ÿWPC× ýf;W{J ‹bÖ2E©Ó–<ñ\EtÔÄâØ&Á-“`ø,zÒ.Áw”~¼®n«þýú¨s›_8/åÇç³n®`}ëÛÖÛ˜µ2Gí¶,JYt㫪áÃÔ•¿¥˜+STÙ.Æš9–oœ¿FT\#'«0Û#œÕ£†Mþ%rrÈ%ˆÕ¡ßÀ7¤Aâz·§h ”0m¢dD‰bPÒÑ“®„ £ZX‰ ù¾*ºbÃë†ËÖ1È$Jë > Yñ5œ¨Ql³æ•:5 ç¼ÿˆ„wÞ–ó{ùü{Ç­zŸh;Zûh¼WSVü>Ñ›¬b&F§ùB¸“©8Ù€Çfql(mÑ`Ÿ‹¶'›Ux5{ƒ%-s¾Jái£—·Y–T#öôH©¹CÙ®=XS™0«†‰ÿÛ®hR¨*®[gh/ESÎÆ#²l% ãn!b´"ZºÑè91Vî~­Yj^që=±P7{çᓽÀø ÑÛjÇ]ù†2¥—ÜHÏVÉXN°c3sáÇ€J°3×N¸Ö 3q‘4µÆTÃ6^%;¸^¹ÌFp8WÌçû›q˜ xJÒãCzEá!é‘Ëû*rX™ïý«ŒË—ñF{ÌŽ¹CŒ:7¥ `# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T U:Ž 0PÈ  U:                 AQS Ƥ 0Dj j 0D® ® D/ò B! B> D3[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0DŽ Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž AÒ D?Q BG˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ +,D-D./D0D12D3Ó€=F&tttttt3|x=waiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô ÷Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XuXXXÔÔ€‡XXuÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XuX‡ÔÐ  ÐÌMay€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼ì^¼XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñ=ññ=ññ=ññ3ñœñ3ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ=ññ3ññ3ñERIC›€G.€LAUTENBACH,à 8 àà  à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  à)à  àAppeal€Nos.Ð Ð  Ðñ=ñœßt€ )>.*jxZÿÐ` `€€@EN°` 8ttxP†èð È tß›ñ=ñà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9710„CH„00595Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9703„CH„00098Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àÐ  P Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àCheatham€ChanceryÐ  ` ÐROBBIN€L.€LAUTENBACH,€à  à)à  àNo.€7783Ð  p Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à  à)Ð @  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†XÆrX¼¼ì^8#ÔÔ‡»l]»XXÆrÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ €Ð  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€CHEATHAM€COUNTYÌÌAT€ASHLAND€CITY,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€LEONARD€M.€MARTIN,€CHANCELLORÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓMARY€ANNE€KEVILÌBellevue€Professional€CenterÌ237€Old€Hickory€Blvd.,€Suite€201ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37221„1353ÌÔ#†XÆrX»»l]2#ÔÔ‡¼ì^¼XXÆrÔà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÐ À'#! ÐÌÌÌCHARLES€C.€MORROWÌCharles€C.€Morrow€&€AssociatesÌ3221€Nolensville€Road,€Suite€102ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37211Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌñ3ñÑ foÑÑ7€ÆrXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  Ññ3ñÓ  ÓÌñ3ñÑ foÑÑ7€ÆrXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ3ñWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ foÑÑ7€ÆrXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ3ñÑ foÑÑ7€6tXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ3ñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†XÆrX¼¼ì^M#ÔÔ‡°ñe°XXÆrÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†XÆrX°°ñe #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼ì^¼XXÆrÔà  àThis€case€involves€a€post„divorce€custody€decision€in€which€the€lowerÐ T¤ Ðcourt€changed€custody€of€a€minor€child€from€her€mother€to€her€father.€€The€child'sÏmother€has€appealed€raising€three€issues.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€courtÏwith€regard€to€each€issue.à ¼ à€Ð  l ÐÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ* ÓÌà  àEric€Lautenbach€("the€Father")€and€Robbin€Lautenbach€("the€Mother")Ïwere€divorced€in€1994€at€which€time€they€entered€a€Marital€DissolutionÏœAgreement€("MDA")›€which€provided€that€they€have€joint€custody€of€their€minorÏchild,€Amanda€("the€child"),€with€the€Mother€being€the€primary€custodian.€ÏHowever,€the€divorce€decree€and€MDA€were€silent€as€to€visitation,€and€in€1996,Ïthe€Mother€filed€a€petition€requesting€the€court€to€set€definite€visitation€for€theÏFather.€€The€Father€then€filed€a€counter€petition€to€change€custody€of€the€child€toÏhim.€€In€addition,€the€Father€moved€for€temporary€visitation.€€ÌÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€hearing,€both€attorneys€submitted€proposed€orders.€ÏThe€order€submitted€by€the€Mother's€attorney€was€filed€by€the€court€on€June€œ21›Ï1996€("the€June€1996€Order").€€However,€on€September€6,€1996,€the€court€filedÏa€second€order€nunc€pro€tunc€which€was€the€order€originally€submitted€by€theÏFather€("the€September€1996€Order").€€Thereafter,€the€court€issued€an€œOrder›€ofÏœCorrection›€in€which€it€stated€that€the€latter€order€replaced€the€former€June€1996ÏOrder,€since€the€former€was€entered€in€error.€€In€this€latter€September€1996€Order,Ïwhich€was€entitled€"Temporary€Order,"€the€court€directed€that€the€Mother€haveÏtemporary€custody€of€the€child€and€set€definite€visitation€for€the€Father.€€The€orderÏstated€that€"this€case€shall€be€reviewed€after€July€12,€1996,€upon€motion€of€eitherÏparty."ÌÌà  àAfter€the€Mother€filed€a€œMotion›€to€Amend€Temporary€Order€onÏVisitation€and€for€Increase€in€Child€œSupport,›€a€hearing€was€held€and€custody€wasÏmodified.€€This€order€("the€November€1996€Order"),€which€was€also€entitledÏ"Temporary€Order,"€changed€custody€such€that€the€Father€œhañ3ñ›ñ3ñd›€primary€custody€ofÐ ¼9 5@ Ðthe€child€with€the€parties€continuing€to€have€joint€legal€custody.€€The€order€set€theÏvisitation€with€the€Mother€at€every€weekend€except€the€fifth€successive€weekend.€ÏThe€court€reserved€the€issue€of€child€support.à @ àÐ à0 ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Mother€filed€a€petition€to€return€the€custody€of€the€child€toÏher.€€After€a€hearing,€the€court€entered€an€order€on€June€6,€1997€("the€June€1997ÏOrder")€finding€that€the€Father€should€be€awarded€sole€custody€of€the€child,€thatÏvisitation€as€previously€ordered€should€remain€in€force,€and€that€the€Mother€shouldÏhave€a€minimum€of€four€weeks€extended€summer€visitation.€€In€addition,€the€courtÏordered€that€the€Mother€should€pay€$200€per€month€child€support€to€the€Father.€ÏThe€court€decreed€that€the€œJune›€1997€Order€shall€be€final€in€all€of€its€terms.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓPÓÌà  àIn€her€first€issue,€the€Mother€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏentering€the€September€1996€Order€some€77€days€after€the€entry€of€the€initial€JuneÏ1996€Order.€€The€Mother's€position€is€that€the€court€did€not€have€the€authority€toÏdo€this€since€the€first€order€became€final€30€days€after€it€was€signed€when€noÏappeal€was€taken€from€this€order.€€She€maintains€that€the€order€can€only€beÏchanged€by€either€party's€petition€to€the€court€for€a€change€in€custody,€a€processÏwhich€gives€the€other€party€time€to€prepare€and€respond.ÌÌà  àFirst,€we€point€out€that€by€issuing€the€September€1996€Order,€the€courtÏwas€not€changing€its€opinion€but€rather€conforming€its€order€to€reflect€what€it€hadÏintended€originally.€€As€stated,€the€court€entered€an€Order€of€Correction€clarifyingÏthat€the€June€1996€Order€was€entered€in€error.€€Rule€60.01€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure€provides€that€"[c]lerical€mistakes€in€judgments,€orders€or€otherÏparts€of€the€record,€and€òòerrors€therein€arising€from€oversight€or€omissionsóó,€mayÐ ¸/+6 Ðbe€corrected€by€the€court€at€any€time€on€its€own€initiative€or€on€motion€of€anyÏparty€and€after€such€notice,€if€any,€as€the€court€orders."€€(emphasis€added).€€As€theÏcourt€stated€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€rules:ÌÓ€Óà8  àAll€courts€have€the€right,€and€it€is€their€duty,€to€make€theirÏrecords€speak€the€truth,€and€a€court,€therefore,€in€a€properÏcase,€of€its€own€motion,€may€order€a€nunc€pro€tunc€entry€to€beÏœmade;›€.€.€.€€And€the€lapse€of€time€between€the€announcementÐ H9˜4A Ðof€judgment€and€the€making€of€this€motion€is€of€noÏimportance;€that€which€is€important€is,€that€the€proof€be€clearÏand€convincing€that€the€judgment€which€it€is€sought€to€haveÏentered€is€the€one€pronounced€in€the€cause.€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€wÓòòò òMcCown€v.€Quillinó óóó,€48€Tenn.€App.€162,€175,€344€S.W.2d€576,€582€(1960).€€€FromÐ  P Ðthe€trial€court's€Order€of€Correction,€it€is€clear€that€the€court's€error€in€signing€theÏJune€1996€Order€arose€from€oversight€or€omission.€€òòò òSee€Pennington€v.Ð 3 ƒ  ÐPenningtonó óóó,€592€S.W.2d€576,€578€(Tenn.App.1979).€€Therefore,€pursuant€to€RuleÐ Î  Ð60.01,€the€court€had€the€authority€to€issue€the€Order€of€Correction€and€to€enter€theÏSeptember€1996€Order€nunc€pro€tunc.ÌÌà  àIn€actuality,€the€two€orders€are€almost€identical€in€substance.€€One€orderÏprovides€that€the€Father€enjoy€his€one„full„weekend„per„two„months€visit€with€theÏchild€during€the€even€months€beginning€in€June€of€1996€and€that€the€Mother€enjoyÏhers€during€the€odd€months€beginning€in€œJuly,›€and€the€other€order€provides€for€theÏconverse.€€However,€it€seems€that€both€proposed€orders€embody€a€singular€rulingÏby€the€trial€court.€€For€that€reason,€the€Mother's€insinuation€that€she€was€not€givenÏtime€to€prepare€and€respond€before€this€change€is€non„sensical.€€œThe›€court€was€notÏre„evaluating€its€decision€and€therefore€did€not€need€new€proof€or€argument€onÏbehalf€of€the€parties.Ì€Ìà  àFinally,€the€Mother€challenged€the€timing€of€the€court's€corrective€actionÏasserting€that€the€order€became€final€after€30€days.€€Rule€60.01€provides€that€theÏcourt€may€correct€errors€"at€any€time."€€Therefore,€the€court€was€justified€inÏentering€the€September€1996€Order€some€77€days€following€the€erroneous€entryÏof€the€initial€order.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€ÌÌÓÂ"Óà  àNext,€we€address€the€Mother's€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏchanging€the€custody€without€showing€that€the€Mother€was€an€unfit€and€improperÏperson€to€have€custody€of€the€child.€€In€the€November€1996€Order€which€modifiedÏcustody,€the€court€summarily€stated€that€"the€temporary€order€of€September€6,Ï1996€should€be€modified."€€In€the€June€1997€Order,€the€court€stated€only€thatÏcustody€should€remain€with€the€Father.€€However,€the€court's€pronouncementsÐ Ù9)5A Ðfrom€the€bench€indicate€that€it€made€the€requisite€finding€for€a€modification€ofÏcustody.€€ÌÔ‡ ¼=$¼¼¼œiÔÌà  àÔ#†¼œi¼¼ ¼=$0%#ÔIt€was€not€necessary€for€the€court€to€find€that€the€Mother€was€an€unfitÐ r  Ðand€improper€mother.€€Rather,€courts€are€empowered€to€modify€custody€"as€theÏexigencies€of€the€case€may€require."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-6-101(a)(1)(1991).€ÏThe€party€seeking€to€change€custody€must€show€"(1)€that€the€child's€circumstancesÏhave€materially€changed€in€a€way€that€could€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen€atÏthe€time€of€the€original€custody€œdecision,›€œòòò òsee€Smith›€v.€Haaseó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€49,€50Ð jº  Ð(Tenn.1975);€€òòò òMcDaniel€v.€McDanieló óóó,€743€S.W.2d€[167,€169€(Tenn.App.1987)],Ð U Ðand€(2)€that€the€child's€best€interests€will€be€served€by€changing€the€existingÏcustody€arrangement."€€òòò òAdelsperger€v.€Adelspergeró óóó,€970€S.W.2d€482,€485€œ(Tenn.Ð 8ˆ ÐApp.1997).›€€"'Changed€circumstances'€includes€any€material€change€of€œcircum„¼stances›€affecting€the€welfare€of€the€child,€including€new€factors€or€changedÏconditions€which€could€not€be€anticipated€by€the€custody€order."€€òòò òBlair€v.Ð S ÐBadenhopeó óóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.App.1996)€(citing€òòò òDalton€v.€Daltonó óóó,€858Ð žî ÐS.W.2d€324€(Tenn.App.1993)).ÌÌà  àReview€of€findings€of€fact€in€child€custody€cases€"shall€be€de€novo€uponÏthe€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€ofÏthe€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(d);€€òòò òHass€v.€Knightonó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.1984).€€In€the€caseÐ 1&!* Ðat€bar,€the€prior€custody€arrangement€as€set€out€in€the€MDA€was€that€the€partiesÏhad€joint€custody€with€the€Mother€as€the€primary€custodian.€€We€find€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€a€finding€that€circumstances€changed€suchÏthat€the€best€interests€of€Amanda€Lautenbach€were€served€by€modifying€theÏcustody€arrangement€so€the€Father€was€the€primary€custodian.€€Both€parents€wereÏcustodians;€the€court€just€changed€the€primary€custodian.ÌÌà  àAt€the€November€1996€hearing,€the€Mother€testified€that€she€was€havingÏproblems€with€the€child.€€She€could€not€make€the€child€listen,€obey,€take€directionsÏor€"settle€down"€to€do€her€homework.€€The€Mother€said€that€her€own€mother,ÏMary€Haynes,€assisted€her€in€helping€the€child€with€homework€because€the€childÏminded€Ms.€Haynes€better.€€œAt€the€hearing€Ms.›€Haynes€œtestified€that,€after€beingÐ T9¤4B Ðabsent€from€the€child€for€six€weeks,€she€noticed€a€big€difference€in€the€child:€€theÏchild€"pulls€tantrums,€she€pouts,€she€won't€mind.€€She€sits€and€she'll€grab€the€doorÏ„„€go€through€the€room€and€slam€the€door.€€She'll€tear€up€things€in€her€room€andÏshe€comes€back€out€and€she's€sorry,€but€then€she€starts€all€over€again.€.€.€.€SheÏdo[es]n't€mind€her€mother,€she€doesn't€mind€me."€€Ms.€Haynes€stated€that€thisÏbehavior€was€particularly€bad€when€the€child€returned€from€visiting€her€Father.€ÏThe€Father€testified€that€the€€child€exhibited€none€of€these€behavioral€problemsÏwhen€she€was€in€his€custody.€€He€claimed€that€since€the€child's€birth,€the€child'sÏMother€has€had€problems€controlling€and€disciplining€her€and€that€the€Mother€hasÏconsistently€requested€that€he€control€and€discipline€her.ÌÌà  àIn€addition,€there€was€proof€that€the€child€was€not€doing€well€in€school.€ÏThe€Father€testified€that€the€Mother€reads€at€a€fourth€grade€level€and€that€she€hasÏdifficulty€comprehending€many€things.€€He€expressed€his€concern€that€the€MotherÏwas€"trying€to€teach€[the€child]€to€read€and€write€and€do€mathematics,€when€sheÏhas€a€real€hard€time€doing€it€herself."€€The€Mother€indicated€that€she€was€able€toÏgive€adequate€help€to€the€child€with€her€homework.€€However,€it€is€apparent€thatÏthe€judge€was€concerned€about€the€Mother's€ability€to€help€the€child€in€this€area.€ÏIt€was€after€this€hearing€that€the€court€issued€the€Temporary€Order€changingÏcustody€to€the€Father.€€At€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€court€made€the€followingÏstatement:ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ ä è“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà8  àà ä àI'm€simply€trying€to€find€something€that€will€work€betterÏfor€the€child€than€what€the€two€of€you€are€telling€me€willÏwork.€€Neither€one€of€you€are€telling€me€that€this€child€isÏdoing€well€and€this€child€is€happy,€you're€both€having€thisÏproblem.€Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àSo,€let's€try€something€different;€that€something€differentÏis€going€to€be€that€the€child€is€fixing€to€go€live€with€her€father.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€.5Óà  àAt€the€May€1997€hearing€held€upon€the€Mother's€petition€to€returnÏcustody€to€her,€the€Mother€testified€that€when€the€child€was€with€the€ñ)ñfñ)ññ*ñFñ*ñather,€sheÏwas€not€given€breakfast€nor€was€she€allowed€to€talk€to€ñ+ñtñ+ñheñ,ñrñ,ñ€ñ-ñmñ-ññ.ñMñ.ñother€ñ/ñ€ñ/ñon€the€phone.€ÏThe€child€verified€that€she€did€not€have€breakfast€every€morning€while€living€withÏher€father.€€The€Father€said€that€he€and€the€child€ate€breakfast€daily€until€the€pastÏfew€weeks€when€the€child€began€to€stay€in€bed€causing€them€to€run€late.€€WhenÏthis€happened,€the€Father€sent€extra€snacks€to€school€with€the€child.€Ð H9˜4? Їà  àThe€Father€testified€and€the€Mother€admitted€that€she€would€not€talk€toÏthe€Father€about€the€child's€behavioral€problems.€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€childÏwas€having€problems€in€school€and€had€been€diagnosed€with€Attention€DeficitÏHyperactive€Disorder,€the€Mother€was€uninterested€in€the€Father's€plan€toÏinvestigate€the€possibility€of€enrolling€the€child€in€a€private€school.€€She€stated€thatÏshe€did€not€want€to€hear€anything€about€this€school.€€The€Mother€was€candid€aboutÏthe€fact€that€she€had€been€emotional€in€front€of€the€child€with€regard€to€the€child'sÏchange€of€custody€to€her€Father€and€that€this€had€upset€the€child.€€ÌÌà  àThere€was€testimony€from€both€the€child's€grandmother,€Ms.€Haynes,Ïand€a€friend€of€the€Mother's€that€the€child€had€a€bruise€which€she€claimed€cameÏfrom€being€spanked€by€the€Father.€€The€Father€denied€having€bruised€the€child€inÏthis€way.€€Regarding€this€matter,€the€child's€testimony€was€ambiguous.€€While€sheÏasserted€that€her€Father€spanked€her€when€he€was€drinking,€she€told€the€court€thatÏher€father€punishes€her€by€putting€her€in€time„out.€€Moreover,€she€testified€that€aÏbruise€on€her€arm€from€falling€off€the€swing€set€was€her€first€bruise.€€The€depo„¼sition›€of€Todd€Love,€a€social€counselor€from€DCS,€was€entered€into€evidence.€ÏAfter€the€Mother€filed€her€complaint,€Mr.€Love€interviewed€the€child,€concludedÏthat€no€abuse€had€taken€place,€and€closed€the€investigation.€€It€was€clear€that€theÏchild's€desire€was€to€live€with€her€Mother.€€When€asked€the€reason€for€herÏpreference,€she€stated€that€she€has€more€fun€there.ÌÌà  àFollowing€the€June€1997€hearing€held€upon€the€Mother's€petition€toÏreturn€the€custody€of€the€child€to€her,€the€court€stated€its€finding€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ä àThe€court€finds€that€as€between€these€two€parents€that€theÏbest€interest€of€this€child€is€served€by€leaving€the€child€withÏthe€father.€€This€father€seems€to€be,€based€upon€the€testimonyÏin€the€Court€and€observation€of€the€witness,€this€parent€isÏbetter€equipped€to€do€a€better€job€of€providing€the€things€thisÏchild€needs.€€There€is€no€question€in€the€Court's€mind€aboutÏthe€love€the€mother€has€for€the€child.€.€.€.€The€problem€is€[theÏchild]€is€not€doing€well€under€the€mother's€full€timeÏsupervision.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà ä àAnd€the€father,€it€seems€to€the€court,€has€a€much€better,Ïmore€reasonable€approach€to€the€welfare€of€this€child.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€Ç@ÓThe€court€then€entered€a€final€decree€awarding€sole€custody€of€the€child€to€theÏFather.Ð H9˜4> Їà  àThe€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€circumstances€had€materiallyÏchanged€for€this€child.€€She€was€not€doing€well€in€school,€either€academically€orÏbehaviorally.€€In€addition,€she€was€exhibiting€poor€behavior€in€the€company€of€herÏmother€and€maternal€grandmother.€€There€was€proof€that€the€Father€was€moreÏcapable€of€controlling€the€child€as€well€as€of€assisting€her€with€her€school€work.€ÏIn€addition,€the€evidence€indicated€that€the€Father€was€more€willing€to€address€theÏchild's€diagnoses€of€Attention€Deficit€Hyperactive€Disorder€and€€her€consequentialÏpotential€need€for€a€different€school.€€In€light€of€these€changed€circumstances,€theÏœñ0ñCñ0ññ1ñcñ1ñourt›€made€the€determination€that€the€best€interests€of€the€child€would€be€bestÏserved€by€placing€her€in€the€custody€of€her€father.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€this€conclusion.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ•GÓÌà  àFinally,€the€Mother€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€changing€theÏcustody€of€the€child€following€a€proceeding€that€was€held€upon€a€motion€toÏmodify€visitation.€€A€month€after€the€September€1996€Order€was€entered,€theÏMother€filed€a€motion€to€modify€visitation€and€increase€child€support.€€WithoutÏhaving€filed€any€response€to€the€Mother's€motion,€the€Father€came€to€theÏNovember€21,€1996€hearing.€€The€Mother€claims€that€there€was€no€mention€ofÏchanging€custody€and€that€she€was€not€prepared€to€defend€on€the€custody€issue.€ÏÌà  àWe€agree€that€the€record€indicates€that€there€was€no€formal€notice€thatÏcustody€would€be€an€issue€at€the€November€21,€1996€hearing.€€Nor€was€custodyÏthe€reason€the€parties€were€initially€in€court.€€When€the€judge€asked,€"[w]hat€areÏwe€here€on?",€the€Mother's€attorney€expressed€his€client's€desire€to€modifyÏvisitation€and€increase€child€support.€€The€Father's€attorney€requested€that€theÏchild€be€appointed€a€guardian€and€then€stated€that€the€child€had€been€exposed€toÏsome€situations:€€"we€don't€know€whether€they€are€significant€enough€for€the€courtÏto€have€another€full€hearing€on€the€issue€of€primary€custody."€€€ÌÌà  àHowever,€during€the€November€1996€hearing,€when€asked€by€the€courtÏwhat€it€should€do,€the€Father€stated€that€if€the€child€were€with€him€during€theÏweek,€he€could€help€her€study.€€Indeed,€by€the€evidence€the€parties€presented€atÐ H9˜4B Ðthis€hearing,€it€is€clear€that,€once€into€the€hearing,€they€became€aware€that€custodyÏwas€the€issue€and€put€on€evidence€of€the€child's€circumstances.€€Furthermore,€asÏoutlined€above,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€its€modification€of€custody€final€untilÏafter€the€second€May€1997€hearing€which€was€held€for€the€sole€purpose€ofÏdetermining€custody.€€Therefore,€in€light€of€the€particular€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€we€find€that€the€Mother€had€adequate€opportunity€to€prepare€and€presentÏevidence€on€the€custody€issue.ÌÌà  àWe€are€aware€that€a€parent's€right€to€custody€of€his€or€her€child€isÏprotected€by€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòò òU.S.€Const.ó óóó€amend.€XIV.€€A€parentÐ X Ðmust€have€notice€of€the€issues€which€the€court€will€decide€at€hearings€involvingÏhis€or€her€child€in€order€to€adduce€evidence.€€òòò òThorne€v.€Thorneó óóó,€344€So.2d€165Ð ;‹ Ð(Ala.Civ.App.1977).€€€However,€here€the€court€never€granted€the€Mother€sole,Ïpermanent€custody.€€Instead,€there€were€a€series€of€hearings€where€custodyÏremained€an€issue€for€review.€€We€do€not€believe€that,€under€these€circumstances,Ïthe€Mother's€constitutional€right€was€violated.ÌÓ  ÓÌV.ÌÌÓðQÓà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Pursuant€toÏRule€60.01,€the€court€had€the€authority€to€issue€its€Order€of€Correction€and€to€enterÏits€œñ2ñ€ñ2ñSeptember›€1996€Order€nunc€pro€tunc.€€Furthermore,€we€uphold€the€court'sÏsubsequent€decision€to€modify€custody€of€the€child€to€the€Father€based€upon€theÏtwo€hearings€that€took€place.€€The€costs€of€appeal€should€be€divided€equallyÏbetween€the€Mother€and€the€Father.€€ÌÌÓ€ÓÓ?€ü(€ ä @’X€ü(€ ä è“X?Óà  àà ä àà  à__________________________________Ìà  àà ä àà  àÔ€X6tX¼¼œiÔWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ 6/†*5 ÐÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRES.€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE