WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@  0J 0T 0^6 0h 0r 0|n 0 0p 1u 0du U> U6B)MDCv AM BU*#Mv~]v D3 0@ AO!p 0D6 D/z BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDVDDDӀڃ" Plus/3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G d<  9p`(Arial  !#d#   &&   YYY FILED&X November18,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    P \RA'\!\RA'\7XXdd7R$'#A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜ALOMAROBINRANDOLPH,  )C/ANO.03A019704CH00133      )  PlaintiffAppellant,)      )      )      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.      )GREENECOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      )      )      )      )TIMOTHYCHARLESRANDOLPH, )      )HONORABLETHOMASR.FRIERSON,II  DefendantAppellee. )CHANCELLORForAppellant     ForAppelleeEDWARDKERSHAW     ROGERA.WOOLSEYLeonard&Kershaw    Woolsey&Woolsey̜Greeneville,Tennessee   Greeneville,Tennessee@    OPINION!!XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowmodifiedthepartiesjudgmentofdivorcebychangingthecustodyoftheirminorchild,BrandonCharlesRandolph(DOB:February19,1990),fromAlomaRobinRandolph( Mother)toTimothyCharlesRandolph( Father).Motherappealed,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshadoccurredsincethedivorce.  Thiscaseisbeforeusforadenovoreviewontherecord.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Therecordcomestousaccompaniedbyapresumptionthatthelowercourtsfindingsoffactarecorrect. Id .Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindings. Id.   ThetrialcourtheardthismatteronSeptember23,1996.ItfiledamemorandumopinionchangingcustodyonOctober7,1996.Thatopinionprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 ThepartiesweredivorcedbyJudgmentnuncprotuncAugust4,1992,enteredonJuly3,1996.Amongotherthings,wifewasawardedcustodyofthepartiesminorchild,BrandonCharlesRandolph,subjecttospecifiedvisitationrightsinfavorofMr.Randolph.@ *** 8 Subsequenttothedivorce,theparties,bymutualagreement,graduallydeviatedfromtheCourtorderedvisitation.FromAugustof1992throughMarchof1993,Mr.Randolphwasinthephysicalcustodyofthechildtwotothreedaysaweek.FromMarch,1993,throughNovemberof1993,Mr.andMrs.Randolphalternateddayseachweeksothateachmaintainedphysicalcustodyofthechildapproximately50%ofthetime.FromNovember,1993,throughJulyof1995,Mr.RandolphmaintainedphysicalcustodyofthechildeachFridaythroughTuesdaywithMrs.RandolphmaintainingphysicalcustodyofthechildfromTuesdaythroughThursdayorFridaymorningeachweek.ByOrderenteredNovember9,1994,Mrs.Randolph,prose,approvedthisCourtsdirectivethatMr.Randolphspastobligationtosupportthechildwasdeemedfullysatisfiedbyhismaintainingphysicalcustodyofthechild.Mrs.RandolphassertsthatshedidnotunderstandorintendherapprovaloftheOrdertoconstituteachangeofcustody. 8 FromAugust,1995,throughOctoberof1995,Mrs.RandolphmaintainedphysicalpossessionofthechildfromFridayofeachweekthroughthefollowingMondaywithMr.Randolphhavingphysicalpossessionthebalanceofeachweek.BeginninginNovemberof1995untilthepresent,Mrs.RandolphhasenjoyedphysicalcustodyofthechildeachFridaythroughSunday. 8 ItisundisputedthatbothMr.andMrs.Randolphareresponsible,lovingandnurturingparents.Thechildappearstohaveapositive,healthyandlovingrelationshipwithbothMr.andMrs.Randolph.Asindicatedabove,sincethedivorceinAugustof1992,thepartieshaveamiablyagreedtodisregardthestrictvisitationscheduleincludedintheFinalDecreeofDivorcebygraduallyallowingMr.Randolphtoenjoyincreasedphysicalcustodyofthechild.TheevidencesupportsafindingthattheprimarycatalystfortheinstitutionoftheseproceedingswasacontroversyarisingbetweenthepartiesapproximatelyJune27,1996,whenMr.RandolphrequestedofMrs.Randolphreimbursementofthe$35.00perweekforbabysittingcharges.@ *** 8 TheCourtspecificallyfindsthatbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceamaterialchangeincircumstancesaffectingthemanifestbestinterestoftheminorchildhasoccurredsincethetimeofthedivorce.TheminorchildhasmaintainedagraduallyincreasingphysicalcustodyarrangementwithMr.Randolph,includingamoveofresidencetoϜJonesborough,Tennessee,andenrollmentinschoolthere.Mr.RandolphhasremarriedsincethedivorceandtheevidenceestablishesthatmostweekendsMrs.RandolphmaintainsovernightcompanywithMr.GeraldArmstrong.TheCourtordersthatthecustody,careandcontroloftheminorchildbeplacedwithMr.Randolph.  Thecourtbelowfoundthattherehadbeenamaterialchangeinthecircumstancesofthepartiesandtheirchildthatwas compellingenoughtowarrantthedramaticremedyofchangedcustody. Musselmanv.Acuff ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.App.1991).Thecourtscriticalfindingwasthatsincethedivorce,theparties minorchildhasmaintainedagraduallyincreasingphysicalcustodyarrangementwith[Father],includingamoveofresidencetoJonesborough,Tennessee,andenrollmentinschoolthere.Thereisanabundanceofevidencetosubstantiatethisfinding.MotheracknowledgesthatsinceNovember,1995,hertimewiththechildhasbeenprettymuchlimitedtoweekends,withthechildstayingwithFatherduringtheweek.MotherlivesinGreeneϜCountyandworksinHamblenCounty;FatherresidesinWashingtonCounty.ThechildattendedkindergarteninJonesboroughduringthe19951996schooltermandwasinthefirstgradetherewhenthismatterwasheardbelow.  MotherarguesthatshewasonlyobeyingthejudgmentofdivorcewhensheagreedtoallowthechildtospendmoretimewithFather.Shepointstothefollowingprovisioninthejudgment: 8 ...shouldtheWifeatanytimeworkashiftotherthanthesecondshift,theHusbandshallhavethefirstrighttokeepsaidchildduringsuchtimeastheWifeisworking;...Shecontendsthatsheisnowbeing punishedbecauseshecompliedwiththejudgmentandallowedhersontospendmoretimewithhisfathersothetwocoulddevelopastrongrelationship.WebelievethatMothermischaracterizeswhathappenedinthiscase.  ThejudgmentcontemplatesthatifMotherworksduringatimeperiodotherthanthe3:00p.m.11:30p.m.orsimilarshift,Father shallhavethefirstrighttokeepsaidchildduringsuchtimeas[Mother]isworking.WhileitistruethatMotherhasworkedlatenightearlymorningshiftsforthebulkofthetimesinceNovember,1993,itislikewisetruethatthechildstimewithFatherhasbeensubstantiallymorethanthetimewhen [Mother]isworking.ItisclearthathedidmorethankeepthechildwhileMotherwasworkinglatenightearlymorningshifts.NotonlydidhekeepthechildduringMothersworktimes,hemovedthechild,withMothersacquiescence,fromGreeneCountytoWashingtonCounty.Thechildbasicallyhashadachangeofresidence.TheincreasedtimewithFatherwentwellbeyondtheaccommodationcontemplatedbythedivorcejudgment.ThetrialcourtsorderchangingcustodyisnothingmorethanarecognitionoftherealityofthesituationthepartiesminorchildliveswithFatherandvisitsMotheronweekends.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsorder.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhersurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfortheenforcementofitsjudgmentandforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜ǛCONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.