WPCD Ӧt#70HtggOZ> ?+bLDb{IT6D&Td K&x@d{  )T:{/$x{U`>Xl1s#ƾR3GڽRÖ$hU\O3U ^"]^V@d~?k:^rKg ekzfeS2.\FG> ^{_YM)t=ܕ^$URHgC%Cʻ`iͭkx2HM@"eC}Zxę1x}a W7- xĸZI>5Heye'XY} 3גy[Pb@HŚ iއDba81@d=;~ vLI^D`9بr|^0&3B0(3 f# %U ^ [ 0g UN w= 4A zU    m   U  0DN%'U>E  1u  0 0G 0 0 0x 0 0 0[ 72" 0c 0U, 0 0d 0) 0 0 0T 0 0 0I 0 b! 0! 0n" 0# 0# 0l$ 0 % 0% 04& 0& 0p' 0.( 0>( 0*) 0"* 0+ 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0F/ 020 0J0 0:F1 0Y1 0_1 0 82 1eB3 03 0)5 B*/7 D/Y7 07 D/9 09 06: 0: 0; 0:< 0^< BL= 0<i= 0= D5I> D-~> 0K>U6> AS,?? 0E@ 0D@ A-AU*A 0NBBPBHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0:-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R:$      1    _ThisCourtmaygrantaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule10oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate  Procedurewhenalowercourt sofardepart[s]fromtheacceptedandusualcourseofjudicialproceedingsastorequire t immediatereview.\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   i)  R:$      2    _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(Supp.2002)providesthat [i]neachcontestedcase,  thecourtshallmakesuchafindingastothereasonandthefactsthatconstitutethebasisforthecustody_determination._________________(;3$2#  0  .3  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  - -(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS  35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7M(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dL)1dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  L)2dxd0KS.SampleK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong (|G2:$ !.8Xdd8         0  8dl6TypewriterK\<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB       d2 0CommentB  (|3ǐ$ !.8Xdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  <6X9`(Courier New^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǐ$ !.8Xdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK%2A`Arial(O$ depart[sDrowotaAdolphoHerbisonrefileMullaneCulbreath NaleBethellKilvington S.W.McCloudPhenixVarleyparenspatriaeSundquist i]nKeislinga]dverse Crimr]ulings !.8Xdd8     _f @ g    X8XXdd8@ RXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#XR!#Ԉ &   October2,2002Session L XXX #XXX#SHARONM.KEISLINGv.DANIELKERRYKEISLINGXXX  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals  J CircuitCourtforWilsonCounty  6 @@No.1644ClaraW.Byrd,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200201833SCR10CVFiledDecember23,_2002_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     #XXX}#XXXThiscaseisbeforetheCourtonaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule10oftheTennesseeRules d ofAppellateProcedure. #  1      ׀Wegrantedpermissiontoappealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourterred P intransferringchildcustodyfromoneparenttotheotherwhennopetitionrequestingachangeof < custodyhadbeenfiledatthetimeoftheruling.Aftercarefullyreviewingtherecord,weconclude (x thatthetrialcourterredinchangingcustodywhentheaggrievedpartywasnotprovidedwithnotice d thatcustodywouldbeaddressedatthehearing.Therefore,wereversethetrialcourtsawardof P custodyandremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. <  Tenn.R.App.P.10ExtraordinaryAppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheTrialCourt  Reversed;CaseRemanded     JaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,  andE.RileyAnderson,AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ,joined. t DanR.AlexanderandJohnE.Herbison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SharonM. L  Keisling. 8!  JohnP.Brown,III,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DanielKerryKeisling. #`"   @66' OPINION  $8 $ @ I.FactualandProceduralBackground &"&   Theapplicant,SharonM.Keisling,andtherespondent,DanielKerryKeisling,weredivorced (#( intheCircuitCourtofWilsonCounty,Tennessee,in1998.Ms.Keislingwasgrantedcustodyofthe )$)  _partiesthreeminorchildren:DanielRyanKeisling,RachaelAnnetteKeisling,andHeatherRebecca  Keisling.Mr.Keislingwasgrantedliberalcoparentingtime.Priortothedivorce,thechildrenlived  inthesamehouseholdwithboththeirparentsandtheirmaternalgrandparents.Afterthedivorce,  Ms.Keislingcontinuedtoresidewiththechildrenatherparentshome. t   Amultitudeofpleadingshavebeenfiledwiththetrialcourtsincetheentryoftheparties L  divorce.Thesepostdivorceproceedingshavebeenparticularlyacrimonious.InMarchof2000,the 8  f  litigationbetweenthepartiesintensifiedwhenMs.Keislingfiledapetitionseeking,amongother $ t things,tomodifyMr.Keislingsvisitationduetoallegationsthathehadsexuallyabusedtheir  ` children.Inconnectionwiththisaction,Mr.Keislingsvisitationwasinitiallysuspended,then  L  restricted.Theg courtf  g Ԁorderedcounselingforthechildrenf  g .Mr.Keislingsregular,unsupervised  8  visitationwithhischildrenwasultimatelyrestoredinMarchof2001whenthetrialcourtconcluded $  thatMr.Keisling didnotsexuallymolestanyofthepartiesminorchildren.InDecemberof2001,   Mr.Keislingfiledapetitionaskingthetrialcourttogranthimcustodyofthechildren.Mr.Keisling   voluntarilydismissedthispetitioninMayof2002.     OnJuly11,2002,anotherpostdivorcepetitionwasfiledbyMs.Keisling.Inthispetition, p Ms.KeislingaskedthetrialcourttomodifyMr.Keislingsvisitationwiththeirchildrenduetonew \ allegationsofsexualabuseandf  g tomodifychildsupport.Approximatelytwoweeksfollowingthe H filingofMs.Keislingspetition,thetrialcourtheldwhatitcharacterizedasan emergencyhearing 4 regardingthenewallegationsofchildsexualabuse.Mr.Keislingfilednoanswer,responsive  p pleading,orcounterpetitionpriortothetimethatthetrialcommencedonJuly22,2002.  \   ThetrialtranscriptreflectsthatonJuly22,2002,whilediscussingpreliminarymatters, 4 counselforMr.Keislingsaid:   8  8`   Wedontthinkthekidsareinahealthyenvironmentinthematernal  grandparentshouse,andwethinkthatthehatredbetweenthe  grandparentsandthefatherisdamagingthekids.Weregoingto  renewourpetitiontohavethekidsremovedfromthathouseorto l changecustodytoMr.Keisling.X ` x` x CounselforMr.Keislingsubsequentlyemphasizedthatbecauseanearlierpetitionseekingtoaward 0"  Mr.Keislingcustodywasdismissedwithoutprejudice,heintended torefilethesamenow.When #l! askedbythecourtwhathethoughtneededtohappen,Mr.Keislingresponded, Ithink[thechildren] $X" needtoberemovedfromtheirmothersresidence,putinmycare.Towardtheendofthethreeday $D # hearing,Mr.Keislingscounselstatedthathewasaskingthetrialcourtto notonlyfindthatthere %0!$ isnoabusebuttogoastepfurtherandhavethecouragetotakethesekidsoutoftheenvironment &"% thattheyrein. '#&   OnJuly26,2002,attheconclusionoftheproofonMs.Keislingspetition,thetrialcourt )$( deniedherrequestforrelief.Thetrialcourtfound,asithadduringapreviousproceeding,thatMr. |*%) Keislingdidnotsexuallyabuseanyofthechildren.Thef  Ԁg f  g courtorallydirectedthatcustodyofthe h+&* partiesthreechildrenbetemporarilychangedfromMs.KeislingtoMr.Keisling.f  Mr.Keislingwas  orderedf  g Ԁtoarrangeimmediatecounselingforthechildren.ThecourtalsoprohibitedMs.Keisling  fromexercising f  g overnightvisitationwithherchildrenuntilsheobtainedhousingofherown.In  addition,Ms.Keislingsparentswerenotpermittedtobepresentduringvisitationf  . t   Ms.Keislingscounselpointedoutthattherewerenopleadingsbeforethecourtrequesting L  achangeincustody.Inresponse,thetrialcourtstatedthatitbasedf  itsrulinguponf  g Mr.Keislings 8   oralpetitionrequestingcustody.ThetrialcourtthendirectedcounselforMr.Keislingto getour $ t recordclearandgetyourwrittenpetitioninbecauseyouorallymovedtheCourtandIassumedyou  ` hadawrittenpetitionmakingitswaytothisfile.Insupportofitsruling,thetrialcourtstressedthe  L   emergencynatureofthecase,Ms.Keislingsfailuretoobtaintherapeuticcounselingforthe  8  childrenaspreviouslyorderedbythecourt,andthetemporarybasisofthecurrentorderchanging $  custody.ThepartiesthreechildrenwereimmediatelyplacedinthecustodyofMr.Keisling,where   theyremain.     OnAugust5,2002,Ms.Keislingfiledanapplicationforextraordinaryappealpursuantto   Rule10oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheCourtofAppealsdeniedthemotion p onAugust8,2002.AlsoonAugust8,2002,thirteendaysafterthetrialcourtsoralrulingwas \ issued,Mr.KeislingfiledhisAnswerandCounterPetitioninresponsetoMs.KeislingsJuly11, H 2002petition,requesting,amongotherthings,achangeincustody.OnAugust12,2002,thecourt 4 enteredawrittenordertemporarilychangingcustodytoMr.Keisling.Nodatewassetfora  p subsequenthearing.Theorderconcludesthattheneedfortherapeuticcounselingandthealienation  \ oftheaffectionsoftheminorchildrentowardtheirfatherrequired nolessdrasticalternativethan H toawardcustodyofallthreechildrenonatemporarybasistoMr.Keisling.Neithertheoralruling 4 northewrittenorderincludeanyspecificfindingsoffactregardingamaterialchangein   circumstanceorthechildrensbestintereststhatwouldsupportatransferofcustodytoMr.Keisling.     Ms.KeislingsoughtreviewbythisCourt.OnSeptember6,2002,wegrantedpermissionto  appealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourterredintransferringchildcustodyfromoneparenttothe  otherwhennopetitionrequestingachangeofcustodyhadbeenfiledatthetimeoftheruling. l     II.Analysis D! A.DueProcessRequirements #l!     Basicdueprocessrequires noticereasonablycalculatedunderallthecircumstances,to $D # appriseinterestedpartiesofthependencyoftheactionandaffordthemanopportunitytopresent %0!$ theirobjections.Statev.Pearson,858S.W.2d879,884(Tenn.1993)(quotingMullanev.Central &"% HanoverBank&TrustCo.,339U.S.306,314(1950)).Oneofthepurposesofpleadingsistogive '#& noticeoftheissuestobetriedsothattheopposingpartycanadequatelypreparefortrial.See (#' McClellanv.Bd.ofRegentsoftheStateUniv.,921S.W.2d684,688(Tenn.1996). )$(   |*%)   Dueprocessisaflexibleconceptthat callsforsuchproceduralprotectionsastheparticular   situationdemands.Wilsonv.Wilson,984S.W.2d898,902(Tenn.1998);Phillipsv.StateBd.of  RegentsofStateUniv.&Comty.Coll.Sys.,863S.W.2d45,50(Tenn.1993).Threefactorsmust  beconsideredindeterminingtheproceduralprotectionsdemandedbyaparticularsituation: (1)the t privateinterestatstake;(2)theriskoferroneousdeprivationoftheinterestthroughtheprocedures ` usedandtheprobablevalue,ifany,ofadditionalorsubstituteproceduralsafeguards;andfinally(3) L  thegovernmentsinterest,includingthefunctioninvolvedandthefiscalandadministrativeburdens 8  thattheadditionalorsubstituteproceduralrequirementwouldentail.Statev.Culbreath,30S.W.3d $ t 309,317-18(Tenn.2000)(citingWilson,984S.W.2dat902).  `   @ 1.PrivateInterest  8    Thefirstfactortoconsiderindeterminingtheproceduralprotectionsrequiredisthe private   interestatstake.Culbreath,30S.W.3dat317.Here,theprivateinterestisthecustodyofones   children.Parentshaveafundamentalconstitutionalinterestinthecareandcustodyoftheirchildren   underboththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeconstitutions.SeeStanleyv.Illinois,405U.S.645,   651-52(1972);Tenn.BaptistChildrensHomes,Inc.v.Swanson(InreSwanson),2S.W.3d180, p 187(Tenn.1999);Nalev.Robertson,871S.W.2d674,678(Tenn.1994);Hawkv.Hawk,855 \ S.W.2d573,578-79(Tenn.1993).ThisCourthasrecognizedforoveracenturythata parentis H entitledtothecustody,companionship,andcareofthechild,andshouldnotbedeprivedthereof 4 exceptbydueprocessoflaw.Stateexrel.Bethellv.Kilvington,45S.W.433,435(Tenn.1898).  p AccordNashPutnamv.McCloud,921S.W.2d170,174(Tenn.1996);Bondv.McKenzie(Inre  \ AdoptionofFemaleChild),896S.W.2d546,547(Tenn.1995). H   @2.RiskofErroneousDeprivation     Thesecondfactortoconsiderindeterminingtheproceduralprotectionsaparticularsituation  requiresis theriskoferroneousdeprivationoftheinterestthroughtheproceduresusedandthe  probablevalue,ifany,ofadditionalorsubstituteproceduralsafeguards.Culbreath,30S.W.3dat  317-18.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtawardedcustodybydecidinganissuenotraisedinthepleadings. l Atonetime,ajudgmentthatfailedtoconformtothepleadingsonfilewhenthejudgmentwas X  renderedwasnecessarilyvoid.SeeFidelityPhenixFireIns.Co.v.Jackson,181S.W.2d625,629 D! (Tenn.1944).However,theformalrequirementsofpleadinghavebeenrelaxedasaresultofthe 0"  adoptionoftheRulesofCivilProcedure.Ajudgmentdecidinganissuenotraisedinthepleadings #l! isnolongerperseinvalid.Forexample,Rule15.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure $X" providesthatissuestriedbyexpressorimpliedconsentshallbetreatedinallrespectsasiftheyhad $D # beenraisedinthepleadings.SeeVarleyv.Varley,934S.W.2d659,665(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). %0!$   Atthetimeofthechallengedruling,theonlyformalpleadingbeforethetrialcourtwasMs. '#& Keislingspetitiontomodifyvisitationandchildsupportpayments.Ms.Keislingwasnotserved (#' withanypleadingnotifyingherthatshecouldlosecustodyofherchildrenasaresultofthe )$(  proceeding.Weholdthattheriskoferroneousdeprivationofcustodyofoneschildrenissubstantial |*%) whennopleadingsarefiledinformingtheparentthatachangeincustodyisbeingcontemplatedby  thecourt.     Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weconcludethattheissueofachangeincustodyfrom t Ms.KeislingtoMr.Keislingwasnotexpresslyorimpliedlytried.f  g Ms.Keislingsg petitionalleged ` f  g sexualabuseofthechildrenbyMr.Keisling.Thef  hearingf  g focuseduponthetruthf  g ofthose L  allegationsf  .Mr.Keislingscounseldidmakestatementsconcerninghisclientsrequestforcustody 8  duringthediscussionofpreliminarymatters.Thesestatements,atbest,evidenceanintentiontofile $ t apetition,whichwasnotdone.Hadsuchapetitionbeenfiled,Ms.Keislingwouldhavebeenon  ` noticeofMr.KeislingsintenttotrytheissueofcustodyandtheallegationsconcerningMs.  L  Keislingsfitnessasaparent.Atthattime,shewouldhavehadtheopportunitytof  agreetof  g Ԁthetrial  8  ofthecustodyissue,ortoobjectandrequestacontinuance.Withoutsuchnotice,Ms.Keislingcould $  assumethatonlytheissuesraisedinherpleadingswerebeingtried.     @3.GovernmentsInterest     Thethirdfactortoconsiderindeterminingtheproceduralprotectionsrequiredbyaparticular p situationis thegovernmentsinterest,includingthefunctioninvolvedandthefiscaland \ administrativeburdensthattheadditionalorsubstituteproceduralrequirementwouldentail. H Culbreath,30S.W.3dat318.Thestatehasaninterestinprotectingchildrenthatmustbebalanced 4 againstaparentsinterestinthecareandcustodyofhisorherchild.See,e.g.,Hawk,855S.W.2d  p at580(statingthat Tennesseelaw...upholdsthestatesauthorityasparenspatriaewhen  \ interferencewithparentingisnecessarytopreventseriousharmtoachild.).Becauseaparents H righttothecareandcustodyofhisorherchildisafundamentalconstitutionalright,thisright may 4 notbeabridgedabsentacompellingstateinterest.PlannedParenthoodofMiddleTenn.v.   Sundquist,38S.W.3d1,10(Tenn.2000).     Thiscaseinvolvesatemporarychangeincustodyfromoneparenttotheother.Effective  July15,2002,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection36-6-101(a)(2)(B)definestheproperstandardfor  modifyingcustodyfromoneparenttotheotherparent.Atrialcourtmaynotmodifyanawardof l custodyunlesstheparentseekingtomodifycustodyprovesbyapreponderanceoftheevidencea X  materialchangeincircumstance.Tenn.CodeAnn.36-6-101(a)(2)(B)(Supp.2002).Thus,when D! nomaterialchangeincircumstanceaffectsachildswelfare,thestatelacksasufficientlycompelling 0"  justificationformodifyingcustody. #l!   ThereisnocompellingstateinterestherethatoverridesMs.Keislingsconstitutionalinterest $D # inthecareandcustodyofherchildren.Thetrialcourtsoralrulingandwrittenorderfailtoinclude %0!$ anyspecificfindingsoffactregardingamaterialchangeincircumstanceorthechildrensbest &"% intereststhatwouldsupportatransferofcustodytoMr.Keisling.! #  2      ׀Furthermore,havingreviewed '#& therecord,wedonotfindanemergencythatjustifieseitherthetransferofcustodybythetrialcourt (#' orthesuspensionofthebasicelementsofdueprocess!noticeandanopportunitytobeheard.The  genesisoftheemergencyhearinginthiscasewasMs.KeislingsallegationthatMr.Keislinghad  sexuallyabusedhisdaughtersandherdesiretomodifyvisitation.Propernoticewasprovidedasto  theseissuesonly.Thetrialcourt,however,foundtheseallegationstobeunfounded.Duringthe t courseoftheproceedings,thetrialcourtexpressedconcernthatMs.Keislinghadfailedtoobtain ` neededcounselingforthechildren.However,theadditionaltimenecessarytoproperlypleadand L  hearanyadditionalproofastoachangeincustodywouldnothaveundulyprolongedthelackof 8  compliancewiththetrialcourtsorder. $ t   Insummary,weholdthat:(1)theprivateinterestatstake!thecontinuingcustodyofones  L  children!isafundamentalconstitutionalinterest;(2)theriskoferroneousdeprivationofcustody  8  ofoneschildrenissubstantialwherenopleadingsexistinformingtheparentthatachangein $  custodyisbeingcontemplatedbythecourt;and(3)thegovernmentsinterestasparenspatriaeisnot   stronglyimplicated.Themagnitudeofaparentsconstitutionalrighttorearandhavecustodyofhis   orherchildrennecessitatesthatnoticesatisfyingtheconstitutionalrequirementsofdueprocessbe   givenwhereachangeincustodyisatissue.Ms.Keislingsrighttodueprocesswasviolated   becausetherewerenopleadingsgivingnoticethatcustodywouldbeaddressedatthehearing.The p temporarynatureoff  g Ԁthetrialcourtsorderdoesnotalterouranalysis.Accordingly,thetrialcourt \ erredingrantingcustodytoMr.Keisling. H   @B.RemovaloftheTrialJudge  p   Ms.Keislingarguesthatthetrialjudgeshouldberemovedfromthecase.Wedonotagree. H  [O]neofthecoretenetsofourjurisprudenceisthatlitigantshavearighttof  g havetheircases f  g Ԁheard 4 byfairandimpartialjudges.Davisv.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,38S.W.3d560,564(Tenn.2001).   However, [a]dverserulingsbyatrialcourtarenotusuallysufficientgroundstoestablishbias.   Alleyv.State,882S.W.2d810,821(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Throughouttheseprotracted  proceedings,thetrialcourthasconductedtheproceedingsf  g Ԁinaneveng handedmannerandhas  providedthepartieswithanimpartialforuminwhichtobeheard.Itisimperative,however,that  apartyfromwhomcustodywillberemoved,eventemporarily,beprovidedwithnoticesufficient l tomeetdueprocessrequirements.Althoughwefindnoticetohavebeenlackinginthiscase,none X  ofthetrialcourtsactionsplacethecourtsimpartialityatissue.Seeid.at821(statingthat D!  [r]ulingsofatrialjudge,eveniferroneous,numerousandcontinuous,donot,withoutmore,justify 0"  disqualification.).Therefore,wedeclinetodirectthatproceedingsonremandbeconductedbefore #l! adifferenttrialjudge. $X"   @||"III.Conclusion %0!$   Aftercarefullyreviewingtherecord,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredinchanging '#& custodywhentheaggrievedpartywasnotprovidedwithnoticethatcustodywouldbeaddressedat (#' thehearing.Fortheforegoingreasons,wereversetheorderofcustody.Thiscaseisremandedto )$( thetrialcourttoeffectanexpeditiousreturnofthechildrentothephysicalcustodyofMs.Keisling |*%) inamannerleastdisruptivetotheirwelfare. h+&* Ї  Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotherespondent,DanielKerryKeisling,forwhichexecution  mayissueifnecessary.     `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE