WPCs  $&2rq̢p|GDe \6v+|&"'%4ie{'/(y@> O/g(5HXfъ{U/,Wok!g{kŚmN=R<AT[6@cplu:۴w$Y(Te0Wen?[, ٵ*.I {(Q !# W q3Y ƙ{[;+fȗ8IíҘ6Zk!O4)gVP>ۢ]ӪԬ;6?@ ʺHڰ?{g;D6& =0E}HC=$CxL]8D((:gLY<+4hV We1@x\ l8u }[W#UN % 0:U N _ ^ g ws 4w   m N b Q   E        & . 6 > F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N BV HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular }}a-s ,-B011S13|xU- - G87XXdXXd8H12345678 d !USUS.,  _XXXXVXXc@ #XXV\#DXXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XXD#VXXԈ &   April30,2002SessionHeardatJeffersonCity L #XXVX# VXX%  TIMOTHYLEE_KENDRICK_Ԁv.JUDY_KENDRICK_Ԁ_SHOEMAKE_%"%  %#XXV#  J @@ AppealbyPermission%  %WԀfromtheCourtofAppeals,EasternSection%    J ChanceryCourt%for%  Hamilton% ԀCounty  6 @@No.69033% ! %!D% " ԀWilliamM._Dender_,SpecialChancellor%"b  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.% # E200001318SCR11CV%#`ԀFiledNovember1,_2002_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,J.,concurringanddissenting. P   #XXXX=#ThoughIconcurintheresultreachedbytheCourt,Iamnotcomfortablewiththeanalysis (x usedtoreachthatresult.Inreviewingthiscustodymodificationdispute,themajorityadoptsan d analysisthatrelies,initially,onadeterminationofwhethera materialchangeincircumstanceshas P occurredsincethepriorcustodyorder.Underthisanalysis,achangeismaterialifitaffectsthe < childs wellbeingina meaningfulway.Iftherehasbeenamaterialchange,thecourtmustthen ( determinewhetherachangeofcustodyisinthechilds bestinterests.    The materialchangeincircumstancesandthechilds bestinterestsanalysesarefraught  withdangerbecauseneitherthetermsnorthecriteriausedtoconstruethemhavefixedmeanings.  Consequently,inmyview,thisanalysisisunworkableinseveralrespects.First,bynotproviding t adefinitionofwhatconstitutesa materialchange,thisCourtallowstrialcourtstorelyonfactors ` thatareirrelevanttotheexistenceofasignificantthreatofsubstantialharmtothechild.Thus,every L  debatabledecisionmadebythecustodialparentaboutemployment,education,medicalcareorsocial 8!  welfareisopentoscrutinyaspotentialevidencethatthedecisionhashada meaningfuleffecton $"t! thechilds wellbeing.Thisexposuretomyriadareasofattacksuggeststhesecondproblemwith #`" theuncleardefinitionof materialchange:thesubjectionofcustodianstocontinuedjudicial #L# scrutinyandoversightofthechilds wellbeing. $8 $   Third,oncethecourtdeterminesthata materialchangehasoccurred,itmustmovetothe &"& inherentlyunfair bestinterestsanalysis.Theloose_definitional_Ԁstructureofthe bestinterests '"' analysisultimatelyfavorsthesocioeconomicallyadvantagedparentbecausetheparentwhocan (#( providemoreopportunitiesforthechildisoftenviewedasbettersuitedto provideforthechild. )$) Thus,theamorphous bestinterestsanalysisencouragescompetitionbetweenparentsto p*%* demonstratewhichparentcandomoreforthechild!acontestinwhichthesincerecustodialparent \+&+ withadequateparentingskillsbutinferiorfinancialmeans,willalwayslose. H,',  4-(- c 8XXdd8   _  Inmyview,achangeofcustodymustbebaseduponademonstrationthatthechilds  circumstancesareindangerofdeteriorationorhavedeterioratedbecauseoftheparentsconduct,  therebyexposingthechildtoasubstantialdangerofharm.Thisisastandardthatexcludesattacks t onreasonable,albeitarguable,parentaldecisionsandlimitationsthat,inevitably,willsometimes ` negativelyaffectachilds wellbeingandfocusestheinquiryonwhetherthereisjustcauseto L  changecustody.Thisisalsoastandardthatprotectsratherthanabandonstheestablishedprinciple 8  ofpromotinganendto otherwiseneverendingcustodydisputes,providesstabilityinachilds $ t placement,andkeepsthecourtsoutofordinaryfamilydynamics.  `   Icannotconcurwithananalysisunderwhichthemodificationofcustodybetweenparents  8  isallowedwhenthechildisnotexposedtoapotentialharm,andwhentheobviousdistinguishing $  factorofthesuccessfulmovantsevidenceisaccesstogreaterfinancialmeans.Therefore,I   respectfullydissentinthemannerandtotheextentstatedabove.XXXX   =  %     `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE#XXXX#VXX H #XXVO#