WPC4" # VUNa % 0 (w@4 1 UP@ 0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% D3 B 0@U >U6WB)DC AMU*Fp,OC8?]wjv~>v AO  0D! D/! B"HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DEDDDӀU!, 3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   !#$%& ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X++++'dxd d("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd-5C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#2  77   YYY FILED7X September25,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.7AppellateCourtClerk  " !#d#2   $       33MotherwasawardedcustodyofthechildreninthepartiesdivorcejudgmententeredApril26,1993. E !#d#2   $       33Insuchcases,itisthe specific,seriousthreatofharm,andnottherelocation,thatisthegravamenoftheaction.Id. 9 !#d#2   $       33ThepartiesfirstmetinAugust,1994;starteddatingthelastweekofthefollowingNovember;andmarriedinFebruary,1995. . !#d#2   $       33Fatherhasalsoremarried.Interestinglyenough,hedatedhispresentwifeonlysixmonthsbeforetheirmarriage. S !#d#2   $       23Theunionof22XԀ33Mr.ElliottandMr.Grohdidnotproduceanychildren. ` !#d#2   $       33Generallyspeaking,thecredibilityofwitnessesisforthetrialjudge. TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp.v.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 2  P 3\RA'\75XXdd7  ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜL685;+'h|`  `LߛPAULADEVEAURECTOR,  )C/ANO.03A019604CV00123      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )v.      )      )      )      )      )STEVENELYRECTOR,   )      )HONORABLEROBERTM.SUMMITT,  DefendantAppellant.)JUDGEForAppellant      ForAppelleeLEONARDMIKECAPUTO     TIMOTHYR.SIMONDSPhillips&Caputo     ERICPAULEDWARDSONChattanooga,Tennessee    Baker,Donelson,Bearman        &Caldwell,P.C.        Chattanooga,Tennessee@    OPINION33XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Thisisapostdivorcecase.Aslateramended,thepetitionofStevenElyRector(Father)filedMarch3,1995,seekstopreventhisformerwife,PaulaDeveauElliott(Mother),fromrelocatingwiththepartiestwodaughters,ages7and8,toFlorence,Kentucky.TheamendedpetitionasksthecourttochangethechildrenscustodyfromMothertoFather. 9   כThetrialcourtrefusedtoblockMothersmovewiththechildrentoKentucky;deniedFatherspetitionforchangeofcustody;andestablishednewvisitationrightsforFather.Fatherappeals,raisingoneϜissuethatposesthequestionof 8 [w]hethertherewasamaterialchangeincircumstancesjustifyingachangeofcustodyoftheminorchildrenofthepartiesfromthemothertothefather.@ I  Fatherspetition,asamended,isessentiallyanefforttoobtainsolecustodyofthepartieschildren.WhiletheϜrefusalofthetrialcourttoblocktheremovalofthechildrentoFlorenceisnotraisedasanissueonthisappeal(excepttotheextentitimpactsthechangeofcustodyquestion),theamendedpetitiondoesallegethat itisnotinthebestinterestsoftheminorchildrentoberemovedtoFlorence,Kentucky.Quitefrankly,itisnotentirelyclearfromthepleadingsandproofwhetherFatherisseekingtoblocktheremovalofhischildrentoKentuckyseparateandapartfromhischangeofcustodyrequest.Aspreviouslynoted,thequestionofrelocationisnotstatedasaseparateissueonthisappeal.However,thereisenoughintherecordtopromptustobrieflyexaminetherelocationissue.  Itisnowclearthatanoncustodialparentcanonlypreventarelocationbyshowing, 8 ...byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thatthecustodialparentsmotivesformovingarevindictivethatis,intendedtodefeatordeterthevisitationrightsofthenoncustodialparent. Aabyv.Strange ,924S.W.2d623,629(Tenn.1996).Intheinstantcase,Fatherdoesnotallege,noristhereanyevidenceintherecordtosuggest,thatMothersmotivesformovingareinanywayvindictiveinnatureasdefinedin Aaby .TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsrefusaltoblockMothersplannedmovetoKentucky.HerdesiretomoveisϜobviouslytiedtothefactthathernewhusbandoperatesaϜbusinessoutofFlorencetransportingThoroughbredstoandfromracetracksintheeasternpartofthecountry.̜Ǜ@ II   Aaby teaches,however,thatrelocationcansupportachangeofcustody where[it]couldposeaspecific,seriousthreatofharmtothechild. :   כ Id .(Emphasisadded).Thisistruebecausea specific,seriousthreatofharmwouldsatisfythethresholdfindingofachangeofcircumstancesessentialtothesuccessofapetitiontochangecustody, id ;butintheinstantcase,Fatherspetitiontochangecustodyisnotreallyrelocationbased.FatherarguesthatthecircumstancesthathavedevelopedsincethedivorcemilitateinfavorofachangeofϜcustodyandthatthisistrueregardlessofwhetherMotherlivesinHamiltonCounty,thestateofKentucky,oranywhereelse.HearguesthatsheshowedbadjudgmentinmarryingEddieG.Elliottafterashortcourtship ;   כwhen,sotheargumentgoes,shedidnotknowalotabouthim;andthatMr.Elliottisnotafitandproperpersontobearoundthechildren.ItisclearthatthebasisofFatherspetitionisbroaderthanthefactualscenariocontemplatedby Aaby .̜Ǜ@ III  Acustodydecreeisresjudicataastothefactsexistingatthetimeofitspronouncement. Woodardv.Woodward ,783S.W.2d188,189(Tenn.App.1989); Griffinv.Stone ,834S.W.2d301(Tenn.App.1992).Aslongasthosefactsremainsubstantiallythesame,acourtwillnot revisittheissueofcustody.Oncelitigated,thequestionofcustodyis finalunlessanduntiltherehasbeenamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstances. Id .  Inpracticallyeverycustodymodificationcase,thecircumstanceshavechangedinsomerespectchildrenareolder,theirneedshavechanged,oneorbothoftheparentshaveremarried,therearechangesinresidenceand/oremployment,andthelike;butnotallchangesinthepartiescircumstancesaresufficienttowarrantwhathasbeenreferredtoas thedrasticlegalactionofchangingcustody. Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,924(Tenn.App.1991)(quotingfromtheMississippiSupremeCourtcaseof Ballardv.Ballard ,434So.2d1357,1360(Miss.1983)).Itisonlywhenthecircumstanceshavechangedtotheextentthat thebehaviorofthecustodialparentclearlypositsadangertothephysical,mentaloremotionalwellbeingofthechild,thatacourtisjustifiedinchangingcustody. Aaby ,924S.W.2dat629.  Fatherinvitesustocomparetherelativeparentalfitnessoftheparties.Thisisclearlytheappropriateanalysisonaninitialcustodydeterminationwhentherearecompetingapplicationsforcustody, Bahv.Bah ,668S.W.2d663(Tenn.App.1983);butinamodificationcase,thissuggestion putsthecartbeforethehorse.Insuchacase,wemustfindamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstancesasdescribedabovebeforewecanconsiderachangeofcustody.Iftherehasnotbeenamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstancesasgenerallydescribedin Musselman and Aaby ,weshouldgonofurther.  FatherarguesthattheoperativechangeofcircumstancesϜinthiscasecanbefoundinMothers poorjudgmentinmarryinganindividualafterashortcourtship, <   כwithoutfindingoutabouthisalleged checkeredpast.Healsoarguesthatthenecessarychangeofcircumstancesfindsitsgenesisinhernewhusbandsviolentandcriminalpast.HispastconductiscentraltoFathersclaimthatcustodyshouldbechanged.HestronglyurgesthatMothersnewspouseisnotaproperpersontoshareintheraisingofhischildren.  Ascanbeseen,theheartofFatherscaseisthepresenceofMothersnewspouse,EddieG.Elliott,inthelivesofthepartiesminorchildren.TheessenceofFathersargumentisthatMr.Elliottsviolenttendenciesasexhibitedinaneightyearrelationshipwithhisformerwife,DeborahAnnGroh,whichstretchedfrom1983to1991,disqualifieshimfromparentingchildren.HecontendsthatsinceMr.ElliottisnowinMotherslife,sheisnolongeranappropriatecustodian.Fathercontendsthathe,togetherwithhisnewwife,canprovidethechildrenwithabetterenvironment.  Fathersfitnessasacustodianisanonissue.Motheragreesthatheisagoodfather.Whileshedoesnotentirelyconcedeheisafitpersontohavecustody,shealsodoesnotϜseriouslydisputehiscontentionthatheis;butallofthisbegstherealquestionhastherebeenamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstancessincethedivorceascontemplatedby Musselman and Aaby ?Onthisissue,thetrialcourtfoundFathersevidencetobelacking: 8 Andotherthan[Mr.ElliottsrelationshipwithMs.Groh],therehasbeennoevidencethatwouldprovethatthismanwouldnotbefittobearoundchildren.Infact,hehashadchildrenofhisownthataregrownandhasgrandchildren.Theresbeennoevidencethathesdoneanythingtoanyofthesechildrentocausethemwoeoranysituationthatwouldbeconsideredunfit.@ *** 8 AndtheCourtfeels,andunderthefactsandcircumstances,thattherewasnocredibleevidencetoshowthatMr.Elliottisgoingtodoanythingimpropertothesechildreninthefuture.Thequestionbeforeusiswhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.SeeRule13(d),T.R.A.P.Thatjudgmentcomestousaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessthatwemusthonorunlesstheevidenceistothecontrary.  Wedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.ItistruethattherewasproofofsignificantdisagreementswithphysicalovertonesduringthetimethatMr.ElliottandMs.Grohlivedtogether;however,therewasnoevidencethattheirphysicalaltercationsinwhichbothagreedtheywereactiveparticipantsinanywayimpactedorinvolvedchildren. =   כFurthermore,therewasnoevidencethattherehadbeenanyviolentconductbyMr.Elliottsince1991,andcertainlynoneinvolvingMotherorthepartiestwominorchildren.  TherewereinnuendosadvancedbyFatherscounsel,particularlyinarigorousexaminationofMs.Groh,thatMr.Elliotthadbeeninvolvedindruguseand/orsaleatsomeunspecifiedtimepriortotheirbreakupin1991;buttherewasabsolutelynocredibleevidencenotonescintillathatprovedsuchdruginvolvement.TherewasalsoproofthatMr.ElliotthadbeenchargedwithpassingbadchecksduringthetimehewaswithMs.Groh;butwedonotunderstandhowthisevidencehasanyrelevancytotheparentingofthesechildren.Financialproblemseveninvolvingthewritingofsomebadchecksdonotdisqualifyonefrombeingaroundchildren.  FatherstrenuouslyarguesthatMs.GrohchangedhertestimonyattrialtoaccommodateMr.Elliott.Aspreviouslyindicated,hiscounselsubjectedhertovigorouscrossexaminationinanefforttoconvincethetrialcourtthatshehadgonefrombeingatruthfulnarratorofeventsoutsideofcourttoaperjuringwitnessattrial.Whilehercredibility >   כwasverymuch inplay,thereareatleastthreepertinentobservationsthatcanbemadeabouthertestimony.First,mostofitwasnotcurrentgoingbackatleastsomefouryears,longbeforetheElliottsmet;second,evenifMr.ElliotthadbeenviolentwithMs.Grohinthepast,therewasnothingtosuggestthatthoseϜincidentsinvolvinghisrelationshipwithagirlfriendwholaterbecamehiswifewereaharbingerofconductthatisreasonablycalculatedtoadverselyimpactthesechildreninthefuture;andthird,therewasnoproofofanynegativesinMr.ElliottspresentrelationshipwiththechildrenorMrs.Elliott.Onthecontrary,theproofisthathehasagood,lovingrelationshipwithallofthem.  Inordertojustifyachangeofcustody,apartymustdomorethanshowconductnowfouryearsoldormorethatistotallyunrelatedtochildren.Thisisparticularlytruewhenthemostthatcanbesaidisthatthetemperthatcontributedtotheconductmightadverselyimpactminorchildren.Atemperisnotnecessarilyinconsistentwithparenting.Aspreviouslyindicated,thereisnoevidenceinthisrecordthatMr.Elliottisunabletocontrolhistemperwhenheinteractswithchildren.  FatherasksustomovefromtheconclusionthatMr.Elliottdidbadthingsinthepastthatdidnotinvolvechildren,directlyorindirectly,totheconclusionthathewilldobadthingsinthefuturethatwillinvolveandadverselyimpactthechildren.The Musselman / Aaby testrequiresmorewemustfind behavior...[that]clearlypositsadangertothechildren.(Emphasisadded).Thattypeevidenceissimplylackinginthiscase.  Wedonotreachthe comparativefitnesstestof Bah .ThisisbecauseweareunabletosaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentthatFatherhasfailedtoshowachangeofcircumstancesofthesortrequiredinacustodymodificationcase.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantandhissurety.       _____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.______________________________DonT.McMurray,J.