ÿWPCÀ øÑŒ»€7lï<%;îl¥ß©ó½­Êa@·¢E‘pÈÛÜŸ]ŠQ d!IZô¦/}é)¸Vh:™d¸¬^Rk½Cbò-%™Õ˜_F »Vódy$I¿\8§ `l &؇]>¼8Ò½–ž ä’w¾wU‹Ì±Žºƒ‹à E7¤™Ó&{»…FY `«ø_]ôG[+]CzA¾|î)üÂÿê-ÆÞ’v°³®•¯9Wrú·,›bfÉ/„5&ù¨X‘&×v(·bíób¸¢#XÌÒ—¦¢Vœ3U `¡Xˆ‰ÊÒaøÛ|ŽYâ=ñš‹å ÁNl*WJòeú/™]#Go8÷О[`Iã{‰\øWå™’†˜KxÄ`yzØÍÅÔ²s"ÍYir†œ4}Àñ~ŒëÏ×È1Tx9‘ЯBÓC§ëÛžÜÖµ“Ì…v‘ x¯Êž_L½a%×p˜c-ÍöXzm:Ÿa§‡œÀÚ+ÐØü;µ=tý$cÅ:±Þ ½z€¦­BúÍS™;Ø[Œý¯{û¥Œ_×Y£@šíMÃG'2e§L×Øü–Ã< Š$Âví×Æ©‘Ú5µ&q«YÆãWã}j;üÄY±õÛÑìR²4;i³#Óí£WXl’qãþjb#Á\ % # 0ˆ+ UN³ ^  w z Ò‹ 4] q € m‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular€z-s  ˜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.wptš‚,-xe1C83|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2aë$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê]ò»»Ô d(|3IV$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IV$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Y5»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îB$Y5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Y5»îîB$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€Assigned€on€Briefs€February€22,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XiX»¼Y5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Y5»XXi#ÔCHARLES€KENNETH€BRANCH€v.€VIRGINIA€LOUISE€THOMPSON€Ô‡XiX»¼Y5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Robertson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€€D13168€€€€€Max€Ô_ÔFaganÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€€M2001„01231„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV„Filed€November€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓVirginia€Louise€Thompson€appeals,€pro€se,€the€action€of€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County€onÐ xÈ  ÐMay€2,€2001€that€changed€custody€of€her€two€pre„teenage€girls€from€her€to€their€Father,€her€formerÐ d´ Ðhusband,€Charles€Kenneth€Branch.€€We€affirm€the€action€of€the€trial€court.Ð P  ÐÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Juvenile€Court€Affirmedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Y5»àXi{#ÔÔ‡XiX.¼Y5ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ P ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌVirginia€Louise€ThompsonÔ#†¼Y5»XXiÝ#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼Y5Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð Ä ÐÌLisa€Ô_ÔSherrillÔ_Ô€Richter,€Springfield,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Charles€Kenneth€Branch.Ð œì ÐÓ®ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Y5»XXi.#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼Y5ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Y5»XXiP #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XiX»¼Y5Ôà  àMary€Frances€Branch€and€Elizabeth€Louise€Branch,€the€twin€daughters€of€Virginia€LouiseÐ L œ ÐThompson€and€Charles€Kenneth€Branch,€were€born€August€24,€1994.€€On€August€1,€1995,€theÐ 8!ˆ  ÐJuvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County€entered€a€Consent€Decree€finding€that€the€children€wereÐ $"t! Ðdependent€and€neglected€and€that€they€suffered€from€shaken€baby€syndrome.€€The€juvenile€courtÐ #`" Ðfurther€found€that€Michelle€Ô_ÔMinnisÔ_Ô€(the€twinsðð€babysitter),€Ben€Thompson€(Virginia€ThompsonððsÐ ü#L# Ðminor€son€from€a€previous€marriage),€and€Virginia€Thompson€each€had€access€to€the€twins€when€theÐ è$8 $ Ðinjury€occurred.€€No€determination€was€made€as€to€who€caused€the€injury,€and€upon€a€finding€thatÐ Ô%$!% ÐVirginia€Thompson€posed€no€threat€to€the€children,€custody€of€them€was€immediately€returned€toÐ À&"& ÐVirginia€Thompson.€€The€Consent€Decree€provided€in€part:Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòà8  àà ` àóó3.€€Virginia€Thompson€will€closely€monitor€contact€between€her€son,€BenÐ „)Ô$) ÐThompson,€and€her€daughters,€Mary€F.€Branch€and€Elizabeth€L.€Branch.€€BenÐ p*À%* ÐThompson€will€continue€in€therapy€for€so€long€as€his€mother€and€therapist€deem€thisÐ \+¬&+ Ðappropriate.€€Ben€Thompson€will€not€be€permitted€unsupervised€access€to€theÐ H,˜', Ðchildren.òòÐ#4-„(-Ð Ð ý: #ÐÔ_Ôà8  àóóà ` à4.€€The€Department€of€Human€Services€and€Virginia€Thompson€jointly€agreeÐ ° Ðto€supervise€any€child€care€arrangements€made€by€Virginia€Thompson.€€TheÐ œì ÐDepartment€of€Human€Services€shall€be€responsible€to€inform€Ms.€Thompson€of€anyÐ ˆØ Ðadverse€knowledge€it€gains€concerning€any€child€care€provider€for€the€children€andÐ tÄ Ðwill€take€reasonable€precautions€to€assure€the€safety€of€the€children€at€any€licensedÐ `° Ðday€care€facility.€€The€Department€of€Human€Services€will€make€visits€with€theÐ L œ Ðregular€child€care€provider€at€least€quarterly€in€order€to€comply€with€this€provision.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐVirginia€Thompson€will€seek€the€advice€of€a€DHS€Social€Worker€any€time€she€hasÐ $ t Ðany€suspicion€that€the€girls€are€being€either€neglected€or€abused.€€The€DHS€willÐ  ` Ðmonitor€the€family€for€a€period€of€one€year€from€the€date€of€this€Decree.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€juvenile€courtððs€Consent€Decree€contains€a€hand€written€addition€by€Judge€Glover,€who€signedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€decree,€which€reads:òòÐ À  ÐÌà8  àà ` àóó7.€€The€Mother,€Virginia€Thompson,€is€not€to€remove€the€aforesaid€minorÐ ˜è  Ðchildren€from€the€State€of€Tennessee€until€a€final€hearing€is€held€in€pending€divorceÐ „Ô  Ðaction.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€an€essentially€parallel€proceeding€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Robertson€County,€Tennessee,Ð H˜ ÐMs.€Thompson€and€Mr.€Branch€were€divorced€by€Decree€entered€October€21,€1996.€€In€this€circuitÐ 4„ Ðcourt€Decree,€sole€care,€custody€and€control€of€the€twin€children,€Mary€and€Elizabeth,€was€vestedÐ  p Ðin€Ms.€Thompson.€€The€history€of€this€proceeding€is€recited€in€the€judgment€of€this€Court€from€anÐ  \ Ðappeal€of€the€Robertson€County€Circuit€Court€proceedings.Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€March€3,€1998,€Mother€filed€a€petition€for€contempt€alleging€that€FatherÐ Ð  Ðfailed€to€pay€child€support€of€$570.00€per€month€and€medical€expenses€as€ordered€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€final€decree€of€divorce.€€In€her€petition,€Mother€also€sought€a€judgment€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðamount€of€$2,500.00€for€furniture€which€she€alleged€Father€allowed€to€ruin.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFather€filed€an€answer€and€counter€petition€denying€that€he€was€in€contemptÐ l¼ Ðof€court€and€averring€that€since€the€entry€of€the€final€decree€of€divorce,€there€had€beenÐ X ¨ Ða€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances€which€justified€reducing€childÐ D!” Ðsupport.€€Father€further€averred€that€since€the€entry€of€the€final€decree€of€divorce,Ð 0"€  Ðthere€had€been€substantial€and€material€changes€of€circumstance€such€that€a€changeÐ #l! Ðof€sole€custody€from€Virginia€Thompson€to€Charles€Branch€is€in€the€best€interests€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€minor€children.€€Father€alleged€specifically€that€Mother€continued€to€allow€BenÐ ô$D # ÐThompson€unrestricted€access€to€the€children€in€direct€violation€of€the€juvenileÐ à%0!$ Ðcourtððs€consent€decree€of€August€1,€1995.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€trial€on€the€merits€was€held€on€August€13,€1998.€€Mother€testified€that€sheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlived€in€Nashville€and€was€employed€with€the€Robertson€County€Board€of€EducationÐ )à$( Ðas€a€teacher.€€She€stated€that€the€children€exhibited€abnormal€behavior€after€theirÐ |*Ì%) Ðvisits€with€Father,€who€resides€in€Port€St.€Joe,€Florida.€€Father€testified€that€heÐ h+¸&* Ðcomplained€to€DHS€because€Mother€continued€to€allow€Ben€Thompson€to€remainÐ ° Ðunsupervised€with€the€minor€children,€in€violation€of€the€consent€decree€issued€byÐ œì ÐRobertson€County€Juvenile€Court.€€Father€testified€that€he€requested€a€change€inÐ ˆØ Ðcustody€because€Mother€had€shown€a€strong€desire€to€prevent€him€and€his€familyÐ tÄ Ðmembers€from€seeing€the€children.€€Father€also€testified€that€he€felt€that€the€childrenððsÐ `° Ðhealth€and€safety€were€being€jeopardized€and€that€his€family€could€provide€a€moreÐ L œ Ðnurturing€environment.€€He€stated€that€he€was€concerned€that€the€children€would€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðabused€by€the€perpetrator€that€abused€them€before.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€October€16,€1998,€the€court€entered€an€order€incorporating€the€courtððsÐ ü L  Ðfinding€of€facts,€as€stated€from€the€bench,€which€found€a€material€change€ofÐ è 8  Ðcircumstance€and€changed€sole€custody€of€the€children€from€Mother€to€Father.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€further€ordered€that€Mother€pay€child€support€to€Father€in€the€amount€ofÐ À  Ð$659.00€per€month,€except€during€her€summer€visitation€period.€€The€court€did€notÐ ¬ü  Ðfind€Father€in€contempt€for€non„payment€of€the€medical€expenses€paid€by€Mother,Ð ˜è  Ðbecause€of€her€failure€to€establish€the€expense.€€The€court€ordered€Mother€to€provideÐ „Ô  Ðmajor€medical€insurance€for€the€minor€children€and€ordered€that€the€parties€split€anyÐ pÀ Ðexpenses€not€covered.€€Father€was€awarded€a€judgment€of€one„half€of€his€entireÐ \¬ Ðattorneys€fee€in€the€cause,€in€the€amount€of€$1,732.50.€€Father€was€ordered€to€payÐ H˜ ÐMother€$300.00€per€month€toward€his€back€due€child€support€obligation€ofÐ 4„ Ð$3,210.00,€with€accrued€simple€interest€at€the€rate€of€12%€per€annum€beginningÐ  p ÐSeptember€1,€1998.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBranch€v.€Thompsonóó,€No.€M1998„00511„COA„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€442,€at€*4„6€(Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCt.€App.€July€7,€2000).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€the€October€16,€1998€Order€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Robertson€County,€custodyÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€twin€girls€was€transferred€to€Charles€Kenneth€Branch,€then€living€in€Florida.€€Virginia€LouiseÐ ”ä ÐThompson€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€Robertson€County€Circuit€Court€asserting€that€the€circuitÐ €Ð Ðcourt€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€make€a€custodial€determination.€€Finding€that€TennesseeÐ l¼ ÐCode€Annotated€section€37„1„103€vested€exclusive€original€jurisdiction€relative€to€the€custody€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðtwin€girls€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County,€this€Court€held€the€Robertson€Circuit€CourtÐ D!” ÐDecree€of€October€16,€1998,€transferring€custody€of€the€twins€to€the€Father,€to€be€void€and,€thereby,Ð 0"€  Ðreversed€the€Order€of€the€circuit€court€holding:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà ` àAccordingly,€the€order€as€it€deals€with€custody€and€the€obligations€imposedÐ ô$D # Ðupon€Mother€as€the€non„custodial€parent€is€vacated.€€The€previous€order€of€the€circuitÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€establishing€the€obligations€of€Father€as€the€noncustodial€parent€shall€remainÐ Ì&"% Ðin€effect.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€circuit€court€for€such€further€proceedings€asÐ ¸'#& Ðare€necessary.€€The€question€of€custody€remains€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€RobertsonÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCounty.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòThompsonóó,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€442,€at€*€12.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àFollowing€the€judgment€of€this€Court€of€July€7,€2000€holding€that€the€Robertson€CountyÐ ° ÐCircuit€Court€had€no€subject€matter€jurisdiction€as€to€custody€of€the€twin€girls,€on€July€14,€2000,Ð œì ÐCharles€Branch€filed€a€Petition€for€Custody€of€the€children€in€the€Robertson€County€Juvenile€Court.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€matter€was€tried€before€the€Robertson€County€Juvenile€Court€on€January€21,€2001,€February€8,Ð tÄ Ð2001,€and€March€2,€2001€resulting€in€an€Order€of€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County€of€MayÐ `° Ð2,€2001€changing€custody€of€the€twin€girls€from€Thompson€to€Branch.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àSo€it€is€that€these€twin€girls€were€in€the€custody€of€their€Mother€from€the€time€of€the€AugustÐ $ t Ð1,€1995€Consent€Order€in€the€Robertson€County€Juvenile€Court€until€the€October€16,€1998€judgmentÐ  ` Ðof€the€Robertson€County€Circuit€Court,€after€which€they€were€in€the€custody€of€the€Father€in€FloridaÐ ü L  Ðuntil€the€July€7,€2000€Opinion€of€this€Court€declaring€the€October€16,€1998€judgment€of€the€CircuitÐ è 8  ÐCourt€of€Robertson€County€to€be€void€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€Custody€then€revertedÐ Ô$  Ðback€to€the€Mother€pursuant€to€the€August€1,€1995€Consent€Order€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€RobertsonÐ À  ÐCounty.€€They€were€then€returned€to€the€Father€pursuant€to€the€Robertson€County€Juvenile€CourtÐ ¬ü  ÐOrder€of€May€2,€2001.€€It€is€from€this€Robertson€County€Juvenile€Court€Order€of€May€2,€2001€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Mother€now€timely€appeals.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAppellant,€in€her€pro€se€appeal,€asserts€eight€issues€for€appellate€review,€to„wit:Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àI.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€determineÐ 4„ Ðissues€of€support€and€visitation.Ð p` x` x ÐÌà  àII.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€violated€Motherððs€procedural€due€processÐ øH Ðrights€on€August€3,€2000.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà  àIII.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€and€the€State€of€Tennessee€violated€MotherððsÐ ¼  Ðliberty€rights€on€August€3,€2000.Шø` x` x ÐÌà  àIV.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ignoring€the€appellate€court€decisionÐ €Ð Ðof€July€7,€2000.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà  àV.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Motherððs€Motion€for€aÐ D!” ÐChange€of€Venue.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àVI.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€and€abused€its€discretion€in€its€apparentÐ $X" Ðpunitive€change€of€custody€from€Mother€to€Father.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àVII.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€applying€the€supportÐ Ì&"% Ðguidelines.и'#&` x` x ÐÌà  àVIII.à8 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€and€abused€its€discretion€in€re„openingÐ )à$( Ðthe€1995€Petition€for€Dependency/Neglect.€Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà  àThe€issues€on€appeal€asserted€by€Mother€have€little€relevance€to€the€controlling€issue€beforeÐ ° Ðthe€Court.€€That€issue€is€the€subject€matter€jurisdiction€of€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€CountyÐ œì Ðto€address€the€issues€set€forth€in€the€Petition€for€Custody€of€the€minor€children€filed€by€the€FatherÐ ˆØ Ðon€July€14,€2000€in€the€Robertson€County€Juvenile€Court€and€the€Answer€of€the€Mother€thereto€filedÐ tÄ ÐAugust€2,€2000.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThis€Court,€in€the€appeal€by€the€Mother€from€the€judgment€of€the€circuit€court€of€October€16,Ð 8 ˆ Ð1998,€declared€that€Order€to€be€void€as€to€matters€of€custody€because€the€Robertson€County€JuvenileÐ $ t ÐCourt€had€exclusive€jurisdiction€as€to€custody€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€37„1„103.€Ð  ` ÐAny€further€effort€by€either€of€the€parties€to€address€matters€of€custody€of€the€twin€girls€in€the€circuitÐ ü L  Ðcourt€would€have€been€futile.€€The€July€7,€2000€judgment€of€this€Court,€appeal€thereof€never€havingÐ è 8  Ðbeen€sought€in€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€is€the€law€of€the€case.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà ` àUnder€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine,€an€appellate€courtððs€decision€on€an€issueÐ ¬ü  Ðof€law€becomes€binding€precedent€to€be€followed€in€later€trials€and€appeals€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðsame€case€involving€the€same€issues€and€facts.€€òòJones€v.€Jonesóó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€351Ð „Ô  Ðn.€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòCook€v.€McCulloughóó,€735€S.W.2d€464,€470„71€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€1987)€(quoting€òòHolcomb€v.€McClureóó,€217€Miss.€617,€64€So.2d€689,€691Ð \¬ Ð(1953));€1B€James€W.€Moore€&€Jo€Desha€Lucas,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ððÐ H˜ Ð0.404[1]€(2dòòóó€ed.€1995).€€The€doctrine€applies€to€issues€that€were€actually€before€theÐ 4„ Ðcourt,€òòBarnes€v.€Walkeróó,€191€Tenn.€364,€374,€234€S.W.2d€648,€652€(1950),€or€toÐ  p Ðissues€that€were€necessarily€decided€by€implication.€€18€Wright€et€al.,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€4478,Ð  \ Ðat€789.€.€.€.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€application€of€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€to€intermediate€appellate€courtÐ ä4 Ðopinions€does€not€necessarily€depend€upon€whether€the€opinion€has€been€reviewedÐ Ð  Ðby€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€The€doctrine€has€been€applied€to€decisions€thatÐ ¼  Ðhave€not€been€reviewed€by€the€Supreme€Court,€òòBivins€v.€Hospital€Corp.€of€Am.óó,€910Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€441,€447€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€as€well€as€to€decisions€that€the€SupremeÐ ”ä ÐCourt€has€declined€to€review.€€òòLife€&€Casualty€Ins.€Co.€v.€Jettóó,€175€Tenn.€295,€299,Ð €Ð Ð133€S.W.2d€997,€998„99€(1939);€òòState€ex€rel.€Kirkpatrick€v.€Tiptonóó,€670€S.W.2d€224,Ð l¼ Ð226€&€n.€5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€òòS.M.R.€Enters.€v.€Southern€Haircutters,€Inc.óó,€662Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€944,€950€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòLadd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.,€Ltd.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€90„91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThis€Court,€in€its€July€7,€2000€opinion,€ruled€only€on€subject€matter€jurisdiction€holding€thatÐ ô$D # Ðall€other€issues€on€appeal€were€rendered€moot€by€the€holding€that€the€circuit€court€had€no€subjectÐ à%0!$ Ðmatter€jurisdiction€to€make€a€custodial€determination.€€Yet,€the€final€paragraph€of€the€July€7,€2000Ð Ì&"% Ðopinion€is€some€what€confusing€in€stating€that€ð ðthe€previous€order€of€the€circuit€court€establishingÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€obligations€of€the€Father€as€the€non„custodial€parent€shall€remain€in€effect.ðð€€This,€apparently,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðhas€reference€to€the€provisions€of€the€divorce€decree€entered€in€the€Robertson€County€Circuit€CourtÐ )à$( Ðâ âon€October€21,€1996.€€The€case€was€thereupon€remanded€to€the€only€court€from€which€the€appeal€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðperfected,€namely€the€Circuit€Court€of€Robertson€County.€€The€opinion€then€plainly€says€ð ðtheÐ ° Ðquestion€of€custody€remains€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àThe€concept€of€ð ðcustodyðð€connotes€a€complex€bundle€of€rights€andÐ tÄ Ðobligations€arising€from€the€parent„child€relationship.€€2€Homer€H.€Clark,€òòThe€LawÐ `° Ðof€Domestic€Relations€in€the€United€Statesóó€ðð€20.2,€at€481€(2d€ed.€1987)€(ð ðClarkðð).€Ð L œ ÐThese€rights€and€obligations€are€extensive€and€operate€against€the€state€and€third„Ð 8 ˆ Ðpersons.€€òòSee€óóKatherine€T.€Bartlett,€òòRethinking€Parenthood€as€an€Exclusive€Status:€Ð $ t ÐThe€Need€for€Legal€Alternatives€When€the€Premise€of€the€Nuclear€Family€HasÐ  ` ÐFailedóó,€70€Va.L.Rev.€879,€884€(1984)€(ð ðBartlettðð).€€They€include€the€obligation€toÐ ü L  Ðraise€and€support€the€child€and€the€right€to€make€fundamental€decisions€about€theÐ è 8  Ðchildððs€welfare,€including€the€childððs€education,€religious€training,€discipline,€andÐ Ô$  Ðmedical€care.€€òòSee€Trompeter€v.€Trompeteróó,€218€Kan.€535,€545€P.2d€297,€301€(1976);Ð À  ÐòòTaylor€v.€Tayloróó,€306€Md.€290,€508€A.2d€964,€967€(1986);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€37„1„Ð ¬ü  Ð102(b)(7),€„140€(1991).Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àParents€share€these€custodial€rights€and€obligations€in€the€context€of€anÐ pÀ Ðongoing€marriage.€€òòSee€2€Child€Custody€&€Visitation€Law€and€Practiceóó€ðð€10.03[1]Ð \¬ Ð(MB€1993).€€Divorce,€however,€requires€the€courts€to€allocate€these€rights€andÐ H˜ Ðobligations€between€the€parents.€€The€precise€scope€and€nature€of€post„divorceÐ 4„ Ðcustody€arrangements€vary€considerably€from€case€to€case€depending€on€the€terms€ofÐ  p Ðthe€custody€decree.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€most€common€post„divorce€arrangement€is€one€in€which€the€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðawards€sole€legal€custody€to€the€parent€with€whom€the€child€or€children€will€reside.€Ð Ð  ÐòòSee€2€Child€Custody€&€Visitation€Law€and€Practiceóó€ðð€10.03[3][c][ii]€(MB€1993);€W.Ð ¼  ÐWalton€Garrett,€òòTennessee€Divorce,€Alimony,€and€Child€Custodyóó€ðð€25„2€(3d€ed.Ð ¨ø Ð1990).€€Under€this€arrangement,€the€parent€receiving€custody€does€not€necessarilyÐ ”ä Ðhave€the€same€full,€exclusive€rights€with€respect€to€the€child€that€a€parent€in€an€intactÐ €Ð Ðfamily€would€have.€€The€noncustodial€parent€usually€retains€several€residual€rightsÐ l¼ Ðand€obligations€such€as€the€obligation€to€support,€the€right€of€visitation,€and€the€rightÐ X ¨ Ðand€obligation€to€direct€the€childððs€activities€while€on€visitation.€€òòSeeóó€Clark€ðð€20.2,Ð D!” Ðat€481;€Bartlett,€70€Va.L.Rev.€at€900.€€However,€in€the€absence€of€specific€provisionsÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€custody€decree,€the€parent€receiving€custody€retains€the€sole€prerogative€toÐ #l! Ðmake€the€significant€decisions€concerning€the€childððs€education,€residence,€religiousÐ $X" Ðtraining,€and€medical€care.€€òòSeeóó€Clark€ðð€20.2,€at€482€n.€11;€Joan€G.€Wexler,Ð ô$D # ÐòòRethinking€the€Modification€of€Child€Custody€Decreesóó,€94€Yale€L.J.€757,€808€(1985).Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRust€v.€Rustóó,€864€S.W.2d€52,€54„55€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àTo€construe€the€July€7,€2000€opinion€of€this€Court€to€divide€custody,€as€so€defined,€intoÐ )à$( Ðcomponent€parts€and€to€require€parallel€proceedings€in€both€the€juvenile€court€and€the€circuit€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðis€not€a€reasonable€construction€of€the€Order€of€Remand.€€In€determining€that€a€change€of€custodyÐ h+¸&* Ðcircumstance€had€occurred€as€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€Petition€of€Charles€Branch€filed€July€14,Ð ° Ð2000€and€the€Answer€of€Virginia€Thompson€thereto,€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County€actedÐ œì Ðwithin€its€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€and,€having€made€such€a€finding,€that€court€necessarily€had€toÐ ˆØ Ðadjust€the€component€parts€of€custody€including€visitation€and€support.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€its€order€of€May€2,€2001,€the€trial€court€made€extensive€findings€of€fact€upon€which€itÐ L œ Ðbased€the€decision€that€a€change€of€circumstances€had€occurred€and€that€the€best€interest€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðchildren€would€be€served€by€changing€custody€from€Thompson€to€Branch.Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€court€has€considered€the€proof€in€this€matter€and€considers€the€criterionÐ ü L  Ðset€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð36„6„106€in€making€a€determination€of€custody.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àUpon€consideration€of€the€testimony€presented€in€this€cause,€upon€the€reviewÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€record€and€exhibits€presented€to€the€court€and€upon€consideration€of€the€issuesÐ À  Ðpresented,€the€court€makes€the€following€findings€and€conclusions:Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€parties€have€consistently€and€relentlessly€exhibited€a€remarkable€andÐ ˜è  Ðconsuming€disdain€for€each€other.€€This€hatred€has€not€only€manifested€itself€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðinteraction€between€the€parties,€but€has€also€inured€to€the€detriment€of€the€childrenÐ pÀ Ðin€this€cause.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€court€finds€that€the€parties€are€similarly€situated€regarding€the€ability€ofÐ H˜ Ðeach€parent€to€provide€love€and€affection€to€the€children,€to€provide€food,€clothing,Ð 4„ Ðmedical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€as€primary€caregiver.€€The€partiesÐ  p Ðlikewise€are€similarly€situated€in€consideration€of€their€respective€homes,€schools€andÐ  \ Ðcommunities.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€any€appreciable€difference€in€either€parentððsÐ øH Ðphysical€or€mental€health.€€The€court€finds€that€neither€parent€presents€a€strongerÐ ä4 Ðargument€than€the€other€with€respect€to€the€continuity€of€residence,€as€the€childrenÐ Ð  Ðin€this€cause€have€suffered€a€considerable€lack€of€continuity€as€a€result€of€theÐ ¼  Ðcontinual€litigation€between€the€parties.€€The€preferences€of€the€children€are€notÐ ¨ø Ðconsidered€in€this€matter€because€of€their€young€age.€€The€home,€school€andÐ ”ä Ðcommunity€records€of€the€children€are€not€compelling€because€of€the€childrenððs€ages.€Ð €Ð ÐWhile€there€has€developed€a€concern€regarding€learning€disabilities,€the€court€doesÐ l¼ Ðnot€find€one€parent€more€or€less€interested€in€this€issue.à È àÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€court€finds€significant€differences€in€the€parties€with€respect€to€certainÐ D!” Ðother€issues.€€Of€particular€concern€to€the€court€is€the€disobedience€to€certain€courtÐ 0"€  Ðorders€and€instructions€exhibited€by€Virginia€Thompson.€€The€court€considers€Ms.Ð #l! ÐThompson€to€be€an€educated,€articulate€and€intelligent€individual.€€However,€she€hasÐ $X" Ðrepeatedly€ð ðmisunderstoodðð€court€instructions€and€orders€and€accordingly€has€failedÐ ô$D # Ðto€comply€with€numerous€court€mandates.€€She€has€left€her€son€Ben€alone€with€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtwin€girls€in€this€case€on€numerous€occasions€since€they€were€infants,€in€contradictionÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€courtððs€mandate€otherwise.€€She€has€left€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€inÐ ¸'#& Ðcontradiction€to€court€orders.€€She€has€failed€to€comply€with€the€courtððs€orderÐ ¤(ô#' Ðregarding€tax€deductions€for€the€children€and€when€questioned€refused€to€commit€toÐ )à$( Ðcompliance€on€this€issue€in€the€future.€€She€has€failed€to€make€medical€payments€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðordered€by€the€court.€€She€did€not€keep€the€Department€of€Childrenððs€ServicesÐ h+¸&* Ðinformed€regarding€her€address€as€instructed.€€She€previously€failed€to€comply€withÐ ° Ðher€responsibilities€as€guardian€for€her€son€Benððs€assets€in€trust,€and€appears€to€haveÐ œì Ðmade€unauthorized€withdrawals€without€the€requisite€court€approval,€and€thereafterÐ ˆØ Ðfailed€to€make€accountings€to€the€court€for€the€actions€she€had€taken.€€Most€notably,Ð tÄ Ðafter€receiving€instructions€from€this€court€regarding€civil€conduct€and€interactionÐ `° Ðduring€the€pendency€of€this€case,€Ms.€Thompson€failed€to€give€the€father€any€noticeÐ L œ Ðof€concerns€about€possible€learning€disabilities€for€the€children,€or€about€scheduledÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðS„Teamðð€meetings€to€address€these€concerns€or€plans€to€consult€a€traumatic€brainÐ $ t Ðinjury€specialist€regarding€these€concerns.€€While€many€of€these€incidents€occurredÐ  ` Ðin€the€past,€the€court€finds€them€relevant€as€they€aggregate€to€exhibit€a€pattern€ofÐ ü L  Ðdisregard€for€the€orders€and€instructions€of€the€court,€which€calls€into€question€herÐ è 8  Ðwillingness€to€follow€future€court€instructions.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€court€finds€that€the€parties€differ€in€their€respective€stability€of€familyÐ À  Ðunits.€€Mr.€Charles€Branch€appears€to€have€a€close€family,€with€his€parents€andÐ ¬ü  Ðsiblings€living€in€the€same€general€location.€€His€family€enjoys€a€close€relationshipÐ ˜è  Ðand€are€involved€extensively€in€interaction€with€the€twin€girls,€especially€the€paternalÐ „Ô  Ðgrandparents.€€Furthermore,€he€appears€to€enjoy€a€good€relationship€with€his€mother„Ð pÀ Ðin„law,€Ms.€Martha€Jo€Johnson€as€do€other€members€of€his€family.€€Conversely,€Ms.Ð \¬ ÐVirginia€Thompson€has€a€strained€relationship€with€her€mother€and€has€at€timesÐ H˜ Ðrefused€to€permit€her€mother€to€have€access€to€the€twins.€€Her€relationship€with€otherÐ 4„ Ðmembers€of€Mr.€Branchððs€family€can€best€be€described€as€adversarial.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€court€finds€by€a€clear€preponderance€that€the€children€suffered€from€childÐ  \ Ðabuse€in€the€form€of€shaken€baby€syndrome€while€in€the€custody€of€the€mother.€Ð øH ÐWhile€there€is€no€finding€as€to€which€of€three€individuals€actually€committed€theÐ ä4 Ðabuse,€testimony€in€this€cause€indicates€that€the€baby„sitter,€Ms.€Michelle€Minnis,€theÐ Ð  Ðhalf€brother,€Ben€Thompson,€and€the€mother,€Virginia€Thompson€were€the€onlyÐ ¼  Ðindividuals€who€had€access€to€the€children.€€Furthermore,€the€testimony€in€this€causeÐ ¨ø Ðindicates€that€the€baby„sitter€was€no€longer€involved€or€provided€any€access€to€theÐ ”ä Ðchildren€after€the€initial€court€proceedings,€leaving€Ms.€Thompson€and€her€son€withÐ €Ð Ðsole€access.€€Furthermore,€Ms.€Thompson€made€indications€to€the€Department€ofÐ l¼ ÐChildrenððs€Services€that€she€suspected€her€son€of€the€abuse,€but€thereafter€failed€toÐ X ¨ Ðcomply€with€court€orders€to€prevent€unsupervised€access€to€the€children€by€her€son,Ð D!” ÐBen.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOf€perhaps€the€most€significance€to€this€court€is€the€consideration€of€eachÐ #l! Ðparentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parenting€responsibilities,Ð $X" Ðincluding€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourageÐ ô$D # Ða€close€and€continuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðparent.€€The€court€finds€the€foul€and€abusive€language€used€by€Mr.€Branch€inÐ Ì&"% Ðconversation€with€Ms.€Thompson€to€be€deplorable,€repulsive€and€indefensible.€Ð ¸'#& ÐHowever,€Ms.€Martha€Jo€Johnson€testified€that€she€observed€Mr.€Charles€Branch€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€ð ðeven€handedðð€with€the€twins,€showing€no€favoritism.€€She€stated€that€Mr.€BranchÐ )à$( Ðhas€allowed€her€to€have€access€and€interaction€with€the€girls,€and€is€considerate€of€herÐ |*Ì%) Ðviews.€€Conversely,€Ms.€Johnson€testified€that€Virginia€Thompson€tries€to€shut€Mr.Ð h+¸&* ÐBranch€out€of€his€daughterððs€lives.€€She€testified€that€Ms.€Thompson€took€the€girlsÐ ° Ðto€the€hospital€on€two€occasions€without€notice€to€the€father,€that€she€doesnððt€wantÐ œì Ðhim€involved,€and€that€she€has€attempted€to€reduce€his€visitation.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àVirginia€Thompson€has€locked€her€older€son€out€of€his€home€on€severalÐ tÄ Ðoccasions.€€She€has€kept€him€out€of€school€to€provide€daycare€for€the€twins.€€She€hasÐ `° Ðabused€her€fiduciary€position€as€guardian€of€her€sonððs€trust€assets.€€She€hasÐ L œ Ðinadequately€supervised€his€interactions€with€the€twins.€€These€issues€call€intoÐ 8 ˆ Ðquestion€the€propriety€of€her€parenting€decisions.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWhile€Mr.€Branch€has€exhibited€substantial€animosity€toward€Ms.€Thompson,Ð  ` Ðthere€is€no€indication€that€he€has€endeavored€to€deprive€Ms.€Thompson€of€access€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€girls,€their€school€or€medical€records€or€other€items€of€interest.€€Conversely,€Ms.Ð è 8  ÐThompson€has€consistently€and€now€continues€to€be€uncooperative€and€to€keepÐ Ô$  Ðinformation€about€the€children€from€their€father.€€As€previously€noted,€she€failed€toÐ À  Ðnotify€Mr.€Branch€of€an€ð ðS„Teamðð€meeting€which€occurred€the€day€before€the€lastÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€appearance.€€€She€has€failed€to€inform€Mr.€Branch€regarding€medical€issuesÐ ˜è  Ðincluding€hospitalizations€and€procedures,€she€has€refused€to€permit€the€grandparentsÐ „Ô  Ðto€facilitate€visitation€by€providing€transportation,€she€has€failed€to€provide€her€phoneÐ pÀ Ðnumber€to€Mr.€Branch€so€that€he€could€call€the€children€and€indeed€maintained€anÐ \¬ Ðunlisted€number€for€some€time,€she€has€supposedly€ð ðlostðð€birth€certificates€and€socialÐ H˜ Ðsecurity€cards€when€queried€by€Mr.€Branch,€she€has€withheld€school€informationÐ 4„ Ðincluding€grades,€teacher€information,€and€school€meetings,€and€she€has€failed€toÐ  p Ðcommunicate€with€Mr.€Branch€regarding€the€childrenððs€medical€bills€and€otherÐ  \ Ðconcerns.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThese€numerous€and€continuing€indices€make€it€apparent€that€Ms.€ThompsonÐ ä4 Ðrefuses€to€foster€any€relationship€between€the€twin€girls€and€their€father,€and€that€sheÐ Ð  Ðthereby€will€continue€to€deprive€them€of€the€benefit€of€an€open€and€affectionateÐ ¼  Ðrelationship€with€their€father€if€she€continues€to€have€custody€of€these€girls.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThere€is€little€to€be€gained€by€an€extensive€recitation€of€the€testimony€in€this€lengthy€record.€Ð €Ð ÐIt€suffices€to€say€that€this€is€essentially€a€swearing€contest€between€Charles€Branch€and€VirginiaÐ l¼ ÐThompson€with€Branch€supported€in€large€part€by€the€testimony€of€both€the€maternal€and€paternal€Ð X ¨ Ðgrandmothers€of€the€twin€daughters.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€this€fact„driven€case,€the€Juvenile€Judge€of€Robertson€County€had€the€benefit€of€being€ableÐ #l! Ðto€observe€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€these€two€parents€and€all€of€the€other€witnesses€who€testifiedÐ $X" Ðin€this€case,€while€this€intermediate€Appellate€Court€is€limited€to€a€review€of€the€printed€transcriptionÐ ô$D # Ðof€such€testimony.€€Consequently,€the€rule€is€firmly€established€that€trial€courts€must€be€able€toÐ à%0!$ Ðexercise€broad€discretion€in€judgments€relating€to€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€and€appellate€courtsÐ Ì&"% Ðare€reluctant€to€second€guess€trial€court€decisions€based€upon€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòGaskillÐ ¸'#& Ðv.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòTown€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Co.óó,€327Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€47,€49€(Tenn.€1959).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€most€egregious€transgressions€of€Ms.€Thompson€involve€her€determined€efforts€to€isolateÐ ° Ðâ âthe€children€from€their€father€and€deprive€them€of€the€benefit€of€an€open€and€affectionate€relationshipÐ œì Ðwith€him.€€Witness€her€testimony€relative€to€the€matter€of€telephone€communication:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ à(By€Ms.€Richter)€€When€the€divorce€was€final€from€Mr.€Branch,€didÐ `° Ðyou€ever€give€him€a€telephone€number€where€he€could€contact€the€girls?ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àHe€had€a€phone€number€because€I€was€living€at€my€motherððs€at€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtime.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àOkay.€€Did€you€have€a€cell€phone€at€that€time?Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€donððt€recall€if€I€had€it€at€that€time€or€not.Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€eventually€obtain€a€cell€phone?Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€did.Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€give€Mr.€Branch€the€cell€phone€number?ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWhen€you€moved€to€Boscobel€Street€did€you€give€him€that€telephoneÐ ˜è  Ðnumber?Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.Ð pÀ ÐÌFurther,€relative€to€summer€visitation,€to€which€Mr.€Branch€was€entitled,€Ms.€Thompson€testifies:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àNow,€on€July€1òòstóó€of€1998€when€Mr.€Branch€came€to€pick€up€theÐ  p Ðchildren€for€the€summer€visitation,€you€purposely€hid€from€him€with€the€children;€didÐ  \ Ðyou€not?ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€wouldnððt€say€purposely€hid€from€him.€€I€came€up€to€Springfield.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àYou,€in€fact,€told€Mr.€€Branch€that€you€were€running€errands,€and€youÐ Ð  Ðwanted€to€take€the€children€swimming;€is€that€not€right?м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.€€I€stated€to€him€that€„€„€well,€I€didnððt€tell€him€I€came€up€toÐ ¨ø ÐSpringfield.€€I€did€say€the€word€errand.€€But€I€told€him€that€the€children€had€asked€toÐ ”ä Ðgo€swimming,€but€I€didnððt€say€I€would€take€them€swimming.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àYou€werenððt€really€running€errands€on€that€day,€were€you,€though?Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€came€up€to€Springfield.€€That€was€the€errand.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDo€you€remember€in€your€deposition€that€you€gave€on€page€55,€lineÐ D!” Ð9:€€ð ðDid€you€tell€him€you€were€running€errands?ððÐ0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àð ðAnswer:€€I€donððt€recall€if€I€did€or€not.€€I€may€have€stated€that€to€avoidÐ #l! Ðtelling€him€that€I€was€consulting€my€attorney.ððÐ$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àDo€you€remember€giving€me€that€answer?Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.Ð à%0!$ Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDo€you€remember€when€I€asked€the€follow„up€question:€€ð ðWhyÐ Ì&"% Ðwouldnððt€you€tell€him€the€truth?ððи'#&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àð ðAnswer:€€I€donððt€think€it€was€his€business.ððФ(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àDo€you€remember€that?Ð )à$( Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àNo.€€But€I€may€have€said€that.€€Oh,€well,€Iððm€sure€I€did,€you€have€it€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€deposition.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àThis€Court€has€held:€€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà ` àThere€are,€however,€additional€allegations€of€changed€circumstances.€€ChangeÐ ˆØ Ðof€custody€is€not€appropriate€as€a€method€to€punish€a€parent€for€failing€to€complyÐ tÄ Ðwith€court€orders€regarding€visitation.€€òòAdams€v.€Cooperóó,€No.€M1999„02664„COA„Ð `° ÐR3„CV,€2000€WL€225573,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€29,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð L œ ÐP.€11€application€filed).€€However,€a€custodial€parentððs€actions€which€interfere€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€relationship€between€the€child€and€non„custodial€parent€may€constitute€a€materialÐ $ t Ðchange€of€circumstances.€€At€the€time€of€the€initial€grant€of€custody,€the€court€and€theÐ  ` Ðparties€anticipate€that€the€custody€and€visitation€arrangements€will€be€complied€with.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€initial€custody€arrangement€is€intended€to€enhance€the€childððs€relationship€withÐ è 8  Ðeach€parent.€€òòAdelspergeróó,€970€S.W.2d€at€484.€€Both€the€courts€and€the€legislatureÐ Ô$  Ðhave€recognized€the€importance€to€the€childððs€well„being€of€maintaining€aÐ À  Ðrelationship€with€the€noncustodial€parent.€€òòWilson€v.€Wilsonóó,€987€S.W.2d€555,€564Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(10)€(Supp.€2000).€€A€custodialÐ ˜è  Ðparentððs€obstruction€of€the€noncustodial€parentððs€visitation€rights€or€conduct€toÐ „Ô  Ðpreclude€continuation€of€the€parent„child€relationship€is€a€sufficient€change€ofÐ pÀ Ðcircumstances€to€warrant€further€consideration€of€a€change€of€custody.€€òòWilson€v.Ð \¬ ÐTittleóó,€No.€M2000„00115„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1207247,€at€*2,€4,€6€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€Aug.€25,€2000)€(òòperm.óó€òòApp.€deniedóó€Mar.€12,€2001).€€Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àMother€herein€characterizes€the€post„1997€incidents€as€ð ða€couple€of€glitchesÐ  p Ðin€visitation.ðð€€Because€we€do€not€agree€with€that€characterization,€we€need€notÐ  \ Ðaddress€the€issue€of€whether€such€ð ðglitchesðð€can€constitute€a€material€change€ofÐ øH Ðcircumstances.€€Whether€a€custodial€parentððs€conduct€has€obstructed€communicationÐ ä4 Ðbetween€the€child€and€the€noncustodial€parent€so€as€to€constitute€interference€with€orÐ Ð  Ðattempt€to€damage€the€parent„child€relationship€is,€ultimately,€a€question€of€fact€toÐ ¼  Ðbe€determined€in€the€context€of€a€particular€case.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌòòRoache€v.€Bourisawóó,€No.€M2000„02651„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€756,€at€*18„20€(Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐCt.€App.€Oct.€10,€2001).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€the€Consent€Decree€of€August€1,€1995,€custody€was€vested€in€Ms.€Thompson.€€In€suchÐ D!” Ðdecision,€the€court€was€entitled€to€assume€that€both€parties€would€act€in€the€future€to€facilitate€theÐ 0"€  Ðcustody€and€visitation€arrangement€in€such€manner€as€would€foster€a€meaningful€relationshipÐ #l! Ðbetween€their€twin€daughters€and€both€the€custodial€and€noncustodial€parent.€€In€the€period€thatÐ $X" Ðintervened€between€the€Consent€Decree€of€August€1,€1995€and€the€judgment€of€the€Juvenile€CourtÐ ô$D # Ðof€Robertson€County€of€May€2,€2001,€the€exact€opposite€occurred.€€As€the€trial€court€held€on€MayÐ à%0!$ Ð2,€2001:€€ð ðThe€parties€have€consistently€and€relentlessly€exhibited€a€remarkable€and€consumingÐ Ì&"% Ðdisdain€for€each€other.€€This€hatred€has€not€only€manifested€itself€in€the€interaction€between€theÐ ¸'#& Ðparties,€but€has€also€enured€to€the€detriment€of€the€children€in€this€cause.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€the€development€of€this€hostile€relationship€and€its€resulting€detriment€to€the€twinÐ |*Ì%) Ðdaughters,€the€trial€court€found€Ms.€Thompson€to€be,€by€far,€the€greater€transgressor.€€The€evidenceÐ h+¸&* Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€this€finding€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€obstructive€conduct€of€Ms.Ð ° ÐThompson€constitutes€sufficient€change€of€circumstance€to€warrant€a€change€of€custody.€€òòSee€WilsonÐ œì Ðv.€Tittleóó,€No.€M2000„00115„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1207247€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€25,€2000);Ð ˆØ ÐòòBourisawóó,€2001€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€756.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€its€best€interest€analysis€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„6„106,€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðfound€both€of€the€parties€to€be€equal€as€to€love€and€affection€for€the€children€and€as€to€the€ability€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðprovide€for€the€needs€of€the€children.€€However,€the€trial€court€affirmatively€found€that€Ms.Ð $ t ÐThompson€manifested€no€intention€of€changing€her€pattern€of€conduct€and€would€continue€to€doÐ  ` Ðeverything€that€she€could€to€destroy€the€relationship€between€the€twin€daughters€and€their€father.€€InÐ ü L  Ðthe€words€of€the€trial€court:€€ð ðThese€numerous€and€continuing€indices€make€it€apparent€that€Ms.Ð è 8  ÐThompson€refuses€to€foster€any€relationship€between€the€twin€girls€and€their€father,€and€that€sheÐ Ô$  Ðthereby€will€continue€to€deprive€them€of€the€benefit€of€an€open€and€affectionate€relationship€withÐ À  Ðtheir€father€if€she€continues€to€have€custody€of€these€girls.ðð€€òòóóThe€evidence€certainly€does€notÐ ¬ü  Ðpreponderate€against€these€findings€of€the€trial€court,€which€findings€support€the€further€finding€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€best€interests€of€the€children€are€accomplished€by€vesting€custody€to€Mr.€Branch.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àMother€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€change€venue€in€this€case€fromÐ \¬ ÐRobertson€County€to€Davidson€County.€€The€decision€of€whether€or€not€to€change€venue€rests€in€theÐ H˜ Ðsound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€on€appealÐ 4„ Ðabsent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòTennessee€Gas€Transmission€Co.€v.€Oakleyóó,€249€S.W.2d€880€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1952).€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€has€not€abused€its€discretion.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àMother€further€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€the€Tennessee€Child€SupportÐ ä4 ÐGuidelines€in€establishing€the€amount€of€her€child€support€to€be€$736€every€two€weeks.€€The€recordÐ Ð  Ðdiscloses€that€the€trial€court€required€each€of€the€parties€to€provide€their€latest€income€tax€returns€andÐ ¼  Ðother€proof€of€income.€€Neither€the€tax€returns€nor€the€proof€of€income€are€preserved€for€appellateÐ ¨ø Ðreview.€€As€such,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðjudge.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€the€final€analysis,€the€guardian€ad€litem€of€these€two€twin€girls€hit€the€nail€on€the€head:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà ` àMy€opinion€about€what€is€in€the€best€interest€of€these€girls€is€that€this€thingÐ 0"€  Ðneeds€to€stop€now.€€Whatever€it€takes,€it€needs€to€stop€now.€€These€little€girls€do€notÐ #l! Ðneed€to€grow€up,€in€my€opinion€as€guardian€òòadóó€òòlitemóó,€in€an€environment€in€whichÐ $X" Ðtheir€two€parents,€the€only€two€theyððre€ever€going€to€have€„€„€they€didnððt€choose€theseÐ ô$D # Ðparents€„€„€these€are€the€two€they€got,€and€my€position€or€my€opinion€is€that€they€needÐ à%0!$ Ðstability,€but€they€need€consistent€coordinated€stability€of€people€working€together,Ð Ì&"% Ðnot€pulling€different€ways€for€different€purposes.€€à p àи'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Robertson€County€is€in€all€respects€affirmed,€and€theÐ )à$( Ðcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary,€consistent€with€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðopinion€of€this€Court.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€against€Virginia€Louise€Thompson,€for€which€execution€mayÐ ° Ðissue€if€necessary.Ð œì ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE