WPCZ\ f+ ^p<3Z]T`&w| #Ղ{:aJgAé]y}A #D V. =+/sA*LwvLQRC\NRݭh޿|jKtžo~RƸ o_39tp4LY*'Lۿg^oK2}ZJ]4Wܫ6x{VOi4h͝zyD+`_cܾ1_c(oT;Jto!S­:ؐ Y m"ԇV4(Ho̓q-Ծ+s,EaQ;s3ΰUxֶI ^$T GGg..M ԭȅ &Ո*vp"* UNU  i / 0DNQRE1 03 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 0= 0 0 0 0 0z 0J! 0" 0" 0# 0$ 0{% 0S&b(' 00' 0( 0( 0) 00f* 0<* 0* 0>+ 0v+ 0`D, 0`, 0`- 0`d- 0`- 08$. 0\. 02./ 0`/ 0:\0 0Y0 0_0 0 N1 0jX2 03 B*F5 D/p5 05 D/#7 0R7 06 8 0V8 0:^9 0^9 0<9U62: 0h:U>S;U*;; B_=|= 0`> D5? D-9? 0Kf? 1? AS8@@ 0QA 0DA A9BBBBG 72{K 1uK 72"L 0cTLTLLLLLLHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0rX-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,- 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.wpt3|x U(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   G R `$      1    _MothersdaughterfromapreviousmarriagealsolivedwithMotherandFatherduringtheirmarriage,buther  livingarrangementsarenotatissueinthepresentcustodydispute.  R `$      3    _Adulteryasagroundforthedivorcewasnotdisputed.MotherconcededadulterywithDr.Flint,althoughshe  assertedthat_that_Ԁ_relatioship_ԀbeganwellafterMotherandFatherwereseparatedandafterdivorceproceedingswere  instituted.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanSG)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New(|G2 `$ !.8P-dXXd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  R `$      2    _FatherfiledamotionaskingthetrialcourttoallowChild,eightyearsoldatthetime,totestifyduringthe  hearing.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,determiningthatitwasnotinthebestinterestsofChildtotestifyatthe  hearing. d R `$      6    _SeeParker,986S.W.2dat562(listingfactorstobeconsidered).  (|3 S$ !.8P-dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 S$ !.8P-dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK    R `$      7    _ThiscourthasnotbeenaskedtoruleontheissueofwhetherMothersmarriagetoDr.Flintwasvalidand,  accordingtotherecord,neitherwasthetrialcourt.Wenote,however,thatentryofajudgmentisgenerallynecessary   beforeitbecomeseffective,Tenn.R.Civ.P.58.02,unlessthecourtotherwisedirects.Insomecircumstances,divorces  havebeendeterminedtobeeffectivebeforeentryofthefinaldecree,orthedeficiencyhasbeenremedied.Vesselsv.  Vessels,530S.W.2d71(Tenn.1975);_McCown_Ԁv._Quillin_,48Tenn.App.162,344S.W.2d576(1960);Danielv.Daniel,  No.02A019606CH00135,1998Tenn.App.LEXIS106(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.12,1998)(noTenn.R.App.P.11 GL applicationfiled);Millerv.PrenticeMiller,No.01A019505CH00225,1995Tenn.App.LEXIS711(Tenn.Ct.App.   Nov.1,1995)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  R `$      4    _FatherarguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninitsrefusaltoallowChildtotestify.Tenn.CodeAnn.  366107(7)placesthedecisionofwhethertohearthepreferenceofaminorchildregardingcustodywithinthetrial  courtsdiscretion.SeealsoGilliamv.Gilliam,776S.W.2d81,88(Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(explainingthat thetrialcourt  haswidediscretionindeterminingwhetheritshouldtakethetestimonyofaminorchild,andoncethisdecisionhasbeen GL madehisdiscretionwillbereviewedonlyforgrossabuse);Hallv.Hall,489S.W.2d37(Tenn.Ct.App.1972).The   recordhereinreflectsnoabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtinthisregard.\1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)gi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0     R `$      5    _ԀTenn.CodeAnn.366106(Supp.1999)states:  8   ` Inasuitforannulment,divorce,separatemaintenance,orinanyotherproceedingrequiring  thecourttomakeacustodydeterminationregardingaminorchild,suchdeterminationshallbemade  uponthebasisofthebestinterestofthechild.Thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactorsincluding GL thefollowingwhereapplicable:    8   ` (1)Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsandchild;   8   ` (2)Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing,medicalcare,   educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparenthasbeentheprimary_caregiver_;W \   8   ` (3)Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechild'slifeandthelengthoftimethechildhaslived   inastable,satisfactoryenvironment;provided,thatwherethereisafinding,under36-6-106(8),of    childabuse,asdefinedin39-15-401or39-15-402,orchildsexualabuse,asdefinedin37-1-602,    byone(1)parent,andthatanon-perpetratingparenthasrelocatedinordertofleetheperpetrating g l  parent,thatsuchrelocationshallnotweighagainstanawardofcustody;+0    8   ` (4)Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;    8   ` (5)Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents;    8   ` (6)Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;w|    8   ` (7)Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageorolder.Thecourtmay ;@  hearthepreferenceofayoungerchilduponrequest.Thepreferencesofolderchildrenshould   normallybegivengreaterweightthanthoseofyoungerchildren;    8   ` (8)Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheotherparentortoanyother  person;provided,thatwherethereareallegationsthatone(1)parenthascommittedchildabuse,[as KP definedin39-15-401or39-15-402],orchildsexualabuse,[asdefinedin37-1-602],againsta  familymember,thecourtshallconsiderallevidencerelevanttothephysicalandemotionalsafetyof  thechild,anddetermine,byaclearpreponderanceoftheevidence,whethersuchabusehasoccurred.  Thecourtshallincludeinitsdecisionawrittenfindingofallevidence,andallfindingsoffacts [` connectedthereto.Inaddition,thecourtshall,whereappropriate,referanyissuesofabusetothe $ juvenilecourtforfurtherproceedings;   8   ` (9)Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinorfrequentsthehomeof  aparentandsuchperson'sinteractionswiththechild.kp   8   ` (10)Eachparent'spastandpotentialforfutureperformanceofparentingresponsibilities, /4 includingthewillingnessandabilityofeachoftheparentstofacilitateandencourageacloseand  continuingparent-childrelationshipbetweenthechildandtheotherparent,consistentwiththebest  interestofthechild.{     !.8P-dd8     _  P-8 1XXdd8  bb@ GlP-INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#P-Gl#Ԉ &   January9,2002Session L X 1XP- #P-XX 1#MICHAELWAYNE_HOLEMAN_Ԁv.DONNARENE_HOLEMAN_X 1XP-  J @@ AppealfromtheGeneralSessionsCourtforWhiteCounty  J @@No.CV2491StevenC.Douglas,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100622_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober24,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Afterthetrialcourtgrantedthepartiesadivorce,awardedthemjointcustodyoftheirminorchild, x  andgrantedprimaryphysicalcustodyofChildtoMotherfortheschoolyear,Fatherfiledamotion d toreconsiderthecustodyarrangement.ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotionandFatherappeals.We P affirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheGeneralSessionsCourt d AffirmedandRemanded  P   #P-X 1#X 1X.P-PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH._Cantrell_,_P.J._,M.S., ( andDonR.Ash,Sp.J.,joined.  HenryD._Fincher_,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MichaelWayne_Holeman_.  AllisonM.Barker,_Crossville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DonnaRene_Holeman_. t T OPINION #P-XX 1#X 1XP- L  I.Facts $"t! #P-XX 1K #  X 1XP-  MichaelWayne_Holeman_Ԁ( Father)andDonnaRene_Holeman_Ԁ( Mother)weremarriedon #L# January17,1991,andlivedinWhiteCountythroughouttheirmarriage.Onechild( Child)was $8 $ bornduringthemarriageonJuly25,1992. #  1      ׀ThepartiesseparatedinJuneof1999,aboutonemonth %$!% priortoChildsseventh(7th)birthday. &"&   FatherfiledacomplaintonJune18,1999,seekingadivorceonthegroundsofadultery, (#( irreconcilabledifferences,andinappropriatemaritalconduct.FatheralsosoughtcustodyofChild. )$) Motheransweredandcounterclaimed. p*%* bb b b  _  Aftertheseparation,Fathermovedinwithhisparents,ateacherandasemiretiredinsurance  agent,inathreebedroomhomelocatedinWhiteCounty.MotherandChildcontinuedtoresidein  themaritalhomeinWhiteCountyaftertheseparation.MotherandFatherdidnotgetalongwell,  andtherewereanumberofdisagreements,arguments,instancesofnamecallingandcursing,and  twooftheseincidentsresultedinMotherseekingaprotectiveorder,andafterthelastshesoughtan  assaultwarrantagainstFather.FatherassertstheseactionsbyMotherwerefrivolousandtakento   gainsomeadvantageinthislitigation.     Motherisaregisterednurse,andafterthepartiesseparationshebeganworkingforDr.Flint. [ ` Sheandherdoctoremployerbeganaromanticrelationshipfourorfivemonthsbeforethedivorce G L  hearingandshetestifiedatthehearingthattheyintendedtogetmarried.Afterthealtercation 38  betweenMotherandFatherinOctober,2000,MotherandChildmovedintothePutnamCounty $  homeofDr.Flint.      ThetrialofthematterstartedonSeptember27,2000,butwascontinuedaftertheoriginal   judgerecusedhimself.Ultimately,thetrialwasheldonDecember1,2000.Attrial,thepartieseach   offeredevidenceattemptingtoshowthathisorherhomewasthebestlocationforthecustodial  placementofChild.ThetrialcourtheardtestimonyfromMotherandFatheraswellas:(1)Doug  Downs,ministeroftheCumberlandHeightsChurchandlicensedguidancecounselorinTennessee,  whotestifiedregardinghisrelationshipwithMotherandFatherandhisobservationsofChilds  relationshipwitheachparent;(2)Childssecondgradeteacher,whoseclassroomwasnexttothat kp ofFathersmother,whotestifiedthatalthoughbothparentswereinvolvedinChildseducation, W\ FathervolunteeredmoreintheclassroomthanMother;(3)twonursesthatworkedwithMother,who CH testifiedthatshewasagoodparent;(4)Fathersparents,whotestifiedthatwhileeitherparentwas /4 fittoraisethechild,Fatherwasthebetterparentintheiropinion;and(5)Mothersmother,who   testifiedthatinheropinionMotherwasthebetterparent.U #  2             ThetrialcourtgrantedadivorcetoFatheronthegroundsofadulterycommittedbythe  Mother, #  3      ׀approvedthedivisionofthemaritalpropertyasstipulatedbytheparties,andawardedjoint  custodyofChildtothepartiesandsplitprimaryresidentialcustodybasedontheschoolyear,stating  initsfinalorder:    \(5h83g! !8  TheCourtfindsthatitisinthebestinterestsoftheminorchildthatthepartiesbe {"  entitledtojointcustodyofthepartiesminorchild,....[Wife]shallhaveprimary g#l! physicalcustodyover[Child]duringtheschoolyear,conditioneduponhernot S$X" residingoutofwedlockwithDr.Flint,oranyothermemberoftheoppositesexthat ?%D # isnotamemberofherfamily.[Father]shallbeentitledtoprimaryphysicalcustody  of[Child]duringthesummermonths.Neitherpartyshallhaveovernightguestsof  theoppositesexinthepresenceoftheminorchild.     ThecourtwentontoawardvisitationtoFathereveryWednesdaynight(toallowChildto  attendChurch),FridayeveninguntilSundayeveningonthefirstweekendofthemonth,and   SaturdaynoonuntilSundaynoononthesecond,third,andfifthweekendofeachmonthduringthe   schoolyearaswellasallinservicedays.Motherwasawardedthesamevisitationwhilethechild o t residedwithFatherduringthesummer.Thetrialcourtawardedeachparenttwoweeksof [ ` uninterruptedvisitationinthesummeranddividedholidays. G L  0  8` (#(#0 ` `      Infindingsfromthebenchatthecloseofthetrial,approximatelytwomonthsbeforethefinal $  orderwasentered,thecourtawardedFatheradivorceonthestipulatedgroundofadultery.In    addition,thecourtfound,   8  Iamgoingtoawardjointcustodytotheparents.Iamgoingtogivethemomprimary   physicalcustody,conditionedonhermovingbacktoherparentsresidence,or  anotherresidenceofherchoice,unless,sheandthedoctorshouldchoosetomarry.  But.Shewillnotbeallowedtobelivingatthedoctorshomewithoutthebenefit  ofmarriage....Youwillmoveoutmaam,untilsuchtimeasyougetmarried.     Apparentlytakingthetrialcourtsadmonitiontoheart,MotherandDr.Flintweremarried W\ onDecember15,2000.AftertheentryofthetrialcourtsfinalorderonJanuary30,2001,Father CH filedamotiontoreconsiderthetrialcourtsrulingbasedonMothersinterveningbigamousmarriage /4 onDecember15,2000.FatherarguedinhismotiontoreconsiderthatMothersmarriagetoDr.Flint   wasbigamousbecauseshewasnotdivorcedfromFatheruntilthecourtentereditsfinalorderand   thatthiswasanotherexampleofMotherflauntingthelawandputtingherwishesabovetheinterests  ofChild.ThetrialcourtconsideredthemotiononJanuary29,2001andafterhearingarguments,  deniedthemotionanddeterminedthatFather:  8  hasfailedtoprovefactssufficienttosupportachangeintheminorchildsresidential   schedulefromthescheduleannouncedbythiscourtonDecember1,2000,andset ! forthintheFinalDecree....{"      Fatherfiledatimelynoticeofappeal,presentingthefollowingissuesforourreview:(1) S$X" whetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatprimaryphysicalcustodyofChildshouldbewithMother; ?%D #  (2)whetherthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoallowChildtotestifyontheissueofhiscustodial +&0!$ preference;e #  4      ׀and(3)whetherthetrialcourterredbyfailingtochangeitsfinalrulingdespiteMothers  remarriageonDecember15,2000.     II.StandardsforCustodyArrangements  ,  Inasuitfordivorce,courtsareauthorizedtoawardthecare,custody,andcontrolofany   minorchildrentoeitherparent,tobothparentsinajointorsharedcustodyarrangement,ortosome   othersuitableperson,asthewelfareandinterestofthechildrenrequire.Tenn.CodeAnn.366 o t 101(a)(1).Inmakingcustodydecisions,courtshave thewidestdiscretiontoorderacustody [ ` arrangementthatisinthebestinterestofthechild.Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2).Acourts G L  determinationregardingcustodymustbemadeuponthebasisofthebestinterestofthechild.Tenn. 38  CodeAnn.366106(a). $    Thus,bystatuteaswellascaselaw,thewelfareandbestinterestofthechildrenarethe   paramountconcernincustodydeterminations,andthegoalofanycustodydecisionistoplacethe   childinanenvironmentthatwillbestservehisneeds.Parkerv.Parker,986S.W.2d557,562   (Tenn.1999);Lentzv.Lentz,717S.W.2d876,877(Tenn.1986);Lukev.Luke,651S.W.2d219,221  (Tenn.1983).TheGeneralAssemblyhasfoundthat [t]hebestinterestsofthechildareservedby  aparentingarrangementthatbestmaintainsachildsemotionalgrowth,healthandstability,and  physicalcare.Tenn.CodeAnn.366401(a).Theaimofacustodialarrangementistopromote  thechildswelfarebycreatinganenvironmentthatpromotesanurturingrelationshipwitheach kp parent.Aabyv.Strange,924S.W.2d623,629(Tenn.1996).Boththelegislatureandthecourts W\ haverecognizedtheimportanceofstabilityandconsistencyinachildslifeand,therefore,inchild CH custodyarrangements.Tenn.CodeAnn.366401(a)(1);Aaby,924S.W.2dat627. /4   Where,ashere,bothparentsseekcustody,thechildsbestinterestistobedeterminedby   usingananalysisofthecomparativefitnessofeachparentinlightoftheparticularcircumstances  ofthecase.Parker,986S.W.2dat562(citingInreParsons,914S.W.2d889,893(Tenn.Ct.App.  1995));Ruylev.Ruyle,928S.W.2d439,442(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Gaskillv.Gaskill,936S.W.2d  626,630(Tenn.Ct.App.1983);Bahv.Bah,668S.W.2d663,66566(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).󀀀The  comparativefitnessanalysisrecognizesthatnoparent,asnoperson,isperfect,thateachparenthas   strengthsandweaknesses,andthateachmaycontributedifferentlytothechildsdevelopment.Earls ! v.Earls,42S.W.3d877,885(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Gaskill,936S.W.2dat630.Custodydecisions {"  arenotintendedtoeitherrewardorpunishparents.Earls,42S.W.3dat885;Gaskill,936S.W.2d g#l! at630. S$X"  ?%D #   Inthecasebeforeus,thetrialcourtawardedbothparentsjointcustody.Whileinsole  custodyarrangementsthecustodialparenthasthesoleandexclusiveprerogativetomakemajorlife  decisionsregardingthechild,Rustv.Rust,864S.W.2d52,55(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),jointcustody  arrangementsnecessarilyimplya sharingofparentalresponsibilityfordecisionsregardingcare,  abode,education,health,andothermattersofgeneralwelfareofthechild.Shepherdv.Metcalf,  794S.W.2d348,351(Tenn.1990);Hoeflerv.Hoefler,No.M199800966COAR3CV,2001Tenn.   App.LEXIS225,at*7(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.5,2001)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).     Eventhoughajointcustodyarrangementisordered,itisstillnecessaryforthecourtto [ ` determinewherethechildwillreside.Thatdecisioniscustomarilymadebydeterminingwhich G L  parentwillhaveprimaryphysicalcustodyandbydeterminingtheamountofvisitationtheother 38  parentwillhave.Underthelegislaturesnewterminology,thecourtsdeterminearesidential $  schedule,whichdesignatestheprimaryresidentialparentanddesignatesinwhichparentshomethe    childwillresideongivendaysduringtheyear.Tenn.CodeAnn.366402(5).Inthecasebefore   us,thetrialcourtessentiallydeterminedthatthechildwouldresidewithhismotherduringtheschool   yearandwithhisfatherduringthesummer.Eachparentwasgivenliberalvisitationduringthetime   thechildwasresidingwiththeotherparent.    Thus,thetrialcourtawardedjointcustody,dividedprimaryresidentialcustodybasedonthe  schoolyear,andgaveliberalvisitationtothenonresidentialparent.Thetrialcourtmadeseveral  generalstatementsfromthebenchpriortoannouncingtherulingsorally,statinginpart: kp 8  Thetestimonybasicallyshowedthatthesetwopartiesdonothaveagood CH relationshipwitheachother.Therewasnotmuchtestimonydirectedtoeitherone /4 ofthemasbeingunfitparents.ItiscleartotheCourtthatbothofthesepartieslove   [Child].And.Carefor[Child].And.Wantwhatisbestfor[Child].Itisnot   possibleformetoputhiminbothofyourhomes,fulltime....     Fathersobjectionistothedeterminationthatchildsbestinterestswereservedbyresiding  primarilywithMotherduringtheschoolyear,therebygivingMother themajorityofresidential  placement.Beforethetrialcourt,Fathertookthepositionthatprimaryresidentialcustodyduring   theweekshouldremainwithoneparentduringtheschoolyear,andhedoesnottakeadifferent ! positiononappeal.HeasksthathebegivenprimarycustodyofChild. {"    III.BestInterestsandComparativeFitness S$X" G  Thedeterminationofthechildrensbestinterestmustturnontheparticularfactsofeach +&0!$ case.Akinsv.Akins,805S.W.2d377,378(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)(citingHollowayv.Bradley,190 '"% Tenn.565,57072,230S.W.2d1003,1006(1950)). Thereareliterallythousandsofthingsthat (#& mustbetakenintoconsiderationinthelivesofyoungchildren,andthesefactorsmustbereviewed (#'  onacomparativeapproach.Bah,668S.W.2dat666. X 1XXX 1Whencalledupontoorderacustody )$( arrangement,acourtmustconsidermanyfactors,someofwhicharesetoutinstatute,o #  5      ׀andsomeof   whichhavebeendevelopedthroughcaselaw.W #  6      #X 1XX X 1I#     X 1XXX 1Becausethedeterminationofwhereachildsbestinterestliesistheresultofthe  considerationofanumberoffactorsinthecontextofaspecificfactualsituation,Adelspergerv.  Adelsperger,970S.W.2d482,485(Tenn.Ct.App.1997),itisparticularlyfactdriven.Rogerov.   Pitt,759S.W.2d109,112(Tenn.1988).Trialcourtsmustexercisebroaddiscretioninchildcustody   matters.Parker,986S.W.2dat563.#X 1XX X 1K# X 1XXX 1ԀSuchdecisionsoftenhingeonthetrialcourtsassessmentof o t thedemeanorandcredibilityoftheparentsandotherwitnesses.Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat485. [ ` Consequently,appellatecourtsarereluctanttosecondguessatrialcourtsdeterminationregarding G L  custodyandvisitation.Nelsonv.Nelson,66S.W.3d896,901(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Rutherford 38  v.Rutherford,971S.W.2d955,956(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(quotingGaskill,936S.W.2dat631).  Accordingly,thiscourtwilldeclinetodisturbthecustodydecisionofthetrialcourthereinunless  thatdecisionisbasedonamaterialerroroflawortheevidencepreponderatesagainstit.  Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat485.  #X 1XX X 1M#  Wehavereviewedtheevidencepresentedinthiscase.Ourfirstobservationisthatthe   evidencefullysupportsthecourtscommentthattheparentsdonothaveagoodrelationshipwith   eachother.Aftertheirseparation,MotherandFatherhadanumberofdisputeswhichdegenerated o t intonamecallingandworse.Thepartiesdifferedontheirrecollectionsandinterpretationsofthese [ ` interactions.Mothersoughtprotectiveorderstwice,whichweredismissed.Shetookoutanassault G L  warrantagainstFather,andassertsitwasFathersbehaviorduringtheincidentleadingtothewarrant 38  whichconvincedhertoleavethemaritalhomeandmoveinwiththedoctorbecauseshewas $  frightened.SufficeittosaythatneitherparentwasaparticularlygoodrolemodelforChildintheir    dealingswitheachother.Therecordalsosupportsthetrialcourtsfindingregardingeachparents   loveandcarefortheirson.Neitherparentwasshowntobeunfit. X 1XXX 1   #X 1XX X 1+V#    Thetestimonyattrialrevealedthatbothparentswerefit,althoughbothparties  acknowledgedmakingparentingdecisionsthatmaynothavebeeninthebestinterestofChild.The  testimonyfurtherestablishedthatChildhadastrongrelationshipwithhishalfsisterwhoresided  withMother,andthatMotherhaddonenothingtodiscourageChildsrelationshipwithhispaternal  grandparents.Althoughtheparentsdisagreedandpresentedconflictingevidenceregardingeachs kp involvementinChildseducation,includingwhosignedmorehomework,thetrialcourtresolved W\ thesedifferences.EachwasshowntobeinvolvedinChildseducation.Atthetimeoftrial,Child CH hadbeenlivingprimarilywithMotherduringtheschoolweekandwasdoingwellinschool.Child /4 hadbeenattendingthesameschoolwherehispaternalgrandmothertaught,andthetrialcourt   orderedthatChildremaininthatschool.TheevidenceshowedthatFatherwasmoreactivein   Childsreligiousupbringing.Fathersfatherwasachurchelder,andFatherhadbecomeactivein  churchandinChildschurchactivities.Thetrialcourtscustodyandvisitationarrangement  accommodatedChildschurchactivities.    FatherarguesthatMotherabusedlegalprocessestogainanadvantageoverFatherinthe   divorceandcustodydispute.Thetrialcourtheardtestimonyontheseissuesandwasabletojudge ! thecredibilityofthewitnesses.Althoughthetrialcourtmadenospecificfindingoffactregarding {"  theprotectiveordersandassaultwarrant,wecaninferthatthetrialcourtdeterminedthat,whatever g#l! therealcircumstances,theydidnotweighinfavoroforagainsteitherparty. S$X"   FatheralsoarguesthatMotherinterferedwithhistelephonevisitationwithChildand +&0!$ otherwiseactedtoundermineFathersrelationshipwithChild.Again,thepartiesinterpretations '"% ofvariousincidentsdiffer,buttheevidenceestablishesthatbothparentsmadederogatoryremarks (#& aboutandtotheotherinthepresenceofChild.Thetrialcourtmadenospecificfindingoffact (#' regardingeitherparentsabilitytoencourageagoodrelationshipbetweenChildandtheotherparent. )$( Weinferthatthetrialcourtfoundthat,comparatively,neitherparentwasconsiderablybetteror *%) considerablyworsethantheotherinthisregard. +&*   FathersfinalargumentcomesdowntohisassertionsthatMotherislessfitthanheisbecause  ofherrelationshipwithDr.Flint,whichbeganafterthepartiesseparation.Aparentssexual  infidelitydoesnotdisqualifythatparentfromreceivingcustodyofhisorherchild.Varleyv.Varley,  934S.W.2d659,66667(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Whensuchactivities,however,involveneglectof  orotherharmtothechild,suchadverseimpactonthechildisavalidconsiderationindetermining  thechildsbestinterest.Id.;Mimmsv.Mimms,780S.W.2d739,745(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Inthe   casebeforeus,Mothernotonlybecameinvolvedinanaffairwithanothermanwhilethedivorce   proceedingswerepending,shechosetomoveinwithherparamour,takingChildwithher,afterthe o t initialdateforthehearingwhichwaspostponed,butbeforethefinalhearing.Althoughwedonot [ ` condoneMothersdecision,thatsituationdoesnotperserequireadeterminationthatFatheris G L  comparativelymorefitthanMothertoprovideChildwiththecareheneeds.Thereisnoevidence 38  intherecordthatChildwasharmedbythesetemporarylivingarrangements.SeeInreParsons,914 $  S.W.2d889(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).MothersrelationshipwithDr.Flint,andmoreparticularlyits    effectonChildswelfare,isoneofthemanyfactorsthetrialcourtmayconsiderindetermining   comparativefitnessandthechildsbestinterests.Nelson,66S.W.3dat902;Varley,934S.W.2d   at66667.     ThetrialcourtheardtestimonyfrombothMotherandFather,aswellasahostofother  witnessesandfashionedacustodyarrangementdesignedtoserveChildsbestinterest.Thetrial  judgeisinafarbetterpositionthanthiscourttoobservethedemeanorofthewitnessesandresolve  theissuesinthecasethatarebasedonthetruthfulnessofthewitnesses.McCalebv.SaturnCorp., kp 910S.W.2d412,415(Tenn.1995);Leev.Lee,66S.W.3d837,851(Tenn.Ct.App.2001) W\ (rehearingdeniedOct.29,2001);Whitackerv.Whitacker,957S.W.2d834,837(Tenn.Ct.App. CH 1997). /4   Trialcourtsnecessarilyhavebroaddiscretiontofashioncustodyandvisitationarrangements   inlightoftheuniquecircumstancesofeachcase.Atrialcourtsdeterminationonthoseissues  shouldbesetasideonlywhenit fallsoutsidethespectrumofrulingsthatmightreasonablyresult  fromanapplicationofthecorrectlegalstandardstotheevidencefoundintherecord.Eldridgev.  Eldridge,42S.W.3d82,88(Tenn.2001).Theevidencehereindoesnotpreponderateagainstthe  trialcourtsdeterminationthatChildsbestinterestswerefurtheredbyanawardofjointcustody,   divisionofprimaryresidentialcustodyonthebasisoftheschoolyear,designationofMotheras ! primaryresidentialcustodianfortheschoolyear,andtheawardofliberalvisitation. {"    IV.MotiontoAlterorAmend S$X" p  Fathersoughtanamendmentofthecourtsfinalorder,askingthecourttheawardprimary +&0!$ custodytohimbecauseMotherhad,priortotheentryofthefinalorderherein,marriedDr.Flint. '"% Fatherarguedthismarriagewasbigamousc #  7      ׀and,consequently,showedMothersdisregardforthe (#& lawandresultedincontinuationofthelivingarrangementprohibitedbythecourt.Thetrialcourt  declinedtoamendthecustodyarrangementpreviouslyordered.Weaffirmthatdecision.Thetrial  courtcouldhaveconcludedthatMothersmarriageresultedfromherdesiretocomplywiththat  courtsearlierorderratherthanadisregardforlegalprocesses.Inanyevent,nothingintherecord  leadstotheconclusionthatMothersmarriageharmedoraffectedChildasopposedtothealternative  ofmovingelsewherewithMother.     V.Conclusion o t t  Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentfashioningan G L  appropriatecustodyarrangement.ThecostsoftheappealaretaxedtoFather,MichaelWayne 38  Holeman,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. X 1XXX 1 $   #X 1XX X 1 v#   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE