ÿWPC] ÉŒg<ZS@hâê©náp JŸº Håý[€AhÝ.Yÿf`ÌHƒ,B`2ù_xDt'²Î¨x¶ÿ°]VG¶~ÄJEæƒJw&"ì—;éýÉÞ ´x¬mxbJ{³¸¶ ζdÕM«vÏä=n@³HÛõåP\ ìù3žú·ðØÀtm7îáÜ,îc]à:¨·èK=ŒÈi6á5èpjZL‚ñeüK›žAjþÔh§ 01Á\RŽî YfcZ*ù•öHþ\·½…Qtå‘"KÜg_#%aƒ^=‘ÉXæR¶X?™Ññ=ˆÚI²æPؼ®ˆðÈG}õé(Á®{o¾J´;¤¢¬Ræ´Î¡b–ôªmÕ‡ðï‚v¡ÑO®vî•›}õ–A z„É‚Xþ…¬µDØI^?@­m¾13;äëÇxœäÿ+rÜ4ðºAØÂø©âòÖæ¿Çü"ÏŒR‘Qò(OȇFƬž” )`Ö4DAŽöÆ$þ^¥3ìôÉè« ý'"dí@!ó÷dþâZ/¦1årp‡™ÙÅ**ÅYaö8Fwà„éíÈxgà\¢ÃÙ?dj§™̹™_S.ϯ™u(o) b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ n­™ ÆF Æ ÆÒƘN^N` 1‡b 1‡éEp 72r 1u¤ 72 0cK 0D® 72ò<$UN`U@®®®bîîîîîîîîîîîîbPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 0ëXXXX BCC 0¤` D5 D-9 0Kff AS±Æ 0¤Ê 0Dn A«²»½²”1î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularINŽ1xê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóA. SpicerS.C.H E.J.PottsEd.D.BerrymannoncustodialS.C.H.HelsonSuttlesEldridgeHoguePizzillo COA Wix o]fthat that(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular&Öd9 Z‹(Times New Roman  XÝ ƒR2G$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿¹ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€shows€that€Mother€and€her€mother€were€dissatisfied€with€the€DCS€investigation€and€urged€theÐ ° ÐDepartment€to€reopen€it.€€The€re„opened€investigation€concluded€with€the€same€result€as€before.- ù-(|G22G$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿¹ò»»Ô d(|3¿[$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿[$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€NÅXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î ¨î»¼ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ »îî ¨ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€8,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XNÅX»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXNÅö#ÔIN€RE:€S.€C.€H.Ô‡XNÅX»¼ Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Juvenile€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02JWC„057€€€€€€Robert€P.€Hamilton,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01382„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€20,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XNÅXXXNÅÔThe€mother€of€a€three€year€old€girl€asked€the€court€to€deny€the€girlððs€father€any€visitation€with€theÐ xÈ  Ðchild€because€she€believed€that€the€father€had€sexually€abused€the€child.€€The€trial€court€did€not€findÐ d´ Ðthat€the€evidence€conclusively€proved€abuse,€but€denied€the€father€any€visitation€or€other€contact€withÐ P  Ðhis€daughter,€stating,€ð ðI€have€to€side€with€the€protection€of€the€child.ðð€€Because€the€trial€court€did€notÐ <Œ Ðmake€the€requisite€findings€to€support€elimination€of€all€visitation,€we€must€vacate€the€judgment.Ô#†XNÅXXXNÅœ#ÔÔ#†¼ »XXNÅK#ÔÔ‡XNÅX»¼ ÔÐ (x ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Juvenile€CourtÐ P ÐVacatedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ »àXNÅ]#ÔÔ‡XNÅX.¼ ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€and€òòFrankÐ Ä ÐG.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌPamela€M.€Spicer,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€D.€B.Ð ˆØ ÐÌAngelique€P.€Kane,€Alan€Poindexter,€Stephen€Van€Roberts,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,Ð `° ÐE.€A.€J.Ð L œ ÐÓ"ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ »XXNÅQ#ÔÔ‡XNÅX»¼ ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌÔ#†¼ »XXNÅN #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XNÅX»¼ Ôà  àThe€child€at€the€center€of€these€proceedings,€S.C.H,€was€born€on€February€18,€1999.€€HerÐ ü#L# Ðfather,€D.B.,€and€her€mother,€E.J.€were€both€high€school€sophomores€at€the€time.€€Mother€remainedÐ è$8 $ Ðin€her€parentsðð€home€while€taking€care€of€the€baby€girl.€€Father€began€paying€child€support,€usingÐ Ô%$!% Ðmoney€from€a€part„time€job.€€Mother€and€Father€continued€to€date€off€and€on,€with€Fatherððs€contactÐ À&"& Ðwith€the€child€in€her€first€year€occurring€primarily€when€Mother€brought€the€child€along.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€child€turned€one€year€old,€the€parties€agreed€that€Father€could€visit€onÐ „)Ô$) Ðalternating€Sunday€afternoons.€€Such€visitation€usually€involved€the€father€picking€up€the€child€at€theÐ p*À%* Ðmotherððs€house€and€bringing€her€to€his€own€parentsðð€house,€where€he€was€still€living.€€FatherððsÐ \+¬&+ Ðmother€was€usually€present€during€these€times€and€helped€him€take€care€of€S.C.H.€€Father€andÐ H,˜', ÐMother€were€both€members€of€the€same€church€in€Lebanon.€€They€attended€regularly,€so€Father€hadÐ 4-„(-ý Ðthe€opportunity€to€see€his€daughter€on€most€Sundays,€even€those€when€he€was€not€scheduled€forÐ ° Ðvisitation.€€During€this€time,€the€romantic€relationship€between€Mother€and€Father€had€its€ups€andÐ œì Ðdowns,€but€in€the€fall€of€2001,€they€planned€to€get€married.€€Mother€called€off€their€wedding€and€laterÐ ˆØ Ðmarried€someone€else.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€April€8,€2002,€Father€filed€a€petition€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Wilson€County€to€establishÐ L œ Ðpaternity€of€S.C.H.€and€to€set€visitation€and€child€support.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Mother€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaternal€grandmother€told€the€father€they€would€no€longer€allow€him€to€exercise€visitation.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àMother€and€the€maternal€grandmother€stated€they€took€this€position€because€of€concern€thatÐ ü L  ÐFather€had€sexually€abused€the€child.€€This€concern€arose€when€the€childððs€church€day€care€directorÐ è 8  Ðand€pastor€reported€to€them€that€the€child€had€begun€to€engage€in€sexualized€behavior€to€the€extentÐ Ô$  Ðthat€it€raised€their€suspicions.€€This€contact€was€made€shortly€after€Father€filed€his€petition.€€MotherÐ À  Ðstated€she€had€previously€observed€the€described€behavior,€but€was€not€suspicious€that€it€mightÐ ¬ü  Ðindicate€sexual€abuse€until€her€conversations€with€the€day€care€director€and€pastor.€€Mother€becameÐ ˜è  Ðconcerned€and€took€the€child€to€a€doctor,€who€found€no€evidence€of€abuse.€€She€also€took€S.C.H.€toÐ „Ô  Ða€counselor,€who€referred€her€to€a€licensed€psychologist.€€By€the€time€Mother€answered€the€petition,Ð pÀ Ðthe€child€had€been€seen€by€the€psychologist,€Maureen€Sanger,€Ph.D.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àDr.€Sanger€determined€that€the€childððs€behavior€and€comments€did€not€conclusively€proveÐ 4„ Ðsexual€abuse,€but€that€they€were€cause€for€ð ðsignificant€concern.ðð€She€reported€her€findings€to€theÐ  p ÐDepartment€of€Childrenððs€Services€in€Wilson€County€(ð ðDCSðð)€and€requested€a€formal€investigationÐ  \ Ðto€determine€whether€S.C.H.€had€been€sexually€abused.€€Dr.€Sanger€also€recommended€that€the€childÐ øH Ðhave€no€unsupervised€contact€with€her€father€pending€the€outcome€of€the€DCS€investigation.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMother€answered€Fatherððs€petition€on€July€3,€2002.€€She€asked€the€court€to€establish€paternityÐ ¼  Ðin€accordance€with€the€petition€and€to€order€Father€to€pay€child€support€and€provide€health€insurance.€Ð ¨ø ÐShe€also€recounted€her€own€and€Dr.€Sangerððs€concerns€about€sexual€abuse€and€requested€that€FatherÐ ”ä Ðnot€be€granted€any€visitation€and€that€he€be€compelled€to€undergo€a€psycho„sexual€evaluation.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOn€July€10,€2002€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreed€order€stipulating€that€Father€would€beÐ X ¨ Ðrecognized€as€Ô_ÔS.C.H.Ô_Ôððs€biological€father,€but€that€he€would€have€no€visitation€pending€further€ordersÐ D!” Ðof€the€court.€€He€was€also€ordered€to€pay€child€support€of€$355€per€month€as€well€as€medicalÐ 0"€  Ðinsurance.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€August€7,€2002,€Father€filed€a€motion€for€supervised€visitation.€€He€noted€that€Dr.€SangerÐ ô$D # Ðhad€stated€that€the€paternal€grandmother€and€aunt€(his€sister)€would€be€suitable€adults€to€superviseÐ à%0!$ Ðsuch€visitation.€€Since€his€annual€family€reunion€was€coming€up,€he€asked€the€court€to€allow€S.C.H.Ð Ì&"% Ðto€attend€under€the€strict€supervision€of€his€sister€and€her€husband,€with€all€subsequent€visitation€toÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€supervised€by€his€mother€and/or€his€sister.€€This€motion€was€later€withdrawn.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àFather€subsequently€underwent€a€psycho„social€evaluation€by€another€licensed€psychologist,Ð |*Ì%) ÐRay€Potts,€Ed.D.€€The€report€of€Dr.€Potts€stated€that€he€used€a€number€of€psychological€measures€toÐ h+¸&* Ðtest€Father€and€that€he€had€reviewed€the€available€records,€which€by€this€time€included€numerousÐ ° Ðdepositions.€€His€report,€like€Dr.€Sangerððs,€was€less€than€conclusive.€€However,€he€did€find€that,Ð œì Ðð ðbased€upon€the€available€information€from€Father€the€probability€is€low€that€he€has€engaged€in€anyÐ ˆØ Ðsexually€abusive€behaviors€with€children.ðð€€That€opinion€was€subject€to€modification€ð ðif€any€otherÐ tÄ Ðsignificant€additional€data€becomes€available.ððÐ `° ÐÌà  àDCS,€in€conjunction€with€the€Wilson€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€conducted€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðinvestigation.€€The€investigator€from€Child€Protective€Services€stated€that€after€investigation€andÐ $ t Ðreview,€ð ðit€has€been€deemed€that€there€has€been€no€conclusive€evidence€discovered€to€show€thatÐ  ` ÐFather€is€a€perpetrator€of€sexual€abuse.€€The€case€will€be€closed€as€unfounded€though€it€isÐ ü L  Ðrecommended€that€[S.C.H.]€attend€counseling€to€aid€in€dealing€with€her€questionable€behavior.ðð׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð è 8  ÐÌà@ ìàòòò òI.€€Trial€Proceedingsóóó óˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àHearings€on€Fatherððs€petition€were€conducted€over€four€full€days:€on€November€21€and€22,Ð ˜è  Ð2002,€on€January€31,€2003,€and€on€April€8,€2003.€€By€our€count,€twenty„five€different€witnessesÐ „Ô  Ðtestified,€some€of€them€several€times.€€These€included€the€parties,€their€parents,€other€familyÐ pÀ Ðmembers,€numerous€members€of€their€church,€including€several€€who€worked€at€the€church€daycareÐ \¬ Ðprogram€€S.C.H.€attended,€their€pastor,€several€DCS€workers,€Dr.€Sanger,€Dr.€Potts,€and€anotherÐ H˜ Ðpsychologist,€Dr.€Jane€Berryman.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àBecause€of€our€disposition€of€this€appeal,€it€is€not€our€role€to€weigh€the€evidence€and,Ð  \ Ðconsequently,€no€purpose€would€be€served€in€setting€out€in€detail€the€evidence€presented.€Ð øH ÐNonetheless,€a€brief€description€of€the€evidence€is€warranted.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThere€was€evidence€that€the€child€had€exhibited€sexualized€behaviors€in€a€number€of€settings,Ð ¼  Ðalthough€some€witnesses,€such€as€Fatherððs€mother,€testified€they€had€not€witnessed€the€behavior.€Ð ¨ø ÐThere€was€testimony€that€the€child€acted€fearful€in€the€presence€of€her€father,€both€at€daycare€and€inÐ ”ä Ðchurch,€but€also€testimony€that€at€other€times,€the€child€was€able€to€relate€to€her€father€in€a€friendlyÐ €Ð Ðand€affectionate€way.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDr.€Sanger€testified€at€the€great€length€on€the€first€day€of€the€hearing.€€Since€Dr.€Sanger€hadÐ D!” Ðspoken€to€many€individuals€as€to€their€observations€of€Ô_ÔS.C.H.Ô_Ôððs€behavior€in€the€course€of€herÐ 0"€  Ðevaluation€of€the€child,€she€was€asked€whether€Mother€and€the€maternal€grandmother,€or€others,Ð #l! Ðappeared€to€be€fabricating€any€of€the€information€they€gave€her,€and€she€responded€that€they€did€not.€Ð $X" ÐDr.€Sanger€read€from€her€report€and€answered€questions€about€it.€€As€her€report€states,€ð ðwhileÐ ô$D # Ð[S.C.H.]€appears€to€be€a€generally€well„adjusted€girl,€her€sexualized€behavior€is€much€more€frequentÐ à%0!$ Ðthan€is€typical€for€a€child€her€age.ððÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àDr.€Sangerððs€account€of€some€of€her€sessions€with€S.C.H.€demonstrated€the€difficulty€ofÐ ° Ðâ âobtaining€factual€information€from€a€child€so€very€young.€€Although€Dr.€Sanger€could€notÐ œì Ðconclusively€answer€the€abuse€question,€she€recommended€that€S.C.H.€undergo€counseling€ratherÐ ˆØ Ðthan€further€evaluation.€€She€also€recommended€ð ðstarting€up€visitation€in€a€gradual€way,ðð€with€Dr.Ð tÄ ÐJane€Berryman€or€Dr.€Jay€Woodman€supervising.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDr.€Sanger€had€referred€S.C.H.€to€Dr.€Berryman€for€counseling,€which€began€in€December,Ð 8 ˆ Ð2002,€after€the€hearing€had€begun.€€Dr.€Berryman€testified€on€January€31,€2003,€after€she€had€seenÐ $ t ÐS.C.H.€for€counseling€five€times,€and€on€April€8,€2003,€after€thirteen€sessions.€€Despite€her€expertise,Ð  ` Ðshe€encountered€great€difficulty€trying€to€learn€what€had€occurred€between€S.C.H.€and€her€father.€Ð ü L  ÐAlso,€in€several€of€the€later€sessions,€the€child€had€refused€to€discuss€issues€with€her.€€Dr.€BerrymanÐ è 8  Ðadmitted€that€her€frustration€led€her€on€one€occasion,€the€last€session€before€the€final€court€hearing,Ð Ô$  Ðto€ask€the€child€leading€questions.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àDuring€her€testimony€on€April€8,€Dr.€Berryman€was€asked€to€give€her€opinion€as€to€whetherÐ ˜è  ÐFather€had€sexually€molested€his€daughter.€€Her€answer€was€ð ðI€cannot€say€this€with€all€certainty€ð!ðÐ „Ô  Ðbut€based€on€everything€I€have,€I€can€find€no€other€logical€explanation€for€why€sheððs€so€sexuallyÐ pÀ Ðtraumatized.ðð€When€asked€about€visitation,€she€stated€that€if€the€court€were€to€find€there€wasÐ \¬ Ðsufficient€evidence€that€Father€had€sexually€abused€the€child,€visitation€would€be€harmful.€€On€theÐ H˜ Ðother€hand,€if€the€court€found€there€was€not€sufficient€evidence€to€make€that€conclusion,€a€gradualÐ 4„ Ðre„institution€of€visitation,€starting€with€supervised€visitation,€would€be€appropriate.€€€She€finallyÐ  p Ðstated,€ð ðI€would€err€on€the€side€of€caution,ðð€but€also€agreed€to€supervise€visitation€if€the€court€orderedÐ  \ Ðit.€Dr.€Berryman€also€testified€that,€by€this€point€in€time,€the€event€or€events€that€had€traumatizedÐ øH ÐS.C.H.€had€faded€in€her€memory€and€causing€her€to€continue€to€talk€about€them€wasÐ ä4 Ðcounterproductive.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€questioned€Dr.€Berryman€at€some€length€about€the€future€consequences€toÐ ¨ø ÐS.C.H.€of€renewed€visitation€with€the€father€if€he€had€indeed€abused€her€as€well€as€the€consequencesÐ ”ä Ðof€a€severed€father„child€relationship€if€he€had€not.€€The€psychologist€responded€that€putting€the€childÐ €Ð Ðin€a€situation€with€a€person€who€has€abused€her,€after€she€has€told€people€about€it,€would€involve€a€Ð l¼ Ðrisk€of€trauma€as€well€as€decline€in€her€trust.€€She€also€expressed€awareness€that€if€the€father€had€notÐ X ¨ Ðabused€his€daughter,€it€would€constitute€a€grave€injustice€to€prevent€him€from€exercising€visitation.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€announced€his€decision€from€the€bench.€€HeÐ #l! Ðstated€that€he€was€charged€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child,€but€that€after€reviewing€the€€proof€heÐ $X" Ðdid€not€find€ð ðthe€smoking€gun.ðð€He€stated€that€ð ðno€one€can€really€tell€you€what€happened€with€thatÐ ô$D # Ðlittle€child,ðð€but€that€ð ðI€have€to€side€with€the€protection€of€the€child.ðð€€He€accordingly€ruled€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfather€should€not€have€any€visitation,€even€though,€ð ð€.€.€.€it€makes€me€tearful€to€think€about€what€IððveÐ Ì&"% Ðdone€to€the€father,€but€I€just€donððt€have€any€other€option.ðð€€It€is€obvious€the€court€took€this€graveÐ ¸'#& Ðdecision€very€seriously.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€courtððs€final€order€was€filed€on€April€25,€2002.€€Mother€was€awarded€permanent€care,Ð |*Ì%) Ðcustody€and€control€of€S.C.H.€€Father€was€ordered€to€have€no€contact€with€the€child,€but€to€continueÐ h+¸&* Ðto€pay€child€support€of€$355€per€month€and€to€maintain€medical€insurance€on€the€child.€€The€orderÐ ° Ðincludes€no€findings€as€to€the€basis€of€the€denial€of€visitation,€but€incorporates€the€oral€findings€madeÐ œì Ðat€the€end€of€the€hearing.€€This€appeal€followed.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@pp#ìàò òòòII.€€Visitationóóó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àWhen€determining€visitation€rights,€the€welfare€and€best€interests€of€the€child€must€be€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðparamount€considerations.€òò€Eldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001);€òòSuttles€v.€Suttlesóó,Ð $ t Ð748€S.W.2d€427,€428€(Tenn.€1983);òòóó€òòHogue€v.€Hogueóó,€147€S.W.3d€245€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2004).€€òòóóInÐ  ` Ðgeneral,€ð ða€child's€interests€are€well-served€by€a€custody€and€visitation€arrangement€that€promotesÐ ü L  Ðthe€development€of€relationships€with€both€the€custodial€and€noncustodial€parent."€€òòWilson€v.€Wilsonóó,Ð è 8  Ð987€S.W.2d€555,€564€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòPizzillo€v.€Pizzilloóó,€884€S.W.2d€749€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1994).€€However,€the€best€interests€of€the€child€may€require€that€the€trial€court€place€restrictions€on,Ð À  Ðlimit,€or€prohibit€visitation.€€òòEldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€at€89;€òòHogueóó,€147€S.W.3d€245;€òòD.€v.€K.óó,€917Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€situations€where€such€an€order€is€appropriate€haveÐ ˜è  Ðbeen€defined€by€statute€and€case€law.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€authority€of€the€courts€to€regulate€the€visitation€rights€of€non„custodial€parents€isÐ \¬ Ðgoverned€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„301,€which€reads€in€pertinent€part:€Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒAfter€making€an€award€of€custody,€the€court€shall,€upon€request€of€the€non-custodialÐ  p Ðparent,€grant€such€rights€of€visitation€as€will€enable€the€child€and€the€non-custodialÐ  \ Ðparent€to€maintain€a€parent-child€relationship€unless€the€court€finds,€after€a€hearing,Ð øH Ðthat€visitation€is€likely€to€endanger€the€child's€physical€or€emotional€health.€.€.€.€€If€theÐ ä4 Ðcourt€finds€that€the€non-custodial€parent€has€physically€or€emotionally€abused€theÐ Ð  Ðchild,€the€court€may€require€that€visitation€be€supervised€or€prohibited€until€suchÐ ¼  Ðabuse€has€ceased€or€until€there€is€no€reasonable€likelihood€that€such€abuse€will€recur.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àThis€statute€shows€the€legislatureððs€clear€preference€for€reasonable€visitation€sufficient€toÐ €Ð Ðmaintain€a€parent„child€relationship€with€the€noncustodial€parent.€€It€establishes€the€public€policy€ofÐ l¼ Ðthis€state.€€òòHelson€v.€Cyrusóó,€989€S.W.2d€704,€707€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Accordingly,€"the€rightÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€noncustodial€parent€to€reasonable€visitation€is€clearly€favored."€òòSuttlesóó,748€S.W.2d€at€429.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àUnder€the€statute,€a€court€may€limit€visitation,€set€protective€requirements€such€as€supervisionÐ #l! Ðfor€it,€or€prohibit€it€until€it€is€shown€such€visitation€would€be€safe€for€the€child.€€However,€theseÐ $X" Ðactions€are€authorized€only€where€the€court€finds€either€(1)€visitation€is€likely€to€endanger€the€childððsÐ ô$D # Ðphysical€or€emotional€health€or€(2)€the€noncustodial€parent€has€physically€or€emotionally€abused€theÐ à%0!$ Ðchild.€€òòóóSimilarly,€our€courts€have€held€that€visitation€may€be€limited,€or€even€prohibited,€if€the€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðfinds€there€is€clear€and€definite€evidence€that€such€visitation€would€result€in€harm€to€the€child€in€aÐ ¸'#& Ðphysical,€emotional,€or€moral€sense.€€òòEldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€at€85;€òòSuttlesóó,€748€S.W.2d€at€429;€òòHelsonóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð989€S.W.2d€at€707.€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Їà  àOrdinarily,€ð ðthe€details€of€custody€and€visitation€with€children€are€peculiarly€within€the€broadÐ ° Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.ðð€òòSuttlesóó,€748€S.W.2d€at€429€(quoting€òòEdwards€v.€Edwards,óó€501€S.W.2dÐ œì Ð283€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973));€òòsee€also€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€at€85.€€However,€the€exercise€of€thatÐ ˆØ Ðdiscretion€must€be€based€on€proof€and€applicable€legal€principles.€€òòHogueóó,€147€S.W.3d€245;€òòD.€v.Ð tÄ ÐK.óó,€917€S.W.2d€at€685.€€A€trial€court€acts€outside€its€discretion€if€it€applies€an€incorrect€legal€standardÐ `° Ðor€reaches€a€decision€against€logic€or€reasoning€the€causes€an€injustice€to€a€party.€€òòEldridgeóó,€42Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€at€85.€€€Applicable€legal€standards€require€that€restriction,€curtailment,€or€elimination€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðvisitation€rights€must€be€based€on€specific€findings,€resulting€from€clear€and€definite€evidence,€thatÐ $ t Ðone€of€the€situations€justifying€such€action€exists.òòóóÐ  ` ÐÌà  àTermination€of€all€visitation€can€have€the€practical€effect€of€severing€the€most€effectiveÐ è 8  Ðmeans€of€maintaining€the€parent„child€relationship.€€The€trial€court€herein€prohibited€not€onlyÐ Ô$  Ðunsupervised€visitation,€but€it€also€declined€to€permit€supervised€visitation€and€prohibited€all€contactÐ À  Ðbetween€Father€and€the€child.€€Such€a€prohibition,€if€permanent,€would€constitute€termination€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðparental€rights€and€would€require€procedural€safeguards€applicable€to€such€proceedings,€such€asÐ ˜è  Ðproof€of€grounds€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSee€White€v.€Whiteóó,€No.€M1999„00087„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„Ð „Ô  ÐR3„CV,€2000€WL€488477€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€26,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ pÀ Ðfiled).€€Courts€have€generally€ordered€the€least€restrictive€limitations€on€parent„child€interactions€asÐ \¬ Ðwere€possible€and€consistent€with€the€childððs€best€interests.€€òòSee€Wix€v.€Wixóó,€No.€M2000„00230„Ð H˜ ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€219700,€at€*11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€March€7,€2001)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð 4„ Ðapplication€filed)€(discussing€holdings€terminating€or€suspending€visitation€and€using€less€restrictiveÐ  p Ðalternatives).€€In€òòSuttlesóó,€our€Supreme€Court€reversed€a€decision€to€require€visitation€and€suspendedÐ  \ Ðthe€visitation€right€of€a€father€who€had€been€convicted€of€assaulting€his€young€son€and€who€had€beenÐ øH Ðsentenced€to€thirty€years€in€prison€for€that€crime€and€others.€€Even€in€that€situation,€the€court€stated,Ð ä4 Ðð ð[o]f€course,€to€prevent€the€bonds€between€Defendant€and€child€from€being€severed€completely,€heÐ Ð  Ðis€free€to€communicate€with€his€child€by€telephone€or€mail€or€other€means€approved€by€the€trial€court.Ð ¼  Ð.€.€.ðð€748€S.W.2d€at€429.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTo€authorize€the€total€prohibition€on€parent„child€contact€ordered€herein,€the€trial€court€wasÐ €Ð Ðrequired€to€find,€by€clear€and€definite€evidence,€that€Father€abused€S.C.H.€and/or€that€it€is€likely€thatÐ l¼ ÐS.C.H.€would€be€harmed€physically,€emotionally,€or€morally€by€any€contact€with€Father:Ð X ¨ Ðunsupervised€visitation;€restricted€or€structured€visitation;€visitation€supervised€by€one€of€theÐ D!” Ðpsychologists€already€involved,€an€appropriate€entity,€or€another€responsible€adult;€telephoneÐ 0"€  Ðcommunication€with€Father;€and€receipt€of€letters,€cards,€or€gifts€from€Father.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€made€none€of€these€findings€by€clear€and€definite€evidence.€€To€the€contrary,Ð ô$D # Ðthe€court€made€clear€it€was€struggling€with€the€evidence€and€the€conclusions€to€draw€from€it.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€stated€at€various€times€in€its€ruling:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  à.€.€.Ô‡XNÅXXXNÅÔ€and€I€think€that€we€donððt€have€any€answers.€.€.€.€No€one€can€tell€you€whatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhappened€with€that€little€child.€€But€it€does€seem€that€it€supports€that€something€hasÐ )à$( Ðâ âhappened€.€.€.€€It€may€not€be€true,€but€itððs€a€probably€position.€.€.€.€But€that€does€seemÐ |*Ì%) Ðlike€maybe€something€has€happened€and€it€does€seem€like€sheððs€consistent€in€alwaysÐ ° Ðputting€it€on€her€father.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÔ#†XNÅXXXNÅ_#ÔÔ‡XNÅXXXNÅÔà  àMore€tellingly,€in€response€to€Motherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees,€the€court€stated:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àIf€I€had€good€proof€that€this€man€was€a€sexual€perpetrator€and€that€he€had€done€thatÐ `° Ðto€your€daughter€.€.€.€[I€would€award€attorneyððs€fees].€€I€donððt€know€that€he€did€it.€€IÐ L œ Ðhave€not€got€good€proof€that€he€did€it.Ô#†XNÅXXXNÅTa#ÔÐ8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€made€no€findings€with€regard€to€the€likelihood€of€harm€to€S.C.H.€from€evenÐ  ` Ðsupervised€visits€or€other€contact,€merely€stating,Ô‡XNÅXXXNÅÔ€ð ðAnd€in€this€case,€Iððm€just€going€to€have€to€comeÐ ü L  Ðdown€on€the€no€contact€side.€.€.€.€I€just€donððt€believe€it€would€be€appropriate€even€under€supervisedÐ è 8  Ðvisitation€at€this€time.ððÐ Ô$  ÐÔ#†XNÅXXXNÅëc#ÔÌà  àDespite€his€doubts€about€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€decided€that€protectionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€child€from€even€potential€risk€was€the€controlling€factor€in€his€decision.€€We€agree€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðwelfare€of€the€child€is€the€paramount€consideration.€€However,€the€court€must€find€that€that€welfareÐ „Ô  Ðis€not€served€by€visitation€sufficient€to€maintain€a€parent„child€relationship€because€the€existence€of€Ð pÀ Ðabuse€or€likely€harm€to€the€child€has€been€shown€by€clear€and€definite€proof.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWe€sympathize€with€the€trial€courtððs€dilemma€and€recognize€its€desire€to€make€the€bestÐ 4„ Ðdecision€it€could€for€the€child€under€the€circumstances.€€Nevertheless,€because€the€prohibition€ofÐ  p Ðcontact€is€not€supported€by€the€requisite€findings,€we€must€vacate€the€judgment.€€The€trial€court,Ð  \ Ðhaving€seen€and€heard€the€witnesses,€is€in€the€best€position€to€make€the€factual€findings€as€well€asÐ øH Ðto€make€the€discretionary€judgments€inherent€in€visitation€decisions.€€òòEldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€at€88.€€AnÐ ä4 Ðappellate€court€is€not€to€ð ðtweakðð€visitation€orders€or€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð  Ðas€to€the€better€or€more€reasonable€arrangement.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€this€case€should€be€remanded€forÐ ¼  Ðappropriate€findings€by€the€trial€court.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€therefore€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€fresh€consideration€of€the€evidence€as€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€required€findings€considering€the€evidentiary€standard.€€Because€several€years€have€elapsed€sinceÐ l¼ ÐFather€last€had€visitation€with€S.C.H.,€who€is€still€very€young,€it€would€be€appropriate€for€the€courtÐ X ¨ Ðto€receive€additional€evidence€regarding€the€childððs€current€circumstances,€especially€in€regard€to€theÐ D!” Ðlikelihood€of€harm€to€the€child€from€various€forms€of€contact€with€Father.€€If€the€court€decides€thatÐ 0"€  Ðsome€contact€is€warranted,€we€are€confident€the€court,€with€the€help€of€the€professionals€and€othersÐ #l! Ðinvolved€with€S.C.H.€can€fashion€a€re„introduction€process€that€will€adequately€safeguard€the€childÐ $X" Ðand€reduce€any€potential€emotional€trauma€or€other€adverse€consequences€to€her.Ð ô$D # ÐÐ  à%0!$ Ðà@#ìàò òIII.€òòConclusionóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€vacated.€€We€remand€this€case€to€the€Juvenile€Court€ofÐ ˆØ ÐWilson€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ tÄ Ðappellee,€Ô_ÔE.A.J.Ô_ÔÐ `° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE