WPCW {r䬯f-d0Tuw5)6Z=8gɳB^/bT##,K$0߻[i:R<Ɇ-dyImC0 ݼ$8`ՠ.zjMr%Z(DZ{bk`>M&Lr綠.!Yb ioQ#.~4 / Mh)IV2i $n kp*qH0=ŵ m,V.šJWac oCoMH`f þxٓR&bςM<8K:mQI D[“<"Z^,6WCw@@CC$EUBHUHUBI(;JUBcLU>L(LUB OU>MOOUBeQ# QNRRUBXT T D3UU:UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU AOVcVcV 0D)W D/mW BWV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d6S/%$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONBEELERWILKERSONBrittneyLentzBevinsMabryMcLellanStubblefieldFjelstad AppDunavantKINGSPORT  I$  XX     3    _ ` NormallythisCourtwouldreviewtheevidencesubmittedattrial `  Defendantdenovo.SeeSmithv.Smith,188Tenn.430,220S.W.2d627(1949).The (  Appellant,however,failedtopresentthisCourtwiththecompletetrialrecordonappeal.  I$  OEXX     2     ` Onecommonexampleofthiscomplexityexistsincasesthatinvolve `  stepparentswhopetitionforagrantofcustody.SeeHendersonv.Mabry,838 (  S.W.2d537(Tenn.App.1992)(allowingthestepparentatemporaryawardofcustody).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi U(3$ F!    I$  XEXX     1     ` AlthoughMr.Mooresbriefwastwicefiledlate,thisCourthas `  powerunderRule2oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProceduretosuspendtherequirementsforfilinganappellatebriefontime.Goodcauseexistsbecausethesubjectofthisappealischildcustody.Evenso,theAppellantsattorneyshouldunderstandthatheofferednocredibleexcuseforhisfailuretofilethebriefwithinthetimegenerouslyallowedbybothRule29andtheCourtsOrderofMarch17,1998.Inorderforoursystemofjusticetorunefficiently,eachplayermustknowtherulesofthegame.<( 9Z &Courier Regular  eDEDӀ  I$  XX     2     ` Onecommonexampleofthiscomplexityexistsincasesthatinvolve `  stepparentswhopetitionforagrantofcustody.SeeHendersonv.Mabry,838 (  S.W.2d537(Tenn.App.1992)(allowingthestepparentatemporaryawardofcustody).  I$  XX     1     ` AlthoughMr.Mooresbriefwastwicefiledlate,thisCourthas `  powerunderRule2oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProceduretosuspendtherequirementsforfilinganappellatebriefontime.Goodcauseexistsbecausethesubjectofthisappealischildcustody.Evenso,theAppellantsattorneyshouldunderstandthatheofferednocredibleexcuseforhisfailuretofilethebriefwithinthetimegenerouslyallowedbybothRule29andtheCourtsOrderofMarch17,1998.Inorderforoursystemofjusticetorunefficiently,eachplayermustknowtherulesofthegame.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  I$  ZEXX     2     ` Onecommonexampleofthiscomplexityexistsincasesthatinvolve `  stepparentswhopetitionforagrantofcustody.SeeHendersonv.Mabry,838 (  S.W.2d537(Tenn.App.1992)(allowingthestepparentatemporaryawardofcustody).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  I$  \EXX     3     ` ]EE]X>XTENormallythisCourtwouldreviewtheevidencesubmitted `  attrialDefendantnovo.SeeSmithv.Smith,188Tenn.430,220 P  S.W.2d627(1949).TheAppellant,however,failedtopresentthisCourtwiththecompletetrialrecordonappeal#\X>XXTX>##\EXX>#.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular  I$  _XX     3     ` ``Xn.XTNormallythisCourtwouldreviewtheevidencesubmitted `  attrialDefendantnovo.SeeSmithv.Smith,188Tenn.430,220 P  S.W.2d627(1949).TheAppellant,however,failedtopresentthisCourtwiththecompletetrialrecordonappeal#_Xn.XXTXn.##_XXn.#.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular  I$  bXX     3    bXn.XNormallythisCourtwouldreviewtheevidencesubmittedat `  trialDefendantnovo.SeeSmithv.Smith,188Tenn.430,220 P  S.W.2d627(1949).TheAppellant,however,failedtopresentthisCourtwiththecompletetrialrecordonappeal#bXXn.t#.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL  I$  fXX     3     ` NormallythisCourtwouldreviewtheevidencesubmittedattrial `  Defendantnovo.SeeSmithv.Smith,188Tenn.430,220S.W.2d627(1949).The (  Appellant,however,failedtopresentthisCourtwiththecompletetrialrecordonappeal.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi iX-XXXiXiX-   Ad FILEDiX-Xi   October30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.i XiX-AppellateCourtClerk GGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial RegularRC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!   _  7 ~XXdd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTX ~XXXrgh<,(j 8` `@Ea ` ttx$` r@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLESARAHMOORE@*@@*)  SULLIVANCOUNTY x  x    `     h   )  03A019708CH00382 @   PlaintiffAppellee@*) h    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.JOHNS._McLELLAN_,III, `  @*)  JUDGE (  @*)ARCHIET.MOORE,III@*)   Ѐ@*)       DefendantAppellant@*)  VACATEDandREMANDED H  JAMESH._BEELER_ԀOFKINGSPORTFORAPPELLANTTIMOTHYR._WILKERSON_ԀOFKINGSPORTFORAPPELLEE@*@*   `    OPINION  p    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. $X#    ` Appellant,ArchieT.Moore,III,appealstheChanceryCourtsjudgmentthatitlackedjurisdictionasamatteroflawtoaddresstheissueofchildcustodyinadivorceproceedingbecauseMr.Mooreisnotthebiologicalfatherof_Brittney_ԀMoore,thechildinquestion.TheChanceryCourtleftthechildinthecustodyofhermother,Ms.SarahMoore,theAppelleeandformerthirdwifeofMr.Moore._   ` Byhisappeal,Mr.MoorecontendsthattheChanceryCourtdoeshavejurisdictiontodeterminetheissueofcustodybetweenthetwoparties.Furthermore,Mr.MoorerequeststhatthisCourtawardhimcustodyofBrittneyoutrightorforthecasetoberemandedforfurtherconsideration. `;2@ Ї   ` Ms.MooresbriefdoesnotchallengeMr.Moorespositionontheissueofjurisdiction.Instead,Ms.Mooreofferstwokeyarguments.First,thatthisCourtshouldfollowthelegalpresumptionfavoringabiologicalparentscustodialrightsovertheinterestsofathirdpartybyallowinghertomaintaincustody.Second,thatatrialcourtmustweightheevidenceofparentalfitnessusingaclearandconvincingstandardofproofwhendecidingacustodydisputebetweenabiologicalandnonbiologicalparent.   ` Inaddition,Ms.MooremovedforadismissalofMr.Mooresappealbecausehetwicefailedtofilehisappellatebriefontime.First,Mr.MooreviolatedRule29oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurebecausehedidnotserveandfilehisbriefwithin30daysaftertherecordwasfiledwiththeclerkonNovember25,1997.Second,eventhoughthisCourtgrantedMr.MooreuntilApril1,1998,tofilehisbrief,itwasfiledtwodayslatebecausehisattorneyusedregularmailtosubmitthebrief.InordertocomplywiththeRulesofAppellateProcedure,certifiedmailmustbeusedtofileabriefwiththeCourtClerkonthedatethebriefwasmailed.Wedonotfindthismotiontobewelltakenanditisdenied.WS K   1       0* *    ` Thefactsofthiscase,whileintriguing,arenotindisputeonappeal.Brieflystated,Ms.Moorefiledapetitionseekingadivorcefromherhusbandonthegroundsofinappropriatemaritalconductincludingphysicalabuse.Mr. 2(4 Moorefiledacounterclaimseekingdivorcebecauseofhiswifesongoingpromiscuoussexualactivitywithothermen.BothpartiessoughtcustodyofBrittneyandCarilea,awhowsastheirnaturalchildofbothparents.     ` Inhisanswer,Mr.MooreallegedthatMs.MooretoldhimhewasnotthefatherofBrittney,theiroldestchildconceivedbeforemarriage,butbornaftertheirunion.Becauseoftheallegation,Mr.Moorerequestedbloodtestingtodetermineparentage.ThistestshowedMr.MoorewasnotthefatherofBrittney.Attrial,bothpartiesstipulatedtothisevidence.   ` Inhisjudgment,theChancellorheldhehadnojurisdictiontomakeanawardofcustodyinrespecttoBrittney,becauseofthelackofparentage.Mr.Moorewasawardedthe 0`'* divorceonhiscounterclaimandgivencustodyoftheyoungerchild.Subsequently,Mr.MoorefiledthisappealtochallengetheChancellorsrulingonjurisdiction.   ` I.Jurisdiction     ` Thefirstissuetobeaddressediswhetheratrialcourthasjurisdictioninadivorceproceedingtomakeanawardofchildcustodytoanonbiologicalparent.TheruleoflawthatcontrolsourdeterminationwasannouncedbytheSupremeCourtinLentzv.Lentz,717S.W.2d876(Tenn.1986).      ` InLentz,bothparentssoughtadecreeofdivorceand  anawardofcustodyofthechildren.Duringtheproceedings,however,itbecameclearthatthehusbandwasnotthefatheroftheyoungestchild.Becauseofthelackofparentage,thechancerycourtleftcustodyoftheyoungestchildwiththemotherbelievingithadnojurisdictiontoawardcustodyofthechildtoanyoneotherthanthemother,whenitwasproventhatthehusbandwasnotthefatherofthechild.   ` TheSupremeCourtdisagreed.TheCourtreasonedthatevenifthechancellormustresolveafactualissueastopaternity,thatdeterminationhasnoeffectonthejurisdictionallimitsofacourttoprotectthechild.Thechildsbestinterestsareofparamountconcern,andthatiswherethechancerycourtshouldfocusitsattention.Lentz,supra,citing  :04 Bryanv.Bryan,620S.W.2d85(Tenn.App.1981);Bevinsv.Bevins, `  53Tenn.App.403,383S.W.2d780(1964).SeealsoLoganv. @  Logan,26Tenn.App.673,176S.W.2d601(1943).Initsdecision   theCourtheld:8      8 ` Chancerycourthasjurisdictionofdivorceactions,andhastheauthoritytodecreecustodyofminorchildrenunderthecontrolofeitheroftheparties.Thegrantofcustodycanbetooneorbothoftheparties,ortosomesuitableagencyorperson,asthewelfareandinterestoftheminorchildrenmayrequire....[A]findingthatthehusbandisnotthefatherofoneofthechildrenbornduringthemarriageperioddoes ` x` x  ` notaffectthejurisdictionofchancerycourtto ` protectthechild.Lentz,717S.W.2dat877.   ` InLentz,theSupremeCourtcitedT.C.A.366101as "P furtherauthorityforitsposition.AnycarefulreaderofT.C.A.366101(a)(1)willdiscoverthestatuteallowsthetrialcourttheflexibilitytoawardcustodyduringadivorceproceedingtothepartiestotheproceedingorto somesuitableperson,asthewelfareandinterestofthechildorchildrenmaydemand.Nowhereinthestatutedoesitsaythatthissuitablepersonmustbethebiologicalparentofthechild.Atrialcourt,therefore,mayconsiderothersuitablepersonsinitsdeterminationoftheawardofchildcustody.TheLegislatureobviouslyanticipated thatcomplexcustodycaseswouldarise,andgavecourtsthe p5,/ abilitytoaddressachildcustodysituationinvolvinglitigantsotherthanthenaturalparents.VYN K   2      ׀ @      ` WefindtheholdinginLentzandT.C.A.366101tobe  dispositiveonthejurisdictionalissuebeforetheCourt.ItisclearthattheChancellordidhavejurisdictiontoawardcustodyofBrittneytoeitherthebiologicalparentorthenonbiologicalparentinthedivorceproceeding.Consideringthealternative,iftheCourtwaswithoutjurisdiction,therewouldbenoguaranteethatBrittneysinterestswouldcomefirst.AtrialcourtmustconsiderthewelfareandbestinterestsofthechildasLentzandT.C.A.366101(1)(a)makeclear.     ` II.ChildCustody     ` ThesecondissuewefaceisthecustodyofBrittney.Mr.MooreurgesthisCourttomakeanimmediateawardofcustodytohimbecauseitisclearthattheChancellorhadjurisdictiontomakeaproperdeterminationattrial.HecitestheChanceryCourtsrulingasauthorityforthisrequestinanattempttoshowthatMs.Mooreis,infact,unfittoserveascustodianforBrittney.TheChancellorsaidofMs.Moore:8 ` Ifindbymyownobservations,aswellasthetestimonyoftheParties,thatshehasa p5,/ quicktemper,thatsheisaggressive,thatshedoesgetinpeoplesface,asIhavewitnessedmyselfinthefirstdayofthehearing,iscombative,andIthereforecreditthetestimonyofMr.MooreandhiswitnessesanddonotcreditthetestimonyofMrs.Mooreinthatregard. ` x` x WhilethisstatementmayappeartobeconclusiveastowhetherornotMs.Mooreisfittoserveasthecustodialparent,intruth,thestatementmerelytendstoshowthattheChancellorweighedtheevidenceagainstMs.Mooreusingthewrongburdenofproof.     ` TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasestablishedthatanobjectiontothefitnessofaparentinachildcustodydisputebetweenanaturalparentandathirdpartycanonlybesustainedbyaclearpreponderanceofconvincingproof.Stubblefieldv. !` Stateexrel.Fjelstad,171Tenn.580,106S.W.2d558(1937) #@ (usingthisstandardtodenycustodytodeceasedexwifesrelativesinfavoroffatherofthechild).OtherTennesseecourtshaveappliedthisheightenedstandardofproofwhenfacedwiththeissueofparentalrights,childcustody,andthirdpartyinterests.SeeHendersonv.Mabry,838S.W.2d537(Tenn. -#& App.1992)(applyingthisstandardtoacustodydisputebetweenthenaturalfatherandthestepfather);Dunavantv.Dunavant,31 0`'* Tenn.App.634,219S.W.2d910(1949)(grantingexclusivecustodytofatheroverthepetitionofmaternalgrandmother).InorderforMr.MooretosustainhisobjectiontoMs.Mooresfitnessas aparent,weholdthattheclearpreponderanceofconvincing @8.2 proofstandardmustbeappliedbytheChancellortotheevidencepresentedinthiscustodydispute.    ` Fromareviewofthelimitedrecordbeforeus,itdoesnotappeartheChancellorconsideredthisheightenedburdenofproofwhenmakinghisruling.AllthatcanbegleanedfromtheChancellorsstatementisthatatthemostonepartyandhiswitnessesweremorecrediblethantheotherpartyandherwitnesses.Mea^[ K   3      Thequestionthatremainsunansweredis Byhow ` much?Theword creditsimplydoesnotindicateaquantumofproofsufficientenoughtosatisfytheheightenedburdenpresentinthischildcustodydispute.   `    ` AstoMs.Mooresotherargument,weagreethatTennesseecourtsdoendorsethelegalpresumptionfavoringanaturalparentinachildcustodydisputeastothirdparties,butthecourtshavedeferredtothispresumptiononlysofarasotherconsiderationsremainedequal.Stubblefieldv.Stateex @)" rel.Fjelstad,supra;Dunavantv.Dunavant,supra.Seealso  +!$ Dolesv.Doles,848S.W.2d656(Tenn.App.1992).Onesuchbasic -#& considerationisthefitnessoftheparent.IftheChancellorshouldfindthatMs.Mooreisunfittoserveascustodianusingtheproperburdenorproof,thenthelegalpresumptionfades,forthewelfareandbestinterestsofthechildremainanycourts 4 +. chiefconcern.Thispresumption,therefore,shouldinformtheChancellorsrulingontheevidence,notcontrolit.   ` Thejudgmentastocustodyisvacatedandthecauseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionandcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMs.Moore.Xn.XXTXn.   `     h   _______________________________ `    `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.#TXn.XXXn.7#