WPC  -e|}v:Vc' XndhߚʞL ToZ8tD4$WŃ[,nދ5}z2N @1w*idgr់e2ƒF>b yH={$pSU!Hi$BDD;jDDUT4a!Hˢ1oJ G=(]Y&>!tDg> ru'4)b|QF3`Y |V{%kp:S~yͱL7:5)!L6.S#>0%i00 }̳B۟Xϰb%ٳ(-/3S1 tܺ=2hD1#P}O}O8L\sUZ#\%K}s0^fԱjqHh:-W/C9wp%Ls0|ZpS R$ F5>pϗ)# > %IU:O 0(w@4 U> 0lZ 0DL VU:^-*U:*) U:S S S S S S S S S S S S AQ  0D 0D 0D, , D/p B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl X,  AZ"Arial Regular($ - . E/ 0 E1 2 E3 4 Ӏ@ C n~<$3|xC /L qZ &Univers Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT"Arial Regular ##iXd#  !"  XXX XXX   Ad FILEDXX   September25,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXX X{XX   Ad FILEDXX{   September23,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.tXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXX X  7"XXdXXd7|4 4 @ 4 r(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ r4 @ C @ r(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ r@ 4 4 C C C @m m  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @hh%ATJACKSONC t(>.*jx-` `@E` ttx$  tߛC INTHEMATTEROF:   h   ) `   BIANCAARNESHEASKEW,  ) L     `     h   )DOROTHYLEWIS,   h   ) $ t    `     h   )   ` Petitioner/Appellee, h   )FayetteCircuitNo.3807  L     `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.02A019708CV00201 $     `     h   )JULIEDONOHO,    h   )      `     h   )   ` Respondent/Appellant.  )    @APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFFAYETTECOUNTY@66ATSOMERVILLE,TENNESSEE@  THEHONORABLEJONKERRYBLACKWOOD,JUDGE MARGARETR.BARR   Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellant JAMESF.GOODWIN   @ Germantown,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee AFFIRMED &(v#'     `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 63.3 CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,J.HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. , - con- . - curs- . / curringseparate/ 0 / lty/ 0 2 1 tly1 2 3 ly3  p  :5; 4 |7:XXdXXd7  |#iXd#  4   Thiscasepresentsforreviewadisputeovercustodyofaminorchildbetweena ;6< |7:XXdXXd7  C |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  C @ |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  @ 4 |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  |7:XXdXXd7  4 parentandanonparentwhereapriorjudicialdecreeawardedcustodytothenonparent.TheparenthasappealedthetrialcourtsRule41.02(2)dismissalofherpetitiontorestorecustodyofherchild.WefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatDonohofailedtosatisfyherburdenofproofofestablishingamaterialchangeincircumstancesand,therefore,affirm.@I.FactualandProceduralHistory x    ThiscaseinvolvesthecustodyofBiancaArnesheAskew(Bianca),whowasbornAugust2,1990.JulieDonoho(Donoho)istheunmarriednaturalmotherofBiancaandresidesinMemphis,Tennessee.DorothyLewis(Lewis)isunrelatedtoBiancaorDonoho.ϜLewissonlyfamilialrelationtoDonohoisthatsheisthecousinofDonohosunclesfirstwife.DonohofirstmetLewisduringDonohospregnancywithBianca.AfterBiancawasborn,LewiscameovertoDonohosmothersresidence,whereDonohowasthenresiding.ϜAtthattime,Donohowas goingthroughsomeproblems,includinglackofemployment,andagreedtohaveLewistakecareofBianca.  ThedisputeoverBiancascustodybetweenDonohoandLewisoriginallybeganintheFayetteCountyJuvenileCourtin1991,atwhichtimeanorderwasenteredtransferringthemattertotheShelbyCountyJuvenileCourt.Thereafter,onSeptember17,1991,theShelbyCountyJuvenileCourtawardedcustodyofBiancatoDonoho.InFebruary,1994,LewisfiledasubsequentpetitionforcustodyintheFayetteCountyJuvenileCourt.OnJune21,1994,thejuvenilecourtheardtestimonyfromthepartieswitnesses.Thereafter,thejuvenilecourtawardedcustodytoLewis.OnMarch5,1996,Donohofiledapetitionforcustody.Atthattime,however,thejuvenilecourtdeclinedtoproceedtoahearingonDonohospetitionbecauseitfoundthatDonohohadnotbeenregularlypayingchildsupportaspreviouslyorderedbythatcourt.OnOctober2,1996,Donohofiledarenewedpetitionforcustody.Thereafter,onOctober31,1996,thejuvenilecourtdeniedDonohosϜpetition.DonohothenappealedtotheFayetteCountyCircuitCourtforadenovotrialon 7P28 Donohospetitiontorestorecustody. 8 4:   TheCircuitCourtheardthecaseonMarch25,1997,atwhichtimeDonohopresentedherowntestimony,inadditiontotestimonyfromherpastor,WillieRobison,andfromtwofirstcousins,MartriceHurrahandKarenMcCrary.ThetestimonyofRobison,Hurrah,andMcCraryessentiallysupportedthepositionthatDonohoisafavorablecareproviderforherothertwochildren,JeremyandAysa.Thoughoneoftheothertwochildren,Aysa,isinthelegalcustodyofAysasfather,DonohoactuallycaresforAysaforamajorityofthetime.Donohosotherchild,Jeremy,hasbeeninDonohoslegalcustodysinceDecember1996(beforewhichDonohosmotherhadlegalcustody)andisfullycaredforbyDonoho.  Donohotestifiedthathercurrentresidence,whereshehasresidedforalmostfouryears,hasbeenaverystablehome.Sheworksfulltimeandhasavailabletransportation.ϜSheishealthconsciousanddoesnotsmokeordrink.Hermotherandgrandmother,withwhombothJeremyandAysaregularlyspendtime,liveonthesamestreet.DonohosfamilyhelpsherwithJeremyandAysa,andlikewisewouldhelpherwithBianca.Donohofurthertestified,however,thatshefailedtomaintainregularcourtorderedchildsupportpaymentstoLewisduringLewisscustodyofBianca.Instead,shepaidallarrearagesofsuchchildsupportatinfrequenttimeswhenshefacedfurtherlegalproceedingsrelatedtothismatter.Furthermore,shefailedtomaintainregularcourtorderedvisitationofBianca,thoughsheblamesLewisshostilitytowardsherfortheinfrequentexerciseofvisitation.ϜLastly,whileDonohowouldsometimescontactLewistonotifyLewisthatDonohowouldnotbecomingtotakeBianca,DonohowouldatothertimesfaileventonotifyLewis(andalsotherebyBianca)thatshewouldnotbecoming.  AfterDonohopresentedherevidenceandbeforeLewispresentedanyfurtherevidence,counselforLewismovedforaninvoluntarydismissal,whichthecircuitcourt 0948 granted.Inthecircuitcourtsorderofdismissal,itprovidedthatDonohospetitiontorestorecustodywasdismissed forherfailuretocarryherburdenofproofofshowingchangedcircumstances.DonohoappealedtothisCourt.Onappeal,Donohofirstassertsthatthetrialcourtusedthewrongstandardofproofforacustodydisputebetweenaparentandanonparent.Morespecifically,Donohoassertsthataparentmustbeawardedcustodyinanycustodydisputebetweenaparentandanonparentunlessthenonparentestablishesthatsubstantialharmtothechildwouldresultfromawardingcustodytotheparent.Donohoalternativelyassertsthat,evenifthecircuitcourtappliedthecorrectlegalstandardindeterminingcustody,dismissalwasimproperbecauseshedemonstratedchangedcircumstancesthatwouldrequireamodificationofcustody.LewisassertsthecontrarypositiontobothofDonohosassertions.Therefore,thisCourtispresentedwiththefollowingtwoissues:0  1. W ! W! hetherthecircuitcourtutilizedtheappropriatestandardofprooffordeterminingcustodybetweenaparentandanonparentwhencustodywaspreviouslyadjudicatedandawardedtothenonparent;and (#(# 0  2." 񀀀" Whetherthepreponderanceoftheevidencepresentedestablished changedcircumstancessufficienttowarrantamodificationincustody. (#(# @II.TheStandardofProof #!   Generally,inchildcustodycases,appellatereviewisdenovoupontherecord,with `'"% apresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfactualfindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984).Thepartiesfirstissue,  +p&) however,involvesaquestionoflawforwhichthestandardofreviewisdenovowithno -P(+ presumptionofcorrectnessforthetrialcourt'sfindings.Bradshawv.OldRepublicIns.Co., .0*- 922S.W.2d503(Tenn.1996);Ridingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80 0,/ (Tenn.1996);UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston,854S.W.2d87(Tenn.1993). 2-1   [P]arentalrightsconstituteafundamentallibertyinterestunder...theTennesseeConstitution.Hawkv.Hawk,855S.W.2d573,579(Tenn.1993).Tennesseecourtshave @837 historicallyheld,  :p59 8  aparentisentitledtothecustody,companionship,andcareofthechild,andshouldnotbedeprivedthereofexceptbydueprocessoflaw.Itisanaturalright,butnotaninalienableone.Theparentsaretrustedwiththecustodyofthechildupontheideathatundertheinstinctsofparentaldevotionitisbestforthechild.    Id.at577(quotingStateexrel.Bethellv.Kilvington,100Tenn.227,236,45S.W.433,435 P  (1898).Moreover,8  [t]herelationswhichexistbetweenparentandchildaresacredones....Therighttothesocietyofthechildexistsinitsparents;therighttorearit,toitscustody,toitstutorage,theshapingofitsdestiny,andalloftheconsequencesthatnaturallyfollowfromtherelationshipareinherentlyinthenaturalparents,andtheycannotbedeprivedoftheserightswithoutnotice,anduponsomegroundwhichaffectsmateriallythefutureofthechild.    Hawk,855S.W.2dat578(quotingInreKnott,138Tenn.349,355,197S.W.1097,1098  (1917).Therightofprivacy,whichstemsfromtheparentsfundamentallibertyinterest, protectstherightofparentstocarefortheirchildrenwithoutunwarrantedstateintervention.Id.at579.UnderTennesseelaw,thisrightcanonlybeovercomewhen @  substantialharmthreatensachildswelfare.Id.at577.Otherwise,thestatelacksa  p sufficientlycompellingjustificationforinterferingwiththefundamentalrightofparentstoraisetheirchildrenastheyseefit.Id.at577,582.Inacustodydisputebetweenaparent 0 andanonparent, aparentcannotbedeprivedofthecustodyofthechildunlesstherehasbeenafinding,afternoticerequiredbydueprocess,ofsubstantialharmtothechild.In #! reAdoptionofFemaleChild,896S.W.2d546,548(Tenn.1995). % #   Intheinstantcase,DonohowasalreadydeprivedofthecustodyofBiancabyapriororderofthejuvenilecourt,whichwasnotappealedandisnotthesubjectofthisappeal.ImplicitinthispriororderisafindingthatDonohowasunabletocareforBiancaatthattimeandofsubstantialharmtoBiancathatwouldhaveresultedinawardingcustodytoDonoho.ϜThejuvenilecourtexpresslyrecognizedinitsorderthatDonohosinterestinregainingcustodyofBiancawassuperiortoanyotherright.ThecourtfurtherexpressedtheintenttorestorecustodytoDonohoaftershevisitedandsupportedBiancatoshowthatsheis 4/3 afitparentandisabletocareforBianca.    Whereadecreehasbeenenteredawardingcustodyofachild,thejudicialsystem  :p59 andthepartiesinvolvedhaveaninterestinthestabilityandpredictabilitythatcomesfromaccordingthedecisionthestatusofafinaljudgment.Custodyordersareresjudicataupon  thefactsbroughttothetrialcourt'sattentionatthetimethedecisionwasmadeandareconclusiveinasubsequentapplicationtochangecustodyunlesssomenewfacthasoccurredwhichhasalteredthecircumstancesinamaterialway.Youngv.Smith,193 0  Tenn.480,485,246S.W.2d93,95(1952);Walkerv.Walker,656S.W.2d11,16(Tenn. `  Ct.App.1983).Atrialcourtmayre-examineacustodydecisionuponthepresentationof"factsandconditionswhichhaveemergedsincethedecree[or]newfactsandconditionswhichwerenotdeterminedorcouldnotbeanticipatedbythedecree."Daileyv.Dailey,  635S.W.2d391,393(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Inordertomodifycustodyafteraninitialdeterminationhaspreviouslybeenmade,theburdenisplaceduponthenoncustodialpartytoproveamaterialchangeincircumstances.Blairv.Badenhope,940S.W.2d575, P 576(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Accordingly,inthismodificationofcustodycase,theearlierJune1994awardofcustodytoLewisisconclusiveasbetweenDonohoandLewisabsentashowingbyDonohoofamaterialchangeincircumstances.  Inordertomodifycustodyasbetweentwoparents,thestandardofproofrequiresthenoncustodialparenttoestablishchangedcircumstancessuchthatsubstantialharmtothechildwouldresultifcustodywasleftwiththecustodialparent.Wallv.Wall,907 p&!$ S.W.2d829,834(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Becauseofparentalrights,however,thisstandardhasnoapplicationincaseswhereinaparentseeksmodificationofapriorawardofcustodytoanonparent.SeeInReAdoptionofFemaleChild,896S.W.2d546(Tenn. ,`'* 1995).Insuchcases,theparentmustinsteadsimplyestablish,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,changedcircumstancesshowingthatanawardofcustodytotheparentwouldnolongerresultinsubstantialharmtothechild.Thisstandardofproofrequiresevidenceestablishingthatcircumstances,whicharerelevanttothethreatofharmtothechildandwhichweighagainstanysuchharm,havemateriallychangedsincethepriorawardofcustody.Thisstandardofprooffurtherrequiresthatthisevidence,takentogetherwithallotherproof,establishestheabsenceofsubstantialharmtothechildintheeventof 0948 custodialmodification.Intheinstantcase,thecircuitcourtdismissedDonohospetitionbaseduponitsfindingthatDonohofailed tocarryherburdenofproofshowingchangedcircumstances.  Thecourt,therefore,neverreachedthesecondrequirementwherebytheproofmustdemonstratetheabsenceofsubstantialharmtothechildintheeventofcustodialmodification.Therefore,insofarasthecourtappliedastandardofproof,wefindnoerror.@III.TheProofPresented     Rule41.02(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichpertainstoinvoluntarydismissals,provides,8  Aftertheplaintiff,inanactiontriedbythecourtwithoutajury,hascompletedthepresentationofplaintiff'sevidence,thedefendant,withoutwaivingtherighttoofferevidenceintheeventthemotionisnotgranted,maymovefordismissalonthegroundthatuponthefactsandthelawtheplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief.....Thecourtastrierofthefactsmaythendeterminethemandrenderjudgmentagainsttheplaintifformaydeclinetorenderanyjudgmentuntilthecloseofalltheevidence;intheeventjudgmentisrenderedatthecloseofplaintiff'sevidence,thecourtshallmakefindingsoffactifrequestedinwritingwithinthreedaysaftertheannouncementofthecourt'sdecision.\>    Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2).IncasesinvolvingamotionforinvoluntarydismissalpursuanttoRule41.02(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure, thetrial( court( ) judge) mustimpartiallyweighandevaluatetheevidenceinthesamemannerasthoughheweremakingfindingsoffactattheconclusionofalloftheevidenceforbothparties,determinethefactsofthecase,applythelawtothosefacts,and,iftheplaintiffscasehasnotbeenmadeoutbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,ajudgmentmayberenderedagainsttheplaintiffonthemerits....CityofColumbiav.C.F.W.Constr.Co.,557S.W.2d734,740(Tenn.1977). .0*- Therefore,ourreviewofthecircuitcourtsfindingsoffactisdenovoupontherecord, 0,/ accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn. 4/3 1984).ThecircuitcourtinthiscasedismissedDonohospetitionbecauseitfoundthatDonohofailedtosatisfyherburdenofestablishing changedcircumstances.Therefore,wemustdeterminewhetherthepreponderanceoftheevidenceestablishesamaterial  :p59 changeinthosecircumstancesthatarerelevanttoandweighagainstthethreatofharmtoBiancafromcustodialmodification.  Uponreviewofthepartiesbriefs,wenotethattheonlyfactualbasisuponwhichDonohocontends changedcircumstanceswasestablishedisDonohoscontentionthatLewishasfailedtocooperatewithDonohoinarrangingcourtorderedvisitation.ThoughDonohocitesDaltonv.Dalton,858S.W.2d324(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),tosupporther @  assertion,wefindthatDalton,whichdidnotinvolvevisitation,but,instead,involved   recalcitrantparentsinhandlingjointcustody,doesnotsupporthercontention.Also,overthecourseofDonohosinfrequentvisitation,DonohowouldattimesfailtoevennotifyLewis(andalsotherebyBianca)thatshewouldnotbecoming.Furthermore,shepaidϜsubstantialarrearagesinchildsupportatinfrequenttimeswhenfacedwithfurtherpendinglegalproceedingsinthismatter.Thesechangesincircumstances,whichweighagainstDonohosfitnessasaparentandabilitytocareforBianca,donotweighagainstthethreatofharmtothechildanddonot,therefore,supportafindingofmaterialchangeincircumstances.Uponreviewoftheentirerecord,wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatDonohofailedtosatisfyherburdenofproofofestablishingamaterialchangeincircumstances.@II#IV.Conclusion P(#&   Accordingly,thetrialcourtsdismissalisherebyaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoDonoho,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   `     h      p   򀀀 0,/    `     h      p   HIGHERS,J. 1-0 CONCUR:򀀀 p504 FARMER,J.$ 񀀀$ $ $ LILLARD,J.$ $ & # (# & ' ,Concurringseparately' % # SeparateConcurringOpinion)# %