WPCR BJ~-o3N&\\.WȒh,& 3R<6s*)t 3 孼0a`* Uk YW]14yg#Ta+ <L{[4M+w&q aؿm|IʾwPVc%Q` WIG(ַx0} @6Soi*Bf7;1@8\j#0]83:y.шb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  0DNU NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0tp) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularUUb)bk2xO C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8KLd d 8         0  0 d(|3M$ !.8KLd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8KLd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Od d8     __  X89|XXdd 8  @ UXINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XU#Ԉ &   October3,2000Session L XXX #XXX#MITCHELLBLAINBINGHAMv._TAMMYANNE_ԀBINGHAMXXX  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.93DR3365SamuelH.Payne,Judge  6 FILEDNOVEMBER16,2000    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199901768_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Inthispostdivorcecase,MitchellBlainBinghamfiledapetitionseekingthecustodyofhisminor x  child.Thetrialcourt,instead,awardedthechildscustodytothechildspaternalgrandparents,who, d priortothetrialcourtsorderawardingthemcustody,werenotpartiestotheactionandhadnot P previouslypetitionedforcustody.Bothofthechildsparentsappealtheawardofcustodytothe < paternalgrandparents.Wevacatethetrialcourtsjudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedings. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt P Vacated;CaseRemanded  <   #XX#XX.XCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined.  W.Troy_McDougal_,_Collegedale_,Tennessee,andRichard_Ducote_,NewOrleans,Louisiana,forthe  appellant,_Tammyanne_ԀBingham. t SherryB._Paty_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MitchellBlainBingham. L  SandraJ._Bott_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellees,Dr.SamBinghamandMaryLynn $"t! Bingham. #`"  OPINION #XXX#XXX $8 $ #XXX #XXX    I. &"& 3   MitchellBlainBingham( Father)and_Tammyanne_ԀBingham( Mother)weredivorcedin (#( April,1994.Pursuanttotheirmaritaldissolutionagreement,Motherwasawardedcustodyofthe )$) partiesonlychild,AustinBlainBingham(DOB:September8,1990).InMarch,1998,Motherand p*%* thechildmovedfromChattanooga,Tennessee,toKenner,Louisiana.Thereafter,Fatherfiledthis \+&+ petitiontomodify,allegingamaterialchangeofcircumstanceswarrantingachangeinthechilds H,', custody. 4-(- Ї  AhearingwasheldonJune22,1999.Thechildspaternalgrandparents,Dr.SamBingham  andMaryLynnBingham( the_Binghams_),testifiedonbehalfoftheirson.Duringtheirtestimony,  theywereaskedbythetrialcourtiftheywouldbewillingtoassumecustodyofthechild.The  _Binghams_Ԁindicatedthattheywouldacceptcustody. t   Attheconclusionoftheproof,thetrialcourtannounceditsfindingsfromthebench.While L  notexpresslyfindingeitherparentunfit,orotherwisefindingthechildtobeatriskofsubstantial 8  harmifhiscustodywasawardedtooneofhisparents,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatitwouldbein $ t thechildsbestinterestifcustodywereawardedtothechildspaternalgrandparents.Anorderwas  ` laterenteredawardingthemcustodyofAustin.Thesameorderdecreedthattheyweremadeparties  L  tothisaction.  8    Motherappeals,arguing(1)thatthetrialcourterredinremovingcustodyfromher;(2)that   thetrialcourterredinallowingthe_Binghams_Ԁtointervenewithoutpropernoticetoher;(3)thatthe   trialcourterredinawardingcustodyofthechildtothe_Binghams_Ԁwithoutpropernoticetoher;and   (4)thatthetrialcourterredinnotallowingthematernalgrandparentstointerveneorotherwise   presentevidenceregardingtheirabilitytocareforthechild.Fatheralsoappealstheawardof p custodytothe_Binghams_.Hefurtherseeksanawardofattorneysfees. \   II. 4   Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectness  \ astothetrialcourtsfactualfindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemusthonorthatpresumption H unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise. Id. ;seealso _Hass_Ԁv._Knighton_, 676S.W.2d554,555 4 (Tenn.1984).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarerevieweddenovowithnopresumptionof   _correctnesss_. _Jahn_Ԁv._Jahn_, 932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).     III.    In Davisv.Davis, 842S.W.2d588,600(Tenn.1992),theSupremeCourtfoundthatthe l TennesseeConstitutionguaranteesarightofprivacy.Thisprivacyrightincludeswithinitsambit X  therightofparentstocarefortheirchildren. Hawkv.Hawk, 855S.W.2d573,579(Tenn.1993). D! AstheSupremeCourtstatedin Hawk : 0"  8  8`   Inlightofthisrighttoprivacy,webelievethatwhennosubstantial $X" harmthreatensachildswelfare,thestatelacksasufficiently $D # compellingjustificationfortheinfringementonthefundamentalright %0!$ ofparentstoraisetheirchildrenastheyseefit.&"%` x` x  Id. at577.Becauseparentshaveaconstitutionallyprotectedinterestincaringfortheirchildren,a (#' court,inacustodydisputebetweenaparentandanonparent,maydepriveanaturalparentof )$( custodyofachildonlyuponafinding,afternoticerequiredbydueprocess,ofsubstantialharmto |*%) thechild. InreAskew(Lewisv._Donoho_), 993S.W.2d1,4(Tenn.1999); InreAdoptionofFemale h+&* Child(Bondv.McKenzie), 896S.W.2d546,548(Tenn.1995)(  Bond ).Itisimproperforacourt  toawardcustodytoanonparentunlessthecourtfindsthatneitherparentisasuitablecustodian.   Bushv.Bush, 684S.W.2d89,94(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).       Thetrialcourtintheinstantcasedidnotmakeaspecificfindingthatanawardofcustody ` ofthechildtoMotherorFatherwouldresultinsubstantialharmtothechild.Rather,thetrialcourt L  simplyengagedina bestinterestanalysisanddeterminedthatanawardofcustodytothe 8  _Binghams_Ԁwouldbeinthebestinterestofthechild.Wefindthatthiswaserror.Onlyafterafinding $ t ofsubstantialharmmayacourtengageina bestinterestofthechildanalysis. Bond, 896S.W.2d  ` at548.Absentafindingofsubstantialharm,wefindthatthetrialcourterredinawardingcustody  L  ofthechildtothepaternalgrandparents.Insoholding,weexpressnoopinionastothefitnessof  8  anyofthepartiestothislitigationtocareforthechild. $    Uponremand,thetrialcourtshouldfirstdetermineiftherehasbeentherequisitechangeof   circumstancestowarrantareexaminationoftheissueofcustody.Ifsuchachangeisfoundbythe   trialcourt,itshouldgofurtheranddeterminethecomparativefitnessofthechildsparentstoserve   asthechildscustodian.Onlyifthetrialcourtconcludesthatthereisariskofsubstantialharmto p thechildregardlessofwhichparentisawardedcustodyshoulditthengofurtherandconsider \ awardingcustodytothe_Binghams_Ԁoranyother suitablepersoncontemplatedby_T.C.A._Ԁ366 H 101(a)(1)(Supp.1999).Wenotethat,uponremand,shouldanyofthechildsgrandparents, 4 includingthe_Binghams_,wishtoseekcustodyofthechild,theyshouldbepermittedtofilean  p appropriatepleadinginthetrialcourtseekingcustody.  \   Fatheralsoseeksattorneysfeesonthisappeal.Wedonotfindthatsuchanawardis 4 appropriateunderthefactsofthiscase.     Finally,the_Binghams_Ԁhavefiledamotiontoconsiderpostjudgmentfactspertainingto  Mothersallegedfailuretoprovideforthechild.Thefactswhichthemotionseekstoraisearenot  ofthetypethatwecanconsiderunderTenn.R.App.P.14(a).Therefore,the_Binghams_motionis  herebydenied. l    `     h     IV. D! =,  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings #l! consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellees,Dr.SamBinghamandMary $X" LynnBingham. $D #    `     h     ___________________________________ (#'    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE