WPC ("Rʥ_OC93m L+iv%6K.%\Cé0":w+v4+Z<Y՛}hǘb|milzfkJd&j5@@U9PcZ"8،Ro3F\kP[ GBrQ L6F)7 r1< u 3M4tN{V48ĦvWOc$..ȏc X#mYK>| v(fn& 6au| /Qۂo ڂ<W h"1D^. ŸI ?I ~hO`vdCG{ yn4?, 26?Uͮ8˺6 0;MND CP]P1`fJ1AJ(_M1/8ؘ L?&I*|Lb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz z  W   NEb 0 B 0 D3a D- 0K AS _ 0% 0D A HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0ġ) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?(@ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3 $ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE##Ԉ ,   May2000Session X XX #XX#DANIELRAY_STANFILL_v.KARENELAINEWRIGHT_STANFILL_XX   ` @@ AppealfromtheFourthCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  h @@No.60201Bill_Swann_,Judge  X _FILED_ԀAugust14,2000  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E199901878_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      Inthispostdivorceproceeding,thetrialcourtmodifiedthejudgmentofdivorcebychangingthe  custodyofChristopher_Stanfill_Ԁ(DOB:February12,1993)fromKarenElaineWright_Stanfill_  ( Mother)toDanielRay_Stanfill_Ԁ( Father).ThetrialcourtalsoestablishedMothersvisitation  rightswithherson.Weaffirm.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt f Affirmed;CaseRemanded  V   #X#XX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, 6 P.J.,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. &v CharlesW.SwansonandJasonH.Long,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellantKarenElaine V Wright_Stanfill_. F WilliamC._Cremins_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappelleeDanielRay_Stanfill_. &  MEMORANDUMOPINION #XX#XX !  #XX` #  XX  Mothercontendsthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentfinding #" asubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstanceswarrantingachangeofChristopherscustody $# fromMothertoFather.Shealsocontendsthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourts v% $ decreeestablishingMothersrightsofvisitationwiththechild. f&!%   Thefollowingwellestablishedprinciplescontrolthedispositionofthisappeal: F(#' 8  8`   Whilemanyproceedingsinthelawarefactuallydriven,thisis &*v%) particularlytrueofcustodycases,bothoninitialawardsaswellasin +f&* casesinvolvingarequesttomodifyapreviousaward. _Rogero_Ԁv.Pitt , ,V'+ 759S.W.2d109,112(Tenn.1988).Insuchcases,atrialcourthas ,F(, widediscretion,andwewillnottamperwiththatdiscretionunlessthe -6)- factsdemonstratethatthetrieroffacthasabusedhisorherdiscretion.   _Suttles_Ԁv._Suttles_ ,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988).Thewelfare  ofthechildisalwaystheparamountconsideration. Id .` x` x  _Brumit_Ԁv._Brumit_ ,948S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). p   Wehavereviewedtherecordinthiscase.Wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderate P  againstthetrialcourtsdecisiontochangecustody,nordoesitpreponderateagainstthetrialcourts @  decisionregardingtheappropriateamountofMothersvisitationwithChristopher.SeeTenn.R. 0  App.P.13(d).PursuanttotheprovisionsofTenn.Ct.App.R.10(b),weaffirmthejudgmentofthe  p  trialcourtbymemorandumopinion,havingdeterminedthat aformalopinionwouldhaveno `  precedentialvalue. Id .Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant. P     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE