WPC\ S;>ƁAS'yhʶ"KjgAæV p0 {E$@Ô1zM*OXhc,TDNh)EձKyx(Bt$Ilh!.MEJcj8TuJӵ[3<7j0H%.^@0; rh;SmIg[%ZltG7?Bf ]@Db+dQœ"#gxt: 4QErj, f7G 'bOQ&'1fmNodx%PM߅/}J ~)CְĈ!wv.S"\xBj2#M`9b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # UN   s9UNNMMMEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOObQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0YYYY BDD 0a D3 D-8 0Kee AS 0 0Dm As/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/B011C83|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2X[$ !.8}dXXd8         0  e d(|3C$ !.8}dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3C$ !.8}dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8}dd8     _  }8HXXdd8  @ <}INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#}< #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsDecember4,2003 L XHX} #}XXH#INRE_K.N.R._,etal.XHX}  J @@ AppealfromtheJuvenileCourtforRobertsonCounty  J @@No.D20072MaxD._Fagan_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301301_COA_ԄR3PTFiledDecember23,_2003_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #}XH#XHX.}WilliamB.Cain,J.,concurring. d #}XXH#  XHX} XHXXXH  ForreasonsarticulatedinEstateof_Acuff_Ԁv._OLinger_,56S.W.3d527(Tenn.Ct.App.2001), (x _perm.app.denied_(Oct.1,2001),andin_In_Ԁre_Z.J.S._Ԁand_M.J.P._,No.M200202235_COA_ԄR3JV, d 2003WL21266854(Tenn.Ct.App.June3,2003)(noRule11applicationfiled)(Cain,J.,concurring) P andinStatev.R.S.and_K.S._,No.M200200919_COA_ԄR3CV,2003WL22098035(Tenn.Ct.App. < Sept.11,2003)(Cain,J.,concurring),Icannotagreethatthestandardofappellatereviewiscorrectly ( stated.IadheretomyviewthatthestandardofreviewstatedinRayv.Ray,83S.W.3d726  (Tenn.Ct.App.2001)_perm.app.denied_(July15,2002),#XHXX XH# XHXXXHԀandthestandardofreviewstatedin_Acuff_,56  S.W.3d527,areincompatibleonewiththeother.Ibelieve_Acuff_providesthecorrectstandardof  reviewandthattheRaystandardisincorrect.Rayheld:  8   ` Becausethisheightenedburdenofproofdiffersfromthecustomaryburden ` ofproofincivilcases,wemustadjusttheusualstandardofreviewoffactualfindings L  foundinTenn.R.App.P.13(d).Incasessuchastheonebeforeus,wewillreview 8!  thetrialcourtsspecificfindingsoffactinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.13(d). $"t! Accordingly,thetrialcourtsfindingsoffactwillbepresumedtobecorrectunless #`" theevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Thenwewilldeterminewhetherthefacts,as #L# foundbythetrialcourt,clearlyandconvincinglyestablishthatachildwillbe $8 $ exposedtoariskofsubstantialharmifheorsheisplacedinabiologicalparents %$!% custody.Inre_L.S.W._,2001WL1013079,at*5;Inre_T.L.P._,No.W199901940 &"& _COA_ԄR3CV,2001WL987152,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.22,2001)perm.app. '"' denied(Tenn.Jan.14,2002).(#(   Ray,83S.W.3dat733.Suchastandardcontravenesthestandardstatedin_Acuff_,alongwith p*%* contraveningthestandardstatedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinColoradov.NewMexico, \+&+ 467U.S.310,104_S.Ct_.2433,81_L.Ed_.2d247(1984)andthestandardcorrectlystatedbythe H,', SupremeCourtofMaineinTaylorv._Commr_ԀofMentalHealth,481A.2d139,15354(Me.1984). 4-(- _ԇ  InAcuffweheld,astheSupremeCourtofOregonhadheldinRileyHillGen.Contractor,  Inc.v.TandyCorp.,737P.2d595,604(Or.1987),thata clear,cogentandconvincingevidence  standardcannotcoexistwitha preponderanceoftheevidencestandardontheissueoftheburden  ofpersuasion.SeeAcuff,56S.W.3dat535.InAcuffweadoptedtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt t standard,whichprovided: Incontrasttotheordinarycivilcase,whichtypicallyisjudgedbya ` preponderanceoftheevidencestandard,wethoughtadiversionofinterstatewatershouldbe L  allowedonlyifColoradocouldplace,intheultimatefactfinder,anabidingconvictionthattheproof 8  ofitsfactualallegationsarehighlyprobable.Coloradov.NewMexico,467U.S.at315,104 $ t S.Ct.at243738,and81L.Ed.2d247.  `   Tennesseehaslongrecognizedthatthe clear,cogentandconvincingevidencestandard,  8  whileitdefiesprecisedescription,isinfactanintermediatestandardmoreexactingthanthe $  preponderanceofevidencestandard,whileatthesametimenotrequiringthekindofcertainty   inherentfromthecriminalstandardofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeODanielv.Messier,   905S.W.2d182,188(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).     ThedifficultywithapplyingtheRaystandardinsteadoftheAcuffstandardispersuasively p articulatedbyJusticeTraynorinhisdissentinBeelerv.AmericanTrustCo.,147P.2d583 \ (Cal.1944). H 8  8`   Thisisnotanordinarycivilcase,however,for,asthemajority  p opinionconcedes,itwasincumbentuponplaintifftosupporthis  \ contentionbyevidence, clear,satisfactoryandconvincing;explicit, H unequivocalandindisputable.Wehlev.Price,202Cal.394,397, 4 260P.878,879;Goodfellowv.Goodfellow,219Cal.548,554,27   P.2d898.Whileitrestsprimarilywiththetrialcourttodetermine   whethertheevidenceisclearandconvincing,itsfindingisnot  necessarilyconclusive,forincasesgovernedbytherulerequiring  suchevidence thesufficiencyoftheevidencetosupportthefinding  shouldbeconsideredbytheappellatecourtinthelightofthatrule. l Sheenanv.Sullivan,126Cal.189,193,58P.543,544;see,also X  Moultriev.Wright,154Cal.520,98P.257.Insuchcasesitisthe D! dutyoftheappellatecourtinreviewingtheevidencetodetermine,not 0"  whetherthetrieroffactscouldreasonablyconcludethatitismore #l! probablethatthefacttobeprovedexiststhanthatitdoesnot,asin $X" theordinarycivilcasewhereonlyapreponderanceoftheevidenceis $D # required,butwhetherthetrieroffactscouldreasonablyconcludethat %0!$ itishighlyprobablethatthefactexists.Whenitholdsthatthetrial &"% courtsfindingmustbegovernedbythesametestwithrelationto '#& substantialevidenceasordinarilyappliesinothercivilcases,therule (#' thattheevidencemustbeclearandconvincingbecomesmeaningless. )$( Thereisacontradictioninthusdestroyingthevitalityoftherule |*%) whileaffirmingitssoundness.h+&*` x` x Ї8  Beeler,147P.2dat600.(Traynor,J.,dissenting).   #XHXX XHm #XHXXXH  Since,inthecaseatbar,regardlessofourdisputeoverthecorrectstandardofreview,the  courtcorrectlyvacatesthetrialcourtorderforfailuretocomplywiththefindingsoffact t requirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection361113(k).Iconcurinthejudgment.#XHXXXH]## `    `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE