WPC -G!G #XRl-C9?-.Q05SAȨP9W0]bNef\S[D/*#G@5ԉ aI״Kpqo^À <SYWZhx-XQ?S|(wEq;Ŷfų?8anƊ.\vi5(R"e%qy5y;/g*Q&$.$֌` B*U \SP#a-nb'O'ksWGRY`UPVw)PuhVn=$# oH9QCLvBJ÷"!apKBuϋ_#b!D)(^Uƺ/X ]ݟn'*b#\ % ^ # 0/ U@N w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'U'>N++=-Ejjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjblllllllll 0:t 0Y 8QQQ 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS8 0Q 0D A9HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0PqW-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],bk1 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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\  `&Times New Roman 3__ R$      2     _ [A]custodialparentsobstructionofthe_noncustodial_Ԁparentsvisitationrightsorconducttopreclude  continuationoftheparentchildrelationshipisasufficientchangeofcircumstancestowarrantfurtherconsiderationof x achangeofcustody. 0 _Roache_  v._Bourisaw_ ,No.M200002651_COA_ԄR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS756,at*1920 @ (TennCt.App.Oct.10,2001)( noperm.app.filed )(citing Wilsonv.Tittle ,No.M200000115_COA_ԄR3CV,2000 f Tenn.# 0#ԀApp.LEXIS579,at*18(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.25,2000) perm.app.denied (Mar.12,2001)).- -42Emphasis64Hyperlink    7422-7 . R$      1     _MothertestifiedthatshehadspokenwithFatherexpressingherconcernsabouthissmokinginthepresence  ofthechildren,bothofwhomshetestifiedhadbeendiagnosedassufferingfromasthma,aconditionforwhichthey x wereprescribedinhalers.MotherfurthertestifiedthatFathersresponsetoherconcernswasthathewas goingtodo @ whathewantstodo.  R$      3     _ [A]neglectofgeneraldentalneedshasbeendeemedamaterialchangeofcircumstances. 0 _Roache_ ,2001   Tenn.App.LEXIS756,at*22(citing# 0# _Pisano_Ԁv.Baker ,No.W199902660_COA_ԄR3CV,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS625,  at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Sep.15,2000)( noperm.app.filed )).(|G2$ !.8ddd8         0    d(|3$ !.8ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _  d83XXdd8  @ gdINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#dg #Ԉ ,   September17,2002Session X X3Xd #dXX3#VICTORIALYNNBARNESv.DAVIDJOSEPHBARNESX3Xd   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMadisonCounty  h @@No.154753_R.D._ԀRobertA.Lanier,Judge  X   H @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200200428_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober23,2002 '  AV) ` dE<` A      XHXXX3Thisappealarisesfromachangeofcustody,fromtheMothertotheFather,grantedbythetrialcourt.  Weaffirm,withthemodificationthatFatherbeenjoinedfromsmokingwheneitherchildispresent.   #X3XXXH##dXX3r#X3Xd Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedas ~ modified;andRemanded  n   #dX3=#X3X.dDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, N andAlanE._Highers_,J.,joined. > DorothyJ.Pounders,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,VictoriaLynnBarnes. n LindaL.Holmes,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DavidJosephBarnes. N  OPINION #dXX36#X3Xd . #dXX3x #X3XdXHXXX3     ThepartiesweredivorcedinMay,1999.Thepartieshadtwominorchildrenatthetime   ofthedivorce;Clara,bornMay11,1993andSydney,bornJanuary24,1996.Theoriginal !  divorcedecreeawardedcustodyofthetwominorchildrentotheMother,withFatherhaving "! visitationrights.#X3XXXH #XHXXX3ԀFatherremarriedandMothersubsequentlyfiledaPetitionforContemptand #" ModificationofFinalDecreeofDivorceseeking, interalia ,anincreaseinchildsupportbasedon n$# theincomeofFathersnewspouse.#X3XXXH #XHXXX3ThetrialcourtorderedthatthePetitionbeheardbya Z% $ DivorceRefereewhodismissedthemotion.#X3XXXH #XHXXX3FatherfiledhisownCounterPetitiontoModify F&!% FinalDecreeofDivorce,towit:Custodyseekingtogaincustodyoftheminorchildren.#X3XXXH #XHXXX3 2'"&   Atwodaytrialwasheld,atwhichthetrialjudgeheardfromthepartiesandtheir  )Z$( witnesses.Numerousissueswereaddressedduringthetrial,including:theMothershavinghad )F%)  achildoutofwedlocksincethedivorce,theFatherssmokinginthepresenceofthechildren *2&* whomayhaveasthma,M  #  1      ׀theMothersfailuretoproviderequireddentalcarefortheoldestchild,   theFatherallowingthechildrentoaccessinappropriatematerialonacomputerinhishome,the  MotherchangingthechildrensschoolwithoutnotifyingtheFather,theMothersdecisionto  sendthechildrentoTexasfortwoweeksratherthanallowthemtostaywiththeirFather,andthe t interactioneachparenthashadwiththechildrensschoolandextracurricularactivities.Upon ` conclusionofthetrial,andconsiderationofthetestimonyregardingtheseissues,thepartieswere L  awardedjointcustodywiththeprincipalplaceofresidencebeingthatoftheFather.#X3XXXH#XHXXX3 8    Appellantpresentsthefollowingissuesonappeal:  ` dL 8 8   ` I..Whetherthetrialcourterredinmodifyingtheoriginalorderofcustody, L  grantingachangeofcustodytoAppellee?8    8   ` II.Whetherthetrialcourterredbymodifyingtheoriginalcustodyorder `  withoutfirstexplicitlyweighingthecomparativefitnessoftheparties?L       StandardofReview  $   8  Inacivilactionwereviewatrialcourtsfindingsoffact denovo#X3XXXH#XHXXX3Ԁ upontherecordof    thetrialcourt.Suchreviewisaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness,unlessthe     evidencepreponderatesagainstsuchfindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Brooksv.Brooks ,992  S.W.2d403,404(Tenn.1999).Questionsoflawarereviewed denovo ,withnopresumptionof t correctness. Nelsonv.WalMartStores,Inc. ,8S.W.3d625,628(Tenn.1999). `    ChangeofCustody  8 N#X3XXXH#XHXXX3    #X3XXXH#XHXXX3Apartyseekingtochangeaninitialcustodydecisionmustprove thatthechilds ` circumstanceshavemateriallychangedinawaythatcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseenat L thetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecision,and...thatthechildsbestinterestswillbeservedby 8 changingtheexistingcustodyarrangement. _Adelsperger_Ԁv._Adelsperger_ #X3XXXH#XHXXX3,970S.W.2d482,485 $ (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  Accordingly,#X3XXXHJ#XHXXX3 thethresholdissueiswhethertherehasbeenamaterial   changeincircumstancesoccurringsubsequenttotheinitialcustodydetermination. _Placencia_Ԁv. ! _Placencia_ ,48S.W.3d732,736(Tenn.Ct.App.2000). "     #X3XXXH#XHXXX3  MaterialChangeinCircumstances p$"    ӀOncethetrialcourthasmadeaninitialdeterminationofthecustodyofachild,such H&!$ custodymaynotbechangedabsent amaterialchangeincircumstancessuchthatthewelfareof 4'"% thechilddemandsaredetermination. _Hoalcraft_Ԁv.Smithson #X3XXXH#XHXXX3,  #X3XXXH #XHXXX3Ԁ19S.W.3d822,828(Tenn.Ct.  App.1999)(citing _Massengale_Ԁv._Massengale_ ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)).  Theprimaryinquiryunderthisstandard#X3XXXH #XHXXX3iswhethertherehasbeenamaterialchangein the  child's circumstances,asopposedtoeither,orboth,oftheparents. See_Solima_Ԁv._Solima_ ,7 | S.W.3d30,32(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)  #X3XXXHT"#XHXXX3.Additionally,thechangemustaffectthechild'swelfarein l amaterialway. SeeDaileyv.Dailey ,635S.W.2d391,393(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).#X3XXXH##XHXXX3Ԁ#X3XXXH$#XHXXX3 X  !#X3XXXH %#XHXXX38  #X3XXXH{%#XHXXX3Althoughthereisnoconcretedefinitionforwhatconstitutesamaterialchangeof 0  circumstances,thiscourthasenumeratedseveralfactorsthatshouldbetakeninto  l considerationwhendeterminingwhethersuchachangehasoccurred.Ingeneral,the% K #X3XXXH%#%K'XHXXX3  X  changemustoccuraftertheentryoftheordersoughttobemodifiedandthechange  D  cannotbeonethatwasknownorreasonablyanticipatedwhentheorderwasentered. 0  Inaddition,thematerialchangeofcircumstancesmustbeachangeinthechild's   circumstances,notthecircumstancesofeitherorbothoftheparents.Finally,the   changemustaffectthechild'swellbeinginamaterialway.#X3XXXHP'#7  XHXXX3     )_Hoalcraft_ #X3XXXH)#7)  XHXXX3,19S.W.3dat82829#X3XXXHz*#XHXXX3Ԁ(internalcitationsomitted).#X3XXXH*#XHXXX3 |  ,#X3XXXH4+#XHXXX3   `     h        ,  Inthecasecurrentlybeforeus,thetrialcourtcitedseveralfactorsthatwereconsideredin T determiningthatamaterialchangeinthechildren'scircumstances hadtakenplace.Amongthe @ factorsthetrialcourtcitedwere: 0 8   ` (1)BehavioralproblemsexhibitedbytheoldestchildClara,including X  seductivebehaviorinappropriateforachildherage.D   8   ` (2)Themothersinsistencethatthefathernotbeallowedtopickthe  childrenupfromschool,althoughtheFatherhadacourtorderpermittinghim  visitationonthatday._  #  2      _Ԁ#X3XXXH+#XHXXX3   8   ` (3)Themotherschangingthechildrensschoolwithoutnotifyingthe | father.#X3XXXH/#XHXXX3h    8   ` (4)ThemothersdecisiontotreatClarasabscessedteethwithantibiotics @"  ratherthanextraction,althoughshecouldnotclearlyrecallwhogaveherthat ,#|! advice._O  #  3      _Ԁ#X3XXXH0#XHXXX3$h"   ЇNoneoftheseoccurrencescouldhavebeenreasonablyanticipatedatthemomentchildcustody  wasfirstgrantedtoMs.Barnes,andeachspecificallyaffectedthechildrenscircumstancesina  materialway.Assuch,thetrialcourtproperlyfoundamaterialchangeincircumstancessuch  thatthecustodyofbothchildrenshouldberevisited.#X3XXXHf2#XHXXX3d(t (    ComparativeFitness   4 0  Onceamaterialchangeofcircumstancehasbeenestablished,thecourtthendetermines (#(# whatcustodyarrangementisinthebestinterestofthechildandindoingso courtsaretoutilize t  acomparativefitnessapproachanddeterminewhich[parent]ismoreorlessfitthan[the] `   other[]. #X3XXXH\4#XHXXX3_Ruyle_Ԁv._Ruyle_ ,928S.W.2d439,442(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)#X3XXXH6#XHXXX3.#X3XXXHd7#XHXXX3 d L       [_I]n_Ԁchildcustodycases,thechildsbestinterestistheparamountconsideration.Itisthe   polestar,thealphaandtheomega. _Contreras_Ԁv.Ward ,831S.W.2d288,289(Tenn.Ct.App. t  1991)(citing Bahv.Bah ,668S.W.2d663,665(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)). Whilethefacts `  weighinguponacustodydeterminationareinfinite, [_t]he_Ԁsupremeruletowhichallothers L shouldyieldisthewelfareandbestinterestofthechild. Hollowayv.Bradley ,230S.W.2d 8 1003,1006(Tenn.1950).Whenthecourtisaskedtomakeacustodydeterminationregarding $t minorchildren, [_e]very_Ԁeffortmustbemadetopromotethechildsinterestbyplacingthechild ` inanenvironmentthatwillbestservehisorherphysicalandemotionalneeds. Parkerv. L Parker ,986S.W.2d557#X3XXXH7#XHXXX3,562(Tenn.1999). 8   d8$ , 8  ,  Inordertodeterminewhatcustodyarrangementwillbeinthebestinterestofachild,the $t courtassessesthecomparativefitnessofthepartiesinvolved.  Bah ,668S.W.2dat666.#X3XXXH<#XHXXX3The ` criteriaacourtshallconsiderwhenconductingthiscomparativefitnessanalysisarelistedin L section366106oftheTennesseeCodewhichstatesinpertinentpart: 8 d$t8  Inasuitforannulment,divorce,separatemaintenance,orinanyotherproceeding $t requiringthecourttomakeacustodydeterminationregardingaminorchild,such  ` determinationshallbemadeuponthebasisofthebestinterestofthechild.The  L courtshallconsiderallrelevantfactorsincludingthefollowingwhereapplicable:#X3XXXH?>#XHXXX3!8   8   ` (1)Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsand "$ child;#    8   ` (2)Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing, $! medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparent % " hasbeentheprimary_caregiver_;&!#   8   ` ....p'"$   8   ` (4)Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;   8   ` ....   8   ` (6)Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;   8   ` ....t   8   ` (9)Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinor ` frequentsthehomeofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththechild;L    8   ` ....8    8   ` (10)Eachparentspastandpotentialforfutureperformanceofparenting $ t responsibilities,includingthewillingnessandabilityofeachoftheparentsto  ` facilitateandencourageacloseandcontinuingparentchildrelationshipbetween  L  thechildandtheotherparent,consistentwiththebestinterestofthechild. 8     X   Tenn.Code.Ann.366106(2002).     Weareoftheopinionthatthetrialjudgesfindingspertainingtotheabovecitedstatutory   provisionsindicatethatthetrialcourtundertooktherequiredcomparativefitnessanalysis.   Specifically,thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindings:Withregardtothefirstcriteria,thetrial p judgefoundthat Claire[sic]hasexpressedadesire...tospendmoretimewithherfather[,] \ andthatwhenthechildawokeinthemiddleofthenightfrightenedthatshe calledherfather H ratherthanwakinguphermotherbecausethemotherdoesntcoddleher. 4   Thesecondcriteriawasaddressedbythetrialcourtsfindingthat [_o]n_Ԁoneoccasion,  \ Claire[sic]hadseriousdentalproblemswhichthemotherwasallegedlytoldcouldbetreated H withoutextractionoftheteethandbymerelyadministeringantibiotics.Thecourtfurthernoted 4 that [_s]he_Ԁcouldnotrecallwhotoldherthis.Thecourtthencomparedtheactionsofthefather   inthisregard,notingthat [_t]he_Ԁfathertookthechildandhadtheteethextractedbecausethey   wereabscessed. See_Pisano_ ,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS625,at*5(discussingneglectofachilds  dentalneedsinthecontextofacomparativefitnessanalysis).    Criterianumberfourconcernsthestabilityofthefamilyunit.Thetrialcourtcompared l theMotherandFatherscurrentsituationsandnotedthatthehusbandhasremarried,whilethe X  motherandthefatherofheroutofwedlockchild havediscussedmarriage,buthaveno D! definiteplansaboutit. 0"    Inreferencetocriterianumbersix,itwasnotedthat [_s]ince_Ԁthedivorce,thedaughter, $X" Claire[sic]hasshownsomebehavioralproblems,includingseductivebehaviorinappropriate $D # forachildherage. %0!$   Inregardstocriterianumbernine,thetrialcourtdiscussedtherelationshipbetweenthe '#& motherandherparamour.Thecourtnotedthattheboyfriendclaimedtohaveengagedin (#' intercourseonlyoncewiththeMother,andthatthissingleactresultedintheconceptionoftheir )$( child.Themother,however,refutedthisclaim,testifyingthatthetwohadengagedinintercourse |*%) numeroustimes.Thecourtalsoaddressesother claimsthattheboyfriendmade,apparently h+&* findinghiscredibility,aftertheintercoursecomment,tobequestionable.Thusthetrialcourt  appropriatelyfactoredthecharacterofanindividualwhofrequentsthehomeintoitscomparative  fitnessanalysis.    ThecourtaddressedcriterianumbertenwhencomparingtheMothersandFathers ` interactionswiththechildrenandnotedthefactthat [_h]usband_Ԁhasoftenbeenonfieldtripsand L  luncheonssponsoredbythe_childrens_[sic]school,Wifehasnotbeenonanyfieldtripandhas 8  onlyhadlunchattheschoolonce,allegedlybecauseofheremployment.Additionally,thecourt $ t addressestheMothersactionsofsendingthechildrentoTexasratherthanallowingthefatherto  ` takecareofthem;anactwhichdoesnotevidencea willingnessandabilityof[theMother]to  L  facilitateandencourageacloseandcontinuingparentchildrelationshipbetweenthechildand  8  the[Father],consistentwiththebestinterestofthe_child[ren_].Tenn.CodeAnn.366106(10) $  (2002).     Whileweagreewiththetrialcourtinthatweareunableto findeitherparenttobe   ideal[,]wedonotagree,basedontheforegoingfindings,withAppellantscontentionthatthe   courtfailedtoengageintherequiredcomparativefitnessanalysis.Weareoftheopinion, p however,thatduetothehealthissuesofthechildrenpreviouslydiscussed,itisnecessarythatthe \ judgmentofthetrialcourtbemodifiedtoenjoinFatherfromsmokinginthepresenceofthe H children.Theorderofthetrialcourtis,therefore,somodified. 4   Wenotethattheemphasisatthetrialcourtlevelwasontheimpactthatthecurrent  \ custodyarrangementwashavingontheoldestdaughter,Clara.Bearinginmind,however,the H wellestablishedprinciplethat asageneralruleitisnotgoodtoseparatetwosmallchildren[,] 4  Terryv.Terry ,361S.W.2d500,504(Tenn.Ct.App.1960),andthat  [_g]enerally_Ԁspeaking,itis   notappropriatetoseparatesiblingsbyacustodyorder[,] Ricev.Rice ,983S.W.2d680,684   (Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(citing _Baggett_Ԁv._Baggett_ ,512S.W.2d292,29394(Tenn.Ct.App.  1973),wefindsufficientevidenceintherecordtosupportthechangeofcustodyforSydneyalso.  Accordingly,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt,asmodified,andremandthiscausefor  furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoAppellant, l VictoriaLynnBarnes,andhersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.#X3XXXHA# X     `     h     ___________________________________ $d"    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE