ÿWPC>  ÏJn‚¼dùÓ§K¢”dJª3Ô`²;…îP(A7Ñ£Î*ÕÉþP¾sܱ <¹49e»PôÀܾ7–im*J&+ér×÷Ÿ[Á: €Ø³é]¨u³§ø¹lm˜:b¥õºk>Kõ’E[‹¼L„cÌ„ãí£Š­qÚNúÕ%Í[T®ÚÊ‘]nõ_€îlF3 Êö‰ªA¡™‡¶Z%yy˜ˆS?g0r5 0v›•M fÒK2Ú]()¥ý4rçìƒtŸm?i=gúÄ6EÀ³ççÜXS¸¡J¼"·‰Êµ.{9AÖÕå؃è$ÁfGC%ÌVè´•·ž9[‘kúH'±¨ÆAÐ-mYœJs|h&€RÁÖù"DJ­¢U>†Õ©eó×Ë\W‡u‚½â;Öbð©Ùc]iJ·ËÔ½àrg w‹ì~#=OS|V’÷¬™”殦µõÿd¼ËȸòXX_â7Ú³ŸäÄ?_ˆ_¤ýv É»éL>ͫ‹Ûf ïIÆãÂhãò=IJ—¢DûÕ;È^ ¨Îaïf'u[¬>êB°Õw¤Ü_ûJ”YQ¢^Þßä#¢6×Ægú÷vèPµõ.IpÁm¥wÈÕ*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 L.z‚U:…………………………………………………… AQ¿Æ 0DÖ 0D 0D^ ^ D/¢ BÑ Bî D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ÐDÑDÒÓDÔÕDÖD×ØÓ€âÖ…#%x3|xâC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XoËXXXÔÔ€ äX XoËÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XoËX äÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€16,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñØñ›ñØñÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€oËXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼F¼XXÔÓ  ÓñâññØñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñØññâññâññâññØñ›ñØñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñâñœßt€ )>.*jxöÿÈ` `€€@Eêä` 8ttxP"ð È tß›ñâñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XoËX¼¼FԈР ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌPENELOPE€LYNN€RAYBURN,à 8 àà  à)Ð ”Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð F>  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9710„CH„00548Ð ,$  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àCheatham€ChanceryÐ øð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€8718Ð ÞÖ  ÐGREGORY€SHANE€RAYBURN,à 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àРļ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)Ð ˆ ÐÌÌà@. . êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€CHEATHAM€COUNTYˆÌà@ÜÜ!êàAT€ASHLAND€CITY,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@Î Î êàTHE€HONORABLE€LEONARD€W.€MARTIN,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌJERRY€W.€HAMLINÌ110€Frey€StreetÌAshland€City,€Tennessee€37015Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌSTEVE€D.€GIBSONÌ112€S.€Main€StreetÌAshland€City,€Tennessee€37015Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÌÓÓò òÔ€„|M„XXoËÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XoËX„„|MԈР€;x4:w Їà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€court€granted€the€husband€an€absolute€divorce€and€gave€himÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€three€children.€€The€wife€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€determining€the€issue€of€child€custody€without€considering€the€mandatoryÏstatutory€factors€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@€€"êàò òI.€€Marriage€and€Divorceó óˆÐ ü  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àGregory€Shane€Rayburn€œand›€Penelope€Lynn€Harding€œmarried›€on€AugustÏ30,€1986.€€Two€sons€and€one€daughter€were€born€to€the€couple:€Joshua,€bornÏNovember€14,€1987;€Jonathan,€born€November€14,€1988,€and€Summer,€born€July€15,Ï1993.€€During€the€first€ten€years€of€their€marriage,€œMr.€Rayburn›€worked€at€a€numberÏof€jobs,€including€work€as€a€truck€driver,€while€œMs.€Rayburn›€took€care€of€the€home€andÏchildren.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€April€of€1996,€œMs.€Rayburn›€began€working€part„time€at€the€post€office.€ÏOn€May€16€of€the€same€year,€Mr.€Rayburn€observed€œMs.€Rayburn›€kissing€anotherÏpostal€employee,€John€Wayne€Shearon€œat›€the€back€door€of€the€post€office.€€On€JuneÏ1,€1996,€œMs.€Rayburn›€moved€out€of€the€marital€home,€taking€the€three€children€withÏher.€€She€filed€for€divorce€several€days€later,€claiming€that€the€parties€had€encounteredÏirreconcilable€differences€in€their€marriage,€or€in€the€alternative,€that€Mr.€Rayburn€hadÏbeen€guilty€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct.€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Rayburn€answered,€and€asked€for€sole€custody€of€the€three€children.ÏHe€denied€that€he€had€been€guilty€of€any€inappropriate€conduct,€and€claimed€that€hisÏwife€had€developed€an€inappropriate€relationship€with€Mr.€Shearon.€€We€note€thatÏwhile€the€present€case€was€pending,€œMs.€Shearon›€filed€for€divorce€against€œMr.›ÏShearon,€naming€œMs.€Rayburn›€as€her€husbandððs€lover€in€the€complaint.€€TheÏShearons€ultimately€agreed€to€proceed€on€an€uncontested€basis,€and€the€trial€courtÏgranted€them€a€divorce€on€July€14,€1997.à è à€Ð d9\28 Їà Ø àà 0 àThe€Rayburn€divorce€was€heard€on€August€19€and€20,€1998.€€EightÏwitnesses€appeared€and€were€subjected€to€vigorous€cross„examination.€€TheÏwitnesses€included€the€parties€themselves,€œMs.›€Rayburnððs€two€sisters,€a€friend€of€œMs.›ÏRayburnððs,€œMr.›€Shearonððs€best€friend,€œMñÍñañÍñsñÎñryñÎññÏñ.ñÏñ›€Shearon,€and€œMr.›€Rayburnððs€mother.€ÏAmple€evidence€was€presented€as€to€infidelities€on€the€part€of€œMñÐñrñÐñs.›€Rayburn,€which€weÏfeel€it€unnecessary€to€summarize€here.€€There€was€no€evidence€of€any€improperÏconduct€by€Mr.€Rayburn.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àDuring€the€cross„examination€of€œMs.€ñÑñ›€ñÑñRayburn,›€she€repeatedly€deniedÏthat€there€was€anything€improper€in€her€relationship€with€œñÒñMr.ñÒññÓñWayneñÓñ›€Shearon,€or€that€she€wasÏð ðseeingðð€or€ð ðdatingðð€him.€€She€also€denied€ever€spending€the€night€with€him,€despiteÏeyewitness€accounts€that€were€highly€suggestive€of€many€nights€of€intimate€contactÏbetween€them.€€The€trial€court€warned€her€to€be€candid€in€her€testimony,€and€statedÏthat€her€credibility€would€be€a€factor€in€the€courtððs€decision€on€custody,€but€this€did€notÏdeter€her€from€continuing€to€testify€that€she€and€œñÔñMr.€ShearonñÔññÕñWayneñÕñ›€were€only€friends.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€awarded€Mr.€Rayburn€aÏdivorce€on€the€ground€of€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€and€also€awarded€him€custodyÏof€the€three€children.€€œMs.€ñÖñ›€ñÖñRayburn›€was€granted€visitation€rights,€and€was€ordered€toÏpay€child€support.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌÌÐ ¨9 26 Ðà@#êàò òII.€€Matters€of€Statuteó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€court€is€vested€with€wide€discretion€on€questions€of€childÏcustody,€and€the€appellate€court€will€not€interfere,€except€upon€a€showing€that€the€trialÏcourt€abused€that€discretion.€òò€Koch€v.€Kochóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ð ˆ€ ÐWe€must€also€presume€that€the€court€was€correct€in€finding€the€husband€to€be€theÏmost€suitable€person€to€exercise€custody,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€Rule€œ13(d),›€Tenn.€R.€App.€œProc.›€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellantððs€primary€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€did€not€considerÏthe€statutory€factors€for€determining€child€custody,€and€that€it€did€not€provide€anyÏlogical€basis€for€its€decision,€except€for€its€determination€that€the€wife€lacked€credibilityÏbecause€of€her€unwillingness€to€answer€embarrassing€questions.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àShe€cites€us€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106€which€states:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓò òà ˆ àChild€custody.„„€ó óIn€a€suit€for€annulment,€divorce,Ð (#  Ðseparate€maintenance,€or€in€any€other€proceeding€requiringÏthe€court€to€make€a€custody€determination€regarding€a€minorÏchild,€such€determination€shall€be€made€upon€the€basis€of€theÏbest€interest€of€the€child.€€The€court€shall€consider€all€relevantÏfactors€including€the€following€where€applicable:ÌÌà ˆ à(1)€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existingÏbetween€the€parents€and€child;Ìà ˆ à(2)€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€childÏwith€food,€clothing,€medical€care,€education€and€otherÏnecessary€care€and€the€degree€to€which€a€parent€has€beenÏthe€primary€œcaregiver›;Ìà ˆ à(3)€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€andÏthe€length€of€time€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactoryÏenvironment;Ìà ˆ à(4)€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;Ìà ˆ à(5)€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ìà ˆ à(6)€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€theÏchild;Ìà ˆ à(7)€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelveÏ(12)€years€of€age€or€older.€€The€court€may€hear€theÏpreference€of€a€younger€child€upon€request.€€The€preferencesÏof€older€children€should€normally€be€given€greater€weight€thanÏthose€of€younger€children;Ð ¨9 26 Ðà ˆ à(8)€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€theÏchild,€to€the€other€parent€or€to€any€other€person;€andÌà ˆ à(9)€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€personÏwho€resides€in€or€frequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€suchÏperson's€interactions€with€the€child.Ì€ÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€note€that€the€statute€indicates€that€these€factors€are€not€allÏapplicable€in€every€case,€and€that€there€may€be€other€applicable€factors€that€are€notÏspecifically€described.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIf,€as€the€appellant€insists,€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€the€factors€thatÏwere€relevant€in€reaching€its€decision,€that€would€be€abuse€of€its€discretion.€€HoweverÏwe€can€presume€such€consideration€if€the€record€contains€evidence€sufficient€for€theÏtrial€court€to€determine€where€the€best€interest€of€the€children€would€lie.€€Without€goingÏinto€too€much€detail,€we€can€state€that€there€is€enough€evidence€in€this€record€for€thatÏdetermination.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€have€read€the€transcript€of€the€trial,€and€we€are€satisfied€that€thereÏare€strong€ties€of€love€and€affection€between€the€children€and€both€parents,€althoughÏthe€middle€child,€Jonathan,€was€angry€at€his€mother,€and€blamed€her€for€the€breakupÏof€the€family.€€We€are€also€satisfied€that€while€the€mother€had€been€the€primaryÏœcaregiver›€during€the€marriage€and€the€father€had€assumed€the€role€of€breadwinner,Ïboth€parents€have€proven€themselves€to€be€capable€œcaregivers›€during€the€period€ofÏseparation.€€€€€€ÌÌà@hh"êàò òIII.€€Comparative€Fitnessó óˆÐ (2 +. ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àFitness€for€custodial€responsibilities€is€largely€a€comparative€matter.ÏòòEdwards€v.€Edwardsóó,€501€S.W.2d€283€(Tenn.€App.1973);€òòBah€v.€Bahóó,€668€S.W.2d€663Ð È7À04 Ð(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€Thus€the€grant€of€custody€to€one€parent€is€not€equivalent€to€aÐ ¨9 26 Ðfinding€that€the€other€parent€is€unfit,€but€only€that€the€best€interest€of€the€child€isÏserved€by€placing€him€or€her€with€the€parent€who€is€more€capable€of€exercising€thatÏresponsibility.€€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIf€the€factors€we€have€so€far€referred€to€place€the€parties€in€a€fairly€evenÏbalance,€the€question€of€character€must€tip€that€balance€in€favor€of€Mr.€Rayburn.€€AsÏthis€court€said€in€òòœGaskill›€v.€œGaskill›óó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€634€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€ð ð[a]Ð H@  Ðparentððs€honesty€reflects€on€his€or€her€fitness€to€be€a€good€custodian.ðð€€Thus€it€was€notÏerror€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€the€wifeððs€truthfulness€under€oath€in€determiningÏchild€custody.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àA€child€learns€as€much€by€example€as€by€precept,€and€it€is€up€to€theÏparent€to€set€a€good€example.€€ñÖñœñÖñœMs.€Rayburn›€(now€œMs.€Shearon)›€did€not€set€a€goodÏexample€when€she€began€an€affair€with€a€married€man,€and€moved€out€of€the€maritalÏhome,€taking€the€three€children€with€her,€and€she€did€not€set€a€good€example€whenÏshe€rejected€her€husbandððs€attempts€at€reconciliation.€€While,€as€this€court€said€inÏòòœVarley›€v.€œVarley›,óó€934€S.W.2d€659,€666„7€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€ð ða€parentððs€sexualÐ %  Ðinfidelity€or€indiscretion€does€not,€ipso€facto,€disqualify€that€parent€from€receivingÏcustody€of€his/her€children,ðð€such€acts€may€be€relevant€to€the€question€of€character,Ïand€thus€to€comparative€fitness.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellee€also€points€out€that€the€wife€did€not€take€any€steps€toÏprotect€her€children€from€her€own€father,€Neal€Harding,€a€convicted€child€molester,Ïuntil€the€husband€ð ðraised€a€fussðð€about€it.€€Since€he€is€ð ða€person€who€resides€in€orÏfrequents€the€home€of€a€parentðð€the€Court€has€discretion€under€the€statute€to€considerÏthe€character€and€behavior€of€Neal€Harding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(9).€Ìâ âÐ È7À04 Ðà Ø àà 0 àTaking€these€and€other€factors€into€account,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏâ âevidence€preponderated€against€the€determination€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà@zz,êàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ¨   ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Cheatham€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à____________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÐ  È(À!$ ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼7żXXyTÔò òà@êê.êàœñ×ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEñ×ñó óñ×ñÔ€XyTX¼¼7ÅԈР ÐÌÌÌÌPENELOPE€LYNN€RAYBURN,à 8 àà  à)Ð ô ì Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ÔÌ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Рļ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9710„CH„00548Ð ´¬  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ¤œ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àCheatham€ChanceryÐ ”Œ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€8718Ð „|  ÐGREGORY€SHANE€RAYBURN,à 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ tl  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmed€andÐ d\ Ðà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)à è àRemandedÐ TL ÐÌÌÔ€¼7żXXyTÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ $ ÐÓÓÔ€XyTX¼¼7ÅÔÌà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Cheatham€County,€and€briefs€of€counsel;€upon€considerationÏwhereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€Chancellor€there€is€noÏreversible€error.Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Cheatham€County€for€the€enforcement€of€theÏdecree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Penelope€Lynn€Rayburn,ÏPrincipal,€and€Jerry€W.€œHamlin›,€Surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌñ×ñ›