ÿWPCÍ ±RÄï©ûŸ÷ª×ÿBtOq¨©qœ©QkÏ#BRø.s6B PÙD‚°òkXïÓ¿™5öÎÚò¼wùχ§sJÝÉJË˳ždBÁj}UÇ© å•~–`?Fizo1Ý„ïS¥vdPª}׉«ä¼‚¢Ê²GIØ "«ïy”ò›äæéÛ+í5³ ô‰· >[€žÞœ;>Û›æ òWá33€Ýw¯7•­À—ÀÑg.°eÌ=sèè!j5}³<нɢ»õTYÃÎÇиÙn«¥œé&eÄ%O¬‰^~cÍùF¬5æËWÁ" 1{‰T4ÛÍÏ.W“`03½mF”>Â.̱"碂!‰ãO‘Bá¸ñ¶—Žlí£¶TOæ¨ÆæYÙâáÒÝ 7¿ßY‚g<®/maT†q\\Z]œý²¸š½ýîeÂ^å&ÃGMÉ¥tÐ\É_´¤‰ºþP§Ív¡9äcÔ8f)¹¹ÏÿŒÃ?=°gó:vn4ËòÇϤ•™($ár…Û6LC¶è\+:¾¼ Ï‚îMG°`ÓRxª.Ÿ$ÝÛ¼ÔjÇ…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ uÙ UNN 0lœ 0D UNL š U:¹óU:UBL %ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ B”””” D3±±± 0Dääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää AO(Æww 0D= D/ B°¢RC&ÔøÔô3|xœ($¡¡ †D‡ˆ‰UŠU‹UŒUbŽÓ€š kÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÐ  ÐÒܰÒÔ€ XXXXÔÔ€ &~Ò&X XÔà 4 àAs€this€Court€has€stated€ð ðthe€rule€is€limited€to€specific€proceedings,€namely€dependency€andÐ ˜ Ðneglect,€severe€child€abuse,€and€termination€of€parental€rights,€and€does€not€encompass€the€issue€ofÏcustody.€€We€are€disinclined€to€expand€the€rule€beyond€that€established€by€the€legislature.ðð€€òòBecknerÐ L D Ðv.€Zimmeróó,€No.€03A01„9602„DR„00060,€1996€LEXIS€682,€*5€(Tenn.€App.€1996).Ð &  ÐÌ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ô€ X UXXXÔÔ€ î½°îX X UÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ Üî î½°ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€31,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô›Ù ô ÜÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€X UXXXÔԀîXX UÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Üîî½°ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€24,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô›Ù ôÜÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛѰÑÒܰÒññœññññÑܰÑññÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€: XXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X`{XXXÔÔ€ŠTªŠXX`{ÔñŽñœñŽññšññŽñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨ÓrßñŽññšññšñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨ÓrßñšññŽñ›ñŽñ€€œñ‰ñÐ  Ðñ‰ñññ›ñññ‰ñÌñ‰ñ›€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ   ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌœñŠñÌñŠñññ›ñññŠñÌñŠñ›ÌSANDY€LYNN€BURRELL,à ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9809„CV„00291Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff/Counter„Defendantà ì à)€BRADLEY€CIRCUITÐ   Ðà 4 àAppellantà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€JR.,Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌMARK€ALLEN€BURRELL,à ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€AFFIRMED€AS€Ìà 4 àDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffà ì à)€MODIFIED€ANDÐ  Ðà 4 àAppellee.à ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€REMANDEDÐ  ÐÌÌœñ‹ñÌñ‹ñññ›ñññ‹ñÌñ‹ñ›ÌM.€DREW€ROBINSON,€BATES€&€ROBINSON,€P.A.,€Cleveland,€forÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌœñŒñÌñŒñ›ÌJES€BEARD,€Chattanooga,€for€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellant.Ìà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ *## ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€child€custody€dispute€between€the€œparents,›€the€Trial€JudgeÏchanged€the€custody€from€the€mother€to€the€father€jointly€with€the€paternalÏgrandparents.€€The€Judge€directed€that€the€children€were€not€to€be€left€alone€with€theÏfatherððs€œgirlfriend,›€and€the€children€were€not€to€spend€the€night€with€the€father€if€theÏfather€and€the€girlfriend€were€staying€together€in€the€same€household.€€The€mother€wasÏgranted€visitation€and€ordered€to€pay€child€support.Ð 9þ12ýç Ðà 4 àà Œ àOur€review€in€child€custody€cases€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÐ  Ðcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding,€unlessÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).;€òòHass€v.Ð   ÐKnighton,óó€676€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€1984).€€Custody€and€visitation€arrangements€areÐ   Ðð ðcustomarily€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.ðð€€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€784Ð  Ð(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Therefore,€appellate€courts€generally€ð ðgive€great€weight€to€theÏdecision€of€the€Trial€Judge€who€saw€and€heard€the€parties€testify.ðð€€òòRubin€v.€Kirshneróó,Ð   Ð948€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€App.€1997);€òòsee€also€Dailey€v.€Daileyóó,€635€S.W.2d€391,Ð  Ð395€(Tenn.€App.€1981).Ìò òà 4 àó óà Œ àThe€mother€argues€that€it€was€error€to€award€joint€custody€to€the€paternalÐ  Ðgrandparents,€because€that€relief€was€not€sought€in€the€fatherððs€petition.€€It€is€error€forÏa€trial€court€to€grant€relief€not€sought€in€the€pleadings,€and€in€determining€whether€aÏjudgment€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€pleadings,€the€pleadings€are€to€be€given€a€liberalÏconstruction€with€all€reasonable€intendments€in€favor€of€œupholding›€the€judgment.€ÏòòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€281€S.W.2d€492,€497€(Tenn.€1955)òò;€€John€J.€Heirigs€Constr.€Co.€v.Ð # ÐExide,óó€709€S.W.2d€604,€607€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€The€error€may€be€remedied€byÐ % Ðmodifying€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€conform€with€the€relief€requested€in€theÏpleadings.€€òòSee€Fidelity„Phenix€Fire€Ins.€Co.€v.€Jacksonóó,€181€Tenn.€453,€462„463,€181Ð )"" ÐS.W.2d€625,€629€(1944).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€fatherððs€petition€only€requested€that€he€be€awarded€custody€of€theÏchildren.€€The€mother€had€no€notice€that€custody€might€be€awarded€to€a€third€party,Ïthus€she€could€not€be€expected€to€offer€proof€on€the€appropriateness€of€that€possibility.€ÏAccordingly,€the€portion€of€the€judgment€awarding€joint€custody€to€the€grandparents€isÏoutside€the€scope€of€the€pleadings€and€is€reversed.€€However,€the€grant€of€custody€toÏthe€father€can€be€upheld,€œif€there€has€been€a›€material€change€in€circumstances.Ìà 4 àà Œ àBefore€reaching€the€dispositive€issue€of€custody,€it€is€appropriate€toÐ 922 Ðconsider€the€issues€raised€as€to€the€admissibility€of€evidence€and€procedure.€€At€trial,Ïthe€Trial€Judge€permitted€the€childððs€counselor€to€testify€as€to€what€the€child€had€toldÏthe€counselor€which€related€to€abuse.€€This€testimony€was€hearsay.€€òòSee€óóTenn.R.Evid.Ð   Ð803(c).€€The€father€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€properly€allowed€in€the€hearsayÏtestimony€of€the€child€because€the€statement€about€marijuana€use€in€the€motherððsÏhome€pertains€to€allegations€of€abuse€and€neglect,€and€œhe€relies€on›€Rule€803(25).€€TheÏRule€provides:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(25)€provides€for€the€following€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule:Ð Œ (#Œ (# Ðà8 4 àò òÐ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àChildrenððs€Statementsó ó.€€Unless€the€circumstances€indicate€lack€ofÐ TL Ðtrustworthiness,€statements€about€abuse€or€neglect€made€by€a€childÏalleged€to€be€the€victim€of€physical,€sexual,€or€psychological€abuse€orÏneglect,€offered€in€a€civil€action€concerning€issues€of€dependency€andÏneglect€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„102(b)(10),€issues€concerning€severeÏchild€abuse€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„102(b)(19),€or€issues€concerningÏtermination€of€parental€rights€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„147(d).€Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓThe€Rule€is€limited€to€civil€actions€concerning€issues€of€dependency€and€neglect,Ïsevere€child€abuse,€or€termination€of€parental€rights.€€The€statutes€cited€in€the€RuleÏdeal€with€placing€children€in€protective€custody.€€The€Rule€œdoes›€œnot›€œencompass›€aÏcustody€proceeding,€unless€parental€custody€is€being€terminated€or€limited€by€the€stateÏbecause€of€neglect€or€severe€child€abuse.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€the€Trial€Court€admitted€theseÐ ”*Œ## Ðhearsay€statements,€the€error€is€harmless€because€the€Trial€Court€did€not€consider€thatÏtestimony€in€its€decision.€€The€Court€expressly€stated€about€the€marijuana€use,€ð ðI€makeÏno€finding€about€that€whatsoever€because€I€consider€those€hearsay€statements.€€And€IÐ ¬0¤)) Ðdo€not€hold€that€against€the€mother€or€any€other€party.ðð€€The€Court€further€said,€ð ðtheÏtestimony€of€the€guidance€counselor€established€that€the€partyððs€son€was€emotionallyÏdisturbed€by€the€relationship€between€the€parents€and€by€his€inability€to€see€his€father.€ÏThat€was€the€only€thing€in€her€testimony€that€was€really€relevant.ðð€Ìà 4 àà Œ àNext,€it€is€charged€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€denying€the€mother€theÏopportunity€to€review€the€notes€of€a€witness€to€assist€œher€counsel›€in€cross„examinationÏof€that€witness.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€counselor€who€testified€had€brought€her€notes€with€her,€and€theÏTrial€Judge€allowed€the€motherððs€counsel€to€examine€the€notes,€but€did€not€allow€theÏmother€to€examine€the€notes€during€the€trial.€€The€mother€argues€that€the€notes€were€ofÏthe€counselorððs€session€with€the€son,€and€that€the€mother€may€have€been€able€to€makeÏsense€of€€the€notes€and€therefore€could€assist€her€counsel€in€framing€questions€forÏcross„examination.€€The€mother€unquestionably€could€have€had€access€to€these€notesÏduring€pre„trial€discovery.€€She€was€aware€that€the€witness€had€been€counseling€theÏson,€and€could€be€a€witness€at€trial.€€However,€there€was€œno›€pre„trial€discovery€of€thisÏwitness.€€The€provision€in€the€Rules€of€Evidence€which€allows€for€limited€discoveryÏduring€trial€is€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612,€which€provides:€ð ðIf€a€witness€uses€a€writing€whileÏtestifying€to€refresh€memory€for€the€purpose€of€testifying,€an€adverse€party€is€entitledÏto€inspect€it,€to€cross„examine€the€witness€thereon,€and€to€introduce€in€evidence€thoseÏportions€which€relate€to€the€testimony€of€the€witness.ðð€€This€rule€would€allow€anÏadverse€party,€œnot›€just€the€partyððs€counsel,€to€examine€such€a€document,€but€the€ruleÏdoes€not€apply€to€these€circumstances.€€The€Rule€applies€when€a€writing€is€used€toÏrefresh€a€witnessððs€recollection€while€that€witness€is€testifying.€€The€advisoryÏcomments€to€the€rule€state,€ð ðOnly€if€a€witnessððs€memory€requires€refreshing€should€aÏwriting€be€used€by€the€witness.€€The€direct€examiner€should€lay€a€foundation€forÐ È7À00 Ðnecessity,€show€the€witness€the€writing,€take€back€the€writing,€and€ask€the€witness€toÏtestify€from€refreshed€memory.ðð€€That€did€not€occur€in€this€case.€€The€notes€were€notÏused€to€refresh€the€counselorððs€recollection.€€She€had€her€notes€with€her,€but€they€wereÏnot€used€during€her€testimony.€€She€testified€that€she€had€used€the€notes€to€prepare€aÏreport.€€Her€testimony€was€about€the€report,€and€the€mother€did€have€a€copy€of€theÏreport.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€Trial€judges€action.€Ì€à 4 àà Œ àNext,€the€mother€insists€the€Trial€Judge€erred€in€refusing€to€considerÐ 80  Ðevidence€of€the€husbandððs€œphysical›€œabuse€during€their€marriageñ„ññƒñ0ñƒññ„ñ.›€œñ…ñ€In€the€originalÏcustody€determination€in€this€case,€the€Court€was€required€to€make€a€custodyÏdetermination€based€upon€the€best€interests€of€the€minor€child.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106,Ïand€the€Court€was€required€to€determine€the€best€interests€of€the€child€by€goingÏthrough€a€comparative€fitness€analysis.€€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.Ð (  Ð1983).€€The€factors€to€consider€are€set€out€in€the€foregoing€Code€section,€and€factor€(8)Ïprovides:€€ð ðEvidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parent€orÏto€any€other€person.ððÌà 4 àà Œ àIn€a€modification€proceeding,€the€court€does€not€need€to€repeat€theÏcomparative€fitness€analysis.€€Instead,€it€must€find€a€ð ðmaterial€change€ofÏcircumstances€that€is€compelling€enough€to€warrant€the€dramatic€remedy€of€changedÏcustody.ðð€€òòMusselman€v.€Acuff,óó€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€ChangedÐ `X Ðcircumstances€includes€ð ðany€material€change€of€circumstances€affecting€the€welfare€ofÏthe€child,€including€new€factors€or€changed€conditions€which€could€not€be€anticipatedÏby€the€custody€order.ðð€€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.€App.€1996).ñ…ñ›Ìà 4 àà Œ àIt€is€clear€from€the€Judgeððs€comment€that€the€violence€of€the€fatherÏtoward€the€mother€was€a€factor€the€court€considered€in€the€original€custodyÏdetermination,€but€the€issue€in€the€modification€proceeding€was€whether€there€wereÏchanged€circumstances,€and€not€a€retrial€of€the€divorce€case.€€There€was€no€evidenceÏoffered€that€the€father€had€abused€the€children€or€any€other€person€following€theÏdivorce,€but€the€evidence€reveals€that€the€mother€entered€into€another€abusiveÏmarriage€and€that€she€exposed€the€children€to€a€variety€of€people€with€criminalÏbackgrounds.Ìà 4 àà Œ àœñ†ñFinally,›€iñ†ññ‡ñIñ‡ñn›€a€modification€proceeding,€the€Court€does€not€need€to€repeat€theÏcomparative€fitness€analysis.€€Instead,€it€must€find€a€ð ðmaterial€change€ofÏcircumstances€that€is€compelling€enough€to€warrant€the€dramatic€remedy€of€changedÏcustody.ðð€€òòMusselman€v.€Acuff,€óó826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991);€ð ðChangedÐ  -˜&& Ðcircumstancesðð€includes€ð ðany€material€change€of€circumstances€affecting€the€welfareÏof€the€child,€including€new€factors€or€changed€conditions€which€could€not€beÏanticipated€by€the€custody€order.ððòòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.Ð ¸3°,, ÐApp.€1996).€€The€primary€consideration€in€both€the€original€custody€award€and€in€aÏmodification€of€the€custody€award€is€to€do€what€is€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child.€Ð È7À00 ÐòòNichols€v.€Nichols,€óó792€S.W.2d€713,€716€(Tenn.€1990);òò€€€€Woodard€v.€Woodardóó,€783Ð  ÐS.W.2d€188,€190€(Tenn.€App.,€1989).€€The€father€offered€evidence€on€factors€set€forthÏin€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„106(8)„(9),€which€are:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€theÏother€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€andÐ Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðà8 4 àÐ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€orÏfrequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€personððs€interactions€with€theÏchild.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓ3ÓThe€Trial€Judge€concluded€the€evidence€was€compelling€enough€to€warrant€a€changeÏof€custody,€and€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€hisÏdetermination.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€In€this€regard€the€Trial€Court€observed:Ìà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àÓÓItððs€also€very€clear€to€the€Court€that€the€mother€allowed€an€incrediblyÏdangerous€group€of€people€to€go€in€and€out€of€her€house.€€This€is€aÏcompletely€unacceptable€environment.€€Itððs€poor€judgment€on€her€part.€ÏIt€shows€no€insight€whatsoever.€€I€mean,€it€was€a€list€of€just€every€kindÏof€crime€you€could€think€of€that€would€be€harmful€to€children€that€wasÏassociated€with€some€of€the€people€coming€through€your€home.€€Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àI€could€accept€that€maybe€on€„€„€in€the€case€of€this€person€or€that€personÏyou€might€not€have€known€everything.€€But€I€think€you€knew€a€greatÏdeal€about€some€of€these€people.€€I€find€that€any€denial€that€you€did€notÏknow€about€their€conduct€was€just€not€believable.€€I€just€have€never€seenÏthat€many€people€with€those€kinds€of€records€going€through€a€house.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓ5Óà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€found€material€changes€in€circumstances€due€to€theÏmotherððs€assocation,€and€further€found€those€circumstances€placed€the€children€inÏdanger€of€physical€and€emotional€harm.€€We€concur€in€these€findings.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWhile€the€Trial€Court€awarded€custody€to€the€father,€it€also€providedÏthat€the€children€were€not€to€be€left€alone€with€Kathy€Adams€until€an€appropriateÏinvestigation€was€completed€and€the€matter€revisited,€and€further€the€children€were€notÏstay€the€night€with€the€father€when€he€and€Adams€were€staying€together€in€the€sameÏhousehold.€€We€uphold€that€portion€of€the€decree€awarding€custody€of€the€children€toÏthe€father,€with€the€œñˆñsame€ñˆñlimitations›€placed€on€that€custody€by€the€Trial€Court.Ð È7À00 Ðà 4 àà Œ àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€in€part,€as€modified,€andÏremand€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€one„half€to€each€party.ÌÓÓÌà 4 àà Œ àÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ (  Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð ,$  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì