WPC5 0ߤ/[$ےaDmZ*PoцWC]H ZwLvpkh;}N _Ƣ/13JvRņ ^wHcn9x%$\ ViX3$C T?sCgX}@CdRԇ+ CX$'hXTB>%mbB+D}tLۍ٥ e&<1a5d 1er`LG#WiF?MHD`$Z`,!K("BdڋrM 8"f}h~rd´ (hӽoԡA,zT]\\{B< [z3j鸊NEb+*ruNu* /CL$^"A7bϝIw.7 rtV9нkVN{SF͢מƗoUq#. %  0 U6N ^ w z g49M\k^U mN 0E46))UN > ))U@))) * * *** 0 D///bG/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/G/ 0 O/O/O/O/ B:0:0 0W0 D30 D-.1 0K[1[1 AS11 02 0Dc3 A333333333333333sR4HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0  R)$      12  -  _InhisaffidavitsupportinghisrequesttoenjoinJordanssurgery,Mr.KendrickstatedthatDr.Parkers  opinionwasthat apodiatristisnotqualifiedtoperformthistypeofsurgery.However,Dr.Parkerdidnottestifyto t thispointatthehearing,andweagreewiththeconclusionoftheCourtofAppealsthat [i]nviewofheradmitted 8 ignoranceregardingthenatureofthesurgery,wequestionwhetherDr.Parkerwouldhavehadadequateinformationto L formanopinionasto[the]consequenceswerethesurgerytobeperformedunsuccessfully.(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularw}a-s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt,-.bk3|x  a R)$      1  -  _OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonApril30,2002,inJeffersonCity,JeffersonCounty,Tennessee,aspart  ofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.(SupremeCourtAdvancingLegalEducationforStudents)project.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U  R)$      2  -  __Kelli_Ԁhassincereachedtheageofmajority,andthesubjectofhercustodyisnolongeratissue. & R)$      5  -  _#--EffectiveJuly15,2002,anenactmentofTennesseesGeneralAssemblydefinestheproperstandardfor  modifyingcustodyfromoneparenttotheotherparent.ActofJune30,2002,2002Tenn.Pub.Acts859(providingthat t amaterialchangeincircumstancesmustbeshowninordertomodifycustody)(tobecodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn. 8 36-6-101(a)(2)(B)). #-#-~#-- Inhisconcurringanddissentingopinion,JusticeBirchcriticizesthisstandardandexpresseshis L preferencefora substantialharmstandardformodifyingchildcustody.TheGeneralAssembly,however,recently  rejectedthesubstantialharmstandard,statingthat#--g##-- [a]materialchangeofcircumstancedoesnotrequireashowingof  asubstantialriskofharmtothechild.Id.󀀀#-#-##--Ԁ 򀀀 #-#-#  R)$      8  -  _ItisclearthatthechangesallegedbyMr.Kendrickoccurredaftertheentryoftheinitialorderofcustodyand  werenotknownorcouldnothavebeenreasonablyanticipatedwhentheinitialorderwasentered.SeeBlairv. t Badenhope,77S.W.3d137,150(Tenn.2002).     R)$      10  -  _ M-Teammeetingsaremultidisciplinaryteammeetingsduringwhichprogramsforhandicappedstudents  areplanned.  R)$      4  -  _ThetrialjudgewhoinitiallypresidedoverthecaserecusedhimselfonhisownmotionafterMs.Schultenwas  electedajudgeoftheHamiltonCountyCircuitCourt.PursuanttoTennesseeSupremeCourtRule11,thisCourt t designatedWilliamM.Dender,aretiredjudge,topresideoverthematterasSpecialChancellor. R)$      9  -  _Mr.ShoemakeisalsoemployedbyMcKeeFoods.He,however,worksthefirstshift.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R)$      7  -  _Thesefactorssetforthinsection36-6-106includethefollowing:  8   ` (1) Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsandchild;t   8   ` (2) Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing,medicalcare, 8 educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparenthasbeentheprimarycaregiver;L   8   ` (3) Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechildslifeandthelengthoftimethechildhas   livedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment;....   8   ` (4) Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents;t   8   ` (5) Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents;8   8   ` (6) Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;L   8   ` (7) Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageorolder.The  courtmayhearthepreferenceofayoungerchilduponrequest.Thepreferencesofolderchildren  shouldnormallybegivengreaterweightthanthoseofyoungerchildren;H    8   ` (8) Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheotherparentortoany  \ otherperson;....    8   ` (9) Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinorfrequentsthehome    ofaparentandsuchpersonsinteractionswiththechild;andX     8   ` (10) Eachparentspastandpotentialforfutureperformanceofparentingresponsibilities,  l  includingthewillingnessandabilityofeachoftheparentstofacilitateandencourageacloseand  0  continuingparent-childrelationshipbetweenthechildandtheotherparent,consistentwiththebest   interestofthechild. (hH  Z(Times New Roman  R)$      3  -  _Mr.ShoemakeandMs.Bradleyhadtwochildrenduringtheirmarriage.  R)$      6  -  _--Inhisconcurringanddissentingopinion,JusticeBirchcriticizesthebestinterestsanalysisas inherently  unfairduetoits loose_definitional_Ԁstructure.AmajorityofthisCourthasconcludedthatabestinterestsanalysis, t includingthefactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.366106,shouldbeusedtodeterminetheproprietyofa 8 modificationofchildcustody.Thisanalysisisconsistentwiththebestinterestsanalysisrequiredbythelegislaturein L initialchildcustodydeterminations.Tenn.CodeAnn.366106#--~#--.Anyunfairnessofthisstandard,whichwedonot  concede,isbestdirectedtothelegislature.#--U#(#$  0  - -(|G2)$ !.8KdXXd8         0  - d(|3L$ !.8KdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3L$ !.8KdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK i R)$      11  -  _Mrs.Shoemakedidacknowledgetakingtwoovernighttripswithvariousfriends,butshetestifiedthatthe  childrenwereleftinthecareofMr.Shoemakeandhersister.Shedeniedtakinganyotherovernighttrips. !.8Kdd8     _   K8 9XXdd8Oa@ QTKINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE & #KQT#  April30,2002SessionHeardatJeffersonCity  +#  1       L X 9XK   #KXX 9l#TIMOTHYLEE_KENDRICK_Ԁv.JUDY_KENDRICK_Ԁ_SHOEMAKE_X 9XK  J  @@AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection  J ChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@No.69033WilliamM._Dender_,SpecialChancellor#KXX 9\#  "   @@*AV) ` dE<` A 6  X 9XK@@TTNo.E200001318SCR11CVFiledNovember1,_2002_  Y  AV) ` dE<` A 1    #KXX 9Y#X 9XKWegrantedthisappealtodeterminetheproperstandardtoapplytoapetitiontomodifycustody , whenbothparentsareparties.Weholdthatatrialcourtmaymodifyanawardofchildcustodywhen  bothamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurredandachangeofcustodyisinthechildsbest  interests.Weholdthatthepreponderanceoftheevidencedoesnotsupportthetrialcourtsruling  thatamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurred.Wethereforedonotaddressthesecond  inquiry!whetherachangeofcustodyisinthechildsbestinterests.ThejudgmentoftheCourtof x Appealsisaffirmed,asmodified,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforproceedings d consistentwiththisopinion.#KXX 9{# P L &  X 9XKTenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission @ @ @ ;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmedas N Modified;CaseRemanded 'fK #KXX 9W # :   X 9X.KJaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J., 8 andE.RileyAnderson#KX 9t #X 9X.KandWilliamM.Barker,JJ,joined.AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,fileda $ t concurringanddissentingopinion.#KXX 9L #X 9XK !` _Glenna_ԀM._Ramer_,#KXX 9! #X 9XKChattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TimothyLee_Kendrick_.#KXX 9 #X 9XK "8! HaroldL.North,Jr.andRobertD._Philyaw_,#KXX 9l#X 9XKChattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Judy_Kendrick_ $ # _Shoemake_.#KXX 9#X 9XK % $  h  &!%C    OPINION #KXX 9#    X 9XK@EE! PROCEDURALHISTORY     Timothy_Kendrick_Ԁ( Mr._Kendrick_)andJudy_Kendrick_Ԁ_Shoemake_Ԁ( Mrs._Shoemake_)were  marriedonApril25,1981.Twochildrenwerebornofthemarriage,_Kelli_ԀFaye_Kendrick_,bornon r  November24,1981,andJordanLee_Kendrick_,bornonApril8,1986.Jordan,whoisthesubject ^  ofthiscustodydispute,_ +#  2      _Ԁhasbeendevelopmentallydelayedsincebirthandhashaddifficultywalking J  andcommunicating. 6    Mr._Kendrick_ԀandMrs._Shoemake_ԀdivorcedinOctoberof1990.PursuanttotheMarital ^  DissolutionAgreement( MDA)incorporatedintothefinaldecreeofdivorce,Mrs._Shoemake_ J  receivedcustodyofthechildren.Mr._Kendrick_Ԁwastohavevisitationeveryotherweekend.In1992, 6  Mrs._Shoemake_ԀmarriedSammy_Shoemake_Ԁ( Mr._Shoemake_).Mr._Shoemake_Ԁhadbeenmarried "  toTuesdayBradley( Ms.Bradley)priortohismarriagetoJudy_Kendrick_Ԁ_Shoemake_.&T +#  3      ׀In1993,Mr.   _Kendrick_ԀmarriedJacqueline_Schulten_Ԁ( Ms._Schulten_).     OnFebruary23,1998,Mr._Kendrick_Ԁfiledanemergencypetitionseekingcustodyofhistwo  children.Thepetitionalleged,interalia,that muchupheavalanddiscontent[exist]in[Mrs. n _Shoemake_s]home,thatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁ hasbeenabsentfromherhomeallnight,andthatMr. Z andMrs._Shoemake_Ԁ haveengagedinrepeatedandverballyhostileandprofaneargumentsinfront F of[_Kelli_ԀandJordan_Kendrick_].Mr._Kendrick_ԀattachedtheaffidavitofMs.Bradley,whichattested 2 tothefactsallegedinthepetition.ThetrialcourtawardedtemporarycustodytoMr._Kendrick_Ԁby n exparteorderonthedaythepetitionwasfiled.Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁrequestedanimmediatehearing,  Z whichthetrialcourtgranted.OnFebruary27,1998,thetrialcourtsetasidetheawardoftemporary F custodytoMr._Kendrick_,andthepartiesagreedtosubmittheircustodydisputetomediation. 2   Themediationprovedunsuccessful.OnMay29,1998,Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁfiledananswer   denyingtheallegationsinMr._Kendrick_spetition.Shealsofiledacounterpetitionseekingchild  support_arrearages_ԀandreimbursementforJordansmedicalexpensesandcostsnecessarytorepair  themaritalhome.ThetrialcourtheldahearingonJuly1,1999,onthepetitiontomodifycustody. +#  4      ׀ ~    Atthecloseofproof,thetrialcourtpostponedarulinginthecasesothatthepartiescould V"  haveafinalopportunitytodeterminewhicharrangementwouldbeinJordansbestinterests.The B#! trialcourtreconvenedonSeptember3,1999,afterthepartieswereunabletoresolvetheissue.The .$~" trialcourtgrantedMr._Kendrick_spetitionformodificationofcustody.Thetrialcourtfailedtomake %j # anyspecificfactualfindings,butonlystatedgenerallythatcircumstanceshadchangedwarranting  amodificationofcustody.Withregardtothematerialchangeincircumstances,thecourtstated:  8  8`   Letmesaythat,thatclearlyIthinkthecircumstancessurroundingthis t childhavechanged;Ithinkthecircumstancessurroundingthe ` families,thatisofthemotherandofthefatherhavechanged.AndI L  thinkthemedicalneedsofthischildhavechanged.AndIfindthat 8  itisessentialthatIlooktothebest_interest[s_]ofthechildhere $ t especially.And,ofcourse,thatisalwaysthecriteriabywhichyou  ` decidecustody,butitisespeciallytrueinthiscase. L ` x` x Thetrialcourtdidnotspecifythechangesincircumstancesthatwerefoundorexplainwhyit $  believedthat placingJordaninthecustodyofMr._Kendrick_ԀwouldbeinJordansbestinterests.A   finalorderrecitingonlythedetailsofthenewcustodyarrangementwasfiledonMay10,2000.     Mrs._Shoemake_ԀappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.Theintermediateappellatecourtreversed   thejudgmentofthetrialcourt,holdingthatachangeincustodyisnotjustifiedunlessthechangeis p necessarytopreventsubstantialharmtothechildandthatMr._Kendrick_ԀfailedtoshowJordanwould \ suffersubstantialharmabsentachangeofcustody. H   Wegrantedpermissiontoappealtodeterminetheproperstandardtobeusedwhenmodifying  p anawardofchildcustodywhenbothparentsareparties.Weholdthatatrialcourtmaymodifyan  \ awardofcustodywhenbothamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurredandachangeof H custodyisinthechildsbestinterests.Onthefactsofthiscase,wefindthatMr._Kendrick_Ԁhasnot 4 shownamaterialchangeincircumstances.Therefore,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtof   AppealsleavingcustodyofJordanwithMrs._Shoemake_.      @dd!STANDARDOFREVIEW     Wereviewthetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw underapuredenovostandardofreview, l accordingnodeferencetotheconclusionsoflawmadebythelowercourts.S.Constructors,Inc. X  v._Loudon_ԀCountyBd.ofEduc.,58S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2001).Furthermore,ourreviewofthe D! trialcourtsfindingsoffactisdenovoupontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionof 0"  correctness,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);_Hass_ #l! v._Knighton_,676S.W.2d554,555(Tenn.1984);seealso_Nichols_Ԁv._Nichols_,792S.W.2d713,716 $X" (Tenn.1990).Whenthetrialcourtmakesnospecificfindingsoffact,however,wemustreviewthe $D # recordtodeterminewherethepreponderanceoftheevidencelies._Ganzevoort_Ԁv.Russell,949 %0!$ S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997). &"%   '#& _     ANALYSIS   I.ProperStandard      Theprincipalissueinthiscaseconcernstheproperstandardtobeappliedtoapetitionto ` modifycustodyfromoneparenttotheotherparent.Thisissueislargelyresolvedbyourrecent L  decisioninBlairv._Badenhope_,77S.W.3d137(Tenn.2002). +#  5      ׀Blairinvolvedacustodydispute 8  betweenaparentandanonparent.Weconcludedthatonceavalidorderofcustodyhasbeenissued, $ t subsequentcustodymodificationproceedingsshouldapplythe standardtypicallyappliedinparent  ` vsparentmodificationcases:thatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred,whichmakesa  L  changeincustodyinthechildsbestinterests.Id.at148.AsexplainedinBlair,the threshold  8  issueiswhetheramaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredaftertheinitialcustody $  determination.Id.at150.While [_t]here_Ԁarenohardandfastrulesfordeterminingwhenachilds   circumstanceshavechangedsufficientlytowarrantachangeofhisorhercustody,thefollowing   factorshaveformedasoundbasisfordeterminingwhetheramaterialchangeincircumstanceshas   occurred:thechange hasoccurredaftertheentryoftheordersoughttobemodified,thechange    isnotonethatwasknownorreasonablyanticipatedwhentheorderwasentered,andthechange p  isonethataffectsthechildswellbeinginameaningfulway.Id.(citationsomitted).Wenote \ thataparentschangeincircumstancesmaybeamaterialchangeincircumstancesforthepurposes H ofmodifyingcustodyifsuchachangeaffectsthechildswellbeing. 4   Ifamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred,itmustthenbedeterminedwhetherthe  \ modificationisinthechildsbestinterests.) +#  6      ׀Thisdeterminationshouldbemadeaccordingtothe H factorsenumeratedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection36-6-106. P  +#  7      ׀  4 Ї  @  II.ApplicationoftheProperStandardinthisCase    Havingdecidedtheappropriatestandardtobeappliedwhendeterminingwhethera  modificationofcustodyiswarranted,wemustnowapplythestandardtothiscase.Thetrialcourt t failedtospecificallyidentifyanychangedcircumstancesthatwarrantachangeofcustody. ` Furthermore,thetrialcourtdidnotconductananalysisofthebestinterestsofthechild.Thisfailure L  tosetforthsupportingfindingsoffacthasmadeourtaskofreviewingthedecisionmoredifficult. 8  Withoutspecificfindingsoffact,wecannotknowuponwhichfactsthetrialjudgereliedinentering $ t thejudgmentorthereasonsunderlyingthecourtsruling.Mr._Kendrick_,however,hasidentifiedfive  ` purportedchangesincircumstancesaffectingthechildswellbeinginameaningfulway,whichhe  L  maintainsjustifyamodificationofcustody:  +#  8      ׀(1)thatMrs._Shoemake_sworkscheduleonthirdshift  8  adverselyaffectsJordanswelfare;(2)thatMrs._Shoemake_sattentiontoJordanseducationhasnot $  beensufficientlyaggressiveandthatsheisincapableofmeetinghiseducationalneeds;(3)thata   tumultuousmaritalrelationshipbetweenMrs._Shoemake_ԀandherhusbandadverselyaffectsJordans   wellbeing;(4)thatMrs._Shoemake_ԀlackssoundjudgmentwithrespecttoJordansmedicalcare;and   (5)thatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhasageneraltendencytosubordinatetheneedsofherchildrentoherown,   whichadverselyaffectsherchildrenswelfare.Weexamineeachofthesecircumstancesinturn. p     MothersWorkSchedule H F  Mr._Kendrick_ԀassertsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredbaseduponMrs.  p _Shoemake_semploymentonthethirdshiftat_McKee_ԀFoods.Sincetheoriginalawardofcustody,  \ Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁhasbegunworkingthenightshift,betweenthehoursof10:00p.m.and6:00a.m. H Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁtestifiedthattheprimaryreasonshedecidedtoworkthenightshiftwastospend 4 moretimewithJordanduringtheday.ShestatedthatherworkscheduleenableshertohelpJordan   Oa    intheafternoonswhenhereturnsfromschool.ShealsotestifiedthateithersheorMr._Shoemake_  isabletobeathomewithJordanbecausesheworksatnight. +#  9      ׀Accordingly,weconcludethatthe  preponderanceoftheevidencefailstoshowamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredbased  uponMrs._Shoemake_semploymentschedule. t     MothersAttentiontoHerChildsEducationalNeeds L  K  Mr._Kendrick_Ԁnextassertsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredsincethe $ t decreebecauseMrs._Shoemake_ԀhasnotfullymetJordanseducationalneeds.Insupportofhisclaim  ` thatMrs._Shoemake_ԀhasbeenneglectingJordanseducationalneeds,Mr._Kendrick_Ԁintroducedthe  L  testimonyofAnneKennedy,oneofJordansteachersduringthe19951996schoolyear.She  8  testifiedthatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁwas aloofandnotascommunicativewithheraswasMr._Kendrick_. $  Mr._Kendrick_ԀalsointroducedevidencethatheisveryinvolvedinJordanseducationandhasbeen   instrumentalinensuringJordansdevelopment.HehasattendedmostofJordansM-Team   meetings.T +#  10      ׀DespitethetermsoftheMDA,Mr._Kendrick_ԀhashadvisitationwithJordanalmost   everyweekend.Mr._Kendrick_ԀfurthertestifiedthatheworkscloselywithJordansteachersduring   theschoolyeartodevelopastructuredcurriculumforhisson. p   Ms._Schulten_ԀtestifiedthatwhenshefirstmetJordanin1991,hewasfouryearsold,still H drankmilkfromababybottle,ateonlyoatmeal,worediapers,andpossessedaverylimited 4 vocabulary.Ms._Schulten_ԀandMr._Kendrick_ԀwereinstrumentalinprocuringfromtheHamilton  p Countyschoolsysteman augmentativecommunicationdeviceknownasthe Liberatortoassist  \ Jordanindevelopinghiscommunicationskills.TherecordindicatesthatJordanscommunication H skillshavevastlyimprovedsincehebeganusingtheLiberator.Hehasalsodevelopedcomputer 4 skills.     Mrs._Shoemake_,however,testifiedthatshehasbeenanactiveparticipantinJordansclasses,  servingasa_homeroom_ԀmotherandalsotakingpartinJordansM-Teammeetings.Sheencourages  himtoreadandwriteathome,andMr._Shoemake_ԀhelpsJordaneverynightwithhishomework  assignments.Mrs._Shoemake_ԀalsopursuedspeechtherapyforJordanatonepoint,thoughthe l sessionshavesincebeendiscontinued,apparentlyduetoalackofprogress. X    TherecordshowsthatMr._Kendrick_ԀandMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhaveeachtakenanactiverolein 0"  Jordanseducation.Asaresultoftheseefforts,Jordanhasbeenagoodstudent,hasenjoyed #l! attendingschool,andhasshowndemonstrableimprovement.Thereisnoindication,however,that $X" JordanseducationalanddevelopmentalwellbeinghasbeenadverselyaffectedbyMrs._Shoemake_ $D #  orherhusband.Weconclude,therefore,thatthepreponderanceoftheevidencefailstoshowthat %0!$ amaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredbaseduponMrs._Shoemake_sattentiontoJordans  educationalneeds.       ChildsHomeEnvironmentandMothersMarriage t     Mr._Kendrick_Ԁnextassertsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredbecausethe L  maritalrelationshipbetweenMrs._Shoemake_Ԁandherhusbandhasbecomeincreasinglyunstable, 8  therebyadverselyaffectingJordanswellbeing.Asevidenceofthe_Shoemakes_maritalinstability, $ t Mr._Kendrick_ԀreliesupontheaffidavitofMr._Shoemake_sexwife,Ms.TuesdayBradley,inwhich  ` sheallegedthatthe_Shoemake_Ԁhouseholdwasinastateof verbalturmoil,with screamingatthe  L  childreninthehomeandtheuseofprofanitydirectedatthechildren.Theaffidavitfurtheralleged  8  thatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhas beenabsentfromthehomeovernight[and]hasbeenfrequentingbarsand $  neglectingherchildren.Finally,Ms.BradleyallegedthatMrs._Shoemake_s conducthascaused   greatdistresstothechildreninthathome.     IftheassertionsinMs.Bradleysaffidavitaretrue,thenamaterialchangeincircumstances   mayexist.Thecollapseofthecustodialparentshomeenvironmentisamaterialchangein p circumstancesthatmayaffectthewellbeingofanychildwithinthatenvironment.Assuch,a \ changeincustodytoamorestableenvironmentcouldbeinthechildsbestinterests. H   Mr.andMrs._Shoemake_,however,deniedtheassertionscontainedinMs.Bradleys  p affidavit.p +#  11      ׀Furthermore,theevidenceinthiscasedoesnotpreponderateinfavorofafindingthat  \ thestateofthe_Shoemake_Ԁmarriageisatthethresholdofdissolution.DuringhertestimonyMs. H Bradleyprovidednosupportformanyoftheseassertions.Forinstance,Ms.Bradleystatedthatshe 4 knewofargumentsbetweenMr.andMrs._Shoemake_.Shetestified,however,thatshecouldnot   recallanyonedisagreementspecifically.Whenaskedabouttheverbalfightsinfrontofthechildren,   Ms.Bradleyagaintestifiedthatshecouldrecallnospecificincident.NorcouldMs.Bradleyrecall  theconductofMrs._Shoemake_Ԁthat causedgreatdistresstothechildreninthathome.Finally,  contrarytotheassertionsinheraffidavit,Ms.Bradleytestifiedthatshepossessednofirsthand  knowledgethatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhadbeenabsentfromherhome,hadvisitedanybars,orhad l otherwiseneglectedherchildren.WethereforeaffordverylittleweighttoMs.Bradleys X  accusations. D!   Ms.BradleydidinsistthatMr._Shoemake_Ԁusedprofanelanguageintelephoneconversations #l! withherandthat,duringoneconversation,hedirectedthislanguagetowardoneofhischildren.A $X" verballyabusivepatternofsimilarconductdirectedatachildmayaffectthechildswellbeing.Ms. $D # BradleyassertedthatMr._Shoemake_Ԁoftenspoketoherthiswaybecausetheywereunableto %0!$ communicateproperly.Ms.Bradley,however,couldnotciteanyotherexampleofanysimilar &"% conversationsorconductoccurringinthepresenceofanychild. '#&  (#'   Severalwitnesses,however,testifiedthattheyhaveneverseeninappropriatebehaviorfrom  the_Shoemakes_Ԁtowardtheirchildren.Further,therecordshowsthatJordanandMr._Shoemake_  developedacloserelationship,andtwowitnessestestifiedthattheyenjoyafatherandson  relationship.Mr._Shoemake_ԀtestifiedthatMr._Kendrick_ԀandhismotherhavepersonallythankedMr. t _Shoemake_Ԁonseparateoccasionsfor beingsuchagoodparenttoJordan. `   Moreover,thereisevidencethatMrs._Shoemake_ԀhasbeenacaringmotherforJordan.Mrs. 8  _Shoemake_ssistertestifiedthatJordanis quitedependentupon[Mrs._Shoemake_]foremotional $ t supportandreassurance,andatleastthreewitnessesobservedthatMrs._Shoemake_ԀandJordanenjoy  ` averyclosebond.Wefindlittlesupportintherecordfortheassertionthatthe_Shoemake_Ԁhousehold  L  isinsuchaconstantstateofturmoilthatJordanswellbeinghasbeenadverselyaffected.  8  Accordingly,wecannotconcludethatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthatamaterial $  changeincircumstanceshasoccurredinthe_Shoemake_Ԁhousehold.       MothersJudgmentRegardingHerChildsMedicalCare       Mr._Kendrick_Ԁassertsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredinthat,sincethe p decree,Mrs._Shoemake_ԀhasfailedtoexercisesoundjudgmentwithrespecttoJordansmedical \ needs.Mr._Kendrick_Ԁcitesanincidentoccurringin1998whenMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhadscheduled H surgeryforJordantocorrectproblemswithhisfeet.Mr._Kendrick_Ԁwasnotconsultedinthedecision 4 andlearnedoftheplannedsurgeryfromhisdaughter.AfteraskingMrs._Shoemake_Ԁtoforgothe  p surgery,whichsherefusedtodo,Mr._Kendrick_ԀobtainedaninjunctiontoprohibitMrs._Shoemake_  \ fromseekingany unauthorized,electivesurgeryforJordan. H   Atthehearinginthiscase,Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁtestifiedthatshesoughtthesurgerybecause   Jordansflatfeetwerecausinghimpain.Shestatedthatsheinitiallyconsultedapodiatristwhohad   successfullyperformedsurgeryonherownfeet.Thispodiatristreferredhertoanotherpodiatristin  Atlantawhowasallegedlymoreexperiencedinthesetypesofsurgeries.    Dr.ChristineParker,MedicalDirectorofMemorialHealthServicesandMemorialHospital, l testifiedthatthiselectivesurgeryshouldnothavebeenconsideredwithoutfirstobtainingasecond X  opinion.Shefurtherstatedthatwhileshedidnotpersonallyknowwhatkindofsurgerywouldhave D! beenperformed,shewasneverthelessconcernedthatnooneintheChattanoogaareacouldconfirm 0"  thequalificationsoftheAtlantapodiatrist. +#  12       #l!   Therecord,however,doesnotsupporttheblanketassertionthatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhas $D # neglectedJordansmedicalneedsorthatshelackssoundjudgmentinthisarea.Weagreethatthe %0!$ motherprobablyshouldhavesoughtasecondopinion.Absentthisincident,however,therecord &"% showsthatMrs._Shoemake_ԀgenerallyhasbeenaresponsibleparentincaringforJordansmedical  needs.SheobtainedbracesforJordan,bothorthopedicandorthodontic,andhastakenhimtothe  orthodontistperiodically.ShehadJordantestedforreactionstoallergensandhassoughtand  obtainedmedicineforhisallergyconditions.Shealsohassoughtphysicaltherapysessionsforhim; t and,foraperiodoftime,shetookhimtospeechtherapysessions.Shehasmaintainedhealth ` insuranceforthechildrensincethedivorcein1990.Assuch,wecannotconcludethatthe L  preponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredwith 8  regardtoMrs._Shoemake_smedicalcareofJordan. $ t     MothersAttentiontoHerChildsInterests  L      Finally,Mr._Kendrick_Ԁassertsthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredbecause $  Mrs._Shoemake_Ԁhasdemonstratedthatshetendstosubordinatetheinterestsofherchildrentoher   owninterests.Insupportofthisproposition,Mr._Kendrick_ԀintroducedaletterwrittenbyMrs.   _Shoemake_ԀandpublishedbyaChattanooganewspaperallegingthatMs._Schulten_Ԁ hashurt[the   _Shoemakes_]family.Morespecifically,theletter(1)allegedthatMs._Schulten_Ԁsoughttemporary   custodyofherchildreninviolationofTennesseelaw;(2)accusedMs._Schulten_Ԁof usingJordan p and_Kelli_Ԁtopromotehercampaignforcircuitcourtjudge;and(3)allegedthatMr._Kendrick_Ԁstopped \ payingchildsupportafterMs._Schulten_,asMr._Kendrick_slawyerandwife,toldhimtostoppaying. H Mr._Kendrick_ԀarguedthatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁignored_Kelli_spleasnottosendthisletter,thereby 4 evidencingMrs._Shoemake_stendencytodisregardtheinterestsofherchildreninfavorofherown.  p   WedisagreethatthisincidentshowsthatMrs._Shoemake_Ԁhasageneraltendencyto H subordinatetheinterestsofherchildrentoherown.Whilethetestimonydoesshowthat_Kelli_ 4 sufferedmuchembarrassmentasaresultofthepublicationofthisletter,therecorddoesnotshow   howthisincidentaffectedJordanswellbeing.OneincidentofpoorjudgmentonthepartofMrs.   _Shoemake_ԀisinsufficienttosupportMr._Kendrick_sbroadproposition.Wecannotconclude,  therefore,thatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsamaterialchangeincircumstances.    Havingdeterminedthatnomaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredinthiscase,we l neednotaddresswhetherachangeincustodyisinJordansbestinterests. X    @FF% CONCLUSION  0"    Weholdthatatrialcourtmaymodifyanawardofcustodyfromoneparenttotheotherparent $X" whenbothamaterialchangeofcircumstanceshasoccurredandachangeofcustodyisinthechilds $D # bestinterests.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtmadenofindingsoffactastoanyspecificchangesin %0!$ circumstancesthatwouldwarrantachangeincustody.Uponourreviewoftherecord,weconclude &"% thatthepreponderanceoftheevidencedoesnotsupportthetrialcourtsrulingthatamaterialchange '#& incircumstanceshasoccurred.Wethereforeneednotaddresswhetherachangeofcustodywould (#' beinthechildsbestinterests.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmed,asmodified,and )$( thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. |*%)  h+&*   Finally,wenotethattheCourtofAppealsremandedthiscasetodetermine theamountof  expendituresmadebyFatheronbehalfofthechildrenfornecessariesnotprovidedbyMother  betweentheestablishmentoftheTemporaryParentingPlanonFebruary28,1998,andthe  announcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentonSeptember3,1999.Theintermediatecourtalso t orderedthatthepaymentsfortheseexpensesbeusedtooffsetthechildsupport_arrearages_Ԁowedby ` Mr._Kendrick_.Weagreethataremandforthesepurposesisappropriate,butwefurtherinstructthe L  trialcourttoawardanappropriateamountofcurrentchildsupporttoMrs._Shoemake_,forthebenefit 8  ofJordan_Kendrick_,basedupontheTennesseeChildSupportGuidelines.Costsofthisappealare $ t taxedtotheappellant,TimothyLee_Kendrick_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  `    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE