WPC 4# UN %A 04Gb{ 0j6w@ m 4!5 0JD 0T 0^ 0h@ 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d! AQ  0D 0@ 0D  D/d B B D3U>B)>DCg AMU*K!v~lvHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  - -(c(2v$ U!   XX~X `   0  rasmussen v. rasmussen - todd dissent  3 '  0 .    34D567D89D:e;ӀEU Rasmussen_#ddd3|xE2 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!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.C << G<  9p`(Arial A !  #d#,,   ""  00   YYY FILED0XDecember12,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . ,,     X   \RA'\7dd7  ,  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE ,BRIDGETC.RASMUSSEN,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      ) MontgomeryChancery      ) No.95070128VS.      )      )      ) AppealNo.LEIFC.RASMUSSEN,   ) 01A019705CH00211!ٜR/1.A1-j|]`  `@Rߛ      ) Defendant/Appellee.  ), @ DISSENTINGOPINION , IconcurthatthevisitationarrangementsinthetrialcourtsNovember7,1996ordershouldbereexamined.Icannot,however,concurthatthesepartiesshouldbeputtothetimeandexpenseofrelitigatingthecustodyissue.Inlightoftherecordbeforeus,Ifindno_colorable_Ԁbasisforconcludingthatthetrialcourterredbygrantingthesepartiesjointcustodywithprimaryphysicalcustodygoingtothefather. Thiscaseinvolvesamarriagethatlastedlessthantwoyears.CaptainLiefC._Rasmussen_ԀisacareerofficerintheUnitedStatesArmy,andBridgetC._Rasmussen_Ԁisthedaughterofacareerserviceman.Thepartiesonlychild,ason,wasborninSeptember1994,andthepartiesseparatedlessthanoneyearlater.FollowingafulltrialinJanuary1996,duringwhichthepartiesandtwelveotherwitnessestestified,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthepartiesshouldbegrantedjointcustodyoftheirsonbutthatCaptain_Rasmussen_Ԁshouldhaveprimaryphysicalcustody.Becausethepartiescontinuedtoliveincloseproximitytoeachother,thetrialcourtalsograntedMs._Rasmussen_Ԁliberalvisitationrightssimilartothe_pendente_Ԁlitevisitationarrangements. AftertheJanuary1996trial,Captain_Rasmussen_ԀinformedthetrialcourtthattheArmyhadtransferredhimtoFort_Huachuca_,ArizonaandrequestedthetrialcourttomodifythevisitationarrangementtoprovideMs._Rasmussen_Ԁwithextendedholidayandsummervisitation.Ms._Rasmussen_Ԁrespondedwiththreeproposalsofherown.First,shesuggestedthatsheshouldhavecustodyofthechildforthefirstsixmonthsafterCaptain_Rasmussen_stransferbecausehismilitaryschoolingwouldpreventhimfromcaringforthechild.Second,sheproposedanalternatingsplitcustodyarrangementwhichwouldrequirethechildtoflybetweenArizonaandTennesseeeverytwoweeks.Third,sheproposedgrantinghersolecustodysothatsheandthechildcouldmovetoVirginiatolivewithherparents. ThetrialcourtconductedanotherhearinginNovember1996toconsidervisitationarrangementsinlightofCaptain_Rasmussen_stransfertoArizonaandMs._Rasmussen_sstatedintentiontomovetoVirginia.Afterconsideringthetestimonyofthepartiesandfiveotherwitnesses,thetrialcourtdevisedavisitationplanthatrequiredthepartiestoexchangethechildtwicein1997andfivetimesbetweenJanuaryandApril1997.Thevisitationarrangementsthereafterarenotentirelyclear.ItisthisverylackofclaritythatpromptsmetoconcurthatMs._Rasmussen_svisitationrightsshouldbereconsideredanddefinedmoreprecisely. Thecourthasgonefarther,however,andhasdirectedthetrialcourttoreopenthecustodyissueaswell.Thecourtsopinionofferslittleinsightintothebasisforitsdecisionotherthanthecrypticcommentthat thebestinterestsofthechilddonotappeartohavebeenfullydeveloped.Iconfesstobeingatalosstounderstandwhatthisobservationmeans.Whatparticularaspectofthechildsbestinterestswasnotadequatelydeveloped?WasitthefactthatCaptain_Rasmussen_Ԁisacareerofficer?Surelythecourtdoesnotmeantoimplythatmilitarypersonnelshouldnotbeawardedcustodyoftheirchildren.WasitthecourtsdisagreementwiththetrialcourtsfindingsconcerningMs._Rasmussen_sparentingskills?Ifitwas,surelythecourtcouldpointtotheevidenceintherecordpreponderatingagainstthetrialcourtsfindings. Abestinterestsanalysisrequiresacarefulconsiderationofmanyfactors.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.366106(1996);Hollowayv.Bradley,190Tenn.565,571,230S.W.2d1003,1006(1950);Bahv.Bah,668S.W.2d663,666(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Becausetrialcourtshavetheadvantageofobservingthedemeanorofthewitnesses,weshouldbereluctanttosecondguesstheircustodydecisions.See_Gilliam_Ԁv._Gilliam_,776S.W.2d81,84(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Whenwemustreverseorvacateacustodydecision,wehaveanobligationtothepartiesandtothetrialcourttoexplainhowtheproofwasdeficient.Whenweprovideanexplanation,weavoidtheappearanceofbeingarbitrary,andweenablethepartiestofocustheireffortsduringthesubsequenthearings. Thiscasenowreturnstothetrialcourtforanothertrialinwhichthecustodyofthisthreeyearoldchildagainhangs___in_Ԁthebalance.NeitherCaptain_Rasmussen_ԀnorMs._Rasmussen_Ԁresideinthisstate.Theywillhavebeengoneforapproximatelytwoyearsbythetimethishearingoccurs.Tennesseeisnolongerthehomestateofeitheroftheseparentsortheirson.Thus,afterthiscaseisremanded,thetrialcourtandthepartiesshouldcarefullyconsiderwhethertheChanceryCourtofMontgomeryCountyistheproperforumforlitigatingcustodyandvisitationissues.      _______________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE