WPC sbf=8e4}VfaM1j}mѥ.)ۻI`T8-@D"1Q ].%$bnN@8ɱ UN?xH2|c "9{]T71Teo b6ĚgCSV !/z, VF"2!QfI=inW;|zIn_bN n>/Pin?|Y 3w<( 8'bptf1#|dS"!sS[PixϜ~L3y Q<߂ɔ#"e; l-b#'"V&;vZw EUv@T%v|%U]b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1N& 0D'EkUGNmUNb                                     0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASh 0 0D% Aic[) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularQX)(B3|x 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.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   R $      1  Y   _XX YRule10(RulesoftheCourtofAppealsofTennessee).(b) MemorandumOpinion. The  Court,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifythe  actionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedential  value.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUM x OPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequent d unrelatedcase.#Y XX~#(#$  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2 $ !.8<d d 8         0  ~p d(|3E$ !.8<d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3E$ !.8<d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  A8rXXdd 8  @ AINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#A #Ԉ &   _AssignedonBriefs_0 @ 0 @ August_29,2000_Ԁ__ L XXA #AXXr#DENNISWADEBAILEYv._ZONDRA_ԀKAYESMITH_BAILEY____XXA _ J @@ AnAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforChesterCounty  J @@No.9262JoeC.Morris,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901000_COA_ԄR3CV_ԄFiledOctober19,2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     __This__Ԁisa_divorcecaseinvolvingchild_Ԁ_custody._ԀMotherandFatheraredivorcedandhaveoneminor x  child.ThetrialcourtgrantedcustodyoftheminorchildtoFather._Motherappeals,arguingthatthe d trialcourterroneouslybaseditsdecisiononherlackofrelationshipwithherfather,thechilds P maternalgrandfather.Weaffirm. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3#AXXb#XXA;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtisAffirmed.  d   #AX?#XX.AHollyKirby_Lillard_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,J.#AX#XX.Aand < DavidR.Farmer,J.#AX͵ #XX.A,joined. ( JesseH.Ford,III,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheAppellant_Zondra_ԀKayeSmithBailey.  JackS.Hinson,Lexington,Tennessee,fortheAppelleeDennisWadeBailey.   MEMORANDUMOPINION #AXX( #XXA #  1       ` #AXX͝ #XXA    Plaintiff/AppelleeDennisWadeBailey( Father)#AXXN #XXAandDefendant/Appellant_Zondra_ԀKaye 8!  SmithBailey( Mother)were#AXX #XXAmarriedin1992.Thepartieshaveonechild,BrittanyLeighBailey $"t! ( Brittany), bornin1993.Duringthemarriage,MotherandFatherresidedinChesterCountyand #`" bothworkedforJohnsonControlsinLexington,Tennessee.#AXXͰ #XXA #L#   ThepartiesseparatedonJanuary1,1998.#AXX#XXAMothermovedtoHardemanCounty,andlivesin %$!% hermotherandstepfathershome.FatherremainedinthemaritalhomeinChesterCounty.#AXX͕#XXAOn &"& January15,1998,Fatherfiledacomplaintfordivorce,alleginginappropriatemaritalconductand  irreconcilabledifferences.FathersoughttemporarycustodyofBrittany,whichwasgranted.#AXXw#XXAT#AXXͩ#XXAhe  partieslateragreedon#AXX#XXAasharedcustodyarrangementplacingBrittanywitheachparentforfourdays  atatime.Subsequently,Motherfiledacountercomplaintfordivorcecitinginappropriatemarital t conductandseekingexclusivecustodyofBrittany. `  XXXX  ThetrialonthismatterwasheardonAugust13,1998.Atthetimeoftrial,Brittanywas5 8  yearsoldandpreparingtobeginschool. $ t   Atthetrial,Fathertestifiedthathestilllivesinthemaritalhome,ashortdistancefromhis  L  parentshome.HecontinuestoworkforJohnsonControls.Fathersaidthathisparentshavehelped  8  careforBrittanysinceherbirth.Fathertestifiedthat,untilthepartiesseparation,Brittanysregular $  routineconsistedofheorMothertakingBrittanytohisparentshomeeachmorningat4:00a.m.,   whentheyleftforwork.OndayswhenFathersmotherdidnotcareforBrittany,shewastakento   daycare.Fatherhascontinuedthatroutinesincethepartiesseparation,whileBrittanyiswithhim.   Fatherassertedthat,ifhewereawardedcustody,Brittanywouldattendschoolwithchildrenshe   knowsfromherdaycareandthechurchheandsheregularlyattend.FathersaidthatBrittanyhasa p goodrelationshipwithbothsetsofhergrandparentsandtestifiedthathehadtakenBrittanytosee \ hermaternalgrandfathersincethepartiesseparation. H   MothertestifiedthatshehadbeenBrittanysprimary_caregiver_Ԁsincebirthandthat,priorto  p thepartiesseparation,shehadprovidedforallofBrittanysbasicneeds.Shealsotestifiedthat  \ whenBrittanystayswithherinthehomeofhermotherandstepfather,Brittanydoesnothaveto H leavethehouseasearlyaswhensheiswithFather.Instead,MotherleavesforworkatJohnson 4 Controlsat4:00a.m.andMothersstepfatherdropsBrittanyoffatdaycarebetween7:00a.m.and   8:30a.m.eachmorning.Motherassertedthat,ifshewereawardedcustody,shewouldleaveher   currentjobandobtainotheremploymentwhichwouldallowhertobeathomewhenBrittanyleaves  forschoolandreturnshomeeachday.MotheracknowledgedthatBrittanyhasagoodrelationship  withallhergrandparents.Motheradmittedthatsheandherfather,Brittanysmaternalgrandfather,  donothaveastrongrelationshipandthatshehadnottakenBrittanytoseehimthatyear,even l thoughheandMotherliveinthesamecounty. X    BothpartiespresentedexpertswhotestifiedthatBrittanyhadastrongattachmenttobothher 0"  parentsandbothsetsofhergrandparents.TheexpertsrecommendedthatBrittanyexperienceas #l! littlestressaspossiblebeginningschoolandindicateditwouldbelesstraumaticforhertoattend $X" schoolwheresheknowspeople.Bothexpertsemphasizedtheneedfor flexibilityandcooperation $D # betweenMotherandFather.#XXXXͣ##AXX]#XXA  %0!$   ThetrialcourtissueditsfindingsandorderonAugust20,1998.Thetrialcourtnoted '#& testimonythatBrittanyhadastrongattachmenttobothparentsandwasalsoattachedtoher (#' grandparentsonbothsidesofherfamily.ItobservedthatFatherhadremainedinthemaritalhome )$( andtookBrittanytochurch.ThetrialcourtfoundthatMotherhadadequatespaceinherhomefor |*%) Brittany,andfoundbothparentstobegoodandfitparents.Initsorder,thetrialcourtalsoobserved h+&* that, forsomeunknownreason,Motherdidnotseeherfather,Brittanysmaternalgrandfather,on  aregularbasisandhadnottakenBrittanytoseeherfatherthatyear.ItnotedthatFatherhadtaken  BrittanytoseeMothersfather.Afterreviewingtheevidence,thetrialcourtawardedcustodyto  Father,findingitwasnotinBrittanys#AXX͎ #XXAbestinteresttoberemovedfromthe onlyhomesheknows t andthecommunitywhereshenowliveswithherfatherandisattendedbyhergrandparents.From ` thisdecision,Mothernowappeals. L    Onappeal,MotherarguesthatthetrialcourtplacedundueemphasisonBrittanys $ t relationshipwithextendedfamilymembersinmakingitsdecision.Shearguesthatherlackof  ` relationshipwithherfather,Brittanysmaternalgrandfather,wasthebasisforthetrialcourts  L  decisiontograntcustodyofBrittanytoFather.Mothercontendsthatthetrialcourt,ineffect,  8  penalizedherfornothavingaregularrelationshipwithherfather,makingtheunsupported $  assumptionthatthegrandparent/grandchildrelationshipwouldbebeneficialtoBrittany.  Mother   assertsthatherdecisionnottoseeherfatheronaregularbasiswasaparentingdecisionand#AXX$#XXAshould   notbedisturbed#AXXS)#XXAԀwithoutathresholdfindingofsubstantialharmtoBrittanyasrequiredbythe   TennesseeSupremeCourtsholdingin Hawkv.Hawk  , 855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993)#AXX)#XXA.       Motheralsoarguesthatthetrialcourtdisregardedthefactthat,becauseofFatherswork \ schedule,Brittanywillbeawakenedat4:00a.m.eachworkday#AXX*#XXA.MothertestifiedthatBrittany H wouldnothavetoawakenasearlyifshewereawardedcustody.Mothernoteshertestimonyattrial 4 that,ifshewereawardedcustody,shewouldleaveJohnsonControlsandobtainemploymentwhich  p wouldallowhertoseeBrittanyofftoschoolinthemorningandpickBrittanyupafterschoolorbe  \ athomewhenshegotoffthebus. H #AXX+#XXAԀ XrXXXOurreviewofthiscaseisgovernedbyRule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate   Procedure,whichprovidesthatthereviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtshallbedenovoupon  therecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefactualfindings,  unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); UnionCarbideCorp.v.  Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).#XXX Xr5.##AXX.#XXAԀ XrXXX |   Inchildcustodyandvisitationcases,thewelfareandbestinterestofthechildarethe X  paramountconcerns. See Whitakerv.Whitaker ,957S.W.2d834,837(Tenn.App.1997);Tenn. B! CodeAnn.366106(1996).Thedeterminationofthechildsbestinterestmustturnonthe ,"|  particularfactsofeachcase. See Taylorv.Taylor ,849S.W.2d319,326(Tenn.1993); Inre #f! Parsons ,914S.W.2d889,893(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).TheCourtutilizesthecomparativefitness $P" approachtodeterminethepartytowhomcustodyshouldbeawarded. Bahv.Bah ,668,S.W.2d663, $: # 666(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Thefactorstobeconsideredinmakingthisdecisionaresetforthin %$!$ TennesseeCodeAnnotated366106(Supp.1999).Inchildcustodycases,thetrialcourts &"% decisionistobeaccordedgreatweight,reversedonappealonlywherethereis apalpableabuseof '"& discretion,orajudgmentagainstthegreatweightoftheevidence. SeeHerrerav.Herrera ,944 (#' S.W.2d379,386(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)(quoting Cecilv.Stateex.rel.Cecil ,192Tenn.74,237 |)$(  S.W.2d558,559(1951).#XXX Xr0##AXXͥ0#XXA   f*%)   Inthiscase,MothercitestheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisionin Hawkv.Hawk ,855   S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993).Shearguesthatthetrialcourt,bynotinginitscustodydecisionthefact  thatMotherdoesnotseeherfatheronaregularbasis,isessentially secondguessingherparenting  decisionandmakes anunquestioningjudicialassumptionthatBrittanywouldbenefitfroma t relationshipwithMothersfather. SeeHawk ,855S.W.2dat581.Motherassertsthatthetrialcourt ` mayinterveneinherparentingdecisiononlywherethereisproofthatMothersdecisionwould L   substantiallyharmthechild. Id. at57779. 8     Hawk involvedgrandparentsattemptingtoassertvisitationrightswiththeirgrandchildren,  ` contrarytotheparentsdecisionnottopermitthegrandparentstoseethegrandchildren. Id. at576.  L  #AXX6#XXAIn Hawk ,theCourtheldthatacourtmaynotinterferewithsuchaparentingdecisionabsenta  8  showingofsignificantharmtothechildfromthedecision. Hawk ,855S.W.2dat581.TheCourt $  assertedthatitsoughttoavoid anunquestioningjudicialassumptionthatgrandparentgrandchild   relationshipsalwaysbenefitchildren,notingthenecessarythresholdfindingofharmbeforethe   courtcaninterferewiththeparentsdecision. Id. at581.       Inthiscase,thetrialcourtdidnotrequirevisitationwithMothersfatheragainstMothers p wishes.Rather,thetrialcourtconsideredMotherslackofaregularrelationshipwithherfatherin \ lightofBrittanysattachmenttohim. Hawk doesnotmandateathresholdfindingofsubstantial H harmbeforethetrialcourtcanconsidertheminorchildsrelationshipwithgrandparentsasoneof 4 thefactorsinitscomparativefitnessanalysis.  p   Furthermore,Motherslackofaregularrelationshipwithherfatherwasonlyoneofmany H factorsconsideredbythetrialcourtinitsanalysis.Thetrialcourtnotedseveralfactorsitweighed 4 initsanalysis,includingthefactthatFathercontinuestoresideinthemaritalhomeandthatFathers   motherhadcaredforBrittanyonadailybasissincebirthandcontinuestodoso.Inaddition,the   trialcourtconsideredthefactthat,ifFatherweregrantedcustody,Brittanywouldattendschoolwith  childrenshehadgrownupwithinthechurchandcommunity.    MotheralsoarguesthatthetrialcourtignoredthefactthatawardingcustodytoFathermeant l thatBrittanywouldberequiredtowakeat4:00a.m.eachworkdaytogotoFathersparentshouse. X  WeacknowledgethatthisisconsiderablehardshiptoBrittany.However,consideringthefactthat D! thishasbeentheroutineforBrittanyformostofherlife,wecannotconcludethatthisissufficient 0"  reasontoreversethetrialcourtsdecision. #l!   Insum,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinconsideringMotherslackofaregular $D # relationshipwithherfatherinmakingitscustodydecision.Viewingtheevidenceasawhole,we %0!$ cannotconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsawardofcustodytoFather. &"% Ѐ#AXXͧ;#XXA  Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsaretaxedtotheAppellant,ZondraKaye (#' SmithBaileyandhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#AXX G#XXA   x  )$(  h+&* Ї Ӏ___________________________________#AXXH#XXA     `     h     HOLLYK.LILLARD,JUDGE#AXX'I#XXA  #AXXI#XXA