ÿWPCê …# VUNa %¯ 0Gµw@ü4< P _ U:g 0J¡ 0Të 0^? 0h 0r 0|w 0†ó 0y 1u 0d~ U>â U6 B)VDC AM BU*,+Vv~vÓÿ D3Ò 0@ AOEÆ” 0DZ D/ž B͘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(~q$¡¡Ô€ XùÛXXXÔ (/)/*/+/,/-/.]e/0D1Ó€R¦"3|x<<Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpi2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òMay€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ŒñXXdðdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€$'#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSUSAN€HALL€CREECH,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9612„CH„00388Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJON€KINDRED€HALL,€SR.,€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌSELMA€CASH€œPATY›€and€PAMELA€R.€œO'DWYER›,€œPaty›,€œRymer›€&€œUlin›,€P.C.,ÏChattanooga,€for€appellant.ÌÌÌDAVID€HAINES€œROTROFF›,€Chattanooga,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,€Susan€Hall€Creech,€(mother)€has€appealedÏfrom€an€order€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€Hamilton€County€modifying€aÏdivorce€judgment€by€changing€custody€of€the€parties'€minor€son,ÏJon€Kindred€Hall€Jr.,€to€the€appellant,€Jon€Kindred€Hall€Sr.,Ï(father).ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€divorced€in€February,€1991.€€Full€custody€ofÏthe€parties'€only€child€was€awarded€to€the€mother.€€In€1996,€afterÏthe€mother€moved€from€Tennessee€to€Mississippi,€the€father€filedÏthis€action€to€modify€the€judgment.€€A€restraining€order€wasÏissued€preventing€the€mother€from€removing€the€child€from€HamiltonÏCounty,€and€an€ex€parte€order€was€issued€awarding€temporaryÏcustody€to€the€father.€€The€restraining€order€was€subsequentlyÏmodified€to€permit€the€mother€to€take€the€child€to€Mississippi€forÏscheduled€visitation.€€Trial€was€held€on€July€19,€1996.€€FinalÏjudgment€was€entered€on€August€5,€1996,€changing€permanent€custodyÍfrom€the€mother€to€the€father,€and€establishing€visitation€andÏchild€support.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà àThe€mother€submits€one€issue€for€our€consideration,€which€weÏsummarize€as€follows:€Whether€the€trial€court€was€in€error€inÏchanging€custody€from€the€mother€to€the€father.€€For€the€reasonsÏset€forth€herein,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€first€note€that€our€review€of€the€trial€court's€judgmentÏis€guided€by€Rule€13(d),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€Ï"Unless€otherwise€required€by€statute,€review€of€findings€of€factÏby€the€trial€court€in€civil€actions€shall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise."€€òòAdams€v.€Dean€Roofing€Coóó.,€715€S.W.2d€341Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àIn€child€custody€cases,€it€is€well„settled€that€where€aÏdecree€has€been€entered€awarding€custody€of€the€children,€thatÏdecree€is€res€judicata€and€is€conclusive€in€a€subsequentÍapplication€to€change€custody€unless€some€new€fact€has€occurredÏwhich€has€altered€the€circumstances€in€a€material€way€to€make€theÏwelfare€of€the€child€require€a€change€in€custody.€€òòGriffin€v.ÏStoneóó,€834€S.W.2d€300€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(citations€omitted).€ÏThe€paramount€consideration€in€a€custody€proceeding€is€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child.€€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1993).€€The€trial€judge€in€a€modification€proceeding€must€find€aÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances€which€is€compelling€enough€toÏwarrant€a€change€in€custody.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a);ÏòòWoodard€v.€Woodardóó,€783€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€Ï"Changed€circumstances"€includes€any€material€change€ofÏcircumstances€affecting€the€welfare€of€the€child€including€newÏfacts€or€changed€conditions€which€could€not€be€anticipated€by€theÏformer€decree.€€òòHicks€v.€Hicksóó,€26€Tenn.€App.€641,€176€S.W.2d€371Ï(1943).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€child€when€living€inÏMississippi€was€subject€to€"essentially€unsupervised"€care€duringÏthe€day,€while€his€mother€and€her€new€husband€worked.€€The€childÏtestified€that€during€the€day€while€in€Mississippi,€he€staysÍeither€at€his€mother's€house€alone,€or€visits€a€neighbor's€house.€ÏThe€Creeches€live€next€door€to€Mr.€Creech's€aunt,€who€Mrs.€CreechÏclaims€is€responsible€for€supervising€the€child€while€she€is€atÏwork.€€Mrs.€Creech€testified€that€the€child€has€the€freedom€toÏstay€with€Mr.€Creech's€aunt,€or€to€go€home€as€he€chooses.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€this€arrangement€to€be€unacceptable,€and€weÏagree.€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€children,€nine€years€of€age,€requireÏsupervision.€€While€some€amount€of€independence€can€be€beneficialÏto€a€child,€some€responsible€party€needs€to€be€aware€of€theÏchild's€whereabouts€and€activities.€€The€freedom€to€come€and€go€asÏhe€chooses,€is€not€an€appropriate€situation€for€a€child€of€nineÏyears€of€age.€€Mrs.€Creech€argues€in€her€brief€that€the€auntÏchecks€on€the€child€"every€five€minutes."€€However,€we€find€thisÏargument€unpersuasive€and€somewhat€incredible.€€The€aunt€is€alsoÏresponsible€for€watching€other€children.€€Even€if€we€were€toÏaccept€Mrs.€Creech's€argument,€it€would€appear€that€the€aunt€isÏleaving€the€other€children€under€her€care€(which€are€younger€thanÍthis€child)€to€check€on€this€child.€€We€feel€œthat›€this€action€is,Ïin€and€of€itself,€irresponsible.ÌÌà àEssentially,€the€œCreeches›€were€paying€the€aunt€for€day€careÏservices.€€However,€a€day€care€provider€that€allows€a€child€toÏroam€freely€between€her€home€and€an€empty€house€next€door€does€notÏappear€to€be€looking€to€the€best€interests€of€the€child.€€We€areÏalso€troubled,€as€was€the€trial€court,€by€the€possibility€that€theÏchild,€who€suffers€with€asthma,€could€have€an€asthma€attack€whileÏnot€being€supervised€and€would,€therefore,€not€receive€the€properÏmedical€attention€when€required.ÌÌà àCounsel€for€the€mother€argues€in€her€brief€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€basing€its€decision€on€the€lack€of€appropriateÏsupervision€since€this€evidence€was€brought€to€the€court'sÏattention€by€the€testimony€of€the€child,€and€that€it€would€haveÏbeen€objected€to€had€the€attorneys€been€present€during€the€child'sÏtestimony.€€The€record€reveals,€however,€that€the€attorneys€forÏboth€parties€were€given€the€opportunity€to€be€present€during€theÏchild's€testimony,€and€counsel€for€the€mother€actually€suggestedÍthe€child€meet€with€the€judge€and€court€reporter€only.€€She€willÏnot€now€be€heard€to€complain.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€court's€decision.€€We€concur€in€the€court's€finding€thatÏthere€was€a€substantial€change€in€circumstances,€and€affirm€theÏcourt's€judgment.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€ä–XXdéXXdé7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSUSAN€HALL€CREECH,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9612„CH„00388Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJON€KINDRED€HALL,€SR.,€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€thereÏwas€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€court's€decision.€€We€concur€in€the€court's€finding€thatÏthere€was€a€substantial€change€in€circumstances,€and€affirm€theÏcourt's€judgment.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM