ÿWPCW 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9Law@­4í 0l 0D| 0JÀ 0T  0^^ 0h¼ 0r$ 0|– 0† 0  1u0 0d¥ B AQ& Æw 0D= 0@ 0DÁ D/ B4 D3Q U>„ B) DCë AM. U*{ û¥ f v~vÓ„˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT DDÓ€#zƒ=#3|x#((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ñÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌOctober€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(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  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Ì×XXdðXXdð7Ñœò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌœóóJAMES€O.€WRIGHT,€€€€€à à›€à àà à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœRespondent/Appellant,ò ò›à àà à)à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€92D„2402Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00040ò òÌœKATHY€WRIGHT€STOVALL,›à àà à)̜ـ!ÙßR€-/,A1-j|yG` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœó óPetitioner/Appellee.€€€ò ò›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌPhillip€Robinson€€€€à àà àà àà àClark€Lee€Shaw€€€€€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Mary€Arline€Evans€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€Ì×XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€œis›€a€child€custody€case.€€The€parties€had€entered€into€a€Marital€Dissolution€AgreementÏin€which€they€had€joint€custody€of€the€minor€child.€€After€the€fatherððs€remarriage,€both€the€motherÏand€father€filed€petitions€seeking€œcustody.›€€The€father€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€awardingÏsole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€child€to€the€mother.€€We€affirm.Ìà àJames€O.€Wright€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Kathy€Wright€œStovall€(ð ðMotherðð)›€were€married€in€1989.€ÏTheir€only€child,€Daniel€Ryan€Wright,€was€born€in€August€1991.€€At€the€time€of€Danielððs€birth,Ïboth€parties€were€working€full„time.€€When€Daniel€was€born,€Mother€took€off€six€weeks€to€care€forÏhim.€Father€was€employed€as€a€chef€at€the€Opryland€Hotel€and€worked€unusually€long€hours,€5Ïa.m.€to€œ11€p.m.›€€Mother€resumed€her€full„time€job€for€approximately€four€weeks.€€After€that€sheÏworked€part„time€in€order€to€spend€more€time€with€the€partiesðð€child.€€Mother€was€clearly€theÏprimary€care„giver€during€this€period.Ìà àIn€June€1992,€Mother€told€Father€that€she€was€considering€a€divorce.€€€Father€immediatelyÏquit€his€position€at€the€hotel€and€became€much€more€involved€in€raising€the€child.€€One€month€later,ÏFather€filed€for€a€divorce,€alleging€irreconcilable€differences.€The€parties€continued€to€live€togetherÏuntil€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€was€entered€in€January€1993.€€The€divorce€decree€incorporated€aÏMarital€Dissolution€Agreement€(MDA)€that€provided€for€joint€custody€of€the€child€with€FatherÏdesignated€as€the€primary€physical€custodian.€€The€MDA€€provided€that€Father€would€pay€all€of€theÏchildððs€medical€bills€and€Mother€would€pay€$250€per€month€in€child€support.€€After€the€divorce,ÏFather€continued€to€reside€in€the€marital€residence€and€Mother€moved€less€than€one€mile€away.Ìà àAfter€the€divorce€decree€was€entered€in€January,€1993,€the€parties€alternated€care€of€Daniel.€ÏAt€that€time€Daniel€spent€slightly€more€time€in€Motherððs€care,€generally€spending€four€nights€aÏweek€with€Mother€and€three€with€Father.€€However,€under€a€fairly€complicated€schedule,€theÏamount€of€time€spent€with€each€parent€was€roughly€the€same.€€Father€testified€as€to€a€few€problemsÏbetween€the€parties€during€this€time,€such€as€miscommunications€regarding€Danielððs€care,€but€theÏrecord€indicates€that€the€problems€were€minimal.€Ìà àThis€arrangement€continued€until€Fatherððs€remarriage€in€July,€1994.€€Fatherððs€new€wife,ÍLucy,€worked€as€a€radio€personality,€which€permitted€her€to€be€at€home€during€the€workday,Ïexcept€for€one€day€per€week.€€Mother€testified€that,€after€Fatherððs€remarriage,€the€day„to„dayÏactivities€regarding€Daniel€became€more€difficult€to€work€out,€with€Fatherððs€new€wife€becomingÏoverly€involved€in€the€decision€making.€€The€parties€began€to€disagree€about€issues€such€as€whichÏpediatrician€to€use€and€whether€Daniel€should€be€told€that€Santa€Claus€was€make„believe.€€MotherÏcomplained€that€Father€began€excluding€her€from€decision€making.€€She€stated€that€FatherÏexplained€to€her€that€he€and€Lucy€were€forming€a€new€ð ðfamily€unit;ðð€Mother€also€was€disturbed€byÏFather€telling€Daniel€that€he€now€had€ð ðtwo€mothers.ððÌà àIn€the€Spring€of€1995,€Father€received€a€back€injury€which€impacted€his€ability€to€work€as€aÏchef.€€Thereafter,€he€and€Lucy€œhave€depended›€on€her€income€as€a€radio€personality€for€the€familyððsÏincome.Ìà àIn€approximately€April,€1995,€Daniel€was€exposed€to€chicken€pox.€€Fatherððs€new€wifeÏLucy€was€pregnant,€and€had€never€had€chicken€pox.€€Exposure€to€chicken€pox€would€have€been€aÏhealth€risk€to€the€unborn€child,€so€the€parties€agreed€that€Mother€would€have€exclusive€care€ofÏDaniel€until€€the€risk€of€Lucy€contracting€chicken€pox€had€abated.€€This€arrangement€lasted€forÏapproximately€a€month.€€After€this,€Mother€testified€that€Father€insisted€on€a€change€in€theÏvisitation€schedule€that€decreased€her€time€with€Daniel.€€The€new€visitation€schedule€includedÏDaniel€attending€day€care€on€Thursdays,€even€though€Mother€was€off€work€on€Thursdays€andÏcould€care€for€Daniel.€€When€asked€about€his€insistence€that€Daniel€spend€Thursdays€in€day€careÏinstead€of€Motherððs€care,€Father€said€only€œthat€he›€wanted€Mother€to€ð ðkeep€the€agreement.ðð€€FatherÏacknowledged€that€he€sought€to€gradually€increase€the€time€Daniel€spend€in€the€care€of€he€and€hisÏnew€wife,€Lucy,€and€decrease€the€time€Daniel€spent€with€Mother.€€Mother€complained€that€FatherÏhad€changed€the€document€at€Danielððs€day€care€center€listing€persons€the€day€care€should€notify€ifÏnecessary,€to€list€Fatherððs€wife€Lucy€first€and€Mother€last.€€Father€explained€that€he€made€thisÏchange€because€Lucy€could€respond€more€quickly€in€case€of€an€emergency.€€Mother€testified€thatÏFather€told€her€that€it€was€his€right€to€use€Daniel€as€a€ð ðlegal€hammer.ðð€€Father€denied€this€remark.Ìà àAt€this€point€Mother€consulted€an€attorney€and€filed€a€petition€in€which€she€alleged€that€theÏproblems€which€developed€after€Fatherððs€remarriage€constituted€a€change€in€circumstances€andÏsought€primary€physical€œcustody.€€›€œMother›€testified€that,€after€she€filed€the€petition,€œshe€had›Ïseparate€conversations€with€Father€and€his€wife€Lucy.€€Mother€testified€that€after€theseÏconversations€she€believed€that€the€parties€had,€for€the€most€part,€worked€things€out€to€retain€jointÏcustody.€€Mother€said€that€she€told€Father€she€wanted€Daniel€to€reside€primarily€with€her,€and€œthatÏFather›€told€her€he€would€consider€it€and€pray€about€it.€€€She€testified€that€Father€suggested€that€theyÏsimply€use€his€attorney€to€document€the€agreed€changes.€€Mother€then€stated€that€Father€came€toÏher€house€the€following€Sunday€morning€and€picked€up€Daniel.€€About€fifteen€minutes€afterÏpicking€up€Daniel,€he€returned€€alone€to€Motherððs€house€and€presented€Mother€with€a€proposedÏagreement€under€which€Mother€would€receive€ð ðstandard€visitation;ðð€every€other€weekend€and€oneÏweek€night.€€Mother€testified€that€Father€told€her€that€she€had€to€ð ðsign€that€piece€of€paper€before€IÏcould€see€Daniel€again.ðð€€When€she€refused,€she€testified€that€he€told€her€she€would€have€to€haveÏher€attorney€set€up€a€hearing€date€in€order€to€see€Daniel.€€She€stated€that€she€was€not€permitted€toÏsee€Daniel€for€twelve€days,€until€the€trial€court€ordered€that€she€be€permitted€visitation€everyÏweekend.€€Mother€stated€that,€after€the€trial€court€ordered€visitation,€Father€refused€to€permitÏMother€to€speak€with€Daniel€by€telephone€while€Daniel€was€in€Fatherððs€care.€€Thereafter,€FatherÏfiled€a€counter„petition,€asserting€that€joint€custody€was€no€longer€feasible€and€seeking€soleÏcustody.€€Ìà àAt€trial,€the€parties€testified€regarding€their€respective€employment€and€ability€to€care€forÏDaniel.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Father€was€working€reduced€hours€due€to€his€back€injury,€and€he€andÏLucy€were€dependent€on€Lucyððs€income€as€a€radio€personality€for€their€family€finances.€€HusbandÏtestified€that€he€anticipated€once€again€being€able€to€work€full„time.€€He€admitted€having€heldÏeleven€different€chef€positions€at€restaurants€throughout€Nashville€over€the€past€four€years.€€FatherÏemphasized€that€Lucy€was€at€home€during€the€workday€and€could€care€for€Daniel€instead€ofÏsending€him€to€day€care.€€Father€admitted€that€he€was€currently€dependent€on€Lucyððs€income€andÍthat€he€and€Lucy€had€undergone€marital€counseling,€although€both€he€and€Lucy€said€their€marriageÏwas€healthy.€€à àMother€has€also€remarried,€but€her€remarriage€apparently€had€little€impact€on€theÏrelationship€between€the€parties€regarding€Daniel.€€Motherððs€new€husband,€Danny€Stovall,€worksÏfull„time,€including€eight€hours€on€Saturdays.€€Mother€indicated€that€she€is€currently€working€twoÏjobs,€arriving€home€on€Monday,€Tuesday€and€Wednesday€nights€at€approximately€8€p.m.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€trial,€Mother€was€pregnant€with€her€œfirst€child€with€Mr.€Stovall.›Ìà àAt€trial,€Mother€proffered€the€testimony€of€a€child€psychologist,€who€opined€œthat€theÏvisitation€schedule€in€place€at€that€time€was€damaging€to€Daniel,€and€that€Daniel›€needed€more€timeÏwith€œMother.€€The›€psychologist€expressed€the€opinion€that€Daniel€related€to€Mother€as€primary€careÏgiver.€€The€psychologist€did€not,€however,€interview€Father€or€observe€Daniel€in€his€presence.€€Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€awarded€sole€custody€of€Daniel€to€Mother.€€TheÏtrial€court€set€forth€its€findings€and€€explained€its€reasoning€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThat€the€remarriage€of€[Father]€and€intervention€of€the€step„mother€andÏchanging€of€schedules€initiated€by€[Father]€have€caused€the€joint€custodyÏarrangement€previously€approved€by€the€Court€to€become€unworkable.Ìà8 àà àThat€until€the€arrangement€became€unworkable,€both€parties€shared€custodyÏof€the€child,€but€[Mother]€had€more€time€with€the€child€which€pattern€wasÏacquiesced€in€by€[Father].Ìà8 àà àThat€the€court€takes€into€consideration€the€tender€years€doctrine€butÏconcludes€it€to€be€only€one€consideration€which€the€Court€is€to€consider€pursuant€toÏstatute.Ìà8 àà àThat€there€is€no€evidence€that€either€of€the€parties€continues€to€have€anyÏlifestyle€that€would€not€be€conducive€and€in€the€best€interest€of€the€welfare€of€theÏchild.Ìà8 àà àThat€there€is€no€evidence€presented€to€the€Court€that€either€of€the€partiesÏnow€uses€illegal€drugs€even€though€there€is€evidence€that€both€did€so€in€the€past.€Ìà8 àà àThat€the€proof€shows€that€the€parties€now€have€different€lifestyles€at€the€timeÏof€this€hearing€than€the€ones€they€had€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.Ìà8 àà àThat,€taking€into€consideration€the€testimony€of€all€of€the€witnesses,€theirÏdemeanor,€their€attitudes,€their€controlling€natures€and€expert€testimony€presented,Ïthe€Court€finds€that€both€of€these€parties€are€fit€and€proper€parents.Ìà8 àà àThat€at€this€time,€the€Court€finds€that€it€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€andÏevidence€so€indicates€that€sole€and€absolute€custody€of€the€minor€child€shall€beÏawarded€to€the€Mother,€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€then€set€forth€a€visitation€schedule€in€which€Daniel€resides€primarily€with€MotherÏduring€the€school€year,€and€primarily€with€Father€during€the€summer€months.€€The€trial€court€alsoÍincluded€the€following€in€its€Order:ÌÓÓà8 àThat€the€Respondent,€James€Otis€Wright,€Jr.,€and€his€current€spouse,€Lucy€Wright,Ïshall€be€ENJOINED€AND€RESTRAINED€from€attempting€to€alienate€the€affectionsÏof€the€minor€child€from€the€Petitioner€[Mother].ÌÌÓÓFather€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€sole€custody€to€Mother.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Father€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€there€was€a€materialÏchange€in€circumstances€warranting€a€change€in€custody.€€Father€also€asserts€that,€even€if€thereÏwere€€a€material€change€in€circumstances,€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€did€not€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€to€award€sole€custody€to€Mother.Ìœà àIn€child€custody€cases,€appellate€review€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record,€with€a€presumptionÏof€the€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);ò òòò€Hass€v.ÏKnightonó óóó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.€1984);€ò òòòDalton€v.€Daltonó óóó,€858€S.W.2d€324,€327Ï(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ì›à àFather€asserts€first€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€there€was€a€material€changeÏin€circumstances€justifying€a€change€in€custody.€€In€essence,€Father€asserts€that€the€parties€shouldÏreturn€to€a€joint€custody€arrangement.€€However,€in€his€counter„petition€before€the€trial€court,ÏFatherÑ€0ÑÇÑ7€|ÙXXdðXXdð7Ñasserted€that€joint€custody€ð ðis€no€longer€workable€or€feasible,€nor€is€it€in€the€best€interest€of€theÏminor€child€of€the€parties.ðð€€At€trial,€Father€testified€that€the€joint€custody€arrangement€in€placeÏsince€the€divorce€decree€had€not€worked.€€Mother€testified€that€the€joint€custody€arrangement€hadÏnot€worked€since€Fatherððs€remarriage.Ìà àAt€trial,€Mother€testified€about€a€number€of€incidents€which€she€alleged€indicated€that€jointÏcustody€had€not€worked€since€Fatherððs€remarriage.€€These€included€Lucyððs€over„involvement€in€theÏpartiesðð€decisions€regarding€Daniel,€Fatherððs€unilateral€changes€to€the€visitation€schedule€to€reduceÏMotherððs€time€with€Daniel,€and€Fatherððs€insistence€that€Daniel€spend€time€in€day€care€on€daysÏMother€was€available€to€care€for€him.€€Mother€also€complained€of€instances€which€she€allegedÏindicated€that€Father€sought€to€have€Lucy€replace€her€as€Danielððs€mother,€such€as€placing€Lucy€firstÏon€the€day€careððs€list€of€persons€to€notify,€and€telling€Daniel€that€he€had€ð ðtwo€mothers.ðð€€MotherÏœfurther€cited›€€Fatherððs€refusal€to€allow€her€to€see€Daniel€without€a€court€order€and,€after€the€trialÏcourt€ordered€visitation,€his€refusal€to€permit€her€to€speak€with€Daniel€by€telephone.Ìà àWhere€the€parties€have€agreed€upon€joint€custody€and€the€arrangement€later€becomesÏunworkable,€this€is€a€sufficient€change€of€circumstances€to€warrant€a€re„evaluation€of€the€custodyÏarrangement.€€ò òòòSee€Dalton€v.€Daltonó óóó,€œ858›€S.W.2d€324,€326€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòò òDodd€v.ÏDoddó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€286,€œ290›€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€The€practical€problems€of€joint€custody€haveÏbeen€repeatedly€acknowledged€by€this€court,€especially€if€there€is€hostility€between€the€two€parents.€Ïò òòòSee€Winchester€v.€œWinchesteróóó ó,€No.€02A01„9604„CH„00092,›€œ1997€WL€61508€(Tenn.€App.ÏFeb.€14,€1997);›€ò òòòJones€v.€Jonesó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9601„CV00038,€1996€WL€512030,€at€*4€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Sept.€11,€1996).€€Ìà àFather€notes€that€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€entered€into€by€the€parties€states€that€theÏminor€child€will€reside€primarily€with€him.€€However,€the€proof€established€that,€until€FatherÏinsisted€on€a€new€visitation€schedule€that€decreased€Motherððs€time€with€Daniel,€the€child€spentÏvirtually€equal€amounts€of€time€with€each€parent,€spending€slightly€more€time€with€Mother.Ìà àThis€Court€has€repeatedly€emphasized€the€importance€of€stability€for€children€involved€inÍdivorce.€€ò òòòSee€Williams€v.€Williamsó óóó,€œNo.€01A01„9610„CV„00468,€1997€WL€272458,›œ€at›€œ*€7,›ÏTenn.€App.€May€23,€1997);€ò òòòContreras€v.€Wardó óóó,€831€S.W.2d€288,€290€(Tenn.€App.€œ1991)Ï(quoting›€ò òòòSartoph€v.€œSartophó óóó,›€œ31€Md.€App.€58,€354›€A.2d€467,€473€(Md.€1976))€(ð ðIn€short,Ïwhen€all€goes€well€with€children,€stability,€not€change,€is€in€their€best€interests.ðð).€€However,€theÏtestimony€indicates€that€Danielððs€current€situation€is€unstable,€with€significant€conflict€between€hisÏparents.€€To€succeed,€joint€custody€ð ðœrequire[s›]€a€harmonious€and€cooperative€relationship€betweenÏboth€parents.ðð€€ò òòòDodd€v.€Doddó óóó,€737€S.W.2d€at€290.€€Both€parties€testified€that€joint€custody€hadÏbecome€unworkable,€although€each€saw€the€other€as€the€problem.€€The€psychologist€hired€byÏMother€testified€that€Danielððs€behavior€worsened€as€the€conflicts€between€his€parents€increased.€ÏThe€record€contained€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€re„evaluate€theÏcustody€arrangement.Ìà àAfter€it€is€determined€that€a€material€change€in€circumstances€has€occurred,€sufficient€toÏwarrant€a€re„evaluation€of€the€custody€arrangements,€the€trial€court€must€perform€a€comparativeÏfitness€analysis€to€make€a€custody€determination.€€ò òòòSee€œWilliamsó óóó,›€at€œ*›€œ7.›€€The€trial€courtððsÏfindings€in€making€a€comparative€fitness€analysis€were€cursory€in€this€case:ÌÓÓà8 àThat,€taking€into€consideration€the€testimony€of€all€of€the€witnesses,€theirÏdemeanor,€their€attitudes,€their€controlling€natures€and€expert€testimony€presented,Ïthe€Court€finds€that€both€of€these€parties€are€fit€and€proper€parents.ÌÌà8 àThat€at€this€time,€the€Court€finds€that€it€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€andÏevidence€so€indicates€that€sole€and€absolute€custody€of€the€minor€child€shall€beÏawarded€to€the€Mother.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€also€included€in€its€order€the€following€injunctive€relief:ÌÓÓà8 àThat€the€Respondent,€James€Otis€Wright,€Jr.,€and€his€current€spouse,€Lucy€Wright,Ïshall€be€ENJOINED€AND€RESTRAINED€from€attempting€to€alienate€the€affectionÏof€the€minor€child€from€the€Petitioner€[Mother].ÌÌÓÓMany€factors€are€taken€into€account€in€making€the€comparative€fitness€analysis.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„6„106.€€In€this€case,€Daniel€clearly€loves€both€parents.€€Both€parents€have€provided€himÏwith€necessities.€€During€Danielððs€infancy,€Mother€was€clearly€the€primary€care€giver.€€However,Ïsince€the€divorce,€the€time€spent€with€each€parent€has€been€roughly€equal,€with€Daniel€spendingÍslightly€more€time€with€Mother.€€Mother€proffered€the€testimony€of€the€psychologist,€who€testifiedÏthat€Daniel€related€to€Mother€as€the€primary€care€giver€and€was€distressed€at€the€prospect€of€leavingÏMother€to€go€to€Fatherððs€house.€€However,€the€psychologist€had€not€interviewed€Father€or€seenÏhow€Daniel€and€Father€relate€to€each€other.Ìà àBoth€parents€have€œremarried.€€Mother€and€her€new€husband€were€expecting€a€child€at€theÏtime€of€trial.€€Father€and€Lucy€had€a€6„month€old€son.€€Father€and€Lucy€have€obtained€some€maritalÏcounseling,€but€both€testified€that€their€marriage€is€healthy.€€Father€and€Lucy€are€currentlyÏdependent€on€Lucyððs€income,€due€to€Fatherððs€back€injury,€but€there€is€no€indication€that€they€areÏunable€to€provide€for€Daniel.€€Lucyððs€work€enables€her›€to€be€at€home€much€of€the€time,€where€sheÏcould€care€for€Daniel.€€Fatherððs€job€history€is€somewhat€unstable,€with€numerous€job€changes.€€AtÏthe€time€of€trial,€Father€was€working€only€part„time,€because€of€his€injury,€but€anticipated€goingÏback€to€work€full„time.€€There€was€no€proof€as€to€his€work€schedule€when€he€returns€to€full„timeÏwork.Ìà àMotherððs€job€history€is€stable,€with€continued€employment€at€Tennessee€Christian€MedicalÏCenter.€€However,€at€the€time€of€trial,€Mother€was€working€two€jobs,€arriving€home€at€8€p.m.€onÏMonday,€Tuesday€and€Wednesday€nights.€€Her€husband€also€worked€long€hours.€€The€record€didÏnot€indicate€whether€this€would€continue€after€the€œStovallsðð›€baby€was€born.Ìà àLooking€at€these€factors€alone,€the€question€regarding€custody€is€quite€close.€€However,€itÏshould€be€noted€that€the€trial€court,€in€addition€to€awarding€custody,€enjoined€Father€and€LucyÏfrom€ð ðattempting€to€alienate€the€affections€of€the€minor€childðð€from€Mother.€€In€ò òòòVarley€v.ÏVarleyó óóó,€œ934›€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€this€Court€affirmed€an€award€of€custody€to€theÏfather,€primarily€because€of€the€motherððs€ð ðblatant€attempt€to€alienate€the€affections€of€the€childrenÏfrom€their€father.ðð€€ò òòòVarleyó óóó,€934€S.W.2d€at€667.€€The€father€testified€that€the€children€had€beenÏtold€that€ð ðDadððs€badðð€and€had€hit€and€yelled€at€the€father,€with€tacit€encouragement€from€the€motherÏand€her€family.€€In€addition,€the€mother€had€encouraged€the€childrenððs€relationship€with€herÏparamour,€Mr.€Ligon,€while€discouraging€their€relationship€with€their€father.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€record€also€suggests€that€the€children€have€been€encouraged€to€develop€aÏpositive€relationship€with€Mr.€Ligon,€which€is€not€to€be€impugned€except€to€theÏextent€that€such€is€detrimental€to€the€childrenððs€relationship€with€their€own€father.ÌÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€667.€€The€Court€then€observed:ÌÌà8 àWe€believe€it€[is]€in€the€best€interest€of€these€children€that€they€maintain€a€loving€andÏnurturing€relationship€with€both€parents.€€In€light€of€the€record,€we€do€not€believeÏthat€such€can€be€accomplished€by€an€award€of€custody€to€Wife€at€this€time.ÌÌò òòòÓÓIdó óóó.€at€668.€€Therefore,€where€one€parent€has€attempted€to€alienate€the€affections€of€the€child€fromÏthe€other€parent,€and€has€attempted€to€substitute€a€third€person€for€the€other€parent,€this€mitigates€inÏfavor€of€an€award€of€custody€to€the€other€parent,€in€order€to€preserve€the€childððs€relationship€withÏboth€parents.€€€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€implicit€finding€that€Father€had€engaged€œin›Ïattempts€to€alienate€Danielððs€affections€from€Mother,€and€to€have€Lucy€in€effect€supplant€MotherÏinstead€of€œbeing€simply›€a€loving€stepparent.€€The€record€is€undisputed€that€Father€insisted€thatÏDaniel€stay€in€day€care€on€Thursdays,€when€Mother€was€off€work€and€could€care€for€him.€€For€aÏtime,€Father€refused€to€permit€Mother€to€see€Daniel,€until€court„ordered€visitation€was€imposed.€ÏFather€refused€to€permit€Mother€to€speak€with€Daniel€by€telephone,€and€attempted€to€explain€this€byÏstating€that€the€calls€were€distressing€to€Daniel.€€After€his€remarriage,€Father€told€Daniel€that€he€hadÏð ðtwo€mothersðð€and€asked€Danielððs€day€care€to€contact€Lucy€before€contacting€Mother,€purportedlyÏbecause€Lucy€could€get€there€more€quickly.€€As€stated€inò òòòVarleyó óóó,€it€is€in€Danielððs€best€interest€toÏð ðmaintain€a€loving€and€nurturing€relationship€with€both€parents,ðð€and€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÏimplicit€finding€that€this€is€best€accomplished€by€awarding€custody€of€Daniel€to€œMother.€€TheÏaward€of€sole€custody€to€Mother€is€therefore€affirmed.›Ìà àMother€seeks€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal.€€We€do€not€find€an€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÏappropriate€in€this€case,€and€so€decline€Motherððs€request.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ó óÌÌÌà8 àÌÌ̀̀€