WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 @ H bP 0PX 0J  0T 0^F 0h 0r 0|~ 0 0 1u 0d U> B)'DCP B AMU*'v~ D3v 0@ A D?T BG AO) 0D D/3 BbHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DPDDD  D Ӏ UH$tttttt3|x- -((3/Q$ !   d 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd dT$C << G<  9p`(Arial !  "  ''   YYY FILED'XJuly29,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h%%%%'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    Ty  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dTC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . "       ` XX"\RA'\ћR&($A1-j|`  `@R LORRILISACAPPS,   )      )#` XxX# Plaintiff/Appellant, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019710CV00606v.  )  ) WilsonCircuitDAVIDWAYNECAPPS, ) No.1566  ) Defendant/Appellee. )  )  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORWILSONCOUNTYATLEBANON,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEBOBBYCAPERS,JUDGE ` XX   ANTHONYE.HAGAN107S.CumberlandLebanon,Tennessee37087 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTCONNIEREGULI353WimpoleDriveNashville,Tennessee37211 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED7f[XXdXXd7     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  "OPINION  #` ` X#" Theonlyissueonappealinthisdivorcecaseiswhetherornotthetrialcourterredinawardingcustodyofthesevenyearolddaughterofthepartiestothehusbandratherthantothewife. DavidWayneCappsandLorriLisaBarrettCappsmarriedinWilsonCounty,Tennessee,February14,1982.DavidCappsisnowagefortyandLorriCappsisage38.Theonlychildofthemarriage,HeatherGraceCapps,wasbornApril27,1990andthesepartiesseparatedonFebruary21,1997. Thereislittlefactualdisputeinthecase.DavidCappsworkedfulltimeasamachinistforWrightIndustriesandLorriCappsworkedparttimeandwastheprimarycaregiverfortheparties'minorchild.Thus,Davidwastheprimarybreadwinnerforthefamily,andLorriwastheprimaryhomemakerforthefamily. InFebruary,1997,LorrimetandbecamegreatlyenamoredwithoneJohnnyBailey,whohadmovedtoWilsonCountythreemonthsearlierfromCalifornia.BaileyhadcustodyofhisowntwochildrenbyapreviousmarriageandvoluntarilypaidsupportforathirdchildinCaliforniabornoutofwedlock.BaileyhadahistoryofmarijuanapossessioninCalifornia. UponfilinghercomplaintfordivorceonFebruary27,1997,LorriessentiallymovedintothehousewithBailey,hischildrenandhisdisabledfatherandunemployedbrother.FromthetimeofthedivorcecomplaintHeatherremainedeitherwithherfatherorinthehomeofhermaternalgrandmother,SharonRichards. LorriCappsmakesitquiteclearinhertestimonythatsheseesnothingwrongwithherliveinrelationshipwithJohnnyBaileyandhisminorchildrenandintendstocontinuesame.HerprincipalcomplaintonappealisthatsheisbeingpunishedforhavinganaffairandisforthatreasonalonebeingdeniedcustodyofHeather.Therecordinthiscasedoesnotsupportsuchanassertion. Appellantinsiststhatalloftheevidenceintherecordshowshertobeacaringandlovingmother.ApparentlyshebelievestheburdentorestuponMr.Cappstoprovethatsheisan"unfitparent".Thiscourthassaidinasimilarcontext:8 [13]Aparentseekingcustodyisnolongerrequiredtoprovethattheotherparentisunfitinordertobeawardedcustody.Griffinv.Stone,834S.W.2d300,305(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Harrisv.Harris,832S.W.2d352,353(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Bahv.Bah,668S.W.2dat667.Thus,thetrialcourt'sdecisiontofocusalmostexclusivelyonMs.Gaskill'sfitnesswaserroneous.Incustodyandvisitationcasessuchasthisone,theevidenceshouldhavebeenreviewedtodeterminebothparties'fitnessasacomparativematter.Thus,althoughtheevidencemaynothaveshownthatMs.Gaskillwasanunfitmother,itmay,andinthiscasedoes,indicatesheiscomparativelylessfitthanMr.Gaskilltohavecustodyoftheparties'daughter.Becausethetrialcourtmisappliedthecomparativefitnessanalysis,wemustnowproceedwithourownexaminationoftheevidencegivingdueconsiderationtothetrialcourt'sfindingsoffact.̀ Gaskillv.Gaskill ,936S.W.2d626,631(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). Itisclearfromthisrecordthatthetrialjudgeproperlymadea"comparativefitness"analysisoftheentirecaseandcorrectlyappliedthelawtothefacts. Thiscourthassaid:Ӝ8 Sothattherewillbenomisunderstandinginthefuture,weholdthatitisnotnecessarytofindthatamotherisunfitinordertoawardcustodyofaminorchildtothefather,orforthatmatteranotherthirdpartywhenitisinthechild'sbestinterests.Alltherelevantcircumstancesofthecase,includingthosespecificallyenumeratedherein,shouldbeconsidered,andprincipalresponsibilityforrearingaminorshouldbeplacedwiththepersonmostfittodoso.8 [4]Webelievethatispreciselywhatthetrialjudgedidhereandwhycustodywasawardedtothefather.Thetrialcourtmadenofindingthatthemotherwasunfitand,basedonthistranscript,wethinksuchaconclusionwouldhavebeenunjustified.However,wethinkthetrialjudgewassatisfiedthatfornowthechild'sbestinterestswouldbeservedinthecustodyofthefather,withliberalvisitationtothemother.Withoutquestionthetrialjudgewasconcerned,asarewe,withtheenvironmentinwhichyoungMr.BahwouldbeplacedandthedeleteriousinfluencestowhichhemightbeexposedinthehomeofthemotherofMrs.Bah.Nodoubtthetrialcourtbelievedstronglythattherewasadifferenceinthematurityandemotionalstabilityofthemotherandthefather.Ofcourse,thatcourtisinafarsuperiorpositiontoassessthesequalitiesthanthiscourtbecauseoftheabilitytoviewthewitnessesandassesstheirdemeanor,mannerismsandothervisualandaudiocharacteristicsnotapparentinthetranscript.However,insofarasthesequalitiescanbeassessedbaseduponpastconduct,therecordindicatesthefathertobethemoststableandemotionallymatureparentatthistime. Bahv.Bah ,668S.W.2d663,667(Tenn.Ct.App.1983). TherecordinthiscasedoesnotshowMrs.Cappstobeanunfitparentbutthelawdoesnotrequiresuchashowing.Bothparentsmaybefoundtobefitcustodialparentsbuttheverypurposeofthe"comparativefitness"analysisisnottochoosebetweenthelesseroftwoevils,butrathertodeterminewhichparentcanservethebestinterestofthechild.Thetrialcourthasmadeitsdecisionandourreviewofthatdecisionislimitedbylongsettledrules.Ӝ8 [2]Ourdenovoreviewofthetrialcourt'scustodyandvisitationdecreesistemperedbythewellestablishedprinciplethatatrialcourthaswidediscretioninmattersofcustodyandvisitation.Suttlesv.Suttles,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988);Marminov.Marmino,34Tenn.App.352,238S.W.2d105,107(1950);Grantv.Grant,39Tenn.App.539,286S.W.2d349,350(1954).Thevariousgeneralprinciplesregardingatrialcourt'sprerogativesinthesemattersandourreviewofsameiswellstatedinSuttles:#` ` X#8 8 Althoughwerecognizethatthegeneralruleisthat"thedetailsofcustodyandvisitationwithchildrenarepeculiarlywithinthebroaddiscretionofthetrialjudge,"Edwardsv.Edwards,501S.W.2d283,291(Tenn.App.1973),andthatthetrialcourt'sdecisionwillnotordinarilybereversedabsentsomeabuseofthatdiscretion,"inreviewingchildcustodyandvisitationcases,wemustrememberthatthewelfareofthechildhasalwaysbeentheparamountconsideration"forthecourts.Lukev.Luke,651S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.1983).Inaddition,therightofthenoncustodialparenttoreasonablevisitationisclearlyfavored.E.g.,Weaverv.Weaver,37Tenn.App.195,202203,261S.W.2d145,148(1953). 748S.W.2dat429. Jahnv.Jahn ,932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.App.1996). Theevidenceinthiscasesupportsthedecisionofthetrialcourtandcertainlydoes  notpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtactioninawardingcustodyofHeathertoherfather. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallrespectsaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.  Costsofthiscausearetaxedagainsttheappellant.Ӝ   _____________________________̜   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGECONCUR:__________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGE__________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE 8  "X