ÿWPC¬ u‘ê¾5ئÜ& §Ü&¸Çtº%Ã,¥Wtº¼îÀ?Qlöâv"wM¡I9ÙêsöWü˜Ù÷€7o ²ÝnJ(IÞn§©Xo¬ý}I Ktˆt$Šˆyò Ô„0'HfŽÙ:§eäkÓô¸òpUI›&Ó*‚x¶Ü©¿â›U_+H²v6í3îŽvSãædîƒ5áUÈ8 7Óêô»Uꧪ‘•ç-PmW³™¬XRö†ƒÿ›oçÃEEïÚ ÙºÈ mVÖÑ« OžuæjNCGˆØGí«ú„$b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æë 0D±Nõ÷UN E[,]]‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰bŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸ 0ë§§§§ B’’ 0¤¯ D5S D-ˆ 0Kµµ ASÆS 0¤ 0D½ A«»ù¤‚1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ ° Ñ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular SevierSwineyHickmanSevierville P.J. Evid S.W.Sheppeard CrimOprylandPerlbergBrencorECpretermitteddeclarant Ñ X Ñ- ù-(|G2Å2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó­ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼M}»»»ÔÑ8€ÁXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OaÑÑ€/VÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î@,M}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼M}»îî@,.#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€28,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÁX»¼M}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼M}»XXÁ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€DEPARTMENT€OF€CHILDREN'S€SERVICES€v.Ð úJ ÐB.F.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÁX»¼M}Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Sevier€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€94„M3„496€€€€€€Dwight€E.€Stokes,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2004„00338„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„PT€Ô_Ô„€FILED€DECEMBER€2,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼M}»XXÁ¼#ÔÔ‡¼e»»¼M}ÔÔ‡X(5 X»¼eÔThis€parental€termination€case€€presents€the€Court€with€two€issues:€(1)€whether€a€case€manager€canÐ ŒÜ Ðtestify€regarding€facts€about€which€she€has€no€personal€knowledge€but€which€are€documented€in€aÐ xÈ Ðcase€file€not€made€an€exhibit,€and€(2)€whether€the€guardian€ad€litem€of€a€minor€child€can€testify€asÐ d´ Ða€witness.€At€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€State€of€Tennessee,€Department€of€Childrenððs€ServicesÐ P  Ðpresented€only€two€witnesses:€the€case€manager€who€had€only€been€working€on€the€file€for€sixÐ <Œ Ðmonths€and€the€childððs€guardian€ad€litem.€€The€case€manager€had€no€firsthand€knowledge€of€the€factsÐ (x Ðexcept€what€she€had€read€in€the€case€file€which€was€not€present€at€the€trial€and€not€introduced€intoÐ d Ðevidence.€The€defendant€objected€on€the€basis€of€hearsay€and€the€trial€court€allowed€the€caseÐ P Ðmanager€to€testify€under€the€business€records€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€The€guardian€ad€litemÐ ì< Ðtestified€concerning€her€investigation€into€the€matter€over€the€Defendantððs€objection.€We€hold€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€case€managerððs€testimony€was€hearsay€and€was€not€admissible€under€the€business€recordsÐ Ä Ðexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€We€hold€that€the€guardian€ad€litemððs€testimony€was€not€admissibleÐ ° Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€40€which€forbids€such€testimony.€Because€of€theÐ œì Ðexclusion€of€the€testimony€of€these€witnesses,€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€Defendantððs€motionÐ ˆØ Ðfor€a€directed€verdict.€Accordingly,€we€Ô_ÔvacateÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€Ô_Ôto€theÐ t Ä ÐJuvenile€Court€for€Sevier€County€for€a€new€trial.Ô#†XÁX XX(5Z#ÔÔ_Ô€òòÐ `!°  Ѐóó€Ð L"œ! ÐÓ+Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Juvenile€Court€Ô_ÔVacatedÔ_ÔÔ_Ô;Ô_Ô€CauseÐ 8#ˆ" ÐRemanded€€ó óÐ $$t# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓSharon€G.€Lee,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,óó€and€òòDóó.Ð ü%L!% ÐòòMichael€Swiney,€Jóó.,€joined.Ð è&8"& ÐÌJames€R.€Hickman,€Jr.,€Sevierville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€B.F.Ð À($( ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€and€Elizabeth€C.€Driver,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ˜*è%* ÐGeneral,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€Ð „+Ô&+ ÐÓNÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àÐ \-¬(-ý Їò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÓÉÓÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àIn€January€of€2002,€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee,€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services,Ð ˆØ Ð(hereinafter€ð ðDCSðð)€€filed€a€petition€in€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Sevier€County,€Tennessee,€to€terminateÐ tÄ Ðthe€parental€rights€of€the€Appellant,€B.F.,€(hereinafter€ð ðthe€fatherðð),€and€L.F.€(hereinafter€ð ðtheÐ `° Ðmotherðð)€with€respect€to€their€minor€son,€D.F.€(hereinafter€ð ðthe€childðð).€A€hearing€was€held€on€theÐ L œ Ðpetition€to€terminate€the€motherððs€rights€in€April€of€2002.€€Thereafter,€an€order€was€entered€grantingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€petition€as€to€her€and€no€appeal€was€taken.€On€March€5,€2003,€a€hearing€was€held€on€the€petitionÐ $ t Ðas€to€the€father€and€the€trial€court€entered€its€order€terminating€the€fatherððs€€parental€rights€on€OctoberÐ  ` Ð8,€2003.€€The€father€appealed.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€address€the€following€issues€in€this€case:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  à1)€Whether€a€case€manager€can€testify€regarding€facts€about€which€she€has€no€personalÐ ¬ü  Ðknowledge€but€which€are€documented€in€a€case€file€that€is€not€made€an€exhibit.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  à2)€Whether€the€guardian€ad€litem€of€a€minor€child€can€testify€as€a€witnessòò.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  à3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€the€fatherððs€motion€to€dismiss€at€the€closeÐ H˜ Ðof€DCSððs€proof.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€issues€presented€in€this€appeal€are€matters€of€law,€not€fact,€and€are€reviewed€òòde€novo€óówithÐ  \ Ðno€presumption€as€to€the€correctness€of€€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€òòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óó,Ð øH Ð919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€we€address€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€case€manager€toÐ ¼  Ðtestify.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€petition€to€terminate€the€fatherððs€parental€rights,€DCS€called€itsÐ €Ð Ðemployee,€Laura€Sane,€as€the€first€of€two€witnesses€testifying€in€support€of€the€petition.€Ms.€SaneÐ l¼ Ðattested€that€she€had€been€the€childððs€case€manager€for€approximately€six€months€and€that€she€wasÐ X ¨ Ðð ðthe€keeper€of€the€records€.€.€.ðð€for€the€child.€When€the€case€manager€was€questioned€as€toÐ D!” Ðinformation€contained€in€the€childððs€file,€counsel€for€the€father€objected€as€follows:Ð 0"€  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àMR.€HICKMAN:€€Your€Honor,€I€think€Iððm€going€to€have€to€object€to€thisÐ $X" ÐWitnessððs€entire€testimony.€€Sheððs€testified€that€sheððs€only€been€the€case€managerÐ ô$D # Ðfor€the€last€six€months,€and€as€the€termination€proceeding€is€in€relation€toÐ à%0!$ Ðactivities€within€the€four€months€preceding€the€filing,€which€was€January€of€lastÐ Ì&"% Ðyear,€this€Witness€has€no€knowledge€of€the€relevant€information€regarding€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtermination.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà Ø àMS.€RUSHING€[DCS€counsel]:€€Your€Honor,€she€is€the€keeper€of€theÐ ° Ðbusiness€record.€As€the€business„record€exception,€the€Court€is€aware€andÐ œì Ðunderstands€that€she€can€testify€about€the€contents€of€the€file.Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà Ø àTHE€COURT:€€It€does€appear€that€your€objection€is€based€upon€her€havingÐ `° Ðno€knowledge.€€Based€on€the€business„records€exception,€itððs€her€testimony€thatÐ L œ Ðshe€is€the€keeper€of€those€records,€then€that€objection€would€be€overruled.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà Ø àMR.€HICKMAN:€€Well,€Your€Honor,€I€would€ask,€though,€if€sheððs€goingÐ  ` Ðto€be€testifying€from€the€record€and€thatððs€going€to€be€the€basis€of€her€testimony,Ð ü L  Ðshe€doesnððt€have€any€record€with€her€today.€€She€certainly€would€need€it.€€If€sheððsÐ è 8  Ðgoing€to€testify€as€the€records„keeper€she€would€need€to€have€the€records.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà Ø àTHE€COURT:€You€can€take€up€any€objection€specifically€to€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðtestimony,€but€as€far€as€the€testimony€at€this€point€in€time€is€established€everythingÐ ˜è  Ðis€competent€at€this€point.€€€€€Ð „Ô  Ѐ̀€€€€€€Ð \¬ ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€case€manager€then€proceeded€to€testify€from€her€memory€as€to€notations€in€the€file€Ð H˜ Ðregarding€such€matters€as€the€fatherððs€failure€to€visit€the€child,€pay€child€support,€and€send€cards€andÐ 4„ Ðgifts.€The€case€manager€did€not€have€firsthand€knowledge€of€these€facts€since€she€was€not€workingÐ  p Ðas€case€manager€when€the€events€occurred.€The€only€facts€the€case€manager€had€personal€knowledgeÐ  \ Ðof€all€occurred€after€the€termination€petition€was€filed.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€Father€argues€that€the€case€managerððs€testimony€regarding€case€file€information€as€toÐ Ð  Ðmatters€of€which€she€had€no€personal€knowledge€should€have€been€excluded€as€inadmissible€hearsay.€Ð ¼  ÐWe€agree.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àHearsay€is€defined€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c)€as€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€theÐ €Ð ÐÔ_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô€€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÐ l¼ Ðasserted.ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802€provides€that€hearsay€is€ð ðnot€admissible€except€as€provided€by€theseÐ X ¨ Ðrules€or€otherwise€by€law.ðð€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€case€managerððs€testimony€was€hearsay€and€therefore€only€admissible€under€an€exceptionÐ #l! Ðto€the€hearsay€rule.€DCS€argues€that€the€case€managerððs€testimony€is€admissible€hearsay€under€theÐ $X" Ðbusiness€records€exception€which€is€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6):Ð ô$D # ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Ò(6)€òòRecords€of€Regularly€Conducted€Activity€óó„€A€memorandum,€report,€record,€orÐ Ì&"% Ðdata€compilation,€in€any€form,€of€acts,€events,€conditions,€opinions,€or€diagnosesÐ ¸'#& Ðmade€at€or€near€the€time€by€or€from€information€transmitted€by€a€person€withÐ ¤(ô#' Ðknowledge€and€a€business€duty€to€record€or€transmit€if€kept€in€the€course€of€aÐ )à$( Ðregularly€conducted€business€activity€and€if€it€was€the€regular€practice€of€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðbusiness€activity€to€make€the€memorandum,€report,€record€or€data€compilation,€allÐ h+¸&* Ðas€shown€by€the€testimony€of€the€custodian€or€other€qualified€witness€or€byÐ ° Ðcertification€that€complies€with€Rule€902(11)or€a€statute€permitting€certification,Ð œì Ðunless€the€source€of€information€or€the€method€or€circumstances€of€preparationÐ ˆØ Ðindicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.€The€term€ð ðbusinessðð€as€used€in€this€paragraphÐ tÄ Ðincludes€business,€institution,€profession,€occupation,€and€calling€of€every€kind,Ð `° Ðwhether€or€not€conducted€for€profit.€Ð L œ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€purpose€of€the€rule€is€to€facilitate€the€use€of€business€records€by€eliminating€the€expenseÐ $ t Ðand€inconvenience€of€calling€numerous€witnesses€involved€in€the€preparation€and€maintenance€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€records.€€òòAlexander€v.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ôóó,€903€S.W.€2d€686€(Tenn€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€observe€that€this€exception€specifically€refers€to€ð ðrecordsðð€and€indicates€that€aÐ Ô$  Ðð ðrecordðð€consists€of€ð ð[a]€memorandum,€report,€record€or€data€compilation,€in€any€form.ðð€It€is€clearÐ À  Ðfrom€this€language€that€this€exception€pertains€solely€to€the€admission€of€information€in€the€form€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðtangible€documentation.€The€rule€provides€for€the€admission€of€òòrecords.óó€It€does€not€provide€for€theÐ ˜è  Ðadmission€of€the€testimony€of€a€witness€as€to€his€or€her€òòmemoryóó€of€what€the€record€stated.€TheÐ „Ô  Ðground€for€this€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€is€ð ðthe€fact€that€regularly€kept€records€typically€have€aÐ pÀ Ðhigh€degree€of€accuracy.ðð€òòMcCormick€on€Evidence€ðð286€(óóJohn€W.€Strong,€ed.€1999).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àA€respected€treatise€on€evidence€law€in€Tennessee€elaborates€as€follows:Ð 4„ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àHistorically,€business€records€have€been€admissible€as€a€hearsay€exceptionÐ  \ Ðbecause€they€are€viewed€as€sufficiently€trustworthy€to€be€used€by€the€trier€of€factÐ øH Ðas€evidence.€€They€are€considered€reliable€because€businesses€rely€on€them€in€theirÐ ä4 Ðday€to€day€business€decisions,€clerical€employeesðð€jobs€hinge€on€their€capacity€toÐ Ð  Ðkeep€accurate€records,€and€the€business€has€countless€opportunities€to€receiveÐ ¼  Ðfeedback€on€the€accuracy€of€its€records€and€to€make€the€necessary€changes€toÐ ¨ø Ðensure€the€records€are€correct.Ð ”ä ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒòòNeil€P.€Cohen,€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard€&€Donald€F.€Paine,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€8.11óóÐ l¼ Ð(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIt€is€not€reasonable€to€assume€that€a€witness€testifying€from€memory€exhibits€the€ð ðhigh€degreeÐ 0"€  Ðof€accuracyðð€attributed€to€a€regularly€kept€record.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFurther,€even€had€the€records€been€present€in€the€trial€court€and€been€offered€as€an€exhibit,Ð ô$D # Ðthe€proper€foundation€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(6)€was€not€laid€by€the€offering€party.€The€onlyÐ à%0!$ Ðfoundation€presented€was€the€following€which€was€not€sufficient:€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€Okay.€€And€are€you€the€keeper€of€the€records€for€Daniel€Floyd?Ф(ô#'` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes,€I€am.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€do€you€record€case€recordings€in€his€file€on€a€regular€basis?а` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€are€those€reviewed€by€your€supervisor€on€a€regular€basis?Ð`°` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes,€they€are.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.€€Are€you€disciplined€to€accurately€record?Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€is€this€the€policy€that€is€followed€by€previous€case€managers?ÐÀ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.€€And€you€reviewed€their€case€files?ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€Yes.ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  à€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àDCS€contends€that€in€òòState€v.€Haynes,€óóNo.€01C01„9611„CC„00494,€1998€WL€307949€(Tenn.Ð  p ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€12,€1998)òò€óóthe€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€ð ðhas€ruled€thatÐ  \ Ðthere€is€no€distinction€in€the€business€records€hearsay€exception€between€admission€of€the€actualÐ øH Ðrecords€and€admission€of€testimony€based€on€the€records.ðð€The€court€in€that€case€did€state€that€itsÐ ä4 Ðreview€of€the€relevant€case€law€indicated€that€courts€do€not€make€a€distinction€under€the€businessÐ Ð  Ðrecords€exception€between€the€admission€of€records€and€testimony€based€upon€those€records.Ð ¼  ÐHowever,€the€òòHaynes€óócourt€did€not€address€the€merits€of€the€business€records€issue€because€theÐ ¨ø ÐAppellant€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€make€appropriate€references€to€the€record.€Therefore,€Ð ”ä Ðòòóóbecause€the€court€in€òòHaynesóó€did€not€address€the€issue€now€before€us,€any€comments€it€made€in€thatÐ €Ð Ðregard€are€òòobiter€dictumóó€and€as€such,€do€not€constitute€binding€precedential€authority.€€òòShepherdÐ l¼ ÐFleets,€Inc.€v.€Opryland€USAóó,€759€S.W.2d€914€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€In€any€event,€we€haveÐ X ¨ Ðreviewed€the€cases€relied€on€by€the€òòHaynesóó€court€and€find€that€those€cases€are€factuallyÐ D!” Ðdistinguishable€from€the€case€before€us.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àòòóóOur€determination€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€the€case€managerððs€testimonyÐ $X" Ðwith€respect€to€the€content€of€records€that€were€not€brought€to€the€hearing€is€supported€by€ourÐ ô$D # Ðdecision€in€òòPerlberg€v.€Brencor€Asset€Management,€Inc.,€óó63€S.W.3d€390€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€InÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€case,€an€employee€whose€job€was€terminated€sued€his€former€employer€for€handicapÐ Ì&"% Ðdiscrimination€alleging€that€the€employer€had€violated€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€by€notÐ ¸'#& Ðreasonably€accommodating€€him€in€employment€which€was€compatible€with€his€condition€after€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsuffered€an€on„the„job€injury.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€employer€had€not€violated€Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€8„50„103€as€alleged€by€the€Plaintiff€because€the€statute€was€not€applicable€when€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðhandicap€prevented€the€employee€from€performing€the€duties€required€by€the€employment€orÐ h+¸&* Ðimpaired€the€performance€of€the€work€in€question.€The€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€plaintiffÐ ° Ðemployee€did€not€meet€the€physical€qualifications€for€the€job€was€based€upon€an€affidavit€of€theÐ œì Ðemployerððs€district€manager€which€purported€to€establish€that€physical€problems€suffered€by€theÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiff€prevented€him€from€performing€duties€required€by€the€job€or€impaired€his€performance€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€work.€The€affidavit€included€by€attachment€a€letter€from€the€district€manager€to€the€plaintiffÐ `° Ðreferencing€a€letter€from€a€doctor€which€allegedly€indicated€the€plaintiffððs€permanent€restrictions.€Ð L œ ÐThe€doctorððs€letter€was€not€in€the€record€and€the€plaintiff€contended€that€the€alleged€statements€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€doctor€as€set€forth€in€the€absent€letter€were€inadmissible€hearsay.€€The€trial€court€decreed€that€theÐ $ t Ðattestation€as€to€what€the€doctorððs€letter€indicated€was€admissible€under€the€business€recordsÐ  ` Ðexception.€We€disagreed€with€the€trial€court€and€held€that€the€business€records€exception€did€notÐ ü L  Ðapply€based€upon€the€following€analysis:Ð è 8  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒThe€affidavit€includes€as€an€attachment€òòa€letter€from€óó[the€district€manager]òò€to€óó[theÐ À  Ðplaintiff]€stating€again€that€[the€employer]€ð ðhas€received€the€doctorððs€letterÐ ¬ü  Ðindicating€permanent€restrictions€....ðð€€This€is€the€totality€of€the€evidence€relatingÐ ˜è  Ðto€[the€plaintiffððs]€alleged€restrictions;€òòthe€doctorððs€letter€is€not€in€the€record.Ð „Ô  ÐóóHence,€there€is€no€ð ðmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilationðð€from€theÐ pÀ Ðdoctor.€€Obviously,€such€a€document€must€exist€to€implicate€the€provisions€ofÐ \¬ ÐRule€803(6).Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒòòPerlbergóó,€63€S.W.3d€at€396.€(Emphasis€in€original.)€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€case€manager€was€not€assigned€the€childððs€case€until€after€the€petition€to€terminateÐ øH Ðparental€rights€was€filed.€€There€is€no€indication€that€she€has€personal€knowledge€of€what€transpiredÐ ä4 Ðin€the€case€before€the€petition€was€filed.€Accordingly,€it€is€our€determination€that€the€only€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðshe€could€have€offered€in€support€of€the€petition€at€the€hearing€consisted€of€inadmissible€hearsay.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€next€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€Ô_Ôcourt€erredÔ_Ô€in€admitting€theÐ ”ä Ðtestimony€of€the€childððs€guardian€ad€litem.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony€of€the€case€manager,€DCS€called€the€childððs€guardian€adÐ X ¨ Ðlitemòò,€óóRebecca€McCoy,òò€óóas€an€additional€witness€in€support€of€its€petition€to€terminate€the€fatherððsÐ D!” Ðparental€rights.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€40,€adopted€on€February€5,€2002,€provides€in€pertinent€partÐ $X" Ðas€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Ò(f)€Guardian€ad€litem€to€function€as€lawyer,€not€as€a€witness€or€special€master.€Ð Ì&"% Ð(1)€A€guardian€ad€litem€may€not€be€a€witness€or€testify€in€any€proceeding€in€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðhe€or€she€serves€as€guardian€ad€litem,€except€in€those€extraordinary€circumstances€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðspecified€by€Supreme€Court€Rule€8,€ðððð€EC€5„9,€5„10€and€DR€5„101.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àDCS€does€not€allege€that€extraordinary€circumstances€existed€which€would€have€authorizedÐ ° Ðâ âtestimony€by€the€guardian€ad€litem.€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€testimony€of€the€childððs€guardianÐ œì Ðad€litem€was€improperly€admitted€and€should€have€been€excluded€as€evidence€in€this€matter.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€final€issue€addressed€is€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€fatherððs€oralÐ `° Ðmotion€to€dismiss€at€the€close€of€DCSððs€proof.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€sole€proof€offered€by€DCS€in€support€of€its€petition€to€terminate€the€fatherððs€parentalÐ $ t Ðrights€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€the€case€manager€and€€the€guardian€ad€litem.€As€we€have€noted,Ð  ` Ðthis€testimony€was€erroneously€admitted€into€evidence€and€should€have€been€excluded.€Upon€ourÐ ü L  Ðdetermination€that€all€evidence€supporting€the€petition€to€terminate€parental€rights€should€have€beenÐ è 8  Ðexcluded,€we€are€compelled€to€the€necessary€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€theÐ Ô$  Ðfatherððs€motion€to€dismiss€at€the€close€of€proof€by€DCS.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€father€raises€additional€issues€in€his€brief,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€addressÐ ˜è  Ðthese€upon€our€determination€that€they€are€pretermitted€by€our€decision€herein.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÔ_Ôà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€Ô_ÔvacatedÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€and€the€case€is€remandedÐ \¬ Ðto€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Sevier€County€for€a€new€trial.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€theÐ H˜ ÐState€of€Tennessee,€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à___________________________ÐøHÀ(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òSHARON€G.€LEE,€€JUDGEó óÔ#†¼M}»XXÁy#Ô