WPCx i\$*3e[aRz-5-xϔ ʫw}> n:Z׽7}~tJ۠Uz.4XHmce+ĺpl]B sPIW#qyf,j^1.V.?j3lb)ÕI@Çk<&>n-Tq$ǔw4h RzwA/8uobQnqSlN6O*([AӕM<6^2aq B9B |Qj\47ASAXH HxQ7G벷U>aː_MA@D:$10o M-P4o??mHW<ۮ֞b,xI^ ̑_(4{Md%ӓ@5i EEﯪﺜ= _d#!xUN % 0(w 4 - UN<  P     Np 1r 1u 0cn^  0 0D m 72UNII 0D7 B0U:MP 0D8SS A D+ 0Kl D5jjjjj AQ 0D 0D4HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(${Z='f@ttt3|x(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(CEKQW]cioAutoList1i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  [='L ((2"$ !    X71XXX     0  (#$  0   Ui)(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(3$ !       - b"  _!XkXXX!UX!Xk   Ad FILED!XkX!U  September29,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx  d,cAZ"Arial Regular F ~$@  XXXX @ @   1    _ԀTheorderstatesthatMotherhadlivedinanabusivemarriageduringthecourseofher e marriagewithFather.(3$ !   . ~$@  XXXX @ @   2    _ԀFatherdoesnotobjecttocorporalpunishmentitselfandexpressedadesirethathebe e allowedtousecorporalpunishmenttodisciplinethechildrenwhentheyarewithhim.Hehad U beenundercourtorderprohibitinghimfromusingsuchpunishmentsincethependencyofthe E originaldivorcecomplaint.  ~$@  XXXX @ @   3    _ԀFromthecontextoftheentirediscussion,thecourtwasreferringtoMothersability e tocallherotherwitnessesandputonproofifFathermethisinitialburden. $,+&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK'dxd( $ Figure  1   bTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTe )!dxdx b$c[C<<C(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _X71XXXiXX71TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TOa-X_@   INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @{{(ATNASHVILLEx`[B2.jzYE`  `@EM` 8ttxPy E x LISADIANEWAGNER,@.) N @.)-(XXX- Plaintiff/Appellee,@.)  AppealNo. " r @.)  01A019804CV00215 4  @.)@.)  SequatchieCircuit X  CHARLESBRADLEYGASTON,@.)  No.6307 j  @.) Defendant/Appellant.@.)   @.)#X71Xif#iXX71  APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORSEQUATCHIECOUNTYTHEHONORABLETHOMASW.GRAHAMPRESIDING  STEPHENT.GREER,P.C.10BRANKINAVENUENORTH#X71Xib#iXX71#iiG#ii x P.O.BOX758DUNLAP,TENNESSEE37327#X71XiM#iXX71ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE # AUBREYL.HARPER,ESQUIRE114NORTHCOLLEGESTREETP.O.BOX588McMINNVILLE,TENNESSEE371110588ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANT/APPELLANT  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  /*(      PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:CANTRELL,J.CAIN,J. N;63 -X -TR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalTe -  _#mƓ##XXmX#8mdd8SXXX   Opinion #XXSX # e    mXXInthiscase,Mr.CharlesBradleyGaston(hereafter Father)appealsthe 5 trialcourtsdenialofhisrequestthattheexistingchildcustodyorderregarding e  histhreeminorchildrenbemodifiedtogranthimcustody.Weaffirmtheorder  0 ofthetrialcourt.  `   LisaDianeWagner(hereafter Mother)filedfordivorceonMay20,   1993,allegingcruelandinhumantreatment.Thepartiesweredivorced %  followingatrialinJanuaryof1994,andthefinalorderwasenteredonFebruary U 11,1994." #  1      ׀AspartofthatorderMotherwasgrantedexclusivecustodyofthe   couplesthreeminorchildren.VisitationwasprovidedforFatheronavery P limitedbasis.Atfirsthewasgranted6hoursofvisitationperweek,tolater  expandto8hoursperweek.   Fivemonthsafterentryofthefinalorder,Motherwasgrantedanorderof E protectionenjoiningFatherfromcomingaroundher,abusingher,orthreatening u! toabuseher.Eightmonthsafterentryofthefinalorder,FatherfiledaPetition #@ toModifyrequestingthathebegrantedcustodyor,inthealternative,increased %p! visitation.OnAugust6,1997,Fatherfiledanothermotionrequesting standard (#  visitationduringthependencyofhisPetition.Earlierthatyear,thepartieshad 5*%" enteredanAgreedOrderconcerningcounselingforthethreechildren.After e,($ discoverydisputes,substitutionsofcounsel,andhearingsonotherissuesnot .0*& relevanttothisappeal,thismatterwastried. 0`,(  Thetrialcourtfoundthattherehadnotbeenamaterialchangeof 2.* circumstancessincethefinaldecreeofdivorcetojustifytherequested %50, modificationofcustody.However,thecourtdidfindthattherehadbeena e materialchangeofcircumstancessufficienttojustifyamodificationofthe 0 visitationarrangement.Accordingly,Fatherwasdeniedcustody,buthewas ` grantedincreasedvisitation.Initsorder,thetrialcourtgavespecificinstructions   regardingvisitation,includingallocatingvariousholidays.Thecourtalso %  limitedFathersvisitstothechildrensschooltooncepermonthandforthesole U  purposeofhavinglunchwithhischildren.Thecourtalsostrictlyprohibited   Father,duringhisvisitationperiods,fromtaperecording,videotapingand P photographingthechildrenforinvestigativepurposes.Fathernowarguesthat  thetrialcourterredbydenyinghimsolecustodyofthecouplesthreeminor  children. E   I. u 8 mCasesinvolvingarequestforchangeofcustodyofminorchildrenare @ particularlyfactdriven.SeeRogerov.Pitt,759S.W.2d109,112(Tenn.1988).  d Insuchcases,thetrialcourthasthewidestdiscretiontoorderacustody " arrangementthatisinthebestinterestofthechild.Seee.g.Gaskillv.Gaskill, %  936S.W.2d626,631(Tenn.App.1996);Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2) 5'"  (1996).Accordingly,itiswellsettledthattheappellatecourtsreviewofatrial Y)$" courtsfindingsinacustodydisputeisdenovoontherecord,accompaniedby }+'$ apresumptionofcorrectness.SeeNicholsv.Nichols,729S.W.2d713,716 -<)& (Tenn.1990);Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984).An /`+( appellatecourtwillnotreversesuchadecision,absentanerroroflaw,unlessthe 1-* appellatecourtfindsthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourts  4/, findings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);SeeMassengalev.Massengale,915S.W.2d 161. 818,819(Tenn.App.1995);Haas,676S.W.2dat555. U830  Adecreeawardingcustodyofchildrenisresjudicataandisconclusiveon e asubsequentapplicationtochangecustodyunlesscircumstanceshavechanged $ inamaterialwaysothatthewelfareofthechildrenrequiresamodificationofthe H previousorder.SeeLongv.Long,488S.W.2d729,731732(Tenn.App.1972);  l Hicksv.Hicks,26Tenn.App.641,176S.W.2d371,374375(1943).Courtsare   empoweredtochangecustody astheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire.Tenn   CodeAnn.366101(a)(1). =   Notwithstandingtheimportanceofstabilityandcontinuity,intervening a changesinachildscircumstancesmayrequiremodifyinganexistingcustody   andvisitationarrangement.Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2d482,485 D (Tenn.App.1997)#mw#m.However,acustodyordercannotbemodifiedabsenta h showingofnewfactsor changedcircumstanceswhichrequireanalterationof  theexistingorder.Id.   Thereisnohardandfastruleastowhatconstitutesachangeof 9  circumstances.SeeDantzlerv.Dantzler,665S.W.2d385,387(Tenn.App. ]" 1983).However, changedcircumstancesincludesanymaterialchangeof $  circumstancesaffectingthewelfareofthechildorchildren,includingevents &@"  occurringsincetheinitialcustodydecisionorchangedconditionswhichcould (d$" nothavebeenanticipatedbytheoriginalcustodyorder.SeeBlairv.Badenhope, *&$ 940S.W.2d575,576(Tenn.App.1996). -(&  Onlyifthecourtfindsthatamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshas 5/*( occurred,willthecourtproceedtodetermineifthebestinterestofthechild Y1,* dictatesachangeintheexistingcustodyarrangementandtodeviseacustody }3/, arrangementthatservesthoseinterests.SeeAdelsperger,970S.W.2dat485. 5<1. #m##m  II.#mH)# 7`30 g) Thepartiesinthiscasehadalessthanamicableparting,andtheirpost 952 divorceinteractionhascontinuedtobecontentious,involvingongoinglitigation. e Atthetimeofthedivorce,thetrialcourt,afterconsideringtheevidence 0 presented,strictlylimitedFathersvisitationwiththechildren.Aftersometime, ` Motherallowedgreatervisitation,includingovernightstays.Shediscontinued   thispractice,however,whenshelearnedthatFatherhadbeenaudiotapingthe %  childrenextensively.ShewasconcernedthatFatherwasattemptingto U  undermineherrelationshipwiththechildren.   m InhiseffortstodocumenthisallegationsaboutMotherstreatmentofthe P children,Fatherbegan,soonafterthedivorce,tapingthechildrensaccountsto t himofMothersconductandofvariouseventsintheirlives.Fatherrecorded  fortytosixtytapes,sixtytoninetyminutesinlengtheach.Hetestifiedthatthey ! consistedprimarilyofstatementsofthechildrenaboutthingsMotherhaddone E orthingsthathadhappenedtothechildren.Bothpsychologistswhotestified i opinedthatsuchactivitybytheFathercouldunderminethechildrens  ( relationshipwithMother. "L  Fatheralsotookphotographs,andhadsometakenbyaprofessional $p  photographer,ofthechildren,generallyintheirunderwearornaked,purportedly &"  toshowbruisesorrashes.#m,#Thecourtdeterminedthatthephotographsdidnot )$" demonstrateanythingoutsidethenormalforactivechildren.Thepsychological q+ '$ testimonywasthatsuchrepetitivephotographingofthechildrencouldsend -<)& inappropriatemessagestothechildren,againunderminingthechildrens /l+( relationshipwiththeirmother. 2-*  Fathersclaimofamaterialchangeincircumstancesrestsonhis 14/,  allegationsthatMotherhadabusedthechildrenmԀbyinflictingexcessivecorporal a61. Oa    punishmentonthechildren.% #  2      ׀#m3#ԀThechildrensschoolguidancecounselorandtwo e  trainedpsychologistswhohadinterviewedorcounseledthechildrentestified T thattheyhadnotobservedevidenceofabuse.Thecourtheardthetwoolder  childreninchambers.BothsaidthatMotherhadspankedthem,butthe   spankingshadoccurredalongtimeago.Bothchildrenindicatedthattheywere I  happy,andlovedbothparents. y   Havingheardallofthetestimonythetrialjudgeannouncedhisfinding D  fromthebenchthat Idontthinktheresaphysicalabuseproblemhereatall. t Thetrialcourtfoundnochangeofcircumstance,therebyholdingthatFatherhas   failedtomeethisburdenofproof. 9  Thetrialcourtsfindingsoffactareentitledtothepresumptionof i correctnessonappeal,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. 4 Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)Weseenothingintherecordtocontradictthetrial d courtsfinding.We,therefore,upholdthetrialcourtsconclusionthattherehas   notbeenamaterialchangeofcircumstancessufficienttojustifyachangeof )# custody.Becausetherehasnotbeenamaterialchangeofcircumstances,itis Y%  unnecessaryandwouldbeimproperforthiscourttoundertakeacomparative '$#  fitnessanalysis.?,XXpX(XX?ӀmSeeAdelsperger,970S.W.2dat485.#m:# )T%"   III.  ,'$ ^; Fatheralsoarguesthathedidnotreceiveafairtrialbecausethetrialcourt =.)& allegedlydecidedthecasebeforealloftheevidencewasheard,apparentlybased m0,( oncommentsthecourtmadepriortohearingthetestimonyoftwoofthe 28.* children.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. e  Fatherhadfiledamotiontoallowthethreechildren,aged8,7,and4, 0 appeareitherinopencourtorinchambers,toexpresstheirpreferenceregarding ` custody.AttrialthecourtheardtestimonyfromFather,Mother,Fathersnew   wife,Mothersboyfriend,thechildrensguidancecounselorandtwo %  psychologists.Atvariouspointsinthehearing,theattorneysandthecourthad U  discussionsabouttheremainingwitnessesforeachside(Motherintendedtocall   anumberofwitnesseswhowerewaitingtotestify),includingdiscussionsofthe P burdenofproof.AtthecloseofFathersotherproof,heindicatedanintention  tocallthetwoolderchildren,thenaged8and7,aswitnesses.Motherobjected  tothechildrentestifyingbecauseofthepotentialtraumatizingeffectonthem. E Thecourtexpressedconcernsabouthavingsuchyoungchildrentestify,andsaid: u 8 8@ ! !Allright.Illtalktothetwooldestchildren.IsaidIwould,andIwill.Idont @ thinkitsgoingtoaffectmydecision,Illletyouknowandyou' #  3      ׀canputyour X otherproofon,O.K?...[M]ydecisionrightnowisthattheburdenhasnotbeen  p met.Myfurtherdecisionisthatthereis[a]needtoextendvisitation,thatyou ! havemettheburdenofestablishingthatyouarefittohavemoreextended # visitation.aA $  Thetrialcourtthenspokewiththetwoolderchildreninchamberswiththe M&! parties,theircounselandthecourtreporterpresent.Fathersobjectiononappeal }($! appearstoberelatedtothecommentsquotedabove. *H&#  Atvariouspointsduringthehearing,whichlastedlateintotheevening, ,x(% thecourtandcounselconsultedontheorderofproof,whetherwitnesseswould  /*' benecessaryorcumulative,andsimilarissuesrelatedtotheconductofthe =1,) hearing.Aspartofdecidingwhethertoallowthechildrentoappearas m3/+ witnesses,thecourtassessedwhetherFatherhadmethisburdentothatpoint. 581- GivingFathereveryopportunitytoprovehiscase,thecourtaccededtoFathers e requestandheardfromthechildreninchambers.Afterhearingfromthe 0 children,thecourtmadeitsfindingthatFatherhadnotdemonstratedamaterial ` changeofcircumstances.Wefindnoerroronthepartofthetrialcourt.   Additionally,onappeal,Fatherhasnotarticulatedhowhewasinanyway %  prejudicedbythecourtsactions.SeeMemphisBd.ofRealtorsv.Cohen,786 U  mS.W.2d#mƀI#Ԁ951,953(Tenn.App.1989);Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).     IV. t    Thetrialcourthereinfashionedanorderwhichwasconsistentwiththe   testimony.Thechildrenwereaffectedbytheconflictbetweentheirparentsand 9 thecontinuinglitigationwhichencouragedFathertotapeandphotographthe i children.BothpsychologistsrecommendedincreasedvisitationwithFather,and 4 bothrecommendedthatthetapingandphotographingcease.Onealso d recommendedlimitationsonFathersvisitstoschool.Motherfavoredincreased   visitationwithFatheraslongasthetaping,photographing,andothereffortsto )# alienatethechildrenfromherwerestopped.Thiswas,inessence,thetrial Y%  courtsorder. '$#   Forthereasonsstatedaboveweaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourt.This )T%" caseisremandedtothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmaybe +'$ necessary.Costsofthisappealareassessedtotheappellant. .)&    _______________________________ y2.*    PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE 3,/+ CONCUR: 5\1- _____________________________  940 BENH.CANTRELL,P.J.,M.S. e _____________________________ ` WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  x