ÿWPC* ß[‘¹uOµØ!á ÜqÁ”Ù£Ú*ãÆB6ósTSvHeå°ùÿ£4ßÿ󇔑èÌk¾åýŽÒ•;©“§4¿$›Æ>Œí¸Ö.£Š.`7nƒ¹ÔÝäºSҞŃøµ‹P5)ïäY4½ÀJO¢;¦…ÝJ¿6hÄž·ëÍ‘çu¡—­} B>ÇuÆtEN,²U6{@µúiiÕ¾§ûCª˜L¹ì2îM#•?øJUíš“Ì/ÝxkÀp§•ªÃøúcþ·+PÝa\Ø==qÈ[T™ÇÝÙ(äÁŒ0ôLÄ’Ép×ì–Ž´§ |––ttÄöÐ’ËNÒ&K)‘ƒåŽ<èmt÷OlúêÿN›Ï¯©µð,Qv„"]‹œ@ÌÀ¬ÚÌ0&žeãjÈH®¸"ÀÖ@ÉÂïŸ]í6¾‚Öô£Š$5XŠBûÞÍÈJNówe¼©²j4wÞô¨QF½U2¹K¬ÇSdþS;d1æ'Œ06… 0DªUNîÄ<m AQm ¾ U:                Bü Æ 0Dß 0D# 0Dg g D/« « BÚ D3÷ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Y Z [ \ ]£^_`DaÓ€kìu[%%%&&''((3|xk((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ºÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝGilliam€married€David€Gilliam€in€April€of€1995.€€Jones€married€Christina€Topper€inÐ ° ÐOctober€of€1996. cÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€1998,€the€statute€was€amended€to€add€the€factors€contained€in€subsection€ten.€€òòò òSeeóóó óÐ ° Ð1998€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€1003,€ðð€1.€€We€recognize€that€subsection€ten€was€not€a€part€of€theÏstatute€when€the€trial€court€ruled€on€Jonesðð€petition€to€modify€custody.€€We€nevertheless€discussÏthe€factors€contained€in€subsection€ten€because€we€find€that€they€are€among€the€many€relevantÏfactors€that,€even€under€the€prior€version€of€the€statute,€may€be€considered€when€determiningÏwhat€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xw XXXÔÔ€èV XXw ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xw X èVÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñañ›ñañÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ'°,X°À”X°œX'Óò òñkññañßr€)<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rßñaññkññkññkññkññañ›ñaññkññkñßt€)>.*jx¶ÿ³` `€€@E~c` 8ttxP¶°ð ³ tß›ñkñà@O O ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€ˆÌà@áá$ìàAT€NASHVILLE€ó óˆÐ œì ÐÌà@. . ìà_______________________________________________________ˆÌÌà À à)Ìò òWENDY€ANN€(JONES)€GILLIAMó ó,à À à)à  àBedford€County€Chancery€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðà À à)à  àNo.€17,799Ð ( x Ѐ€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant,à À à)Ð  d Ðà À à)ÌVS.à À à)à  àC.A.€No.€01A01„9801„CH„00031Ð ì <  Ðà À à)Ìò òSCOTT€DAVID€JONESó ó,à À à)Ð Ä  Ðà À à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à À à)Ð  ð  Ðà À à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Bedford€County€at€Shelbyville.Ìò òHonorable€Tyrus€H.€Cobb,€œChancellor€ó óÐ <Œ ÐÌÌÌò òRobert€T.€Carteró ó,€HENRY,€McCORD,€BEAN€&€MILLER,€P.L.L.C.,€Tullahoma,€TennesseeÐ ì< ÐAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant.ÌÌÌò òC.€Kelly€Wilsonó ó,€Shelbyville,€TennesseeÐ  ð ÐAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÐ $h" ÐÌÌà À àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÐ Ü&,"% ÐÌò òCRAWFORD,€P.J.,W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ð ´($' Ðò òTOMLIN,€Sp.€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ð ¤)ô$( ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ ,;|6; ÐñXññZññYñÓ3°,X°` À”X°,X°À”X3ÓñYññZññ[ññZñÓ6°,X°` ¸ À”X°,X°À”X6ÓñZññ[ññ\ññ[ñÓ6°,X°` ‚XÀ”X°,X°À”X6Óñ[ññ\ññ\ñÓ0°,X°` ˜X°,X°À”X0Óñ\ññ]ñÓ  Óñ]ññ^ñÓÓñ^ññ_ñÔ‡ X©XXXÔà ` àPlaintiff€Wendy€Ann€(Jones)€Gilliam€appeals€an€order€of€the€trial€court€removing€theÐ ° Ðpartiesðð€minor€child€from€her€custody€and€placing€the€child€in€the€custody€of€Defendant€Scott€DavidÏJones.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€modification€of€custody.ÌÌà ` àGilliam€and€Jones€were€married€in€April€of€1988.€€Bradley,€the€partiesðð€only€child,Ïwas€born€in€March€of€1989.€€On€May€1,€1992,€when€Bradley€was€three€years€of€age,€the€partiesÏobtained€an€uncontested€divorce.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce,€the€parties€agreed€to€share€joint€custodyÏof€Bradley.€€The€final€divorce€decree,€which€incorporated€the€partiesðð€marital€dissolution€agreement,Ïprovided€that€Bradley€should€reside€primarily€with€Gilliam€but€that€Jones€should€have€liberalÏvisitation€with€Bradley€as€agreed€upon€by€the€parties.€€Gilliam€and€Jones€devised€a€schedule€allowingÏJones€to€have€visitation€with€Bradley€on€Tuesdays,€Wednesdays,€Thursdays,€and€every€otherÏweekend€through€Monday€night.€€Both€parties€remarried€following€their€divorce.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€From€1992€toÐ P  Ð1997,€Gilliamððs€new€husband€David€was€attending€college€on€a€full€time€basis€at€Tennessee€TechÏin€Cookeville.€Consequently,€his€contact€with€Gilliam€and€Bradley€was€limited€during€this€periodÏof€time.€€In€May€of€1997,€David€graduated€from€college€and€began€living€in€Tullahoma€with€GilliamÏand€Bradley€on€a€full€time€basis.€€Three€days€after€his€graduation,€David€appeared€at€the€home€ofÏJones€and€handed€Jones€a€letter€stating€that€his€Tuesday€and€Thursday€visitation€with€Bradley€wasÏeliminated.€€Thereafter€on€June€24,€1997,€Jones€filed€a€petition€to€modify€the€parties€divorce€decree,Ïseeking€sole€custody€of€Bradley.€€After€hearing€the€matter,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€grantingÏJonesðð€petition€and€Gilliam€appeals.€€ÌÌà ` àIn€cases€involving€child€custody,€trial€courts€are€afforded€a€great€deal€of€discretion.€Ïò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Gaskill€v.€Gaskilló óóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101Ð ð-@), Ð(a)(2)€(Supp.€1998)(providing€that€the€trial€court€ð ðshall€have€the€widest€discretion€to€order€a€custodyÏarrangement€that€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€childðð).€€Consistent€with€this€general€principle,€ourÏreview€of€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€in€the€instant€case€is€ò òòòde€novoóóó ó€on€the€record,€accompanied€byÐ 3à.2 Ða€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòSee€Hass€v.€Knightonóóó ó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984);€€T.R.A.P.Ð p5À04 Ð13(d).òòò ò€€óóó óUnder€this€standard€of€review,€we€may€only€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€if€it€isÐ P7 26 Ðcontrary€to€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Massengale€v.€Massengaleó óóó,€915€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð818,€819€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ò òÐ à Ðó óÌà ` àIn€order€to€entertain€a€petition€to€modify€custody,€the€trial€court€must€first€find€thatÏthere€has€been€a€material€change€in€circumstances€occurring€subsequent€to€the€courtððs€initial€custodyÏdetermination.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Massengaleó óóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€819€(citing€ò òòòDailey€v.€Daileyóóó ó,€635€S.W.2d€391,Ð `  Ð393€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€If€the€court€finds€that€there€has,€in€fact,€been€a€material€change€inÏcircumstances,€it€then€seeks€to€devise€a€custody€arrangement€that€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€Ïòòò òSee,€e.g.,€Varley€v.€Varleyóóó ó,€934€S.W.2d€659,€665€(Tenn.€App.€1996)(citing€òòò òKoch€v.€Kochóóó ó,€874Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1993));€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106€(Supp.€1998).€€In€determiningÏwhat€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child,€the€court€will€assess€the€comparative€fitness€of€the€partiesÏseeking€custody€in€light€of€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€case.€€ò òòòSee€Ruyle€v.€Ruyleóóó ó,€928€S.W.2dÐ P  Ð439,€442€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€òòò òMatter€of€Parsonsóóó ó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àThus,€in€the€instant€case,€we€must€first€consider€whether€there€has€been€a€materialÏchange€in€circumstances€justifying€a€modification€of€the€partiesðð€existing€custody€arrangement.€€AÏmaterial€change€in€circumstances€may€be€caused€by€events€occurring€subsequent€to€the€initialÏcustody€determination€or€changed€conditions€that€could€not€be€anticipated€at€the€time€of€the€originalÏorder.€€òòò òSee€Blair€v.€Badenhopeóóó ó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576€(Tenn.€App.€1996)(citing€òòò òDalton€v.€Daltonó óóó,Ð p&À!$ Ð858€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€App.€1993)).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€parties€initially€agreed€on€a€jointÏcustody€arrangement€under€which€Bradley€would€reside€primarily€with€Gilliam€but€would€stay€withÏJones€on€Tuesdays,€Wednesdays,€Thursdays,€and€every€other€weekend€until€Monday€evening.€€ItÏappears€that€this€arrangement€worked€relatively€well€until€May€of€1997€when€Gilliam,€through€herÏnew€husband,€informed€Jones€that€she€would€no€longer€allow€Bradley€to€visit€him€on€Tuesdays€andÏThursdays.€€Following€this€incident,€the€level€of€cooperation€between€the€parties€decreased.€€TheÏparties€no€longer€communicated€directly€with€each€other€as€they€had€done€in€the€past.€€Rather,ÏGilliamððs€new€husband€spoke€with€Jones€on€behalf€of€his€wife€regarding€matters€involving€Bradley.€ÏBoth€parties€appear€to€concede€that,€for€whatever€reason,€the€custody€arrangement€that€they€hadÏagreed€to€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€was€no€longer€working€out.€€As€we€have€previously€held,€the€factÏthat€a€once€satisfactory€joint€custody€arrangement€has€become€unworkable€can€constitute€a€materialÐ ;`6: Ðchange€of€circumstances.€€ò òòòSee€Daltonóóó ó,€858€S.W.2d€at€326€(citing€òòò òDodd€v.€Doddóóó ó,€737€S.W.2d€286,Ð ° Ð290€(Tenn.€App.€1987));€òòò òLong€v.€Croxdaleóóó ó,€No.€03A01„9801„CH„00007,€1998€WL€481976,€at€*2Ð à Ðn.1€(Tenn.€App.€Aug.€18,€1998).€€Thus,€because€the€partiesðð€divorce€decree€did€not€anticipate€thatÏjoint€custody€would€become€unworkable,€we€find€that€there€has€been€a€material€change€inÏcircumstances€allowing€the€trial€court€to€reexamine€its€prior€custody€order.ÌÌà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€it€is€in€Bradleyððs€best€interest€to€remove€him€from€the€custody€of€Gilliam€and€place€him€in€theÏcustody€of€Jones.€€The€criteria€for€modifying€custody€decrees€are€substantially€the€same€criteria€uponÏwhich€custody€decrees€are€originally€made.€€W.€Walton€Garrett,òòò ò€Tennessee€Divorce,€Alimony€andÐ à ÐChild€Custodyóóó ó€ðð€26„5€(1998€ed.).€€When€determining€what€is€in€the€childððs€best€interest,€the€courtÐ pÀ Ðwill€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€theÏparents€and€child;Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€withÏfood,€clothing,€medical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€andÏthe€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€been€the€primary€caregiver;à8@2Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€childððs€life€and€theÏlength€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environmentÏ.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€yearsÏof€age€or€older.€€The€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€childÏupon€request.€€The€preferences€of€older€children€should€normally€beÏgiven€greater€weight€than€those€of€younger€children;Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€toÏthe€other€parent€or€to€any€other€person€.€.€.€.€Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€whoÏresides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€personððsÏinteractions€with€the€child;€and€Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(10)€Each€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performanceÏof€parenting€responsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€ofÏeach€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuingÏparent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,Ïconsistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð3à.2` x` x ÐÐ €4Ð/3 ÐÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106€(Supp.€1998);€ò òòòSee€also€Gaskillóóó ó,€936€S.W.2d€at€630€(providing€furtherÐ à Ðexamples€of€factors€that€may€be€relevant€when€making€a€child€custody€determination).ÌÌà ` àWe€consider€each€of€these€statutory€factors€separately.€€In€the€instant€case,€it€isÏundisputed€that€there€is€a€great€deal€of€love€and€affection€between€Bradley€and€both€Gilliam€andÏJones.€€It€also€appears€that€Bradley€has€a€loving€relationship€with€both€of€his€step€parents.€€BothÏGilliam€and€Jones€are€willing€and€able€to€provide€and€care€for€Bradley.€€Although€Gilliam€has€beenÏBradleyððs€primary€custodial€parent,€Gilliam€and€Jones€have€shared€child€rearing€responsibilitiesÏfairly€equally.€€Both€parents€have€provided€a€stable€home€environment€for€Bradley.€€However,ÏGilliam€desires€to€relocate€her€family€to€Murfreesboro,€away€from€Bradleyððs€friends€and€family.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€that€either€parent€has€any€physical€or€mental€problems€affecting€BradleyððsÏwelfare.€€The€parties€agree€that€Bradley€is€an€exceptional€child€who€has€achieved€success€in€bothÏacademics€and€athletics.€€He€appears€to€be€a€happy€child€who€has€adjusted€well€to€the€situationÏcreated€by€Gilliam€and€Jones.€€Neither€party€alleged€that€the€other€had€abused€Bradley€in€any€way.€ÏThere€was€evidence,€however,€that€David,€Gilliamððs€new€husband,€was€both€mentally€and€physicallyÏabusive€toward€his€former€wife.€€Ìà ` àÌÓ¿+ÓÓÓà ` àFinally,€the€court€must€consider€ð ð[t]he€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€personÏwho€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€personððs€interactions€with€the€childðð€asÏwell€as€ð ð[e]ach€parentððs€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parenting€responsibilities,Ïincluding€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€andÏcontinuing€parent„child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€child.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(9),€(10)€(Supp.€1998).€€With€respect€to€GilliamððsÏnew€husband,€the€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` à[T]he€Court€is€convinced€from€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÏhe€is€in€the€process€of€attempting€to€alienate€this€child€from€his€father,Ïtrying€to€assume€that€role€himself€by€blotting€out€his€name€on€theÏreport€card,€listing€himself€as€somebody€in€an€emergency€to€call,€byÏbeing€spokesman€about€when€heððs€going€to€see€the€child€or€when€theÏvisitation€is€going€to€occur.€.€.€.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€.€the€Court€is€convinced€that€he€attempted€to€influence€aÐ