WPC  r51Jz8 MO-Nf<'}#\x/SVLmaʨ , F(+X|t}S -GsHDv7F!a/g>Og/' }acb!-9AS$Nxi^*[>^xv/;!|@Y:5dK~":jלќMU.,R̂=}IWfö&jR9eC:|<(fIq'fLwGB~5<5]U)᛭m$,Nuii4yeKwdrfu4O4!DŽ~yaI:kaH 40"wRU2F)# >UNI % 0(w@4 !(0U:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX AQ 0D 0D 0D1 1 D/u B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ e UDPӀn~<$!"#$3|x  !"   X=KXXX HX X=K   Ad FILED X=KX H   November2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. mX X=KAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7.XXdd7ќr (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ r@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@kk%ATJACKSONt (>.*jx` `@EQ` ttx$ tߛPHYLLISRENEEBROWN, h   ) `    `     h   )  Plaintiff/Respondent,   h   )  ShelbyCircuitNo.136582R.D. <     `     h   )VS.   `     h   )  AppealNo.02A019709CV00228  d    `     h   ) CHARLESCHANDLERBROWN,SR.,  )  <     `     h   )  Defendant/Petitioner.   h   )   ______________________________________________________________________________@cc! CONCURRINGOPINION x ______________________________________________________________________________',X` XX'   ` Iconcurintheresultreachedbythemajorityopinion.However,Iwriteseparately d toexpressmyconcernwiththelanguageonpage10ofthatopinionwhichstatesthat, [i]nordertobecompellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody,thechangeofcircumstancesmustbesuchthatcontinuationoftheadjudicatedcustodywillsubstantiallyharmthechild.Iacknowledgethatthislanguageappearsin Wallv.Wall ,907S.W.2d829,834(Tenn.App. t 1995),anopinionofthemiddlesectionofthiscourt.However,Ifurthernotethat Wall cited L!  Contrerasv.Ward ,831S.W.2d288(Tenn.App.1991). Contreras wasaparentalrelocationcase $#t! whichstatedthelongrecognizedrulethat thebestinterestandwelfareofthechildmustbetheprimaryfocusofattention. Contreras ,831S.W.2dat290.Thecourtalsocitedwithapprovalfrom &$"%  Sartophv.Sartoph ,354A.2d467,473(Md.Ct.Spec.App.1976),whereintheMarylandCourtof (#' SpecialAppealsstatedthat [t]hecustodyofchildrenshouldnotbedisturbedunlessthereissomestrongreasonaffectingthewelfareofthechild.Tojustifyachangeincustody,thechangeinconditionsmusthaveoccurredwhichaffectsthewelfareofthechildandnotthatoftheparents. ` In Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.App.1991),theeasternsection 14-1 ofthiscourtnotedthattheparamountconsiderationincustodyproceedingsisthebestinterestofthechildandthat,whentheissueiswhethertomodifyapriorcustodyorder,thecourtneednotrepeatthecomparativefitnessanalysissetforthin Bahv.Bah ,668S.W.2d663(Tenn.App.1983). l727 Instead,thetrialcourtinamodificationproceedingmustfindamaterialchangeincircumstances D949 compellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody.Thecourtwentontosaythat [i]tisonlythatbehaviorofaparentwhichclearlypositsorcausesdangertothementaloremotionalwellbeingofachild(whethersuchbehaviorisimmoralornot),whichissufficientbasistoseriouslyconsiderthedrasticlegalactionofchangingcustody. Musselman ,826S.W.2dat924 8  (quoting Ballardv.Ballard ,434So.2d1357,1360(Miss.1983)).  `  ` Oursupremecourtrecentlyaddressedthestandardtobeappliedinmodifyingachildcustodydecreein Aabyv.Strange ,924S.W.2d623(Tenn.1996). Aaby ,whichalsodealtwith   parentalrelocation,cited Musselman forthepropositionthat Tennesseelaw allows custodytobe p changedifthebehaviorofthecustodialparentclearlypositsadangertothephysical,mentaloremotionalwellbeingofthechild. Aaby ,924S.W.2dat62930(emphasisadded).  p  ` Theeasternsectionofthiscourtsubsequentlyhasinterpreted Musselman and Aaby    tomeanthat [t]he Musselman/Aaby testrequiresmorewe must findbehavior...[that] clearly  posits adangertothechildren. Rectorv.Rector ,No.03A01-9604-CV-00123,1996WL539767,  at*4(Tenn.App.Sept.25,1996)(emphasisadded).Idonotinterpret Aaby ,however,toholdthat, X   inordertobecompellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody,thechangeofcircumstancesmustbesuchthatcontinuationoftheadjudicatedcustodywillsubstantiallyharmthechild. ` Citing Wall ,thewesternsectionofthiscourthasheldthatacustodydecisionisnot )$( changeableexceptforchangeofcircumstances,whichisdefinedasthatwhichrequiresachangetopreventsubstantialharmtothechild. Williamsv.Williams ,No.01A01-9610-CV-00468,1997WL @-(, 272458,at*6(Tenn.App.May23,1997); Greenev.Greene ,No.03A01-9503-CV-00091,1996WL /h*. 165098,at*4(Tenn.App.Apr.9,1996).Thissectionalsohascited Musselman fortheproposition 0@,0 that [i]tis only thatbehaviorofaparentwhichclearlypositsorcausesdangertothementalor 2.2 emotionalwellbeingofachild(whethersuchbehaviorisimmoralornot),whichissufficientbasistoseriouslyconsiderthedrasticlegalactionofchangingcustody. Williams ,1997WL272458,at x616 *6(emphasisadded).IacknowledgethatIhaveconcurredinpreviousdecisionscontainingtheforegoinglanguage,butuponfurtherreflection,Ibelievethebetterstandardisassetforthin (:x5:  Stroudv.Stroud ,No.01A01-9607-CH-00291,1997WL266846(Tenn.App.May21,  1997),whereinthiscourtsaid [c]ustody may bechangedifthebehaviorofthecustodialparent p clearlypositsadangertothephysical,mental,oremotionalwellbeingofthechild. Stroud ,1997 P  WL266846,at*7(emphasisadded)(citing Aabyv.Strange ,924S.W.2d623,629(Tenn.1996)). 0   ` AsProfessorGarrettstates, [t]heTennesseeappellatecourtshavecitedmanycriteriaofchangedcircumstances,whichwouldjustifyachangeofcustodyormodificationofvisitationrights.Whenthecasesareanalyzed,onequestionappearscrucial:Isthechildsbestinterestbeingservedbytheexistingplacement?W.WaltonGarrett, TennesseeDivorce,Alimony&Child  Custody 264(1997ed.)(footnotesomitted).Hefurtherlistssome33criteriauponwhichour p courtshavebasedmodificationofchildcustodydecrees. Id .265. P  ` Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(1)(Supp.1998)empowersthecourtstochange @  custody astheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire.Themiddlesectionofthiscourtstatedrecentlythat: Thecourtswillchangeacustodyorvisitationarrangementifthepartyseekingthechangeproves(1)thatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedmateriallyinawaythatcouldnotreasonablyhavebeenforeseenatthetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecision, seeSmithv.Haase ,521S.W.2d49, p 50(Tenn.1975); McDanielv.McDaniel ,743S.W.2d167,169(Tenn.Ct.App.1987),and(2)that P thechildsinterestswillbebetterservedbychangingtheexistingcustodyorvisitationarrangement. SeeHallv.Hall ,No.01A019310PB00465,1995WL316255,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.May25, ` 1995)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). Solimav.Solima ,No.01A019701CH00012, @ 1998WL726629,at*23(Tenn.App.Oct.16,1998). ` AsProfessorGarrettstates, [t]heTennesseeappellatecourtshavecitedmanycriteriaofchangedcircumstances,whichwouldjustifyachangeofcustodyormodificationofvisitationrights.Whenthecasesareanalyzed,onequestionappearscrucial:Isthechildsbestinterestbeingservedbytheexistingplacement?W.WaltonGarrett, TennesseeDivorce,Alimony&Child 0*%( Custody 264(1997ed.)(footnotesomitted).Hefurtherlistssome33criteriauponwhichour ,`'* courtshavebasedmodificationofchildcustodydecrees. Id .265. -@),  `  Iamconcernedthatwehavecreatedtooharshastandardbyholdingthatachangeofcustodywillbegranted only uponashowingthatacontinuationoftheadjudicatedcustodywill 3.2  substantiallyharm thechild.Harmisdefinedas physicalormentaldamage. WebstersNinth p504 NewCollegiateDictionary 554(1990).Icanenvisioncircumstancesinwhichthereisdetermined P726 tobeamaterialchangeofcircumstanceswhichwouldindicatethatachangeofcustodyisinthe 0948 childsbestinterest,butwouldfallshortofacontinuationoftheadjudicatedcustodyresultingin substantialharmtothechild. `     h     ____________________________________ `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE