WPC b %lUNr 0HUNP^ w z(4N 0Dc)   { N} m # EW 0JY 0T 0^ 0hU 0r 0|/ 0 01 1u 0d6U>U*v~vbS 0[ BF 0@c D3 D- 0K ASN 0g 0D  AO(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8     ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularLfH+  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptK+ 3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS02 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<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(TimesPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   Serv Geneva  Serv Geneva - -(|G2$ !.8ELd d 8         0  <0 d("$    VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ELd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK ! . ))#**d##**d#       _86<XXdd 8  @ )INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON)  OnBriefJuly11,2001)X )WILLIAMTHOMASWINCHESTERv.GLENDARACHELLEWINCHESTER(WINBUSH))X @ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforChesterCounty@ No.4186TheHonorableDonAllen,JudgeAV) ` dE<` A@ No.W200001764_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober3,_2001_    Inapostdivorceproceeding,fatherfileda"motion"toincreasevisitationwithhisminorchild.Thetrialcourtfoundthattherehadbeennomaterialchangeofcircumstancessincetheentryofthepriorvisitationorderanddeniedthe"motion."Fatherhasappealed.Weaffirm.  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedandRemanded   W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.WilliamT.Winchester,ProSeNoBriefFiledByAppellee  OPINION   8 XdXXd8 Theparties,WilliamThomasWinchester( Father),appellant,andGlendaRachelleWinchester( Mother),appellee,aredivorcedandhaveoneminorchild.Thecurrentchildcustodyorderisnotintherecord,butaccordingtoFathersbriefitwasenteredJanuary8,1998,andchangedthepriorchildcustodyarrangementfromjointcustody,withthechildalternatingweeklybetweentheparents,tosolecustodybeingplacedwiththeMotherandallowingFathervisitationeveryotherweekend.OnMay18,1999,Fatherfiled MotiontoIncreaseVisitation,andanevidentiaryhearingwasheldonNovember22,1999.ThemotionwasdeniedbyorderenteredJanuary20,2000,becausethetrialcourtdidnotfindthattherewasamaterialchangeofcircumstancessufficienttowarrantanincreaseinvisitation.However,thisorderdidprovidethatthe [p]laintiff,[Mr.WilliamThomasWinchester],beallowedtocalltheminorchildeveryTuesdayandThursdayat7:00p.m.,foradurationofatleasttenminutes,whichmaybeadjustedbytheCourtastheminorchildsageincreases. OnFebruary7,2000,Fatherfiled MotionforNewHearingand/ortoAmendJudgmentonMotiontoIncreaseVisitation.ThismotionwasalsodeniedbyfinalorderenteredJune27,2000.Fatherhasappealedandpresentstwoissuesforreviewasstatedinhisbrief:8 8 (1)Whetherthetrialcourtcommittedanerroroflawbyusingthematerialchangeofcircumstancesstandardinsteadofthebestinterestofthechildstandardindecidingamotiontoincreasevisitationbetweenthefatherandthechild.8 8 (2)Whetherthetrialcourterredandabuseditsdiscretionindenyingamotiontoincreasevisitationwheretheundisputedfactsconstitutedamaterialchangeofcircumstanceswhichwarrantedanincreaseinvisitation. Sincethiscasewastriedbythecourtsittingwithoutajury,wereviewthecase denovo upontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt.Unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindings,wemustaffirm,absenterroroflaw.T.R.A.P.13(d). Atrialcourt'sdecisionsinvolvingcustodyandvisitation,oncemade,arefinalandwillnotbemodifiedunlessthetrialcourtissatisfiedthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredsincethepriororderwasentered. Neelyv.Neely ,737S.W.2d539,544(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)(citing Youngv.Smith ,246S.W.2d93,95(Tenn.1952); Longv.Long ,488S.W.2d729,73132(Tenn.Ct.App.1972)).T.C.A.366101(a)(Supp.2000)empowersthecourtstochangecustodyastheexigenciesofthecasemayrequireandcourtswillchangecustodywhenthepartyseekingtochangecustodyproves(1)thatthechildscircumstanceshavemateriallychangedinawaythatcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseenatthetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecision,and(2)thatthechildsbestinterestswillbeservedbychangingtheexistingcustodyarrangement. Adelspergerv.Adelsperger ,970S.W.2d482,485(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(citationsomitted).Therearenobrightlinerulesfordeterminingwhenachangeinachildscircumstanceswillbedeemedmaterialenoughtowarrantachangeinthecustodyorvisitationarrangement. Robertsv.Roberts ,No.M200000216COAR3CV,2000WL1473869,at2(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.5,2000)(citing Taylorv.Taylor ,849S.W.2d319,327(Tenn.1993)).̀Astothefirstissueonappeal,appellantarguesthatthebestinterestofthechildstandardshouldbeusedwhendeterminingwhethertomodifyparentalvisitation.AlthoughTennesseelawprovidesthatwhen reviewingchildcustodyandvisitationcases,[theCourt]mustrememberthatthewelfareofthechildhasalwaysbeentheparamountconsideration, Lukev.Luke ,651S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.1983),childcustodyandvisitationdecisions,oncemadeandimplemented,areresjudicatauponthefactsinexistenceorreasonablyforeseeablewhenthedecisionwasmade. Adelspergerv.Adelsperger ,970S.W.2d482,485(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(citing Youngv.Smith ,246S.W.2d93,95(Tenn.1952)).Therefore,thefirststepacourtmusttakewhendeterminingwhethertoalterormodifyvisitationorcustodydecisionsistofindwhetherthechildscircumstanceshavemateriallychangedinawaythatcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseenatthetimeoftheoriginalcustodydecision. SeeAdelspergerv.Adelsperger ,970S.W.2dat485.Weagreewiththetrialcourtonthisissueandholdthatthematerialchangeofcircumstancesstandardistheappropriatestandardusedwhendeterminingwhethertomodifyavisitationorcustodydecision. Astothesecondissue,Fatherarguesthattheevidenceestablishedamaterialchangeofcircumstances.FathertestifiedthattheminorchildhasnotadjustedwelltothelossoftimewithhimwhichresultedfromtheJanuary8,1998custodyorder.HefurthertestifiedthatMotherlivesinHuntingdon,Tennessee,andFatherlivesinMemphis,Tennessee,andthatalthoughthecurrentcustodyorderallowsforvisitationuponagreementoftheparties,MotherrefusestoallowFathervisitationoutsidethespecifictimesprovidedforinthecurrentcustodyorder. ThefactthatMotherlivesinHuntingdon,TennesseeandFatherlivesinMemphis,Tennesseedoesnotcreateamaterialchangeinthechildscircumstances,becausethereisnoevidenceintherecordstatingthatMothermovedtoHuntingdon,TennesseeaftertheJanuary8,1998orderchangingcustody.ThisargumentbyFatheriswithoutmerit. AstotheassertionregardingMother'srefusalofvisitationoutsidethespecifictimesprovidedfor,thereisnoproofintherecordconcerningspecificdeviationsofadditionalvisitationinordertodetermineanyunreasonablenessofthosedenials.FatherhasalsotestifiedthatMotherhascutoffallcommunicationwithhim,but,again,thereisnoproofindicatingthatthishasaffectedthechildconstitutingachangeofcircumstances. Accordingly,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthereisnomaterialchangeofcircumstanceswarrantinganincreaseinvisitationatthistime. Theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,WilliamThomasWinchester,andhissurety.      __________________________________________      W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.