˙WPC 0dŽ>U6?B)H?DCq? AM´?U*@+@v~FAvĶÄB AO—HÆæH 0DŦI D/đI BJV& ˙˙8Document[8]Document Styleā0..āā8` ..` āĖV˙˙8Document[4]Document Styleā..āō ōōō.ķ퀀ķ ķV ˙˙8Document[6]Document Styleā8..āĖV ˙˙8Document[5]Document Styleā0..āĖV/˙˙8Document[2]Document StyleĖō ōÔ2ÔA.Ô3  ԀōōÔ  ÔÔ  ÔĖķ ķķķV& ˙˙8Document[7]Document Styleā0..āā0` ..` āĖzU ˙˙:Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersāĐ.. āÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ԁˆā°..°āā0..āĖzh ˙˙:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āāĐ` ..øāÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ԁˆā..āā0` ..` āĖV?˙˙8Document[3]Document StyleĖā..āō ōÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôķ ķz{ ˙˙:Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` āāи ..P āÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ԁˆā` ..` āā0¸ ..¸ āĖzŽ ˙˙:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āāĐ..¨ āÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ԁˆā¸ ..¸ āā0..āĖzĸ ˙˙:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāĐh..ˆāÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ԁˆā..āā0h..hāĖzĩ ˙˙:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĐĀ..āāÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ԁˆāh..hāā0Ā..ĀāĖzĮ ˙˙:Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĀ..ĀāāĐ..°āÔ2Ôi)Ô3  ԀˆāĀ..Āāā0..āĖzÚ ˙˙:Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĀ..Āāā..āāĐp..āÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ԁˆā..āā0p..pāĖVX˙˙8Document[1]Document StyleĖÔ  Ôā@ė..8āōōō ōÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  ԀÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ԈĖķķķ ķl2˙˙:Technical[5]Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ԁ.€€ķ ķl2˙˙:Technical[6]Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ԁ.€€ķ ķl/%˙˙:Technical[2]Technical Document StyleĖō ōÔ2ÔA.Ô3  ԀōōÔ  ÔÔ  ÔķķĖā..āķ ķl,!˙˙:Technical[3]Technical Document StyleĖō ōÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôā..āķ ķl(!˙˙:Technical[4]Technical Document Styleō ōÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôā..āķ ķl:0˙˙:Technical[1]Technical Document StyleĖōōō ōÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  ԀÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔĖķķā..āķ ķl1˙˙:Technical[7]Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ԁ.€€ķ ķl1˙˙:Technical[8]Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ԁ.€€ķ ķ<ū6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& ˙˙8BibliogrphyBibliographyā0..āā°..°āĖĖjo˙˙4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleĶS€   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 ūSĶØØ ˙˙CuyąÉåTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp˙˙2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleĶ€ĶĮĶS€ #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)SĶØØ !"(˙˙$˜˜Ėā0 āā ā(˙˙$™™ā0 āā0 āā ā((˙˙$ššā0 āā0 āā0 āā ā  ˙˙A_ekqw‡DocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?ãt2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperĶČĶŅ °ŅŅč°ŅÖ€%˙˙Ö zŨ ƒ&˙˙(ŨŨ  ŨÔ€&ĢXXXÔĶČĶŌX°ŌŌ°°ŌĶ˙˙°œXĶß6€G''ü°ø*–d6ßß6€G''°ø*–d6ßĖĖāHHĀā1ˆĖĖāHHĀā2ˆĖĖāHHĀā3ˆĖĖāHHĀā4ˆĖĖāHHĀā5ˆĖĖāHHĀā6ˆĖĖāHHĀā7ˆĖĖāHHĀā8ˆĖĖāHHĀā9ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā10ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā11ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā12ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā13ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā14ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā15ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā16ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā17ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā18ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā19ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā20ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā21ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā22ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā23ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā24ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā25ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā26ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā27ˆĖĖāĐĐĀā28Ô  ā.Ā+Ô('2ŸĶ$¨¨Ũ ƒF¤T!ŨĶ  ĶŨ  Ũp˙˙4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftōōōōĖķķķķV˙˙4Heading 1Centered Headingā@ė..ėāōōō ōˆĖĖķķķ ķb* ˙˙8Bullet ListIndented Bullet Listā0..āđđā0` ..` āĖB& ˙˙$1Document Styleā0..āā8` ..` āĖĖB ˙˙$2Document Styleā..āō ōōō.ķ퀀Ėķ ķB ˙˙$3Document Styleā8..āĖĖB ˙˙$4Document Styleā0..āĖĖB-˙˙$5Document StyleĖō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  ԀōōÔ  ÔÔ  ÔĖĖķ ķķķB& ˙˙$6Document Styleā0..āā0` ..` āĖĖdS ˙˙$7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersāĐ..āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā°..°āā0..āĖĖdf ˙˙$8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āāĐ` ..` āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā..āā0` ..` āĖĖB=˙˙$9Document StyleĖā..āō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔĖķ ķfy ˙˙&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` āāи ..¸ āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā` ..` āā0¸ ..¸ āĖĖfŒ ˙˙&11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āāĐ..āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā¸ ..¸ āā0..āĖĖfŸ ˙˙&12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāĐh..hāÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā..āā0h..hāĖĖf˛ ˙˙&13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĐĀ..ĀāÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆāh..hāā0Ā..ĀāĖĖfÅ ˙˙&14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĀ..ĀāāĐ..āÔ2ÔÔ3  ԀˆāĀ..Āāā0..āĖĖfØ ˙˙&15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersā..āā` ..` ā⏠..¸ āā..āāh..hāāĀ..Āāā..āāĐp..pāÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁˆā..āā0p..pāĖĖDV!˙˙&16Document StyleĖÔ  Ôā@ė..ėāōōō ōÔ  ÔÔ2ÔÔ3  ԀÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ԈĖĖķķķ ķX/˙˙&17Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁ.€€Ėķ ķX/˙˙&18Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁ.€€Ėķ ķX-(˙˙&19Technical Document StyleĖō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  ԀōōÔ  ÔÔ  ÔķķĖā..āĖķ ķX*$˙˙&20Technical Document StyleĖō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôā..āĖķ ķX)$˙˙&21Technical Document Styleō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôā..āĖķ ķX83˙˙&22Technical Document StyleĖōōō ōÔ  ÔÔ2ÔÔ3  ԀÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔĖķķā..āĖķ ķX/˙˙&23Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁ.€€Ėķ ķX/˙˙&24Technical Document Styleā..āō ōÔ2ÔÔ3  Ԁ.€€Ėķ ķ  ˙˙Cƒ‰•›ŖĢąRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xĢ<ū6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxū6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$ĄĄĶ  Ķ dڃį"ŸĶ$¨¨(G.2I™$¤¤Ũ ƒF¤T!ŨĶ  ĶŨ  ŨÔ€ō%ÛōXXÔā  āōōō ōÚ  Ú0Ú  Úķ ķķķ˙MARVIN˙˙BERKE˙˙LESLIE˙˙McWILLIAMS˙(—$ō ōōōÚ  Ú0Ú  Úķ ķķķ VANNLASLEYPINCHAKTillettEdmondsYoderNeelyFeltonMurgaLeDouxMentryBoerneFloresMollishCampanali S.CtN.E.2dCal.AppN.W.2dMo.Ct.App("˙˙$ŖŖŌ  ŌŌ  ŌGGGG'˙˙dxd mInoDpqDrsDtuevĶ€2 ˙˙0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ˙˙0Indent2ā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ˙˙0Indent3ā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ˙˙0Indent4ā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ˙˙0Indent5ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ˙˙0Indent6ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ˙˙0Indent7ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ˙˙0Indent8ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔVWXYZ[\] ˙˙?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ˙˙8Mac DefaultMac DefaultĶ ` °šXĶ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dgggg7Border 1dd€NhCū˙ << G˙˙< Œ 9p`(Arial Ũ ƒF!ŨŅ  ŅŅ#€d#ŅÔ€fÔŨ  ŨÔ€jÔÔ€jÔĶ  ĶÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€jXÔĖĖō ōNovember€25,€1997ĖĖCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĖÔ€jôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkķ ķPtPtHHÚ(˙á˙âųFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃĐ ĐĐHHĐĐ  ĐĐ2ĐĐ˙˙¸æ$˙ĐĐHHĐĐĐĐĐĐĐĐ  ĐĐ ĐĐ ĐŅŅŅGenevaŅŅ ŅŅ € ŅŅ<Px–ČŅŌŌŌ443!#4ŌŌ$ *$ŌŌ$*$ŌŌ ˙KK ŌŌ  Geneva ŌŌ  Geneva ŌĶ.,ĶĶĶĶ6ĶĶ ĶßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŅGenevaŅŅ ŅŌ  ion-F Geneva ŌŌ  ion-F Geneva Ō€N‚ƒCū˙<< C˙˙ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ō ōÚ  Ú1Ú  Úķ ķ„„'÷˙ dxdü˙P PdŨ ƒF!ŨÔ . ÔÔ€fÔŨ  Ũ›Ņ  ŅŅ7€J XXdČdČ7ŅŅ\R AØ'\ŅŅ ` ŅŅ  ŅŅ , ŅŅ 5 ŅŅ  ŅŅ€g §u` ҜŲ€€ŲßR€ikhA1-j|` Å `€€@˙Rß›Ū ŪĖā@ āIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĖĖā@ āEASTERN€SECTIONĖĖĖĖĖĖPATRICIA€SUE€BAKER€(SANDERS)ā@ āā@ ā)ā āBLOUNT€COUNTYā āĖā@ ā)ā ā03A01„9704„GS„00115Ėā āPlaintiff„Appellee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā āā āā āā@ ā)Ėā@ ā)Ėā@ ā)Ėā āv.ā āā āā āā@ ā)ā āHON.ā āWILLIAM€R.€BREWER,€JR.,Ė€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā@ ā)ā āJUDGEĖā@ ā)ā  €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā@ ā€ĖPAUL€DAVID€BAKER€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā@ ā)Ė€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā@ ā)Ėā āDefendant„Appellantā  €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ā@ ā)ā āAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĖĖĖĖĖĖROBERT€M.€COHEN€OF€MARYVILLE€FOR€APPELLANTĖĖKEVIN€W.€SHEPHERD€OF€MARYVILLE€FOR€APPELLEEĖĖĖĖĖā āā āā āā  €€€ōōO€P€I€N€I€O€NķķĖĖĖĖĖā āā āā āā āā āā  ā āā āā  Goddard,€P.J.€ĖĖĖĖĖĶĶā āā āPaul€David€Baker€appeals€a€Blount€County€GeneralĪSessions€Courtđđs€post„divorce€visitation€modification€orderÍgranted€in€favor€of€Patricia€Sue€Baker€Sanders€(hereinafterĪreferred€to€as€Ms.€Baker).ĖĖā āā āWe€will€first€restate€the€four€issues„„two€of€which€canĪbe€consolidated„„that€Mr.€Baker€presents€on€appeal.€€The€firstĪconsolidated€issue€is€whether€the€Trial€Court's€order€was€an€abuseĪof€discretion€and€whether€the€order€violated€Mr.€Baker's€right€toĪfree€exercise€of€religion€under€the€Constitutions€of€the€UnitedĪStates€and€of€Tennessee.€€The€second€issue€presented€is€whetherĪthe€portion€of€the€Trial€Courtđđs€order€prohibiting€Mr.€Baker€fromĪexposing€his€children€to€the€teachings€and€beliefs€of€theĪJehovahđđs€Witness€religion€during€his€visitation€periods,€unlessĪthe€children€make€legitimate€inquiries€about€the€religion,Īviolates€the€Religious€Freedom€Restoration€Act,€42€U.S.C.€đđĪ2000bb.€€The€third€and€final€issue€presented€is€whether€theĪportion€of€the€Trial€Courtđđs€order€prohibiting€Mr.€Baker€fromĪtaking€his€children€to€any€religious€services€or€home€BibleĪstudies€conducted€by€the€Jehovahđđs€Witnesses€constitutes€error,€anĪabuse€of€discretion,€and€a€violation€of€the€children's€FirstĪAmendment€rights.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€affirm€theĪGeneral€Sessions€Court's€order.ĖĖā āā āThe€parties€were€married€on€April€8,€1980.€€Three€minorĪchildren€were€born€to€their€union:€€Dustin€Paul€(d.o.b.€8/25/81),ĪAmanda€Kate€(d.o.b.€8/8/82),€and€Lindsey€Louise€(d.o.b.€7/14/87).€ĪMs.€Baker€divorced€Mr.€Baker€on€July€3,€1991,€in€Blount€County€andĪwas€awarded€custody€of€the€three€minor€children.€€Mr.€BakerĪreceived€visitation€rights€that€included,€but€were€not€limited€to,Īalternating€weekends€from€Friday€after€school€until€8:00€a.m.ĪSunday,€and€Thursday€evenings€of€the€same€week€from€after€schoolĪuntil€8:00€p.m.€€Visitation€rights€for€holidays€and€birthdays€wereĪequally€divided€between€the€parents.ĖĖā āā āMs.€Baker€and€the€minor€children€attended€services€atĪEast€Maryville€Baptist€Church€prior€to€and€after€the€divorce.€€TheĪchildren€were€actively€involved€with€many€youth„related€programsĪsponsored€by€East€Maryville€Baptist€Church,€including€youthĪrallies€and€retreats.€€Beginning€in€July€1995,€Mr.€Baker€began€toĪstudy€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion€during€weekly€study€meetingsĪwith€members€of€the€faith.€€In€September€or€October€of€1995,€Mr.ĪBaker€initially€introduced€the€minor€children€to€the€JehovahđđsĪWitness€religion€by€scheduling€his€weekly€studies€during€hisĪvisitation€time€with€the€children.€€Mr.€Baker€regularly€attendedĪreligious€services€with€a€local€congregation€of€JehovahđđsĪWitnesses€beginning€in€December€1995.€€The€problems€giving€rise€toÍthis€appeal€commenced€after€the€minor€children€began€participationĪin€the€Jehovahđđs€Witnessđđ€studies€during€Mr.€Bakerđđs€visitationĪperiod.ĖĖā āā āThe€childrenđđs€involvement€in€the€weekly€studiesĪcontinued€until€February€12,€1996,€when€the€General€Sessions€CourtĪgranted€a€temporary€restraining€order€prohibiting€Mr.€Baker€fromĪdiscussing€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion€with€the€children.€€TheĪGeneral€Sessions€Court€based€the€temporary€restraining€order€uponĪa€finding€that€the€minor€children€were€in€danger€of€immediate€andĪirreparable€harm.€€The€Court€found€that€the€immediate€andĪirreparable€harm€resulted€from€Mr.€Baker€discussing€the€JehovahđđsĪWitness€religion€with€the€children,€criticizing€the€childrenđđsĪBaptist€faith,€undermining€the€religious€training€the€childrenĪreceived€from€Ms.€Baker,€and€involving€the€children€in€theĪJehovahđđs€Witness€weekly€Bible€studies€conducted€by€CharlesĪTillett,€an€elder€in€the€church,€and€other€Jehovahđđs€WitnessĪelders.ĖĖā āā āMr.€Baker€filed€a€petition€for€visitation€on€February€Ė20th,€1996,€requesting€a€more€specific€schedule€of€visitation.€€OnĪApril€8,€1996,€Mr.€Baker€also€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€theĪrestraining€order,€claiming€that€the€order€violated€both€hisÍrights€and€those€of€the€minor€children€under€the€TennesseeĪConstitution€and€the€United€States€Constitution.€€However,€theĪCourt€issued€an€agreed€order€on€June€13,€1996,€requiring€the€minorĪchildren€to€undergo€psychological€evaluations€conducted€by€Dr.ĪCarol€Walton,€a€psychologist€retained€by€Mr.€Baker.€€The€GeneralĪSessions€Court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€pending€motions€onĪAugust€20,€1996.€€On€October€15,€1996,€the€Court€issued€theĪmemorandum€opinion€and€order,€from€which€this€appeal€is€taken.ĖĖā āā āTestimony€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€pendingĪmotions€primarily€involved€the€fundamental€differences€between€theĪBaptist€and€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religions€and€the€effects€thatĪthe€minor€children€have€experienced€due€to€the€conflict€betweenĪthe€parents.€€All€witnesses€attested€to€the€many€differencesĪbetween€the€two€religions.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€extremeĪfundamental€differences€exist€between€the€two€religions.€€We€agreeĪwith€the€Trial€Courtđđs€finding.€€Since€the€Trial€Court's€findingĪof€fundamental€differences€between€the€religions€is€sufficient€forĪpurposes€of€this€appeal,€we€need€not€delineate€each€of€theĪspecific€differences€between€the€two€religions.€ĖĖā āā āThe€other€focal€point€of€testimony€was€the€distress€thatĪthe€minor€children€experienced€due€to€this€conflict,€which€Íinitially€began€when€Mr.€Baker€began€involving€the€minor€childrenĪin€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€weekly€study€meetings.€€Ms.€Baker€voicedĪher€disapproval€after€learning€that€Mr.€Baker€was€teaching€theĪchildren€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion€and€including€them€in€theĪweekly€meetings.€€However,€Mr.€Baker€continued€teaching€the€minorĪchildren€until€Ms.€Baker€obtained€the€temporary€restraining€order.€ĪAt€all€times€leading€up€to€the€restraining€order,€Ms.€BakerĪcontinued€taking€the€minor€children€to€weekly€Baptist€churchĪservices.€€Conflict€resulted€from€both€parents€adamantly€stressingĪtheir€conflicting€religions.ĖĖā āā āBoth€parents€admitted€that€they€made€character€attacksĪon€the€other€parent€in€front€of€the€children€after€the€religiousĪconflict€began€between€the€parents.€€Mr.€Baker€told€the€childrenĪthat€their€mother€had€committed€activities€that€could€haveĪresulted€in€her€being€incarcerated.€€He€also€told€the€childrenĪthat€their€mother€had€engaged€in€immoral€activities€with€herĪcurrent€husband€before€they€were€married.€€Ms.€Baker€retaliated€byĪtelling€the€children€about€Mr.€Bakerđđs€alcohol€and€marijuana€use.ĖĖā āā āMs.€Baker€testified€that€when€Mr.€Baker€had€the€minorĪchildren€for€visitation€after€becoming€a€Jehovahđđs€Witness€heĪwould€not€allow€the€children€to€participate€in€any€church€relatedÍactivities€of€the€Baptist€church.€€Ms.€Baker€further€testifiedĪthat€Mr.€Baker€discouraged€the€childrenđđs€participation€in€someĪschool€and€community€activities€because€he€believed€that€theĪchildren€should€not€participate€in€these€worldly€pleasures.€€Mr.ĪBaker€testified€that€he€always€took€the€children€to€theirĪactivities€unless€he€and€the€children€had€another€preplannedĪactivity.ĖĖā āā āThe€children€began€to€show€effects€from€the€conflictĪgiving€rise€to€this€appeal.€€Ms.€Baker€observed€that€after€theĪchildren€began€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€weekly€studies€they€becameĪwithdrawn€and€moody.€€The€childrenđđs€attitudes€and€personalitiesĪchanged€in€a€negative€manner.€€Ms.€Baker€experienced€increasedĪdifficulties€in€disciplining€the€children.€€Amanda,€the€middleĪchild,€began€suffering€from€significant€stomach€problems€and€wouldĪbecome€physically€sick.€€The€stomach€aches€would€begin€rightĪbefore€the€children€went€to€Mr.€Bakerđđs€house€for€weekendĪvisitation.€€Ms.€Baker€also€testified€that€Amanda€would€usuallyĪhave€stomach€aches€for€a€day€or€two€after€coming€home€from€Mr.ĪBakerđđs€weekend€visitations.ĖĖā āā āChris€Edmonds,€the€Associate€Pastor€of€the€EastĪMaryville€Baptist€Church,€testified€that€the€children€wereÍconcerned€with€being€torn€between€the€religious€beliefs€of€theirĪparents.€€Amanda€had€come€to€Mr.€Edmonds€several€times€asking€himĪto€pray€for€her€about€this€issue€in€her€life.€€Mr.€EdmondsĪtestified€that€all€of€the€childrenđđs€attitudes€had€changed€butĪthat€Dustin€had€undergone€the€most€drastic€change,€often€beingĪconfused€and€depressed.€€However,€Mr.€Tillett,€an€elder€in€theĪJehovahđđs€Witness€congregation€testified€that€he€observed€none€ofĪthese€character€changes€in€the€children.€€ĖĖā āā āDuring€this€controversy,€Ms.€Baker€sent€the€children€toĪmeet€with€Lisa€Davis,€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker.€€Ms.ĪDavisđđ€report,€introduced€into€evidence€at€trial,€acknowledgedĪthat€the€children€were€experiencing€genuine€conflicts.€€She€statedĪthat€the€children€told€her€that€Mr.€Baker€and€Mr.€TillettĪattempted€to€convince€them€that€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion€isĪthe€only€true€way€to€God.€€Ms.€Davis€reported€that€the€childrenĪfelt€they€would€experience€negative€repercussions€if€they€tried€toĪexpress€their€true€feelings€to€their€father.€€Amanda,€the€middleĪchild,€also€told€Ms.€Davis€that€she€felt€coerced€into€herĪinvolvement€with€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion.ĖĖā āā āFinally,€Dr.€Carol€Walton,€the€psychologist€whoĪevaluated€the€children€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Baker,€providedÍsignificant€testimony.€€Dr.€Walton€testified€that€the€childrenĪwere€experiencing€stress€because€of€the€conflict€between€theĪparents.€€She€testified€that€the€religious€differences€were€notĪthe€source€of€the€problem,€but€the€parentsđđ€conflict€about€theirĪreligious€differences€was€the€source€of€the€childrenđđs€anxiety.€ĪHowever,€Dr.€Walton€acknowledged€during€cross„examination€that€sheĪdid€not€question€the€children€about€the€Jehovahđđs€WitnessĪreligion.ĖĖā āā āThe€Trial€Court€found€that€there€is€"no€question€thatĪthe€parties'€children€have€been€affected€by€the€conflict€betweenĪtheir€parents."€€The€Court€then€stated€that€it€refused€to€assessĪblame,€but€ruled€in€what€it€thought€was€in€the€best€interest€ofĪthe€children.€€The€Court€applied€the€test€that€when€there€is€aĪconflict€between€the€parents€of€minor€children€with€regard€toĪtheir€religious€training€and€influences,€the€rights€of€theĪcustodial€parent€shall€prevail.€€Applying€this€test,€the€CourtĪissued€the€following€order:ĖĖŌ  ŌŌ ° ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌĶĶ1.ā āPatricia€Sue€Baker€Sanders€has€the€primary€right€toĪdetermine€the€religious€faith€the€children€are€exposedĪto,€influenced€by,€and€educated€with.ĖĖ2.ā āPaul€Baker€is€specifically€prohibited€from€takingĪthe€children€to€any€religious€services€conducted€by€theĪJehovah's€Witnesses.€€This€prohibition€shall€alsoÍinclude€any€home€bible€studies€conducted€by€him€or€anyĪother€member€of€that€congregation.€€However,€Paul€BakerĪis€not€prohibited€from€discussing€his€religion€with€theĪchildren,€if€the€children€make€legitimate€inquiriesĪabout€the€same.ĖĖ3.ā āPaul€Baker€shall€be€prohibited€from€criticizing€theĪBaptist€religious€faith€and€from€attempting€to€undermineĪthe€childrenđđs€religious€training€received€from€theĪcustodial€mother.ĖĖ4.ā āPaul€Bakerđđs€specific€request€for€visitation€onĪSunday€mornings€is€denied€and€visitation€shall€remain€asĪpreviously€ordered.ĖĖŌ ° ŌŌ  ŌŌ ° ŌŌ ° ŌĶĶĖĖWhile€we€affirm€the€Trial€Courtđđs€order,€we€must€respectfullyĪdisagree€with€the€rule€that€the€Court€applied.€ĖĖā āā āOur€review€of€cases€tried€without€a€jury€is€de€novo€uponĪthe€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€mandated€by€RuleĪ13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€This€RuleĪrequires€us€to€uphold€the€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€CourtĪunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€ōōCampanali€v.ĪCampanaliķķ,€695€S.W.2d€193€(Tenn.App.1985).€€It€is€with€thisĪstandard€in€mind€that€we€undertake€our€review€of€the€Trial€CourtđđsĪdecision.ĖĖā āā āAs€already€noted,€Mr.€Baker€first€raises€the€issue€ofĪwhether€the€General€Sessions€Courtđđs€order€was€an€abuse€of€thatĪCourtđđs€discretion€and€whether€the€order€violated€Mr.€BakerđđsĪFirst€Amendment€and€Tennessee€Constitutional€protections€of€freeĪexercise€of€religion.€€The€Freedom€of€Religion€Clause€in€the€FirstĪAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€thatĪđ đCongress€shall€make€no€law€respecting€an€establishment€ofĪreligion,€or€prohibiting€the€free€exercise€thereof.€.€.€.đđ€€TheĪFirst€Amendment€also€binds€the€states€through€the€FourteenthĪAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€ōōDuncan€v.€Louisianaķķ,Ī391€U.S.€145,€88€S.Ct.€1444€(1968).€€Article€I,€Section€3€of€theĪTennessee€Constitution€provides€in€part,€đ đThat€all€men€have€aĪnatural€and€indefeasible€right€to€worship€Almighty€God€accordingĪto€the€dictates€of€their€own€conscience€.€.€.;€and€that€noĪpreference€shall€ever€be€given,€by€law,€to€any€religiousĪestablishment€or€mode€of€worship.đđĖĖā āā āAlthough€individuals€possess€a€Constitutional€right€toĪthe€freedom€of€religion,€these€rights€can€be€overbalanced€byĪinterests€of€the€highest€order€by€the€several€states.€€ōōWisconsinĪv.€Yoderķķ,€406€U.S.€205,€92€S.Ct.€1526€(1972).€€The€protection€ofĪits€children€is€of€the€utmost€importance€to€states.€€In€visitationĪcases,€the€welfare€and€best€interests€of€the€child€are€theÍparamount€considerations.€€ōōLuke€v.€Lukeķķ,€651€S.W.2d€219Ī(Tenn.1983).€€Additionally,€courts€must€also€balance€the€rights€ofĪthe€parents€whenever€making€decisions€that€will€affect€theĪparent/child€relationship.€€However,€when€the€parents€remain€atĪodds€regarding€the€childrenđđs€religious€upbringing,€the€bestĪinterests€of€the€child€may€require€some€limitations€on€the€rightsĪof€either€or€both€of€the€parents.€€ōōNeely€v.€Neelyķķ,€737€S.W.2d€539Ī(Tenn.App.1987).ĖĖā āā āIn€cases€involving€religious€disputes€between€divorcedĪparents,€courts€must€maintain€strict€neutrality.€€ōōNeelyķķ,€supra.€ĪThis€neutrality€reflects€the€importance€of€both€parentsđđ€religiousĪbeliefs.€€The€law€tolerates€and€even€encourages,€to€a€point,Īdivorced€parents€to€expose€their€children€to€their€religiousĪinfluences,€even€if€divided€in€their€faiths.€€ōōNeelyķķ,€supra;€ōōFeltonĪv.€Feltonķķ,€418€N.E.2d€606€(Mass.1981).€€Therefore,€a€court€shallĪnot€prefer€one€parentđđs€religion€over€another€unless€theĪchildrenđđs€health€and€well€being€are€threatened€by€one€of€theĪparentđđs€religious€practices€and€beliefs.€€ōōNeelyķķ,€supra.ĖĖā āā āThe€majority€of€courts€decline€to€interfere€in€religiousĪdisputes€between€divorced€parents.€€However,€courts€can€interveneĪwhen€a€non„custodial€parent€exposes€his€or€her€religious€beliefsÍto€minor€children€upon€a€clear€and€affirmative€showing€that€theseĪactivities€and€expressions€of€belief€are€harmful€to€the€children.€ĪōōNeelyķķ,€supra;€ōōIn€re€Marriage€of€Murgaķķ,€163€Cal.Rptr.€79€(1980);ĪōōFeltonķķ,€supra;€see€ōōLeDoux€v.€LeDouxķķ,€452€N.W.2d€1€(Neb.1990).€€TheĪparent€that€moves€to€restrict€the€other€parentđđs€right€to€exposeĪthe€children€to€a€different€religion€shall€bear€the€burden€ofĪshowing€clear€and€affirmative€harm.ĖĖā āā āThe€harm€to€the€children€resulting€from€exposure€toĪtheir€parentsđđ€conflicting€religions€must€be€demonstrated€inĪdetail€and€not€simply€surmised€or€assumed.€€ōōNeelyķķ,€supra;€ōōFeltonķķ,Īsupra.€€A€court€should€consider€several€factors€to€determineĪwhether€the€childrenđđs€welfare€has€been€adversely€affected.€ĪCorroborated€testimony€should€be€provided€as€to€the€childrenđđsĪgeneral€demeanor,€attitude,€health,€school€work,€appetite,€orĪoutlook€resulting€from€the€alleged€religious€conflict.€€ōōPope€v.ĪPopeķķ,€267€S.W.2d€340€(Mo.Ct.App.1954).€€In€support€of€the€allegedĪharm€resulting€from€the€religious€conflict,€corroboratingĪtestimony€should€be€heard€from€church,€school,€medical€orĪpsychiatric€authorities,€or€any€of€the€childrenđđs€associates,Īwhether€in€or€out€of€school.€€ōōPopeķķ,€supra.ĖĖĖā āā āōōNeelyķķ€is€the€only€Tennessee€case€that€has€applied€theĪclear€and€affirmative€harm€test.€€In€ōōNeelyķķ,€the€noncustodialĪfather€attempted€to€delete€a€visitation€requirement€that€theĪfather€return€his€son€to€his€former€wife€on€Sunday€morning€duringĪhis€visitation€so€their€child€could€attend€church€with€the€mother.€ĪMs.€Neely€was€an€active€member€of€the€Baptist€religion€prior€toĪthe€divorce€and€when€the€above€visitation€provision€was€ordered.€ĪShe€regularly€took€their€child€to€church€on€Sunday€morning€andĪevening.€€Following€the€divorce,€Mr.€Neely€began€regularlyĪattending€a€Pentecostal€church.€€Ms.€Neely€responded€to€Mr.ĪNeelyđđs€petition€to€delete€the€above€visitation€provision€on€theĪbasis€that€she€wanted€to€raise€her€son€as€a€Baptist€and€that€theĪPentecostal€beliefs,€such€as€đ đspeaking€in€tongues,đđ€would€confuseĪthe€child.€€After€propounding€the€proper€clear€and€affirmativeĪharm€test,€the€ōōNeelyķķ€Court€stated€that€no€proof€existed€in€theĪrecord€that€exposing€the€child€to€the€fatherđđs€religion€wouldĪaffect€the€childđđs€mental€or€physical€well„being.€€The€Court€heldĪthat€Ms.€Neelyđđs€unsubstantiated€belief€that€the€child€couldĪbecome€confused€does€not€satisfy€the€clear€and€affirmative€harmĪtest€and€struck€the€visitation€provision.ĖĖā āā āAlthough€ōōNeelyķķ€correctly€states€the€applicable€test,€theĪcase€is€otherwise€unpersuasive€for€the€present€case.€€In€ōōNeelyķķ,Íthe€mother€only€provided€unsubstantiated€claims€that€the€childĪwould€be€confused€if€exposed€to€the€fatherđđs€religion.€€In€theĪpresent€case,€two€expert€reports,€one€from€a€psychologist€and€theĪother€from€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker,€were€presented€asĪwell€as€the€testimony€of€several€individuals,€family,€friends,€aĪpsychologist,€and€clergy,€regarding€the€resulting€affects€from€theĪchildrenđđs€exposure€to€Mr.€Bakerđđs€religion.€€The€Trial€Court€heldĪthat€the€conflict€between€the€parents€affected€the€children.€ĪAlthough€the€Court€held€that€the€testimony€conflicted€somewhat,€itĪnonetheless€reached€the€conclusion€that€the€children€were€affectedĪby€the€conflict€resulting€from€exposure€to€Mr.€Bakerđđs€religion.€ĪThe€Court€based€its€holding€on€facts€such€as€Amandađđs€stomachĪproblems,€changes€in€the€childrenđđs€attitudes,€and€difficulties€inĪdisciplining€the€children.€€These€facts€are€sufficient€to€supportĪa€clear€and€affirmative€showing€that€the€conflict€resulting€fromĪexposure€to€Mr.€Bakerđđs€religion€is€harmful€to€the€children.€€WeĪdecline€to€require€that€the€children€of€this€state€be€harmed€moreĪthan€in€the€present€case€to€satisfy€the€clear€and€affirmative€harmĪstandard.ĖĖā āā āUpon€a€clear€and€affirmative€finding€of€harm,€a€courtĪcan€issue€an€order€that€limits€the€rights€of€parents€to€expose€theĪminor€children€to€their€religious€beliefs€and€practices.€€CourtsÍshould€devise€visitation€orders,€to€the€extent€possible,€thatĪinterferes€with€the€parent/child€relationship€as€little€asĪpossible.€€ōōIn€re€Marriage€of€Mentryķķ,€190€Cal.Rptr.€843€(1983).€ĪThe€Trial€Court€prohibited€Mr.€Baker€from€taking€the€children€toĪany€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religious€services€or€home€Bible€studies.€ĪHowever,€we€find€that€this€order€adequately€protects€the€childrenĪwhile€still€allowing€Mr.€Baker€the€opportunity€to€introduce€theĪchildren€to€his€religion€if€the€children€show€an€interest.€€TheĪprovision€allowing€Mr.€Baker€to€discuss€his€religion€uponĪlegitimate€inquiries€sufficiently€protects€Mr.€Bakerđđs€freedom€ofĪreligion€under€both€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.ĖĖā āā āAs€also€already€noted,€Mr.€Tillett,€an€elder€in€theĪJehovahđđs€Witness€religion,€testified€that€the€children€did€notĪhave€to€be€converted€to€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion€for€Mr.ĪBaker€to€attain€salvation.€€Therefore,€Mr.€Baker€can€fullyĪpractice€his€religion€in€a€manner€to€attain€salvation€to€theĪextent€that€he€does€so€outside€the€presence€of€the€children,Īunless€the€children€make€legitimate€inquiries€about€the€religion.€ĪThe€Trial€Courtđđs€order€only€slightly€impinges€Mr.€Bakerđđs€freedomĪto€practice€his€religion€under€the€United€States€and€the€TennesseeĪConstitutions.€€This€limitation€is€more€than€substantiallyĪsupported€by€the€stateđđs€utmost€interest€in€protecting€children.ĖĖā āā āWhile€the€Trial€Court€ordered€Mr.€Baker€not€to€exposeĪthe€minor€children€to€the€Jehovahđđs€Witness€religion,€unless€theĪchildren€make€legitimate€inquiries,€the€Court€did€not€specify€theĪreligion,€if€any,€to€which€the€children€may€be€exposed.€€The€CourtĪonly€ordered€that€đ đ[Ms.]€Baker€has€the€primary€right€to€determineĪthe€religious€faith€the€children€are€exposed€to,€influenced€by,Īand€educated€with.đđ€€By€refusing€to€prefer€a€specific€religionĪover€another,€the€Trial€Court€successfully€evaded€an€entanglementĪbetween€church€and€state.ĖĖā āā āFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€hold€the€Trial€CourtđđsĪorder€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion€nor€did€it€violate€Mr.ĪBakerđđs€First€Amendment€and€Tennessee€Constitutional€protectionsĪof€free€exercise€of€religion.ĖĖā āā āWe€now€turn€to€Mr.€Bakerđđs€second€issue€on€appeal:Īwhether€the€Trial€Courtđđs€order€violated€the€Religious€FreedomĪRestoration€Act,€42€U.S.C.€đđ€2000bb.€€This€issue€is€moot,€asĪcounsel€for€Mr.€Baker€conceded€at€oral€argument,€since€the€UnitedĪStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Act€exceeded€CongressđđĪenforcement€powers€under€đđ€5€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€theÍUnited€States€Constitution.€€ōōCity€of€Boerne€v.€Floresķķ,€__€U.S.€__,Ī117€S.Ct.€2157€(1997).ĖĖā āā āFinally,€we€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€portion€ofĪthe€Trial€Court's€order€prohibiting€Mr.€Baker€from€exposing€theĪchildren€to€the€Jehovah's€Witness'€doctrine€and€limiting€hisĪdiscussion€thereof€with€them€constitutes€error,€an€abuse€of€Ėdiscretion,€and€a€violation€of€the€children's€First€AmendmentĪrights.€€We€begin€by€noting€that€in€crafting€visitation€orders,Īthe€Trial€Court€shall€not€specifically€order€the€children€toĪfollow€a€specific€religion.€€ōōMollish€v.€Mollishķķ,€an€unreportedĪopinion€of€this€Court,€filed€in€Knoxville€on€October€24,€1994.€ĪThe€children€should€retain€the€right€to€attend€any€services€ifĪthey€choose€to€do€so€upon€their€own€volition.ĖĖā āā āWe€note€that€Mr.€Baker€raises€this€issue€for€the€firstĪtime€on€appeal.€€He€never€sought€the€appointment€of€a€guardian€forĪthe€children€nor€introduced€testimony€that€the€children€opposedĪthe€teachings€of€the€Baptist€faith.€€Nor€have€the€childrenĪasserted€that€their€constitutional€rights€have€been€violated€byĪtheir€motherđđs€stance€in€this€case.ĖĖā āā āThe€Trial€Court€does€not€mandate€that€the€children€beĪraised€in€the€Baptist€faith.€€Neither€does€the€Court's€orderĪprevent€the€children€from€converting€to€the€Jehovah's€WitnessĪfaith€if€they€so€choose.€€The€Court€crafted€its€order€only€toĪremove€the€conflict€in€question€and€its€resulting€injury€to€theĪchildren.€€In€fact,€the€Court€wisely€and€specifically€allows€Mr.ĪBaker€the€opportunity€to€share€his€religion€with€his€children€ifĪthey€so€inquire.Ė€Ėā āā āWe€hold€that€the€Trial€Court€properly€crafted€itsĪvisitation€order.€€Ms.€Baker€can€determine€the€minor€childrenđđsĪreligious€training€without€violating€their€constitutional€rights.€ĪHowever,€children€sometimes€choose€to€follow€a€different€religionĪthan€their€parents.€€They€must€have€the€freedom€to€follow€theirĪreligion€of€choice€if€different€from€either€of€their€parentsđđĪreligion.€€The€Trial€Courtđđs€order€properly€allows€the€childrenĪfreedom€to€make€religious€decisions€based€upon€their€personalĪconscience€while€protecting€the€children€from€their€parents'Īreligious€conflicts.€€ĖĖā āā āAllowing€the€children€the€right€to€ask€about€theirĪfatherđđs€religion€properly€protects€the€childrenđđs€First€AmendmentĪconstitutional€rights.€€The€Trial€Courtđđs€order€properly€protectsÍthe€children€from€the€religious€dispute€between€the€parents€whileĪallowing€the€children€to€make€religious€determinations€forĪthemselves.€ĖĖā āā āTherefore,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Courtđđs€post„divorceĪvisitation€modification€order€and€remand€the€case€for€such€furtherĪproceedings,€if€any,€as€may€be€necessary€and€collection€of€costsĪbelow.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Mr.€Baker€and€hisĪsurety.ĖĖĶĶā āā āā āā āā āā ā_______________________________Ėā āā āā āā āā āā āHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ĖĖĖCONCUR:ĖĖĖĖ________________________________ĖHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ĖĖĖĖ________________________________ĖWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.ĖĖ