ÿWPC¾ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U>VB)”DC½ AMU*M D3wáªý‹ 0@ˆv~ÈvÓF AOÆh 0D. D/r B¡˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ šE›œEžŸ D¡D¢Ó€¬DÒ ÿÿÿÿÿÏÿ3|x¬((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd ×Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€parties€and€the€trial€court€have€presented€this€Court€with€an€unorthodox€Statement€ofÏthe€Evidence.€€From€the€sparse€record€before€us,€it€appears€that€counsel€for€Husband,€in€makingÏhis€objections€to€Wifeððs€proposed€Statement€of€the€Evidence,€presented€the€trial€court€with€aÏð ðredlinedðð€version€of€Wifeððs€proposed€Statement€of€the€Evidence.€€€Instead€of€removing€the€editingÏmarks€and€redlining€from€Husbandððs€redlined€version,€the€trial€court€adopted€the€HusbandððsÏversion€in€its€entirety,€including€the€redlining.€€As€such,€the€Statement€is€difficult€to€read€andÏconfusing.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€†WXXdìdÈ7Ñò òÓ  Ó›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌTERI€MICHELLE€PARKER,€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óHouston€County€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙœßL€(+';+'h|Š` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€KEN€PARKER,€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€Ìò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ó ó€ò òà àà àà àà à)à àó ó01A01„9504„CH„00138ò òÌó óà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€HOUSTON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€ERIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€WALLACE,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€œDefendant/Appellee:›ÌóóÌRobert€Clive€Marksà àà àà àà àLaurence€M.€McMillan,€Jr.ÌClarksville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àClarksville,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌ̜̀€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED›€IN€PART,ÏREVERSED€IN€PART€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€†WXXdìXXdì7ÑœÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌ›à àIn€this€case,€Plaintiff„Appellant,€Teri€Michelle€Parker€(Wife),€appeals€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€award€custody€of€the€parties'€child,€Dylan€Ken€œParker,›€to€Defendant„Appellee,€RichardÏKen€Parker€(Husband),€alleging€that€the€custody€determination€was€based€on€the€effects€of€racialÏprejudice.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€custody€to€Husband.Ìà àThis€appeal€is€complicated€by€the€fact€that€the€parties€filed€no€transcript€of€the€trial€courtÏproceedings.€€Instead,€they€have€filed€a€rather€confusing€Statement€of€the€Evidence.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Moreover,€asÏdiscussed€below,€the€integrity€of€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€is€challenged€by€Wife€on€appeal.€Ìà àHusband€and€Wife€were€married€in€1988.€€During€the€partiesðð€marriage,€Wife€wasÏemployed€as€a€licensed€practical€nurse.€€Wife€began€working€for€Dr.€Sidberry,€an€African„American€physician,€€at€his€medical€clinic€in€March€of€1993.€€In€July€of€1993,€Wife€filed€forÏdivorce,€alleging€grounds€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct€and€asking€for€custody€of€the€partiesððÏchild.€€Husband€counterclaimed,€alleging€inappropriate€marital€conduct€and€irreconcilableÏdifferences.€€Husband€also€sought€custody€of€the€partiesðð€child.€€€€€€€Ìà àAt€trial,€Husband€alleged€that€Wife€was€having€an€affair€with€Dr.€Sidberry€and€that€she€hadÏneglected€Husband€and€their€child€to€spend€time€with€Dr.€Sidberry.€€Wife€denied€any€improperÏinvolvement€with€Dr.€Sidberry€or€that€she€had€neglected€her€son.€After€Wifeððs€denial,€HusbandÏoffered€the€testimony€of€a€private€investigator€who€œpresented€a€videotape€indicating›€that€Dr.ÏSidberry€had€spent€several€hours€at€Wifeððs€apartment€on€more€than€one€occasion.€Ìà àOne€of€the€witnesses€at€trial€was€a€pediatric€nurse€who€had€worked€with€Dr€Sidberry.€€OverÏobjection€by€Wifeððs€counsel,€the€witness€testified€that€it€could€be€harmful€for€the€minor€child€to€beÏraised€in€the€context€of€an€interracial€relationship€between€Wife€and€Dr.€œSidberry.€€At›€œthe€close›€ofÍthe€partiesðð€proof,€the€Chancellor€found€that€Wife€testified€untruthfully€and€had€engaged€inÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€trial€court€granted€custody€of€the€parties'€child€to€œHusband.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€ordered€that€the€child€could€not€be€around€Dr.€Sidberry,€even€though€this€reliefÏhad€not€been€requested.€›Ìà àWife€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€There€was€no€transcript€of€the€trial,€so€the€partiesÏprepared€a€proposed€Statement€of€Evidence.€€Wife€alleged€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€a€resultÏof€the€judgeððs€racial€prejudice.€€She€sought€to€include€in€the€Statement€of€Evidence€a€statementÏpurportedly€made€by€the€trial€judge€during€the€course€of€cross„examination€of€Wifeððs€œmother.€€TheÏstatement€included€a€parenthetical€indicating€the€trial€judgeððs€unspoken€intention:›ÌÓÓà8 àShe€[Wifeððs€mother]€comes€from€the€same€school€I€do.€€She€canððt€help€the€way€sheÏfeels.€€Society€today€feels€differently€than€the€way€we€were€brought€up€(thisÏreferred€to€the€Wife€who€is€white,€seeing€Dr.€Sidberry,€who€is€black.€(sic)ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€held€a€post„trial€hearing€on€the€Statement€of€Evidence,€and€there€is€aÏtranscript€of€the€post„trial€proceeding.€€The€trial€judge€conceded€that€he€had€probably€made€aÏstatement€similar€to€that€sought€to€be€included€by€œWife,›€but€denied€the€inference€of€racial€prejudiceÏin€the€parenthetical€proposed€by€Wifeððs€counsel:ÌÓÓà0 àTHE€COURT:€Never€did€I€„€and€I€do€this€in€a€lot€of€cases,€I€just€have€what€children€said.€IÏa„€am€very€much€concerned€with€people,€I€guess€for€lack€of€a€better€term,€shacking€up.€€IÏam€not€referring€to€œwhite€and€black.›€€I€am€talking€about€people€that€live€together€without€theÏbenefit€of€marriage€in€front€of€children.€€No€where€did€I€ever€mean€„€referring€to€Dr.ÏSeaberry€(sic),€that€he€was€black,€no€where€did€I€mean€that.€€What€I€was€talking€about€inÏthat€case€and€I€think€if€you€have€a€transcript€you€will€find€out€that€I€was€talking€aboutÏpeople€that€just€go€out€her€(sic)€and€œshacking›€up,€with€children.€€I€am€opposed€to€that.€€TheÏlawyers€who€regularly€practice€in€front€of€me€know€that.€€I€donððt€think€that€it€is€good€forÏchildren,€and€that€is€what€I€was€referring€to.€€€No€where€did€I€ever€make€any€comment€„€itÏlooked€like€to€me€ever€since€this€trial€started,€has€been€trying€to€make€effort€to€say€that€theÏCourt€has€some€objection€[to]€interracial€associations.€€I€donððt€care€whether€they€are€black,Ïwhite,€red€or€what€they€are,€I€am€not€going€to€allow€children€„„€I€donððt€allow€children,Ïsome€of€them€have€to€„€to€be€around€people€that€live€together€without€the€benefit€ofÏmarriage.€€I€am€just€opposed€to€it.€€And€that€is€what€I€was€referring€to.€€No€where€did€IÏœever€intend›€nor€do€I€even€feel€that€way.€€So,€I€think€it€has€been€„€I€donððt€know€where€thisÏcome€from,€but€I€probably€made€some€kind€of€œa€statement›€in€there€about€that.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà0 àMR.€MARKS:€Do€you€want€me€to€„€œdo›€you€want€me€to€elaborate€on€the€information€that€IÏhave€got?ÌÌà0 àTHE€COURT:€No.ÌÌà0 àMR.€MARKS:€The€statement€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà0 àTHE€COURT:€No.€€If€you€are€referring€to€interracial€„€if€you€are€referring€to€interracial,€myÏconcern€about€interracial€marriages,€interracial€babies,€you€can€forget€it.€€I€never€saidÏanything€like€that.€€I€am€talking€about€people€that€live€in€front€of€children,€thatððs€what€„€thatÏis€what€I€am€opposed€to€and€I€will€tell€you€in€a€minute,€and€I€donððt€care€„€the€AppellateÏCourt€may€think€I€am€wrong,€if€they€do,€they€can€tell€me.€€But€it€is€just€no€good€forÏchildren.€€I€remember€telling€her€that€she€didnððt€„€something€along€that€line,€but€I€wasÏthinking€one€thing€and€everybody€else€was€thinking€something€else.€€That€is€all€I€am€talkingÏabout.ÌÌà0 àMR.€MARKS:€I€am€not€„€I€guess€at€this€point€I€am€talking€about€simply€what€the€recordÏsays,€I€am€not€bringing€up€any€interracial€relationships€as€such,€but€there€is€nobody€sayingÏ„ÌÌà0 àTHE€COURT:€Well,€you€have€got€in€parenthesis€here,€this€refers€to€the€wife€who€is€whiteÏand€who€is€seeing€Dr.€Seaberry€(sic)€who€is€black.ÌÌà0 àMR.€MARKS:€Which€„€the€language€in€parenthesis€was€put€in€parenthesis€because€you€didÏnot€say€that.€€That€was€the€interpretation€of€the€witness€because€right€before€you€made€thisÏstatement,€it€was€the€situation€where€Allen€Kerns€was€riding€Gayle€Scism€as€a€witnessÏabout€Dr.€Seaberry€(sic)€„€ÌÌà0 àTHE€COURT:€Well,€its€wrong.ÌÌà0 àMR.€MARKS:€€„€being€black.ÌÌà0 àTHE€COURT:€You€can€take€the€parenthesis€out,€I€never€referred€to€that.€€The€AppellateÏCourt€can€put€any€kind€of€interpretation€they€want€to€on€it,€but€I€am€telling€you,€thatððs€notÏmy€interpretation.€€That€is€not€the€way€œI›€intended€it.€€ÌÌÓÓCounsel€for€Wife€sought€an€evidentiary€hearing,€and€this€was€denied.€€He€then€asked€to€make€anÏoffer€of€proof,€and€this€was€denied€as€well.€€The€trial€court€then€approved€the€Statement€ofÏEvidence€proffered€by€Husband,€which€included€œthe€redlined›€deletion€of€the€statements€proposedÏby€Wife.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Wife€asks€this€Court€to€set€aside€the€award€of€custody€to€Husband€because€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€was€based€on€the€effects€of€racial€œprejudice›€and€because€it€was€against€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Wife€also€asserts€that€trial€court€erred€in€not€permitting€anÏevidentiary€hearing€or€at€least€an€offer€of€proof€on€the€disputed€portion€of€the€Statement€ofÏEvidence.€€€à àOur€review€of€this€case€is€governed€by€œTenn.€R.€App.€P.›€13(d),€which€providesÏthat€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€shall€be€òòò òde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Íaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€œTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);›€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€ó ó854€S.W.2d€87,Ï91€(Tenn.€1993).€€€Where€the€evidence€is€conflicting,€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€entitled€to€greatÏweight€on€appeal€because€the€trial€judge€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€and€demeanorÏof€the€witnesses€while€œtestifying.€€ò òòòGalbreath€v.€Harrisó óóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990),ò òòò€cert.€deniedó óóó,€502€U.S.€939,€112€S.€Ct.€374,€116€L.€Ed.€2d€326€(1991).€€On›€an€issueÏwhich€hinges€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€isÏfound€on€the€record€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€other€than€the€oral€testimony€ofÏwitnesses€which€contradict€the€trial€courtððs€œfindings.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó›Ìà àWife€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€including€in€the€Statement€of€Evidence€theÏdisputed€statement€that€Wifeððs€mother€ð ðcomes€from€the€same€schoolðð€as€the€judge,€with€theÏparenthetical€indicating€that€œthis€referred›€to€the€interracial€relationship€between€Wife€and€Dr.ÏSidberry.€€She€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€permitting€an€evidentiary€hearing€or€atÏleast€an€offer€of€proof.Ìà àGenerally,€the€trial€courtððs€approval€of€a€statement€of€evidence€is€conclusive.€€Tenn.€œR.›ÏœApp.›€œP.›€24(e).€€In€ò òòòHall€v.€Halló óóó,€772€S.W.2d€œ432€(Tenn.›€App.€1989),€this€court€stated:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAny€question€as€to€the€accuracy€of€a€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€is€to€beÏsubmitted€to€and€settled€by€the€Trial€Court,€whose€determination€is€conclusiveÏabsent€extraordinary€circumstances.€€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€œ24(c)€and›€(e).€€€The€onlyÏresources€of€a€trial€judge€for€resolving€such€questions€are€(1)€the€memory€of€theÏtrial€judge,€(2)€memoranda€of€the€trial€judge,€and€(3)€an€evidentiary€hearing€toÏestablish€what€evidence€was€presented€during€the€trial.€€€The€third€resource€isÏseldom€used,€but,€if€used,€and€the€evidence€at€such€hearing€is€preserved€on€appeal,Ïthe€appellate€court€might€find€some€support€therein€for€revision€of€the€evidentiaryÏrecord.€€€There€is€no€indication€that€any€such€hearing€was€held,€and€no€record€of€theÏevidence€adduced€at€such€a€hearing€if€held.€€€This€court€has€no€access€to€theÏmemory€of€the€trial€judge€except€the€record,€including€the€order€and€statement€of€theÏevidence€signed€by€the€Trial€Judge.€€€No€other€memoranda€of€the€Trial€Judge€or€anyÏother€person€is€preserved€in€this€record.ÌÌà àA€finding€of€a€trial€judge€as€to€what€evidence€was€presented€is€a€finding€ofÏfact€which€is€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€evidence€(at€theÏhearing€on€this€subject)€preponderates€otherwise.€€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€€There€isÏno€evidence€otherwise.€€€The€ruling€of€the€Trial€Judge€is€presumed€correct€and€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òòòò òId.ó óóó€at€435.€ÌÌÓÓà àAt€the€œpost„trial›€œhearing€in€the€present€case,›€the€trial€judge€essentially€conceded€that€he€hadÏmade€remarks€similar€to€those€in€dispute,€excluding€the€parenthetical.€€In€light€of€this,€we€hold€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€statement€from€the€Statement€of€Evidence.€€However,€the€trialÏcourt€properly€excluded€the€parenthetical€portion€of€Wifeððs€proposed€statement€that€offered€WifeððsÏinterpretation€of€the€import€of€œthe€trial€judgeððs›€remarks.€€A€statement€of€the€evidence€should€conveyÏa€ð ðfair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€œwith›€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€theÏbases€of€appeal.ðð€€œTenn.€R.€App.€P.›€24(c).€€As€such,€it€should€be€factual€and€thorough.€€However,Ïit€is€not€proper€for€a€statement€of€the€evidence€to€include€an€explanation€of€the€unspoken€intentionÏof€the€person€speaking.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€excluding€the€parenthetical€portionÏof€Wifeððs€proposed€statement.€€It€is€unnecessary€to€address€the€argument€that€Wife€was€entitled€toÏan€evidentiary€hearing€or€an€offer€of€proof.€€€€€Ìà àWife€asks€this€Court€to€set€aside€the€award€of€custody€to€Husband,€arguing€that€theÏdecision€was€based€on€the€effects€of€racial€prejudice€and€against€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏOn€the€issue€of€racial€prejudice,€Wife€notes€that€the€trial€court€permitted€testimony€from€a€pediatricÏnurse€that€Wifeððs€interracial€relationship€œcould›€have€a€harmful€effect€on€the€œchild›€and€that€the€trialÏjudge€prohibited€the€child€from€having€any€contact€with€Dr.€Sidberry,€even€though€Husband€hadÏnot€requested€such€relief.€€Wife€interpreted€the€trial€judgeððs€statement,€œwhich€was€excluded›€fromÏthe€Statement€of€Evidence,€as€a€reference€to€the€interracial€relationship.Ìà àAt€the€post„trial€hearing,€the€trial€judge€vigorously€denied€that€race€was€a€factor€in€hisÏœdecision.€€The€trial€judge€explained›€that€he€had€concern€about€a€child€being€exposed€to€anÏunmarried€couple€living€œtogether›€and€that€he€felt€strongly€about€Wifeððs€untruthfulness€inÏmaintaining€that€she€was€not€involved€with€Dr.€Sidberry.€Ìà àThe€propriety€of€considering€the€effects€of€racial€prejudice€in€a€child€custody€decision€wasÏaddressed€by€the€œUnited€States›€Supreme€Court€inò òòò€œPalmore›€v.€Sidotió óóó,€466€U.S.€429,€104€œS.€Ct.›Í1879,€80€œL.€Ed.€2d›€421€(1984).€€In€œò òòòPalmoreó óóó,›€the€father€sought€a€change€of€custody€because€ofÏthe€motherððs€cohabitation€with€an€African„American,€whom€she€later€œmarried.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€430,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€1880.€€›€€The€trial€court€awarded€custody€to€the€father,€based€in€part€on€the€ð ðsocialÏstigmatizationðð€that€the€child€would€suffer.€€œò òòòId.ó óóó€at€431,›€104€œS.€Ct.›€at€1881.€Ìà àThe€œSupreme›€Court€noted€that€the€trial€œcourt€candidly›€œstated›€that€race€was€a€factor€andÏœfurther€observed›€that€œthe€result€would›€have€been€different€had€the€motherððs€partner€been€aÏCaucasian.€€œò òòòId.ó óóó€at€432,€104€S.€Ct.€at€1881.€€The›€Court€reversed,€finding€that€the€custody€awardÏviolated€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€œUnited€States€Constitution:›ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€question,€however,€is€whether€the€reality€of€private€biases€and€theÏpossible€injury€they€might€inflict€are€permissible€considerations€for€removal€of€anÏinfant€child€from€the€custody€of€its€natural€mother.€€We€have€little€difficultyÏconcluding€that€they€are€œnot.[€]€€The›€Constitution€cannot€control€such€prejudices€butÏneither€can€it€tolerate€them.€€Private€biases€may€be€outside€the€reach€of€the€law,€butÏthe€law€cannot,€directly€or€indirectly,€give€them€effect.ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€œ1882€(footnote€omitted).ÌÌÓÓ›à àIn€light€of€œò òòòPalmoreó óóó,›€it€was€error€in€this€case€for€the€trial€court€to€permit€expert€testimony€toÏthe€effect€that€Wifeððs€involvement€in€an€interracial€relationship€could€harm€the€partiesðð€child.€ÏUnder€œò òòòPalmoreó óóó,›€consideration€of€such€evidence€by€the€trial€court€was€clearly€unacceptable.Ìà àThe€trial€court€also€clearly€erred€in€holding€that€the€child€could€have€no€contact€with€Dr.ÏSidberry.€€There€is€absolutely€no€support€in€the€record€for€such€relief,€even€if€Husband€hadÏrequested€it.€€The€trial€court€is€reversed€on€this€œissue.›€Ìà àAgainst€the€background€of€the€trial€courtððs€adamant€statements€that€race€was€not€an€issue,Ïas€well€the€errors€noted€above,€we€must€consider€the€award€of€custody€to€œHusband.€€TheÏapplicable€Tennessee€statute€requires›€that€custody€be€determined€"as€the€welfare€and€interest€of€theÏchild€or€children€may€demand."€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.›€ðð€36„6„101(a)€œ(1991€&€Supp.›€œ1995).€€In›€òòò òBahÏv.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€this€Court€adopted€a€common€sense€approach€toÏdetermining€custody,€termed€the€doctrine€of€œ"comparative›€fitness."€€œId.€at€666.€€ò òòòBah›óóó ó€recognizedÏthat€there€are€literally€thousands€of€factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€the€custody€arrangementÍthat€is€in€the€best€interest€of€young€œchildren.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€(citingòòò ò›€Smith€v.€Smith,ó óóó€188€Tenn.€430,€437,Ï220€S.W.2d€627,€630€(1949)).€€The€œCourt›€determined€that€the€best€way€to€review€the€multitude€ofÏfactors€was€through€a€comparative€approach.€€œòòò òIdó óóó.€€The›€œCourt›€quoted€with€approval€fromÏòòò òEdwards€v.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€283€(Tenn.€App.€1973),€stating:€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà0 àœà àFitness›€for€custodial€responsibilities€is€òòlargely€a€comparative€matteróó.€€€NoÏhuman€being€is€deemed€perfect,€hence€no€human€can€be€deemed€a€perfectly€fitÏcustodian.€€Necessarily,€therefore,€the€courts€must€determine€which€of€two€or€moreÏavailable€custodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.Ì€Ò ° ÒÒ ° Òœòòò òÓÓBahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€at›€œ666›€(quoting€òòò òEdwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€290„91)€(emphasis€œadded€by€theÏò òòòBahó óóó€court).›€€€€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Wife€wasÏinvolved€in€an€extramarital€affair€with€Dr.€Sidberry.€€Generally,€sexual€infidelity€or€indiscretion,€byÏitself,€does€not€disqualify€a€parent€from€being€awarded€custody.€€òòò òSutherland€v.€Sutherlandó óóó,Ï831€S.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€œð ðHowever,€when›€the€parent's€sexual€activities€orÏœindiscretion›€involve€neglect€of€the€minor€child,€such€neglect€may€be€considered€in€relation€to€theÏbest€interest€of€the€minor€child.ðð€€òòò òIdó óóó.€œ(citing›€òòò òMimms€v.€Mimmsó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€739,€745€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1989)).€€€Ìà àThere€is€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€trial€court€could€conclude€that€WifeððsÏextramarital€relationship€caused€her€to€neglect€the€child.€€œAlthough›€œthis€is›€denied€by€Wife,€€when€anÏissue€hinges€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€is€foundÏœin›€the€record€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€witnessesÏœthat›€œcontradicts›€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€ò òòò€Galbreath€v.€Harrisó óóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.ÏApp.€œ1990),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€502€U.S.€939,€112€S.€Ct.€374,€116€L.€Ed.€2d€326€(1991).›€€NothingÏin€the€record€supports€a€finding€that€either€parent€is€unfit.€€œUnder›€the€comparative€fitness€doctrine,Ïœhowever,€a›€parent€need€only€be€relatively€more€ð ðfitðð€than€the€other€in€order€to€be€awarded€custody.€ÏEven€considering€the€errors€above,€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€œweighs›€in€favor€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€custody€by€the€Husband€was€œin›€the€best€interest€of€œthe€child.›€€Therefore,Ïthe€œtrial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.›€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€award€of€custody€to€Husband€is€affirmed.€€The€prohibition€against€theÏchild€coming€in€contact€with€Dr.€Sidberry€is€reversed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€toÏAppellant€and€Appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àœà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,›€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóœW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,›€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌœDAVID€R.€FARMER,›€J.ó óÌ