ÿWPC RÝAH3ÇM,`øàòï.Cœ ‚ÄF3k5_““¤ñ>|·ÍЕÁÃU 4¬®«pü™á " Nâè—¬²]@ôˆ²:§îÓ^'=tÈvѽ fTÝÜ((1Ä˜Õ ‘vUàhˆíKíˆÞÒ"xÉ·"ݨ±ÓîÖ¯wùnˆ»J/†š£ °[n‡2ì5½šÅo§A‚éZ¬’³éÀ¸Õ¢˜•R-TÛv‡ÕhÛ…t北»?{¦ŽÚ¦ÍqK¼¹óhW£â€ÍßõCB÷ t÷ƼPIÙŒ§@Ò_ØáN@5C€©(Õ‡†Ë¼“Ì‚k‰¨~Èd¹»ûÝ× ¸*+ÿæç”Ì;šÉ”‡ó}¸: »–ÂÎùÿD r¹¯É5ÙUÅòE¿¼ÃÁŸ-þ)Ǹ‚·[JçgJ„ –‹)“-ª4øö²0.A‚nX ;ï¼òrSJçÞ¡\YïñÜÕ¬ÍF´„.û 5Ô<е€œ÷ò¨ù@ìòÍÜŒ,C -N?˜Ä=w:î–}.ÉXßË ífî\¨»Òjð!ŠÇçïo¯(Ù¨[—žÓx>‰J¥¡rƒsåèê¶Kä<ðç™ýò(–l~Wb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©Níïš÷E‘U @““U@ÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓb 0ë B 0¤# D3Ç D-ú 0K'' ASrÆÅ 0¤‹ 0D/ A«s˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»xE)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;)¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  Ý ƒR…ò$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôú}òòôú}Ô€€We€note€that€religious€beliefs€could€constitute€a€material€change€of€circumstances€where€such€beliefsÐ ° Ðconstituted€a€danger€to€the€emotional€or€physical€well„being€of€the€child.€€Such€is€not€the€case€in€the€present€appeal.(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2…ò$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VE»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú}ò»»Ô d(|3G~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VE»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VE»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VE»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼VE»»»ÔÑ8€©XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼VE»»¼VEÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î˜8VEÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼VE»îî˜8+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€September€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X©X»¼VEÔÌò òÔ#†¼VE»XX©#ÔMITCHELL€LYNN€ROBERTSòòóó€v.€BEVERLY€JEAN€ROBERTSòòóóÔ‡X©X»¼VEÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Cheatham€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5685€€€€€€Allen€W.€Wallace,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00216„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€5,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€modification€of€an€order€of€visitation€increasing€the€appelleeððsÐ xÈ  Ðamount€of€summer€visitation.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð d´ ÐÓÑÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð <Œ ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VE»àX©’#ÔÔ‡X©X.¼VEÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.óóÐ P Ðand€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌMarkley€Runyon€Gill,€Erin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mitchell€Lynn€Roberts.Ð Ä ÐÌJ.L.€Thompson,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Beverly€Jean€Roberts.Ð œì ÐÓ^ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VE»XX©#ÔÔ‡X©X»¼VEÔÐ tÄ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VE»XX©v#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X©X»¼VEÔà0  àThe€parties€were€divorced€several€years€ago€and€the€appellant€received€custody€of€the€partiesðð€ÐL œ(#(# Ðminor€children.€€At€the€time€of€the€custody€hearing€at€issue,€only€one€of€the€partiesðð€children€was€stillÐ 8!ˆ  Ða€minor.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€appellee€was€absent€from€the€childððs€life€for€a€period€ofÐ $"t! Ðseveral€years€but€resumed€visitation€with€the€child€in€1995.€Ð #`" ÐÌà  àAfter€the€appellee€received€visitation€with€her€son,€the€parties€began€experiencing€difficultiesÐ è$8 $ Ðwith€the€implementation€of€such€visitation.€€The€appellee€is€a€Seventh€Day€Adventist€and€believesÐ Ô%$!% Ðthat€the€Sabbath€begins€at€sundown€on€Friday€and€continues€through€sundown€on€Saturday.€€DuringÐ À&"& Ðthis€time,€no€secular€activities€are€permitted.€€However,€the€appellant€had€signed€the€child€up€forÐ ¬'ü"' Ðseveral€sporting€activities.€€These€sporting€activities€took€place€during€many,€if€not€all,€of€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðappelleeððs€scheduled€visitation€weekends.€€These€activities€also€occurred€on€Saturday€conflictingÐ „)Ô$) Ðwith€the€appelleeððs€religious€beliefs.€€Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àIn€1998,€a€custody€hearing€was€held€and€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€appellee€was€ð ðnot€toÐ H,˜', Ðinterfere€with€the€minor€childððs€extracurricular€activitiesðð€and€she€was€given€the€option€to€declineÐ 4-„(-ýC Ðher€visitation€ð ð[i]f€[she€felt]€unable€to€take€the€child€to€his€activities€during€visitation€because€of€herÐ ° Ðreligious€beliefs.ðð€€€The€present€action€arose€when€in€April€of€1998,€the€appellee€filed€a€petitionÐ œì Ðalleging€that€she€had€been€denied€€her€constitutional€right€to€exercise€religious€freedom€under€theÐ ˆØ Ðfederal€and€state€constitutions.€€The€appellee€further€alleged€that€she€had€been€denied€standardÐ tÄ Ðvisitation€privileges€with€her€son.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€evidence€established€that€on€several€occasions€the€appellee€was€lateÐ 8 ˆ Ðdelivering€the€child€to€various€sporting€activities€and€that€on€several€other€occasions€she€neverÐ $ t Ðdelivered€the€child€to€the€scheduled€event.€€The€evidence€further€established€that€on€many€of€theÐ  ` ÐSaturdays€that€the€appellee€did€deliver€the€child€for€the€scheduled€event,€the€appellant€did€not€returnÐ ü L  Ðthe€child€to€the€appellee€until€Sunday€morning€rather€than€Saturday€afternoon€when€the€games€wereÐ è 8  Ðfinished.€€There€was€also€testimony€indicating€that€the€appellee€had€slapped€and€spanked€the€childÐ Ô$  Ðand€had€pulled€the€childððs€hair.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€appellant€notify€the€appelleeÐ ˜è  Ðconcerning€the€exact€schedules€of€the€football€and€baseball€games€and€that€the€appellee€deliver€theÐ „Ô  Ðchild€to€the€appellantððs€home€one€hour€prior€to€such€games.€€The€trial€court€further€ordered€that€theÐ pÀ Ðappellee€make€sure€that€the€child€is€able€to€participate€in€all€football€and€baseball€picnics€and€awardÐ \¬ Ðpresentations€if€they€occurred€during€her€visitation€weekend.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€appellantÐ H˜ Ðto€return€the€child€to€the€appellee€immediately€after€the€activities€on€her€visitation€weekend.€€The€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourt€then€awarded€the€appellee€five€weeks€of€summer€visitation€rather€than€the€previous€orderÐ  p Ðallowing€only€two€weeks.€€The€appellee€was€also€ordered€not€to€ð ðwhip,€spank,€slapðð€or€in€any€wayÐ  \ Ðphysically€punish€the€child.€€The€appellant€now€appeals.Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€the€scope€of€review€in€a€custody€case€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€with€aÐ Ð  Ðpresumption€of€correctness€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòHass€v.€Knightonóó,€676Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€1984).€€This€Court€must€give€great€weight€to€the€factual€determinations€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€judge€who€both€heard€and€observed€the€witnesses.€€òòMassengale€v.€Massengale,€óó915€S.W.2d€818,Ð ”ä Ð819€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€sòòee€Gotwald€v.€Gotwaldóó,€768€S.W.2d€689,€695„97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€we€will€not€disturb€custody€decisions€unless€they€are€based€on€a€material€error€of€lawÐ l¼ Ðor€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSee€Hassóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€555;€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€a€custody€proceeding,€the€childððs€best€interests€are€the€paramount€consideration.€Ð #l! ÐòòÔ_ÔMusselmanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ôóó,€826€S.W.2d€920,€922€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Custody€and€visitation€decisionsÐ $X" Ðare€not€intended€either€to€reward€or€to€punish€parents.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ôóó,€970€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ð482,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòWall€v.€Wallóó,€907€S.W.2d€829,€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€In€aÐ à%0!$ Ðmodification€proceeding,€the€trial€court€may€alter€visitation€or€custody€decisions€where€there€areÐ Ì&"% Ðmaterial€changes€in€the€childððs€circumstances€compelling€enough€to€warrant€a€change.€€òòÔ_ÔSolimaÔ_Ô€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐÔ_ÔSolimaÔ_Ôóó,€7€S.W.3d€30,€32€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€In€fact,€the€legislature€has€decreed€that€custodyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdecrees€are€ð ðsubject€to€such€changes€or€modification€as€the€exigencies€of€the€case€may€require.ðð€Ð )à$( ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„101(a)(1)€(Supp.€1999).€€This€Court€has€previously€held€that€courts€willÐ |*Ì%) Ðalter€a€custody€arrangement€where€the€party€seeking€the€change€proves€(1)€that€the€childððsÐ h+¸&* Ðcircumstances€have€materially€changed€in€a€way€that€could€not€have€been€reasonably€foreseen€at€theÐ ° Ðtime€of€the€original€custody€decision€and€(2)€that€the€childððs€best€interests€will€be€served€by€changingÐ œì Ðthe€existing€custody€arrangement.€€òòÔ_ÔAdelspergerÔ_Ôóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€485.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThere€are€no€bright€line€rules€for€determining€when€a€change€in€a€childððs€circumstances€willÐ `° Ðbe€deemed€material€enough€to€warrant€a€change€in€the€custody€or€visitation€arrangement.òò€€See€TaylorÐ L œ Ðv.€Tayloróó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€327€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòÔ_ÔDantzlerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔDantzlerÔ_Ôóó,€665€S.W.2d€385,€387€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€App.€1983).€€However,€the€party€seeking€the€change€must€prove€that€ð ðsome€new€fact€has€occurredÐ $ t Ðwhich€has€altered€the€circumstances€in€a€material€way€so€that€the€welfare€of€the€child€requires€aÐ  ` Ðchange€of€custody.ðð€€òòGriffin€v.€Stoneóó,€834€S.W.2d€300,€302€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€change€ofÐ ü L  Ðcircumstances€must€be€such€that€ð ðcontinuation€of€the€adjudicated€custody€will€substantially€harm€theÐ è 8  Ðchild.ðð€€òòWallóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€834.€€If€the€requested€modification€is€based€on€the€custodial€parentððsÐ Ô$  Ðbehavior,€such€behavior€must€clearly€posit€or€cause€danger€to€the€mental€or€emotional€well„being€ofÐ À  Ðthe€child.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMusselmanÔ_Ôóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€924.€€The€paramount€concern€is€the€welfare€and€bestÐ ¬ü  Ðinterest€of€the€child.€€òòIn€re€Parsonsóó,€914€S.W.2d€889,€893€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€we€agree€with€the€appellantððs€contention€that€the€appelleeððs€religiousÐ pÀ Ðbeliefs€do€not€constitute€a€change€of€circumstances€and,€therefore,€could€not€be€grounds€for€a€changeÐ \¬ Ðin€custody€or€visitation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€the€record€establishes€that€the€appellant€did€not€comply€with€theÐ H˜ Ðvisitation€order€when€he€failed€to€return€the€child€to€the€appellee€after€scheduled€sporting€activitiesÐ 4„ Ðthat€occurred€during€the€appelleeððs€visitation€weekends.€€The€record€further€establishes€that€the€childÐ  p Ðis€now€in€therapy.€€We€find€that€the€appellantððs€noncompliance€with€the€visitation€order€and€theÐ  \ Ðadverse€affects€of€the€entire€situation€on€the€child€are€sufficient€to€constitute€a€material€change€in€theÐ øH Ðchildððs€circumstances.€€The€original€custody€order€and€the€way€the€parties€implemented€such€orderÐ ä4 Ðdid€not€work€out€for€the€childððs€best€interests.€€€As€such,€it€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€toÐ Ð  Ðmodify€the€visitation€order.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€his€motion€toÐ ”ä Ðdismiss€at€the€close€of€the€appelleeððs€proof.€€The€appellant€bases€this€argument€on€the€assertion€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€appellantððs€petition€for€modification€failed€to€recite€or€allege€any€change€of€circumstancesÐ l¼ Ðwarranting€a€change€in€the€visitation€order.€€However,€the€petition€recited€the€appellantððs€failure€toÐ X ¨ Ðcomply€with€the€trial€courtððs€visitation€order€granting€her€two€weeks€of€visitation€in€the€summer.€Ð D!” ÐAs€we€have€found€that€the€appellantððs€failure€to€comply€with€the€visitation€order€was€sufficient€toÐ 0"€  Ðconstitute€a€change€in€circumstances,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€the€appellee€inÐ ô$D # Ðcontempt€of€the€visitation€order€in€that€she€failed,€on€several€occasions,€to€deliver€the€child€toÐ à%0!$ Ðscheduled€sporting€events€on€time€or€at€all.€€In€response,€the€appellee€points€to€the€appellantððs€failureÐ Ì&"% Ðto€return€the€child€after€scheduled€events€during€her€weekend€visitation.€€However,€this€Court€hasÐ ¸'#& Ðpreviously€held€that€an€appeal€does€not€lie€from€an€acquittal€for€criminal€contempt.€€òòÔ_ÔZwickÔ_Ô€v.€Jonesóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð589€S.W.2d€664,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979);€òòPlumb€v.€Plumbóó,€372€S.W.2d€771,€774€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ° Ð1962).€€Therefore,€this€issue€lacks€merit.òòóóÐ œì ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€the€childððsÐ tÄ Ðvisitation€with€the€appellee€was€causing€the€child€substantial€harm.€€The€appellant€bases€thisÐ `° Ðargument€on€testimony€indicating€that€the€appellee€had€forced€the€child€to€take€baths€in€front€of€herÐ L œ Ðand€to€sleep€in€the€same€bed€with€her€during€her€visitation.€€The€appellant€also€points€to€evidence€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€appellee€had€slapped€the€childððs€face€and€pulled€his€hair.€€There€were€also€two€incidents€in€whichÐ $ t Ðthe€child€returned€from€visitation€with€the€appellee€with€a€sunburn.€€The€appellant€further€cited€aÐ  ` Ðsituation€where€the€appellee€left€the€child€in€front€of€the€appellantððs€home€alone€for€a€few€minutes.€Ð ü L  ÐIn€regard€to€this€issue,€the€trial€court€specifically€stated€that€the€sunburns€were€ð ðnot€a€big€thingðð€andÐ è 8  Ðthat€there€is€ð ðnothing€wrong€with€a€nine„year„old€boy€being€taken€home€and€left€for€a€few€minutes.ðð€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€trial€court€did€not€find€the€appelleeððs€discipline€of€the€child€to€be€substantially€harmful€but€didÐ À  Ðorder€her,€as€the€noncustodial€parent,€to€refrain€from€ð ðphysical€whippings€or€spankings€or€slappings,Ð ¬ü  Ðanything€like€that.ðð€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€This€issueÐ ˜è  Ðis€without€merit.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€forÐ \¬ ÐCheatham€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant,Ð H˜ ÐMitchell€Lynn€Roberts.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.