ÿWPC ÄkzùPNϧ:†ì¼ÞõÀ&´Q9úÈ‘w*¦“|+H볘¦j@‡ö;!éŸMË û½aãœMe%éÓE()¨P}™l(,Ï¡¡ ë^y‘iVKšB5n`Üà}mÞÆòpgN ±¢Æ|öŠã À•ýfÝ÷ô¥d¬~áÌIB®Á Û”Ãë4òïżMŠ‚Î"Ñᇳá ÔàêéÏ™–R—›3ä'tÈ ZQ:è_±ÿ%—¯é »N˜]ù–yGMEŠS1 Õoµy¿…C`yËï/†XKÓòáRÖÏ‘ìïØ$gÅ3RÈ$´uZß¡þ§`û.þhš`Etü¹\éXý‹>—®G–ª=€æ€ü:ß3d!l‡ñ½'ã]@POéMß2Clˆ«²*«Ž¹£FžÒ+fµ|=ë±Å[zLüñþÖ²‘ﯚZ.>ÅFëÀDâ¨ÆNᇔ†}*OÛÔ •-ëüö½ŸØÅFœ‘û]•^Ø^Œát¼PU°ì­Ôž§þ’Ëþòj¾Å'øÎ@Ú Kmàý?êâxÎÃ1Ô=Øçev0 °¾b=ÐÐ\À‰_DToÀaR×¹j»à0\‚µH?£´^­áÛ™(Ûb#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc U Në ^ 9 wE zI Òà 4• © ¸ mº ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular s-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt9‚±,˜C¸šªbkÌÈ¢3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2µó$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]m»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç¥ò»»Ô d(|3I^$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]m»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3I^$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]m»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]m»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼]m»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼]m»»¼]mÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îm]mÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼]m»îîm+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€February€22,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼]mÔÌò òÔ#†¼]m»XX #ÔNICOLE€JEAN€KEELERòòóó€v.€MICHAEL€Ô_ÔWINNÔ_Ô€KEELERòòóóÔ‡XX»¼]mÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„02„0021€€€€€€Carol€Ô_ÔCatalanoÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00684„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€2,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€divorce€case,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€parties€joint€custody€of€their€minor€children,€withÐ xÈ  Ðprimary€physical€custody€awarded€to€the€father.€€The€mother€contends€on€appeal€that€she€is€the€moreÐ d´ Ðfit€parent€and€should€have€been€given€primary€custody.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼]m»XX»#ÔÔ‡XX»¼]mÔÐ P  ÐÓ$ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ (x ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]m»àX—#ÔÔ‡XX.¼]mÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.óóÐ ì< Ðand€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌAndrew€M.€Ô_ÔCateÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Nicole€Jean€Keeler.Ð ° ÐÌAndrea€C.€Rawlings,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Michael€Ô_ÔWinnÔ_Ô€Keeler.Ð ˆØ ÐÓgÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]m»XX–#ÔÔ‡XX»¼]mÔÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼]m»XX¸ #ÔÔ‡XX»¼]mÔÓ  ÓÓÓà@µµìàò òI.€€òòMarriage€and€Separationóóó óˆÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓÓà  àMichael€Ô_ÔWinnÔ_Ô€Keeler€and€Nicole€Jean€Davis€married€in€Clarksville€on€November€23,€1991.Ð #`" ÐMr.€Keelerððs€parents€gave€them€a€two€acre€parcel€of€land€adjoining€their€own€home,€upon€which€theÐ ü#L# Ðnewlyweds€placed€a€mobile€home€they€had€purchased.€€The€Ô_ÔKeelersÔ_Ô€became€parents€on€March€3,Ð è$8 $ Ð1995,€when€their€daughter,€Ô_ÔDelainaÔ_Ô€Lynn,€was€born.€€A€son,€Devon€Michael,€was€born€on€JanuaryÐ Ô%$!% Ð13,€1998.Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àBoth€parties€were€gainfully€employed€during€the€entire€course€of€their€marriage.€€Ms.€KeelerÐ ˜(è#( Ðheld€a€number€of€jobs€as€an€accountant.€€Mr.€Keeler€worked€continuously€at€State€Industries€startingÐ „)Ô$) Ðin€1991.€€After€the€children€were€born,€Ms.€Keeler€urged€her€husband€to€change€his€hours€from€theÐ p*À%* Ðevening€shift€to€the€day€shift€so€he€could€help€take€care€of€them.€€Mr.€Keeler€did€so,€even€though€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðchange€of€shift€resulted€in€a€substantial€reduction€in€pay.€€Mr.€Keelerððs€mother€generally€looked€afterÐ H,˜', Ðthe€children€while€their€parents€were€at€work.Ð 4-„(-ý Їà  àAll€was€not€well€with€the€marriage,€however,€and€in€October€of€1998,€Ms.€Keeler€moved€outÐ ° Ðof€the€marital€home.€€On€February€9,€1999,€she€filed€a€complaint€for€absolute€divorce€on€the€groundsÐ œì Ðof€irreconcilable€differences€and€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€The€husbandððs€answer€and€counter„Ð ˆØ Ðcomplaint€admitted€that€there€were€irreconcilable€differences€between€the€parties,€but€denied€that€heÐ tÄ Ðwas€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€and€claimed€that€his€wife€herself€was€guilty€ofÐ `° Ðinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€On€March€9,€1999,€the€court€entered€an€agreed€order,€which€gave€Ms.Ð L œ ÐKeeler€temporary€custody€of€the€children.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€some€point€after€the€parties€separated,€Mr.€Keeler€began€to€believe€that€his€wife€wasÐ  ` Ðengaged€in€an€intimate€relationship€with€a€man€named€Christian€Ô_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô,€and€he€hired€a€privateÐ ü L  Ðinvestigator€to€check€out€that€possibility.€€He€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€a€temporary€restrainingÐ è 8  Ðorder€to€prevent€his€wife€from€having€the€minor€children€in€the€presence€of€unrelated€persons€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðopposite€sex.€€The€motion€was€granted.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€investigator€was€able€to€confirm€Mr.€Keelerððs€suspicions.€€The€husband€then€filed€aÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€for€change€in€temporary€custody,€based€upon€his€wifeððs€violation€of€the€restraining€order,€andÐ „Ô  Ðupon€proof€that€she€drove€erratically€and€at€an€extremely€high€rate€of€speed€(in€excess€of€85€milesÐ pÀ Ðper€hour)€while€the€children€were€in€the€car.€€On€November€5,€1999,€the€trial€court€granted€theÐ \¬ Ðhusband€temporary€custody€of€the€children,€pending€the€final€outcome€of€the€divorce.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€matter€was€set€for€final€hearing€on€May€16,€2000.€€The€father€subsequently€asked€for€aÐ  p Ðcontinuance.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€continuance,€but€ordered€that€temporary€custody€of€theÐ  \ Ðchildren€be€transferred€to€the€mother€from€June€1,€2000€until€one€week€prior€to€the€opening€of€theÐ øH ÐMontgomery€County€Public€Schools.€€Mr.€Keelerððs€mother€was€designated€in€the€order€as€the€daycareÐ ä4 Ðprovider€for€the€children.€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà@FFìàò òII.€€€òòThe€Divorce€Hearingóóó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€final€hearing€of€the€case€was€conducted€on€December€5,€2000.€€Ms.€Keeler€admitted€onÐ €Ð Ðthe€stand€that€she€was€involved€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô,€but€claimed€that€the€relationship€did€not€becomeÐ l¼ Ðintimate€until€after€the€parties€separated,€and€that€it€did€not€precipitate€the€breakup€of€her€marriage.Ð X ¨ ÐShe€also€insisted€that€she€never€spent€the€night€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô€in€the€presence€of€the€children,Ð D!” Ðdespite€the€sworn€testimony€of€the€private€investigator,€and€the€introduction€of€a€videotape€he€hadÐ 0"€  Ðtaken,€which€indicated€the€contrary.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€there€was€a€tremendous€disparity€between€the€testimony€of€the€parties€onÐ ô$D # Ðquestions€related€to€their€parental€roles.€€If€we€were€to€believe€Ms.€Keelerððs€testimony,€we€wouldÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€to€conclude€that€she€was€an€ideal€mother,€who€always€put€her€childrenððs€needs€ahead€of€herÐ Ì&"% Ðown,€while€Mr.€Keeler€was€abusive,€uncaring,€and€totally€unhelpful€when€it€came€to€meeting€theÐ ¸'#& Ðchildrenððs€needs.€€Mr.€Keeler,€to€the€contrary,€portrayed€himself€as€a€loving€father€who€adored€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchildren,€and€who€was€an€equal€partner€with€his€wife€in€caring€for€them.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThere€are€too€many€points€of€disagreement€between€the€parties€than€is€possible€to€discuss€inÐ ° Ðâ âdetail,€but€one€example€may€serve€to€illustrate€the€differences€in€their€testimony.€€Ms.€Keeler€testifiedÐ œì Ðthat€she€always€bathed€the€children€in€the€evening,€that€Mr.€Keeler€never€did,€and€that€he€invariablyÐ ˆØ Ðrefused€when€asked€to€do€so.€€Mr.€Keeler€testified€that€he€usually€gave€the€children€their€baths€whileÐ tÄ Ðhis€wife€was€preparing€dinner,€that€he€refused€on€only€one€occasion€when€he€was€recovering€fromÐ `° Ða€painful€leg€injury,€but€that€he€subsequently€agreed€to€bathe€them€anyway,€because€his€wife€keptÐ L œ Ðinsisting.€€Mr.€Keelerððs€father€confirmed€his€testimony.€€There€were€similar€disparities€in€testimonyÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€to€feeding€the€children,€taking€them€to€the€doctor,€and€buying€clothes€for€them.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àMuch€of€the€testimony€and€argument€in€this€case€centered€on€Mr.€Keelerððs€hunting.€€Ms.Ð ü L  ÐKeeler€testified€that€her€husband€went€hunting€every€chance€he€had,€often€camping€out€overnight,Ð è 8  Ðand€returning€home€only€to€fall€asleep€on€the€couch€while€there€was€work€to€be€done€and€the€childrenÐ Ô$  Ðto€be€looked€after.€€Mr.€Keeler€testified€that€he€had€hunted€since€he€was€ten€years€old,€that€he€ownedÐ À  Ðnumerous€rifles,€scopes,€bows€and€camouflage€outfits,€and€that€he€indeed€loved€hunting.€€He€insisted,Ð ¬ü  Ðhowever,€that€he€did€not€hunt€nearly€as€frequently€as€Ms.€Keeler€testified,€that€he€generally€huntedÐ ˜è  Ðin€the€morning,€and€that€he€did€not€go€on€overnight€hunting€trips.Ð „Ô  ЀÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Ms.€Keelerððs€complaint€for€divorce,Ð \¬ Ðand€awarded€Mr.€Keeler€a€divorce€on€the€ground€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€In€her€ruling€fromÐ H˜ Ðthe€bench,€the€judge€noted€that€the€question€of€custody€had€to€be€considered€separately€from€theÐ 4„ Ðquestion€of€who€was€entitled€to€the€divorce,€and€she€analyzed€the€trial€testimony€in€light€of€theÐ  p Ðquestion€of€comparative€fitness€for€parental€duties,€as€measured€by€the€factors€set€out€in€Tenn.€CodeÐ  \ ÐAnn.€ðð€36„6„106.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€final€decree€of€divorce,€filed€on€February€16,€2001,€memorialized€the€courtððs€decision.Ð Ð  ÐThe€court€determined€that€the€parties€were€entitled€to€be€awarded€joint€legal€custody€of€the€twoÐ ¼  Ðminor€children,€but€that€it€was€appropriate€to€award€the€primary€physical€custody€to€the€father.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðmotherððs€parental€rights€were€spelled€out€in€detail,€including€extensive€visitation€rights,€the€right€toÐ ”ä Ðunimpeded€phone€calls€and€correspondence€with€the€children,€and€the€right€to€be€promptly€informedÐ €Ð Ðof€each€childððs€educational€progress€and€health€status.€€The€mother€was€also€ordered€to€pay€$952€perÐ l¼ Ðmonth€in€child€support,€representing€32%€of€her€net€income,€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines.€€òòSeeóóÐ X ¨ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e).€€The€marital€home€was€awarded€to€the€father,€but€he€was€orderedÐ D!” Ðto€reimburse€the€mother€for€the€value€of€her€share€in€its€equity.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà@tt!ìàò òIII.€òò€Child€Custodyóóó óˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àThe€custody€of€the€children€was€the€sole€issue€raised€on€appeal.€€We€note€that€child€custodyÐ à%0!$ Ðdeterminations€are€among€the€most€important€decisions€that€any€court€has€to€make.€òò€Steen€v.€Steenóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð61€S.W.3d€324€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòÔ_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ôóó,€970€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¸'#& ÐApp.1997).€€In€such€decisions,€the€best€interest€of€the€child€or€children€is€always€the€primaryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsideration€for€the€court.€òò€Rice€v.€Riceóó,€983€S.W.2d€680€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòÔ_ÔRogeroÔ_Ô€v.€Pittóó,€759Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€109€(Tenn.€1988);€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWhile€our€courts€have€stated€that€there€may€be€thousands€of€things€that€must€be€taken€intoÐ ° Ðaccount€when€dealing€with€young€children,€òòÔ_ÔVarleyÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔVarleyÔ_Ôóó,€934€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996),Ð œì Ðthe€Legislature€has€set€out€the€following€list€of€factors€to€guide€the€courts€in€determining€the€bestÐ ˆØ Ðinterests€of€the€child:Ð tÄ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà ` à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€the€parents€andÐ L œ Ðchild;Ð 8 ˆ Ðà ` à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,Ð $ t Ðmedical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€hasÐ  ` Ðbeen€the€primary€Ô_ÔcaregiverÔ_Ô;Ð ü L  Ðà ` à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€and€the€length€of€time€theÐ è 8  Ðchild€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environment;Ð Ô$  Ðà ` à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ð À  Ðà ` à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ð ¬ü  Ðà ` à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð ˜è  Ðà ` à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferencesÐ pÀ Ðof€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weight€than€those€of€youngerÐ \¬ Ðchildren;Ð H˜ Ðà ` à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€other€parentÐ 4„ Ðor€to€any€other€person...Ð  p Ðà ` à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€orÐ  \ Ðfrequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€person's€interactions€with€the€child;€€andÐ øH Ðà ` à(10)€Each€parent's€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€of€parentingÐ ä4 Ðresponsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€toÐ Ð  Ðfacilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuing€parent-child€relationship€between€theÐ ¼  Ðchild€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€discussed€each€of€these€factors€in€her€ruling€from€the€bench,€and€we€will€dealÐ X ¨ Ðwith€those€that€she€found€most€relevant.€€The€judge€found€that€both€parents€were€equal€in€their€loveÐ D!” Ðand€affection€for€their€children,€and€both€were€equally€disposed€to€provide€them€with€necessary€care,Ð 0"€  Ðand€thus€that€neither€of€these€important€factors€formed€a€basis€for€preferring€one€parent€over€theÐ #l! Ðother€on€the€question€of€custody.€€She€also€praised€the€parties€for€cooperating€very€well€with€eachÐ $X" Ðother€in€matters€of€visitation,€and€found€them€equal€in€their€ability€to€foster€close€relationshipsÐ ô$D # Ðbetween€the€children€and€the€other€parent.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€judge€found,€however,€that€questions€of€continuity€and€stability€weighed€heavily€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðfatherððs€favor.€€The€court€noted€that€the€children€had€lived€in€the€marital€home€all€their€lives,€and€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€proximity€to€their€paternal€grandparents€was€very€important€for€their€care€and€emotional€well„Ð )à$( Ðbeing.€€The€mother€voluntarily€removed€herself€from€that€environment,€and€when€she€had€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðchildren€during€weekend€visitation,€she€tended€not€to€stay€at€her€own€apartment,€but€to€bring€themÐ h+¸&* Ðwith€her€for€overnight€visitation€at€the€home€of€a€long„time€friend€who€also€had€young€children.€€TheÐ ° Ðcourt€found€it€to€be€more€consistent€with€the€childrenððs€best€interest€for€them€to€continue€to€resideÐ œì Ðwith€their€father€in€a€familiar€place,€among€family€members€who€love€them,€rather€than€with€theirÐ ˆØ Ðmother,€in€a€place€where€she€herself€might€not€feel€totally€comfortable.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€for€evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse,€the€court€noted€Mr.€Keelerððs€testimony€asÐ L œ Ðto€some€bruises€he€found€on€the€body€of€their€daughter.€€Mr.€Keeler€entered€a€photo€of€those€bruisesÐ 8 ˆ Ðinto€evidence,€and€testified€that€his€wife€told€him€that€she€had€spanked€the€little€girl€with€a€belt,€butÐ $ t Ðthat€when€he€showed€her€the€photo€she€said€it€was€a€diaper€rash.€€In€her€rebuttal€testimony,€Ms.Ð  ` ÐKeeler€denied€his€account.€€The€judge€was€reluctant€to€make€a€finding€as€to€the€source€of€the€bruises,Ð ü L  Ðbut€found€it€to€be€emotional€abuse€to€expose€the€children€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô€before€their€parents€wereÐ è 8  Ðdivorced.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô€did€not€testify€at€the€divorce€hearing,€so€the€judge€was€not€in€a€very€goodÐ Ô$  Ðposition€to€evaluate€his€character€and€behavior,€but€she€found€his€willingness€to€involve€himself€soÐ À  Ðintimately€with€a€married€woman€and€her€young€children€to€at€least€bring€his€character€into€question.€Ð ¬ü  ЀÌà  àMs.€Keeler€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€basing€its€custody€determination€so€heavily€onÐ „Ô  Ðthe€motherððs€relationship€with€her€boyfriend,€in€the€absence€of€evidence€that€this€relationship€wasÐ pÀ Ðdetrimental€to€the€children.€€She€cites€the€case€of€òòEarls€v.€Earlsóó,€42€S.W.3d€877€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð \¬ Ð2000),€as€support€for€her€position.€€However,€the€situation€in€the€òòEarlsóó€case€was€very€different€fromÐ H˜ Ðthe€one€before€us.€€Mr.€and€Ms.€Earls€had€already€determined€for€themselves€that€it€was€in€the€bestÐ 4„ Ðinterest€of€the€child€that€the€father€exercise€custody€over€their€eight€year€old€son.€€The€trial€judgeÐ  p Ðignored€their€decision€and€the€tragic€circumstances€that€justified€it,€and€awarded€custody€to€theÐ  \ Ðmother,€because€he€believed€that€the€fatherððs€relationship€with€another€woman€placed€the€child€inÐ øH Ðmoral€jeopardy.€€This€court€reversed,€finding€there€to€be€overwhelming€evidence€that€it€was€in€theÐ ä4 Ðbest€interest€of€the€child€to€be€cared€for€by€his€father.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€find€either€party€unfit€or€incapable€of€caring€for€theÐ ¨ø Ðchildren,€and€the€question€of€custody€was€more€difficult.€€Ms.€Keelerððs€relationship€with€Mr.Ð ”ä ÐÔ_ÔStockwellÔ_Ô€was€just€one€of€several€factors€that€tilted€the€decision€to€Mr.€Keeler.€€Aside€from€questionsÐ €Ð Ðof€stability€and€continuity,€others€included€the€motherððs€lack€of€credibility€on€matters€of€importance,Ð l¼ Ðher€poor€judgment,€and€her€erratic€driving€habits.€€€€€€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àMs.€Keeler€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€two€relevant€factors€in€her€favor.Ð 0"€  ÐFirst,€that€her€work€schedule€was€far€more€flexible€than€Mr.€Keelerððs,€enabling€her€to€tailor€her€hoursÐ #l! Ðto€meet€the€needs€of€her€children.€€Second,€that€as€a€college€graduate,€she€is€far€better€educated€thanÐ $X" Ðher€husband,€who€did€not€even€graduate€from€high€school,€and€thus€that€she€is€better€able€to€help€theÐ ô$D # Ðchildren€as€they€advance€in€school.€€We€agree€that€these€factors€militate€in€her€favor,€but€we€are€notÐ à%0!$ Ðsure€they€are€sufficient€to€overcome€the€factors€that€favor€Mr.€Keeler.€€We€note€that€although€Mr.Ð Ì&"% ÐKeelerððs€work€hours€are€far€more€rigid€than€his€wifeððs,€his€mother€lives€next€door,€and€is€willing€toÐ ¸'#& Ðcontinue€helping€out€with€the€children€whenever€Mr.€Keeler€cannot€be€there.€€Also,€the€divorceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdecree€provides€for€generous€visitation,€and€should€make€it€possible€for€Ms.€Keeler€to€continue€toÐ )à$( Ðexercise€a€positive€influence€on€her€childrenððs€education.€€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àA€trial€courtððs€determination€in€child€custody€cases€is€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÐ ° Ðcorrectness,€and€may€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ œì Ðotherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòWhitaker€v.€Whitakeróó,€957€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);Ð ˆØ ÐòòÔ_ÔHassÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKnightonÔ_Ôóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984).€€We€have€read€the€transcript€of€the€trial€in€itsÐ tÄ Ðentirety,€and€although€this€case€presents€a€close€question,€we€do€not€believe€the€evidenceÐ `° Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€Ð L œ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ ü L  ÐMontgomery€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appealÐ è 8  Ðto€the€appellant,€Nicole€Jean€Keeler.€€Ô#†¼]m»XX #ÔÔ€XX»¼]mÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.