WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>U6B)DC. D3q B AM 0@U*N x,#v~ve AO8 0DM D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EDDDDӀ} 3|x((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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd++++'dxd d-)C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial  !#d#&  ..   YYY FILED.X May24,1996CecilCrowson,Jr..AppellateCourtClerk  " !#d#&   $       ''ThetrialcourtshearinginthismodificationcasewasheldonMarch2,1995.  !#d#&   $       ''Shemarriedthelastofthefourshortlyafterthemodificationhearing.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &%%Xd&#%%Xd#&  P '7U#XXdd7\RA'\ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜL,/);+'h|`  `LߛGARYWAYNESHOEMAKER,  )C/ANO.03A019509CV00312      )GREENECOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )v.      )HONORABLEWILLIAML.JENKINS,      )JUDGE      )      )      )DEBBIELYNNSHOEMAKER,  )      )  DefendantAppellant.)AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDJACKH.BURKHARD,Greeneville,forAppellantROGERA.WOOLSEY,Greeneville,forAppellee@ OPINION          Susano,J.  Inthispostdivorcecase,thetrialcourtchangedthecustodyofthepartiesminorchildren,JamesWayneShoemakerϜ(DOB:February26,1987)andCodyErnestRayShoemaker(DOB:January5,1990),fromthechildrensmothertotheirfather.Motherappeals,arguing,ineffect,thattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthelowercourtsjudgment.  Ourexaminationofthiscaseisundertakenpursuanttowellestablishedprinciples.Thestandardofappellatereviewinchildcustodycasesisthesameasinothernonjurycases. Hassv.Knighton ,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984).Rule13(d),ϜT.R.A.P.,mandatesthatweexaminetherecorddenovo;however,weareinstructedthatthereisapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentiscorrect.Wemusthonorthatpresumptionandaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstanyandallfindingsthatwouldlegallysupportthetrialcourtsjudgment. Dolesv.Doles ,848S.W.2d656,661(Tenn.App.1992).  Inordertochangecustodyinamodificationcase, thetrialjudgemustfindamaterialchangeincircumstancesthatiscompellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody. Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.App.1991). Changedcircumstancesincludesanymaterialchangeofcircumstancesaffectingthewelfareofthechildorchildrenincludingnewfactsorchangedconditionswhichcouldnotbeanticipatedbytheformerdecree. Daltonv.Dalton ,858S.W.2d324,326(Tenn.App.1993).  Incasesinvolvingthecustodyofchildren,atrialcourthasbroaddiscretionanditsdecisionwillordinarilynotbereversedunlessthatdiscretionhasbeenabused. Suttlesv.ϜSuttles ,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988).Insuchcases,thewelfareofthechildrentheirbestinterestsisthe paramountconsideration. Lukev.Luke ,651S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.1983).  Wehavecarefullyreviewedthefourvolumesoftranscriptandthevariousexhibitsreceivedintoevidenceinthiscase.MuchhastranspiredsincetheinitialawardofcustodytotheappellantonMarch9,1990 0   כ.Thereissubstantialevidenceintherecord,muchofwhichwasundisputedattrial,thatreflectspoorlyontheappellantsattitudes,decisions,andconduct,astheyrelatetoherparentingofthepartieschildren.Forexample,thereisundisputedevidencethatfromAugust,1990,tothedateofthehearing,theappellanthadfourliveinboyfriends 1   .Furthermore,thereissubstantialproof,which,ifbelieved,indicatesthatthechildrenwereadverselyimpactedbytheappellantsimproperdecisionsandconduct,particularlysomeoftheliveinrelationships.Thereisalsoproofofmothersuseofmarijuanaandpossessionofthisillegalsubstanceinthehousewhereshelivedwithherchildren.Onthislatersubject,theappellantvigorouslydeniedcurrentdruguse;butthetrialcourtϜapparentlyresolvedthisdisputeagainsther.Credibilityfindingsbythetrialcourtarereviewedbyuswiththefollowinginmind: 8 Thefindingsofthetrialcourtwhicharedependentupondeterminingthecredibilityofwitnessesareentitledtogreatweight. TownofAlamov.ForcumJamesCo .,205Tenn.478,483,327S.W.2d47,49(1959).Thereasonforthisisthatthetrialjudgealonehastheopportunitytoobservethemanneranddemeanorofthewitnesswhiletestifying.Onanissuewhichhingesonthecredibilityofwitnesses,thetrialcourtwillnotbereversedunlessthereisfoundintherecordclear,concrete,andconvincingevidenceotherthantheoraltestimonyofwitnesseswhichcontradictthetrialcourtsfindings. TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp.v.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).̜ Galbreathv.Harris ,811S.W.2d88,91(Tenn.App.1990).̛  Wecannotsay,baseduponourreviewoftherecord,thattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdeterminationthattherehadbeenamaterialchangeofcircumstancessincethedivorcethatwarrantedachangeinthechildrenscustody.Thisbeingthecase,thepresumptionofcorrectnessattachedtothatfinding carriesthedayandwemusthonorit.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantandhersurety.       ______________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._______________________________DonT.McMurray,J.