ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0cµU< w@T 4” ¨ · 0§¿ 0Jf 0T° 0^ 0hb 0rÊ 0|< 0†¸ 0> 1uÎ 0dCU>§B)åDC AMQ 0DžU*â9 U6Ev~{vÓù BÌ D3é 0@ AO\Æ« 0Dq D/µ Bä˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman EUUUî !Ó€+DÒ x3|x+(W(3Qß$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¤_XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(Arial /Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMayÏ21,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€÷<XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌÞ ÞÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òCARL€WILLIAM€STROUD,€JR.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGiles€Chancery€No.€8611ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9607„CH„00291ÌÌò òSANDRA€FAYE€STROUD,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€GILES€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌà@ àPaul€Bates;€Boston,€Bates€&€Holt€of€LawrenceburgÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àRobert€D.€Massey€of€PulaskiÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòVACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:€ÌÙ€€ÙßR€"%!A1-j|ö¯` à. `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÓÓ›à àThis€is€a€child€custody€case.€€Defendant,€Sandra€Faye€Stroud€(Mother),Ïappeals€from€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€petition€to€changeÏcustody€filed€by€the€plaintiff,€Carl€William€Stroud,€Jr.€(Father).€€Ìà àThe€parties€were€divorced€by€final€decree€entered€July€11,€1994.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€Mother€an€absolute€divorce€from€Father€on€the€grounds€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€granted€Mother€custody€of€the€partiesððÏminor€child,€Heath€Elvin€Stroud.€€At€the€time,€Heath€Stroud€was€three€yearsÏold.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Father€to€pay€$65.00€per€week€in€child€support,Ïbut€reserved€judgment€on€visitation€privileges€for€Father.€€Ìà àOn€July€12,€1995,€Father€filed€a€petition€seeking€to€change€custody€fromÏMother€to€Father.€€In€the€petition,€Father€alleges€that€Mother€contacted€him€inÏMay€of€1995€because€she€could€not€discipline€Heath,€and€as€a€result,€HeathÏlived€with€Father€from€May€1995€until€July€9,€1995.€€Father€alleges€that€HeathÏhad€repetitive€sinus€infections€and€terrible€dental€problems€and€was€unruly€withÏno€social€skills,€but€that€Heath€underwent€a€complete€turnaround€during€theÏtime€he€lived€with€Father.€€Father€alleges€that€there€has€been€a€material€changeÏin€circumstances€and€that€the€best€interests€of€Heath€dictate€a€change€inÏcustody.Ìà àOn€July€19€and€20,€1995,€the€trial€court€held€a€pendente€lite€hearing€andÏheard€the€following€evidence:€€Ìà àFather€is€an€admitted€alcoholic,€but€quit€drinking€five€months€before€theÏpendente€lite€hearing.€€Father€has€not€paid€the€complete€amount€of€the€orderedÏchild€support,€but€he€entered€into€an€agreement€with€Mother€concerning€theÏarrearage€€allowing€her€to€apply€his€share€of€the€marital€property€to€theÏarrearage.€€Father€lives€out€of€wedlock€with€his€girlfriend,€Elsie€Bowles,€inÏMorristown,€Tennessee.€€Father€is€an€automobile€mechanic€in€MorristownÏmaking€$250.00€per€week.Ìà àFather€testified€that€Mother€called€him€because€Heath€was€unruly€andÍneeded€some€guidance.€€Heath€lived€with€Father€from€May€1995€until€July€1995Ïin€Morristown.€€Father€testified€that€Heath€had€dental€problems€and€frequentÏnose€bleeds.€€He€stated€the€Heath€was€unruly,€timid,€and€scared€of€policemenÏwhen€he€first€moved€to€Morristown.€€In€Morristown,€Heath€has€his€ownÏbedroom.€€Father€testified€that€Motherððs€house€was€ð ðnastyðð€and€that€she€had€aÏrat€problem.€€He€€stated€that€she€has€sewage€running€in€the€front€yard€and€thatÏMother€is€unfit€to€have€custody€of€Heath€because€of€the€condition€of€her€house.€ÏHowever,€he€admitted€that€the€house€was€in€the€same€condition€when€he€livedÏthere.€€He€testified€that€Mother€lived€with€her€boyfriend€and€that€they€sleptÏtogether€in€the€same€bed.€Ìà àFather€presented€evidence€that€impeached€Motherððs€credibility€andÏcorroborated€his€own€testimony.€€Seth€Doty,€a€former€employer€of€Mother,Ïtestified€that€Mother€was€a€manager€of€rental€properties€for€his€company€forÏthree€years.€€Doty€stated€that€Mother€collected€$1,700.00€in€rental€charges€andÏdid€not€turn€it€in€to€the€company.€€He€stated€that€Mother€was€not€truthfulÏwith€him€or€with€her€tenants€and€that€she€kept€the€tenantsðð€deposits.Ìà àElsie€Bowles,€Fatherððs€girlfriend,€testified€that€Father€has€not€had€a€drinkÏin€five€months€and€that€he€is€now€a€hardworking€man.€€She€stated€that€she€staysÏat€home€and€takes€care€of€the€children,€including€her€eighteen„year„old€son€whoÍhas€cerebral€palsy.€€Ms.€Bowles€testified€that€when€Heath€lived€with€them€fromÏMay€to€July€1995,€he€had€poor€manners€and€misbehaved€and€that€when€he€left,Ïhe€was€a€well„liked,€well„disciplined€child.€€She€admitted€that€Father€lives€in€herÏhome,€that€she€has€the€power€to€kick€him€out€at€any€time,€and€that€FatherÏwould€have€a€hard€time€taking€care€of€Heath€if€she€kicked€him€out€of€her€home.€ÏHowever,€she€testified€that€she€would€call€Mother€if€Father€ever€left€her€homeÏor€if€she€ever€made€Father€leave€her€œhome.€€She›€claims€that€she€and€FatherÏwould€like€to€be€married,€but€that€if€they€got€married€she€would€no€longerÏreceive€social€security€checks€to€pay€for€the€care€of€her€disabled€son.Ìà àFather€entered€a€videotape€into€evidence€that€he€claimed€he€found€in€aÏdresser€œÌÌdrawer›€of€the€bedroom€suite€after€he€moved€from€Pulaski,€Tennessee€toÏMorristown.€€Father€testified€that€he€did€not€make€the€tape€and€did€not€knowÏof€its€existence€prior€to€the€divorce.€€On€the€other€hand,€Mother€testified€thatÏFather€filmed€the€videotape€and€that€he€was€drinking€at€the€time.€€She€claimsÏthat€he€indicated€what€he€wanted€her€to€do,€but€that€his€voice€never€is€heard€onÏthe€videotape.€€She€said€that€he€kept€the€videotape€in€his€underwear€drawer€inÏtheir€dresser€in€the€bedroom.€€She€also€stated€that€Father€threatened€her€withÍthe€tape.€€She€claims€that€Heath€was€never€present€during€the€filming€of€theÏvideo,€but€that€he€walked€through€the€room€once€and€was€in€another€room.€ÏHowever,€she€stated€that€Heath€has€never€seen€her€engage€in€any€lewd€behavior.€Ìà àMother€lives€in€Pulaski,€Tennessee€and,€at€the€time€of€the€pendente€liteÏhearing,€worked€third„shift€at€a€plant,€which€required€her€to€place€Heath€inÏchild€care€from€10:30€p.m.€until€12:00€p.m.€the€next€day.€€She€testified€thatÏHeath€was€well„adjusted€at€the€child€care€center€and€never€used€foul€language.€ÏMother€admitted€that€her€boyfriend€stays€overnight€approximately€once€a€weekÏwhile€Heath€is€there,€but€she€said€her€boyfriend€was€not€a€regular€in€the€house.€ÏMother€testified€that€she€has€wet€weather€springs€in€her€yard,€but€not€a€sewageÏproblem.€€She€also€testified€that€she€does€not€have€a€rat€problem,€but€that€sheÏlives€next€to€open€fields€and€one€time€had€a€field€mouse€in€her€home.à àÌà àMother€testified€that€the€reason€she€let€Heath€live€with€Father€from€MayÏuntil€œJuly€1995›€was€because€Father€was€supposed€to€enroll€Heath€in€a€summerÏcamp.€€However,€Heath€never€attended€camp.€€When€Father€would€not€returnÏHeath€to€Motherððs€custody,€she€had€a€custodial€interference€warrant€issuedÏagainst€him.Ìà àMother€testified€that€Father€threatened€her€with€a€gun€in€front€of€HeathÏand€physically€assaulted€her.€€Because€of€this€incident,€she€had€an€aggravatedÍassault€warrant€issued€against€him.Ìà àMother€presented€testimony€that€she€was€a€loving€mother€and€thatÏHeath€was€happy€and€in€good€health.€€She€presented€evidence€that€Heath€wasÏhealthy€and€had€normal€teeth.€€Michelle€Chapman,€Heathððs€day€care€owner,Ïtestified€that€Heath€was€a€normal€child€who€had€no€disciplinary€problems.€ÏMother€also€called€her€son„in„law,€Bobby€Ables,€who€testified€that€Father€toldÏhim€that€he€(Father)€made€the€œvideotape›€of€Mother€and€asked€Ables€if€heÏwanted€to€see€it.€€Ables€testified€that€Heath€was€a€normal€child€and€thatÏMotherððs€house€was€clean.€€Angela€Ables,€Bobby€Ablesððs€wife€and€MotherððsÏdaughter,€testified€that€Father€knew€of€the€videotape€before€the€divorce€andÏused€it€to€threaten€Mother.Ìà àAfter€the€pendente€lite€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€MotherÏhad€credibility€problems.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€Mother€was€workingÏthird„shift€and€was€only€with€Heath€from€noon€until€10:00€p.m.€five€or€six€daysÏper€week€and€that€Heath€spent€some€nights€away€from€home.€€The€trial€courtÏalso€stated€that€it€was€impressed€with€Fatherððs€rehabilitation€from€alcoholÏabuse.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€Heathððs€best€interests€dictated€an€awardÏof€temporary€custody€to€Father€and€found€that€the€ð ðtotality€of€the€evidenceÏdemonstrated€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€a€change€of€circumstances€hasÍoccurred.ðð€€Ìà àOn€September€22,€1995,€Mother€filed€an€answer€that€denied€the€materialÏallegations€of€the€petition.€€Mother€claims€that€she€let€Heath€live€with€FatherÏfrom€May€1995€until€July€9,€1995€so€that€Father€could€reestablish€a€relationshipÏwith€Heath.€€She€alleges€that€Father€used€lies€and€trickery€to€obtain€her€consentÏand€that€Father€used€this€time€with€Heath€to€gain€permanent€custody.€€SheÏargues€that€Father€has€unclean€hands€and€cannot€recover.€€In€addition,€MotherÏalleges€that€Father€is€living€with€and€is€supported€by€a€woman€to€whom€he€isÏnot€married€and€that€this€situation€would€have€an€adverse€effect€on€Heath.€ÏFinally,€Mother€avers€that€a€videotape€that€Father€offered€into€evidence€hadÏbeen€altered€and€had€portions€deleted.€€She€alleges€that€Father€represented€toÏthe€court€that€he€did€not€make€the€tape€and€did€not€know€of€its€existenceÏbefore€the€divorce.€€However,€Mother€claims€that€Father€filmed€the€tape€priorÏto€the€divorce.Ìà àThe€case€was€heard€before€the€chancery€court,€sitting€without€a€jury,€onÏOctober€9,€1995.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€testimony€from€the€pendenteÏlite€hearing€and€also€heard€new€evidence:€€Ìà àJames€Dennis€Mooney,€senior€vice„president€at€Third€National€Bank,Ïtestified€on€behalf€of€Mother.€€He€stated€that€she€had€a€very€good€reputation€inÍthe€community€for€telling€the€truth.€€He€admitted€that€he€only€knew€herÏthrough€banking€activities€and€did€not€know€her€socially.Ìà àDr.€Charles€Burger,€Heathððs€doctor€in€Pulaski,€stated€that€Heath€was€inÏnormal€health€with€normal€hygiene.€€He€had€no€reservations€about€MotherÏbeing€the€primary€custodial€parent.Ìà àJ.O.€Scroggin,€Jr.€testified€that€he€employed€Mother€as€a€secretary€andÏbookkeeper€for€his€real€estate€business€and€that€she€had€a€good€reputation€forÏtelling€the€truth.€€However,€Scroggin€stated€that€Mother€quit€her€job€with€hisÏcompany€after€a€disagreement€about€Motherððs€competing€rental€properties.Ìà àPhyllis€Morrow€Stroud,€Fatherððs€previous€wife,€testified€that€she€sawÏFather€drunk€in€June€1995€and€that€Father€told€her€in€June€1994€that€he€had€aÏvideotape€that€would€help€him€get€Heath.€€Pamela€Pridmore,€FatherððsÏstepdaughter,€testified€that€Father€told€her€that€he€had€raped€Mother,€thatÏFather€told€her€he€made€the€videotape,€that€Father€said€the€videotape€was€hisÏinsurance€policy€and€his€blackmail€material,€and€that€Father€had€shown€theÏvideotape€to€her€husband€and€her€brother.€€€She€said€that€she€heard€FatherððsÏvoice€on€the€videotape.€€She€also€stated€that€she€has€seen€Father€smokeÏmarijuana.à àà àÌà àRon€Pridmore,€Pamela€Pridmoreððs€husband,€testified€that€Father€showedÍhim€the€videotape€and€that€Father€appeared€on€the€videotape€ð ðplaying€withÏhisself€[sic]€in€the€bathroom.ðð€€He€stated€that€Fatherððs€voice€was€on€the€tapeÏand€that€Father€told€him€he€was€going€to€use€the€videotape€to€get€custody€ofÏHeath.Ìà àMother€testified€again€at€trial€and€stated€that€her€work€shift€had€changedÏto€second„shift,€which€is€4:00€p.m.€to€12:30€a.m.€€She€also€testified€that€FatherÏhad€criminal€convictions€for€DUI€and€public€intoxication€and€that€FatherÏserved€seven€years€in€prison€for€stealing€cars.€€She€admitted€that€Heathððs€bed€isÏin€her€bedroom€and€that€her€boyfriend€stays€with€her€while€Heath€is€asleep€inÏthe€same€room.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€had€never€taken€Heath€to€theÏdentist.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€Fatherððs€motion€and€changed€custody€fromÏMother€to€Father.€€In€its€order,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ð[B]ased€upon€the€courtððsÏobservation€of€the€demeanor€of€the€witness,€the€court€has€re„concluded€that€theÏdefendant,€Sandra€Faye€Stroud,€has€considerable€credibility€problems.€€TheÏcourt€affirmatively€finds€that€the€video€tape€previously€introduced€as€evidenceÏin€this€cause€was€made€by€the€defendant,€Sandra€Faye€Stroud,€in€the€absence€ofÏCarl€William€Stroud,€Jr.ðð€€The€trial€court€then€said,€ð ðThe€court€re„emphasizesÏits€favorable€impression€with€the€petitioner,€Carl€William€Stroud,€Jr.,€withÍregard€to€his€having€rehabilitated€himself€as€well€as€his€credibility.ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€awarded€permanent€custody€of€Heath€to€Father€and€awarded€reasonableÏvisitation€to€Mother.€€The€trial€court€did€not€order€child€support€payments.Ìà àMother€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€presents€one€issue€forÏour€review:€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€changing€the€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€minor€child€from€Mother€to€Father.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€is€de€novo€upon€theÏrecord,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings.€€Unless€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€these€findings,Ïwe€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€When€the€resolution€ofÏthe€issues€in€a€case€depends€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€the€trial€judgeÏwho€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€in€their€manner€andÏdemeanor€while€testifying€is€in€a€far€better€position€than€this€Court€to€decideÏthose€issues.€€òòò òMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€351„52€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).€€The€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessððs€testimony€lieÏin€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€beÏgiven€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€352.Ìà àIt€is€well„settled€in€this€state€that€where€a€decree€has€been€enteredÏawarding€custody€of€a€child,€that€decree€is€òòres€judicataóó€and€conclusive€in€aÍsubsequent€application€to€change€custody€unless€there€has€been€a€materialÏchange€of€circumstances€such€that€the€welfare€of€the€child€requires€a€change€ofÏcustody.€€ò òòòIn€re€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893€€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(citing€ò òòòLong€v.ÏLongó óóó,€488€S.W.2d€729€(Tenn.€App.€1972)).€€There€is€no€hard€and€fast€rule€as€toÏwhat€constitutes€changed€circumstances.€€ò òòòDantzler€v.€Dantzleró óóó,€665€S.W.2dÏ385,€387€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€In€ò òòòWall€v.€Wallóóó ó,€907€S.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995),€this€Court€discussed€ð ðchanged€circumstancesðð:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€two€people€join€in€conceiving€a€child,€theyÏselect€that€childððs€natural€parents.€€When€they€decideÏto€separate€and€divorce,€they€give€up€the€privilege€ofÏjointly€rearing€the€child,€and€the€divorce€court€mustÏdecide€€which€parent€will€have€primary€responsibilityÏfor€rearing€the€child.€€This€decision€of€the€Court€isÏnot€changeable€except€for€ð ðchange€of€circumstancesððÏwhich€is€defined€as€that€which€requires€a€change€toÏprevent€substantial€harm€to€the€child.€€Custody€is€notÏchanged€for€the€welfare€or€pleasure€of€either€parent€orÏto€punish€either€parent,€but€to€preserve€the€welfare€ofÏthe€child.€€Custody€is€not€changed€because€one€parentÏis€able€to€furnish€a€more€commodious€or€pleasantÏenvironment€than€the€other,€but€where€continuationÏof€the€adjudicated€custody€will€substantially€harm€theÏchild.ÌÌÓÓò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€834.€à àÌà àThe€party€seeking€a€change€in€custody€has€the€burden€of€proving€by€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€a€change€in€custody€is€in€the€childððs€bestÏinterest.€€ò òòòMusselman€v.€Acuffóóó ó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€InÍchild€custody€cases,€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€child€is€the€paramountÏconcern€and€the€determination€of€the€childððs€best€interest€must€turn€on€theÏparticular€facts€of€each€case.€€ò òòòIn€re€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€893.€€In€ò òòòHolloway€v.ÏBradleyó óóó,€230€S.W.2d€1003€(Tenn.€1950),€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€determining€facts€in€these€adoption€and€custodyÏcases€are€so€infinite€in€their€variety€that€the€reportedÏdecision€in€one€case€is€of€little€aid€or€assistance€inÏsettling€the€next.€€The€supreme€rule€to€which€allÏothers€should€yield€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€ofÏthe€child.ÌÌò òòòÓÓIdó óóó.€at€1006.òòò ò€€ó óóóIn€ò òòòBah€v.€Bahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€the€CourtÏestablished€some€guidelines€for€determining€the€best€interest€of€a€child:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWe€adopt€what€we€believe€is€a€common€senseÏapproach€to€custody,€one€which€we€will€call€theÏdoctrine€of€ð ðcomparative€fitness.ðð€€The€paramountÏconcern€in€child€custody€cases€is€the€welfare€and€bestÏinterest€of€the€child.€€ò òòòMollish€v.€Mollishó óóó,€494€S.W.2dÏ145,€151€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€There€are€literallyÏthousands€of€things€that€must€be€taken€intoÏconsideration€in€the€lives€of€young€children,€ò òòòSmith€v.ÏSmithó óóó,€188€Tenn.€430,€437,€220€S.W.2d€627,€630Ï(1949),€and€these€factors€must€be€reviewed€on€aÏcomparative€approach:ÌÌÒ Å ÒÒ „ ÒÒ Å ÒÒ Œ Ò€€€Fitness€for€custodial€responsibilities€isÏò òòòlargely€a€comparative€matteró óóó.€€No€humanÏbeing€is€deemed€perfect,€hence€no€humanÏcan€be€deemed€a€perfectly€fit€custodian.€ÏNecessarily,€therefore,€the€courts€mustÏdetermine€which€of€two€or€more€availableÏcustodians€is€more€or€less€fit€than€others.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Œ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà8 àà8 àò òòòEdwards€v.€Edwardsó óóó,€501€S.W.2d€283,€290„91€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1973)€(emphasis€supplied.)ÌÌÓÓ€ò òòòBahó óóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.Ìà àMother€first€argues€that€Father€came€into€the€court€with€ð ðuncleanÏhands,ðð€and€therefore,€the€trial€court€should€have€rejected€his€petition.€€TheÏdoctrine€of€ð ðunclean€handsðð€does€not€necessarily€repel€a€petition€regarding€theÏwelfare€of€a€child€because€the€welfare€of€the€child€predominates€over€anyÏoffended€dignity€of€the€court.€€òòò òHaynes€v.€Haynesó óóó,€904€S.W.2d€118,€120€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995);€òòò òsee€also€Strube€v.€Strubeó óóó,€379€S.W.2d€44,€48€(Tenn.€App.€1963).€ÏWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€hearing€to€proceed€despiteÏthe€allegations€of€ð ðunclean€hands.ððÌà àMother€also€asserts€that€the€ð ðtender€years€doctrineðð€is€applicable€in€thisÏcause.€€The€General€Assembly€has€addressed€the€ð ðtender€years€doctrineðð:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€the€legislative€intent€that€the€gender€of€the€partyÏseeking€custody€shall€not€give€rise€to€a€presumption€ofÏparental€fitness€or€cause€a€presumption€in€favor€orÏagainst€the€award€of€custody€to€such€party;€€provided,Ïthat€in€the€case€of€a€child€of€tender€years,€the€genderÏof€the€parent€may€be€considered€by€the€court€as€aÏfactor€in€determining€custody€after€an€examination€ofÏthe€fitness€of€each€party€seeking€custody.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„101(d)€(1996).€€While€the€ð ðtender€years€doctrineðð€is€not€aÏcontrolling€factor,€it€is€certainly€something€that€should€be€considered€by€theÍcourt€in€making€an€award€of€custody.€òòò ò€Malone€v.€Maloneó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€621,€623Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€However,€the€court€must€still€make€an€examination€of€theÏfitness€of€each€party.Ìà àWe€believe€that€the€central€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€there€has€been€aÏmaterial€change€of€circumstances€such€that€the€welfare€of€the€child€requires€aÏchange€of€custody.€€ò òòòSee€In€re€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€893.€€Mother€argues€thatÏthere€has€been€no€material€change€in€circumstances€that€would€warrant€aÏchange€in€custody.€€Father€argues€that€circumstances€have€changed€in€a€materialÏway€concerning€Motherððs€work€schedule,€Motherððs€new€boyfriend,€Motherððs€lackÏof€control€over€Heath,€and€his€own€rehabilitation.à àÌà àFather€did€not€present€testimony€concerning€Motherððs€work€schedule€atÏthe€time€of€the€divorce,€so€we€cannot€tell€how€much€Motherððs€work€scheduleÏhas€changed.€€However,€by€the€time€of€trial,€Mother€was€working€second„shiftÏinstead€of€third„shift.€€If€anything,€her€work€schedule€has€improved.€€Ìà àFather€also€argues€that€Motherððs€new€boyfriend€presents€a€materialÏchange€of€circumstances.€€Mother€admitted€that€her€boyfriend€spends€the€nightÏat€her€home€when€Heath€is€present,€but€she€denied€that€Heath€has€seen€themÏengage€in€any€sexual€activity.€€Motherððs€cohabitation€is€troubling€to€this€Court.€ÏHowever,€Motherððs€cohabitation€is€only€one€of€the€factors€to€consider.€Íò òòòMusselmanóóó ó,€826€S.W.2d€at€922.€€We€also€note€that€Father€lives€with€hisÏgirlfriend€out€of€wedlock.€€We€know€of€very€few€cases€in€this€state€whereÏcustody€has€been€awarded€to€a€parent€living€with€a€partner€out€of€wedlock,€andÏwe€believe€that€neither€of€these€situations€œis€ideal.›€Ìà àFather€claims€that€Mother€cannot€control€Heath€and€that€she€requestedÏhis€help,€a€claim€that€Mother€denies.€€Dr.€Charles€Burger,€Heathððs€pediatrician,Ïand€Michelle€Chapman,€the€supervisor€at€Heathððs€day€care,€testified€that€HeathÏwas€in€good€health€and€well„behaved.€€€We€do€not€believe€that€Father€has€shownÏa€material€change€in€circumstances€on€this€issue.€Ìà àFather€also€impressed€the€trial€court€with€his€rehabilitation€fromÏalcoholism.€€Although€we€believe€that€Fatherððs€rehabilitation€is€a€factor€toÏconsider,€like€the€ð ðtender€years€doctrine,ðð€it€is€not€a€controlling€factor.€€TheÏfact€that€the€non„custodial€parent€has€improved€himself€or€herself,€standingÏalone,€does€not€constitute€such€a€change€in€circumstances€that€would€warrant€aÏchange€in€custody.€€ò òòòShort€v.€Shortóóó ó,€No.€03A01„9506„CH„00168,€1995€WLÏ728521,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€11,€1995).€€à àThe€main€piece€of€evidence€onÏwhich€the€parties€and€the€trial€court€focused€was€the€videotape.€€At€the€end€ofÏthe€proof,€counsel€for€Father€stated,€ð ðIf€she€(Mother)€had€someone€make€thatÏtape,€she€is€an€unfit€mother.€€Anyone€who€would€engage€in€that€type€of€behaviorÍis€unfit.€€If€Bill€Stroud€(Father)€took€the€film€of€her,€heððs€likewise€unfit.ðð€€ItÏappears€as€if€the€trial€courtððs€decision€was€mainly€based€upon€the€credibility€ofÏthe€parties€and€the€videotape.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€Father€didÏnot€make€the€videotape€and€that€Mother€was€not€credible.€€Ìà àThe€videotape€shows€Mother€fondling€and€touching€herself€and€is€aÏshocking€display€of€vulgarity.€€We€cannot€condone€such€conduct€on€the€part€ofÏthe€participants€in€the€taped€production.€€However,€we€must€disagree€with€theÏtrial€courtððs€treatment€of€the€videotape.€€In€the€first€place,€we€conclude€fromÏour€review€of€the€record€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Father€did€not€make€the€videotape.€€Heath€appears€in€theÏtape€and€is€obviously€three€years€old€or€less,€establishing€that€the€tape€was€madeÏwhile€the€parties€were€still€married.€€Although€the€trial€court€felt€that€MotherÏwas€not€credible,€the€trial€court€did€not€comment€on€the€parade€of€witnessesÏwho€testified€that€Father€made€the€videotape,€possessed€the€videotape€beforeÏthe€divorce,€and€bragged€about€using€the€videotape€as€blackmail.€€In€the€secondÏplace,€even€if€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€œits›€conclusion€that€Father€did€notÏmake€the€tape,€the€tape€itself€œdoes€not›€present€a€material€change€that€affectsÏHeathððs€well„being.€€While€the€tape€shows€Heath€walking€by€the€camera€asÏMother€lifts€her€nightgown€and€œalso›€œshows€Heath€bathing›€with€Mother,€there€isÍnothing€to€indicate€that€he€witnessed€the€vulgar€activities€depicted€on€the€tape.€ÏSexual€infidelity€or€indiscretion€does€not€ipso€facto€disqualify€a€parent€fromÏhaving€custody€of€a€child.€€ò òòòMimms€v.€Mimmsó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€739,€745€(Tenn.€App.Ï1989).€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€that€we€do€not€sit€as€moral€arbitersÏmaking€judgments€on€what€is€acceptable€social€behavior,€but€we€must€considerÏa€parentððs€conduct€to€the€extent€that€the€interest€of€the€child€is€concerned.€€ò òòòInÏre€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€894.€€Custody€may€be€changed€if€the€behavior€of€theÏcustodial€parent€clearly€posits€a€danger€to€the€physical,€mental,€or€emotionalÏwell„being€of€the€child.€€ò òòòAaby€v.€Strangeó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€623,€629€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏThe€tape€in€and€of€itself€does€not€pose€such€a€danger.Ìà àWe€reiterate€that€Heathððs€best€interests€are€the€primary€concern€of€thisÏCourt€and€should€also€be€the€main€focus€of€both€Father€and€Mother.€ÏUnfortunately,€their€actions€do€not€support€such€an€intention.€€Neither€parentÏhas€demonstrated€a€high€degree€of€œresponsibility,›€nor€have€they€shown€thatÏtheir€œinterests›€are€secondary€to€Heathððs.€€They€should€understand€that€anÏalternative€to€parental€custody€is€foster€care€if€the€interest€of€the€child€warrantsÏsuch€an€action.Ìà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€there€has€been€a€materialÍchange€of€circumstances€that€warrants€a€change€in€custody.€€œTherefore,€theÏorder€of€the€trial€court€changing€custody€is€vacated,€and€the€trial€court€shallÏorder€that€Mother€cannot€permit€any€men€friends€to€spend€the€night€with€herÏwhile€Heath€is€in€the€home€and€shall€in€no€way€engage€in€any€sexual€activityÏwhile€Heath€is€in€the€home.€Ìà àWe›€also€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€case€requires€a€close€supervision€byÏthe€court€to€protect€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€child.€€œThis›€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€instructions€to€refer€this€matter€œto€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€for€full›€investigation€of€the€living€arrangementsÏof€both€Mother€and€Father€and€all€other€facts€pertaining€to€their€ability€andÏwillingness€to€care€for€the€minor€child.€€The€trial€court€shall€also€determine€aÏvisitation€schedule€for€Father€and€shall€require€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices€to€monitor€the€custody€and€visitation€arrangements€for€an€extendedÏperiod€of€time€with€periodic€reports€to€the€court.€€œCosts€of€the€appeal€areÏassessed€against€the€appellee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌ____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌ̜Ԁ&ÔÔ€&Ô