ÿWPCÌ }$ƒsÍæ³ŸÑ*fUÇ(çùºåŒ×êBæjÒ)˜°½zïMV² Ì4Ø–Ã♦™¨GZd®T?ñ&U×úº ç²aˆÃ‘\6'Ò´a:ï•ôûAK*¹%¥þSý1Äy)¿YE²è¯:Ƭ%Ê[ݬlÊé²ø—¯iºjÈ{Wê96|ÝsâêðÖDoºÓúSQ5¤E%Nå0%Ø)v—‹Ùe’.¸wÞFTcŸeðédøß¬ÔŽÇžW(ÁX|+÷Ä.;ÃçÆ/±pJ5F{¹ ÊWëûÓ 'ã#ÖýǃâÙ(&{8=[Àq±.(XÆÂ/%Çaù’üæÿ²“›á‰[Î3̦Ì8ìï¼1á¹<|JH `{Á¬L ì€1óãi"ôäOü¯oTÃ~ì@=Њ·9ÿn¤áã=ø8©Ù¹ãcNø&2,a[C‰ƒ™#¢ÏÌsÿ¿€H`ÌÈõQ‰]U’W„ïÛn}7`Tð !ÈC$|ú•6ÕxéÁëLýu>,½þJÝôEW7  º-Qú.ÏÇåÈÚê—tåžÕöе Áo'ÁWλÿqÓGŒtŒXb6ø¨ìßC½vñPrƒ¯µ]üU‘J¾ # ŒUN— %å 0(ëw@4SgUNvĘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLDÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ UVEWXYDZ[D\]D^en~<$è3|x^(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ^ñ›ñ^ñÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ‡X<6XXXÔòòà@ ìàò òóóIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌIN€THE€MATTER€OF:Ìà  àBIANCA€ARNESHE€ASKEW,à À à)Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌDOROTHY€LEWIS,à  àà h àà À à)Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àPetitioner/Appellee,à  àà h àà À à)à  àFayette€Circuit€No.€3807Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àñ^ñòòóóñ^ñAppeal€No.€02A01„9708„CV„00201Ð ü L  Ðvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌJULIE€DONOHO,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àRespondent/Appellant.à h àà À à)ó óòòÐ ˜è  Ðñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóà@  ìàSEPARATE€CONCURRENCE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ˆÐ \¬ Ðòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ H˜ ÐÌÓÓHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìà  àI€agree€with€theÔ#†XÜçXXX<6†#Ô€result€reached€by€the€majority,€ñ^ñœñ^ñasñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€well€as€the€standard€of€proof€adopted€byÐ øH Ðthe€majority€for€a€non„custodial€parent€to€regain€custody€from€a€nonparent€custodian.€€However,€IÏwrite€separately€to€clarify€my€understanding€of€this€standard€and€its€application€in€this€case.Ìà  àAs€noted€by€the€majority,€the€standard€adopted€in€this€case€is€not€the€same€as€the€standardÏfor€change€of€custody€as€between€two€parents.€€While€both€involve€ð ðchanged€circumstances,ðð€theÏñ^ñœñ^ñstandard€for€a€change€of€custodyñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€as€between€two€parents,€the€court€must€find€a€material€change€inÏcircumstances€ð ðcompelling€enough€to€warrant€a€change€in€custody.ðð€€ò òòòShort€v.€Shortó óóó,€No.€03A01„Ð X$¨" Ð9506„CH„00168,€1994€WL€728521,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€11,€1995).€€The€behavior€of€the€custodialÏparent€must€ñ^ñœñ^ñð ðclearlyñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€ñ^ñœñ^ñposit[ñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€]€or€ñ^ñœñ^ñcause[ñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€]€danger€to€the€mental€or€emotional€well„beingðð€of€the€child.€Ïò òòòMusselman€v.€Acuffó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€923„924€(quoting€ò òòòBallard€v.€Ballardó óóó,€434€So.€2d€1357,€1360Ð ø)H%( Ð(Miss.€1983)).€€Because€of€the€strong€interest€in€stability€for€children,€efforts€by€the€non„custodialÏparent€to€improve€his€or€her€circumstances€are€not€sufficient€to€ñ^ñœñ^ñmeetñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€this€standard:ÌÓÓÔ‡X<6XXXÜçÔà8  àIn€sum,€then,€in€determining€whether€to€change€custody,€the€noncustodial€parent€hasÐ ˜/è*. Ðthe€burden€of€proving€a€material€change€in€circumstances,€that€is,€behavior€by€theÏcustodial€parent€which€clearly€endangers€the€well„being€of€the€child.€€Only€after€it€isÏdetermined€that€such€a€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred€does€the€trialÏcourt€perform€a€comparative€fitness€analysis€to€determine€if€custody€should€beÏchanged.€€Efforts€by€the€noncustodial€parent€to€improve€his€or€her€circumstances€areÏinsufficient€to€support€a€determination€of€material€change€in€circumstances;€they€areÏusually€relevant€only€to€the€comparative€fitness€analysis€performed€after€there€hasÏbeen€a€threshold€finding€of€a€material€change€in€the€circumstances€of€the€custodialÏparent.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòÓÓWilliams€v.€Williamsó óóó,€Appeal€No.€01A01„9610„CV„00468,€Tenn.€Court€of€Appeals,€WesternÐ ¼9 59 ÐSection,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€357€at€*8€(filed€May€23,€1997).Ð ”;ä6; Ðà  àIn€this€case,€however,€involving€a€custody€dispute€between€a€parent€and€a€non„parent,€weÏmust€consider€the€parentððs€fundamental€right€to€raise€the€child.€€ò òòòSee€In€re€Adoption€of€Female€Childó óóó,Ð ˆØ Ð896€S.W.2d€546,€548€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€majority€in€this€case€holds€that€the€non„custodial€parentÏmust€establish€ð ðchanged€circumstances€showing€that€an€award€of€custody€ñ^ñœñ^ñtoñ^ñ›ñ^ññ^ññ^ñ€the€parent€would€noÏlonger€result€in€substantial€harm€to€the€child.ðð€€The€majority€breaks€this€into€two€ñ^ñœñ^ñprongs:ñ^ñ›ñ^ññ^ññ^ñ€establishingÏð ðchanged€circumstances,ðð€and€then€demonstrating€ð ðthe€absence€of€substantial€harm€to€the€child€inÏthe€event€of€custodial€modification.ððÌà  àTo€clarify,€it€is€my€understanding€that€ð ðchanged€circumstancesðð€in€this€context€would€meanÏestablishing€that€the€reason€for€the€initial€custody€award€to€the€non„parent€has€been€remedied.€€OnceÏthis€is€established,€in€determining€whether€substantial€harm€would€result€from€a€change€in€custody,Ïthe€Court€would€consider;€ò òòòinter€aliaó óóó:€(1)€the€non„custodial€parentððs€efforts€to€maintain€a€relationship€Ð  p Ðwith€the€child€and€support€the€child€financially,€(2)€the€custodial€non„parentððs€cooperation€withÏvisitation€and€the€parentððs€efforts€to€maintain€a€relationship€with€the€child,€(3)€circumstances€in€theÏhome€atmosphere€of€either€the€custodial€non„parent€or€the€noncustodial€parent€which€could€beÏdetrimental€to€the€child,€(4)€any€special€needs€of€the€child,€and€(5)€the€length€of€time€the€child€hasÏlived€with€the€custodial€non„parent.€€The€Court€must€weight€the€fundamental€right€of€the€parent€toÏraise€the€child€against€the€childððs€need€for€stability€and€continuity.Ìà  àIn€this€case,€the€majority€states€that€ð ðthe€only€factual€basis€upon€which€Donoho€contendsÏððchanged€circumstancesðð€was€established€is€Donohoððs€contention€that€Lewis€failed€to€cooperate€withÏDonoho€in€arranging€court€ordered€visitation.ðð€€However,€in€the€trial€court€below,€Donoho€presentedÏevidence€that€she€has€a€stable€home€and€supportive€family€members€and€is€able€to€care€for€her€otherÏtwo€children.€€Although€the€record€is€apparently€unclear€about€the€reason€for€the€original€award€ofÏcustody€to€Lewis,€this€evidence€would€tend€to€establish€ð ðchanged€circumstances,ðð€the€first€prong€ofÏthe€standard.€€ñ^ñœñ^ñThe€majority€stañUñtes€that€the€trial€court€never€reached€the€second€prong,€the€issue€ofÏwhether€substantial€harm€would€result€from€a€change€in€custodyñUññVññUñ€HoñUññVññWñ.€€However,€theñWññ^ñ›ñ^ññ^ññ^ñ€other€evidence€citedÏby€the€majority,€Donohoððs€infrequent€visitation€and€irregular€payment€of€child€support,€would€appearÏto€be€relevant€to€ñ^ñœñ^ñtheñXñ€issue€of€ñXññYñ›€record›€prong›€of›€the›€standard,›€whether›€ñYñsubstantialñ^ñ›ñ^ññ^ññ^ñ€ñ^ñœñ^ñharmñZñ.ñZññ\ñ€€ñ\ññ]ññZñ€€€€€ñZññ]ññ[ñ›€would›€result›€from›€a›€change›€in›€custody.›€›€ñ[ñUnderñ^ñ›ñ^ñ€the€circumstances,€I€agree€that€Donoho€overallÏfailed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€satisfy€both€prongs€of€the€applicable€standard.ÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ (:x5: Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.€Ìà  àÔ#†X|…XXXÜnÛ #Ô