WPC% # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% D3 BU> 0@U 6WB)DC AMU*F p|8"v~v_ AO2$$ 0DG% D/% B%HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular EDDӀڃ"3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 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++++'dxd d<  9p`(&Times New Roman("$    <  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd-0C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#,  22   YYY FILED2X July22,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.2AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#,   $       ..T.C.A.366106providesasfollows: 8 Inasuitforannulment,divorce,separatemaintenance,orinanyotherproceedingrequiringthecourttomakeacustodydeterminationregardingaminorchild,suchdeterminationshallbemadeuponthebasisofthebestinterestofthechild.Thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactorsincludingthefollowingwhereapplicable: 8  (1)Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsandchild; 8  (2)Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing,medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparenthasbeentheprimarycaregiver; 8  (3)Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslifeandthelengthoftimethechildhaslivedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment; 8  (4)Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents; 8  (5)Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents; 8  (6)Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild; 8  (7)Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageorolder.Thecourtmayhearthepreferenceofayoungerchilduponrequest.Thepreferencesofolderchildrenshouldnormallybegivengreaterweightthanthoseofyoungerchildren; 8  (8)Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheotherparentortoanyotherperson;and 8  (9)Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinorfrequentsthehomeofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththechild.  !#d#,   $       ..Atotherplacesintherecord,thechildsmiddlenameisspelled Dwain. } !#d#,   $       ..Motherwasrequiredtosellthemaritalresidencebythetermsofthemaritaldissolutionagreement.Thatdocumentprovidesthat [Mother]agreestoimmediatelyplacethehomeforsale.  !#d#,   $       ..Thequestionwas: InJuly,1994whenyousignedthemaritaldissolutionagreementPtPtHH(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 ! . ,  P \RA'\.\RA'\7XXdd7  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R130A1-j|`  `@RߛDEBRAANNEBERHART,   )C/ANO.03A019612CV00374      )  RespondentAppellee,)      )      )      )v.      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )      )WILLIAMDANIELEBERHART,  )      )HONORABLEROBERTM.SUMMITT,  PetitionerAppellant.)JUDGEForAppellant      ForAppelleeLESLIEB.McWILLIAMS    ROBERTJ.BATSON,JR.Chattanooga,Tennessee    Chattanooga,Tennessee@ OPINION..XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.    Inthispostdivorcecase,WilliamDanielEberhart(Father)filedapetitionseekingcustodyofhisson,DanielD.Eberhart,age7.Heseekstomodifythepartiesjudgmentofdivorce,whichgrantedhisformerwife,DebraAnnEberhartϜ(Mother),solecustodyoftheirchild.Followingabenchtrial,thecourtdeniedFathersrequestanddismissedhispetition.Fatherappealed,raisingissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestions: 8 1.DoestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsrefusaltochangecustodyofthesubjectchildfromMothertoFather? 8 2.Comparativelyspeaking,isFatheramoreappropriatecustodianthanMother?̛ 8 3.DoesT.C.A.366106 4   כapplytoamodificationofcustodycase? 8 4.Didthetrialcourtimproperlysustaintheappelleesobjectionstocertainoftheappellantsquestionsonthegroundthatthequestionswereleadinginnature?Weaffirm.@ I  ThepartiesweredivorcedonJanuary26,1995.Inthejudgmentofdivorce,thetrialcourtapprovedandincorporated,byreference,thepartiesmaritaldissolutionagreement,executedbytheminJuly,1994.Thepartiesagreement awarded[Mother]thecustodyofthepartiesminorchild,DanielDewayne 5   כEberhart.  OnMarch19,1996,afewdaysshortof14monthsϜfollowingtheentryofthejudgmentofdivorce,Fatherfiledhispetitionseekingtochangecustody.Itwasandishiscontentionthatachangeofcustodyiswarrantedbecause(1)thechildisleftinthecareofhismaternalgrandfatherandothersforsubstantialperiodsoftime;(2)Motherisnotinvolvedinthe dailycareneedsofson;(3)Motherdoesnotprovideadequate,stablehousingforthechild;and(4)Motherisfinanciallyirresponsible.Fatheralsoreliesuponthefactthathespendsa  substantialamountoftimewithhissonandisinapositiontoaffordhimagood,stableenvironment.  Thetrialcourt,indenyingFathersrequestforchangeofcustody,foundthathehadfailedtocarryhisburdenofϜprovingasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstanceswarrantingachangeofcustody,notingthatthechildis anAllAmericankid,fineexample,sosomebodysdonesomethingright.  Ourreviewisdenovo;however,therecordcomestousaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness,whichwemusthonorunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsϜfindings.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P. UnionCarbideCorporationv.ϜHuddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarenotaffordedthesamedeference. Adamsv.DeanRoofingCo,Inc. ,715S.W.2d341,343(Tenn.App.1986).ϜFurthermore,atrialcourt, onanissuewhichhingesonwitnesscredibility,willnotbereversedunless,otherthantheoraltestimonyofthewitnesses,thereisfoundintherecordclear,concreteandconvincingevidencetothecontraryofthecourtsjudgment. TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp.v.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).@ II  Astheappellantcorrectlypointsout,ajudgmentororderawardingcustodyisresjudicataastothefactsinexistenceatthetimeoftheaward. Longv.Long ,488S.W.2d729,73132(Tenn.App.1972); Walkerv.Walker ,656S.W.2d11,16(Tenn.App.1983); Arnoldv.Gouvitsa, 735S.W.2d458,462(Tenn.App.1987). [S]uchdecreeshallremainwithinthecontrolofthecourtandbesubjecttosuchchangesormodificationastheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire.T.C.A.366101.  Itisclearthatnoteverychangeinthecircumstancesofthepartiesand/ortheirchildissufficienttowarrantamodificationofacustodydecree. [I]namodificationproceeding,thetrialjudgemustfindamaterialchangeincircumstancesthatiscompellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody. Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.App.1991).(Emphasisadded).  In Musselman, wequotedthefollowingfromadecisionoftheMississippiSupremeCourt: 8 Furthermore,itwasmanifesterrortoholdthatthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscasesupportedamodificationofthischildscustody.Itmustberecognizedthatuprootingachildfromhismother,schoolandenvironmentwasajolting,traumaticexperience.Itisonlythatbehaviorofaparentwhichclearlypositsorcausesdangertothementaloremotionalwellbeingofachild(whethersuchbehaviorisimmoralornot),whichissufficientbasistoseriouslyconsiderthedrasticlegalactionofchangingcustody.Thiscase[does]notremotelyreachanysuchproportion.Id.at923(quotingfrom Ballardv.Ballard ,434So.2d1357,1360(Miss.1983)).  Particularlyapropostothefactsofthiscaseisourstatementinthecaseof Wallv.Wall ,907S.W.2d,829(Tenn.App.1995): 8 Whentwopeoplejoininconceivingachild,theyselectthatchildsnaturalparents.Whentheydecidetoseparateanddivorce,theygiveuptheprivilegeofjointlyrearingthechild,andthedivorcecourtmustdecidewhichparentwillhaveprimaryresponsibilityforrearingthechild.ThisdecisionoftheCourtisnotchangeableexceptfor changeofcircumstanceswhichisdefinedasthatwhichrequiresachangetopreventsubstantialharmtothechild.Custodyisnotchangedforthewelfareorpleasureofeitherparentortopunisheitherparent,buttopreservethewelfareofthechild.Custodyisnotchangedbecauseoneparentisabletofurnishamorecommodiousorpleasantenvironmentthantheother,butwherecontinuationoftheadjudicatedcustodywillsubstantiallyharmthechild. Contrerasv.Ward ,Tenn.App.1991,831S.W.2d288.Id.at834.̜@ III  TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthefactsandcircumstancesrelieduponbyFatherdonotconstituteasufficientchangeinthecircumstancesofthepartiesandtheirchild towarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody.See Musselman ,826S.W.2dat922.Therearetwobasicreasonsforthis.First,muchofwhatFathercontendsare changedcircumstancesareactuallyfactsandconditionsthatexistedatthetimeofthedivorce.Motherslivingarrangementsisagoodexampleofthis.Shesoldtheformermaritalresidencepriortothedivorce. 6   ׀Whenthedivorcewasgranted,MotherandthepartieschildhadalreadytakenupresidenceinquarterswhichwouldlaterbeharshlycriticizedbyFatherasbeingtoocrowded.MotherschildcareneedsisstillanotherexampleofinformationthatwasknowntoFatheratthetimeofthedivorce.Motherwasthenworkingfulltime.Fatherhadtoknowthatheremploymentwould,bynecessity,requiretheinvolvementofothersinthecareofthechild.AllofthiswasapartofthefactualscenariothatexistedinJanuary,1995,whenthecourtdissolvedthepartiesmarriage.Bydefinition,aconditionthatexistedatthetimeofthedivorceandwasknowntoFatherorshouldhavebeenobvioustohimbecauseoffactsthatwereclearlyknowntohimatthattimecannotbeconsidered changedcircumstances.ItisobviousthattwoofFathersmaincomplaintscrampedquartersandtheinvolvementofthematernalgrandfatherwereverymuchapartofthefactualscenarioinexistencewhenthismarriagewasdissolved.  TheotherreasonthatFathercannotsuccessfulyrelyuponthecircumstancesofwhichhecomplainsisthatthereisnoproofthatthechildhasbeenharmedormightbeharmedbyMotherslivingarrangements,orthesignificantinvolvementofthematernalgrandfatherinhiscare.ThesamecanalsobesaidaboutFathersothercomplaintsanabsenceoftoyswherethechildisresidingwiththeMother,hermultipleabodes,andMothersallegedfinancialirresponsibility.ThereisnothingtoshowthatanyconductonthepartofMother clearlypositsorcausesdangertothementaloremotionalwellbeingof[her]child.See Musselman ,826S.W.2dat923.Clearly,thereisnoshowingof substantialharmtothechild.See Wall ,907S.W.2dat834.Onthecontrary,theproofshowsthatthechildisingoodhealth,isan excellentstudent,getsalongwellwithotherchildren,andisotherwiseaverynormalchildinallrespects.  ItisclearthatFatherverymuchregretsagreeingtotheawardofcustodytoMother.ItislikewiseclearthatFatherverymuchcaresforhissonandhascontinuedanexcellentϜrelationshipwithhim.Asthetrialcourtnoted, Idonthaveanyevidencethathesnotagoodman.ThereisnothingtosuggestthatFatherwouldnotbeapropercustodian;butasthe Musselman casepointsout,inamodificationcase,thetrialcourt neednotrepeatthecomparativefitnessanalysisthatisappropriateatthetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecree.Id.at922.  WeagreewiththeappellantthatT.C.A.366106isapplicabletoamodificationofcustodycasejustasitistoanoriginalawardofcustody;however,inamodificationcase,thestatutedoesnotcomeintoplayunlessanduntiltherehasbeenashowingofamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstancesasdescribedin Musselman .Untiltherequisitechangeofcircumstanceshasbeenshown,thecourtdoesnotmoveto acustodydetermination.SeeT.C.A.366106.Thereisnothinginourlawtosuggestthata changeofcircumstancesdeterminationisthesameasa custodydeterminationunderthestatute.WecertainlydonotinterpretT.C.A.366106tomeanthatinamodificationcase,acourtisfreetodoacomparativeanalysisofthepartiesfitnessascustodiansregardlessofwhetherthereisachangeofcircumstances. Musselman,Wall andothercasesteachotherwise.Thestatutedoesnotpurporttochangethiscaseauthority.  WefindthatthefirstthreeissuesraisedbyFatherdonotcompelareversalofthetrialcourtsorder.@ IV  FatheralsocomplainsthatthetrialjudgewasinerrorwhenhesustainedseveralevidentiaryobjectionsbyMotheronthegroundofleading.Wedonotfindthatanyofthechallengedquestionswereleadinginthecontextinwhichtheywereasked.SeeCohen,SheppeardandPaine,TennesseeLawofEvidence611.6(3ded.1995).Innoneofthequestionsatissuedoesthequestionersuggesttheanswertotheinquiry.Infact,oneoftheϜquestionshadnotbeencompletedwhentheobjectionwasmade. 7   כUptothatpoint,counselhadonlyposedapointofreference.Withrespecttotheothertwoquestions,thewitnessreceivednosuggestioninthequestionastohowheshouldanswerthequestion.ThecourtwasinerrorinsustainingMothersϜobjections;however,thiserrordoesnotprovideabasisforareversalofthejudgmentinthiscase.ThisisbecausetheϜchallengedquestionswereeitherrephrasedandansweredortheinformationsoughttobeelicitedwasplacedintherecordinsomeotherfashion.Inanyevent,thetrialcourtsrulingsdonotamountto error[s]involvingasubstantialright[that]moreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentorwouldresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocess.SeeRule36(b),T.R.A.P.Fathersfinalissueisfoundtobewithoutmerit.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhissurety.Thiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.      __________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.