WPCa `c "v񲵋kULD((Vjz+:<)U w%JOŊ?73<<" Z]lq.~6K \#,$W|p/JW -Cx0FLRe0cG : WŻ[+K:ׂcӢ uŜ#*jM$lȶތi 0%b!WЉ #U}€ H'2,]@\r>7mhݯsh-!aI;AthII $&k!u@8Slu.Yts}ih_&?0if(-3m kYv8pVԊh^Y,ya>J>JhF\&/#ǐϟw Dsvq.h $V'Imu7Ab#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4 0D      i/N1 m3JERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRbTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT 0\\\\ BGG 0d D5 D-= 0Kjj AS 0 0Dr AHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularx(L  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.wptL-((#$  0    R$      1  XX  _TheMotheralsodisputedtheFathersaccountofthelivingconditionsinthehomeofthe  Mothersparents.3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U - -(|G2$ !.8\dd8         0  X;X d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @''%ATJACKSON  XX #XX4#  JEREMYEARLTOMPKINSv.MARYHELENRAINEYXX    z@Q Q  DirectAppealfromtheJuvenileCourtforShelbyCounty  ( @ No.K6372A.V.McDowell,SpecialJudge   @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @ No.W199901218COAR3CVDecidedJuly11,_2000_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<v` A w   XXXXInthisactiontoestablishparentage,JeremyEarlTompkins(Father)appealsthetrialcourtsfinal v  judgmentawardingMaryHelenRainey(Mother)custodyofthepartiesinfantson.Weaffirmthe b  trialcourtsjudgment. N  #XXXX##XXû#XXTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheJuvenileCourtAffirmed;and &v Remanded  f #XÄ#XX.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,andHighers,J., F joined. 6 XXXXAubreyL.Brown,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JeremyEarlTompkins.  Wm.CraigHall,Collierville,Tennessee,andRichardF.Vaughn,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe  appellee,MaryHelenRainey.   #XXXX##XXR#XX@55' OPINION #XXÆ#XXԈ >!  #XX#XXXXXX   ThepartiesbegandatinginJanuary1998,andtheybeganlivingtogetherinMarch1998.In  $Z# May1998,thepartiesdiscoveredthattheMotherwaspregnant.Shortlythereafter,theMothers $F $ parentsinformedthepartiesthattheycouldprovideinsurancecoverageandaplacetoliveifthe %2!% partiesmovedtoCharlottesville,Virginia.Consequently,inJune1998,thepartiesmovedfrom &"& MemphistoCharlottesvilleandbeganlivingwiththeMothersparents. ' #'   ByDecember1998,theFatherwasunhappylivinginCharlottesvillebecausehemissedhis )$) familyandfriendsinMemphis.TheFatheralsocomplainedthattheMothersparentshomewas ~*%* dirtyandclutteredandthattheMotherandhermotheroftenbickered.WiththeMothersagreement, j+&+ theFatherreturnedtoMemphisandbeganworkingforhisfatherasacarpentersapprentice.The V,', FatherreturnedtoCharlottesvilleforChristmasandagaininJanuary1999whenthechildwasborn. B-(-G BecauseoftheinsurancecoverageprovidedbytheMothersparents,thepartiesdidnothavetopay  anyexpensesrelatedtothechildsbirth.    InearlyFebruary1999,withinweeksofthechildsbirth,theFatherandtheMotherreturned t toMemphistolive.Almostimmediately,however,thepartiesbeganexperiencingdiscordintheir ` relationship.UponreturningtoMemphis,theMotherlearnedthattheFatherhadnotyetobtained L  anapartmentfortheparties.TheMotherrefusedtolivewiththeFatherathisparentshome,soshe 8  andthechildstayedwithafriendinSouthaven,Mississippi,and,later,withasisterinJackson, $ t Mississippi.BytheendofFebruary1999,theFatherhadobtainedanapartmentforthepartiesin  ` theMemphisarea.Lessthantwomonthsaftermovingintotheapartment,however,theparties  L  separated.  8    OnApril28,1999,theFatherinitiatedthepresentproceedingswhenhefiledapetitionto   establishparentageofthechild. See Tenn.CodeAnn.36-2-301to322(Supp.1998).In   additiontoaskingthetrialcourttoestablishthechildsparentage,theFatherrequestedthetrialcourt   totemporarilyenjointheMotherfromremovingthechildfromShelbyCountyandtoawardthe   Fatherspecificandliberalvisitationwiththechild.TheFatherlateramendedhispetition___to_Ԁseek p custodyofthechild. \   Attrial,theFatheracknowledgedthattheMotherhadservedasthechildsprimarycaretaker 4 sincethechildsbirth.TheFathertestified,however,thatheattemptedtotakecareofthechildby  p changingthechildsdiapersandbyfeedingandburpingthechild.AccordingtotheFather,the  \ Motherlimitedhisroleincaringforthechildbecauseshewas overlyprotectiveofthechildand H criticaloftheFathersparentingmethods.TheFatheralsotestifiedthat,whenthepartieshad 4 conflictsbothbeforeandaftertheirseparation,theMotherthreatenedtopreventtheFatherfrom   seeingthechild.     TheMotheradmittedthatshehadthreatenedtopreventtheFatherfromvisitingthechild.  Sheexplained,however,thatshemadesomeofthesestatements outofangerwhentheparties  werearguing.TheMotheralsocomplainedthat,whentheFatherexercisedvisitation,hedidnot l keepherinformedofthechildswhereaboutsand,onatleastoneoccasion,refusedtoanswerher X  phonecalls. D!   TheMotherexpressedadesiretomovewiththechildbacktoCharlottesville.TheMothers #l! parentshadofferedtohelphergetanapartmentthatwasapproximatelyfifteenminutesfromtheir $X" home.TheMotherplannedtogobacktoworkforFederalExpressandtoreturntoschool.The $D # MothertestifiedthathermotherwouldhelpcareforthechildwhiletheMotherwasworkingand %0!$ attendingclasses.TheMotherproposedmeetingtheFatherhalfwaybetweenCharlottesvilleand &"% MemphistoenabletheFathertoexercisevisitationwiththechild.TheMotheralsotestifiedthat '#& theFathercouldstaywithoneofherrelativesifhechosetoexercisevisitationinCharlottesville. (#'   Atthetrialsconclusion,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdeclaringtheFathertobethechilds |*%) father,awardingcustodyofthechildtotheMother,awardingtheFatherspecifiedvisitation,and h+&* orderingtheFathertopaychildsupportintheamountof$364.35permonth.Thetrialcourtfurther  orderedtheMothertomeettheFatherinKnoxvilleintheeventtheFathercouldnottravelto  Charlottesvilletoexercisevisitationwiththechild.Onappealfromthisorder,theFatherchallenges  onlythetrialcourtsdecisiontoawardcustodyofthepartieschildtotheMother. t   Ourreviewofthetrialcourtscustodydecisionisgovernedbyrule13(d)oftheTennessee L  RulesofAppellateProcedure. See  Ruylev.Ruyle ,928S.W.2d439,441(Tenn.Ct.App.1996); 8   Kochv.Koch ,874S.W.2d571,575(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Rule13(d)requiresthiscourt,in $ t conductinga denovo reviewoftherecord,topresumethatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsare  ` correct,unlesstheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesotherwise. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).In  L  applyingthisstandardofreview,wearemindfulthat [t]rialcourtsarevestedwithwidediscretion  8  inmattersofchildcustodyandthat theappellatecourtswillnotinterfereexceptuponashowing $  oferroneousexerciseofthatdiscretion. Koch ,874S.W.2dat575.Because [c]ustodyand   visitationdeterminationsoftenhingeonsubtlefactors,includingtheparentsdemeanorand   credibilityduringtheproceedings,appellatecourts arereluctanttosecondguessatrialcourts   decisions. Gaskillv.Gaskill ,936S.W.2d626,631(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thecourtsparamount   concerninacustodycaseisthewelfareandbestinterestofthepartiesminorchild. See  Ruyle ,928 p S.W.2dat441; Koch ,874S.W.2dat575.Thisdeterminationnecessarilyturnsontheparticular \ factsofeachcase. See  Koch ,874S.W.2dat575. H   Inmakingitscustodydecision,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoengageina comparativefitness  p analysis. Gaskill ,936S.W.2dat630.Thatis,thecourtisrequiredtodeterminewhichparentisa  \ comparativelymorefitcustodianthantheother. See  id .Thisfactuallydriveninquiryrequiresthe H courttocarefullyweigh, interalia ,thefollowingconsiderations: 4 8   ` (1) Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparents   andchild;   8   ` (2) Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing,  medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparenthas l beentheprimarycaregiver;X    8   ` (3) Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslifeandthelengthoftime 0"  thechildhaslivedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment;...#l!   8   ` (4) Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;$D #   8   ` (5) Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents;&"%   8   ` (6) Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;(#'   8   ` (7) Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageor |*%) older....h+&*   Ї8   ` (8) Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheother  parentortoanyotherperson;....   8   ` (9) Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinor t frequentsthehomeofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththechild;and`   8   ` (10) Eachparentspastandpotentialforfutureperformanceofparenting 8  responsibilities,includingthewillingnessandabilityofeachoftheparentsto $ t facilitateandencourageacloseandcontinuingparentchildrelationshipbetweenthe  ` childandtheotherparent,consistentwiththebestinterestofthe&  child. L    ____Tenn.CodeAnn.36-6-106(Supp.1998).' 1 $      Onappeal,theFathercontendsthatthetrialcourterredinawardingcustodyofthechildto   theMotherbecausetheforegoingfactors,withtheexceptionofsubsection(3)regardingthe    importanceofcontinuity,favoredawardingcustodytotheFatherasthemorecomparativelyfit   custodian.Insupportofthiscontention,theFathercitesevidencethat,atthetimeoftrial,hewas p inperfecthealth,wasgainfullyemployed,hadprovidedfinancialsupporttotheMotherandchild \ pendingtheseproceedings,andhadacloserelationshipwithhisparents.TheFathercontendsthat, H incontrast,theevidenceshowedthattheMotherwasunemployed,hadatenseandsometimes 4 violentrelationshipwithherownmother,andhadinterferedwiththeFathersvisitationwiththe  p childintheweeksfollowingthepartiesseparation.  \   DespitethefavorableevidencesupportingtheFatherscustodyrequest,weconcludethatthe 4 trialcourtdidnoterrinawardingcustodyofthepartieschildtotheMother.TheMothercountered   manyoftheFathersallegationsbytestifyingthatsheandhermotherdidnothaveaviolent   relationshipandthat,uponhermovetoVirginia,theMotherplannedtofindemploymentandreturn  toschool.   #  1      ׀AlthoughtheMotheracknowledgedthatshehadthreatenedtopreventtheFatherfrom  seeingthechild,theMotherexplainedthatshemadesomeofthesestatementsoutofangershortly  afterthepartiesseparation.Attrial,theMotherstatedthatshewantedtheFathertoseethechild l inthefutureandthatshewantedthechild togrowupknowinghisfather.TheMotheralso X  attestedtoherwillingnesstocooperatewithandabidebythecourtsfutureordersregardingcustody D! andvisitation. 0"    Thetrialcourtscommentsmadeatthetrialsconclusionsuggestedthat,totheextentthe $X" FatherstestimonyconflictedwiththatoftheMother,thetrialcourtacceptedtheMothersversion $D # ofevents.Inasmuchasthetrialcourtalonehadtheopportunitytoobservethewitnesses,wearenot %0!$ inapositiontosecondguessthatcourtsdeterminationofcredibility. See  Gaskillv.Gaskill ,936 &"% S.W.2d626,631(Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Bahv.Bah ,668S.W.2d663,665(Tenn.Ct.App.1983). '#&  (#'   Moreover,thetrialcourtscommentsmadefromthebenchsuggestedthatthecourtwas  particularlyconcernedwiththefactoroftheimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslife.Thiscourt  hasrepeatedlyemphasizedtheimportanceofstabilityandcontinuityofplacementincustodycases.   See  Gaskill ,936S.W.2dat630; seealso  McCainv.Grim ,No.01A019711CH00634,1999WL t 820216,at*2n.1(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.15,1999)( noperm.app.filed ); Burlewv.Burlew ,No. ` 02A019807CH00186,1999WL545749,at*7,*9(Tenn.Ct.App.July23,1999), perm.app. L  grantedonothergrounds (Tenn.July3,2000)  ; Smithv.Smith ,No.01A019511CH00536,1996 8  WL526921,at*4n.7(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.18,1996)( noperm.app.filed ).Althoughcontinuity $ t doesnottrumpallotherfactors, see  Gaskill ,936S.W.2dat630, itremainsanimportant  ` consideration. Groverv.Grover ,No.01A019804CH00197,1999WL257653,at*5(Tenn.Ct.  L  App.Apr.30,1999)( noperm.app.filed ).  8    Inthepresentcase,theevidencewasundisputedthattheMotherwasthechildsprimary   caretakerbothpriortoandafterthepartiesseparation.Althoughthetrialcourtwasnotrequired   toawardcustodyofthechildtotheMotheronthisbasis, see  Grover ,1999WL257653,at*5,we   concludethatthecourtproperlyemphasizedtheMothersundisputedroleasthechildsprimary   caretakerinmakingitscustodydecision. p   Inaffirmingthetrialcourtscustodyorder,werejecttheFathersargumentthat,inmaking H itscustodydetermination,thetrialcourtappliedthewronglegalstandard.TheFathercomplains 4 that,duringthetrial,thetrialcourtmadecertaincommentsthatsuggestedthat,ratherthanengaging  p inacomparativefitnessanalysis,thecourtwasplacingtheburdenontheFathertoprovethatthe  \ Motherwasunfittobethechildscustodian. H   Weconcludethatthetrialcourtsstatements,whenviewedintheirentirecontext,donot   supporttheFathersargumentthatthetrialcourtusedthewrongstandardinawardingcustodyofthe   childtotheMother. See  Renov.Reno ,E199900590COAR3CV,2000WL276990,at*4*6  (Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.25,2000)( noperm.app.filed ).Tothecontrary,afterreviewingtherecord,  weremainconvincedthatthetrialcourtproperlyappliedthe bestinterestand comparative  fitnessanalysesrequiredbylaw.Duringopeningarguments,forexample,thetrialcourtaskedthe l Fatherscounsel whyitwouldbeinthebestinterestofthechildtobewiththefather?Moreover, X  duringtheproceedings,thetrialcourtrepeatedlystressedtothepartiesthattheMothersrightsto D! parentthechildwerenogreaterthantheparentalrightspossessedbytheFather. 0"    Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedforfurtherproceedings $X" consistentwiththisopinion.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,JeremyEarlTompkins, $D # forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX` ##XXA #XX %0!$ #XXÈM#XX