ÿWPC> 2# ÌUN× %% 0(+w@S4“§ 0l¶ 0D"f 0@n 0J® 0Tø 0^L 0hª 0r 0|„ 0† 0† 1u 0d‹ Bï D3 U>? B)} DC¦ AMé U*6 %` AQ… ÆÖ 0Dœ 0Dà D/$ BS}pv~ívÓk˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ µU¶·ÕÐUÑEÒgÓeÔUÕÓ€áäzz!<X&%3|xá((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€€€òòMemorandum€Opinionó óóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€withÏconcurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€theÏtrial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€ÏWhen€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€ð ðMEMORANDUMÏOPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÕXdìdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òIVA€DELL€BROWN€McALEXANDERó ó,à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9611„CH„00289Ìà à)à àMadison€County€Chancery€Court€No.€50287Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)à àHON.€JOE€C.€MORRIS,€CHANCELLORÌVS.à à)à à̜ـ*ÙßR€&(%A1-j|à1` Å `€€@ÿRß›à à)à àò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌò òKENNETH€JACKSONó óà à)Ìò òMcALEXANDERó ó,à à)à àÌà à)à àOPINION€FILED:Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌÌò òJesse€H.€Ford,€IIIó ó,€FORD€&€MAYO,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€Defendant/Appellant.ÌÌò òMary€Jo€Middlebrooksó ó,€MIDDLEBROOKS€&€GRAY,€P.A.,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€forÏPlaintiff/Appellee.Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó ó× ƒ/ ××  ×Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àà àà àà àà àà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌà àFollowing€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€the€parties€an€absolute€divorce,Ïdistributing€the€partiesðð€property,€awarding€custody€of€the€partiesðð€four€minor€children€to€Iva€DellÏBrown€McAlexander€(the€Mother),€and€ordering€Kenneth€Jackson€McAlexander€(the€Father)€to€payÏchild€support€to€the€Mother€pursuant€to€the€Child€Support€Guidelines,€Father€appealed.€€The€soleÏissue€presented€by€the€Father€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€custody€of€the€partiesðð€fourÍchildren€to€the€Mother.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àThe€Fatherððs€primary€objection€to€the€Mother€being€awarded€custody€of€the€childrenÏis€that€the€Mother€and€children€currently€reside€in€the€home€of€Jonathan€McAlexander,€the€FatherððsÏ36„year„old€son€by€a€previous€marriage€and,€hence,€the€Motherððs€stepson.€€The€Mother€left€theÏFather€in€January€1995€and,€taking€the€children€with€her,€moved€in€with€the€stepson.€€In€MarchÏ1995,€the€Mother€filed€this€complaint€for€divorce.ÌÌà àBased€on€his€objection€to€the€Motherððs€living€arrangements,€the€Father€filed€aÏmotion€for€temporary€custody€of€the€children€pending€the€divorce.€€After€conducting€a€hearing€onÏthe€matter,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€which€(1)€permitted€the€Mother€to€retain€temporaryÏphysical€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children;€(2)€ordered€the€Father€to€pay€temporary€child€support€toÏthe€Mother;€and€(3)€appointed€a€guardian€ad€litem€to€represent€the€interests€of€the€children.ÌÌà àAt€the€final€divorce€hearing€in€April€1996,€the€parties€presented€evidence€on€theÏcustody€issue€and€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem€presented€her€report.€€Although€the€Mother€previouslyÏhad€described€her€living€arrangement€as€temporary,€she€acknowledged€at€trial€that€she€and€theÏchildren€still€were€residing€with€the€stepson.€€Although€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€about€theÏchildrenððs€environment,€in€its€subsequent€order€the€court€awarded€the€Mother€sole€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€minor€children€and€granted€the€Husband€ð ðreasonable€and€liberal€visitation.ððÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Father€objects€to€the€Motherððs€current€living€arrangements€for€herselfÏand€the€children€on€several€grounds,€all€related€to€the€stepson.€€The€Father€describes€theÏrelationship€between€the€Mother€and€the€stepson€as€ð ðincestuous.ðð€€The€Father€also€contends€that€theÏrelationship€between€the€Father€and€the€stepson,€which€at€best€could€be€described€as€acrimonious,Ïis€having€a€negative€impact€on€the€Fatherððs€relationship€with€the€children.€€In€this€regard,€the€FatherÍcontends€that€he€is€being€deprived€of€a€meaningful€relationship€with€his€children€because€theÏstepson€has€replaced€him€as€the€father€figure€in€the€childrenððs€lives.€€Additionally,€the€FatherÏsuggests€that€the€stepson€is€a€negative€influence€on€the€children€because€of€the€attitudes€expressedÏby€the€stepson€in€a€written€response€to€the€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€custody€to€the€Mother€is€governedÏby€Rule€13(d)€T.R.A.P.€€ò òòòHass€v.€Knightonóóó ó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984);€ò òòòRuyle€v.ÏRuyleó óóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€441€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€ò òòòKoch€v.€Kochó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575Ï(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€This€standard€requires€us,€in€conducting€a€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€review€of€the€record,€toÏpresume€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct,€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€In€applying€this€standard€of€review,€we€recognize€that€ð ð[t]rial€courtsÏare€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€child€custody€and€the€appellate€courts€will€not€interfereÏexcept€upon€a€showing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€that€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòKochó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€OurÏparamount€concern,€and€that€of€the€trial€court,€is€the€welfare€and€best€interests€of€the€partiesðð€minorÏchildren.€€ò òòòRuyleó óóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€441;€ò òòòKochó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€This€determination€necessarilyÏturns€on€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€€ò òòòKochó óóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children€toÏthe€Mother.€€Contrary€to€the€Fatherððs€contention,€the€evidence€fails€to€support€the€conclusion€thatÏthe€Motherððs€current€living€arrangement€with€the€stepson€has€negatively€impacted€the€FatherððsÏrelationship€with€the€children.€€First,€we€note€that€the€record€contains€virtually€no€evidence€toÏsupport€the€Fatherððs€contention€that€the€Motherððs€relationship€with€the€stepson€is€in€any€wayÏincestuous.€€At€the€hearing€below,€the€Mother€consistently€denied€having€any€type€of€sexual€orÏromantic€relationship€with€the€stepson.€€The€Mother€testified€that€the€stepson€has€a€five„bedroomÏhouse.€€The€Mother€and€the€partiesðð€three€daughters€sleep€in€two€bedrooms€on€one€side€of€theÍhouse,€and€the€stepson€and€the€partiesðð€14„year„old€son€sleep€in€two€bedrooms€on€the€other€side.€ÏThe€middle€part€of€the€house€consists€of€a€common€living€area.€€One€of€the€Motherððs€friendsÏtestified,€without€objection,€that€she€believed€the€Mother€was€telling€the€truth€about€her€relationshipÏwith€the€stepson.€€Significantly,€in€orally€presenting€her€report€at€trial,€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem,Ïwho€had€worked€on€the€case€for€a€period€of€ten€months,€stated€that€in€her€conversations€with€theÏFather€the€Father€never€indicated€that€he€believed€there€was€any€type€of€illicit€relationship€betweenÏthe€Mother€and€the€stepson.€€Father€points€to€no€evidence,€other€than€the€fact€that€the€Mother€andÏthe€stepson€live€in€the€same€house,€to€support€his€assertion€that€they€are€involved€in€an€incestuousÏrelationship.ÌÌà àWe€also€conclude€that€the€evidence€fails€to€support€the€Fatherððs€contention€that€theÏstepson€has€negatively€influenced€the€children€or€their€relationship€with€the€Father.€€At€trial,€theÏMother€testified€that€the€stepsonððs€relationship€with€the€children€is€as€a€big€brother,€that€he€lovesÏthe€children€and€is€very€close€to€them,€that€he€has€not€tried€to€alienate€the€children€from€the€Father,Ïand€that€his€relationship€with€the€Father€has€not€adversely€affected€the€children.€€The€Guardian€AdÏLitemððs€report€corroborated€the€Motherððs€testimony.€€In€presenting€her€report,€the€Guardian€AdÏLitem€stated€that€the€stepson€is€very€close€to€the€children,€that€the€children€love€their€big€brother,Ïand€that€the€Guardian€has€never€perceived€anything€other€than€a€big„brother€relationship€betweenÏthe€stepson€and€the€children.€€The€Guardian€Ad€Litem€also€stated€that€she€saw€no€evidence€that€theÏstepsonððs€attitude€toward€the€Father€has€affected€the€children€or€that€the€stepson€is€trying€toÏinfluence€the€children€against€the€Father.€€The€childrenððs€only€negative€comments€about€the€FatherÏrelated€to€the€Fatherððs€behavior€when€he€is€with€the€children.€€The€Guardian€opined€that€theÏtemporary€living€arrangement€with€the€stepson€has€actually€been€good€for€the€children€in€that€it€hasÏprovided€needed€stability€and€security,€although€she€believes€that€at€some€point€the€Mother€shouldÏestablish€a€home€for€herself€and€the€children.€€Moreover,€the€Fatherððs€own€testimony€failed€toÏreveal€that€his€relationship€with€the€stepson€has€negatively€affected€the€children.€€Although€theÍFather€is€not€welcome€in€the€stepsonððs€house,€there€is€no€evidence€that€this€restriction€hasÏinterfered€with€the€Fatherððs€exercise€of€visitation€rights€with€the€children.€€In€fact,€the€onlyÏvisitation€problems€recounted€by€the€Father€were€due€to€the€Motherððs€actions€and€had€no€relation€toÏthe€stepson.€€The€Father€has€spoken€to€the€stepson€only€once€since€the€Mother€and€the€childrenÏmoved€into€the€stepsonððs€home.€€Finally,€although€we€agree€that€the€stepsonððs€written€response€toÏthe€Guardian€Ad€Litemððs€report€is€somewhat€unusual,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€attitudesÏexpressed€therein€have€been€communicated€to€the€children€or€have€had€any€negative€impact€onÏthem.ÌÌà àWe€acknowledge€that€the€post„separation€living€arrangements€chosen€by€the€MotherÏfor€herself€and€the€children€is€unique.€€Nevertheless,€based€on€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case,Ïas€well€as€the€report€of€the€Guardian€Ad€Litem,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€awardÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€children€to€the€Mother.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellant,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌ