ÿWPCKx  ÿsñ6p<Ù½’1ƒòUŽ:ðB+R.òb'œéc<Ùå˜bo|Çö¤8×â2\8r¢éÀ«‘¶r+‚2XFk÷$fž˜âU#¡@ÒBÈ1¹Z)Bei<ð§wêõô…ÞaraŒ¬\.ôí£ÝªixÀ´ªÁκ­†×9E†÷zf=õÝeDnÑ%ZÒÀ ãEo›¦Ô'ΓzRƒ%¡Ë*ÜܦLý²âîG:”°Ë2zÆ{·q`¤Q$Ë<¬ÑŠÎoó-Øü/qóöyCŵZI®¡c8Î ûÁžõõo”w¬Û \^öoíØî¨'[qã€W4:8óVLϲ7Xø/ ÕʼnÝNb™&[墠Ñ-yøˆ ‚Ê=®¬Qv¯V!0Í @nÝãë§m†8W¿üžp»ü\•ZŸÚÎ"˜ì¤…ƒó byêË^ׄ‰Ù¤“PV ±µ›Ú —Òq;ìËMõ«íBX±ó*ži)Ìí`4Bb åôr1·½g(ý û8rÍ«øÓûåVW“Oaµ×p ‘É­,¯Õ``)›k—,· Hà<|P vŠm*a^b$KéuiðŠHÒƒgãÚüaiÞÆ×~#Éä %­ ^ ³ 0ˆ¿ U(NG w• 4™ z­ Ò' ù  m N!Æ#ÆéƯÆu 0D;N 1‡ 0CEK 72M 1u 72ô 0c& 0j‰ D/ó 0Î" 06ð 0:& 0^` 0<¾ 1eú 0U_ 0N´U6 0é8 0æ! 0ã 0àê 0ÝÊ 0Ú§ 0× 0ÔXb, 0×4 0Ô 0Ñß 0ΰ! 0Ë~" 0ÈI# 0Å$ 0ÀÖ$ 0@–% 0ÔÖ% 0Ѫ& 0Î{' 0ËI( 0È) 0ÅÜ) 0¡* 0½c+ 00 , 0<P, 0¾Œ, 0>J- 0vˆ- 0`þ- 0`^. 0`¾. 0`/ 0`~/ 08Þ/ 0Ò0 02è0 0ü1 0:2 0YP2 0_©2 0 3 0ë4 0„ý4 B*6 D/«6 BÚ6 0„÷6 0¤{8 D59 D-T9 0K9 0Ì9 ASÔ:Æ'; 0¤í; 0D‘< A«Õ<U>€=U*¾=U@è=¸(>>à?ÍAhëB‡SE¸ÚGX’IÙêJ< ÃKÿTXXí0[Ï\\\Öì]ì] Â_Â_Â_àlàlµäs²™u˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»˜…1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular6hö0˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓT)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡%<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô/012345 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier New*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó(|G2h$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€“õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿|ò»»Ô<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€U(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡c%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dT)1dxd d<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡c%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó(|3#$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€“õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3#$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€“õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial&Öd9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ®Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhile€we€found€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€visitation€to€be€appropriate,€we€noted€that€a€change€had€beenÐ ° Ðsubsequently€made€in€Williamððs€school€schedule€which€could€affect€visitation.€€We€accordingly€directed€the€trial€courtÐ qÁ Ðto€consider€that€change€on€remand.€ 4Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSome€of€the€contempt€allegations€related€to€disposition€of€real€property€in€accordance€with€the€divorce€decreeÐ ° Ðand€are€unrelated€to€custody€and€visitation€issues. ÃÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€of€January€23,€2002,€also€indicates€that€the€trial€court€had€orally€granted€a€similarÐ ° Ðmotion€in€January€of€2001,€but€through€an€oversight€the€courtððs€written€order€had€omitted€that€ruling.€€Our€recordÐ qÁ Ðincludes€no€filings€prior€to€Mr.€Leeððs€petition. ^Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€exchange€between€Mr.€Lee€and€the€trial€court€at€the€end€of€the€last€hearing€regarding€Mr.€LeeððsÐ ° Ðwithdrawal€of€his€motion€to€restart€visitation€could€lead€to€confusion.€€At€this€point,€of€course,€we€do€not€know€whetherÐ qÁ Ðthe€parties€have€initiated€any€litigation€in€California€and€what€their€view,€or€the€California€courtððs€view,€of€theÐ 2‚ Ðinterlocutory€order€is.€€We€simply€felt€it€advisable€to€set€forth€our€view. }Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€discussing€the€timing€for€relieving€the€Guardian€ad€Litem€of€his€responsibilities,€the€court€recognized€thatÐ ° Ða€final€judgment€would€be€issued€later,€presumably€on€the€property€distribution€and€related€contempt€issues€the€courtÐ qÁ Ðretained.€€Although€we€cannot€locate€that€judgment€in€the€record,€Mr.€Lee€does€not€challenge€the€courtððs€decisions€asÐ 2‚ Ðto€those€issues.€€No€one€has€raised€any€finality€issues,€and€it€is€clear€a€final€order€was€entered. ®Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€definitions€portion€of€the€Act€specifically€states€that€a€ð ðchild€custody€determinationðð€or€a€ð ðchild€custodyÐ ° Ðproceedingðð€includes€determinations€or€proceedings€involving€visitation€as€well€as€child€custody.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ð qÁ Ð36„6„205(3)€&€(4). NÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€had€father€finally€submitted€to€the€psychological€examination,€he€did€not€pay€the€psychologistÐ ° Ðas€ordered€by€the€trial€court,€and€the€psychologist€had€not€released€the€report. ÏÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCASA€had€apparently€done€two€home€studies€during€the€initial€divorce€proceedings. 2 Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€chancellor€quoted€the€report€during€the€hearing€as€saying€that€the€personality€test€ð ðproduced€significantÐ ° Ðelevations€on€set€scale€six€indicating€problems€with€suspiciousness,€sensitivity€to€criticism,€extreme€mistrust€of€othersÐ qÁ Ðand€a€sense€of€persecution.€€This€elevation€was€significantly€related€to€questions€which€artificially€elevate€the€score€dueÐ 2‚ Ðto€his€current€involvement€in€the€legal€process.ðð€€The€court€went€on€to€say€that€ð ðMr.€Lee€has€become€deeply€involvedÐ óC Ðin€the€various€legal€subjects€which€may€at€times€obscure€the€real€issues€involving€his€son.ðð€€The€psychological€reportÐ ´ Ðitself€is€not€in€the€appellate€record.€€The€transcript€of€the€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Lee€never€moved€the€trial€court€to€haveÐ uÅ Ðthe€psychological€report€from€the€Rule€35€mental€examination€entered€into€evidence.€€He€has€filed€a€motion€in€this€courtÐ 6 † Ðto€supplement€the€record€with€that€report.€€Under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(e),€such€a€motion€should€be€submitted€to€andÐ ÷ G Ðsettled€by€the€trial€court,€whose€determination€is€conclusive€unless€there€are€extraordinary€circumstances.€€Mr.€LeeððsÐ ¸  Ðmotion€in€this€court€does€not€suggest€that€he€filed€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€to€supplement€the€record.€€Instead,€it€€recitesÐ y É  Ðonly€that€he€asked€the€trial€court€clerk€to€put€the€report€in€the€record,€and€that€he€asked€the€appelleeððs€counsel€if€sheÐ : Š  Ðwould€agree€to€the€supplementation.€€We€note€that€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(g)€no€court€may€add€or€subtract€from€theÐ û K  Ðrecord€ð ðexcept€insofar€as€may€be€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€Mr.€Lee€is€not€challenging€the€accuracy€of€the€findingsÐ }Í  Ðin€the€report€€nor€the€trial€courtððs€explicit€adoption€of€those€findings.€€Further,€the€inclusion€of€the€report€in€the€appellateÐ >Ž  Ðrecord€is€not€necessary€to€resolve€this€appeal.€€The€motion€is€accordingly€denied.€€ Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€father€objected€at€the€outset€to€the€appointment€of€a€Guardian€ad€Litem.€In€€later€filings€and€hearings,€heÐ ° Ðasserted€that€because€of€the€chancellorððs€alleged€bias€against€him,€any€such€appointment€by€the€court€would€inevitablyÐ qÁ Ðlead€to€an€unfavorable€result€for€him€and€insisted€that€he€himself€should€be€allowed€to€choose€the€Guardian€ad€Litem.Ð 2‚ µ ÐHe€also€made€an€argument€that€because€the€order€appointing€her€refers€to€the€Guardian€ad€Litem€as€ð ðthe€guardian€of€theÐ ° Ðpersonðð€of€the€child,€it€was€an€unconstitutional€infringement€upon€his€rights€as€a€parent. Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€restraining€order€may€be€entered€without€notice.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.03(1).€€As€a€general€rule,€however,Ð ° Ðsuch€an€order€ð ðshall€expire€by€its€terms€within€such€time€after€entry,€not€to€exceed€fifteen€days,€as€the€court€fixes.ðð€€Tenn.Ð qÁ ÐR.€Civ.€P.€65.03(5).€€There€is€an€exception€for€domestic€relations€cases,€and€a€restraining€order€entered€in€such€a€caseÐ 2‚ Ðð ðmay€be€issued€upon€such€terms€and€conditions€and€remain€in€force€for€such€time€as€shall€seem€just€and€proper€to€theÐ óC Ðjudge€to€whom€application€therefor€is€made.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.07.Ð ´ Ð ãÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Attorney€General€was€notified,€as€is€required€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€24.04,€and€intervened. ÅÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€also€declared€that€it€would€retain€jurisdiction€over€the€€disputes€related€to€the€distribution€of€maritalÐ ° Ðproperty€in€accordance€with€the€divorce€decree,€specifically€disposition€of€real€property€in€Tennessee€and€the€contemptÐ qÁ Ðallegations€related€thereto.€Ð 2‚ Ð ÌÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAn€example€are€€Mr.€Leeððs€objections€to€the€order€that€he€undergo€a€psychological€examination.€€ThatÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔexaminationÔ_Ô€has€been€completed;€its€results€were€not€used€in€any€way€that€injured€Mr.€Leeððs€position;€and€he€wants€toÐ qÁ Ðinclude€it€in€the€appellate€record.€  Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Leeððs€appellate€brief€states€the€issues€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà ` à1.€With€no€proof€showing€it€was€needed,€was€a€citizen€being€ordered€to€undergo€a€Rule€35Ð 2‚ Ðmental€examination,€under€threat€of€being€taken€by€force,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð óC Ðà ` à2.€On€the€first€day€of€summer€visitation€between€a€boy€and€his€dad,€with€no€proof€given,€wasÐ ´ Ðthe€granting€of€an€òòex€parteóó€petition€to€terminate€all€visitation,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð uÅ Ðà ` à3.€Was€the€refusal€to€rule€on€a€motion€to€restart€visitation€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð 6 † Ðà ` à4.€Was€a€refusal€to€recuse€due€to€bias,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð ÷ G Ðà ` à5.€When€father€was€ruled€ð ðtruly€competentðð€from€the€mental€examination,€was€the€refusal€toÐ ¸  Ðgrant€sanctions,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð y É  Ðà ` à6.€Three€and€a€half€months€after€visitation€was€stopped,€with€all€proof€showing€the€motherÐ : Š  Ðfiled€false€information€with€the€court,€was€the€refusal€to€grant€a€second€motion€to€restart€visitation,€anÐ û K  Ðabuse€of€discretion?Ð ¼  Ðà ` à7.€With€strict€scrutiny€as€the€level€of€constitutional€review,€was€the€refusal€to€restartÐ }Í  Ðvisitation,€a€violation€of€fundamental€rights€under€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions?Ð >Ž  Ðà ` à8.€With€no€finding€of€parental€abuse€or€neglect,€were€the€forced€appointment€of€a€GuardianÐ ÿO  Ðòòad€Litemóó€(an€attorney)€to€be€the€childððs€ð ðguardian€of€the€personðð€and€to€purportedly€represent€theÐ À  Ðinterests€of€the€child€even€against€one€or€both€fit€parents,€and€the€trial€judgeððs€statement€that€the€childÐ Ñ  Ðis€a€ð ðward€of€the€court,ðð€abuses€of€discretion€and€constitutional€law?Ð B’  Ðà ` à9.€Is€the€statute€that€purports€to€grant€courts€jurisdiction€over€children€of€divorced€parentsÐ S ÐT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1),€which€the€attorney€general€has€not€said€is€constitutional,€unconstitutionalÐ Ä Ðunder€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions?Ð …Õ Ðà ` à10.€Was€the€reopening€of€a€res€judicata€order,€to€allow€mother€to€take€the€child€out€of€theÐ F– Ðcountry,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð W Ðà ` à11.€After€14€months€of€litigation€where€the€mother€requested€and€trial€judge€issued€numerousÐ È Ðmodifications€to€custody€and€other€orders,€was€the€trial€judgeððs€purported€withdrawal€under€theÐ ‰Ù ÐUniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€and€Enforcement€Act€prior€to€all€matters€being€adjudicated€andÐ Jš Ðappealed€as€of€right€under€Tennessee€law,€an€abuse€of€discretion?Ð  [ Ðà ` à12.€If€any€of€the€issues€raised,€briefed,€and€argued€under€Tennessee€law€are€declined€to€beÐ Ì Ðanswered€by€this€Court,€does€that€allow€another€state€to€adjudicate€Tennessee€statutory€andÐ Ý Ðconstitutional€law€in€an€appeal€as€of€right? úÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€affidavits,€which€are€sworn,€are€in€the€form€of€typed€questions€which€Mr.€Lee€submitted€to€the€Ô_ÔaffiantsÔ_Ô,Ð ° Ðand€which€they€answered€in€their€own€handwriting.€€Most€of€the€answers€were€only€one€word€in€length.€€For€example,Ð qÁ Ða€neighbor€of€Mr.€Leeððs€who€lived€two€doors€down€from€him€and€who€previously€provided€daycare€to€William€in€herÐ 2‚ Ðhome€was€asked,€ð ðWhat€if€any€signs€of€physical€or€mental€trauma€(abuse)€did€you€note€the€weeks€William€was€underÐ óC Ðyour€daily€care.ðð€Her€answer€was€ð ðNoneðð€(word€underlined).€€ð ðDid€the€father€and€son€show€great€care€and€love€for€eachÐ ´ Ðother,€with€the€father€doing€things€such€as€calling€from€work€to€check€on€him?ðð€€The€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô€answered€ð ðyes.ðð€€Her€onlyÐ uÅ Ðmore€extensive€statement,€in€response€to€the€question€ð ðany€other€comments?ðð€was€ð ðI€feel€that€the€child€suffers€the€most.€Ð 6 †  ÐMy€granddaughter€always€wants€to€go€play€at€Ô_ÔWmsÔ_Ô.€when€he€is€there.ðð€€Mr.€Leeððs€own€affidavit€stated€that€the€secondÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô€lived€in€Mr.€Leeððs€home,€and€was€ð ðeager€to€provide€testimony.ðð€€His€answers€were€also€monosyllabic€responsesÐ qÁ Ðto€questions€posed€by€Mr.€Lee.€€Neither€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô€claimed€to€have€a€significant€relationship€with€William€or€to€haveÐ 2‚ Ðextensive€knowledge€of€him€outside€his€earlier€visits€in€Tennessee.Ð óC Ð «Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾Œ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€mother€was€not€present€at€any€of€those€hearings,€although€she€was€represented€by€counsel.Ð ° ÐThe€father€was€òòpro€seóó,€and€was€not€called€as€a€witness.€€The€hearings€focused€almost€exclusively€on€arguments€on€legalÐ qÁ Ðissues€or€procedural€motions. BERTAAlissandratos P.J.ColliervillePaffordspousaljumpseatjumpseatsroundtripCioccaUCCJAMullaneEldridgeLentzNeelyRiddicknoncustodialPizzilloMenardSuttlesKrethHelsonSantoskyO'DanielBursonpendenteHubinparenspatriaeBadenhopep]romoteVaughn ODOM COAÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˜é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼˜é»»»ÔÑ8€Õ_XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡î}þ˜éÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼˜é»îî}þ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€March€22,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÕ_X»¼˜éÔÌò òÔ#†¼˜é»XXÕ_þ#ÔBERTA€MARGARITA€DE€LOS€RIOS€LEE€v.€DANIEL€LEEÔ‡XÕ_X»¼˜éÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€D„27933„III€€€€€€D.€J.€Alissandratos,€ChancellorÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„01053„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€29,€2004Ð ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡dX¦GXXXÕ_ÔAs€part€of€a€divorce,€the€trial€court€granted€custody€of€the€partiesðð€child€to€the€mother,€with€visitationÐ V¦  Ðby€the€father.€€The€father€appealed,€and€this€court€affirmed€the€trial€court.€€The€father€subsequentlyÐ ? Ðfiled€a€petition€to€change€custody.€€After€lengthy€proceedings€brought€on€by€various€filings€by€theÐ (x Ðparties,€the€trial€court€ruledòòóó€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€the€childððs€custody.€€We€affirm€theÐ a Ðjurisdictional€ruling,€making€all€other€issues€moot.€Ô#†XÕ_XXdX¦GŠ#ÔÔ#†¼˜é»XXÕ_q#ÔÔ‡XÕ_X»¼˜éÔÐ úJ ÐÓ~ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ Ì ÐAffirmedó óÐ ¶ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼˜é»àXÕ_!#ÔÔ‡XÕ_X.¼˜éÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,Ð ‰Ù ÐM.S.,óó€and€òòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð r ÐÌDaniel€M.€Lee,€Collierville,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð D” ÐÌLee€Ann€Pafford€Dobson,€Germantown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Berta€Margarita€De€Los€RiosÐ f ÐLee.Ð ÿO ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Pamela€A.€Hayden„Wood,€Senior€Counsel,€InÐ Ñ!!! ÐDefense€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1).Ð º" " ÐÓçÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼˜é»XXÕ_#ÔÔ‡XÕ_X»¼˜éÔÐ Œ$Ü$ ÐÌÔ#†¼˜é»XXÕ_À #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÕ_X»¼˜éÔà  àò òòòóóó óBerta€Margarita€de€Los€Rios€Lee€and€Daniel€Mark€Lee€were€married€in€Torrance,€CaliforniaÐ _&¯!& Ðin€1990.€€They€moved€to€the€Memphis€area€in€1993€when€Mr.€Lee,€an€employee€of€Federal€Express,Ð H'˜"' Ðvoluntarily€transferred€there.€€The€partiesðð€only€child,€William€Alvaro€Lee,€was€born€in€this€state€inÐ 1(#( Ð1994.€€The€marriage€relationship€deteriorated,€and€in€September€of€1996,€the€wife€returned€toÐ )j$) ÐCalifornia€with€the€child.€€In€December€of€the€same€year,€she€filed€a€Complaint€for€Divorce€in€theÐ *S%* ÐShelby€County€Chancery€Court€and€asked€the€court€to€grant€her€custody€of€William.€€The€husbandÐ ì*<&+ Ðfiled€an€Answer€and€Counter„Complaint€for€Divorce€and€also€asked€for€custody€of€William.Ð Õ+%', Ðâ âÐ ¾,(-ý± Ðà  àDuring€the€pendency€of€the€divorce€action€the€trial€court€entered€a€consent€order€allowingÐ ° Ðâ âMr.€Lee€two€weeks€of€visitation€with€William€every€month.€€His€periods€of€visitation€were€markedÐ ™é Ðby€apparent€confusion€on€his€part€over€their€duration€and€by€continuing€conflicts€over€the€boundariesÐ ‚Ò Ðof€each€parentððs€authority.€€The€difficulties€the€parties€experienced€with€visitation€during€this€periodÐ k» Ðare€more€fully€recounted€in€òòLee€v.€Leeóó,€66€S.W.3d€837€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àThe€parties€ultimately€stipulated€to€the€grant€of€an€absolute€divorce€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ & v ÐAnn.€ðð€36„4„129(b).€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€bench€trial€to€determine€the€question€of€custody€andÐ  _ Ðsome€undecided€property€issues,€and€subsequently€entered€a€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€and€grantedÐ ø H Ðcustody€of€William€to€his€mother.€€Mr.€Lee€was€granted€visitation€every€other€weekend€andÐ á 1  Ðadditional€visitation€during€Christmas€and€school€vacations.€€On€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€trialÐ Ê   Ðcourtððs€custody€and€visitation€arrangement.׃e×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòLee€v.€Leeóó,€òòsupraóó.€€The€decisions€rendered€by€theÐ ³  Ðtrial€court€and€by€this€court€did€not€signal€an€end€to€the€partiesðð€struggles€over€visitation€or€custody.Ð œì  ÐÌà@  ìàòòò òI.€€Trial€Proceedingsóóó ó€òòò òAnd€Issues€on€Appealó óóóˆÐ n¾  ÐÌà  àThe€proceedings€that€are€the€subject€of€this€appeal€began€with€the€filing€on€November€19,Ð C“ Ð2001,€by€Mr.€Lee€of€a€Petition€for€Contempt׃fÓ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€Change€Custody.€€As€he€had€in€priorÐ ,| Ðproceedings,€Mr.€Lee€appeared€òòpro€seóó.€€The€petition€alleged€that€there€had€been€a€material€changeÐ e Ðof€circumstances€and€that€Ms.€Lee€had€tried€to€minimize€or€negate€his€relationship€with€William,€toÐ þN Ðthe€detriment€of€the€child.€€The€motherððs€response€denied€the€fatherððs€allegations€and€claimed€thatÐ ç7 Ðhe€had€abused€his€visitation€privileges€in€violation€of€specific€provisions€in€the€Final€Decree€andÐ Ð  Ðshould€himself€be€held€in€contempt.Ð ¹  ÐÌà  àIn€an€unusual€legal€strategy,€Mr.€Leeððs€petition€asking€the€court€to€change€custody€and€findÐ ‹Û Ðthe€mother€in€contempt€for€violating€the€prior€custody€and€visitation€order€began€with€a€challengeÐ tÄ Ðto€the€courtððs€jurisdiction.€€That€challenge€was€based€on€alleged€constitutional€infirmities€in€Tenn.Ð ]­ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„6„601(a)(1),€the€statute€authorizing€courts€to€award€custody.׃q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€same€or€similarÐ F– Ðconstitutional€arguments€would€be€raised€by€Mr.€Lee€with€regard€to€almost€every€issue€that€arose.Ð / ÐÌà  àMr.€Leeððs€choice€of€litigation€strategy€was€unsuccessful€and€even€counterproductive,€for€notÐ  Q Ðonly€did€he€fail€to€achieve€a€change€of€custody,€but€his€visitation€rights€were€suspended€and€he€wasÐ ê : Ðâ âunable€to€get€them€restored.€€We€have€read€all€the€transcripts€of€proceedings€in€the€record€(six€in€all),Ð Ó!#  Ðas€well€as€reviewing€all€the€filings.׃|×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€we€have€determined€that€only€the€jurisdictional€issueÐ ° Ðâ âneed€be€resolved€in€this€appeal,€we€will€briefly€discuss€the€more€significant€proceedings€in€the€trialÐ ™é Ðcourt€to€give€a€better€understanding€of€the€context€of€the€rulings.€€The€parties€filed€many,€or€as€theÐ ‚Ò Ðtrial€court€once€observed,€ð ðinnumerable,ðð€motions,€and€throughout€a€series€of€hearings,€the€trial€courtÐ k» Ðattempted€to€deal€with€those€motions€in€an€orderly€fashion€based€on€the€partiesðð€setting€them€forÐ T¤ Ðhearing€and€in€recognition€of€the€interdependence€of€some€of€them.Ð =  ÐÌòòò òóóó óà  àAlong€with€her€answer€and€counterclaim€the€mother€filed€a€motion€for€a€psychologicalÐ  _ Ðexamination€of€Mr.€Lee€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€35.€€She€contended€that€the€fatherððs€mental€conditionÐ ø H Ðwas€in€controversy€because€he€had€allowed€his€son€to€view€inappropriate€violent€material€and€hadÐ á 1  Ðinflicted€emotional€abuse€upon€him€during€visitation.€€She€alleged€the€examination€was€necessaryÐ Ê   Ðdue€to€concerns€about€the€fatherððs€fitness€for€unsupervised€visitation.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àThe€father€filed€a€response€to€the€motion€in€which€he€stated€that€the€court€had€already€issuedÐ …Õ  Ðsuch€an€order€on€January€24,€2001,€so€a€new€order€was€not€necessary,€even€though€he€had€not€yetÐ n¾  Ðcomplied.׃gÓ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€also€re„asserted€constitutional€challenges€to€the€statute€authorizing€courts€to€makeÐ W§  Ðcustody€awards.€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€and€granted€the€motherððs€motion,€expressingÐ @ Ðits€own€concerns€based€on€its€observations.€€The€court€determined€that€the€fatherððs€psychologicalÐ )y Ðstatus€had€to€be€determined€not€only€for€the€purpose€of€custody€and€visitation,€but€also€for€theÐ b Ðquestion€of€whether€he€was€competent€to€proceed€in€the€litigation.€€The€court€stated€that€ð ðtheÐ ûK Ðthreshold€at€issue€in€any€litigation€is€first€and€foremost€the€competence€of€someone€to€be€able€toÐ ä4 Ðproceed.ðð€€The€detailed€order€filed€by€the€court€included€a€strict€schedule€for€the€father€to€submit€toÐ Í Ðan€evaluation€by€the€professional€named€by€the€mother.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àSix€months€later,€the€mother€filed€an€ð ðEmergency€Petition€to€Terminate€Visitation€or,€in€theÐ ˆØ ÐAlternative,€Supervised€Visitation.ðð€The€Petition€noted€that€the€results€of€the€ordered€psychologicalÐ qÁ Ðexamination€had€not€yet€been€tendered€to€the€court׃kÞ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€alleged€that€the€father€had€engaged€in€aÐ Zª Ðvariety€of€abusive€behaviors€against€the€child€during€visitation.€€In€later€appearances,€the€fatherÐ C“ Ðdenied€those€allegations.Ð ,| ÐÌÌà  àThe€original€Complaint€for€Divorce€had€been€brought€in€the€court€of€Chancellor€D.J.€Ð ç 7 ÐAlissandratos,€and€he€had€presided€over€the€case€since€that€time.€€But€he€was€off€the€bench€on€theÐ Ð!   Ðday€the€motherððs€Emergency€Petition€was€filed.€€The€Petition€was€therefore€heard€òòex€parteóó€byÐ ¹" ! ÐChancellor€Walter€Evans.€€On€June€21,€2002,€he€issued€an€order€enjoining€Mr.€Lee€from€exercisingÐ ° Ðvisitation€with€his€child,€ð ðuntil€further€orders€of€this€court€to€the€contraryðð€and€set€a€hearing€for€aÐ ™é Ðdate€one€month€later€on€July€22.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àMr.€Lee€filed€a€Motion€to€Reconsider€and€to€Restart€Visitation€(the€first€of€several€motionsÐ T¤ Ðseeking€this€relief),€and€Ms.€Lee€filed€a€motion€to€re„appoint€CASA€to€investigate€her€allegations׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð =  Ðor,€in€the€alternative,€to€appoint€a€Guardian€ad€Litem€for€the€same€purpose€and€to€represent€theÐ & v Ðinterests€of€the€child.€€The€father€filed€a€response€in€which€he€asked€that€a€CASA€investigation€beÐ  _ Ðperformed€with€the€mother€to€bear€the€cost€and€that€no€Guardian€ad€Litem€be€appointed.€€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àAt€a€hearing€on€some€of€the€various€pending€motions€on€July€19,€the€father€attempted€to€haveÐ Ê   Ðthe€emergency€order€lifted,€but€the€trial€court€decided€to€hold€all€matters€in€abeyance€until€receiptÐ ³  Ðof€the€report€of€the€psychologist€who€had€been€appointed€to€evaluate€Mr.€Lee.€€By€the€time€of€theÐ œì  Ðnext€hearing,€October€4,€2002,€the€chancellor€had€finally€obtained€access€to€the€psychologistððsÐ …Õ  Ðreport.€€On€the€basis€of€the€report,€he€found€the€father€to€be€competent€to€proceed€with€the€litigationÐ n¾  Ðunassisted.׃mQ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€chancellor€considered€a€number€of€motions€during€the€same€hearing,€including€theÐ )y Ðfatherððs€motion€to€recuse,€which€was€denied,€and€his€motion€for€sanctions€against€the€mother€forÐ b Ðrequesting€the€psychological€examination,€which€was€likewise€denied.€€At€this€hearing,€the€fatherÐ ûK Ðtried€to€raise€the€question€of€visitation,€but€the€court€stated€it€would€not€rule€on€that€or€other€pendingÐ ä4 Ðissues€regarding€the€custody€arrangement€until€a€Guardian€ad€Litem€had€been€appointed€and€filedÐ Í Ða€report.€€The€court€ordered€the€appointment€of€a€Guardian€ad€Litem€for€the€child.׃n)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¶ Їà  àThe€court€also€discussed,€but€did€not€rule€on,€the€jurisdictional€issue€which€had€been€raisedÐ ° Ðearlier.€€The€court€observed€that€it€continued€to€be€concerned€about€its€jurisdiction€under€theÐ ™é ÐUniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€and€Enforcement€Act,€but€agreed€that€other€issues€had€requiredÐ ‚Ò Ðresolution€before€it€could€proceed€with€that€question.€€The€trial€court€wanted€to€hear€from€theÐ k» ÐGuardian€as€Litem€on€the€jurisdiction€issue€so€that€the€childððs€interest€was€represented.€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àThe€report€of€the€Guardian€ad€Litem€was€submitted€to€the€court€during€the€hearing€of€JanuaryÐ & v Ð17,€2003.€€The€report€stated€that€California€had€long€been€Williamððs€home€state€and€that€it€was€inÐ  _ Ðthe€childððs€best€interest€that€matters€of€custody,€visitation,€and€child€support€be€heard€in€the€courtsÐ ø H Ðof€that€State.€€The€court€found€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€custody.׃rÓ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAt€the€end€of€this€final€hearing,€not€in€response€to€any€request,€Mr.€Lee€asked€to€strike€hisÐ ³  Ðmotion€to€restart€visitation,€and€the€court€agreed€since€ð ðit€becomes€moot.€€It€becomes€one€forÐ œì  ÐCalifornia.ððÐ …Õ  ÐÌà  àAn€order€memorializing€the€courtððs€decision€was€entered€on€March€27,€2003,€entitled€ð ðOrderÐ W§  Ðon€Transfer€of€Jurisdiction€as€to€Custody€and€Child€Support€Issues€Pertaining€to€Minor€Child.ðð€€InÐ @ Ðit,€the€court€held€that€the€Tennessee€court€did€not€have€continuing€jurisdiction€over€custody€andÐ )y Ðvisitation€decisions€involving€the€child.€€It€also€found€that,€although€it€had€discretion€to€retainÐ b Ðauthority€over€the€issues€relating€to€child€support,€those€matters€should€also€be€transferred€to€Ð ûK ÐCalifornia.׃iŸ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€appeal€followed.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAt€first€view,€based€on€Mr.€Leeððs€brief€and€the€record€of€multiple€motions€and€hearings,€itÐ ¶ Ðwould€appear€that€this€appeal€is€complex€and€involves€a€number€of€issues.€€However,€a€thorough€andÐ Ÿï Ðmore€in„depth€examination€reveals€that€there€is€one€dispositive€issue:€whether€the€trial€courtòòò òóóó óÐ ˆØ Ðcorrectly€decided€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€issues€regarding€the€custody€of€the€partiesððÐ qÁ Ðchild.Ð Zª Ðâ âÐ C“ Ðà  àMr.€Lee€has€raised€twelve€issues€in€his€brief.€€Most€of€them€relate€to€rulings€made€during€theÐ ° Ðcourse€of€the€proceedings€below€and€most€assert€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€these€rulings.׃w×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Many€ofÐ ™é Ðâ âthem€would€be€nonjusticiable,€or€moot,€regardless€of€our€disposition€of€the€jurisdiction€issue,Ð ‚Ò Ðbecause€this€court€can€provide€no€remedy€at€this€stage.׃uï×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€rest€are€pretermitted€by€our€decisionÐ k» Ðon€jurisdiction,€but€we€feel€compelled€to€address€visitation€to€clarify€its€status€in€light€of€the€trialÐ T¤ Ðcourtððs€ruling€and€our€affirmance€of€that€jurisdictional€ruling.Ð =  Ðò òòòÐ  & v ÐÓ  ÓII.€€JurisdictionÐ ° Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àTennesseeððs€version€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€and€Enforcement€ActÐ ƒÓ Ð(UCCJEA),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„201€òòet€seqóó,€governs€jurisdictional€conflicts€between€TennesseeÐ l¼ Ðand€other€states€over€child€custody.׃j×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€stated€in€the€Act,€one€of€its€purposes€is€to€ð ð[p]romoteÐ U¥ Ðcooperation€with€the€courts€of€other€states€to€the€end€that€a€custody€decree€is€rendered€in€that€stateÐ > Ž Ðwhich€can€best€decide€the€case€in€the€interest€of€the€child.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„202(2).Ð ' w ÐÌà  àThe€home€state€of€the€child€is€one€of€the€most€important€factors€for€the€court€to€consider€inÐ ù I Ðdetermining€the€question€of€jurisdiction,€and€that€term€is€defined€in€the€statute.Ð â 2  ÐÌà8  àð ðHome€stateðð€means€the€state€in€which€a€child€lived€with€a€parent€or€a€person€actingÐ ´  Ðas€a€parent€for€at€least€six€(6)€consecutive€months€immediately€before€theÐ í  Ðcommencement€of€a€child€custody€proceeding.€€In€the€case€of€a€child€less€than€six€(6)Ð †Ö  Ðmonths€of€age,€ð ðhome€stateðð€means€the€state€in€which€the€child€lived€from€birth€withÐ o¿  Ðany€of€the€persons€mentioned.€€A€period€of€temporary€absence€of€any€of€theÐ X¨  Ðmentioned€persons€is€part€of€the€period.ÐA‘Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„205(7).Ð c ÐÌà  àEven€though€the€child€in€this€case€was€living€with€his€mother€in€California€in€1996€when€sheÐ å5 Ðfiled€for€divorce€and€custody,€it€was€not€his€home€state€at€the€time,€because€he€had€not€yet€lived€thereÐ Î Ðfor€six€months.€€The€mother€was€correct€to€file€in€Tennessee,€since€it€had€the€jurisdiction€to€makeÐ · Ðan€initial€child€custody€determination€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„216(a)(1).Ð  ð ÐÌà  àA€Tennessee€court€making€the€initial€custody€determination€generally€has€continuingÐ r Ðjurisdiction€over€its€own€child€custody€order.€€However,€after€the€child€has€lived€in€another€state€longÐ [« Ðenough€for€that€state€to€have€become€the€childððs€home€state,€that€jurisdiction€may€end.Ð D” ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Ò(a)€€Except€as€otherwise€provided€in€ðð€36„6„219,€a€court€of€this€state€which€has€madeÐ f Ða€child„custody€determination€consistent€with€this€part€has€exclusive,€continuingÐ ÿO Ðjurisdiction€over€the€determination€until:€Ð è 8 ÐÌ€€(1)€A€court€of€this€state€determines€that€neither€the€child,€nor€the€child€and€one€(1)Ð º" ! Ðparent,€nor€the€child€and€a€person€acting€as€a€parent€have€a€significant€connectionÐ £#ó" Ðwith€this€state€and€that€substantial€evidence€is€no€longer€available€in€this€stateÐ Œ$Ü# Ðconcerning€the€child's€care,€protection,€training,€and€personal€relationships;€or€(2)€AÐ u%Å $ Ðcourt€of€this€state€or€a€court€of€another€state€determines€that€the€child,€the€childððsÐ ^&®!% Ðparents,€and€any€person€acting€as€a€parent€do€not€presently€reside€in€this€state.Ð G'—"& ÐÐ 0(€#' Ð(b)€A€court€of€this€state€which€has€made€a€child„custody€determination€and€does€notÐ ° Ðhave€exclusive,€continuing€jurisdiction€under€this€section€may€modify€thatÐ ™é Ðdetermination€only€if€it€has€jurisdiction€to€make€an€initial€determination€under€ðð€36„Ð ‚Ò Ð6„216.€€Ð k» ÐÌÒ°ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„217.Ð =  ÐÌÒ°Òà  àSince€Mr.€Lee€still€resides€in€this€state,€determination€of€jurisdiction€must€necessarily€restÐ  _ Ðupon€subsection€(a)(1).€€The€first€part€is€clearly€met€because€William€and€his€mother€have€beenÐ ø H Ðliving€in€California€since€1996.€€The€other€requirement€is€that€the€child€no€longer€has€a€significantÐ á 1  Ðconnection€with€this€state€and€that€substantial€evidence€is€no€longer€available€in€this€state€concerningÐ Ê   Ðhis€care,€protection,€training,€and€personal€relationships.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àThe€parties€originally€married€in€California.€€The€child€was€born€in€this€state,€but€his€mother€Ð …Õ  Ðtook€him€back€to€California€when€he€was€two€years€old.€€The€father€exercised€visitation€in€bothÐ n¾  ÐCalifornia€and€Tennessee,€but€primarily€in€California.€€That€visitation€was€suspended€during€theseÐ W§  Ðproceedings€before€the€trial€court€ruled€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction.€€The€record€does€notÐ @ Ðcontain€any€evidence€of€any€current€connection€between€the€child€and€this€state€other€than€that€hisÐ )y Ðfather€lives€here.Ð b ÐÌà  àThe€type€of€connection€and€evidence€meant€by€the€statute€must€be€considered€in€the€contextÐ ä4 Ðof€any€proceeding€to€modify€an€existing€custody€arrangement,€which€is€what€Mr.€Lee€sought€whenÐ Í Ðhe€initiated€these€proceedings.€€Once€a€court€has€established€a€custody€or€parenting€arrangement,Ð ¶ Ðincluding€a€visitation€or€residential€schedule€for€the€non„custodial€parent,€that€order€can€only€beÐ Ÿï Ðchanged€or€modified€if€the€court€determines€(1)€there€has€been€a€material€change€in€circumstancesÐ ˆØ Ðsince€the€initial€custody€order€and€(2)€that€modification€of€the€existing€arrangement€is€in€the€childððsÐ qÁ Ðbest€interests.€€òòCranston€v.€Combsóó,€106€S.W.3d€641,€643„44€(Tenn.€2003);€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,Ð Zª Ð90€S.W.3d€566,€570€(Tenn.€2002).€€These€determinations,€of€course,€must€be€based€upon€evidenceÐ C“ Ðadduced€at€a€hearing€where€both€parties€have€the€opportunity€to€present€evidence€and€challenge€theÐ ,| Ðother€partyððs€evidence.€€There€can€be€no€question€that€virtually€all€of€the€evidence€related€toÐ e ÐWilliamððs€current€situation,€and€therefore€relevant€to€a€determination€of€his€best€interests,€will€beÐ þN Ðprovided€by€witnesses€and€records€in€California.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àIn€response€to€Ms.€Leeððs€emergency€petition,€Mr.€Lee€filed€his€own€affidavit€and€those€ofÐ ¹" ! Ðtwo€other€people€who,€according€to€Mr.€Lee,€had€knowledge€of€Williamððs€condition€during€his€visitsÐ ¢#ò" Ðin€Tennesee.׃z×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€purpose€of€these€affidavits,€however,€was€to€contradict€the€allegations€made€byÐ ‹$Û# ÐMs.€Lee€in€support€of€her€emergency€petition€to€suspend€visitation.€€While€they€may€have€limitedÐ ° Ðrelevance€to€the€issues€to€be€decided€regarding€the€change€of€custody€petition,€they€do€not€constituteÐ ™é Ðsubstantial€evidence€of€the€childððs€current€care,€protection,€training,€and€personal€relationships.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àConsequently,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€no€longer€had€continuing,€exclusiveÐ T¤ Ðjurisdiction€over€custody€issues€related€to€the€child.€€Subsection€(b)€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„217Ð =  Ðmakes€it€clear€that€a€Tennessee€court€that€does€not€have€continuing€exclusive€jurisdiction€underÐ & v Ðsubsection€(a)€has€no€jurisdiction€to€modify€custody€unless€it€has€jurisdiction€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  _ Ððð€36„6„216,€the€provision€related€to€initial€custody€determinations.€€Under€subsection€(a)€of€thatÐ ø H Ðstatute,€a€court€has€jurisdiction€to€make€an€initial€award€only€if:Ð á 1  ÐÌà8  à(1)€This€state€is€the€home€state€of€the€child€on€the€date€of€the€commencement€of€theÐ ³  Ðproceeding,€or€was€the€home€state€of€the€child€within€six€(6)€months€before€theÐ œì  Ðcommencement€of€the€proceeding€and€the€child€is€absent€from€this€state€but€a€parentÐ …Õ  Ðor€person€acting€as€a€parent€continues€to€live€in€this€state;Ðn¾ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€A€court€of€another€state€does€not€have€jurisdiction€under€subdivision€(a)(1),€or€aÐ @ Ðcourt€of€the€home€state€of€the€child€has€declined€to€exercise€jurisdiction€on€theÐ )y Ðground€that€this€state€is€the€more€appropriate€forum€under€ðð€36„3„221€or€ðð€36„3„222,Ð b Ðand€.€.€.ÐûKÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€All€courts€having€jurisdiction€under€subdivision€(a)(1)€or€(2)€have€declined€toÐ Í Ðexercise€jurisdiction€on€the€ground€that€a€court€of€this€state€is€the€more€appropriateÐ ¶ Ðforum€to€determine€the€custody€of€the€child€under€ðð€36„3„221€or€ðð€36„3„222,€orПïÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(4)€No€court€of€any€other€state€would€have€jurisdiction€under€the€criteria€specifiedÐ qÁ Ðin€subdivision€(a)(1),€(2),€or€(3).ÐZªÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€Mr.€Lee€filed€his€petition€to€change€custody,€Tennessee€was€clearly€not€theÐ ,| Ðchildððs€home€state.€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€a€California€court€has€declinedÐ e Ðjurisdiction.€€Further,€California€would€have€jurisdiction€under€the€UCCJEAððs€provisions.€Ð þN ÐConsequently,€the€courts€of€Tennessee€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€to€decide€the€custody€modificationÐ ç 7 Ðpetition.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àMr.€Leeððs€sole€attack€on€the€factual€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€jurisdiction€was€hisÐ ¢#ò" Ðreference€to€the€neighbors€who€provided€affidavits€generally€testifying€they€had€seen€no€evidenceÐ ‹$Û# Ðof€physical€or€emotional€abuse€during€Williamððs€visits€to€his€fatherððs€house.€€His€only€attack€on€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðtrial€courtððs€legal€analysis€is€his€assertion€that€ð ðhome€stateðð€is€merely€a€definition€and€has€no€bearingÐ ° Ðon€the€issue€since€ð ðthe€ððhome€stateðð€is€below€the€hierarchy€of€the€state€with€exclusive€continuingÐ ™é Ðjurisdiction,€which€is€Tennessee.ðð€€Our€analysis€of€the€UCCJEAððs€jurisdictional€provisions€addressesÐ ‚Ò Ðthis€assertion.Ð k» ÐÌà  àMr.€Leeððs€primary€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€dismissing€hisÐ =  Ðpetition€on€jurisdictional€grounds€after€ð ðmultiple€appealable€orders€were€issued.ðð€€He€asserts€that€theÐ & v Ðcourt€had€continuing€jurisdiction€when€he€filed€his€petition;€that€the€court€made€several€rulingsÐ  _ Ðduring€the€pendency€of€his€petition€that€he€wants€to€challenge€in€this€appeal€and€further,€if€necessary;Ð ø H Ðthat€until€those€appeals€are€exhausted,€the€question€of€jurisdiction€is€not€before€this€court€or€the€trialÐ á 1  Ðcourt;€that€rulings€such€as€the€ordering€of€the€psychological€evaluation€and€others€he€considers€asÐ Ê   Ðhaving€Constitutional€implications€ð ðcreated€the€possibility€of€a€very€lengthy€appellate€process,€upÐ ³  Ðto€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court,€and€precludes€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€parties€from€being€modifiedÐ œì  Ðuntil€the€entire€process€is€complete.ððÐ …Õ  ÐÌà  àThese€arguments€indicate€a€misapprehension€of€the€requirement€that€subject€matterÐ W§  Ðjurisdiction€exist€and€the€consequences€of€the€lack€of€such€jurisdiction.€€Subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ @ Ðinvolves€a€courtððs€power€or€authority€to€adjudicate€a€particular€controversy€brought€before€it;€itÐ )y Ðrelates€to€the€cause€of€action€itself.€€òòState€es€rel.€Dept.€of€Social€Services€v.€Wrightóó,€736€S.W.2d€84,Ð b Ð85€n.€10€(Tenn.€1987);€òòFirst€American€Trust€Co.€v.€Franklin„Murray€Development€Company,€L.P.óó,Ð ûK Ð59€S.W.€3d€135,€140€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Thus,€subject€matter€jurisdiction€is€an€essentialÐ ä4 Ðrequirement€for€the€granting€of€judicial€relief€both€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€òòIdóó.€at€141.€€ð ðThe€lack€ofÐ Í Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€is€so€fundamental€that€it€requires€dismissal€whenever€it€is€raised€andÐ ¶ Ðdemonstrated.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€question€of€whether€a€court€has€authority€to€modify€a€custody€order€is€aÐ Ÿï Ðmatter€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€òòGutzke€v.€Gutzkeóó,€908€S.W.2d€198,€201€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIssues€of€the€courtððs€fundamental€authority€to€decide€a€controversy€are€so€important€thatÐ Zª Ðcourts€must€address€them€even€if€the€parties€do€not€raise€them.€€òòFirst€American€Trust€Co.,€óó59€S.W.3dÐ C“ Ðat€140.€€In€fact,€parties€cannot€waive€the€requirement€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€or€agree€to€conferÐ ,| Ðjurisdiction€on€the€court.€€òòIdóó.€at€140„41.Ð e ÐÌà  àCourts€derive€their€subject€matter€jurisdiction€from€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€or€fromÐ ç 7 Ðlegislative€act,òò€i.eóó.,€statute.€€òòMeighan€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€632,€639Ð Ð!   Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€Courts€cannot€exercise€jurisdictional€authority€that€has€not€been€conferred€on€themÐ ¹" ! Ðdirectly€or€by€necessary€implication.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Whiteóó,€77€S.W.3d€765,€768€n.7(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¢#ò" Ð2002);€òòDishmon€v.€Shelby€State€Cmty.€Collegeóó,€15€S.W.3d€477,€480€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€has€adopted€the€UCCJEA,€and€theÐ ]&­!% Ðprovisions€of€that€act€clearly€set€out€the€requirements€for€a€Tennessee€court€to€exercise€jurisdictionÐ F'–"& Ðover€a€change€of€custody€request.€€Unless€the€statute€confers€jurisdiction,€the€court€has€no€authorityÐ /(#' Ðto€decide€the€issue.€€Ð )h$( ÐÌà  àWhile€we€understand€that€Mr.€Lee€is€dissatisfied€with€many€of€the€interim€rulings€made€byÐ ê*:&* Ðthe€trial€court,€and€that€he€is€frustrated€with€the€subsequent€dismissal€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€afterÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthose€interim€rulings,€the€record€shows€that,€from€early€on€in€these€proceedings,€the€court€expressedÐ ° Ðits€concern€over€the€question€of€jurisdiction€since€Tennessee€had€long€ceased€to€be€the€childððs€homeÐ ™é Ðstate.€€A€hearing€and€decision€on€that€issue,€however,€was€postponed€until€the€psychological€reportÐ ‚Ò Ðwas€filed€and€considered€and€then€until€a€guardian€ad€litem€to€represent€the€childððs€interest€wasÐ k» Ðappointed€and€made€a€report.€€With€both€these€actions,€which€the€court€considered€prerequisite€toÐ T¤ Ða€substantive€ruling€on€jurisdiction,€there€was€delay,€at€least€some€of€which€is€attributable€to€Mr.Ð =  ÐLee.€€In€any€event,€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€had€made€some€interlocutory€rulings€does€not€conferÐ & v Ðjurisdiction€on€it€to€consider€the€petition€for€change€of€custody.€€Just€as€the€parties€cannot€conferÐ  _ Ðjurisdiction€by€appearance,€plea,€consent,€or€waiver,€òòFirst€American€Trustóó,€59€S.W.3d€at€140„41,Ð ø H Ðneither€can€the€court€confer€jurisdiction€upon€itself..Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€it€had€lost€jurisdiction€over€this€case.€Ð ³  ЀNeither€the€trial€court€nor€this€court€has€the€authority€to€modify€the€existing€custody€order.Ð œì  ÐÌà@ddìàò òIII.€€òòStatus€of€Visitationó óóóˆÐ n¾  ÐÌà  àSome€of€the€arguments€propounded€by€Mr.€Lee€point€out€an€important€issue€that€we€thinkÐ A‘ Ðmust€be€addressed€simply€to€clarify€the€legal€consequence€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€for€lack€ofÐ *z Ðjurisdiction€and€our€affirmance€thereof.€€That€issue€is€the€status€of€interlocutory€orders€enteredÐ c Ðbefore€the€court€determined€that€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€decide€a€request€for€custody€modification.€Ð üL ÐÌÌà  àThe€only€one€of€the€interlocutory€orders€whose€post„dismissal€status€need€be€clarified€is€theÐ · Ðone€of€most€importance€and€the€one€with€most€significant€consequence€to€Mr.€Lee:€the€injunctionÐ  ð Ðsuspending€Mr.€Leeððs€visitation.׃h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€that€order€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€dismissal€onÐ ‰Ù Ðjurisdictional€grounds,€it€was€no€longer€in€effect€after€the€dismissal,€and€the€original€custody€order,Ð r Ðincluding€the€visitation€arrangements€therein,€remains€the€controlling€order€on€those€matters,€unlessÐ [« Ðor€until€it€is€modified€by€a€court€with€jurisdiction.€€Ð D” ÐÌà  àIt€is€well„settled€that€a€judgment€or€order€entered€without€subject€matter€jurisdiction€is€void.€Ð f ÐòòGentry€v.€Gentryóó,€924€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€1996);€òòFirst€American€Trustóó,€59€S.W.3d€at€141.€Ð ÿO ÐSince€the€trial€court€herein€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€determine€the€custody€modification€petitionÐ è 8 Ðfiled€by€Mr.€Lee€when€it€was€filed,€it€is€certainly€arguable€that€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€enterÐ Ñ!!  Ðother€orders€regarding€issues€raised€after€the€filing€of€the€petition.€However,€that€does€not€mean€theyÐ º" ! Ðwere€not€valid€for€the€pendency€of€the€proceedings,€but€rather€that€they€have€been€rendered€void€byÐ £#ó" Ðthe€decision€on€jurisdiction.Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àThe€UCCJEAððs€jurisdictional€sections€provide€that€the€court€making€an€initial€custodyÐ ^&®!% Ðdetermination€(the€trial€court€herein)€has€continuing€jurisdiction€over€that€order€until€a€TennesseeÐ G'—"& Ðcourt€makes€the€determinations€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„217€that€result€in€the€loss€ofÐ ° Ðjurisdiction.€€In€the€case€before€us,€that€determination€was€not€made€until€after€the€parties€and€theÐ ™é Ðcourt€had€undergone€at€least€six€hearing€on€various€motions€and€issues.€€The€interlocutory€oròòÐ ‚Ò Ðpendente€lite€óóorders€ruling€on€those€motions€and€issues€were€entered€at€a€time€when€the€trial€court,Ð k» Ðunder€the€language€of€the€statute,€still€had€continuing€jurisdiction.€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àThe€visitation€suspension€order€was,€in€effect,€a€temporary€restraining€order€or€temporaryÐ & v Ðinjunction€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.׃o×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Like€any€other€injunction€entered€for€the€pendency€ofÐ  _ Ðthe€litigation€or€any€other€interlocutory€order,€it€was€extinguished€upon€the€dismissal€of€the€action.€Ð ø H ÐBecause€the€trial€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€existing€custody€and€visitation€order,Ð á 1  Ðthe€restraining€order€did€not€effect€a€permanent€modification€of€the€original€custody€order.€€It€wasÐ Ê   Ðnot€intended€to.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àFor€any€or€all€of€these€reasons,€the€order€suspending€visitation€ð ðpending€further€orders€of€theÐ …Õ  Ðcourtðð€was€no€longer€effective€upon€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€action€for€lack€of€subject€matterÐ n¾  Ðjurisdiction.Ð W§  ÐÌò òó óà@¿¿%ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ )y ÐÌà  àThe€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€fatherððs€petition€to€change€custody€for€lack€of€jurisdictionÐ üL Ðis€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Daniel€Lee.Ð å5 ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ‰Ù Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€J.