WPC*  6iX2㮸ImIS'ӭHAlE-sg VAN`;*Fupcu\90ME GIe(%7~{i_`Yh/4N ekR"/!La، \K+1ze9 yߠ$$E]3Ef) ԊIg2>9 RQ{D}bIiүjΪ[{7wuҁL!(e e*^;m$Л|K!0r`B {0ZzZ65B.س4Ed9SduFO2*a(ֺU;#xiH|vI9_@yϩuk!ߞys1|{k C8w 4P-v.ݤL1FQG(@L^"fwъgj "t*ۿ*# LUNW % 0GUFw84,@OBW AQ 0 0D d U:) ^ c o o mq q q q   B N /( 0D 0D# 0Dg g D/ B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($XXXX<4 9Z .Courier New Regular([[[EE#ee-D UD1eeLDLDDӀkDJ&P 3|x 88XXdXXd8"#$&C<< C((2$ !XzXXX    X   `   0  (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ""  XvXXXXXXv   Ad FILEDXvXX  March8,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh  TROUTMANpresentencereviewableAshby,cAZ"Arial Regular 9&cU d&'dEAHib011s19(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !XzXXX  ii_X  $XX XX$ 7XXdXXd7  =LXXdd=  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tќr )<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rt )>.*jx` `@E"a ` 8ttxPZ tߛ@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATNASHVILLETERIMICHELLEPARKER  0  ) p FORPUBLICATIONf%%     h     )̀Appellant  0 h     ) p FILED: h%h%     h     )v.    h     ) p HOUSTONCHANCERY 2      h     )RICHARDKENPARKER0 h   0h%h%) p HON.ALLENW.WALLACE,j %%     h     ) p CHANCELLOR @  ЀAppelleeant   h     )       h     ) p NO.01S019704CH00085 `  @*DCONCURRENCE D g   AlthoughIconcurinthemajoritysdecisiontoaffirm : thegrantofcustodytothefather,Iwriteseparatelytocondemntheappearanceofimproprietythiscaseexudes.AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtstatedin_Offutt_Ԁv.U.S.,348U.S.11,14,75 "> S.Ct.11,13,99L.Ed.11,16(1954), justicemustsatisfytheappearanceofjustice.Thetrialcourtsactionsinthiscasedonotsatisfythatappearance. Undertheauthorityof_Palmore_Ԁv._Sidoti_,466U.S.429, &+ ' 104S.Ct.1879,80L.Ed.2d421(1984),thetrialcourtclearlyerredbyallowingtheintroductionofthenursepractitionerstestimonyregardingtheallegedharmfuleffectsonthechildfromaninterracialrelationship.Theadmissionofthistestimonyseeminglyviolated_Palmore_sprohibitionagainstheedingprivate 3(1 biases.Seeid.at433,104S.Ct.at1882,80L.Ed.2dat426. .5*3 Thetrialcourtthencompoundeditserrorduringthetestimonyof anotherwitnessbyremarking: 8-7  7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7zXXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7\XXdXXd7   7lXXdXXd7   7lXXdXXd7   7lXXdXXd7   7YXXdXXd7   7YXXdXXd7  8 8 She[Mrs.Parkersmother]comes fromthesameschoolIdo.Shecanthelpthewayshefeels.Societytodayfeelsdifferentlythanthewaywewerebroughtup. xx Thisremarkwasmadeduringaseriesofquestionsaboutthemothersrelationshipwithherm mAfrom mAmericanemployer.Itthuscouldeasilyhavebeenconstruedasreflectingthetrialcourtsownprejudicesregardinginterracialrelationships. Thetrialcourtsvisitationorderalsofurtheredtheappearanceofimproprietywhichexistsinthiscase.Inthatorder,thetrialcourtprohibitedtheminorchildfromhavinganycontactwiththemothersemployer,whowasherallegedp pAfrop pAmericanparamour.Thisprohibitgratuitousconditionwasneitherrequestedbyeitherpartynorsupportedbytherecordinanywayq q;rather,itwas gratuitouslyimposedbythetrialcourtrjudgerq q. Iaccept,unequivocally,thetrialcourtt tsjudgesst tstatementintherecordthatracedidnotplayapartinitsdecisiontoawardcustodytothefather.Thisacceptance,however,neithererasestheerrorsnorremovestheappearanceofimpropriety.Thus,thejudicialprocessisthevictim.Underordinarycircumstances,suchanappearancewouldmandatethatthisCourtremandthecaseforanewdeterminationofcustody.SeeTenn.R.App.P.36(b)(final *0%- judgmentmaybesetasideif errorinvolvingasubstantialright...wouldresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocess). Thiscase,however,istypicalofthoseinwhichtheappropriate legaldecisionwouldeffectivelyhaveasynergistic 8-7 effectontheerrorsalreadymade.Aatleastfornow,tThetrialcourtscustodydecisionhasbecome,atleastfornow,w wtoadegreew w,unassailablesimplybecauseofthepassageoftime.Recognizinghowthemerepassageoftimecanfrustrateourabilitytodojustice,thisCourthasinstitutedmechanismsdesignedtoexpeditereviewofcustodycases.Unfortunately,yyy ythiszzcasewaswellintotheprocesswhenthosemechanismswereinstitutedandtherebyzzwaszerezzzunaffectedbyzzthem.y y Iagree,{{therefore,withthemajoritys decision toaffirmthejudgmentofcustodytothefatherwithoutaremandforafreshdeterminationofthepartiescomparativefitness,simplybecausethereissomeevidenceintherecord supporting fromwhichthetrialcourt sconclusioncould   conclude thatthemothersrelationshipwithheremployercausedhertoneglectthechild.Eventhoughtheappearanceofimproprietyinthetrialcourtsactionscannotbeerased,thejudgmentisprobably,nevertheless,the mostreasonabledispositinionnowapparentanddavailable bestconclusionnowpossible.    h      p ______________________________$    h      p ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice