ÿWPCa? þGá’‰Ù܉NÇH\f›&&Ã.TÌó»à¦io#ÿ¸g$Äìÿ4é“YÂwL´O½Œóñlœ 0L6˜<Ùu¼ÉwÂüaÆ’Z.T ûFcŽÌù°GùE‰°;D6“ÙõoèmòlŠ [¿ùàö„©Ÿ‡t—Ú*[rbF ( (TXà%|O¥K¼`ËØ€jÙ‘LžŸíù¿½hmuìªö‘ÑLmQ¯E>¾5v•Ĩ/K¸úʉM;Ü~k®!Z*+¡©ÙÊ&]E@Ed˜–jçLð|"½œßi/‰ÏÀ©å9 ÷3ê7]ÿT³×OÅ£N†sÙó¨ˆH3ÎÃ}Ç`4ªˆÍ<šZá¼¢ÊÊÐuþ!« jt"ÎîÉëèHÔcÅDjÁe¸T„Þp§¿ì®áÙÊêý³ Éšb?4õè|ŠÅ”™_™Rï>–ëÐL1aq~O$Ϧµc…QîòÑûïa<úv¼ü¿JâY÷$GuQt•³¤OG`6w£:y[È#Á´¾]Kû—1®X-_ ±þƒFëE)?µ´U«@e½„h?szsM„ñq|µ¹Ñ„ÃZh <¬f‡ ¤•‡žÄ\(C“r±cÝèaPÜIïj¹v±Pf‡JËd#!xURN™ %ç 0—íw„ 4ˆ œ « Å bÍ üÕ NÑ 0¿Ó ^ ’ ž m  U N· b : 0 G 0 DfffUNªªª¦ø 0³ž"Q³sU:& B`` 0³}}ê00nˆ"ˆ"ˆ"ˆ"ˆ"ˆ"ñ‰(‰(‰(‰(§z,z,z,z,†!2!2}§4§4@$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7 0³d;d;d;d;d;d;d; D5<< AL< D?Í< BG = AQS=Ƥ= 0³j> 0D?˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(o«=$¡¡Ô€Hø² FXXÔÔ€Ue€X FHø²ÔÔ€M·$LXUe€ÔÓ9Ó{Z='tttttt3|xwaiver- ù- €LURIEGOODALLGaskillNicholsKnightonMasengaleMassengaleAdelspergerScarbroughGilliamWoodardDantzlerBadenhopeVarleyContrerasRuyleGarrettMollishMcDanielKeichnerBarnhillLurieRogero Hass(—3_$««Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  ÝÔ d Ôoœ5'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- ù- 0Ñ#€ûÿ»ÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ(Ï(2õí$¤¤Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑÑà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular œÝ ƒb²ú"ÝÔ€HåJIXXÔÔ€UF<XIHåJÔÔ€MåJIXUF<ÔÓ9ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€MÊFLIMåJÔÔ€ÅILMÊFÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xu¶XÅIÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€21,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAçÔó ó(‹3²ú$©©Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  Ý Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ ©Ý ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡MœyLLM²$ÔÔ‡ô#aòLMœyÔIn€a€separate€argument,€€while€conceding€that€a€change€of€circumstances€was€demonstrated,€FatherÐ ° Ðsubmits€that€he€proved€the€changes€of€circumstances€alleged€in€his€petition,€but€that€Mother€failed€to€prove€theÐ ¤ô Ðchanges€of€circumstances€alleged€in€her€counter„€petition.€€He€argues,€without€supporting€authority,€that€this€isÐ qÁ ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€of€the€case€based€on€his€contention€that€only€the€party€proving€the€existence€of€a€materialÔ#†MœyLòô#a'#ÔÔ‡®°¬LMœyÔ€Ô#†MœyL¬®°p#ÔÔ‡ô#aòLMœyÔchange€ofÔ#†MœyLòô#a³#ÔÔ‡®°¬LMœyÔÐ >Ž ÐÔ#†MœyL¬®°þ#ÔÔ‡ô#aòLMœyÔcircumstances€can€prevail€in€the€resulting€comparative€fitness€analysis.€€€Without€commenting€on€FatherððsÐ W§ Ðcharacterization€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial,€we€wish€to€point€out€that€this€legal€theory€is€not€correct.€€AsÐ $ t Ðstated€above,€once€there€is€evidence€of€a€material€change€of€circumstances€in€the€record,€the€trial€court€must€weighÐ ñ A Ðthe€comparative€fitness€of€the€parties,€and€do€what€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€Ô#†ôìòòô#a#ÔÔ#†M²$LòôìU#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(‹3²ú$§§Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  Ý àÝ ƒ²ú)ÝÔ€HåJIXXÔÔ€UF<XIHåJÔÔ€MåJIXUF<ÔÓ9ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€®œw¯IMåJÔÑ @ Ñ dÝ ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôìòLM²$Ô36-6-106.€€Child€custody.--In€a€suit€for€annulment,€divorce,€separate€maintenance,€or€in€any€otherÐ ° Ðproceeding€requiring€the€court€to€make€a€custody€determination€regarding€a€minor€child,€such€determination€shallÐ œì Ðbe€made€upon€the€basis€of€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€The€court€shall€consider€all€relevant€factors€including€theÐ eµ Ðfollowing€where€applicable:Ð .~ ÐÌ(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€and€child;Ð À Ð(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,€medical€care,€education€and€otherÐ ‰ Ù Ðnecessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€been€the€primary€care€giver;Ð R ¢  ÐÓ 9Ó(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€and€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€aÐ ° Ðstable,€satisfactory€environment;Ð yÉ Ð(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ð B’ Ð(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ð  [ Ð(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð Ô$ Ð(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€€The€court€may€hearÐ í Ðthe€preference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferences€of€older€children€should€normallyÐ f ¶ Ðbe€given€greater€weight€than€those€of€younger€children;Ð /  Ð(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€Ð ø H ÐandÐ Á   Ð(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parentÐ Š Ú  Ðand€such€person's€interactions€with€the€child.Ð S £  ÐSee€footnote€9. ÷Ý ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔTo€the€extent€that€Fatherððs€argument€regarding€the€burden€of€proving€change€of€circumstances€couldÐ ° Ðbe€interpreted€as€an€argument€that€the€court€found€the€incorrect€change€of€circumstances,€Father€has€waived€thatÐ œì Ðargument.€At€both€the€end€of€the€January€hearing€and€the€beginning€of€the€May€hearing,€the€court€announced€itsÐ eµ Ðfinding.€In€a€pleading€filed€May€2,€1998,€Father€stated€that€on€January€20,€the€court€had€found€that€there€existedÐ .~ Ða€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€in€that€the€co„parenting€arrangements€were€no€longer€working.€Ð ÷G ÐFurther,€at€the€May€hearing€the€court€stated:€ð ðSo€the€Court€has€found€a€substantial€and€material€change€ofÐ À Ðcircumstances.€€So€what€we€want€to€do€today€would€be€examining€the€factors€that€go€into€whatððs€in€the€best€interestÐ ‰ Ù Ðof€the€minor€children,€as€well€as€custody,€visitation,€and€support€issues.€€So€weððre€pretty€much€limited€to€thoseÐ R ¢ Ðissues€unless€the€attorneys€identify€other€issues€that€we€are€to€hear€today.€€Any€other€issues€other€than€those?ðð€BothÐ  k Ðcounsel€responded€negatively. çÝ ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔThe€written€order€entered€January€29€states€that€the€father€is€awarded€temporary€custody.€€However,Ð ° Ðthe€courtððs€comments€from€the€bench€at€the€close€of€the€hearing€are€consistent€with€the€courtððs€May€7€clarificationÐ œì Ðof€that€January€29€order€wherein€the€court€set€aside€that€portion€of€the€earlier€order€which€awarded€temporaryÐ eµ Ðcustody€to€the€father.€€TheÔ‡®×¬òôìÔ€Ô#†ôìò¬®×Ê#ÔÔ‡éŽöéòôìÔcourt€stated€it€had€never€awarded€temporary€custody,€but€merely€extended€the€currentÐ .~ Ðsituation€pending€consideration€of€all€factors.Ô#†ôìòééŽö #Ô Ý ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔFather€testified€that€after€the€January€hearing€he€had€called€Dr.€Littleððs€office€about€their€procedure€andÐ ° Ðwas€informed€that€Dr.€Little€would€meet€with€both€parents€at€the€same€time.€€Father€was€concerned€that€MotherÐ œì Ðwould€be€uncomfortable€meeting€with€him,€and€asked,€without€consulting€Mother,€if€it€was€possible€to€meetÐ eµ Ðindividually€with€the€parents.€€He€testified€the€psychologistððs€office€called€back€and€canceled€the€appointment.Ð .~ ÐAfter€the€final€hearing,€the€court€made€a€specific€finding€that€Fatherððs€reasons€for€not€keeping€the€appointment€asÐ ÷G Ðordered€were€not€credible.€€The€court€found€that€Father€brought€up€the€appointment€in€his€January€testimony,Ð À Ðstating€his€concern€was€for€the€welfare€of€the€child.€€The€court€found€that€Father€had€a€desire€to€be€controlling€soÐ ‰ Ù Ðhe€did€not€take€the€child€to€the€psychologist€as€ordered.€€The€court€specifically€found€that€Fatherððs€telephone€callÐ R ¢ Ðto€the€psychologistððs€office€caused€the€cancellation€of€the€appointment. |Ý ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔHe€testified€that€the€taping€of€the€childrenððs€conversations€resulted€from€his€misunderstanding€of€hisÐ ° Ðattorneyððs€instructions.€Father€stopped€taping€the€conversations€between€Mother€and€children€after€being€soÐ œì Ðinstructed€by€his€lawyer,€and€no€recorded€conversations€were€admitted€into€evidence. sÝ ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔAt€the€close€of€the€January€hearing,€the€court€stated€it€did€not€give€a€great€deal€of€weight€to€theÐ ° Ðtestimony€concerning€actions€of€the€motherððs€second€husband€because€those€things€happened€in€the€past€and€theÐ œì Ðfather€had€not€come€forward€at€that€time€and€alleged€a€change€of€circumstances. 6Ý ƒ1$ÝÔ€HîªFXXÔÔ€Uy¨XFHîªÔÔ€M²$LXUy¨ÔÓ9ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ôìòLM²$ÔEffective€May€18,€1997,€another€factor€was€added€to€the€list€of€those€to€be€considered€by€the€court€inÐ ° Ðdetermining€a€custody€award.òò€See€óó1998€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€1003.€That€provision,€now€codified€at€Tenn.€CodeÐ œì ÐAnn.€ðð36„6„106(10),€requires€the€court€to€consider€ð ðeach€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€ofÐ eµ Ðparenting€responsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourageÐ .~ Ða€close€and€continuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€bestÐ ÷G Ðinterest€of€the€child.ðð€The€policy€enunciated€in€that€statutory€amendment€had€already€been€adopted€in€case€law.€(‹3²ú$££Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxT^yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dabTc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(‹3²ú$¢¢Ý ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HÅmIXXÔÔ€U–YXIHÅmÔÔ€MÅmIXU–YÔÓ9ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ«=!ÝÔ€HåJIXXÔÔ€UF<XIHåJÔÔ€MåJIXUF<ÔÓ9ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€¿ÑÑ€*ÑÖ€$ÿÿÖÔ€¼ÏC»IMåJÔÔ_Ôà@  êàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@{{(êàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌó óGREGORY€C.€LURIEà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð Q Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð 3 ƒ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9807„CV„00376Ð L œ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð e µ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àSumner€County€CircuitÐ ~ Î ÐMICHELLE€H.€(LURIE)€à  à)à  àNo.€11754„CÐ —ç  Ðßx€`2.jzjß`  `€€@ÿEž` cttx{ÖÇ( ó xßMANNINGà  à)Ð °  Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àÐ É  Ðà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à  à)Ð â2  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÌFOR€SUMNER€COUNTYÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€TOM€E.€GRAY,ÌSITTING€BY€INTERCHANGE,€€PRESIDINGÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÓ  ÓLAURA€Y.€GOODALLÌ113€WEST€MAIN€STREETÌGALLATIN,€TENNESSEE€37066ÌÌROBERT€TODD€JACKSONÌ222€SECOND€AVENUE€NORTHÌSUITE€419ÌNASHVILLE,€TENNESSEE€37201ÌÌATTORNEYS€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÌÌMARK€T.€SMITHÌKELLY€&€SMITHÌ121€PUBLIC€SQUAREÌGALLATIN,€TENNESSEE€37066ÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌà@uu#êàò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó ó€ˆÐ é39/+ ÐÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌCONCUR:ÌCANTRELL,€J.ÌKOCH,€J.à ¼ àÐ l9¼40 ÐÑ¿Ñâ âÑ8€&t»»ddÈ8ÑÑ€Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÖ€$ÖÓr9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡tkír»¼&tÔò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼&t»rtkí› #ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€Xy¨X»¼&tÔà  àThis€appeal€involves€the€custody€of€two€minor€children.€€€Following€a€bench€trial,Ð wÇ Ðthe€trial€court€ordered€that€the€parents€continue€to€have€joint€custody,€but€modified€€primaryÐ \ ¬ Ðphysical€custody€and€visitation.€€Both€Father€and€Mother€had€sought€sole€custody,€each€allegingÐ A ‘ Ða€change€of€material€circumstances€warranting€modification€of€their€joint€custodyÐ & v Ðarrangements.€€The€Father€asserts€on€this€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€he€isÐ  [  Ðcomparatively€more€fit€than€the€Mother€to€have€custody,€and€that€the€court€incorrectly€appliedÐ ð@  Ðthe€change€of€circumstances€requirement.€€In€the€alternative,€Father€asserts€the€prior€six„monthÐ Õ% Ðarrangement€should€be€reinstated.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court's€order.Ð º  ÐÓ  ÓI.Ð Ÿï ÐÓÓÓà  àThe€parties€were€divorced€on€July€23,€1993,€based€on€irreconcilable€differences.€Ð „Ô ÐAt€the€time€of€the€divorce€the€parties€had€two€minor€children.€€In€their€marital€dissolutionÐ i¹ Ðagreement,€incorporated€into€the€decree,€the€parties€agreed€to€joint€custody,€with€physicalÐ Nž Ðcustody€evenly€divided.€€Mother€was€to€have€primary€physical€custody€from€€February€1€to€JulyÐ 3ƒ Ð31,€and€Father€the€rest€of€the€year.€The€non„custodial€parent€had€liberal€visitation.€€The€parties€Ð  h Ðlived€under€this€arrangement€until€this€action€began.Ð ý!M Ðà  àOn€December€30,€1997,€Father€filed€a€petition€for€change€of€custody€asserting€aÐ â#2  Ðmaterial€change€in€circumstances€warranting€change€of€custody.€€The€petition€specificallyÐ Ç%!" Ðalleged€that€Mother€had€remarried,€and€that€her€new€husband€acted€inappropriately€around€theÐ ¬'ü"$ Ðchildren.€€€On€January€12,€1998,€Mother€filed€an€answer€and€counter„complaint,€responding€thatÐ ‘)á$& Ðthe€conduct€of€the€second€husband€was€moot€because€they€were€already€divorced.€€SheÐ v+Æ&( Ðcounterclaimed€alleging€€that€Father€had€remarried€and€moved€into€a€ð ðdilapidatedðð€house€in€aÐ [-«(* Ðð ðdangerousðð€neighborhood.€€She€also€alleged€that€Father€was€an€absentee€parent€due€to€hisÐ @/*, Ðwork€schedule,€leaving€primary€care€of€the€children€to€the€stepmother.€€€Both€partiesðð€pleadingsÐ %1u,. Ðincluded€other€allegations,€which€each€maintained€warranted€modification€of€custody.Ð  3Z.0 Ðà  àFather€was€due€to€return€the€children€to€Mother€on€February€1,€1998,€and€prior€toÐ ï4?02 Ðthat€date,€Father€requested€a€hearing€on€the€issue€of€temporary€custody.€After€a€hearing€onÐ Ô6$24 ÐJanuary€20,€1998,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€custody€remain€the€same€but€that€the€childrenÐ ¹8 46 Ðcontinue€to€reside€primarily€with€Father€pending€the€final€hearing€of€the€case.Ð ° Ðà  àAfter€an€evidentiary€€hearing,€conducted€on€May€15,€1998,€€the€trial€court€issued€anÐ •å Ðorder€€in€which€it€found€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€and€welfare€of€the€partiesðð€minor€childrenÐ zÊ Ðthat€they€remain€in€the€joint€custody€of€both€parents.€€The€court€ordered€that€mother€haveÐ _ ¯ Ðincreased€physical€custody€from€August€18€through€May€31€of€each€year.€€The€courtððs€orderÐ D ” Ðalso€addressed€the€issues€of€visitation€and€child€support.€€Father€appeals€the€order€of€the€trialÐ )y  Ðcourt€granting€Mother€increased€primary€physical€custody€of€the€children.Ð ^  ÐÓ  ÓII.Ð óC  ÐÓßÓà  àCases€involving€a€request€for€change€of€custody€of€minor€children€are€particularlyÐ Ø( Ðfact€driven.€€òòSee€Rogero€v€Pittóó,€759€S.W.2d€109,€112€(Tenn.€1988).€€In€such€cases,€the€trial€courtÐ ½  Ðhas€the€widest€discretion€to€order€a€custody€arrangement€that€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€Ð ¢ò ÐòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð ‡× Ð101(a)(2)€(1996).€€Accordingly,€it€is€well€settled€that€the€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourtððs€findings€in€a€custody€dispute€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumptionÐ Q¡ Ðof€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòNichols€v.€Nicholsóó,€729€S.W.2d€713,€716€(Tenn.€1990);€€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,Ð 6† Ð676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€An€appellate€court€will€not€reverse€such€a€decision,€absentÐ !k Ðan€error€of€law,€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÐ #P  Ðcourtððs€findings.€€Tenn€R.€App.€13(d);€€òòSeeóó€òòHassóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€555;€òòMasengale€v.Ð å$5 " ÐMassengaleóó,€915€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ð Ê&"$ ÐÓ  Ó€à @ àIII.Ð ¯(ÿ#& ÐÓ%!Óà  àA€decree€awarding€custody€of€children€is€òòresóó€òòjudicataóó€and€is€conclusive€on€aÐ ”*ä%( Ðsubsequent€application€to€change€custody€unless€circumstances€have€changed€in€a€material€wayÐ y,É'* Ðso€that€the€welfare€of€the€children€requires€a€modification€of€the€previous€order.òò€€See€Long€v.Ð ^.®), ÐLongóó,€488€S.W.2d€729,€731„732€(Tenn.€App.€1972);€òòHicks€v.€Hicksóó,€26€Tenn.€App.€641,€176Ð C0“+. ÐS.W.2d€371,€374„375€€(1943).€€Courts€are€empowered€to€change€custody€ð ðas€the€exigencies€ofÐ (2x-0 Ðthe€case€may€require.ðð€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1).Ð  4]/2 Ðà  àð ðNotwithstanding€the€importance€of€stability€and€continuity,€intervening€changesÐ ò5B14 Ðin€a€childððs€circumstances€may€require€modifying€an€existing€custody€and€visitationÐ ×7'36 Ðarrangement.ðð€€òòAdelsperger€v.€Adelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€482,€485€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€Ð ¼9 58 ÐHowever,€a€custody€order€cannot€be€modified€absent€a€showing€of€new€facts€or€ð ðchangedÐ ° Ðcircumstancesðð€which€require€an€alteration€of€the€existing€order.òò€€See€Woodard€v.€Woodardóó,Ð •å Ð783€S.W.2d€188,€189€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€There€is€no€hard€and€fast€rule€as€to€what€constitutesÐ zÊ Ða€change€of€circumstances.òò€€See€Dantzler€€v.€Dantzleróó,€665€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€Ð _ ¯ ÐHowever,€ð ðchanged€circumstancesðð€includes€any€material€change€of€circumstances€affectingÐ D ” Ðthe€welfare€of€the€child€or€children,€including€events€occurring€since€€the€initial€custodyÐ )y  Ðdecision€or€changed€conditions€which€could€not€have€been€anticipated€by€the€original€custodyÐ ^  Ðorder.òò€€See€Blair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€€575,€576€(Tenn.€App.€1996).Ð óC  ÐÓ  ÓIV.Ð Ø( ÐÓÖ(Óà  àIf€the€court€finds€that€a€material€change€of€circumstances€has€occurred,€then€theÐ ½  Ðcourt€will€proceed€to€determine€if€the€best€interests€of€the€child€dictate€a€change€in€the€existingÐ ¢ò Ðcustody€arrangement€and€to€devise€a€custody€arrangement€that€€serves€those€interests.€€òòSeeóóÐ ‡× ÐòòAdelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€at€485.Ð l¼ Ðà  àð ðIn€child€custody€matters€the€paramount€concern€of€the€Court€€is€the€welfare€of€theÐ Q¡ Ðchildren€and€the€rights€of€the€parties€will€yield€to€that€concern.ðð€€òòDantzleróó,€665€S.W.2d€at€387;€Ð 6† Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòContreras€v.€Wardóó,€831€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€In€custody€matters,€theÐ !k Ðdetermining€facts€are€infinite€in€their€variety€and€ð ðthe€supreme€rule€to€which€all€others€shouldÐ #P  Ðyield€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child.ðð€€òòHolloway€v.€Bradleyóó,€190€Tenn.€565,€571,Ð å$5 " Ð230€S.W.2d€1003,€1006€(1950).€€In€any€proceedings€requiring€the€court€to€make€a€custodyÐ Ê&"$ Ðdetermination€regarding€a€minor€child,€such€determination€shall€be€made€upon€the€basis€of€theÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðbest€interest€of€the€minor€child.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106.Ð ”*ä%( Ðà  àIn€determining€the€custody€arrangement€which€will€serve€the€best€interest€of€theÐ y,É'* Ðchildren,€the€court€will€assess€the€comparative€fitness€of€the€parties€seeking€custody€in€light€ofÐ ^.®), Ðthe€particular€circumstances€of€the€case,€considering€the€relevant€factors,€which€are€the€sameÐ C0“+. Ðin€a€modification€proceeding€as€those€criteria€used€in€establishing€the€initial€custody€order.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р(2x-0 ÐòòSeeóó€òòRuyle€v.€Ruyleóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€€òòMatter€of€Parsonsóó,€914€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð889,€893€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€€Garrett,€òòTennessee€Divorce,€Alimony€and€Child€Custodyóó€ðð€26„5Ð •å Ð(1998€ed.).Ð zÊ ÐÓ<€ü(€` ¼è“X°,X°4ì“X<Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€In€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€this€court€established€someÐ _ ¯ Ðguidelines€for€determining€the€best€interest€of€a€child:Ð D ” ÐÓ9rÓÓ<€ü(€ @’X€ü(€` ¼è“X<ÓÌà8  àWe€adopt€what€we€believe€is€a€common€sense€approach€to€custody,€oneÐ k  Ðwhich€we€will€call€the€doctrine€of€ð ðcomparative€fitness.ðð€€TheÐ  ]  Ðparamount€concern€in€child€custody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€bestÐ ÿO  Ðinterest€of€the€child.€€òòMollish€v.€Mollishóó,€494€S.W.2d€145,€151€(Tenn.Ð ñA  ÐApp.€1972).€€There€are€literally€thousands€of€things€that€must€be€takenÐ ã3 Ðinto€consideration€in€the€lives€of€young€children,€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€188Ð Õ% ÐTenn.€430,€437,€220€S.W.2d€627,€630€(1949),€and€these€factors€must€beÐ Ç Ðreviewed€on€a€comparative€approach:й  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8 Ð  Ð àFitness€for€custodial€responsibilities€is€òòlargely€aÐ í Ðcomparative€matteróó.€€No€human€being€is€deemedÐ ß Ðperfect,€hence€no€human€can€be€deemed€a€perfectlyÐ Ñ Ðfit€custodian.€€Necessarily,€therefore,€the€courtsÐ sà Ðmust€determine€which€of€the€two€or€more€availableÐ eµ Ðcustodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.€òòEdwardsÐ W§ Ðv.€Edwardsóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€290„291€(Tenn.€App.Ð I™ Ð1973)(emphasis€supplied).à @ àÐ;‹ÄÄ ÐÔ‡XL~XXXy¨ÔÌòòBahóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.Ô#†Xy¨XXXL~ì7#ÔÐ # s ÐÌÓE"€ Ø ` „ƒX@äXÿÿ€ü(€ @’XEÓÓr9Óà ` àIn€summary,€€the€party€seeking€to€change€custody€must€show€ð ð(1)€€that€the€childððsÐ  "[ Ðcircumstances€have€materially€changed€in€a€way€€that€could€not€have€reasonably€been€foreseenÐ ð#@! Ðat€the€time€of€the€original€custody€decision,€and€(2)€that€the€childððs€best€interest€will€be€servedÐ Õ%%!# Ðby€changing€the€existing€custody€arrangement.ðð€€òòAdelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€at€485.€€TheÐ º' #% Ðparamount€consideration€in€a€custody€proceeding€is€the€best€interest€of€the€child€or€children.òò€Ð Ÿ)ï$' ÐSee€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€665.Ð „+Ô&) Ðà@‰‰-êàV.ˆÐ i-¹(+ Ðà ` àAt€the€close€of€the€January€20€hearing,€and€again€ÓK"€ Ø ` 4Œ@äX€ Ø ` „ƒX@äXKÓat€the€beginning€of€the€May€15€hearing,Ð ° Ðthe€trial€court€found€a€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€on€the€basis€that€theÐ •å Ðcustodial€arrangement€which€had€worked€for€a€while€was€no€longer€working€and€that€the€partiesÐ zÊ Ðwere€no€longer€cooperative€and€working€together€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.Ð _ ¯ Ðà ` àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€The€record€clearlyÐ D ” Ðdemonstrates€that€the€joint€custody€arrangement€previously€in€effect€had€become€problematicÐ )y  Ðonly€recently€due€to€the€partiesðð€contentious€attempts€to€control€various€aspects€of€theirÐ ^  Ðchildrenððs€school,€church,€and€other€activities.׃ˆ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€fact€that€a€once€satisfactory€custodyÐ óC  Ðarrangement€has€become€unworkable€can€constitute€a€material€change€of€circumstances.€€òòSeeÐ Ø( ÐDalton€v.€Daltonóó,€858€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ð ½  Ðà ` àÔ‡Xy¨XXXy¨ÔThe€parties€were€divorced€in€1993.€In€September€of€1995,€Father€married€Carolyn€Lurie,Ð ¢ò Ðwho€had€three€children€from€a€prior€marriage.€€The€Luries€had€a€child€in€February€of€1996,€andÐ ‡× Ðat€the€time€of€the€hearing€Mrs.€Lurie€was€expecting€their€second€child.€€Mother€married€JimmyÐ l¼ ÐManning,€who€was€18€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€marriage.€€She€divorced€Mr.€Manning€inÐ Q¡ ÐAugust€or€September€of€1996.€€During€the€marriage,€a€child€was€born€to€the€couple.€€At€theÐ 6† Ðtime€of€the€hearing,€Mother€was€in€a€relationship€with€another€man,€and€the€two€planned€to€getÐ !k Ðmarried€in€the€future€but€chose€to€wait€to€set€a€date€until€they€completed€pre„marital€counseling.Ô#†Xy¨XXXy¨»@#ÔÐ #P  ÐÔ‡Xy¨XXXy¨Ôà ` àThe€parties€appear€to€have€successfully€managed€their€joint€parenting€responsibilitiesÐ å$5 " Ðunder€their€agreed€arrangement€of€equal€primary€physical€custody€for€almost€five€years.Ô#†Xy¨XXXy¨D#ÔÔ‡Xy¨XXXy¨ÔÐ Ê&"$ ÐBetween€1992€and€1997,€for€various€periods€of€time,€the€childrenððs€paternal€grandmother€keptÐ ¯(ÿ#& ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñthe€children€after€school,€Fatherððs€new€wife€babysat€with€Motherððs€new€child,€the€daughter€ofÐ ° Ðthe€stepmother€spent€a€night€at€Motherððs€house,€and€Mother€and€her€second€husband€took€allÐ •å Ðof€the€children,€including€stepmotherððs€children,€on€an€outing.€€Even€recently,€Father€had€askedÐ zÊ ÐMother€if€she€or€her€fianc€could€accompany€the€son€and€his€stepbrother€to€an€event.€€DuringÐ _ ¯ Ðone€spring€and€summer€when€Mother€had€physical€custody,€she€arranged€for€Father€to€helpÐ D ” Ðcoach€their€sonððs€baseball€team€while€she€was€the€team€mother.€€During€the€summer€of€1997,Ð )y  Ðthe€stepmother€kept€the€children€while€Mother€taught€half€days€in€summer€school.€€The€partiesÐ ^  Ðoperated€under€an€agreement€that€if€one€of€them€was€going€to€be€unavailable€during€their€timeÐ óC  Ðof€custody€or€visitation,€the€other€had€the€opportunity€to€have€the€children.€€The€childrenÐ Ø( Ðregularly€attended€church€with€both€parents.€€Teachers€testified€that€in€the€past€the€parents€hadÐ ½  Ðcooperated€in€school€matters.Ð ¢ò Ðà ` àAfter€the€children€returned€to€their€fatherððs€household€in€August,€1997,€the€cooperativeÐ ‡× Ðparenting€situation€deteriorated.€€The€daughter€entered€first€grade€and€the€son€entered€fourthÐ l¼ Ðgrade€at€the€same€public€magnet€school€that€they€had€been€attending.€€A€few€weeks€after€schoolÐ Q¡ Ðstarted€in€September,€1997,€the€daughter€experienced€difficulty€in€reading.€€As€a€result€of€theÐ 6† Ðteacherððs€concern,€the€daughter€went€to€live€with€Mother€for€two€weeks,€and€Mother,€a€teacher,Ð !k Ðworked€with€her€intensively,€resulting€in€an€improvement€in€the€childððs€reading€ability.€€FatherÐ #P  Ðdisputes€that€the€improvement€was€due€to€Motherððs€effort.€€The€son€also€chose€to€stay€withÐ å$5 " ÐMother€during€these€two€weeks.Ð Ê&"$ Ðà ` àAt€some€point€in€this€fall€term,€the€stepmother€indicated€to€the€school€guidance€counselorÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðthat€she€would€prefer€that€the€children€were€in€a€different€school.€€When€the€assistant€principalÐ ”*ä%( Ðasked€Mother€about€any€intent€to€change€schools,€Mother€indicated€she€was€unaware€of€anyÐ y,É'* Ðsuch€discussions.€€Mother€asked€that€school€officials€and€teachers€not€share€confidentialÐ ^.®), Ðinformation€about€the€children€with€anyone,€including€the€stepmother,€other€than€herself€andÐ C0“+. ÐFather.€€The€assistant€principal€testified€that€she€considered€this€request€appropriate€and€thatÐ (2x-0 Ðit€was€consistent€with€the€schoolððs€policy.Ð  4]/2 Ðà ` àIn€late€October€or€early€November,€the€son€asked€to€meet€with€the€counselor.€She€calledÐ ò5B14 ÐFather€to€ask€permission€to€talk€to€the€son,€and€Father€requested€a€meeting€with€her.€€Father€andÐ ×7'36 Ðstepmother€met€with€the€counselor€and€discussed€Mother,€her€premarital€relationship€with€herÐ ¼9 58 Ðsecond€husband€and€her€second€marriage,€which€had€ended€over€a€year€before€this€meeting.€TheÐ ° Ðcounselor€described€Father€as€painting€a€picture€questioning€the€motherððs€moral€character.Ð •å Ðà ` àIn€early€December,€Father€requested€a€meeting€with€the€assistant€principal€to€discussÐ zÊ Ðproblems.€€He€and€the€stepmother€met€with€the€assistant€principal€for€approximately€1€ðð€hours,Ð _ ¯ Ðduring€which€time€he€told€her€about€Motherððs€early€life,€including€things€the€assistant€principalÐ D ” Ðconsidered€demeaning,€and€about€€Motherððs€second€marriage€to€a€very€young€man.€€At€thisÐ )y  Ðmeeting,€on€December€7,€the€father€indicated€he€did€not€intend€to€seek€full€custody€since€heÐ ^  Ðdidnððt€think€it€was€necessary.€€Ð óC  Ðà ` àThe€guidance€counselor€continued€to€keep€in€touch€with€the€children€and€knew€thatÐ Ø( Ðcustody€was€to€change€to€Mother€on€February€1.€€She€never€saw€anything€to€indicate€adjustmentÐ ½  Ðproblems€with€the€upcoming€return€to€Motherððs€custody.€Ð ¢ò Ðà ` àFather€received€a€copy€of€a€letter€dated€December€12€from€Motherððs€attorney€to€theÐ ‡× Ðschool€explaining€that€it€would€be€inappropriate€for€the€school€to€provide€the€stepmother€withÐ l¼ Ðaccess€to€the€childrenððs€files€or€any€information€regarding€the€children.€€Within€three€or€fourÐ Q¡ Ðdays€of€receiving€the€letter,€Father€went€to€his€lawyer.€€However,€Father€testified€that€the€letterÐ 6† Ðdid€not€upset€him.€€He€further€stated€that€it€was€not€entirely€true€that€he€decided€to€seek€custodyÐ !k Ðbecause€of€the€letter,€stating€that,€upon€receipt€of€the€letter,€he€had€discussed€the€issue€with€hisÐ #P  Ð9„year€old€son€who€asked€him€to€seek€custody.Ð å$5 " Ðà ` àA€dispute€arose€about€the€childrenððs€visitation€with€the€mother€over€Christmas€and€theÐ Ê&"$ Ðschool€holidays.€€Father€again€received€a€letter€from€the€motherððs€attorney.€€Upon€advice€of€hisÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðown€lawyer,€Father€allowed€the€children€to€visit€their€mother€in€accordance€with€the€partiesððÐ ”*ä%( Ðpast€practice€and€agreement.€A€dispute€also€arose€over€the€childrenððs€participation€in€ChristmasÐ y,É'* Ðprograms€at€both€Motherððs€church€and€Fatherððs€church.Ð ^.®), Ðà ` àOn€December€30,€1997,€Father€filed€a€petition€to€modify€custody€asking€the€court€toÐ C0“+. Ðaward€him€sole€custody.€€Mother€answered€and€counter€complained€seeking€sole€custody.Ð (2x-0 Ðà ` àAt€the€January€20€hearing€on€Fatherððs€temporary€custody€petition,€the€teachers€and€schoolÐ  4]/2 Ðofficials€who€testified€indicated€the€children€had€been€doing€well.€€They€reported,€however,Ð ò5B14 Ðsome€changes€in€behavior€by€both€children€after€the€Christmas€break.€€Both€childrenððs€teachersÐ ×7'36 Ðattributed€the€changes€in€behavior€to€things€going€on€outside€school.€€The€daughter€becameÐ ¼9 58 Ðmore€tearful€and€upset.€€A€few€days€before€the€hearing,€the€assistant€principal€saw€the€daughterÐ ° Ðin€the€school€office.€€She€was€crying€and€upset,€and€her€finger€was€hurt.€€While€the€assistantÐ •å Ðprincipal€was€trying€to€comfort€and€calm€her,€the€6„year€old€daughter,€still€crying,€said,€ð ðmyÐ zÊ Ðdaddy€said€I€was€supposed€to€tell€you€that€I€want€to€live€with€my€daddy.ððÐ _ ¯ ÐÔ#†Xy¨XXXy¨"E#ÔÔ‡Xy¨XXXy¨Ôà ` àÔ#†Xy¨XXXy¨ç`#ÔOther€disputes€arose€during€the€late€fall€of€1997,€which€need€not€be€catalogued€here.€€Ô‡Xy¨XXXy¨ÔAsÐ D ” Ðan€example,€at€one€point€Father€instructed€his€children€and€stepchildren€not€to€talk€to€Mother,Ð )y  Ðat€least€not€about€anything€that€went€on€in€his€home.Ô#†Xy¨XXXy¨Œa#Ô€The€testimony€in€the€record€clearlyÐ ^  Ðestablishes€the€deterioration€and€eventual€dysfunction€of€the€prior€custody€arrangement€and€itsÐ óC  Ðnegative€effect€on€the€children.€€After€the€lengthy€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€partiesÐ Ø( Ðcontinue€to€have€joint€custody,€with€possession€to€remain€with€the€father€with€previously„Ð ½  Ðordered€visitation€with€the€mother,€pending€a€final€hearing.׃0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¢ò Ðà ` àà@jj-êàVI.ˆÐ ‡× Ðà ` àAt€the€January€20€hearing,€Father€testified€that€an€appointment€with€a€psychologist€hadÐ l¼ Ðbeen€arranged€for€the€partiesðð€daughter.€€The€appointment,€which€was€arranged€approximatelyÐ Q¡ Ðthree€weeks€before€the€January€20€hearing,€after€Fatherððs€petition€was€filed,€was€set€forÐ 6† ÐFebruary€4.Ð !k Ðà ` àAt€the€close€of€that€hearing,€the€court€gave€very€explicit€instructions:Ð #P  ÐÓ9rÓà8 ` àà8` t"` t"àThe€court€orders€Mr.€Lurie€to€keep€the€appointmentÐ å$5 " Ðof€[daughter]€with€Dr.€Shannon€Little.€€Both€parentsÐ ×%'!# Ðare€to€participate€as€Dr.€Little€directs,€and€theÐ É&"$ Ðrecords€of€Dr.€Little€will€be€available€to€bothÐ »' #% Ðparents.Э(ý#&ÄÄ ÐÌÓr9Óà ` àHowever,€Father€did€not€take€his€daughter€to€the€February€4€appointment€with€Dr.€Little.׃4å×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ‘*á%( ÐBoth€the€daughter€and€son€were€seen€later€by€another€clinical€psychologist,€Dr.€Sanger,€whoÐ ° Ðtestified€at€the€May€15€hearing.€€She€was€originally€contacted€to€evaluate€the€daughter,€and€hadÐ •å Ðher€first€session€with€the€daughter€in€March.Ð zÊ Ðà ` àDr.€Sanger€stated€that€the€daughter€had€a€very€positive€attachment€to€her€mother,€herÐ _ ¯ Ðfather,€and€her€stepmother.€€She€also€felt€positively€toward€Motherððs€second€husband.€TheÐ D ” Ðdaughter€presented€herself€as€happy€and€well€integrated€into€her€family€situation,€although€thereÐ )y  Ðwere€stresses€around€the€custody€dispute,€the€daughter€was€aware€of€the€tensions,€and€wasÐ ^  Ðconcerned€about€having€to€answer€questions€about€the€situation.Ð óC  Ðà ` àDr.€Sanger€also€saw€the€son€and€reported€that€he€also€had€a€positive€attachment€to€hisÐ Ø( Ðfather,€his€mother,€and€his€stepmother€and€that€these€were€important€relationships€to€him.€€SheÐ ½  Ðstated€that€the€son€identified€with€Father.€She€indicated€the€son€was€guarded€and€careful€withÐ ¢ò Ðhis€words€on€the€topic€of€the€custody€dispute€but€did€not€acknowledge€any€anxiety€about€thatÐ ‡× Ðsituation€or€the€court€proceedings.€Ð l¼ Ðà ` àDr.€Sanger€testified€that€she€thinks€it€detrimental€for€children€to€hear€negative€thingsÐ Q¡ Ðabout€their€parents.€She€had€told€the€parents,€when€asked€about€the€son€testifying,€that€inÐ 6† Ðgeneral€she€had€reservations€about€children€being€put€in€a€situation€where€they€have€to€state€aÐ !k Ðpreference€for€one€parent€versus€the€other,€and€that€there€are€risks€to€the€children€in€suchÐ #P  Ðsituations.€€She€also€stated€it€was€important€that€parents€be€careful€about€what€information€theyÐ å$5 " Ðshare€(regarding€the€issues€in€the€custody€dispute)€with€a€child€and€that€such€information€shouldÐ Ê&"$ Ðbe€developmentally€appropriate.€€She€would,€in€general,€question€the€appropriateness€of€goingÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðthrough€actual€pleadings€or€reviewing€recorded€conversations€with€a€9„year€old.€However,€sheÐ ”*ä%( Ðfelt€that€giving€a€mature€child€an€appropriate€forum€to€express€his€strongly„held€feelings€mightÐ y,É'* Ðbe€appropriate€in€some€situations.Ð ^.®), Ðà ` àIn€general,€Dr.€Sanger€found€both€children€to€be€happy€and€well„adjusted€with€positiveÐ C0“+. Ðattachments€to€both€parents.Ð (2x-0 Ðà@KK,êàVII.ˆÐ  4]/2 Ðà ` àAfter€the€January€hearing,€cooperation€deteriorated€even€further.€€There€were€disputesÐ ò5B14 Ðover€clothing,€dental€visits,€telephone€call€from€Mother€to€the€children,€chaperoning€field€tripsÐ ×7'36 Ðand€other€issues.€€A€dispute€about€visitation€over€spring€break€resulted€in€further€hearingsÐ ¼9 58 Ðbefore€the€court.Ð ° Ðà ` à€In€late€January,€Father€began€taping€telephone€conversations€between€Mother€andÐ •å Ðhimself€and€between€Mother€and€the€children.׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€children€were€aware€of€the€tape€recorder,Ð zÊ Ðand€the€son€would€sometimes€turn€it€on€himself.€€Father€or€stepmother€would€turn€the€recorderÐ _ ¯ Ðon€for€the€daughterððs€conversations.€€Father€could€not€recall€whether€€he€had€told€his€childrenÐ D ” Ðnot€to€inform€their€mother€that€her€conversations€were€being€taped,€but€he€thought€his€son€wasÐ )y  Ðwell€aware€that€if€he€mentioned€the€recording€Mother€might€alter€what€she€was€saying.Ð ^  Ðà ` àThe€parties€did€not€agree€on€many€things€in€their€testimony,€each€having€his€or€her€ownÐ óC  Ðinterpretation€of€events.€€However,€their€testimony€and€that€of€others€establish€that€during€theÐ Ø( Ðperiod€from€1992„1997,€Mother€made€an€effort€to€have€daily€contact€with€the€children€duringÐ ½  Ðthose€periods€when€Father€had€primary€custody.€€She€would€visit€with€the€children€after€schoolÐ ¢ò Ðor€eat€lunch€with€one€of€them.€€She€was€a€frequent€visitor€to€the€school€and€attended€schoolÐ ‡× Ðevents.€€If€she€was€unable€to€make€personal€contact€during€a€day,€she€telephoned€the€childrenÐ l¼ Ðin€the€evening.€€On€the€other€hand,€Father€seldom€telephoned€the€children€during€those€timesÐ Q¡ ÐMother€had€primary€custody.€€He€stated€he€did€not€telephone€the€children€at€Motherððs€houseÐ 6† Ðbecause,€out€of€respect,€he€wanted€to€give€her€her€ground€with€the€children.€€He€felt€he€deservedÐ !k Ðthe€same€respect.€€He€also€stated€the€children€could€call€him€if€they€needed€something.Ð #P  Ðà ` àIt€is€also€generally€agreed€that€Mother€was€responsible€for€arranging€and€taking€theÐ å$5 " Ðchildren€to€medical€and€dental€appointments,€up€until€January€1998.€€Mother€also€testified€thatÐ Ê&"$ Ðfor€several€years€she€had€attended€most€practices€and€every€recital€for€her€daughterððs€danceÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðclasses.€€She€had€similarly€attended€her€sonððs€sporting€events.Ð ”*ä%( Ðà ` àShe€testified,€however,€that€after€the€January€20€hearing,€she€was€not€informed€by€FatherÐ y,É'* Ðof€upcoming€events€or€activities€in€her€childrenððs€lives.€Father€started€communicatingÐ ^.®), Ðinformation€to€her€by€certified€mail.€€In€one€situation,€he€mailed€her€notice€of€a€cancellation€onÐ C0“+. Ðthe€same€day€of€the€meeting.€€Father€and€stepmother€instituted€a€practice€of€unplugging€theirÐ (2x-0 Ðtelephone€in€the€evenings€so€that€their€family€dinner€time€and€Bible€study€would€not€beÐ  4]/2 Ðinterrupted.€€This€resulted€in€Mother€being€unable,€on€some€occasions,€to€talk€to€her€children,Ð ò5B14 Ðthereby€preventing€her€from€maintaining€her€practice€of€daily€contact€with€the€children.€€FatherÐ ° Ðconsidered€Motherððs€telephone€calls€to€the€children€disruptive€and€maintained€they€sometimesÐ •å Ðupset€the€children.Ð zÊ Ðà ` àThe€partiesðð€9„year€old€son€testified€at€both€hearings.€€At€the€first€hearing,€he€was€askedÐ _ ¯ Ðwho€asked€him€to€testify.€€He€stated,€ð ðI€was€kind€of€the€main€deal€so€I€sort€of€had€to€be€here.€Ð D ” ÐBecause€one€of€the€main€reasons€to€be€here,€we€were€thinking€that€we€had€to€have€at€least€oneÐ )y  Ðof€the€children€that€would€be€able€to€testify.ðð€The€son€also€stated€he€had€been€given€the€lettersÐ ^  Ðinvolved€in€this€litigation€by€his€father€ð ðto€see€if€I€think€they€are€ridiculous,€because€he€thinksÐ óC  Ðthey€were.ðð€The€son€was€given€Fatherððs€petition€and€Motherððs€counter„petition€to€review€byÐ Ø( ÐFather.€€As€to€his€review€of€his€motherððs€pleading,€the€son€testified€that€he€and€his€father€wentÐ ½  Ðover€the€document€and€that€Father€needed€to€get€evidence€to€contradict€statements€in€theÐ ¢ò Ðcounter„petition.€€Ð ‡× Ðà ` àThe€son€testified€that€he€has€a€good€relationship€with€both€his€father€and€his€mother,€withÐ l¼ Ðhis€stepmother,€and€with€his€step€siblings€and€his€half€brothers.€€He€loves€both€his€parents€andÐ Q¡ Ðhis€stepmother€and€likes€his€motherððs€fianc€and€his€child.€€He€enjoys€being€at€his€motherððsÐ 6† Ðhouse€and€enjoys€being€at€his€fatherððs€house.€€He€stated€his€preference€was€to€live€at€his€fatherððsÐ !k Ðhouse.Ð #P  Ðà ` àThe€son€also€stated€that€he€had€turned€on€the€tape€recorder€when€he€talked€to€his€motherÐ å$5 " Ðbecause€he€thought€some€of€the€conversations€she€had€with€the€children€were€inappropriate€andÐ Ê&"$ Ðneeded€to€be€presented€to€the€court.€€He€was€unable€to€remember€any€specific€conversation€heÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðthought€was€inappropriate.€€He€also€stated€that€he€listened€to€the€taped€conversations€with€hisÐ ”*ä%( Ðmother€a€few€times€because€he€happened€to€be€in€the€room€with€his€father€and€stepmother€whileÐ y,É'* Ðthey€were€playing€the€tapes.€€Father€did€not€remember€the€son€ever€listening€to€any€tapes€atÐ ^.®), Ðhome.€When€the€son€would€return€from€visits€with€Mother,€he€would€tell€Father€and€theÐ C0“+. Ðstepmother€about€events€that€happened,€and€the€stepmother€would€take€notes.€€The€son€statedÐ (2x-0 Ðhe€told€her€what€to€write€down.Ð  4]/2 Ðà@,,,êàVIII.ˆÐ ò5B14 Ðà ` àAfter€hearing€all€the€testimony€in€this€matter,€the€trial€court€made€extensive€findings.€€TheÐ ×7'36 Ðcourt€observed€that€during€the€time€Mother€was€married€to€her€second€husband,€ð ðshe€was€notÐ ¼9 58 Ðmaking€decisions€which€were€in€the€best€interests€of€her€children.ðð€The€court€found€that€sinceÐ ° ÐMother€had€divorced€the€second€husband€(a€year€and€a€half€earlier),€any€future€dealingsÐ •å Ðbetween€those€two€would€not€adversely€affect€the€minor€children.׃:×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РzÊ Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€problems€with€the€joint€custody€arrangement€had€arisen€onlyÐ _ ¯ Ðwhen€Father€became€critical€of€Motherððs€decision„making€concerning€her€second€husband€andÐ D ” Ðwhen€Mother€became€jealous€of€the€relationship€between€the€children€and€the€stepmother.€HeÐ )y  Ðfurther€found€that€Father€had€involved€the€partiesðð€son€in€the€dispute€between€the€parties,Ð ^  Ðincluding€this€litigation,€and€had€gone€to€the€childrenððs€school€and€related€his€version€ofÐ óC  ÐMotherððs€past€behavior€with€the€young€man€who€became€her€second€husband.€The€court€alsoÐ Ø( Ðspecifically€found€that€both€parties€have€strong€personalities,€which€he€characterized€asÐ ½  Ðcontrolling€and€manipulative,€and€that€neither€was€a€credible€witness.Ð ¢ò ÐÓH€Ø ` ¸ @äX€ Ø ` 4Œ@äXHÓà ` àIn€essence,€the€court€refused€to€grant€to€either€party€the€custody€modification€he€or€sheÐ ‡× Ðrequested,€i.e.,€sole€custody.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€it€was€in€the€best€interestÐ l¼ Ðof€the€minor€children€that€they€remain€in€the€joint€custody€of€the€parents€and€that€the€parentsÐ Q¡ Ðmake€joint€decisions€regarding€major€medical€problems€of€the€children.€€However,€he€foundÐ 6† Ðit€was€not€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children€that€the€children€continue€to€reside€with€eachÐ !k Ðparent€for€six€months.Ð #P  Ðà ` àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ å$5 " Ðfinding€that€the€best€interest€of€the€children€would€be€served€by€continuing€joint€legal€custodyÐ Ê&"$ Ðbut€modifying€the€primary€physical€custody€arrangement€from€a€half„year€basis€to€a€school„yearÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðbasis€with€liberal€visitation€accorded€each€parent.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Rubin€v.€Kirshneróó,€948€S.W.2d€742Ð ”*ä%( Ð(Tenn.€App.€1997);€òòBarnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€In€structuring€theÐ y,É'* Ðarrangement€herein,€the€trial€court€gave€thorough€and€detailed€directions€to€the€parties€in€anÐ ^.®), Ðeffort€to€avoid€the€type€of€control€issues€which€had€previously€occurred.€€In€view€of€theÐ C0“+. Ðstressful€situation€which€developed€in€the€fall€of€1997€regarding€school€issues€and€whichÐ (2x-0 Ðescalated€to€all€issues€to€the€extent€the€childrenððs€behavior€changed,€we€agree€it€is€in€the€bestÐ  4]/2 Ðinterest€of€the€children€to€remain€in€one€parentððs€primary€physical€custody€for€the€school€year.Ð ò5B14 Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€was€faced€with€conflicting€evidence€concerning€the€fitness€ofÐ ° ÐFather€and€Mother€as€€parents.€€As€stated€above,€both€sides€€made€efforts€to€disparage€theÐ •å Ðcharacter€and€fitness€of€the€other,€cataloguing€the€missteps€of€the€other€and€the€virtues€of€theirÐ zÊ Ðown€situations.€€They€criticized€each€otherððs€residences,€specific€isolated€examples€ofÐ _ ¯ Ðpunishment€each€thought€inappropriate,€and€other€matters.€€No€oneððs€interests,€€particularlyÐ D ” Ðthose€of€the€minor€children,€would€be€served€by€our€detailing€those€claims€herein.€€The€trialÐ )y  Ðcourtððs€order€reflects€careful€consideration€of€the€partiesðð€evidence.€€Ultimately,€the€courtÐ ^  Ðconcluded€that€ð ðweighing€the€many€factors€for€consideration€of€custody,€the€court€finds€that€itÐ óC  Ðis€in€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€children€that€they€be€in€the€joint€custody€of€the€parents€withÐ Ø( Ðthe€primary€custodian€being€Michelle€Lurie€Manning€from€the€18th€day€of€August€to€the€31€dayÐ ½  Ðof€May€each€year€and€the€father€being€the€primary€physical€custodian€from€the€1st€of€June€toÐ ¢ò Ðthe€17th€day€of€August€each€year.ðð€€In€ruling€on€various€post„trial€motions,€the€court€deniedÐ ‡× ÐFatherððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motion,€stating€it€had€given€a€great€deal€of€emphasis€in€its€finalÐ l¼ Ðdecision€to€the€best€interest€of€the€children€and€had€looked€at€many€factors€in€making€thatÐ Q¡ Ðdetermination,€and€was€still€of€the€opinion€that€its€earlier€order€was€in€the€best€interest€of€theÐ 6† Ðchildren.Ð !k Ðà ` àAs€set€out€earlier,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€subject€to€well„establishedÐ #P  Ðrules.€In€the€recent€case€of€òòAdelsperger€v.€Adelspergeróó,€970€€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€App.€1997),Ð å$5 " Ðthis€court€stated€the€standard€as€follows:Ð Ê&"$ ÐÓrÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` t"` t"àCustody€decisions€are€factually€driven€and€require€the€carefulÐ ¯(ÿ#& Ðconsideration€of€numerous€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòHolloway€v.€Bradleyóó,€190Ð ›)ë$' ÐTenn.€565,€571,€230€S.W.2d€1003,€1006€(1950);€€€òòScarbrough€v.Ð ‡*×%( ÐScarbroughóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€App.1988).€€Since€theseÐ s+Ã&) Ðdecisions€often€hinge€on€the€parties'€credibility,€appellate€courts€areÐ _,¯'* Ðreluctant€to€second-guess€trial€judges€who€have€observed€theÐ K-›(+ Ðwitnesses€and€assessed€their€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€€òòGilliam€v.€Gilliamóó,Ð 7.‡), Ð776€S.W.2d€81,€84€(Tenn.€App.1988).€€Accordingly,€we€decline€toÐ #/s*- Ðdisturb€custody€decisions€unless€they€are€based€on€a€material€errorÐ 0_+. Ðof€law€or€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€€òòHass€v.Ð û0K,/ ÐKnightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.1984);€€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,Ð ç17-0 Ð936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€App.1996);€€€òòGriffin€v.€Stoneóó,€834Ð Ó2#.1 ÐS.W.2d€at€301.п3/2¸  ¸   ÐÌ970€S.W.2d.€at€485.Ð —5ç04 ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€with€this€standard€in€mind€that€we€review€Fatherððs€arguments€on€appeal,Ð o7¿26 Ðwhich€essentially€argue€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€AtÐ G9—48 Ðthe€hearings€in€this€matter,€Father€explained€that€his€goal€in€seeking€custody€was€continuity€forÐ ° Ðthe€children.€€He€felt€that€Motherððs€second€marriage,€which€resulted€in€divorce,€as€well€as€herÐ ˆØ Ðnew€relationship,€did€not€provide€stability€in€the€childrenððs€environment.€€It€was€his€opinionÐ `° Ðthat€Mother€and€her€fianc,€by€delaying€their€marriage,€were€failing€to€provide€the€children€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðfamily€unit€such€as€he€and€his€wife€could€provide.€The€record€substantiates€the€stability€ofÐ  ` ÐMotherððs€relationship€with€her€children€and€her€efforts€to€maintain€it.€There€is€nothing€in€theÐ è 8  Ðrecord€to€indicate€that€the€children€were€negatively€affected€by€her€changes€in€marital€status.€Ð À  Ðà ` àIn€this€appeal,€Father€also€asserts€that€he€should€have€been€awarded€custody€because€heÐ ˜è  Ðis€of€higher€moral€character€than€Mother€based€on€her€relationship€with€the€teenager€she€laterÐ pÀ Ðmarried.€€Father€was€aware€of€that€relationship€from€late€1992€or€early€1993.€€We€certainly€doÐ H˜ Ðnot€condone€Motherððs€relationship€with€a€minor.€€However,€for€over€four€years,€€Father€was€notÐ  p Ðso€concerned€about€Motherððs€moral€character€that€he€sought€custody.€In€addition,€the€bestÐ øH Ðinterest€analysis€requires€consideration€of€many€factors€which€may€affect€a€childððs€well„being.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àFather€also€argues€that€he€was€concerned€about€the€conduct€of€Motherððs€second€husbandÐ ¨ø Ðaround€the€children.€€Father€admitted€he€knew€about€the€conduct€he€now€objects€to,€with€oneÐ €Ð Ðexception,€almost€immediately€after€each€event,€and,€again,€did€not€deem€it€significant€enoughÐ X ¨ Ðto€warrant€his€seeking€custody.€€In€fact,€the€evidence€demonstrates€a€cordial€relationshipÐ 0"€  Ðbetween€the€two€families€during€Motherððs€second€marriage.€€At€the€time€that€Father€filed€hisÐ $X" Ðpetition,€Mother€had€been€divorced€from€her€second€husband€for€fifteen€to€sixteen€months.€€WeÐ à%0!$ Ðagree€with€the€trial€court€that€any€future€dealings€between€Mother€and€her€second€husband€Ð ¸'#& Ðregarding€their€child€would€not€adversely€affect€the€children.Ð )à$( Ðà ` àFrom€the€record,€it€appears€that€Fatherððs€petition€for€sole€custody€was€triggered€by€theÐ h+¸&* Ðcontentious€situation€which€had€developed€as€a€result€of€his€spreading€derogatory€informationÐ @-(, Ðabout€Mother€to€school€officials€and€Motherððs€request€that€information€about€the€children€notÐ /h*. Ðbe€shared€by€school€officials€with€the€stepmother.€Mother€had€also€expressed€to€Father€herÐ ð0@,0 Ðstrong€feelings€that€Father,€rather€than€the€stepmother,€should€be€making€parental€decisions€andÐ È2.2 Ðdealing€with€the€school.€€Father€equally€strongly€resented€what€he€characterized€as€MotherððsÐ  4ð/4 Ðattempts€to€dictate€in€an€area€he€considered€his€family€business.Ð x6È16 Ðà ` àIt€is€also€apparent€from€the€record€that€once€battle€was€joined,€the€childrenððs€best€interestÐ P8 38 Ðbecame€secondary.€€Fatherððs€involvement€of€his€9„year€old€son€in€the€details€of€the€litigation,Ð (:x5: Ðto€the€point€of€going€over€the€pleadings,€discussing€strategy€about€evidence,€and€having€the€sonÐ ° Ðtape€his€conversations€with€his€mother,€did€not€serve€that€childððs€best€interests.€Those€actionsÐ ˆØ Ðclearly€did€not€encourage€the€children€to€love€and€respect€each€parent€equally.òò€See€Varley€v.Ð `° ÐVarleyóó,€934€S.W.2d€659,€667„668€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€Nor€did€they€further€preservation€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðchildrenððs€relationship€with€both€parents.׃<×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€Wright€v.€Stovallóó,€No.€01A01„9701,€1997€WLÐ  ` Ð607508€at€*7€(Tenn.€App.€1997).€Ð è 8  Ðà ` àThese€parents€were€able€to€exercise€their€co„parenting€responsibilities€harmoniously€forÐ À  Ða€long€time,€with€beneficial€results€to€their€children.€€They€are€to€be€commended€for€theirÐ ˜è  Ðsuccessful,€if€not€always€easy,€efforts.€€Their€later€inability€to€deal€with€each€other€or€withÐ pÀ Ðissues€related€to€the€children€created€the€situation€which€let€to€this€litigation.€€In€turn,€theÐ H˜ Ðlitigation€itself€increased€the€level€of€contentiousness,€all€with€a€detrimental€effect€on€theÐ  p Ðchildren.€€In€determining€how€to€best€reduce€those€detrimental€effects,€the€trial€court€consideredÐ øH Ðmany€factors,€including€ways€to€reduce€the€opportunity€for€confrontations€and€disputes€betweenÐ Ð  Ðthe€parents.€€The€trial€courtððs€order€herein€does€that€and€is€carefully€structured€to€further€theÐ ¨ø Ðbest€interest€of€the€children.Ð €Ð ÐÓ  ÓXI.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ!»Óà ` àBearing€in€mind€the€mandate€of€a€comparative€fitness€test,€and€having€€reviewed€theÐ 0"€  Ðentire€voluminous€record€in€this€case,€we€have€reached€the€conclusion€that€the€evidence€doesÐ $X" Ðnot€preponderate€against€the€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€continued€joint€custody€withÐ à%0!$ Ðincreased€physical€custody€to€Mother€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€The€trial€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðconsidered€carefully€all€the€relevant€factors€and€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses,€gave€theirÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€the€weight€and€credit€that€the€court€felt€the€testimony€deserved,€and€fashioned€aÐ h+¸&* Ðdetailed€custody€arrangement€to€further€serve€the€childrenððs€interests.Ð @-(, ÐÐ  /h*. Ðà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€above€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€isÐ ° Ðremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€necessary.€€The€costs€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthis€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant.Ð `° ÐÓ9ÓÌÓH"€ Ø ` DŒ@äX€Ø ` ¸ @äXHÓà ` àà  àà D àÌÌà ` àà  àà D à___________________________________Ð  ^  Ðà ` àà  àà D àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ P  ÐCONCUR:Ð òB  ÐÌÌ_____________________________Ð È  ÐBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€Ð º  ÐJUDGE,€M.€S.Ð ¬ü ÐÌÌÌ______________________________Ð tÄ ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ f¶ Ð