WPC1( hdwԁmKUjvihk& kZZ 4%,ٍ7 är/E~kڪVZ+í.>©vy'5JW$i]Px =;ԭZ,l'! 4g_dr~r]iC6!޲a.yRΔ8qi|H(S'%q=.H'THbJ(91p|5~Wb2\, ŧ|>l 2-y s9*虘l ,|G qK;ľT:>{2B*³<6!]0OGuQ*h!**>Vn:t[E\f@Jw\;I50R#8C.ڈ Mڳz1(2C'#FM+gAЧExu_(bmJ|!))O-Ed _YWRj.Jb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;=EEO 1j j j 1 72~! 1u! 72%" 0$cW"W"W" 72""""""""""b"""""" 0:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0.#.#.#.# B$$ 06$ D3$ D- % 0K:%:% AS%% 0& 0DB' A'HP LaserJet 40500بu-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-: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|xU(uH Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    RU$      1  XmX  _SuchrestrictionisnotintheMDAoranyorderintherecordofthiscase. E RU$      2  XmX  _Thesefactorssetforthin366106includethefollowing:   (8("!3"  0  0` (#(#!3T2(  1  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsandchild;!3T݌ (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!32(  2  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing,  medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhicha t parenthasbeentheprimary_caregiver_;...!3݌` (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!32(  3  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslifeandthelengthoftimethe L  childhaslivedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment;...!3݌8  (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3 2(  4  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;!3 m݌$ t (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3B2(  5  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents;!3B݌ ` (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3b2(  6  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;!3b݌ L  (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3 2(  7  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageorolder;.  8  ..!3 ݌$  (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3 2(  8  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheother_other_Ԁparent   ortoanyotherperson;!3 - ݌  (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!3m 2(  9  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinorfrequents   thehomeofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththechild;and!3m ݌  (# (# Ќ  "!3 "  0  0` (#(#!32(  10  )3  0 ` (#` (#  Eachparentspastandpotentialforfutureperformanceofparenting p responsibilities,includingthewillingnessandabilityofeachoftheparents \ tofacilitateandencourageacloseandcontinuingparentchildrelationship H betweenthechildandtheotherparent,consistentwiththebestinterestofthe 4 child.(CEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (1)- -42Emphasis(|G2U$ !.8Rqdd8         0  XmX d(|3ǂ$ !.8Rqdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǂ$ !.8Rqdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Rqdd8     _Rq8mXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @September30,2002Session $ XmXRq #RqXXm#  ALVINRAYMAYSv.HELENDARLENEMAYSXmXRq  " @  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHawkinsCounty  " @ No.13523Hon.ThomasR.Frierson,II.,Judge   _   `    _ h FILEDNOVEMBER22,_2002_@*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200102630COAR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   Inpostdivorceaction,theTrialCourtchangedfromthemothertothefather,theroleasprimary < custodianoftheminorchild.Onappeal,weaffirm. (x #RqXXm #XmXRq Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  P HerschelPickensFranks#RqXm#XmX.Rq,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#RqXmm#XmX.Rq ( P.J.,andCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,#RqXm#XmX.RqԀJ.,joined.  RichardA.Spivey,Kingsport,Tennessee,forAppellant.  GregoryW.Francisco,Kingsport,Tennessee,forAppellee. t @66' OPINION #RqXXmy#XmXRqԈ $ t    `     h      p  XmXXXm   0 `  ` (#` (#    ` After17yearsofmarriage,thepartiesweredivorcedin1999onstipulatedgrounds. "8" Atthistimethereisoneminorchild,Isaiah,now7yearsold.Atthetimeofthedivorce,theMarital #$# DissolutionAgreementprovidedforjointcustodyofthechildrenwiththemotherbeingtheprimary $ $ custodialparentandliberalvisitationtothefather,withchildsupporttobepaidtothemother. % %    ` In2001,thefatherfiledaMotiontoModifyCustody,ChildSupportandAlimony, '"' seekingsolecustodyofthechildrenwithvisitationtothemother,paymentofchildsupport,and p(#( terminationofalimonypayments.Thefatherallegedthathewasbetterabletoprovidestabilityand \)$) consistencyforthechildren.TheissuesweretriedinJulyof2001,andtheTrialCourtinitsOrder H*%* onitsMemorandumOpinion,adoptedandincorporatedaParentingPlansubmittedbythefather, 4+&+ makinghimprimaryresidentialcustodianandorderingthemothertopaychildsupport.  ,p',   -\(-     ` TheTrialCourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffact:  0  0` (#(# InapproximatelyNovember1999,Ms.Maysestablishedarelationshipwith  Mr.MikeWilliamsofKingsport,Tennessee.Theevidencepreponderatesinfavor t ofafindingthatMr.Williamshasmaintainedacontinuousresidenceseparatefrom ` Ms.Mayshomeduringthecourseoftheirrelationship.However,Mr.Williams L  frequentsthehomeofMs.Maysandhasoftenspentthenightthereinthepresence 8  oftheminorchildren.Mr.WilliamsisunemployedandreceivesS.S.I.disability $ t benefits.ThisCourtfurtherfindsthatduringseveraloccasions,oneasrecentlyas  ` January2001,Ms.Mayshaspermittedtheuseandconsumptionofmarijuanainher  L  homewiththechildrenpresent.Atleasttwice,Ms.Mayspersonallyconsumedthe  8  drugintheircompany.Moreover,whileshoppingwithAutumn,[thedaughternow $  18,whoresideswiththefather]Ms.Mayspurchaseddrugparaphernaliafromalocal   retailerofsuchitems. ` (#` (#    ` TheCourtfurtherfoundthattherelationshipbetweenthemotherandtheolder   daughterhad culminatedinaphysicalaltercationinJanuaryof2001andthatAutumnenjoysa p strongsiblingbondwithherbrother,IsaiahMays. \    ` Further,theTrialCourtconcludedthatallowingMr.Williamstobeanovernight 4 guestand accompanyingachildwhileundertheinfluenceofalcoholornonprescriptiondrugs  p wereinviolationofa standingorder #  1      ׀oftheCourt,whichtheCourtincorporatesintoallorders  \ affectingthecustodyofchildren.TheCourtthenconcludedthatthefathershomewas morestable, H healthyandconducivetoinstructing,inspiringandencouragingchildrentoprepareforalifeof 4 serviceandtocompetesuccessfullyinsociety.The[fathers]homereflectsanatmosphereof   structure,rules,andconstructiveconsequencesforallchildrenpresent.TheCourtthenconcluded    theevidencesupportsthefindingthatcircumstanceshavechangedinamaterialwaysoasto  warrantamodificationinparentingresponsibilitiesandschedule.     ` Whilethemotherlistsfiveissues,theseissuesmaybecondensedintotwo: l  (5h83"!3"  0  0` (#(#!3825h  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhethertheTrialCourterredinmodifyingtheJudgmentofDivorceto D! designatethefatherastheprimaryresidentialparent,pursuanttoafindingof 0"  amaterialchangeofcircumstancesbaseduponthemothersallegeduseof #l! marijuanaandalcoholinthechildspresent,andhavinganovernightguest $X" oftheoppositesex.!38݌$D # (# (# Ќ  "!3"  0  0` (#(#!325h  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheMotiontoModifyshouldhavebeendismissedasamatteroflawbecause &"% theaccompanyingProposedParentingPlandidnotincludeaverified '#& statementofthefathersincome.!3݌(#' (# (# Ќ   )$(    ` Thestandardofreviewinchildcustodyandmodificationcasesisdenovowitha  presumptionofcorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindings,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.  Hassv.Knighton,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984);Nicholsv.Nichols,792S.W.2d713(Tenn.  1990);Placenciav.Placencia,3S.W.3d497(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Nopresumptionofcorrectness t attachestoconclusionsoflaw.Nelsonv.Nelson,66S.W.3d896(Tenn.Ct.App.2001). `     ` TheevidencerelatingtodruguseandovernightvisitationsbyMr.Williamsissharply 8  disputed.However,itistheprovinceofthetrialcourttoresolvethecredibilityoftheevidenceand $ t determinetheweight,faithandcredittobegivenwitnesses,andtheTrialCourtsdeterminations  ` ofthecredibilityofwitnessesisaffordedgreatdeferenceonappeal.InReParsons,914S.W.2d889  L  (Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Suchfindingsarebindingupontheappellatecourt,andwillnotbereversed  8  unlesstheCourtiscompelledtoconcludetothecontrarybyclear,conciseandconvincingevidence, $  otherthanoraltestimony,thatcontradictstheTrialCourt,absentanerroroflaw.Reedv.Alamo   RentACar,Inc.,4S.W.3d677,687(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).      ` SubsequenttotheTrialCourtsdetermination,theTennesseeGeneralAssembly   enactedTenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(2)(B)whichstates: p 0  0` (#(#Iftheissuebeforethecourtisamodificationofthecourtspriordecreepertaining H tocustodyoraresidentialparentingarrangement,thepetitionermustprovebya 4 preponderanceoftheevidenceamaterialchangeincircumstance.Amaterialchange  p ofcircumstancedoesnotrequireashowingofasubstantialriskofharmtothechild.  \ Amaterialchangeofcircumstancemayinclude,butisnotlimitedto,failuresto H adheretotheparentingplanorcircumstanceswhichmaketheparentingplanno 4 longerinthebestinterestofthechild. ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# (i)Ineachcontestedcase,thecourtshallmakesuchafindingastothereason  andthefactsthatconstitutethebasisforthecustodydetermination.` (#` (#    ` TheSupremeCourtin Kendrickv._Shoemake_,____S.W.3d_Ԁ___,No.E200001318 l SCR11CV,filedNovember1,2002atKnoxville,consideredtheforegoingstatutoryenactmentas X  itrelatestoapetitiontomodifycustodyfromoneparenttotheotherandsaid: D! 0  0` (#(#ThisissueislargelyresolvedbyarecentdecisioninBlairv.Badenhope,77S.W.3d #l! 137(Tenn.2002).Blairinvolvedacustodydisputebetweenaparentandanon $X" parent.Weconcludedthatonceavalidorderofcustodyhasbeenissued,subsequent $D # custodymodificationproceedingsshouldapplythe standardtypicallyappliedin %0!$ parentversusparentmodificationcases:thatamaterialchangeincircumstancehas &"% occurred,whichmakesachangeincustodyinthechildsbestinterest.Id.at148. '#& AsexplainedinBlair,the thresholdissueiswhetheramaterialchangein (#' circumstancehasoccurredaftertheinitialcustodydetermination.Id.at150.While )$(  therearenohardandfastrulesfordeterminingwhenachildscircumstanceshave |*%) changedsufficientlytowarrantachangeofhisorhercustody,thefollowingfactors h+&* haveformedasoundbasisfordeterminingwhenamaterialchangeincircumstance  hasoccurred:thechange hasoccurredaftertheentryofanordersoughttobe  modified,thechange isnotonethatwasknownorreasonablyanticipatedwhenthe  orderwasentered,andthechange isonethataffectsthechildswellbeingina t meaningfulway.Id.(Citationsomitted). Wenotethataparentschangein ` circumstancesmaybeamaterialchangeincircumstancesforthepurposeof L  modifyingcustody,ifsuchachangeaffectsthechildswellbeing.8 ` (#` (#    ` TheCourtwentontosaythatifamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred,the  ` determinationmustbemadeastowhethermodificationisinthechildsbestinterest.That  L  determinationismadebyconsideringthefactorsenumerateinTenn.CodeAnn.366107. #  2      Inthis  8  case,theTrialCourtdidmakefactualfindingsofchangeincircumstancesthatcouldwarranta $  changeincustody.      ` ThenextstepthenrequiresananalysisofthefactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.   366106,andwhiletheTrialCourtdidnotclearlyengageinthestatutoryanalysis,hisfindings   importthatthechildisnot inastable,satisfactoryenvironmentandthefactorsofthecharacterand p behaviorofapersonwhofrequentsthehomeandtheinteractionofthatpersonwiththechild,aswell \ asthementalhealthofthemother,supporttheCourtsdeterminationthatitwasinthebestinterest H ofthechildthatthefatherbetheprimarycustodian. 4   p    ` Finally,thewifearguestheMotiontoModifyshouldbedismissedduetothe  plaintiffsfailuretofileaverifiedincomestatement,incompliancewithTenn.CodeAnn.366  405(a).Thisargumentiswithoutmeritfortworeasons.TheissuewasnotraisedintheTrialCourt  andiswaivedonappeal.Daileyv.Dailey,635S.W.2d391(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Second, t defendantmisinterpretsthestatute.T.C.A.366405(a)appliestoapplicationstomodifyoramend ` apermanentparentingplan.Thiswasnotaproceedingtoamendaparentingplan,therewasnoplan L  filedintheoriginaldivorcecase.ThisargumentwasrecentlyrejectedinCasbyv.Hazelrig,2002 8  Tenn.App.Lexis546,No.W200102073COAR3CV.Apetitiontomodifycustodywasfiledin $ t acasewherethefinaldivorcedecreewasissuedpriortothestatutoryrequirementofpermanent  ` parentingplans.TheCourtheldthattheproceedingwasclearlyseeking solecustodywherethere  L  wasjointcustodyandwasthereforeattemptingtomodifythefinaldecree,notsimplyamodification  8  ofthevisitationarrangements.AppellantalsocitesTenn.CodeAnn.366404(c)(3),butthis $  statuteisnotapplicableandtheproceedingbeforeusisgovernedbyTenn.CodeAnn.366   101(a)(2).      ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,   withthecostoftheappealassessedtoHelenDarleneMays. p #XmXX Xm8 ##RqXXm#XmXRq#RqXXm>#XmXRq   `     h     _________________________  \    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. H #RqXXm2?#XmXRq