ÿWPC\ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íá 0Lðw@< 0l| 0Dè U :, 0Jf &° 0TÖ 0^* 0hˆ 0rð 0|b 0†Þ 0d 1uô 0di BÍ AMê7dH 0L¬B)øDC! AMdU*± D3Ûv~vÓŒ 0X_ AO·Æ 0DÌ D/ B?˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|xÎ> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à »D¼D½D¾¿ÀÂDÃÄÓ€Î((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôprecedential2" 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 d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌNovember€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€ôÔCourt€of€Appeals€Rule€10(b):ÌÓ  Óà8 àThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€theÏcase,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€courtÏby€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€noÏprecedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion,Ïit€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€beÏpublished,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.€Ì>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€î\XdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌRICKY€LEE€FARLEY,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9606„CH„00285Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àCheatham€ChanceryÌDONNA€ELAINE€FARLEY,à à)à àNo.€7485ÌœßR€!"&A1-j|ñ(` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€CHEATHAM€COUNTYÌÌAT€ASHLAND€CITY,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€WALLACE,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€XÔTHOMAS€J.€DRAKE,€JR.Ì305€Fourteenth€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37203Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌWM.€G.€WILKINSONÌStinnett€&€WilkinsonÌ106€Frey€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€125ÌAshland€City,€Tennessee€37015Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓÔ€°ÔMEMORANDUM€OPINIONóó× ƒ# ××  ×ÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#Óà àÔ€XÔThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiff€Ricky€Lee€Farley€("father"),Ïfrom€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€which€changed€custody€ofÏhis€two€minor€children€from€him€to€their€mother,€Donna€ElaineÏFarley,€defendant/appellee€("mother").ÌÌà àThe€children's€parents€were€divorced€on€21€December€1993€byÏa€final€decree€entered€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Cheatham€County.€ÏThe€decree€incorporated€the€parties'€Marital€Dissolution€AgreementÏ("MDA")€and€awarded€the€father€custody€of€the€parties'€two€minorÏchildren,€Calvin€Lee€born€1€February€1989€and€Caleb€Adam€Lee€bornÍ8€December€1991.€€The€MDA€as€incorporated€by€the€court€granted€theÏmother€visitation€every€weekend.€€ÌÌà àSubsequently,€the€father€filed€a€petition€to€modify€theÏfinal€decree.€€He€sought€an€increase€in€child€support€and€paymentÏof€insurance€coverage€for€the€children.€€The€mother€filed€anÏanswer€and€counter„complaint€in€which€she€denied€the€father€wasÏentitled€to€any€relief€and€alleged€that€she€was€entitled€to€aÏchange€of€custody€because€there€had€been€a€change€of€circumstancesÏsince€the€entry€of€the€divorce€decree.ÌÌà àThe€mother€alleged€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€theÏchildren€that€the€court€award€her€custody€because€the€father€wasÏnot€a€fit€and€proper€person€to€have€custody.€€She€did€not€list€anyÏspecific€acts€but€alleged€that€the€father's€care€of€the€childrenÏwas€detrimental€to€their€well€being.€€She€also€alleged€she€wasÏbetter€suited€to€care€for€the€children€because€she€was€regularlyÏemployed,€had€suitable€housing€for€the€children,€and€was€betterÏequipped€to€care€for€their€health,€safety,€and€morals.ÌÌà àThe€matter€was€heard€on€4€December€1994.€€The€evidence€atÏtrial€showed€that€one€of€the€children€made€a€prank€call€to€911Ïcausing€the€police€to€come€to€the€father's€home;€that€the€youngerÏchild,€Caleb,€played€with€matches€while€unsupervised€and€that€heÏcut€his€lip€while€experimenting€with€his€father's€shavingÏequipment.€€The€evidence€also€showed€that€the€father€refused€toÍallow€the€older€child,€Calvin,€to€participate€in€a€school€play,Ïand€that€the€father€failed€to€seek€treatment€for€a€strep€throatÏinfection€that€Calvin€had€for€two€days.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€evidence€showed€that€the€father€was€a€veryÏcontrolling€person€and€that€he€had€harassed€the€mother€and€yelledÏat€her€in€the€presence€of€the€children.€€Moreover,€there€wasÏevidence€that€the€father€had€women€spend€the€night€with€him€whileÏthe€children€were€in€his€home€and€that€the€father€occasionallyÏspent€the€night€with€the€children€in€other€women's€homes.ÌÌà àCalvin,€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€was€enrolled€in€the€firstÏgrade.€€His€report€card€showed€that€he€made€satisfactory€gradesÏand€indicated€two€absences€and€no€days€tardy€while€inÏkindergarten.€€The€father€testified€that€the€children'sÏenvironment€in€day€to€day€activities€had€not€changed€since€theÏdivorce.€€Regarding€the€children's€improper€conduct,€the€fatherÏtestified€that€he€had€discussed€their€actions€with€them€after€eachÏoccurrence€and€explained€the€reasons€why€they€should€not€have€doneÏwhat€they€did.€€He€also€testified€that€he€and€the€mother€did€haveÏarguments€and€that€he€had€spent€the€night€with€women€in€theÏchildren's€presence€but€that€no€such€incidents€had€occurred€sinceÏJune€1995.ÌÌà àOn€22€January€1996,€the€court€dismissed€the€originalÏpetition€and€awarded€the€mother€custody.€€The€court€also€setÍalternating€weekend€and€holiday€visitation€and€ordered€the€fatherÏto€pay€the€mother€child€support€of€$540.00€per€month.€€A€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€was€filed€on€the€grounds€that€the€mother€did€notÏprove€the€father€unfit.€€The€father€additionally€alleged€that€theÏmother€neglected€to€schedule€doctors'€appointments€for€theÏchildren.€€Following€a€hearing€on€the€petition€to€alter€or€amend,Ïthe€court€determined€that€custody€would€remain€with€the€mother€butÏamended€the€visitation€schedule€to€allow€the€father€to€visit€withÏthe€children€on€his€days€off€from€work.€€In€making€hisÏdetermination,€the€judge€stated€as€follows:€€ÓÓà8 àÌÌà8 àIn€œreview›€of€this€case,€there€was€plenty€here€toÏchange€the€custody.€€Mr.€Farley€had€females,€maybeÏa€couple€of€them,€going€to€and€from€his€house,Ïspending€the€night€with€the€children€there,€havingÏthem€bring€their€own€children€to€his€house.€€It'sÏjust€an€environment€that€I€thought€was€not€proper.ÌÓ&` Ü` ä Òœ ’X&Óà8 à€€€€€But€even€more€than€that€in€this€case€.€.€.€ÏMr.€Farley€was€an€overbearing€œhusband.›€.€.€.€Ï[T]hat's€the€impression€I€got€out€of€this€case.€ÏMr.€Farley€has€always€been€in€charge,€he's€going€toÏbe€in€charge.€€You€know,€you€speak€when€you'reÏspoken€to€and€you€do€as€I€say€œso.›€.€.€.Ìà8 àà àAnd€in€this€case,€I€think€Mrs.€Farley€will€beÏmuch€more€cooperative€with€Mr.€Farley€than€heÏwould,€the€other€way€around.€€And€that€had€aÏbearing€on€this€Court€also.€€Mr.€Farley€would€do€itÏif€it's€all€right€with€him.€€I€really€believe€Mrs.ÏFarley€will€do€it€because€she€is€thinking€what's€inÏthe€best€interest€of€the€children.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€appeal,€the€father€presents€only€one€issue:€€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€changing€the€custody€of€the€parties'€minorÏchildren€from€the€father€to€the€mother.ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€review€in€custody€cases€is€governed€byÍTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d)€which€provides€thatÏthis€court€shall€review€the€record€de€novo€with€a€presumption€ofÏthe€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€findings€of€facts.€€UnlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirmÏabsent€error€of€law.€€ò òòòIn€re€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€895€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995).€€As€this€court€has€stated,€it€gives€great€weight€toÏthe€decisions€of€the€trial€court€"because€the€judge€saw€theÏwitness€face€to€face€and€heard€them€testify."€€ò òòòRiddick€v.ÏRiddickó óóó,€497€S.W.2d€740,€742€(Tenn.€App.€1973).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€exercises€continuing€control€over€custodyÏof€a€minor€child€after€the€divorce€decree€has€otherwise€becomeÏfinal.€€€ò òòòSmith€v.€Haaseó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€aÏmatter€such€as€œthis,›€regarding€the€custody€and€support€of€minorÏchildren,€the€trial€court€is€vested€with€wide€discretion.€€AsÏsuch,€this€court,€on€appeal,€will€not€interfere€with€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€thisÏdiscretion.€€ò òòòMarmino€v.€Marminoó óóó,€238€S.W.2d€105,€107€(Tenn.€App.Ï1950)(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€paramount€consideration€in€awarding€custody€of€a€minorÏchild€is€the€best€interest€and€welfare€of€the€child.€€ò òòòLuke€v.ÏLukeó óóó,€651€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1983);€ò òòòRowles€v.€Reynoldsó óóó,€196ÏS.W.2d€76,€79€(Tenn.€App.€1946).€€This€court€has€characterized€theÏcustody€determination€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àTo€arrive€at€the€point€of€deciding€with€whom€toÍplace€a€child€in€preparation€for€a€caring€andÏproductive€adult€life€requires€consideration€ofÏmany€relevant€factors,€including€but€certainly€notÏlimited€to€the€age,€habits,€mental€and€emotionalÏmake„up€of€the€child€and€those€parties€competingÏfor€custody;€the€education€and€experience€of€thoseÏseeking€to€raise€the€child;€their€character€andÏpropensities€as€evidenced€by€their€past€conduct;Ïthe€financial€and€physical€circumstances€availableÏin€the€home€of€each€party€seeking€custody€and€theÏspecial€requirements€of€the€child;€the€availabilityÏand€extent€of€third„party€support;€the€associationsÏand€influences€to€which€the€child€is€most€likely€toÏbe€exposed€in€the€alternatives€afforded,€bothÏpositive€and€negative;€and€where€is€the€greaterÏlikelihood€of€an€environment€for€the€child€of€love,Ïwarmth,€stability,€support,€consistency,€care€andÏconcern,€and€physical€and€spiritual€nurture.ÌÌò òòòÓÓBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€This€courtÏhas€recognized€that,€œ"[f]itness›€for€custodial€responsibilities€isÏlargely€a€comparative€œmatter.›€.€.€.€€Necessarily,€therefore,€theÏcourts€must€determine€which€of€two€or€more€available€custodians€isÏmore€or€less€fit€than€œothers."›€€ò òòòEdwards€v.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.€2dÏ283,€290„91€(Tenn.€App.€œ1973),€quoted€in›€ò òòòKoch€v.€Kochó óóó,€874€S.W.2dÏ571,€575€(Tenn.€App.€œ1993).›€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€theÏmother€is€unfit€to€have€custody.€€On€the€other€œhand,›€evidenceÏshowed€that€the€husband€not€only€engaged€in€behavior€harmful€toÏthe€children,€but€that€he€possessed€certain€characteristicsÏaffecting€his€ability€to€cooperate€with€the€mother€for€theÏchildren's€best€Ìinterest.€€In€light€of€a€comparative€fitness€analysis,€we€concludeÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€theÍtrial€court€that€the€change€of€custody€to€the€mother€is€in€theÏbest€interest€of€these€children.€ÌÌœ›à àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€inÏall€respects,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏplaintiff/appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€œPRESIDING€JUDGE,ÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ