ÿWPC® )+àܪì/a˜ƒ.9þ¦{HE+xFØ0Z ¤qÞùÉ…í¤R…C³„€ÆM(Ùþ¤Ñ¡K3(‡ì¤Ùn;ZÌbæÃiá‡YŠ”\(¯ÇÍ5HÀ¸s¾5™n:À¿6s&¡‹#p3¹ âv-çÍ”Ó*ƒ!Ãd©ðN`uz8ßÚ‡Û‹³=Í\÷˜„ﱊk.Hô›5+”?(]™ûW{Í£Qëýý/ñ!‰±{}råŒy5Ö€îX­SG»ÄY–¾Y`Âðà%_eURýI¼“ïW”¿1q9Ù¦U=·̽ NªúÒß~c<º”Ú8%‚Ýó+2 +õ¨)îö¦õù9$Áõ«ÑRV¥1G…ü­d§Ù`%oqš MLöIÍÒRÅòÕcËÖÊ)›gIÒÊ«ƒdãþãTµ‡œ0vŒ'ÕâgóòFÿ­/MÂÐ^}¢‘žm^exPãh&!\ÊÌ è8Ù™DŠ>GÒÝ+ëXý€&œ¾'#?û!µè•Ì,¨cSÛ¡!|…¯hŒîê¸Pê‡Áìê­‚VUP†ø$G5k:rIr ƒ+\_7hñu}«|’qìUDÛØ‘é>§±OâÀ:‡IÃ’O$äSíwbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå UN·  m w Æ" Æè Æ®Æt4:NNP &XE~€ 0DyÓñL= SS [ c k s { ƒ‹‹‹ø¡  ™™™™™™b££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ 0ë«««« B–– 0¤³ D3W D-Š 0K·· ASÆU 0¤ 0D¿ A«(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt–m)â  ˜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.wpt(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UUb)´¥¡ \Opinion Summary3|x(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó oÝ ƒR&$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôl†ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€Father€filed€his€second€petition€to€modify€custody€in€1997,€the€Father€filed€an€amended€petitionÐ ° Ðin€1998,€and€as€a€result,€the€Trial€Court€allowed€proof€regarding€this€issue€up€to€the€time€of€the€later€date. çÝ ƒR&$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôl†ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€statute€is€part€of€the€federal€Parental€Ô_ÔKidnappingÔ_Ô€Prevention€Act. Ñ ° Ñ1345678 Ñ ° Ñ îÝ ƒR&$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôl†ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€initial€custody€decree€in€òòAskewóó€was€entered€in€1991,€and€granted€custody€to€the€natural€parent.€Thereafter,Ð ° Ðthe€non„parent€obtained€custody€of€€the€child€in€March,€1994.€€The€natural€parent€then€filed€a€petition€requesting€that€theÐ tÄ ÐMarch,€1994,€decree€be€set€aside€or€alternatively,€alleging€that€she€should€be€granted€custody€due€to€a€change€inÐ 8ˆ Ðcircumstances.€€The€juvenile€court€granted€"'temporary€custody'"€€to€the€non„parent€in€August,€1994,€and€its€order€statedÐ üL Ðthat€it€was€"'delaying€restoration€of€custody€to€the€natural€parents.'"€This€order€was€not€appealed.€€In€1996,€the€naturalÐ À Ðparent€filed€a€new€petition€for€custody€which€was€ultimately€dismissed.€€The€natural€parent€appealed€the€dismissal.€€òòInÐ „Ô Ðre€Askew,€óó€993€S.W.2d€at€2€„4.€11- ù-(|G2&$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô"1ò»»Ô d(|3 ä$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 ä$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J» »d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼Y©»» »ÔÑ8€?XXdê» »d 8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OaÑÑ€$OY Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡ îÎç î» ¼Y©ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#† ¼Y©» î îÎç.#ԈРÖ& Ðà@ÉÉìàOCTOBER€5,€2000€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ‡ XR X» ¼Y©ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#† ¼Y©» X XR#ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†eÔà@˜ ˜ ìàARTHUR€BLAIR€v.€MARILYN€Ô_ÔBADENHOPEÔ_Ôà@@ìì*ìàÔ‡ XR X» ¼Y©Ôó óˆÐ Ò " ÐÌò òÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†$Ôà@ ìàAppeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔChancery€Court€Ô%†dÔfor€Ô% ‡ ÔGreene€CountyÔ%† •Ô€ˆÐ Ò " Ðà@­ ­ ìàNo.€Ô% ‡! Ô93„101Ô%†!íÔ€€€€€€Ô% ‡" ÔThomas€R.€Ô_ÔFriersonÔ_Ô,€II,€ChancellorÔ%†"ԈР¾   ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€NOVEMBER€9,€2000Ð –æ  ÐßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@ÏÏìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE1999„02748„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÔ%†#bÔˆà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ }Í  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓÓÓÓArthur€Blair€("Father")€petitioned€the€Trial€Court€to€modify€a€prior€custody€decree€entered€by€a€NorthÐ <Œ ÐCarolina€court.€€Ô%†óÔMarilyn€Ô_ÔBadenhopeÔ_Ô,€the€child's€maternal€grandmother,€has€had€custody€of€the€childÐ (x Ðsince€the€child's€infancy.€€This€is€Father's€second€attempt€in€the€Tennessee€courts€to€obtain€aÐ d Ðmodification€of€the€North€Carolina€decree.€€In€this€suit,€the€Trial€Court€denied€Father's€petition,Ð P Ðholding€that€Father€failed€to€show€that€Ô#† ¼Y©» X XRè#ÔÔ‡ XR X» ¼Y©Ôa€material€change€in€circumstances€had€occurred€such€thatÐ ì< Ðsubstantial€harm€to€the€childÔ#† ¼Y©» X XR~ #ÔÔ‡ XR X» ¼Y©Ô€would€not€result€if€Father€was€awarded€custody.€€Father€appeals€andÐ Ø( Ðcontends€that€the€Trial€Court€erroneously€found€no€showing€of€a€material€change€in€circumstancesÐ Ä Ðand€that€substantial€harm€would€result€to€the€child€if€the€child€was€placed€in€Father's€custody.€€TheÐ ° Ðgrandmother€does€not€dispute€the€Trial€Court's€ultimate€decision,€but€she€contends€that€the€TrialÐ œì ÐCourt€only€had€to€inquire€as€to€whether€a€material€change€of€circumstances€had€occurred€and€did€notÐ ˆØ Ðhave€to€determine€whether€substantial€harm€would€result€to€the€child€if€custody€was€changed.€€WeÐ tÄ Ðaffirm.Ð `° ÐÓÓÓ‘ÓÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ $"t! ÐÓB ÓÌÌòòÔ#† ¼Y©» à XR+ #ÔÔ‡ XR X. ¼Y©ÔÔ_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€D.€Michael,€JÔ#† ¼Y©» à XRè #ÔÔ‡ XR X. ¼Y©Ô.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòÔ% ‡( Ôóó€òòHouston€m.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô%†(³ÔóóÐ è$8 $ ÐÔ#† ¼Y©» X XR_#ÔÔ€ XR X» ¼Y©Ôjoined,€and€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,óó€dissenting.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌEdward€Ô_ÔKershawÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔGreenevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Arthur€Blair.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌJohn€T.€Ô_ÔMilburnÔ_Ô€Rogers,€Ô_ÔGreenevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Marilyn€Ô_ÔBadenhopeÔ_Ô.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÌÌÓ' ÓÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÓÓà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàò òòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€appeal€arises€from€a€petition€for€modification€of€a€prior€custody€decree€enteredÐ `° Ðby€a€North€Carolina€court.€€Plaintiff,€Arthur€Blair€("Father"),€filed€a€petition€for€modification€ofÐ L œ Ðcustody€of€Joy€Badenhope,€his€minor€child€("Child"),€in€Greene€County€Chancery€Court.€€This€isÐ 8 ˆ ÐFather's€second€attempt€in€the€Tennessee€Courts€to€obtain€custody€of€the€Child.€€The€North€CarolinaÐ $ t Ðcustody€decree€granted€custody€to€Defendant€Marilyn€Badenhope€("Grandmother"),€the€Child'sÐ  ` Ðmaternal€grandmother,€and€granted€visitation€to€Father.€€The€Trial€Court€denied€Father's€request€forÐ ü L  Ða€modification€of€custody,€finding€that€Father€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€establishing€that€a€materialÐ è 8  Ðchange€in€circumstances€had€occurred€and€further€finding€that€an€award€of€custody€to€Father€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðresult€in€substantial€harm€to€the€Child.òòò òÐ À  ÐÌà  àà ` àóóó óThe€Child€was€born€in€1989€in€North€Carolina.€€Father€was€never€married€to€theÐ ˜è  ÐChild's€mother,€Susan€Badenhope.€€Ms.€Badenhope€died€before€the€Child€was€a€year€old.€€From€theÐ „Ô  Ðtime€the€Child€was€a€small€infant,€the€Grandmother,€a€Greene€County,€Tennessee€resident,€cared€forÐ pÀ Ðthe€Child€since€the€mother€was€ill€for€months€before€her€death.€€After€the€€mother's€death,€theÐ \¬ ÐGrandmother€filed€a€petition€for€custody€of€the€Child€in€North€Carolina.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àFather,€then€a€resident€of€North€Carolina,€saw€the€Child€for€the€first€time€around€theÐ  p Ðtime€of€the€mother's€death.€€Father€subsequently€demanded€a€paternity€test€which€showed€that€theÐ  \ ÐChild€was€his.€€After€the€Grandmother€filed€her€custody€petition,€Father€and€Grandmother€announcedÐ øH Ða€settlement€agreement€to€the€North€Carolina€court€which€provided€the€Grandmother€with€custodyÐ ä4 Ðand€Father€with€visitation€rights.€€The€parties'€agreement€was€accepted€by€the€North€Carolina€courtÐ Ð  Ðand€entered€in€1993.€€The€North€Carolina€decree€is€not€contained€in€the€record€of€this€matter,€nor€isÐ ¼  Ðthere€any€transcript€of€the€hearing,€if€any,€conducted€by€the€North€Carolina€court€regarding€thisÐ ¨ø Ðmatter.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àFather€married€in€1993.€€In€order€to€be€near€the€Child,€Father€moved€from€NorthÐ l¼ ÐCarolina€to€Greene€County,€Tennessee,€where€the€Grandmother€and€Child€resided.€€Only€one€monthÐ X ¨ Ðafter€the€entry€of€the€North€Carolina€custody€decree,€Father€filed€his€first€petition€in€a€TennesseeÐ D!” Ðcourt€seeking€modification€of€the€North€Carolina€decree.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€although€FatherÐ 0"€  Ðwas€a€fit€parent,€custody€should€not€be€modified€since€Father€failed€to€show€a€material€change€inÐ #l! Ðcircumstances€which€would€have€justified€a€change€in€custody.€€Father€appealed€that€decision€whichÐ $X" Ðwas€affirmed€by€this€Court.€€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€TheÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€Father's€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal.à x à€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àLess€than€4€months€after€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court's€denial€in€1997€of€Father'sÐ ¸'#& ÐApplication€for€Permission€to€Appeal€in€the€first€òòBlair€v.€Badenhope,óó€Father€filed€this€second€petitionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseeking€a€change€of€custody,€the€subject€of€this€appeal.€€In€the€present€case,€the€Trial€Court€limitedÐ )à$( Ðâ âits€scope€of€inquiry€from€the€time€of€the€Trial€Court's€decision€concerning€the€first€petition€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfiling€date€of€Father's€second€petition€in€1998.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Father€and€Step„Mother€testified€that€since€the€TrialÐ ° Ðâ âCourt's€decision€in€1995,€they€have€bought€a€new€home€in€a€subdivision€which€has€other€childrenÐ œì Ðwho€are€close€to€the€Child's€age€and€that€the€Child€has€made€many€friends€in€their€newÐ ˆØ Ðneighborhood.€€Father€has€developed€a€stronger€bond€with€the€Child€since€1995,€and€according€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€Father€and€Step„Mother,€the€Child€has€expressed€an€interest€in€living€with€the€Father€full„time.€Ð `° ÐMoreover,€the€Step„Mother€testified€that€the€Child€asked€the€Step„Mother€to€adopt€the€Child.€€As€theÐ L œ ÐTrial€Court€did€in€the€first€petition,€the€Trial€Court€in€this€matter€found€Father€to€be€a€fit€parent.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€also€heard€testimony€from€Father€that€he€often€requests€additionalÐ  ` Ðvisitation€with€the€Child,€but€that€the€Grandmother€often€denies€these€requests.€€The€Grandmother,Ð ü L  Ðhowever,€allows€the€Child€to€stay€overnight€with€other€relatives€despite€Father's€requests€for€moreÐ è 8  Ðtime€with€the€Child.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àFather's€employment€requires€him€to€travel€out€of€town,€and€he€works€up€to€sixty„fiveÐ ¬ü  Ðhours€per€week.€€Despite€his€work€schedule,€Father€testified€that€he€telephones€the€Child€on€a€dailyÐ ˜è  Ðbasis€and€makes€changes€in€his€work€schedule€so€that€he€can€be€at€home€during€the€Child's€scheduledÐ „Ô  Ðvisitation.€€Father€admitted€that€he€tape„records€some€telephone€conversations€with€his€Child.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðproof€also€shows€that€the€Grandmother€has€placed€time€limitations€on€the€Child's€telephoneÐ \¬ Ðconversations€with€Father.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€testimony€establishes€that€the€Child€loves€Father€and€enjoys€spending€timeÐ  p Ðwith€him.€€The€proof€also€shows€that€the€Child€has€a€good€relationship€with€the€Step„Mother€whoÐ  \ Ðtakes€an€active€part€in€caring€for€the€Child€during€visitation.€€However,€the€Step„Mother€had€someÐ øH Ðsort€of€relationship€during€1995€and€1996€with€another€man,€Larry€Drummy.€€The€Step„Mother€tookÐ ä4 Ðovernight€trips€with€this€individual€and€gave€him€a€substantial€amount€of€money€for€his€rent€andÐ Ð  Ðchild€support€obligations.€€Moreover,€Mr.€Drummy€appeared€at€the€Step„Mother's€place€ofÐ ¼  Ðemployment€in€late€1996€and€caused€a€scene€which€prompted€the€Step„Mother€to€call€the€police.€Ð ¨ø ÐSubsequently,€this€incident€caused€the€Step„Mother€to€lose€her€job.€€In€addition,€the€record€showsÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€Step„Mother€took€the€Child€to€Mr.€Drummy's€home€located€out€of€town€and€introduced€theÐ €Ð ÐChild€to€Mr.€Drummy€and€his€son.€At€trial,€both€the€Father€and€Step„Mother€denied€that€a€sexualÐ l¼ Ðrelationship€existed€between€the€Step„Mother€and€Mr.€Drummy.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€theseÐ X ¨ Ðevents€adversely€impacted€the€stability€of€the€Father's€home€environment.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€its€Order,€the€Trial€Court€found€that€the€Grandmother€has€provided€a€stable€andÐ #l! Ðsecure€home€for€the€Child€and€that€the€Child€and€Grandmother€have€a€loving€bond.€€€The€Trial€CourtÐ $X" Ðalso€found€that€the€Child€is€well„adjusted€and€happy.€€In€fact,€the€parties€stipulated€that€the€Child€isÐ ô$D # Ðan€"outstanding,€well€adjusted€[sic]€happy,€wonderful€child."€€The€Grandmother,€who€is€€divorcedÐ à%0!$ Ðand€a€retired€registered€nurse,€also€provides€a€home€for€one€of€her€other€grandchildren.€€TheÐ Ì&"% ÐGrandmother€placed€the€Child€in€a€private,€Christian€school€where€the€Child€has€excelledÐ ¸'#& Ðacademically€and€where€the€Grandmother€has€taken€an€active€role.€€Also,€the€Trial€Court€found€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Grandmother€is€capable€and€willing€to€foster€and€encourage€a€bond€between€the€Child€and€theÐ ° ÐFather.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€held€that€the€Father€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€showing€a€materialÐ tÄ Ðchange€in€circumstances€since€the€Trial€Court's€decision€on€his€first€petition€in€1995,€and€specificallyÐ `° Ðfound€that€an€award€of€custody€to€Father€would€result€in€substantial€harm€to€the€Child.€€Accordingly,Ð L œ Ðthe€Trial€Court€denied€Father's€petition€to€modify€the€North€Carolina€custody€decree.€€Father€appealsÐ 8 ˆ Ðthis€denial.Ð $ t ÐÌà@))%ìàòòò òDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€Father€raises€the€following€issues:€€1)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€€inÐ Ô$  Ðdenying€Father's€petition€due€to€its€finding€that€the€proof€did€not€establish€that€a€material€change€ofÐ À  Ðcircumstances€had€occurred;€and€2)€whether€the€appropriate€inquiry€to€be€applied€by€the€Trial€CourtÐ ¬ü  Ðis€whether€placing€the€Child€in€the€Father's€custody€would€no€longer€result€in€substantial€harm€to€theÐ ˜è  ÐChild.€€As€for€the€Grandmother,€although€she€does€not€take€issue€with€the€Trial€Court's€ultimateÐ „Ô  Ðdecision,€she€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€applied€the€wrong€standard€to€this€matter€and€should€haveÐ pÀ Ðdetermined€only€whether€the€proof€showed€a€material€change€of€circumstances.Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court's€findings€of€fact€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€review€by€this€Court€withÐ 4„ Ða€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð  p ÐApp.€P.€13(d);€òòAlexander€v.€Inmanóó,€974€S.W.2d€689,€692€(Tenn.€1998).€€As€for€the€Trial€Court'sÐ  \ Ðconclusions€of€law,€this€Court€will€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð øH ÐòòSeeóó€òòGanzevoort€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€appeal€does€not€come€to€us€on€a€clean€slate.€€Not€only€do€we€have€the€originalÐ ¼  Ðdecree€from€North€Carolina,€there€also€exists€the€earlier€decision€of€this€Court€in€the€first€suitÐ ¨ø Ðbetween€these€parties€on€Father's€change€of€custody€request.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€have€an€original€child€custody€decree€entered€by€a€North€Carolina€court.€€Ð l¼ ÐAccording€to€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€and€Enforcement€Act,€Tennessee€courts€areÐ X ¨ Ðdirected€to€recognize€and€enforce€a€foreign€custody€decree.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„227;òò€see€alsoóóÐ D!” Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1738A(a)€(directing€the€new€state€to€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€a€foreign€state's€custodyÐ 0"€  Ðdecrees).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Moreover,€the€Full€Faith€and€Credit€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€directs€thatÐ #l! Ðwe€give€full€effect€to€the€North€Carolina€decree.€€U.S.€Const.€art.€IV,€ðð€1.€€Once€a€custody€decree€isÐ $X" Ð"made€and€implemented,€[it€is]€òòres€judicataóó€upon€the€facts€in€existence€or€reasonably€foreseeableÐ ô$D # Ðwhen€the€decision€was€made."€€òòCrabtree€v.€Crabtreeóó,€No.€E2000„00501„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WLÐ à%0!$ Ð816807,€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€23,€2000)òòóó.€€This€rule€recognizes€"the€importance€of€stability€andÐ Ì&"% Ðcontinuity"€for€the€child.€€òòId.óó€€Nevertheless,€it€is€undisputed€in€this€case€that€the€Tennessee€TrialÐ ¸'#& ÐCourt€has€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€North€Carolina€custody€decree€as€circumstances€and€TennesseeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlaw€require.€€€Ð )à$( Їà  àà ` àThis€case€concerns€the€conflicting€interests€of€the€Father€who€seeks€custody€of€hisÐ ° Ðchild€and€the€Grandmother€who€has€had€custody€of€the€Child€since€the€Child's€infancy.€€TennesseeÐ œì Ðcourts€recognize€that€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€a€right€to€privacy€found€at€Article€I€,Ð ˆØ ÐSection€8.€€òòIn€re€Askewóó,€993€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòDavis€v.€Davisóó,€842€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1992)).€€Based€upon€this€right€to€privacy,€parents€have€a€constitutional€right€to€care€for€their€children.€Ð `° ÐòòId.óó€(citing€òòHawk€v.€Hawkóó,€855€S.W.2d€573,€579€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€inÐ L œ ÐòòAskewóó€held€that:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€light€of€this€right€to€privacy,€we€believe€that€when€no€substantialÐ  ` Ðharm€threaten's€[sic]€a€child's€welfare,€the€state€lacks€a€sufficientlyÐ ü L  Ðcompelling€justification€for€the€infringement€on€the€fundamental€rightÐ è 8  Ðof€parents€to€raise€their€children€as€they€see€fit.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(quoting€òòHawk,€óó855€S.W.2d€at€577).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€Court€in€òòIn€re€Askew€óótreated€the€custody€decree€as€a€òòmodificationóó€of€an€òòinitialóóÐ „Ô  Ðcustody€awardòòóó€and€set€forth€the€standard€for€a€modification€of€a€prior€custody€award€in€a€disputeÐ pÀ Ðbetween€a€parent€and€a€non„parent€as€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€parent€must€.€.€.€simply€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence,€òòchanged€circumstances€showing€that€an€award€of€custodyÐ  p Ðto€the€parent€would€no€longer€result€in€substantial€harm€to€the€childóó.€Ð  \ ÐThis€standard€of€proof€requires€evidence€establishing€thatÐ øH Ðcircumstances,€which€are€relevant€to€the€threat€of€harm€to€the€childÐ ä4 Ðand€which€weigh€against€any€such€harm,€have€òòmaterially€changedóóÐ Ð  Ðsince€the€prior€award€of€custody.€€This€standard€of€proof€furtherÐ ¼  Ðrequires€that€this€evidence,€taken€together€with€all€other€proof,Ð ¨ø Ðestablishes€the€absence€of€substantial€harm€to€the€child€in€the€eventÐ ”ä Ðof€custodial€modification.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌòòIn€re€Askewóó,€No.€02A01„9708„CV„00201,€1998€WL€652557,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€24,€1998),Ð X ¨ Ðòòrev'd€on€other€groundsóó,òòóó€993€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.1999)€(emphasis€added).׃'×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€this€standardÐ D!” Ðrequires€Tennessee€courts€to€engage€in€a€two„part€inquiry:€1)€whether€the€parent€showed€by€aÐ 0"€  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€there€are€material€changes€since€the€prior€custody€determinationÐ #l! Ðrelevant€to€the€threat€of€harm€to€the€child;€and€2)€whether€the€proof€established€a€lack€of€substantialÐ $X" Ðharm€to€child€if€the€custody€of€the€child€is€returned€to€the€parent.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.€€óóÐ ô$D # Їà  àà ` àThis€Court€in€òòAskewóó€also€drew€a€distinction€between€this€standard€and€the€standardÐ ° Ðto€be€applied€in€custody€disputes€involving€two€parents,€holding€that:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€order€to€modify€custody€as€between€two€parents,€the€standard€ofÐ tÄ Ðproof€requires€the€non„custodial€parent€to€establish€changedÐ `° Ðcircumstances€such€that€substantial€harm€to€the€child€would€result€ifÐ L œ Ðcustody€was€left€with€the€custodial€parent€.€.€.€.€€Because€of€parentalÐ 8 ˆ Ðrights,€however,€this€standard€has€no€application€in€cases€wherein€aÐ $ t Ðparent€seeks€modification€of€a€prior€award€of€custody€to€a€nonparent.Ð `` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó,€at€*€4€(citing€òòWall€v.€Wallóó,€907€S.W.2d€829,€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòIn€re€Adoption€ofÐ è 8  ÐFemale€Childóó,€896€S.W.2d€546€(Tenn.€1995)).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòAskewóó€discussed€the€constitutional€rightsÐ ¬ü  Ðof€parents€and€how€these€rights€were€to€be€protected€by€the€court€in€the€context€of€an€initial€custodyÐ ˜è  Ðdispute€between€a€parent€and€a€non„parent.€€òòIn€re€Askew,€óó993€S.W.2d€at€3„4.€€Our€Supreme€CourtÐ „Ô  Ðheld:òòóóÐ pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[I]n€a€contest€between€a€parent€and€a€non„parent,€a€parent€cannot€beÐ H˜ Ðdeprived€of€the€custody€of€a€child€unless€there€has€been€a€finding,Ð 4„ Ðafter€notice€required€by€due€process,€of€substantial€harm€to€the€child.€Ð  p ÐOnly€then€may€a€court€engage€in€a€general€"best€interest€of€the€child"Ð  \ Ðevaluation€in€making€a€determination€of€custody.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(quoting€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€Female€Childóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€548)€(alterations€in€original).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòAskewóó€found€that€this€Court€should€not€haveÐ ¨ø Ðtreated€the€decree€as€a€valid€òòinitialóó€custody€finding€and€reversed€this€Court's€decision€on€that€basis,Ð ”ä Ðòòóóthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€did€not€find€that€the€standard€applied€by€this€Court€in€òòAskewóó€wasÐ €Ð Ðerroneous.€€òòSee€In€re€Askewóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€4„5.€€We€hold€that€this€standard€complies€with€theÐ l¼ Ðprinciples€of€parents'€constitutional€rights€set€forth€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòIn€reÐ X ¨ ÐAdoption€of€Female€Childóó€and€reiterated€in€òòIn€re€Askewóó.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€3„4;€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€FemaleÐ D!” ÐChild,óó€896€S.W.2d€at€548.òòóó€€€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€is€Father's€second€attempt€to€obtain€a€modification€of€the€initial€North€CarolinaÐ $X" Ðcustody€decree.€€The€Trial€Court€in€the€first€case€denied€Father's€petition€for€modification,€and€thisÐ ô$D # Ðdenial€was€affirmed€on€appeal€and€permission€to€appeal€was€denied.€€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€€at€576.€€In€the€instant€matter,€Grandmother€contends€that€the€applicable€standard€is€the€oneÐ Ì&"% Ðutilized€by€this€Court€in€the€first€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó.€€This€Court€in€òòBlairóó€held€that€the€Father'sÐ ¸'#& Ðpetition€should€be€denied€since€the€Father€failed€to€show€a€"material€change€of€circumstancesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsufficient€to€alter€the€North€Carolina€award€of€custody[.]"€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòMatter€of€Parsonsóó,€914€S.W.2dÐ )à$( Ðâ â889,€893€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)).€€€In€light€of€òòAskewóó,€we€must€determine€whether€the€record€reflectsÐ |*Ì%) Ða€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred€such€that€an€award€of€custody€to€the€Father€wouldÐ ° Ðno€longer€result€in€substantial€harm€to€the€Child.€€òòóóÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àFather€contends€that€the€material€changes€which€have€occurred€since€the€decision€onÐ tÄ Ðhis€1993€petition€are:€1)€the€stronger€bond€that€has€developed€between€the€Father€and€Child;€2)€theÐ `° Ðtestimony€from€Father€and€Step„Mother€that€the€Child€has€expressed€a€desire€to€live€with€FatherÐ L œ Ðpermanently€and€to€be€adopted€by€the€Step„Mother;€3)€the€Father's€and€Step„Mother's€new€homeÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhich€is€located€in€a€neighborhood€with€children€who€are€close€€to€the€Child's€age;€and€4)€theÐ $ t Ðdifficulties€that€Father€has€experienced€in€obtaining€additional€visitation€and€other€problems€withÐ  ` Ðthe€Grandmother's€family.€€We€agree€that€most€of€these€events€serve€to€benefit€the€relationship€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€Father€has€with€the€Child€and€indeed,€make€their€bond€stronger.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,Ð è 8  Ðhowever,€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€Trial€Court's€finding€that€aÐ Ô$  Ðmaterial€change€in€circumstances€has€not€occurred€since€the€final€order€in€1995€in€the€first€suitÐ À  Ðbetween€these€parties.€€Further,€we€find€that€these€events€are€not€material€changes€relevant€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðthreat€of€substantial€harm€to€the€child.ò ò€ó ó€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Askewóó,€1998€WL€652557,€at€*3„4.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition,€these€events,€however€positive,€are€not€"material€changes"€since€they€areÐ tÄ Ðnot€unanticipated€changes.€€This€Court€has€found€that€a€modification€of€a€custody€decree€is€warrantedÐ `° Ðupon€a€showing€of€"factors€arising€after€the€initial€determination€or€changed€conditions€that€couldÐ Lœ Ðnot€be€anticipated€at€the€time€of€the€original€order."€€òòHoalcraft€v.€Smithsonóó,€19€S.W.3d€822,€828Ð 8ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(citing€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€940€S.W.2d€at€576)€(òòappl.€perm.€app.€deniedóó,€MayÐ $t Ð15,€2000).€€As€this€Court€found€in€òòBlair€v.€Badenhopeóó,€"[t]he€evidence€that€the€[C]hild€has€grownÐ ` Ðcloser€to€[the]€[F]ather€and€[S]tep„Mother€is€a€circumstance€that€is€hoped€for€in€granting€regularÐ üL Ðvisitation,€not€an€unexpected€circumstance."€€òòBlairóó,€940€S.W.2d€at€576.€€Moreover,€this€Court€hasÐ è8 Ðalso€found€that€proof€that€a€parent€has€a€"more€commodious€or€pleasant€environment€than€the€other"Ð Ô$ Ðis€not€sufficient€to€warrant€modification€of€a€custody€decree.€€òòWall€v.€Wallóó,€€907€S.W.2d€at€834Ð À Ð(citing€òòContreras€v.€Wardóó,€831€S.W.2dò ò€ó ó288€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)).Ð ¬ü ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€if€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€did€establish€a€material€change€inÐ ˆØ Ðcircumstances,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Court's€finding€thatÐ tÄ Ðan€award€of€custody€to€Father€would€result€in€substantial€harm€to€the€Child.€€The€Child€is€nearlyÐ ` ° Ðeleven€years€old€and€has€been€in€the€custody€of€the€Grandmother€since€her€infancy.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ L!œ Ðfound€that€the€Child€and€the€Grandmother€have€a€loving€bond€and€that€the€Child€is€well„adjusted€andÐ 8"ˆ  Ðhappy.€€The€Grandmother€has€done€an€excellent€job€of€caring€for€the€Child,€and€the€Trial€Court€foundÐ $#t! Ðthat€she€was€willing€to€maintain€and€support€the€bond€between€the€Father€and€Child.€€In€addition,€theÐ $`" Ðevidence€in€the€record€before€us€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Court's€finding€that€due€toÐ ü$L # Ðthe€events€occurring€in€1995€and€1996€between€the€Step„Mother€and€Mr.€Drummy,€the€stability€ofÐ è%8!$ Ðthe€Blair€home€environment€was€adversely€impacted.€€Considering€this€finding€of€the€Trial€Court€andÐ Ô&$"% Ðthe€Child's€need€for€stability€and€continuity,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÐ À'#& Ðpreponderate€against€the€Trial€Court's€finding€that€changing€custody€would€result€in€substantial€harmÐ ¬(ü#' Ðto€the€Child.€€òòSeeóó€òòCrabtreeóó,€2000€WL€816807,€at€*€1€(recognizing€the€"importance€of€stability€andÐ ˜)è$( Ðcontinuity"€in€custody€determinations).€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Court's€decision€to€denyÐ „*Ô%) ÐFather's€petition€for€modification€of€custody.€€Ð p+À&* Їò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionóóó óÐ ° ÐÓâoÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€matter€remanded€for€further€proceedingsÐ ˆØ Ðas€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€CostsÐ tÄ Ðof€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Arthur€Blair,€and€his€surety.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE