WPCR ^s" kV|`КRhl>g!7~ϟs譟pK#? HO'QBγmGRN-%2h?OeӅ6xNf'RYVlR#.v݊M:Zvዅd2ytJbwp9:ADEE;kj0.]!dC:lDqyoAmȂ{ e֌e_-c'Zo:#5\ o# % ^ 0 wu UNy 4 z U ' 6 m8 8 O  0DgN 0 B-_EU> 1u 72As 0Uk 0^ 0 0 0 0> 0 0 0E 0 0 0| 0/! 0! 1U" 0" 0y# 0$b$ 0$ 0>% 0& 0& 0~' 0(( 0( 0j) 0* 0* 0+ 0+ 0, 0>l- 0- 0. 0/ 0f0 0H1 0*2 0 3 023 03 0:4 0Y.5 0_5 0 5 06 0r8 B*x: D/: 0::: D/< 0= 0= 06> 0> B? 0:@ 0T@ D3@ D-+A 0KXA 0^A ASBTB 0C 0DC AD 0<DU6DU*EIE 0cFfFfFfFfFIJIJLQ\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0Py/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  )Hairline d\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  Rtz$      1  :  _DivisionIIoftheSumnerCountyGeneralSessionsCourthasconcurrentjurisdictionwiththecircuitand  chancerycourtsover"domesticmatters."ActofMar.10,1982,ch.236,3,1982Tenn.Priv.Acts89,8990,amended  byActofMay11,1989,ch.93,2,1989Tenn.Priv.Acts186,18687. H *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    GallatinHynds J.T.frenulectomyfrenulumLoudonGaskillPlacenciaAdelsperger AabyGorskiRagainsDeskbookHoalcraftSolimaMusselmanAcuffBadenhopeCaudillresist[ed t]heTenn.CodeMyintVaughnKaatrudeEldridgeBallardHerzkeClinardBucknerHassell CrimOverstreett]hereGalbreathKendrickShoemakenoncustodialNicholsEatherlyTortorichE.D.N.Y.RebuttableWeithorn L.J. JAMAGoinsBarbourrevdMcEvoysOceanicsSwett COAMcEvoyShoney*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  $359=AEIMQ111111111*// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   - -(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5<AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  ,*CITE,dl*CODEKc<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7M(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?d%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dL)1dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?d%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  L)2dxd(|G2tz$ !.8dXXd8         0  :0KS.SampleKc<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKc<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS d42Variable(|3{$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  : 8HTML MarkupB      ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial Rtz$      3  :  _TheformergirlfriendisnowMr.McEvoyswife.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    Rtz$      4  :  _Nicholsonv.Williams,203F.Supp.2d153,19798(E.D.N.Y.2002);HowardA.Davidson,TheImpact  ofDomesticViolenceonChildren:AReporttothePresidentoftheAmericanBarAssociation1(1994)  (callingchildrenwhowitnessdomesticviolence secondaryvictims);LynneR.Kurtz,ProtectingNewYorksChildren: H AnArgumentfortheCreationofaRebuttablePresumptionAgainstAwardingaSpouseAbuserCustodyofaChild,60  L Alb.L.Rev.1345,1350(1997);LoisA.Weithorn,ProtectingChildrenFromExposuretoDomesticViolence:TheUse  andAbuseofChildMaltreatment,53HastingsL.J.1,46(2001);BetsyM.Grovesetal.,SilentVictims:ChildrenWho  WitnessViolence,269JAMA262(1993).  Rtz$      5  :  _Wehavepointedoutonotheroccasionsthatthissortofcustodyarrangementusuallyprovestobeunworkable  withthepassageoftime.Swettv.Swett,No.M199800961COAR3CV,2002WL1389614,at*78(Tenn.Ct.App.  June27,2002)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  Rtz$      2  :  _Overtheyears,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasconsistentlydeclinedtoreviewthiscourtsdecisionsholding  thatthechangeincircumstancesthatwilltriggeraconsiderationofachangeincustodymustinvolvechangesinthe  childscircumstancesratherthaneitherorbothoftheparents.Steenv.Steen,61S.W.3dat327;Hoalcraftv.Smithson, H 19S.W.3dat829.TheCourthasnowdecidedthatachangeineitherparentscircumstancescanalsotriggerachange  L ofcustodyifthechange affectsthechildswellbeing.Kendrickv.Shoemake,90S.W.3dat570.Whileachangein  thecustodialparentscircumstancesnecessarilyaffectsthechild,achangeinthenoncustodialparentscircumstances  maynot.BecausetheCourtdidnotexplicitlylimitKendrickv.Shoemaketochangesinthecustodialparents X circumstances,wemustpresumethattheCourtnowenvisionsthatchangesinanoncustodialparentscircumstancescan  \ justifyachangeofcustodyifthenoncustodialparentcandemonstratethatthechangeinhisorhercircumstances   somehowaffectsthechild. Rtz$      6  :  _Infact,thecourtfoundexplicitlythatMs.Spearswasnotcredible. !.8dd8     _TRX3'Avery 3259 Embossed NoteX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 Address NoteMLTRX3'3'LetterTH  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#|#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMay31,2002  L XX #XXl#KELLEYSCOTTMcEVOYv.KIMBERLYMARIEBREWERXX   J @@ AppealfromtheGeneralSessionsCourtforSumnerCounty  J @@No.2819GC.L.Rogers,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200102054_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember25,2003   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealinvolvesthecustodyofasevenyearoldgirl.Herparentsinitiallyagreedtojoint   custodyintheirmaritaldissolutionagreementthatwasapprovedbytheGeneralSessionsCourtfor   SumnerCounty.Bothpartieslaterpetitionedforsolecustody.Thegeneralsessionscourt t determinedthatthefathershouldbethechildsprimarycustodialparentbecausethemotherhad ` marriedamanwhoposedacrediblethreatofdomesticabuseorviolencetowardthechildand L becausetheexistingalternatingcustodyarrangementwasnolongerworkable.Themotherasserts 8x onthisappealthattheevidencedoesnotsupportthegeneralsessionscourtsdecisiontochange $d custody.Wehavedeterminedthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthecourtsdecision P tomodifythecustodyarrangementandtoawardthefatherprimaryphysicalcustodyofthechild. < #XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheGeneralSessionsCourtAffirmed     #XS #XX.WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.  DennisW.Powers,Gallatin,Tennessee,fortheappellant,KimberlyMarieBrewer. p BruceN.OldhamandSueHyndsDunning,Gallatin,Tennessee,fortheappellee,KelleyScott H   McEvoy. 4!t!   OPINION #XX& #XX  #L# #XX- #  XX@) I.  $$!%   KimberlyMarieSpearsgavebirthtoChelseaLynnMcEvoyinMay1996.Ms.Spears &"' marriedKelleyScottMcEvoyinNovember1997,andtwoweekslater,Mr.McEvoyadopted '#( ChelseaLynnMcEvoy.Thepartiesseparatedinearly1999andweredivorcedintheSumnerCounty ($) GeneralSessionsCourt #  1      ׀onOctober4,1999.Theirmaritaldissolutionagreementcalledforjoint )%* custodywithMs.Spearsbeingthechildsprimaryresidentialparent.Thepartiesalsoagreedthat l*&+ Ms.SpearswouldhaveChelseaovernightonMondaysandWednesdaysandthatMr.McEvoywould  haveherovernightonTuesdaysandThursdays.Inaddition,theyagreedtoalternatecustodyon  weekendsandholidaysandthateachparentwouldhavetwoweeksofsummervacation.    Mr.McEvoysworkscheduleisflexiblebecauseheisaselfemployedlocksmith.Afterthe p divorce,hemarriedCindyMcEvoywhoalreadyhadasonthesameageasChelsea.Mr.McEvoy \ andhisnewspouselaterhadadaughteroftheirown.Theirmarriagewasnotwithoutsomediscord. H  Eventually,theirheatedargumentspromptedthemtobeginmarriagecounselingtohelpthemdeal 4 t withthestresscausedbythechildren,theirmarriage,andthecustodydisputewithMs.Spears.  `   Ms.SpearsbegandatingTommySpearsafterthedivorceandeventuallymovedinwithhim.  8  Mr.Spearshadasevereproblemwithalcohol.Hewasintoxicatedeveryweekend,andhebecame  $  violentandabusivewhenhewasintoxicated.Hephysicallyabusedhisownson,andheregularly   beatMs.Spears.Ononeoccasion,hestabbedMs.Spears.AfterMs.Spearsbecamepregnantwith   hischild,Mr.Spearschokedherandjumpedonherstomach,causinghertoeventuallymiscarry.     TherecordcontainsnoevidencethatMr.Spearsdirectedhisviolentbehaviortoward  Chelsea.Nonetheless,Chelseabeganhavingnightmaresandepisodesofuncontrollablecryingand l bedwettingwhileshewasstayingwithMr.McEvoy.ShealsobeganclingingtoMr.McEvoyand X cryingwhenitbecametimetoreturnhertoMs.Spears.Mr.McEvoylearnedaboutMr.Spearss D conductwhenhetelephonedMs.SpearsaboutChelseasbehavior.Onanotheroccasion,Ms.Spears 0p telephonedMr.McEvoytotearfullytellhimthatMr.Spearshadchokedherandthatshewantedto \ getawayfromhim. H   InApril2000,Mr.McEvoyfiledapetitiontomodifythegeneralsessionscourtsOctober   4,1999order.HesoughtsolecustodyofChelseabecauseoftheeffectthatMr.Spearssviolent   conductwashavingonher.Ms.SpearsopposedMr.McEvoyspetitionandfiledapetitionofher  ownseekingsolecustody.FollowingahearinginMay2000,thecourtfiledanorderonJune5,  2000directingMs.SpearsnottopermitChelseatobeinMr.Spearsspresence.Followingthis  order,Ms.SpearsandMr.SpearscontinuedtoliveinahouseownedbyMr.Spearssgrandfather. | WhenChelseawasstayingwithMs.Spears,Mr.Spearssupposedlymovedinwithhisgrandfather. h However,onatleastoneoccasion,Mr.SpearsandChelseawereobservedtogether,andthisincident T  promptedMr.McEvoytofileapetitionforcriminalcontempt.OnOctober6,2000,Ms.Spears @!  marriedMr.Spears. ,"l!   ThegeneralsessionscourtconductedahearingonJuly17,2001,andissuedanorderonJuly $D # 18,2001,concludingthatamaterialchangeinthepartiesandthechildscircumstanceshad $0!$ occurredrequiringthemodificationoftheexistingjointcustodyarrangementandthatthechilds %"% interestswouldbebestservedbymakingMr.McEvoytheprimarycustodialparent.Thecourtalso &#& orderedthatChelseacouldnotbeleftaloneatanytimewithMr.SpearsandthatMr.McEvoyhad '#' theauthoritytomakethedecisionsregardingChelseasmedicalcarewhenthepartieswereunable ($( toagreeonhertreatment.Finally,thecourtimposedafivedaysuspendedsentenceforcivil )%) contemptagainstMs.Spears.Ms.Spearshasappealedfromthisorder. x*&*  <-|)- @) II.  0   @ (#(#TheDecisiontoChangeCustody     Ms.Spearsfirstarguesthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthegeneralsessionscourts  decisiontoawardMr.McEvoyprimaryphysicalcustodyofChelsea.Sheinsiststhattheevidence p preponderatesagainstthecourtsconclusionthattherehadbeenamaterialchangeinChelseas \ circumstancesand,eveniftherehadbeen,Chelseasinterestswouldbeservedbestbynamingher H  thechildsprimaryphysicalcustodian.Wehaveconcludedthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderate 4 t againstthecourtsconclusionsregardingtheexistenceofamaterialchangeincircumstancesor  ` Chelseasbestinterests.  L  @) A.   $    Custodyandvisitationdecisionsareamongthemostimportantdecisionsthatcourtsmake.   Steenv.Steen,61S.W.3d324,327(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2d   482,484(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Theirchiefpurposeistopromotethechildswelfarebycreating   anenvironmentthatpromotesanurturingrelationshipwithbothparents.Aabyv.Strange,924  S.W.2d623,628(Tenn.1996). l   Eachparenthashisorherownstrengthsandweaknesses,Gaskillv.Gaskill,936S.W.2d626, D 630(Tenn.Ct.App.1996),anditwouldbeunrealistictomeasureeachparentagainstthestandard 0p ofperfection.Earlsv.Earls,42S.W.3d877,885(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Bushv.Bush,684S.W.2d \ 89,92(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Therefore,custodydecisionsarenotintendedtorewardparentsfor H priorvirtuousconductortopunishthemfortheirhumanfrailtiesorpastmissteps.Earlsv.Earls, 4 42S.W.3dat885;Gaskillv.Gaskill,936S.W.2dat630.Rather,takingtheparentsastheypresently   are,thecourtsmustpragmaticallydecidewhethertheparents,eventhoughdivorced,willbeableto   sharetheresponsibilitiesforraisingtheirchildor,ifnot,whichofthetwoparentsiscomparatively  morefittotakeontheprimaryparentingrole.    Childrenthriveinstableenvironments.Aabyv.Strange,924S.W.2dat627;National | InterdisciplinaryColloquiumonChildCustody,LegalandMentalHealthPerspectives h onChildCustodyLaw:ADeskbookforJudges5:1,at51(1998).Accordingly,thecourts T  favorexistingcustodyarrangements.Taylorv.Taylor,849S.W.2d319,332(Tenn.1993); @!  Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3d822,828(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Infact,acustodydecision,once ,"l! madeandimplemented,isconsideredresjudicatauponthefactsinexistenceorreasonably #X" foreseeablewhenthedecisionwasmade.Youngv.Smith,193Tenn.480,485,246S.W.2d93,95 $D # (1952);Steenv.Steen,61S.W.3dat327;Solimav.Solima,7S.W.3d30,32(Tenn.Ct.App.1998). $0!$   Despiteapreferenceforcontinuingexistingcustodyarrangements,thecourtshave &#& recognizedthatthecircumstancesofchildrenandtheirparentschange.Accordingly,ourstatutes '#' anddecisionsempowerthecourtstoaltercustodyarrangementswheninterveningcircumstances ($( requiremodifications.Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(1)(2003).Thus,courtsmaymodifyan )%) existingcustodyarrangementwhenrequiredbyunanticipatedfactsorsubsequentlyemerging x*&* conditions.Smithv.Haase,521S.W.2d49,50(Tenn.1975);Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970 d+'+ S.W.2dat485.Intheinterestsofstabilityinthechildslife,acourtshouldnotalteranexisting P,(, custodyarrangementuntil(1)itissatisfiedeitherthatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedina <-|)- materialwaysincetheentryofthepresentlyoperativecustodydecreeorthataparents  circumstanceshavechangedinawaythataffectsthechildswellbeing,(2)ithascarefully  comparedthecurrentfitnessoftheparentstobethechildscustodian,and(3)ithasconcludedthat  changingtheexistingcustodyarrangementisinthechildsbestinterestsusingthefactorsinTenn.  CodeAnn.366106(a)(1)(2001).Cranstonv.Combs,106S.W.3d641,644(Tenn.2003); p Kendrickv.Shoemake,90S.W.3d566,570(Tenn.2002);Blairv.Badenhope,77S.W.3d137,150 \ (Tenn.2002). H    Therearenobrightlinerulesfordeterminingwhenachangeofcircumstancesshouldbe  ` deemedmaterialenoughtowarrantchanginganexistingcustodyarrangement.Cranstonv.Combs,  L  106S.W.3dat644;Solimav.Solima,7S.W.3dat32.Thesedecisionsturnontheuniquefactsof  8  eachcase.Asageneralmatter,however,thefollowingprinciplesilluminatetheinquiry.First,the  $  changeofcircumstancesmustinvolveeitherthechildscircumstancesoraparentscircumstances   thataffectthechildswellbeing.m #  2      ׀Second,thechangedcircumstancesmusthavearisenafterthe   entryofthecustodyordersoughttobemodified.Third,thechangedcircumstancesmustnothave   beenreasonablyanticipatedwhentheunderlyingdecreewasentered.Fourth,thechangein   circumstancesmustaffectthechildswellbeinginsomematerialway.Kendrickv.Shoemake,90  S.W.3dat570.Theexistenceofharmorpossibilityofharmtothechildisnolongeranecessary l ingredientforafindingthatamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurred.Cranstonv.Combs, X 106S.W.3dat645. D   Thepersonseekingtochangeanexistingcustodyarrangementhastheburdenof \ demonstratingboththatthechildscircumstanceshavechangedmateriallyandthatthebestinterests H ofthechildrequireachangeintheexistingcustodyarrangement.Nicholsv.Nichols,792S.W.2d 4 713,71415(Tenn.1990),revdonothergrounds,Aabyv.Strange,924S.W.2d623(Tenn.1996);   InreBridges,63S.W.3d346,348(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Thethresholdquestioniswhetherthere   hasbeenamaterialchangeincircumstances.Cranstonv.Combs,106S.W.3dat644;Kendrickv.  Shoemake,90S.W.3dat570.Ifthepersonseekingthechangeofcustodycannotdemonstratethat  amaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred,thecourtshouldnotreexaminethecomparative  fitnessoftheparents,Caudillv.Foley,21S.W.3d203,213(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),orengageina |  bestinterestsofthechildanalysis.Rather,intheabsenceofproofofamaterialchangein h circumstances,thetrialcourtshouldsimplydeclinetochangecustody.Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19 T  S.W.3dat828. @!   $D # @) B.     Weturnfirsttothethresholdquestion!whethertherehasbeenamaterialchangeinthe  circumstances.Thegeneralsessionscourtsconclusionthatthecircumstanceshad,infact,  materiallychangeddoesnotrequireanextendedanalysisbecauseeventhemostcursoryreadingof p therecordrevealsthatthecircumstanceschangedmateriallyafterthepartiesdivorcein1999.That \ changeisthehomeenvironmentcreatedwhenMs.Spearsenteredintoarelationshipwithandlater H  marriedMr.Spears. 4 t   Remarriage,byitself,isnotthesortofchangeincircumstancesthattriggersareexamination  L  ofanexistingcustodyarrangementbecauseremarriageissuchacommonoccurrencein  8  contemporarysocietythatitcanreasonablybeanticipatedwhenpartiesdivorce.Bucklesv.Riggs,  $  106S.W.3d668,674(Tenn.Ct.App.2003);Smithsonv.Eatherly,No.01A019806CV00314,   1999WL548586,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.July29,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)   (pointingoutthat75%ofdivorcedpersonsmarryagain).However,changesinthehome   environmentbroughtaboutbyalatermarriagemayamounttoamaterialchangeofcircumstances   iftheymateriallyaffectthechildorthechildsparents.Elderv.Elder,M199800935COAR3CV,  2001WL1077961,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.14,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled); l McCainv.Grim,No.01A019711CH00634,1999WL820216,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.15, X 1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Tortorichv.Erickson,675S.W.2d190,192(Tenn. D Ct.App.1984). 0p   TheevidencesupportsthegeneralsessionscourtsconclusionthatMr.Spearshasaviolent H dispositionandthathehasphysicallyabusedMs.Spears,hisbiologicalson,andaformergirlfriend.e #  3      ׀ 4 Ms.SpearsdismissesthisevidencebyarguingthatthereisnoproofthatMr.Spearshasphysically   abusedChelsea.Thatmayverywellbetrue;however,thefactthatChelseahassofarbeenspared   Mr.Spearssabusedoesnotmeanthatshehadnotbeenaffectedmateriallybybeingexposedtohis  abusivetreatmentofothers.Beingexposedtodomesticviolencecanhaveanimmediateandlong  termeffectonachild,evenifthechildisnotavictimoftheabuse.gT #  4      ׀Therecordcontainsevidence  thatChelseasbehavioralreadyreflectstheeffectsofMr.Spearssconduct.Accordingly,Ms. | Spearssmarriagetoanabuserprovidesanamplebasisforthegeneralsessionscourtsconclusion h thatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshadoccurred. T   $0!$ @) C.     Wehaveaffirmedthegeneralsessionscourtsconclusionthatamaterialchangein  circumstancesoccurredafterthepartiesdivorcein1999.Accordingly,wemustnowdecidewhether  theevidencesupportsthecourtsconclusionthatChelseasinterestswouldbeservedbestbyplacing p herinMr.McEvoyscustody.WefindthattheevidencesupportsthecourtsdecisiontograntMr. \ McEvoycustodyofhisdaughter. H    Likeinitialcustodyproceedings,theprocessusedtodeterminethepropercustodial  ` placementinachangeofcustodyproceedingentailscomparingtheparentalfitnessofthecompeting  L  parents.Placenciav.Placencia,3S.W.3d497,503(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Whitakerv.Whitaker,  8  957S.W.2d834,837(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thisisaparticularlyfactintensiveprocessshapedby  $  thefactorsinTenn.CodeAnn.366106(a)(2001).Parentalunfitnessisnotaprerequisitefor   changingcustody.Gaskillv.Gaskill,936S.W.2dat631.Onceamaterialchangeofcircumstances   hasbeenshown,acourtmayawardcustodytotheparentwhoiscomparativelymorefitthanthe   othertobethecustodialparent.     Thisrecordcontainsampleevidencewithregardtofourspecificmattersthatsupportthe l generalsessionscourtsconclusionthatMr.McEvoywascomparativelymorefitthanMs.Spears X tobeChelseasprimaryphysicalcustodian.First,theevidencedemonstratesthattheexisting D  revolvingdoorcustodyarrangementhadnotworkedandthatitwouldbecomeevenmore 0p unworkablenowthatChelseawasreadytobeginschool.k #  5      ׀Second,Ms.Spearshadinterferedwith \ Mr.McEvoyseffortstoobtainmedicaltreatmentandtherapyforChelsea.Third,Ms.Spearshad H demonstratedherinabilitytomanageherangerandanimositytowardMr.McEvoybybeingunable 4 tocontrolheruseofderogatoryremarksandprofanity.Finally,Ms.SpearshadmarriedMr.Spears   despitehisabusivetendenciesandsawnothingharmfulinexposingChelseatothisabusive   environment.    OurdecisiontoupholdthegeneralsessionscourtsdecisiontograntMr.McEvoycustody  shouldnotbeconstruedtoreflectourbeliefthatMr.McEvoycanprovideaperfecthome | environmentforChelsea.TheevidenceregardingtheargumentsbetweentheMcEvoysandthe h adolescentexplorationsofChelseaandherstepbrotherreflectsthattherearepressuresintheir T  relationshipaswell.However,therecordalsodemonstratesthattheMcEvoyshavemetthese @!  challengesheadoninamatureandappropriatewaybyseekingcounselingforthemselvesandtheir ,"l! children.TheevidenceclearlysupportstheconclusionthatMr.McEvoyshomeenvironmentis #X" superiortoMs.Spearsshomeenvironment. $D #  )%) @^^( III.   @  AdultSupervisionforMr.SpearssContacts     Ms.SpearsalsotakesissuewiththeprovisionintheJuly18,2001orderdirectingthat [t]he p childshallnotbeleftaloneandwithoutanotheradultpresentatanytimeorplacewithTommy \ Spears.Sheinsiststhatthegeneralsessionscourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitplacedthis H  limitationonMr.SpearssrelationshipwithChelseabecause [t]hereisabsolutelynoevidencein 4 t therecordthatTommySpearsisadangertotheChildorthatheisviolentorabusivetowardsthe  ` Child.Wedisagree.  L    The"abuseofdiscretion"standardisareviewconstrainingstandardofreviewthatcallsfor  $  lessintenseappellatereviewand,therefore,lesslikelihoodthatthetrialcourt'sdecisionwillbe   reversed.Stateexrel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3d189,193(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Whitev.   VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,22223(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Appellatecourtsdonothavethe   latitudetosubstitutetheirdiscretionforthatofthetrialcourt.Henryv.Goins,104S.W.3d475,479   (Tenn.2003);Stateexrel.Vaughnv.Kaatrude,21S.W.3d244,248(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Thus,  atrialcourt'sdiscretionarydecisionwillbeupheldaslongasitisnotclearlyunreasonable,Bogan l v.Bogan,60S.W.3d721,733(Tenn.2001),andreasonablemindscandisagreeaboutitscorrectness. X Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3d82,85(Tenn.2001);Statev.Scott,33S.W.3d746,752(Tenn. D 2000).Discretionarydecisionsmust,however,taketheapplicablelawandtherelevantfactsinto 0p account.Ballardv.Herzke,924S.W.2d652,661(Tenn.1996).Accordingly,atrialcourtwillbe \ foundtohave"abuseditsdiscretion"onlywhenitappliesanincorrectlegalstandard,reachesa H decisionthatisillogical,basesitsdecisiononaclearlyerroneousassessmentoftheevidence,or 4 employsreasoningthatcausesaninjusticetothecomplainingparty.Perryv.Perry,114S.W.3d   465,467(Tenn.2003);Clinardv.Blackwood,46S.W.3d177,182(Tenn.2001);Overstreetv.   Shoney's,Inc.,4S.W.3d694,709(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).    TherecordcontainsevidencethatMr.SpearshasalreadyphysicallyabusedMs.Spears,his  son,andhisformergirlfriend.Thegeneralsessionscourtwasproperlyconcernedabouttheeffect | thatlivinginthisenvironmentwashavingonChelseaandaboutthepossibilitythatMr.Spearscould h directthissortofconductatChelseaatsomepoint.WhileMs.Spearsintroducedproofintendedto T  rehabilitateMr.Spears,thegeneralsessionscourtwasfreetodiscountthisevidenceoncredibility @!  grounds.n #  6      ׀Wemustdefertothetrialcourtsfactualfindingsbecauseitwasthetrialcourt,notthis ,"l! court,thatsawthewitnessesandhadanopportunitytoassesstheircredibility.Richardsv.Liberty #X" Mut.Ins.Co.,70S.W.3d729,732(Tenn.2002);OceanicsSch.,Inc.v.Barbour,112S.W.3d135, $D # 13940(Tenn.Ct.App.2003);ParksProps.v.MauryCounty,70S.W.3d735,741(Tenn.Ct.App. $0!$ 2001).ThecourtsdecisiontopermitMr.SpearstohaveonlysupervisedcontactwithChelsea %"% appropriatelybalancesChelseassafetywithMr.Spearssopportunitytodevelopanappropriate &#& relationshipwithhisstepdaughter.Ofcourse,thecourtmayrevisitthisrestrictionasthechildages '#' orshouldcircumstanceschange. ($(  x*&* @dd) IV.  @_ _ TheAuthoritytoMakeMedicalDecisionsfortheChild     Ms.Spearsalsoinsiststhattheevidencedoesnotsupportthegeneralsessionscourts  decisiontoempowerMr.McEvoytomakemedicaldecisionsforChelseaifthepartiescannotagree p uponthepropercourseoftreatmentfollowing fullconsultation.Wedisagreefortworeasons. \ First,wehavealreadyupheldthecourtsfindingthatMs.Spearshad unreasonablyresist[ed] H  obtainingmedicalcareandtherapyfor...[Chelseas]speechproblem.Second,Mr.McEvoyhas 4 t demonstratedthatheisfullycapableofmakingprudentdecisionsregardinghisdaughters  ` healthcare.BecauseMs.Spearshasbeengivenaroleinthedecisionmakingprocess,wedecline  L  tofindthatthecourtabuseditsdiscretionbygivingMr.McEvoythefinaldecisionmakingauthority.  8  @) V.      Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothegeneralsessionscourtforwhatever   furtherproceedingsmayberequired.WealsofindthatMr.McEvoyisnotentitledtobeawarded   hisattorneysfeespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)(2001).Wetaxthecostsofthis  appealtoKimberlyMarieSpearsandhersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. l    `     h     _____________________________ \    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.