdeniedFatherspetition;modifiedthevisitationarrangement;andorderedthatthechildspreviouslyorderedpsychologicaltherapywouldtakeplaceinFloridaratherthaninTennessee.Fatherappealed,raisingissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestionsforourreview: 8 1.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdenialofFatherspetitionforjointcustody? 8 2.DidthetrialcourtmodifyFathersvisitationwiththepartiesminorchildwithoutaffordinghimanopportunitytobeheard? 8 3.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentthatFatherssecondvisitationperiodineachmonthwouldendat2:00p.m.onSundayinsteadof6:00p.m.? 8 4.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdecisionthatthechildspsychologicaltherapyshouldtakeplaceinFloridaratherthaninTennessee?̜@ I̛  Ourstandardofreviewregardingthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsinthisnonjuryproceedingisdenovo;however,thecasecomestousaccompaniedbyapresumptionthatthosefindingsarecorrectapresumptionwemusthonorunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Questionsoflawcometousfreeofanysuchpresumption. Adamsv.DeanRoofingCo.,Inc. ,715S.W.2d341,343(Tenn.App.1986).  Atrialcourtsinitialawardofcustodyis subjecttosuchchangesormodificationastheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire,T.C.A.366101(a)(1);butitisclear 8 thatwhereadecreehasbeenenteredawardingcustodyofchildren,thatdecreeisresjudicataandisconclusiveinasubsequentapplicationtochangecustodyunlesssomenewfacthasoccurredwhichhasalteredthecircumstancesinamaterialwaysothatthewelfareofthechildrequiresachangeofcustody. Griffinv.Stone ,834S.W.2d300,30102(Tenn.App.1992).Seealso Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.App.1991)( thetrialjudgemustfindamaterialchangeincircumstancesthatiscompellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody.)  Whilemanyproceedingsinthelawarefactuallydriven,thisisparticularlytrueofcustodycases,bothoninitialawardsϜaswellasincasesinvolvingarequesttomodifyapreviousaward. Rogerov.Pitt ,759S.W.2d109,112(Tenn.1988).Insuchcases,atrialcourthaswidediscretion,andwewillnottamperwiththatdiscretionunlessthefactsdemonstratethatthetrieroffacthasabusedhisorherdiscretion. Suttlesv.Suttles ,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988).Thewelfareofthechildisalwaystheparamountconsideration. Id. @ II  InNovember,1993,Motherremarried,andmovedwithhernewhusbandandEmilytoJacksonville,Florida.ThismovepromptedthepartiestoenterintoanagreedorderchangingFathersvisitationtimewithhisdaughter.Afterthemove,problemsdevelopedbetweenthepartiesregardingFathersvisitationrights,andthepartieshadseveralhearingsbelowinwhichtheypresentedtheirconflictingstoriesregardingFathersmissedopportunitiesatmeaningfulinpersonandtelephonicvisitation.ItwasFatherspositionthatMothersinterferencewithhisvisitationcouldonlyberemediedbyachangetojointcustody.  ThetrialcourtfoundthatMotherhadfailedtostrictlycomplywiththecourtsdecreesonFathersvisitationrights.Hefoundherincontemptandassessedapunishmentofincarceration,whichhesuspended.Hedeclinedtochangecustody,findinganinsufficientpredicateforsuchachange.@ III  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactregardingthepetitionforchangeofcustody.TheonlybasisforthechangeadvancedbyFatherwasMothersallegedinterferencewithhisvisitationandherdenigratingofhisroleasEmilysfather.Totheextenttherecordsupportssuchafinding,thatconductwasaddressedbythetrialcourtthroughitscontemptpowerandinotherways.BeyondϜthisconduct,therewasnoevidencethatthecircumstancesofthepartiesandtheirchildhadchangedsincethedivorceinawaythatwouldrequireachangeinthebasiccustodialarrangement.Assuming,forthepurposeofargument,thatMotherhadinterferedwithFathersvisitationrightsandbelittledhisparentalrole,wedonotunderstandhowthisactivitywouldbelogicallyaddressedbyachangeinlegalcustodywheretherewasnorequestforachangeintheidentityoftheresidentialcustodian.Inanyevent,thiscaseisonewhere [t]hefeelingsbetweentheparties[are]suchastodemonstrateanabsenceofthecooperativespiritthatissoessentialtoaworkablejointcustodyarrangement. Jahnv.Jahn ,932S.W.2d939,942(Tenn.App.1996).ThedistancebetweentheFathersTennesseeresidenceandMothersabodeinJacksonville,whilenotinsurmountable,isanotherfactorworkingagainstajointcustodyarrangement.Fathersfirstissueisfoundtobewithoutmerit.  FatherclaimsinhissecondissuethatthetrialcourtmodifiedhiseveryotherweekendvisitationtopermitMothertopickupEmilyinGreenevilleat2p.m.Sundayinsteadofthepreviouslydecreed6p.m.,withoutaffordinghimanopportunitytobeheardonthisissue.WecannotacceptFatherscharacterizationofwhattookplaceinthiscase.  PriortothehearingonFebruary6,1995,whichhearingledtotheactionthatformsthebasisofthisappeal,MotherwasobligatedtopickupEmilyinGreenevilleat6p.m.ontheSundayofFatherssecondperiodofweekendvisitationeachmonth.ItisthechangeinthispickuptimeaboutwhichFathercomplains.  ThedualissuesofcustodyandvisitationwereclearlybeforethetrialcourtattheFebruary6,1995,hearing.ItistruethatthereisnomentioninthetranscriptofthecourtsopinionorallygivenattheconclusionoftheproofregardingachangeinthetimeMotherwastopickupherdaughterinϜGreeneville;butthismatterwasaddressedbythecourtinitsorderofMay9,1995,whichorderincorporatesthepreviouslymentionedoralopinion: 8 ItisOrderedthattheformerwifeshallretrievethepartiesminorchildfromthestateofTennessee,attheconclusionoftheformerhusbandssecondvisitationperiodineachmonth,recommencinginMarch,1995.FormerwifemaypickupthechildinTennesseeat2:00p.m.Sundayafternoon.(Emphasisadded).  HusbandcontendsthatthismodificationwaspromptedbyaletterthatMotherallegedlywrotetothecourtfollowingthehearing.HisbriefindicatesthatthelettercanbefoundatϜ page215"ofthesecondvolumeoftherecord.Wehavelookedatpage215thathappenstobethelastpageofvolumetwooftherecord 1   כandthatpageisthetrialcourtclerkscertificateandseal.  WehavesearchedtherecordfortheletterreferredtobyFather.Itisnowheretobefoundintherecordcertifiedtousbythetrialcourtclerk.Wecannotconsidersomethingthatisnotintherecord.  TherecorddoesnotsupportFathersargumentthatthetrialcourtactedonamatterwithoutaffordinghimanopportunitytobeheardonthesubject.Withoutquestion,theissueofFathersvisitationwasbeforethecourtonFebruary6,1995.ThesecondissueraisedbyFatherisalsofoundtobewithoutmerit.  FathernextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinchangingMotherspickuptimefrom6p.m.Sundayto2p.m.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsonthisissue.Jacksonvilleisapproximately530milesfromGreeneville.AnearlierstarttimeforthislongjourneyisinkeepingwithEmilysbestinterest,whohastogetupearlyonMondaymorningtogotoschool.Acourtcanlimitvisitation,iftodosoisinthebestinterestofthechild. Suttles ,748S.W.2dat429.Thethirdissueiswithoutmerit.  Finally,FatherfindsfaultwiththetrialcourtsdecisiontoselectatherapistinJacksonvilleforEmilyspsychologicalcounseling.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthisdetermination.Forthemostpart,EmilyisinFlorida.ItiscertainlymoreconvenientforherifthetherapyisadministeredinJacksonvilleratherthaninTennessee.Thereisnoerrorinthispartofthecourtsdecree.  Theappelleehasaskedustoconsiderpostjudgmentfacts.WedeclinetodosobecausethematterssuggestedtousarenotthetypeoffactscontemplatedbyRule14,T.R.A.P.Evenifwecouldconsiderthefactsurgedbytheappellee,wedonotfindthattheycompeladifferentresultinthiscase.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallthingsaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofitsjudgmentandthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       _________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.