ÿWPCú 5# öU: %; 0(Ab iw@u4µÉn­Ø… 0@ 0Í 0”jþ 0J 0TP 0^¤ 0h 0rj 0|Ü 0†X 0Þ 1un 0dã AQG Ƙ 0D^ B¢ 0D¿ D/ B2 D3O U*‚ B)¬ DCÕ AMe/zv~©vÓ'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - DDEFGDHIDJKLÓ€Vzƒ=#3|xV«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(M(2F$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XOXXXÔÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(Sn2$Ô‡XÐËXXX ÔÔ‡XÐËXX XÐËÔÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!" $&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd####'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd! /Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌOctober€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€-ôÔWhile€the€Father€testified€that€his€church€was€"not€to€the€norm€of€certain€churches"€as€itÏincluded€healing€services,€hand€clapping,€and€speaking€in€tongues,€the€record€contained€no€proofÏthat€the€child€would€be€harmed€by€exposure€the€these€practices.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€OXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌCHRIS€SENSING,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9701„JP„00042ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHumphreys€Juvenile/ProbateÌÙ€!ÙßR€01/A1-j|îÕ` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€J„3454„95ÌKARRIE€DODSON,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€JUVENILE€AND€PROBATE€COURT€Ìà@ àOF€HUMPHREYS€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€WAVERLY,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ANTHONY€L.€SANDERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌPHILLIP€M.€GEORGEÌP.€O.€Box€467Ì511€Enon€Springs€Road,€EastÌSmyrna,€Tennessee€37167Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌWILLIAM€LANDIS€TURNERÌ102€No.€Court€StreetÌP.€O.€box€789ÌHohenwald,€Tennessee€38462Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÇÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€-„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€-XƠ̜̂à à›à àThis€case€involves€a€father's€œright›€of€visitation€with€his€minor€childÏborn€out€of€wedlock.€€Because€we€find€that€the€trial€court€could€have€structuredÏvisitation€in€a€manner€which€interfered€less€with€the€parent/child€relationship,€weÏremand€this€case€for€a€re„structuring€of€the€visitation€arrangement€in€accordanceÏwith€the€following€opinion.ÌÌœò òà@ àI.›€€ó óÌœà@ àò òFactsó ó›ÌÌœà à›à àIn€1989,€Chris€Sensing€("the€Father")€and€Karrie€Dodson€("theÏMother")€entered€a€relationship€which€resulted€in€the€birth€of€Taylor€NicoleÏDodson€("the€Child")€on€June€24,€1990.€€Though€their€relationship€was€over€by€theÏtime€the€œChild›€was€born,€the€parties€continued€to€be€in€communication€throughoutÏthe€Mother's€œpregnancy.€›€By€his€own€admission,€the€Father€was€minimallyÏinvolved€in€the€early€years€of€the€Child's€life.€€The€evidence€showed€that€his€visitsÏwith€the€Child€were€sporadic€and€his€efforts€to€financially€support€her€wereÏinsignificant.€€The€Father€accounted€for€this€failure€with€testimony€that€he€wasÏyoung€and€irresponsible€at€this€point€in€his€life.€€ÌÌœà à›à àHowever,€in€December€of€1994,€when€the€Father€married€TerriÏSensing€and€became€the€step€father€of€her€two€children,€his€attitude€toward€theÏChild€greatly€changed.€€He€testified€that,€at€this€time,€he€became€a€devoutÏChristian€and€œan€involved›€member€of€a€œPentecostal€church.›€€Terri€SensingÏtestified€that€the€Father€is€a€wonderful€father€to€her€two€children.€€They€haveÏdecided€together€to€keep€alcohol€and€drugs€out€of€their€lives.€€Mrs.€SensingÏunderstands€what€the€Mother€is€going€through€and€that€œÌher›€husband,€the€Father,€has€not€always€acted€responsibly€in€the€past.€€œMrs.›ÏœSensing€stated›€that€she€has€encouraged€the€Father€to€establish€a€relationshipÏwith€the€Child.€€œÌà à›à àThe€court€proceedings€in€this€case€began€with€a€hearing€on€theÏFather's€"Petition€to€Establish€Paternity€and€to€Set€Child€Support€and€Visitation"Ïwhich€resulted€in€an€"Order€of€Paternity"€entered€March€11,€1996.€€As€well€asÏestablishing€the€Father's€paternity,€this€order€set€child€support€and€ordered€thatÏvisitation€be€"implemented€gradually"€beginning€with€two€hours€every€two€weeks.€ÏOn€July€30,€1996,€the€court€entered€a€second€order€after€holding€a€hearing€on€theÏFather's€"Motion€to€Increase€Visitation€and€to€Decrease€Child€Support."€€In€thisÏorder,€the€court€decreased€child€support€but€increased€the€visitation€to€six€hoursÏevery€two€weeks€with€the€provision€that€"[o]n€September€13,€1996,€the€visitationÏwill€increase€to€overnight€visitation"€from€6:00€p.m.€Friday€to€6:00€p.m.€Saturday.€€ÏThese€visitation€provisions€were€allowed€to€stand€in€the€court's€third€and€finalÏorder€issued€on€October€17,€1996.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌò òVisitation€€ó óÌÓ  ÓÌœà à›à àOn€appeal,€the€Father€challenges€only€the€visitation€arrangement€setÏby€the€court€below.€€He€asserts€first€that€the€trial€judge€erred€after€the€second€andÏthird€hearing€by€not€expanding€his€visitation€with€the€Child€to€standard€visitation.€ÏœòòSeeóó›€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.€R.€œ1240„2„4„.04(1)(b)(a›€section€on€child€supportÏguidelines,€defining€"average€visitation"€as€"every€other€weekend€from€FridayÏevening€to€Sunday€evening,€two€weeks€during€the€summer€and€two€weeks€duringÏholiday€periods€throughout€the€year").€€The€Father€offers€the€uncontrovertedÏtestimony€that€the€two„hour€bi„weekly€visitation€structured€by€the€court€in€the€firstÏorder€had€been€successful€and€had€resulted€in€the€Father€and€the€Child€bonding.€œÏHe›€testified€that€he€was€driving€over€two€hundred€miles€round€trip€for€œthe€two›Ïhours€of€visitation.ÌÌœà à›à àThe€œMother›€œcontends›€that€because€the€Child€was€born€out€ofÏwedlock€and€because€the€Father€has€neglected€the€Child€in€the€past,€the€FatherÏhas€no€right€to€visitation€at€œall.€›€She€cites€œòòLawson›€v.€œScottóó,›€9€Tenn.€92€(1825),€forÏthe€proposition€that€the€mother€of€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€has€superior€rightsÏto€a€legitimizing€œfather.›€€œMore›€recently,€our€supreme€court€has€held€œas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe›€father€of€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€has€aÏfundamental€interest€in€the€care€and€custody€of€theÏchild€under€both€the€federal€and€state€œconstitutions;›Ïhowever,€the€father€must€take€affirmative€steps€toÏdevelop€a€responsible€relationship€with€the€childÏbefore€his€interest€is€sufficient€to€acquire€constitutionalÏdue€process€œprotection;›€and,€if€the€father€has€admittedÏhis€paternity€and€has€established€a€substantialÏrelationship€with€the€child,€the€state€may€not€interfereÏwith€that€relationship€except€to€protect€the€child€fromÏsubstantial€œharm.ÌÌÓÓòòPetrosky›€v.€œKeeneóó,›€898€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€œòòNale›€v.€œRobertsonóó,›Ï871€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€œ1994)).›€€In€light€of€this€clear€direction€from€the€court,€weÏreject€the€argument€that€the€Father€has€no€right€to€visitation€simply€because€heÏwas€not€married€to€the€Mother.€€We€turn€to€a€review€of€the€lower€court's€decisionÏkeeping€in€mind€that€the€Father's€rights€depend€upon€whether€he€has€"take[n]Ïaffirmative€steps€to€develop€a€responsible€relationship€with€the€child."€€œòòId.óó›ÌÌœà à›à àWe€review€the€lower€court€decision€de€novo€with€a€presumption€orÏcorrectness.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€€œòòBlair›€v.€œBadenhopeóó,›€940€S.W.2d€575,€576Ï(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€In€so€doing,€we€note€the€well€established€law€"that€'the€detailsÏof€custody€and€visitation€with€children€are€peculiarly€within€the€broad€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge€.€.€.€and€that€the€trial€court's€decision€will€not€ordinarily€be€reversedÏabsent€some€abuse€of€that€discretion.'"€€œòòSuttles›€v.€œSuttlesóó,›€748€S.W.2d€427,€429Ï(Tenn.€1988);€€œòòJahn›€v.€œJahnóó,›€932€S.W.2d€939,€941„42€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€TheÏdeference€to€the€trial€court€rests€on€the€fact€that€"[c]ustody€and€visitationÍdeterminations€often€hinge€on€subtle€factors,€including€the€parents'€demeanorÏand€credibility€during€the"€trial€court€proceedings.€€œòòGaskill›€v.€œGaskillóó,›€936€S.W.2dÏ626,€631€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€ÌœÌà à›€à àœWe›€find€that€the€record€establishes€œthat›€the€Father€has€taken€steps€toÏdevelop€a€relationship€with€the€Child€thereby€entitling€him€to€a€constitutionally„protected€interest€in€the€Child's€care€and€custody.€€œòòSee›€œPetroskyóó,›€898€S.W.2d€atÏ728.€€We€appreciate€the€Father's€candid€acknowledgment€that€he€has€not€alwaysÏbeen€a€reliable€parent€to€the€Child€as€well€as€his€current€willingness€to€accept€hisÏparental€responsibility.€€Furthermore,€the€Father's€interest€in€fatherhood,€thoughÏdelayed,€œhas›€been€consistent€for€the€last€few€years€of€the€Child's€life.€€OurÏconclusion€does€not,€however,€œpreempt›€a€determination€of€the€Child's€bestÏinterests€with€regard€to€the€type€of€visitation€arrangement€now€at€issue.€€In€childÏcustody€and€visitation€cases,€"the€desires€of€the€parents€are€secondary"€to€theÏbest€interests€of€the€children.€€œòòGaskillóó,›€936€S.W.2d€at€630;€€œòòNeely›€v.€œNeelyóó,›€737ÏS.W.2d€539,€542€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€As€€our€courts€have€made€clear,€the€welfareÏof€the€child€is€and€always€has€been€the€court's€"paramount€consideration."€ÏœòòSuttlesóó,›€748€S.W.2d€at€429;€œòòD›€v.€œKóó,›€917€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌœà à›à àThis€court€has€recognized€that€because€"stability€is€important€to€anyÏchild's€well„being,"€the€"continuity€of€placement€in€custody€and€visitation€cases"Ïœhas€been€emphasized€by€the€courts.›€€œòòGaskillóó,›€936€S.W.2d€at€630€(citing€œòòTaylor›€v.ÍœTayloróó,›€849€S.W.2d€319,€328€(Tenn.1993)).€€This€case€involves€a€father€who€œwasÏnot›€œinvolved€€in€his›€œchild's€life›€until€that€child€was€four€or€five€years€old.€€At€thisÏtime,€the€Child€had€been€raised€solely€by€the€Mother€and€barely€knew€the€Father.€ÏIn€ordering€a€plan€of€gradual€implementation€of€visitation,€the€court€below€seemedÏmost€concerned€that€the€Child€be€eased€into€this€new€relationship.€€œÌÌà àà àMoreover,€we›€think€it€extremely€significant€that€the€trial€court€wasÏincreasing€visitation.€€After€only€four€months€of€two„hour€bi„weekly€visitation,€theÏcourt€ordered€visitation€to€increase€to€six€hours€every€two€weeks€with€a€plan€toÏincrease€it€to€overnight€visitation€within€the€next€two€months.€€In€announcing€itsÏdecision€not€to€alter€visitation€after€the€final€hearing,€the€trial€court€acknowledgedÏthat€the€Father€was€making€an€effort.€€The€judge€stated€that€he€might€changeÏvisitation€in€the€future,€"but€it€will€be€after€a€while."€€There€is€no€evidence€that€theÏcourt€was€opposed€to€standard€visitation€œonce›€the€child€was€ready.€€€In€light€ofÏthese€circumstances,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€byÏdeclining€to€increase€visitation€to€standard€forty„eight€hour€visitation.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ÌDispute€over€the€Child's€Religious€Upbringingó óÌÓ  ÓÌœà à›à àLastly,€we€turn€to€the€Father's€allegation€that€the€trial€court€showed€aÏpreference€for€the€Mother's€church€affiliation€over€his€own.€€The€proof€was€that€theÍFather€is€an€active€member€of€a€Pentecostal€church€while€the€Mother€and€theÏChild€regularly€attend€a€Baptist€church.€€Our€court€has€spoken€clearly€on€the€issueÏof€œthe€purposeful›€structuring€œof€visitation›€œto›€prevent€children€from€accompanyingÏtheir€non„custodial€parents€to€church.€€œòòNeely›€v.€œNeelyóó,›€737€S.W.2d€539€(Tenn.ÏApp.€œ1987).€›€In€œòòNeelyóó,›€the€court€held€that€"[i]n€the€absence€of€a€showing€of€harm€toÏthe€child,€visitation€provisions€cannot€have€the€effect€of€advancing€one€parent'sÏreligion€while€inhibiting€that€of€the€other€parent."€€œòòId.óó›€at€543.€ÌÌœà à›€à àThe€lower€court€in€œòòNeelyóó›€had€declined€to€modify€a€visitationÏarrangement€which€required€a€father€to€return€his€child€to€the€child's€mother€inÏtime€for€Sunday€morning€church.€€In€so€doing,€the€court€stated€that€the€child€Ï"needs€stability€and€needs€to€know€where€his€church€is€and€where€his€home€isÏand€to€be€comfortable€with€that€knowledge."€€œòòId.óó›€at€541.€œ€The›€Court€of€AppealsÏreversed€the€lower€court's€decision€noting€the€fundamental€interests€that€naturalÏparents€have€in€their€children.€€œòòId.óó›€at€542€(citing€œòòState›€ex€rel.€Bethel€v.€œKilvingtonóó,›Ï45€S.W.€433,€435€(Tenn.€œ1898)).›€€The€court€stated€that€"[c]ourts€should€attempt,€toÏthe€extent€warranted€by€the€facts,€to€devise€a€custody€and€visitation€arrangementÏthat€interferes€with€the€parent/child€relationship€as€little€as€possible."€€œòòNeelyóó,›€737ÏS.W.2d€at€542.€€When€parents€disagree€as€to€the€religious€upbringing€of€theirÏchildren,€"[c]ourts€must€maintain€strict€neutrality.€.€.€.€€€[A]€court€cannot€prefer€theÏreligious€views€of€one€parent€over€another€unless€one€parent's€religious€beliefsÏand€practices€threaten€the€health€and€well„being€of€the€child."€€€œòòId.óó›€at€543.€€TheÍœòòNeelyóó›€court€concluded€that€there€had€been€no€proof€that€exposing€the€child€to€hisÏfather's€church€would€affect€the€child's€well„being.ÌÌœà à›à àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€did€order€that€overnight€visitationÏbe€from€6:00€p.m.€on€Friday€to€6:00€p.m.€on€Saturday,€thereby€precluding€regularÏSunday€visitation.€€At€the€second€hearing,€the€Mother€testified€that€she€wanted€theÏChild€to€go€to€her€own€church€on€all€Sunday€mornings:€"I€don't€think€she€shouldÏbe€there€fifty€percent€of€the€time.€€I€mean,€her€friends€are€there,€you€know€herÏfamily€.€.€.€It's€her€schedule€that's€being€interrupted,€and€it€shouldn't€€be."€€UponÏbeing€questioned€by€her€attorney€as€to€whether€forty„eight€hour€visitation€could€beÏscheduled€so€that€the€Child€would€be€with€the€Mother€for€church,€the€MotherÏsuggested€that€the€Father€bring€her€back€earlier.€€Regarding€the€conflict,€the€courtÏmade€only€the€following€comment:€€"I'm€not€promoting€anybody's€religion€byÏsaying€this.€€But€I€think€this€child€needs€the€stability€of,€what€we€always€say,€ourÏown€church.€€And€I€think€this€child€needs€that€stability."€€€ÌÌœà à›à à€By€expressing€concern€that€the€Child€experience€the€stability€of€herÏown€church,€the€trial€œjudgeððs€comments€could€be€interpreted€as€stating›€aÏpreference€for€the€Mother's€religious€œviews.€€In€òòNeely,óó€we€found€such€a€preferenceÏto€be›€unacceptable€absent€a€showing€that€exposure€to€the€œfather's›€views€wouldÍharm€the€child.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€œAs€this€court€has€stated,€it€"should€attempt,€to€the€extentÏwarranted€by€the€facts,€to€devise€a€custody€and€visitation€arrangement€thatÏinterferes€with€the€parent/child€relationship€as€little€as€possible."€€òòNeelyóó,€737ÏS.W.2d€at€542.€€It›€is€clear€that€the€Father's€rights€would€have€been€violated€hadÏthe€lower€court€followed€the€Mother's€suggestion€and€ordered€the€Father€to€returnÏthe€Child€in€time€for€church.€€However,€it€is€less€clear€when€the€court,€in€an€effort€toÏgradually€ease€the€child€into€a€relationship€with€her€father,€had€only€expandedÏvisitation€to€twenty„four€hours.€ÌÌœà à›à àœIn€order€to€ensure€that€the€Fatherððs€rights€are€not€violated,€we›€œvacateÏthe€visitation€order€and€remand›€this€case€to€the€trial€œcourt€for€a€rehearing€on€theÏquestion€of€the€Fatherððs€visitation€rights.€€The€number€of€hours€or€days€is€left€to€theÏtrial€judgeððs€discretion€in€light€of€the€proof€to€be€offered,€but€the€determinationÏcannot€be€based€on€a€preference€for€one€parentððs€religious€views,€unless€theÏproof€shows€that€exposure€to€the€other€parentððs€views€would€be€harmful€to€theÏChild.ÌÌà àà àWe€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€theÏFatherððs€visitation€rights€in€accordance€with€the€principles€set€out€in€this€opinion.€ÏTax€the€costs€on€appeal€equally€to€the€appellant€and€to€the€appellee.›€ÌœÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ