ÿWPC§ ÞiâÏV ~bÏË¡ ¼Emž¬F)¬ÙÉE\µm&Áx÷ ç;(tÑ$xïžÅ‰àšZ¥Õ¹ôEˆ¡.>Eø6´þDö‘þw„)I‘6( ñ=èÌÜ¥I.Åþ±ÍQ?¯—!"ð=[ñ/çi .– ¨€ã¤_Ï:ÀôùÎÏ©V¥£~—Bí™v.:<ÿ0ÀX½du_d5Iy‰‚.­©,C4‰‰Yˆá{`!Áƒäç"­ÄN¹„‡ù³2Dð/oÞ›4ØèÄö…;’ü-G¢9œ~7(ï~FÏMžàçÀªÖï¡l¶÷ò‚ñwí?dzÐg(€¸ÆÑ¤³„À@Kj÷YìÔY$eÈ\Òšþ¹ë¬¦³ö}#­êìl ¤’þÕZ¦ú€øÃÑ¿9ÕWc 4¦6`‹£¾ñÒuáïô]io‚BÎ1üè<ù2éïËÑ£±¨Å·ÈÆìçíÓË6ˆ†\fkÊ …ŸÖÔ3ñ€¾P¨¶™’É'¯X•“òÝ÷€$H)ŸÈ˜!x¶?£–€ewÄ—¤÷ 7yRè³ÞEóï<4]âև; ÑÙ¥“àLÌï ÿQc G­ÈÄDQêœ ¯Z°00ï%"jkù÷b$ÎQŽ‘W# ÂUNÍ % 04! 0ÏUb$ N, ^ . w@: 4z Ž  mŸ UN¶  \ ?h 0D§ ë U:îîîîîîîîîîîî AQ(Æy 0D? 0Dƒ 0DÇÇ D/   B: D3WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW BŠ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó((2O+$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÿQX»»ÔÑ  ÑÑÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-ž[%ä ¡[¢D£D¤¥¦§¨©Ó€³ìu[%-ingô|†3|x³ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(í€"  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular OprylandKaylaGallatin AabyAdelspergerBarnhillLentzDantzlerNicholsRogeroGaskillContrerascaregiverVarleyMimmsGOODALLAllman 5Ý ƒKa$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X X»»ÔÑ @ ÑÑ@Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPrior€to€a€1998€amendment€not€applicable€to€this€case,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)Ð ° Ðprovided:€ð ðThe€court€may,€upon€such€stipulations€or€upon€proof,€grant€a€divorce€to€the€party€whoÏwas€less€at€fault€or,€if€either€or€both€of€the€parties€are€entitled€to€a€divorce,€declare€the€parties€to€beÏdivorced,€rather€than€awarding€a€divorce€to€either€party€alone.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€»ª½ »»»ÔÔ€Ÿ“  »»ª½ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X/X Ÿ“ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€28,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdVVVV'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€×l»»ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€„ìj„»»Ôò òñ³ññ©ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` 8ttxPX°ð  rßñ©ññ³ññ³ññ³ñÌñ³ñßt€ )>.*jxäþ,` `€€@ED` 8ttxP<|ð È tßñ³ñà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ‡¼Wo¼„„ìjԈР€Ð ÐÌÌÌÌMICHAEL€ALLEN€LANCE,à À àà  àà p à)Ð @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellant,à À àà  àà p à)à È àSumner€CircuitÐ l¼  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)à È àNo.€16685„CÐ ‚Ò  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ð ˜è  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)à È àAppeal€No.Ð ®þ  ÐTINA€GAYLE€LANCE,à h àà À àà  àà p à)à È à01A01„9801„CV„00036Ð Ä  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellee.à À àà  àà p à)Ð ð@ ÐÌÌÌÌà@!DàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@\\'DàFOR€SUMNER€COUNTYˆÌà@yy$DàAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@t t DàTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à h àà À àà  àà p àà È àòòFor€Defendant/Appelleeóó:Ð $%t  ÐÌClark€Lee€Shawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àF.€Dulin€KellyÐ P' " ÐNashville,€Tennesseeà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àAndy€L.€AllmanÐ f(¶#  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àClinton€L.€KellyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àHendersonville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†„ìj„¼¼Wož#ÔÔ‡ ‡† „„ìjÔà@Ç Ç Dàò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PART;ˆÐ ,2|-) Ðà@óó)DàAND€REMANDEDÔ#†„ìj„  ‡†Ï #Ôó óˆÐ l3¼.* ÐÌÌÌÌÌÔ€¼Wo¼„„ìjÔà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ  ´;70< ÐÔ_ÔÑX„Ñò òÑ  ÑÌà@ÎÎ)DàòòÔ‡„ìj„¼¼WoÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†¼Wo¼„„ìjó #Ôóóó óˆÐ Æ ÐÌÓ€ÓÌÔ‡Š£­ м¼WoÔà ` àThis€appeal€involves€the€custody€of€a€five„year„old„girl.€€After€three€and€one„halfÐ å 5 Ðyears€of€marriage,€the€father€filed€a€divorce€petition€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÏrequesting€custody€of€the€partiesðð€only€child.€€The€mother€did€not€contest€the€divorce€butÏsought€custody€of€the€partiesðð€child.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€declared€theÏparties€divorced€and€awarded€custody€to€the€mother.€€The€father€asserts€on€this€appeal€thatÏhe€should€have€been€awarded€the€divorce€and€that€he€is€comparatively€more€fit€than€theÏmother€to€have€custody.€€€We€affirm€the€award€of€custody€to€the€mother€but€remand€the€caseÏwith€directions€to€modify€the€judgment€to€award€the€divorce€to€the€father€on€the€ground€ofÏinappropriate€marital€conduct.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òà @` àà @¸ àI.ó óÐ !q ÐÓ¬ÓÌà ` àTina€Gayle€Lance€and€Michael€Allen€Lance€met€in€April€1992€while€working€atÏOpryland,€U.S.A.€€Ms.€Lance€was€seventeen,€and€Mr.€Lance€was€twenty„three€years€old.€ÏThey€became€romantically€involved,€and€on€August€20,€1993,€Ms.€Lance€gave€birth€to€theirÏdaughter,€Kayla€Michelle€Lance.€€The€parties€changed€living€arrangements€quite€oftenÏfollowing€the€birth€of€the€child,€but€finally,€in€February€1994,€they€moved€into€their€ownÏapartment€in€Madison.ÌÌà ` àThe€parties€were€married€in€July€1994.€€Ms.€Lance€was€their€daughterððs€primaryÏcaregiver€but€also€worked€full„time.€€Mr.€Lance€also€worked€full„time€and€attended€classesÏat€Volunteer€State€Community€College€where€he€was€enrolled€in€the€nursing€program.€€WhenÏhe€was€not€working€or€attending€classes,€much€of€his€time€was€spent€studying.€€Both€theÏmaternal€and€paternal€grandparents€assisted€with€babysitting.€€In€June€1995,€the€partiesÏpurchased€a€home€in€White€House€with€financial€assistance€from€Mr.€Lanceððs€parents.€€ÌÌà ` àMs.€Lanceððs€parents€moved€back€to€Louisiana€in€November€1995.€€After€visiting€herÏparents€twice€in€January€and€February€1997,€Ms.€Lance€informed€Mr.€Lance€that€she€wishedÏto€move€back€to€Louisiana€with€the€partiesðð€daughter.€€Ms.€Lanceððs€attitude€about€Mr.€LanceÏand€her€marriage€changed€dramatically€when€she€returned€from€an€extended€visit€toÏLouisiana€in€March€1997.€€Instead€of€returning€to€her€home,€she€moved€in€with€girlfriendsÏand€informed€Mr.€Lance€that€she€desired€to€move€to€Louisiana€permanently.€€Mr.€LanceÏbecame€suspicious€about€Ms.€Lanceððs€conduct€when€their€phone€bill€revealed€that€she€wasÏmaking€frequent€telephone€calls€to€a€former€boyfriend€in€Louisiana.€€Ms.€Lance€finallyÐ +<{7G Ðadmitted€to€Mr.€Lance€that€she€was€having€sexual€relations€in€Louisiana€with€her€oldÏboyfriend.ÌÌà ` àThe€partiesðð€marriage€deteriorated€rapidly.€€On€April€1,€1997,€Mr.€Lance€filed€aÏpetition€for€divorce€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€County€and€obtained€a€temporaryÏrestraining€order€preventing€Ms.€Lance€from€taking€their€daughter€to€Louisiana€prior€to€theÏtrial.€€The€trial€court€dissolved€the€order€on€May€9,€1997€when€it€gave€Ms.€Lance€temporaryÏcustody.€€Ms.€Lance€admitted€in€her€answer€that€she€had€engaged€in€inappropriate€maritalÏconduct€but€requested€custody€of€her€daughter.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€courtÏdeclared€the€parties€divorced€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€(1996),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  Z Ðawarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€to€Ms.€Lance,€and€determined€that€the€childððsÏinterests€would€be€served€best€by€permitting€Ms.€Lance€and€the€child€to€move€to€Louisiana.€ÏMs.€Lance€and€Kayla€have€moved€to€Louisiana,€where€Ms.€Lance€works€as€a€secretary€at€herÏuncleððs€real€estate€office.€€€They€live€rent„free€in€a€home€owned€by€her€parents.€€€Mr.€LanceÏcontinues€to€reside€in€the€Nashville€area€and€works€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€as€a€nurseÏassistant.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÐ R ¢$ ÐÌÓiÓà ` àMr.€Lanceððs€primary€issue€on€this€appeal€involves€the€custody€decision.€€He€assertsÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Ms.€Lance€is€comparativelyÏmore€fit€to€be€the€custodial€parent.€€We€have€determined€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€courtððs€conclusion.€€€€€ÌÌà@ÛÛ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ +a&2 Ðà ` àÌà ` àDecisions€involving€the€custody€of€children€are€factually€driven€and€require€theÏcareful€consideration€of€€numerous€considerations.€€òòSee€Nichols€v.€Nichols,óó€792€S.W.2d€713,Ð ¬/ü*8 Ð716€(Tenn.€1990);€òòRogero€v.€Pitt,óó€759€S.W.2d€109,€112€(Tenn.€1988).€€Among€theseÐ 51…,: Ðconsiderations€are:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àthe€age,€habits,€mental€and€emotional€make„up€of€the€child€andÏthose€parties€competing€for€custody;€the€education€andÏexperience€of€those€seeking€to€raise€the€child;€their€character€andÐ S6£1@ Ðpropensities€as€evidenced€by€their€past€conduct;€the€financialÏand€physical€circumstances€available€in€the€home€of€each€partyÏseeking€custody€and€the€special€requirements€of€the€child;€theÏavailability€and€extent€of€third„party€support;€the€associationsÏand€influences€to€which€the€child€is€most€likely€to€be€exposed€inÏthe€alternatives€afforded,€both€positive€and€negative;€and€whereÏis€the€greater€likelihood€of€an€environment€for€the€child€of€love,Ïwarmth,€stability,€support,€consistency,€care€and€concern,€andÏphysical€and€spiritual€nurture.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓòòBah€v.€Bah,óó€668€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð ì<  Ð106€(Supp.€1998).€€Since€there€are€no€hard€and€fast€rules€for€determining€which€custody€andÏvisitation€arrangement€will€best€serve€a€childððs€needs,€òòsee€Taylor€v.€Taylor,€óó849€S.W.2d€319,Ð þN  Ð327€(Tenn.€1993);€òòDantzler€v.€Dantzler,óó€665€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€custodyÐ ‡× Ðand€visitation€decisions€are€invariably€dictated€by€the€unique€facts€of€each€case.ÌÌà ` àThe€analytical€framework€for€making€original€custody€decisions€requires€the€courtsÏto€examine€the€parents€competing€for€custody€to€determine€which€of€them€is€comparativelyÏmore€fit€to€be€the€childððs€custodian.€€òòSee€In€re€Parsonsóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 4„ Ð1995);€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€666.€€The€courts€understand€that€each€parent€has€his€or€herÐ ½  Ðown€vices€and€virtues.€€Ô‡ŠÜ ‹‹Š°ÀÔòòSee€Gaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€630€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€Ð F– ÐAccordingly,€they€do€not€base€their€custody€decisions€on€which€parent€is€ð ðperfect,ðð€Ô#†Š°À‹ ‹ŠÜ©%#ÔÔ‡ŠÜ ‹‹Š°ÀÔòòsee€BahÐ ç7  Ðv.€Bah,óó€668€S.W.2d€at€666;€òòEdwards€v.€Edwards,óó€501€S.W.2d€283,€290„91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð g!·" Ð1973),€or€on€which€parent€has€been€made€out€to€be€completely€unfit.€€Ô#†Š°À‹ ‹ŠÜ£&#ÔÔ‡ŠÜ ‹‹Š°ÀÔòòSee€Griffin€v.€Stone,óóÐ ç"7$ Ð834€S.W.2d€300,€305€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòHarris€v.€Harris,óó€832€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.Ð g$·& ÐCt.€App.€1992).Ô#†Š°À‹ ‹ŠÜ¼'#Ô€€Rather,€custody€decisions€require€the€courts€to€determine€which€of€theÐ ç%7!( Ðavailable€custodial€alternatives€appears€to€be€best€calculated€to€meet€the€childððs€needs.ÌÌà ` àCustody€and€visitation€determinations€often€hinge€on€subtle€factors,€including€theÏparentsðð€demeanor€and€credibility€during€the€divorce€proceedings€themselves.€€Trial€courtsÏmust€be€able€to€exercise€broad€discretion€in€these€matters,€as€long€as€their€decisions€are€basedÏon€the€evidence€and€on€an€appropriate€application€of€the€applicable€principles€of€law.€€òòSeeÐ 5/…*4 ÐD€v.€Kóó,€917€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€areÐ ¾0,6 Ðreluctant€to€second„guess€a€trial€courtððs€decisions,€òòsee€Gaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€631,Ð G2—-8 Ðòòóóand€we€review€these€decisions€de€novo€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð3 /: Ðfindings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòSee€Nichols€v.Ð Y5©0< ÐNicholsóó,€792€S.W.2d€at€716;€€òòDoles€v.€Dolesóó,€848€S.W.2d€656,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).Ð â622> ÐÔ‡ŠÜ ‹‹Š°ÀÔÌÌÐ k;»6D Ðà@àà.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àThe€pivotal€question€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€custody€decision€is€whether€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€its€conclusion€that€Ms.€Lance€is€comparatively€more€fit€thanÏMr.€Lance€to€be€their€daughterððs€custodian.€€Mr.€Lance€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÏstemmed€more€from€the€trial€courtððs€concern€that€he€fathered€a€child€out„of„wedlock€thanÏfrom€the€current€fitness€of€the€parties.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€evidence€demonstrates€thatÏhe€is€more€stable€and€responsible€than€Ms.€Lance€and,€therefore,€that€he€would€be€a€betterÏcustodial€parent.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€comments€from€the€bench€leave€little€doubt€that€it€disapproved€of€theÏfacts€that€ð ðthis€father€was€24€years€of€age€when€he€got€this€17„year„old€girl€pregnantðð€andÏthat€the€child€was€born€out€of€wedlock.€€It€is€difficult€to€tell€from€the€record€what€role€theseÏfactors€played€in€the€trial€courtððs€ultimate€custody€decision.€€However,€we€need€not€speculateÏabout€these€questions€on€appeal€because€we€must€review€the€record€de€novo€and€because€ourÏappraisal€of€comparative€fitness€need€not€follow€that€of€the€trial€court.€€Under€the€facts€ofÏthis€case,€we€have€determined€that€the€age€difference€in€the€parties€and€the€fact€that€theirÏchild€was€born€before€they€were€marriedÔ#†Š°À‹ ‹ŠÜE-#Ô€are€of€only€minor€weight€in€the€comparative€fitnessÐ 0€" Ðanalysis.ÌÌà ` àMr.€Lanceððs€assertion€that€he€is€the€more€stable€and€mature€parent€stems€from€hisÏbelief€that€Ms.€Lanceððs€infatuation€with€her€high€school€boyfriend€and€her€desire€to€moveÏback€to€Louisiana€signals€her€immaturity€and€lack€of€commitment€to€her€child.€€While€herÏconduct€certainly€evinces€a€lack€of€commitment€to€her€marriage,€it€does€not€necessarilyÏfollow€that€she€is€any€less€committed€to€her€daughter.ÌÌà ` àThis€court€has€never€condoned€extramarital€affairs.€€òòSee€Sutherland€v.€Sutherlandóó,€831Ð ,i'4 ÐS.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Sexual€misconduct€may€be€an€indication€of€parentalÏfitness,€and€accordingly,€the€courts€may€consider€it€when€undertaking€their€comparativeÏfitness€analysis.€€òòSee€Barnhill€v.€Barnhillóó,€826€S.W.2d€443,€453€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);Ð ´0,: ÐòòEdwards€v.€Edwardsóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€291.€€However,€courts€decline€to€use€custody€decisionsÐ =2-< Ðto€punish€parents€for€sexual€misconduct€alone€without€some€proof€that€the€conduct€isÏadversely€affecting€the€children.€€òòSee€Varley€v.€Varleyóó,€934€S.W.2d€659,€666„667€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð O5Ÿ0@ ÐApp.€1996);€òòSutherland€v.€Sutherlandóó,€831€S.W.2d€at€286;€òòMimms€v.€Mimmsóó,€780€S.W.2dÐ Ø6(2B Ð739,€745€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€Ìâ âÐ ê9:5F Ðà ` àBased€on€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€find€no€basis€for€concluding€that€Ms.€LanceððsÏâ âinappropriate€affair€with€her€former€boyfriend€warrants€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€custodyÏdecision.€€There€is€no€indication€that€Ms.€Lance€is€engaging€in€inappropriate,€intimateÏconduct€in€her€daughterððs€presence€or€that€her€daughter€has€been€emotionally€orÏpsychologically€harmed€by€Ms.€Lanceððs€relationship€with€her€former€boyfriend.€€Nor€doesÏthe€record€contain€any€proof€that€Ms.€Lanceððs€infatuation€with€her€former€boyfriend€hasÏcaused€her€to€neglect€her€daughterððs€needs.€€Thus,€Ms.€Lanceððs€meretricious€relationship,€byÏitself,€is€not€enough€to€tip€the€scales€against€awarding€her€custody.ÌÌà ` àWeighed€against€Ms.€Lanceððs€relationship€with€her€former€boyfriend€is€òòóóthe€fact€thatÐ Ñ  ÐMs.€Lance€has€taken€primary€responsibility€for€meeting€the€childððs€needs€during€the€earlyÏyears€of€her€life.€€While€Mr.€Lance€was€an€attentive€parent€to€the€extent€that€his€scheduleÏpermitted,€it€was€Ms.€Lance€who€had€the€responsibility€to€feed,€bathe,€and€clothe€the€child.€ÏMs.€Lance€has€been€the€consistent€parent€figure€to€the€child€ever€since€she€was€born.€€TheÏchild€has€been€living€with€Ms.€Lance€in€New€Orleans€ñžñever€ñžñsince€1997.€€In€light€of€the€importanceÏof€continuity€and€stability€in€a€young€childððs€life,€ñŸñòòñŸñseeñŸñóóñŸñ€ñ ñòòñ ñTaylor€v.€Taylorñ ñóóñ ñ,€849€S.W.2d€at€328;Ð · Ðñ¡ñòòñ¡ñContreras€v.€Wardñ¡ñóóñ¡ñ,€831€S.W.2d€288,€290€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991),€we€are€disinclined€to€alterÐ @  Ðthe€present€custody€arrangement€and€require€the€child€to€leave€her€mother€to€return€toÏNashville.ÌÌà@««-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ d#´( ÐÌà ` àMr.€Lance€also€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€declare€the€partiesÏdivorced€because€of€a€desire€to€shield€the€partiesððñ¢ñsñ¢ñ€child€from€the€knowledge€that€Ms.€LanceÏhad€committed€adultery.€€We€assertñ£ñsñ£ñ€that€the€decision€was€wrong€for€two€reasons.€€First,€Ms.ÏLance€admitted€committing€adultery,€and€second,€because€it€is€unrealistic€to€expect€thatÏignoring€the€plain€evidence€of€adultery€will€shield€the€child€from€learning,€if€she€does€notÏalready€know,€that€her€motherððs€affair€with€a€former€boyfriend€caused€her€parentsðð€marriageÏto€end.€€We€agree€that€Mr.€Lance€should€have€been€awarded€the€divorce.ÌÌà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129(b)€permits€a€trial€court€to€declare€the€parties€divorced,Ïrather€than€awarding€the€divorce€to€one€of€the€parties,€if€either€or€both€of€the€parties€proveÏthat€they€are€entitled€to€a€divorce.€€While€we€generally€avoid€revisiting€a€trial€courtððs€decisionÏconcerning€to€whom€a€divorce€should€be€granted,€this€case€presents€a€rare€occasion€requiringÏus€to€intercede.€€Based€on€our€de€novo€review€of€the€record,€we€find€overwhelming€evidenceÏthat€Ms.€Lance€committed€adultery.€€However,€we€find€little€evidence€substantiating€Ms.ÏLanceððs€claim€that€she€is€entitled€to€a€divorce€from€Mr.€Ô_ÔLance.Ð ô;D7H Їà ` àSimilarly,€we€have€concluded€the€trial€courtððs€desire€to€shield€the€partiesðð€child€fromÏknowledge€of€her€motherððs€misconduct,€while€well„motivated,€is€misdirected.€€The€child€isÏnow€five€years€old.€€If€she€does€not€already€know€why€her€parents€separated€and€divorced,Ïshe€will€certainly€know€soon€enough€even€if€she€never€sees€the€divorce€decree.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€declaring€the€parties€divorced€and€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€in€favor€of€concluding€that€Mr.€Lance€is€entitled€to€the€divorce€on€the€groundÏof€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€ÌÌà@±±.Dàò òIV.ó óˆÐ øH  ÐÌà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment€awarding€Ms.€Lance€custody€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€andÏremand€the€case€with€directions€that€the€trial€court€amend€the€divorce€decree€to€show€that€Mr.ÏLance€was€awarded€a€divorce€on€the€ground€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€We€tax€theÏcosts€of€this€appeal€in€equal€proportion€to€Michael€Allen€Lance€and€his€surety,€and€to€TinaÏGayle€Lance€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.€€€ÌÓ€ÓÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,ÌPRESIDING€JUDGE,€ñ¤ñM.€S.ñ¤ññ¤ñMIDDLñ¤ññ¥ñE€SECTION€ñ¥ñÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEñ¨ñ€ñ¨ñÔ#†¼{>»‹Š°À÷ #Ôñ¨ñÐ  )U$+ ÐÔ€ ‡ò!»¼{>ÔÔ‡„Ü*„»¼{>Ôò òÑ8€{>»»d»»d8Ñà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ#† ‡ò!„„Ü*ÈJ#ԈРh ÐÌÔ‡¼{>»»¼{>ÔÌMICHAEL€ALLEN€LANCE,à À àà  àà p à)Ð Ú * Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellant,à À àà  àà p à)à È àSumner€CircuitÐ  Z Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)à È àNo.€16685„CÐ " r ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ð :Š  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)à È àAppeal€No.Ð R¢  ÐTINA€GAYLE€LANCE,à h àà À àà  àà p à)à È à01A01„9801„CV„00036Ð jº  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellee.à À àà  àà p à)Ð šê  ÐÌÌÔ#† ‡ò!»¼{>ÉK#ÔÌò òà@cc(DàòòJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ $t ÐÌÔ€Š°À‹! ‡òÔÓ€Óà ` àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€Sumner€CountyÐ ¨ø ÐCircuit€Court,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€arguments€of€counsel.€€Upon€consideration€of€theÏentire€record,€this€court€finds€and€concludes€that€the€trial€judgeððs€judgment€should€beÏaffirmed€in€part€and€modified€in€part.ÌÌà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€contemporaneously€with€this€judgment,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered,€adjudged,€and€decreed€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€be€and€is€herebyÏaffirmed€in€part,€modified€in€part,€and€that€the€cause€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€courtððs€opinion.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€be€taxed€in€equal€proportions€toÏMichael€Allen€Lance,€principal,€and€Clark€Lee€Shaw,€surety,€and€to€Tina€Gayle€Lance€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à__________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€ñ¦ñM.€S.ñ¦ññ¨ññ¦ñMIDDLñ¦ññ§ñE€SECTION€ñ§ññ¨ñÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à__________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à__________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEñ¨ñ