ÿWPCI $# UF %Y 0@_4Ÿ³Âw@Ê 0„  0DŽ 0JÒ 0T 0^p 0hÎ 0r6 0|¨ 0†$ 0ª 1u: 0d¯ B U60 ’f v~ø vÓv ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Óf|œ$¡Ó 3|x¦ #ežÓ€ŸD ¡U¢D£¤D¥¦(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòIn€this€context,€we€should€note€that€the€parties'€stipulation€that€theÏoriginal€custody€arrangement€was€not€working,€in€our€opinion,€constitutes€aÏchange€of€circumstances€justifying€a€change€in€the€custody€arrangement.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€i‘XXdÖdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓHEATHER€MARIE€LONG,€€€€€€à à)à àHAMBLEN€DOMESTIC€RELATIONSÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9801„CH„00007Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Petitioner„Appellant€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€JOYCE€M.€WARD€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌROBERT€DEAN€CROXDALE,€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€Respondent„Appellee€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌROBERT€R.€SIMPSON,€œEshbaugh›,€Simpson€and€œVarner›,€Knoxville,€forÏAppellant.ÌÌÌJIM€W.€œSTAMBAUGH›,€œStambaugh›€Law€Office,€Morristown,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòÌÌO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€a€child€custody€case.€€Heather€Long€(mother)€andÏRobert€Croxdale€(father)€each€filed€a€petition€seeking€full€custo…dy,€or€in€the€alternative,€primary€residential€custody€of€theirÏson,€Travis€Dean€Croxdale,€who€was€born€April€27,€1993.€€The€trialÏcourt€awarded€primary€custody€to€the€father,€with€the€motherÏhaving€physical€custody€during€two€months€in€the€summer.€€TheÏmother€appeals,€asserting€that€the€court€should€have€awarded€herÏprimary€custody.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€divorced€pursuant€to€a€final€order€of€di…vorce€entered€August€14,€1995.€€The€marital€dissolution€agreementÏprovided€that€the€parties€"will€have€joint€custody€shared€equally,Ïchanging€every€week€on€Sunday€at€6:00€p.m."€€This€joint€custodyÏarrangement€worked€satisfactorily€until€Travis€approached€"schoolÏage."€€On€February€20,€1997,€the€mother€filed€a€petition€seekingÏprimary€residential€custody€of€Travis.€€The€father€filed€a€coun…ter„petition€likewise€seeking€primary€residential€custody.€€TheÏparties€stipulated€that€their€arrangement€for€joint€custody€sharedÏequally€was€no€longer€appropriate.ÌÌà àThe€case€was€heard€by€the€Hamblen€County€Domestic€RelationsÏCourt€on€October€31,€1997.€€The€trial€court,€in€a€scholarly€andÏthorough€memorandum€opinion,€found€the€following:€ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌà àWith€regard€to€the€nine€statutory€criteria€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„6„102,€and€the€thirty€criteria€approved€byÏour€courts€for€modification€of€custody€decrees,€theÏCourt€finds€equities€on€both€sides€of€this€case.€€TheÏCourt€has€no€doubt€about€either€party's€love€for€andÏdevotion€to€the€minor€child.€€Each€party€is€obviouslyÏdisposed€to€provide€the€child€with€food,€clothing,Ïmedical€treatment,€education,€and€other€necessary€care.€ÏBoth€parties€have€the€obvious€ability€to€provide€theÏchild€with€a€satisfactory€home€environment.€€NeitherÏparty€suffers€from€mental€or€physical€health€problems.€ÏBoth€parties€have€demonstrated€concern€over€the€child'sÏemotional,€recreational,€and€social€development.€ÏAppropriately€in€a€case€involving€a€child€of€such€tenderÏyears,€there€is€no€direct€evidence€of€the€child's€pref…erence€regarding€custody.€Neither€party€appears€to€haveÏbeen€guilty€of€intentionally€inflicting€physical€orÏemotional€abuse€on€the€child.€€Finally,€there€is€noÏevidence€that€either€party€has€ever€brought€into€his/herÏhome€any€person€of€unfit€character€or€behavior.€Ìà àÌà àGiven€two€such€qualified€custodial€parents€and€theÏapparent€desire€of€each€to€provide€for€the€child'sÏwelfare,€it€is€only€the€parties'€agreement€that€theirÏjoint€custody€is€no€longer€feasible€which€requires€theÏCourt€to€select€one€of€them€as€the€primary€custodian.€Ï...€the€equities€are€closely€balanced,€but€the€decisionÏwill€be€based€on€an€evaluation€of€the€parties'€demon…strated€conduct€in€their€past€dealings€with€the€child.€ÌÌà àThe€Court€believes€that,€in€determining€which€ofÏtwo€custodial€parents€will€be€more€likely€to€protect€aÍchild's€long„term€best€interests,€it€is€instructive€toÏexamine€the€conduct€of€each€of€the€parents€during€timesÏof€extreme€stress.€€òòThe€evidence€in€this€case€showsÏthat,€during€the€stressful€time€surrounding€the€parties'Ïseparation€and€divorce,€[father's]€conduct€in€dealingÏwith€the€child€was€superior€to€the€conduct€of€[mother]óó.€Ï(Emphasis€in€original).€€The€Court€finds€that€factor€toÏbe€the€overriding€consideration€in€this€otherwise€close…ly€balanced€case.€€Ìà àÌà àOn€the€basis€of€the€foregoing€analysis,€and€consid…ering€the€parties'€agreement€that€joint„custody€arrange…ments€are€no€longer€appropriate,€the€Court€finds€thatÏthe€welfare€of€the€child€in€this€case€will€best€beÏserved€by€designating€[father]€as€the€primary€custodialÏparent.€œ(All›€œfootnotes€in€the€original€are›€œomitted.)›ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€sole€issue€on€appeal,€taken€verbatim€from€the€mother'sÏbrief,€is€"did€the€trial€court€err€in€modifying€a€joint€custodyÏorder€to€place€custody€with€the€Father€based€solely€upon€theÏMother's€pre„divorce€conduct?"ÌÌà àThe€mother€argues€in€her€brief€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àWhat€was€not€warranted,€however,€was€the€trialÏcourt's€application€of€the€comparative€fitness€doctrineÏto€create€a€new€rule€of€law€(the€so„called€"stressÏtest")€and€considering€facts€which€occurred€prior€to€theÏentry€of€the€divorce€decree.€€The€comparative€fitnessÏanalysis€is€only€appropriate€at€the€time€of€the€originalÏcustody€decree,€not€when€a€modification€action€is€pend…ing.€€òòMusselman€v.€Acuffóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.App.Ï1991).ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€òòMusselmanóó€opinion,€the€only€authority€cited€in€support€ofÏthis€argument,€in€no€way€stands€for€or€supports€the€propositionÏthat€a€comparative€fitness€analysis€is€never€appropriate€whenÏconsidering€a€child€custody€modification€action.€€The€òòMusselmanóóÏopinion€simply€states€that€"[œw]hen›€the€issue€before€the€court€isÏwhether€to€modify€a€prior€custody€order,€it€need€not€repeat€theÏcomparative€fitness€analysis€that€is€appropriate€at€the€time€ofÏthe€€original€custody€decree."€€We,€therefore,€disagree€with€theÏmother's€argument,€and€find€the€trial€court's€consideration€of€allÏthe€relevant€facts€was€appropriate€under€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase.× ƒ! ××  ×€€The€trial€court€did€not€"create€a€new€rule€of€law,"€butÏrather€contemplated€a€meaningful€factual€consideration€ð"ð€how€theÏrespective€parties€reacted€under€stressful€situations€ð"ð€and€foundÏthis€to€be€a€persuasive€factor€in€an€otherwise€very€close€andÏdifficult€case.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€court€considered€a€myriadÍof€other€relevant€factors€in€making€the€determination€of€theÏchild's€best€interest,€and€thus€did€not€act€inappropriately.€€WeÏfind€the€rule€as€reiterated€in€òòBrumit€v.€Brumitóó,€948€S.W.2d€739Ï(Tenn.€App.€1997)€to€be€particularly€germane€to€the€issues€underÏconsideration€here:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhile€many€proceedings€in€the€law€are€factually„driven,€this€is€particularly€true€of€custody€cases,€bothÏon€initial€awards€as€well€as€in€cases€involving€a€re…quest€to€modify€a€previous€award.€€In€such€cases,€aÏtrial€court€has€wide€discretion,€and€we€will€not€tamperÏwith€that€discretion€unless€the€facts€demonstrate€thatÏthe€trier€of€fact€has€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€TheÏwelfare€of€the€child€is€always€the€paramount€consider…ation.€€(Citations€omitted.)ÌÌòòId.óó,€at€page€œ740.›ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€court's€award€of€primary€residential€custody€to€the€fatherÏand€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€The€trialÏcourt's€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏassessed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà€ à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓHEATHER€MARIE€LONG,€€€€€€à à)à àHAMBLEN€DOMESTIC€RELATIONSÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9801„CH„00007Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€Petitioner„Appellant€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€JOYCE€M.€WARD€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€JUDGE€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌROBERT€DEAN€CROXDALE,€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌ€€€€€€€€Respondent„Appellee€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ` ܸ ™XÓÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏDomestic€Relations€Court€of€Hamblen€County,€briefs€and€argument€ofÏcounsel.€€Upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinionÏthat€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌ