ÿWPCð /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w@14q…” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU>ÝB) AQD Æ• 0D[ 0@Ÿ 0Dß DC# D/f B• B² D3Ï AM U*O &y v~Ÿ vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- æ9ç9Eè9é9Eê9ë9Eì9eí9Ó€÷9 ø9ê‚_#3|xú92 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌJuly€1,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€æ)XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœò òÞ ÞÌELIZABETH›€DAVIS€BLACK,à àà à)à àMarion€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€€9719Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌMICHAEL€WALTER€BLACK,à àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9801„CV„00056Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÙ€!ÙœßR€*,%A1-j|¹\` ç `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MARION€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€JASPER,€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€J.€CURTIS€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÓ  Óó óÌÌÌDavid€W.€Noblitt,€Esq.,€BPR€#006685ÌLEITNER,€WILLIAMS,€DOOLEY€&€NAPOLITAN,€PLLCÌPioneer€Building,€Third€FloorÌChattanooga,€Tennessee€37402ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌCharles€G.€Jenkins,€Jr.,€BPR€#014909ÌJENKINS€&€FEATHERSTON,€P.C.Ì102€Betsy€Pack€DriveÌJasper,€Tennessee€37347ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€AND€€REMANDEDó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌò òÌÌÌÌELIZABETH€DAVIS€BLACK,à àà à)à àMarion€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€€9719Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌMICHAEL€WALTER€BLACK,à àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9801„CV„00056Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)Ìó óÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThis€appeal€involves€post„divorce€petitions€for€change€of€custody€and€child€support.€ÏThe€mother,€Elizabeth€Davis€Black€(Tepas),€has€appealed€from€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÏtransferring€custody€of€the€eleven€year€old€daughter,€Chelsea,€from€the€mother€to€the€father,ÏMichael€Walter€Black,€and€relieving€him€of€the€obligation€of€child€support€while€the€child€wasÏin€the€custody€of€the€father€by€agreement€of€the€parties.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€divorced€March€17,€1992,€in€Jasper,€Tennessee€where€they€hadÏresided€since€their€marriage.€€Custody€of€their€child€was€granted€to€the€mother€with€liberalÏvisitation€with€the€father.€€The€mother€moved€with€the€child€to€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€50Ïmiles€from€Jasper,€but€regular€visitation€with€the€father€continued.€€Six€months€later,€theÏmother€moved€to€Buffalo,€New€York.€€This€move€was€not€anticipated€by€the€parties€at€the€timeÍof€the€divorce.€€Frequent€visitation€with€the€father€continued,€including€summer€visitation€withÏthe€father.€€ÌÌà àOn€October€€16,€1993,€the€father€married€a€lady€who€had€a€masterððs€degree€in€homeÏeconomics,€and€who€readily€accepted€Chelsea€and€assisted€in€her€care.€€The€mother,€Mrs.ÏTepas,€also€has€a€college€degree.€€ÌÌà àIn€February,€1995,€the€parties€agreed€that€the€child€would€live€with€her€father€in€JasperÏduring€the€school€year€and€would€visit€with€her€mother€in€Buffalo€during€the€summer.€€In€theÏsame€year,€the€father€relinquished€a€good€job€in€Cleveland,€Tennessee€and€established€his€ownÏbusiness€in€Jasper€in€order€to€have€more€time€at€home€with€the€child.ÌÌà àIn€August,€1995,€the€child€was€sent€to€her€father€in€Jasper€and€has€resided€with€himÏever€since€except€for€agreed€visitation€with€her€mother€in€Buffalo.€€She€has€completed€theÏsecond€and€third€grades€in€a€school€near€Jasper.€€During€the€1996„1997€school€year,€theÏmother€requested€that€the€father€return€the€custody€of€the€child€to€her€in€Buffalo.€€The€fatherÏdeclined€to€do€so.ÌÌà àOn€May€12,€1997,€the€father€initiated€the€present€proceeding€with€a€petition€for€formalÏtransfer€of€custody€to€him€and€for€child€support€to€be€paid€to€him€by€the€mother.ÌÌà àOn€June€17,€1997,€the€mother€filed€a€counter€petition€requesting€dismissal€of€theÏfatherððs€petition€and€findings€of€no€change€of€circumstances€and€that€the€courts€of€New€YorkÍhave€jurisdiction€of€custody.€€By€amendment,€the€mother€sought€$12,220€delinquent€childÏsupport.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€entered€the€judgment€above€summarized€and€the€mother€appealed,Ïpresenting€for€review€the€following€issues:Ìòòò òà àà àAppellantððs€Issues:ó óóóÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àI.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€aÏvoluntary€modification€of€a€visitation€agreement€betweenÏjoint„custodial€parents€was€a€substantial€and€material€changeÏof€circumstances€justifying€a€change€of€custody.ÌÌà àII.à àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€thatÏPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellant€was€not€entitled€toÏback€child€support€payments.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àAppellant€argues€that€the€voluntary€temporary€relinquishment€of€principal€custody€wasÏnot€a€ð ðchange€of€circumstancesðð€conferring€authority€upon€the€Trial€Court€to€change€the€divorceÏdecree.€€The€Trial€Court€found€otherwise€in€a€comprehensive€memorandum€which€includes€theÏfollowing:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àMrs.€Tepasðð€move€from€Tennessee€to€New€York€wasÏnot€for€vindictive€purposes€and€the€move,€in€and€of€itself,Ïdoes€not€constitute€a€material€change€of€circumstances,€evenÏthough€the€move€was€not€discussed€at€the€time€the€custodyÏarrangement€was€made.€€òòAaby€v.€Strangeóó,€924€S.W.2d€623Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€Mrs.€Tepasðð€remarriage€nor€her€co„habitationÏbefore€marriage€is,€per€se,€a€material€change€ofÏcircumstances.€€òòTortorich€v.€Ericksonóó,€676€S.W.2d€190Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984);€òòMusselman€v.€Acuff,óó€826€S.W.2d€920Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àIt€cannot€go€unnoticed€that€the€decision€to€sendÏChelsea€to€Tennessee€for€school€was€initiated€by€Mrs.€TepasÏat,€or€near,€the€time€she€decided€to€co„habit€with€Mr.€Tepas.€ÏBased€on€this€circumstance€and€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€court€concludes€that€Mr.€Blackððs€version€ofÏthe€partiesðð€discussions€at€the€time€is€correct;€that€is,€Mrs.ÏTepas€was€having€some€financial€and€emotional€difficultiesÍin€her€life€and€thought€it€best€Chelsea€spend€the€school€yearÏwith€her€father.€€The€court€finds€further€that€Mrs.€TepasÏnever€told€Mr.€Black€until€some€year€or€so€later,€that€sheÏconsidered€the€arrangement€to€be€temporary.ÌÌà àThe€change,€regardless€of€the€reason€and€intent€ofÏMrs.€Tepas,€was€more€than€a€change€of€visitation.€€For€allÏpractical€purposes€it€was€a€change€in€custody.€€Parental€rolesÏwere€completely€reversed,€except€that€Mrs.€Tepas€paid€noÏchild€support€to€Mr.€Black,€who€requested€none.€€ChelseaÏwas€placed€back€in€the€environment€for€most€of€the€year,Ïwhere€she€had€lived€the€first€five€years€of€her€life.€€By€allÏaccounts€she€is€a€happy€and€well€adjusted€child.€€She€hasÏnow€been€a€Tennessee€resident€seven€of€her€nine€years.€€€AllÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€Chelseaððs€return€to€TennesseeÏfor€the€last€two€years€do€constitute€a€material€change€ofÏcircumstances€in€a€way€not€reasonably€contemplated€at€theÏtime€of€the€divorce.ÌÌà àStability€and€continuity€are€important€to€a€child€andÏthe€environment€with€her€father€and€stepmother€is€moreÏconducive€to€that€end.€€Chelsea€has€had€a€long€associationÏwith€Tennessee€and€Mr.€Black€and€his€wife€are€excellent€andÏdevoted€parents€and€have€demonstrated€they€can€provide€aÏstable€and€loving€home.€€The€court€was€particularlyÏimpressed€with€the€intense€dedication€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€BlackÏto€Chelseaððs€well„being.ÌÌà àOnly€after€this€litigation€was€filed€did€Mrs.€Tepas€andÏMr.€Tepas€make€the€commitment€to€marriage.€€Mrs.€TepasÏmade€a€calculated€decision€in€1995€in€favor€of€herÏrelationship€with€Mr.€Tepas€and€against€having€her€daughter€Ïwith€her€most€of€the€year.€€Mrs.€Tepas€is€an€excellent€mother€Ïto€Chelsea€and€the€two€have€a€close€relationship.€€However,ÏMrs.€Tepas€voluntarily€gave€up€òòde€factoóó€custody€of€ChelseaÏto€pursue€a€relationship€which€only€resulted€in€marriage€justÏbefore€depositions€were€taken€in€this€case.€€This€cast€someÏdoubt€as€to€the€stability€of€that€relationship€and€the€long„termÏdedication€of€Mr.€Tepas€to€Mrs.€Tepas€and€Chelsea.ÌÌà àThe€court€has€considered€the€factors€set€out€inÏòòT.C.Aóó.€36„6„106€in€its€determination€of€the€comparativeÏfitness€of€the€parties€to€have€custody.€€All€factors€are€equalÏexcept€(3)€ð ðthe€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€lifeÏand€the€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,Ïsatisfactory€environment,ðð€and€(4)€ð ðthe€stability€of€the€familyÏunit€of€the€parents,ðð€which€preponderate€in€favor€of€Mr.ÏBlack.ÌÌà àMrs.€Tepas€has€asked€the€court€to€enforce€theÏprovisions€of€the€marital€dissolution€agreement€and€awardÏher€a€judgment€for€support€accrued€during€the€time€ChelseaÏhas€attended€school€in€Tennessee.€€Mrs.€Tepas€candidlyÏadmitted€she€told€Mr.€Black€not€to€pay€support€in€1995,Ïexpected€none,€and€filed€the€claim€because€Mr.€Black€wasÏplaying€ð ðhardball.ðð€€The€proof€established€that€while€Mrs.ÏTepas€has€spent€money€on€behalf€of€Chelsea€during€the€timeÏshe€has€lived€in€Tennessee,€she€has€not€paid€any€support€toÏMr.€Black.ÌÌà àMr.€Black€testified€he€has€spent€$400€to€$500€perÏmonth€on€behalf€of€his€daughter€since€she€came€in€1995.€ÏThe€amount€is€in€excess€of€the€amount€he€would€have€beenÏrequired€to€pay€Mrs.€Tepas€based€on€his€income€sinceÏbecoming€self„employed.€€Mr.€Black€is€entitled€to€a€credit€forÏthe€amount€expended€on€behalf€of€Chelsea€against€theÏamount€owed€Mrs.€Tepas.€€This€calculation€results€in€noÏaward€of€back€support.Ì€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àIt€is€clear€from€the€foregoing€that€the€Trial€Judge€resolved€the€issue€of€credibility€inÏfavor€of€the€father.€€On€an€issue€which€hinges€upon€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€Trial€CourtÏwill€not€be€reversed€unless,€other€than€oral€testimony€of€witnesses,€the€record€contains€clear,Ïconvincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòThompson€v.€Creswell€Industrial€Supply,€Incóó.,€Tenn.ÏApp.€1996,€936€S.W.2d€955.€€No€such€contrary€evidence€is€cited€or€found€in€this€record.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€considering€the€voluntary€relinquishmentÏof€custody€to€be€a€change€of€circumstances.€€The€memorandum,€quoted€above,€clearly€indicatesÏthat€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€was€based€upon€the€fatherððs€version€of€the€transfer€ofÏcustody,€€the€length€of€its€duration,€and€the€new€domestic€relationship€assumed€by€the€mother.€ÏIt€was€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€rather€than€a€single€circumstance€of€ð ðpoor€judgmentðð€byÏthe€mother.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€she€should€not€lose€her€ð ðcustodial€rightsðð€by€a€temporaryÏrelinquishment€to€please€the€daughter.€€The€grant€of€custody€does€not€confer€a€vested€right,€butÏa€privilege€to€be€enjoyed€so€long€as€faithfully€exercised€for€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€TheÏTrial€Court€found€that€the€privilege€had€not€been€faithfully€exercised€for€the€best€interest€of€theÏchild,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€affirmance€of€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€would€have€aÏð ðchilling€effectðð€upon€voluntary€agreements€between€divorced€parents.€€If€it€should€discourageÏcustodial€parents€from€relinquishment€of€custody€under€the€circumstances€found€by€the€TrialÏJudge,€its€result€will€be€beneficial€rather€than€detrimental€to€the€welfare€of€children€of€divorcedÏparents.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€did€not€find€the€appellant€to€be€an€unfit€mother.€€He€indicated€that,Ïgenerally,€she€had€been€a€reasonably€good€mother.€€It€was€her€inconstancy€and€willingness€toÏgive€her€own€convenience€and€satisfaction€a€higher€priority€which€served€the€double€purpose€ofÏproviding€a€change€of€circumstances€and€showing€that€in€the€ultimate€evaluation€of€twoÏcustodians,€the€father€represented€the€preferable€choice.ÌÌà àCounting€the€time€spent€in€Jasper€with€mother€and€daughter€before€the€divorce,€and€theÏtime€spent€in€Jasper€with€the€father€after€the€divorce,€the€larger€part€of€the€childððs€life€has€beenÏspent€in€the€familiar€environment€of€Jasper.€€Now€that€her€father€no€longer€commutes€to€work,Ïhe€has€more€time€to€spend€at€home€with€his€daughter.€€She€is€doing€well€in€school,€is€wellÏattended€by€her€stepmother€and€is€looking€forward€to€having€a€baby€in€the€home€which€is€aÏdelight€to€most€girls.ÌÌà àThis€court€takes€no€satisfaction€in€denying€the€appellantððs€request€for€renewed€custody.€ÏSome€comfort€can€be€taken€in€the€clear€indications€that€the€mother„daughter€bonds€have€notÏbeen€severed€and€that€mother€and€daughter€have€reason€to€expect€to€enjoy€visits€together.ÌÌà àUnder€the€circumstances€of€the€ð ðagreed€change€of€custodyðð€this€Court€agrees€that€theÏfather€is€not€chargeable€with€child€support€for€the€time€the€child€was€in€his€custody.€€His€Brief€Ïdoes€not€discuss€his€asserted€claims€for€future€child€support€which€have€apparently€beenÏabandoned.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏappellant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€necessary€proceedings.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLEÏSECTIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌ