WPC X6U ";b)z6l[;i_#NþMLWfc렇iH8~\ tL? 3Ӓ1ǔ A<Mclu~kE!v.~S(:ȋ gN˄gHZ}fԓx Y3k4 N^dp/ϧji,>uaoFd]Z0#lkn66ɶv1*!<Ɍr(# g-tt߭/#( xrO2|W͹#x ;S=YP7iNR Lc$!u;qXkPeZX$Z Jb~!5ktF(@:!}4V^_b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1u    X 0DNbd 72lE 0cb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D AcHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0r-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(|G2ҹ$ !.8NdXXd8         0  XiX d(|3e$ !.8NdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3e$ !.8NdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ndd8     _N8iXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  @   July8,2002Session $ XiXN #NXXi#  CHRISTOPHERLYNN_HOOVEN_Ԁv._JOHNNIA_ԀSHANNON_HOOVEN_XiXN  " @^ ^  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforGilesCounty  " @ No.1700Hon.StellaL._Hargrove_,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.M200102108_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust20,_2002_Ԁ }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   ThewifeappealsfromtheTrialCourtsplacingprimarycustodyofthepartiesminorchildrenwith (x thefather.Weaffirm. d #NXXi#XiXN Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  ( HerschelPickensFranks#NXi#XiX.N,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,#NXi#XiX.N  _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,#NXiL#XiX.NԀJ.,joined.  W.HowellForrester,_Pulaski_,Tennessee,forAppellant,_Johnnia_ԀShannon_Hooven_. ` M.AndrewHoover,_Pulaski_,Tennessee,forAppellee,ChristopherLynn_Hooven_. 8   @66' OPINION #NXXi#XiXNԈ "8" #NXXi #XiXN0  0` (#(# ` (#` (#    ` Inthiscustodydispute,themotherappealsfromtheTrialCourtsfinalOrderplacing % % primarycustodyoftheminorchildrenwiththefather. &!&    ` Essentially,theissueonappealisthegrantofprimaryresidentialcustodytothefather p(#( whofiledaComplaintforDivorceonOctober13,2000.Thewifeansweredandcounterclaimed. \)$) A_pendente_ԀlitehearingwasheldonOctober23,andtheTrialCourtenteredanOrderspecifyingin H*%* somedetailtheparticularsgoverningtheissuessurroundthechildren,awardingjointcustody 4+&+ betweenthepartiesonatemporarybasiswiththewifedesignatedastheprimaryphysicalcustodian.  ,p',   -\(-  _   ` OnApril16,2001,theCourtenteredanOrderdeclaringthepartiesdivorced,and  adoptedthewifesproposedparentingplan.Bothpartiesthenfiledmotionstoalterandamend,and  thenonMay11,2001theTrialCourtenteredanOrderstayingthepermanentparentingplan.On  June18,anevidentiaryhearingwasconductedbytheTrialCourtattheconclusionofwhich,the t Courtruledthatthepartiesandtheminorchildrenweretobeevaluatedbyapsychologistwhowas ` tosubmithisfindingsandrecommendationstotheCourtontheissueofcustodyandresidential L  parentingresponsibilitiesoftheparties. 8     ` TherecordrevealsanotherhearingwasheldonJuly31,2001,andtheCourtentered  ` anOrderonAugust10,2001,wheretheCourtreviewedthepleadingsandreportsofthe  L  psychologistandallprevioustestimonyofwitnessesandargumentsofcounsel,andthenmade  8  additionalfindingsoffact.TheCourtfoundthatthepsychologyreportwasan extraordinarily $  insightfulviewandstudyofthesepartiesandtheirchildrenandtheCourtrejectedthesuggestion   thatthefatherhadbeenguiltyofsexualabuse.TheCourtthenexpresslyadoptedthefindingsofthe   psychologistasthefindingsoftheCourtandtheparentingplansubmittedbythehusbandwas   adopted.      ` OurreviewofthefindingsoffactbytheTrialCourtisdenovowithapresumption \ ofcorrectness,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Bahv.Bah, H 668S.W.2d663,665(Tenn.Ct.App.1983);Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984). 4 TheonlytranscriptofevidenceintherecordisthetranscriptoftheevidenceheardonJune18,2001.  p Asnoted,theTrialCourtinitsfinalOrderrelatingtocustody,basedherdecisionupon allprevious  \ testimonyofthepartiesandtheirwitnesses.Therecorddemonstratesthatalloftheevidenceheard H bytheTrialJudgerelatingtotheissueofcustodyhasnotbeenpreservedandisnotintherecord. 4 IntheabsenceofalltheevidencepreparedinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.24(c),wepresume   theentirerecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontainedsufficientevidencetosupportthe   TrialCourtsfactualfinding,andweaffirm.Sherrodv.Wix,849S.W.2d780,783(Tenn.Ct.App.  1992).Apartialevidentiaryrecordcannotexcludethepossibilitythatotherevidencesupportsthe  trialcourtsfindings,thusthepresumptionmustbeappliedintheabsenceofthefullevidentiary  record.Bishopv.Bishop,939S.W.2d109(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). l    ` Beforeconcluding,wewilladdressthewifesargumentthattheinitialadoptionof D! thewifesparentingplanbecameresjudicata.Thatissimplynotthecase.Thedoctrineofres 0"  judicatadoesnotapplywhenajudgmentsoughttobegivenresjudicataeffectisnotfinal.See #l! Richardsonv.TennesseeBd.ofDentistry,913S.W.2d446,459(Tenn.1995);Leev.Hall,790 $X" S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Accord,Youngv.Young,1998Tenn.App.Lexis702,No. $D # 01A019801CH00047(October28,1998). %0!$    ` ThetechnicalrecordisclearthattheTrialCourtsfinalOrderinthiscasewasbased '#& ontheculminationofprotractedlitigationextendingoverthecourseofmanyevidentiaryhearings, (#' yetthisCourtwasonlyprovidedwithoneevidentiarytranscriptofoneofthehearings.Additionally, )$( thewifeinherbriefarguesnumerousfactsoutsideoftherecord,anditisnotproperforthisCourts |*%) consideration.Accordingly,weaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecost h+&* oftheappealassessedtoJohnniaShannonHooven.     `     h     _________________________ 8     `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. $ t