FILED

October 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ARTHUR BLAI R, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9604- CH- 00128

)

Pe titione r - Appe lla nt , ) GREENE CHANCERY

)

v. ) HON. DENNI S H. I NMAN,

) CHANCELLOR

MARI LYN BADENHOPE, )

) AFFI RMED AND

Re s ponde nt - Appe l l e e . ) REMANDED

CHARLES G. CURRER, Knoxville , for Pe titione r - Appe lla nt .

J OHN T. MI LBURN ROGERS, ROGERS, LAUGHLI N, NUNNALLY, HOOD &

CRUM, Gr e e ne vi l l e , f or Re s ponde nt - Appe l l e e .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

J oy Ba de nhope i s t he c hi l d of Sus a n Ba de nhope a nd

Ar t hur Bl a i r . Sus a n Ba de nhope , a r e s i de nt of Nor t h Ca r ol i na ,

di e d whe n t he c hi l d wa s l e s s t ha n one ye a r ol d. Af t e r he r

de a t h, J oy be ga n r e s i di ng wi t h he r ma t e r na l gr a ndmot he r ,

Ma r i l yn Ba de nhope , i n Te nne s s e e . The gr a ndmot he r wa s gr a nt e d

c us t ody by a Nor t h Ca r ol i na c our t i n a n a c t i on f or c us t ody s he

f i l e d s ome t wo mont hs a f t e r t he mot he r ’ s de a t h. The f a t he r

s oon t he r e a f t e r move d t o Te nne s s e e a nd f i l e d a n a c t i on i n
1

T. C. A. § 36- 6 - 214 i s t h e Te nne s s e e Un i f o r m Ch i l d Cu s t ody J u r i s d i c t i on 

Ac t . It re a d s :

Re c og ni t i on a nd e nf or c e me nt of f or e i gn de c r e e d. - Th e Cour t s of t h i s

s t a t e s h a l l r e c ogni z e and e n f o r c e an i n i t i a l or modi f i c a t i on dec r e e of a

Cour t of anot h e r s t a t e wh i c h had a s s u me d j u r i s d i c t i on under s t a t u t o r y

p r ovi s i ons s ubs t a n t i a l l y i n ac c o r d a n c e wi t h t h i s par t or wh i c h wa s ma d e

unde r f a c t u a l ci r c u ms t a n c e s me e t i ng t h e j u r i s d i c t i ona l s t a nda r d s of t h e

p a r t , so l o n g as t h i s decr ee h as no t b een mo d i f i e d i n acco r d a n ce wi t h

j u r i sdi c t i o n a l st a n d a r d s s u b s t a n t i a l l y si mi l a r t o t h o se of t h i s par t .

2

Te nne s s e e t o i nc r e a s e vi s i t a t i on a nd a t t a i n c us t ody.

The Cha nc e l l or he l d t ha t t he r e ha d be e n a n

i ns uf f i c i e nt cha nge of ci r c ums t a nces t o me r i t a cha nge of

c us t ody a nd he r e f us e d t o a l t e r vi s i t a t i on.

The f a t he r ci t e s cas e s s howi ng t ha t unde r r ecent

c our t de c i s i ons i n t hi s j ur i s di c t i on, bi ol ogi c a l pa r e nt s a r e

gi ve n pr e f e r e nc e ove r non- pa r e nt s i n ma t t e r s of c us t ody, a nd

a r gue s t ha t Te nne s s e e s houl d not f ol l ow t he Nor t h Ca r ol i na

de c i s i on a s t o c us t ody of hi s da ught e r . 

Te nne s s ee i s r e qui r e d t o r ecogni ze and enf or ce t he

c us t ody de c r e e of a s i s t e r s t a t e . T. C. A. § 36- 6- 2141. Nor t h

Ca r ol i na wa s t he home s t a t e of J oy Ba de nhope a nd Ar t hur Bl a i r .

The Nor t h Ca r ol i na Cour t ha d s ubj e c t ma t t e r a nd pe r s ona l

j ur i s di c t i on ove r t he pa r t i e s .

I t s houl d be not e d t ha t t hi s i s not a n i ni t i a l

de c i s i on de t e r mi ni ng who i s gr a nt e d c us t ody unde r Te nne s s e e

l a w. The r e f or e t he que s t i on i s , ha s t he r e been a ma t e r i a l

c ha nge of ci r c ums t a nces s uf f i c i e nt t o al t e r t he Nor t h Ca r ol i na

a wa r d of c us t ody? Mat t e r of Par s ons , 914 S. W. 2d 889, 893

( Te nn. App. 1995) . The bur de n i s on t he non- c us t odi a l pa r e nt

t o pr ove c ha nge d c i r c ums t a nc e s . Mus s e l man v . Ac uf f , 826

S. W. 2d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1991) .

The onl y ?ma t e r i a l cha nge ? c i t e d i n t he body of t he
3

f a t he r’s br i e f i s t ha t ?Ar t hur Bl a i r a nd J oy ha ve bui l t a

r e l a t i ons hi p of l ove a nd t r us t ?. 

We r e vi e w t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s de c i s i on de novo upon

t he r e c or d wi t h a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s . T. R. A. P. Rul e

13( d) . The Tr i a l Cour t wa s not pe r s ua de d t ha t t he r e ha d be e n

a cha nge of ci r c ums t a nce s uf f i c i i e nt t o al t e r cus t ody. 

?Cha nge d ci r c ums t a nces ? i nc l ude s any ma t e r i a l cha nge

of ci r c ums t a nces af f ect i ng t he we l f a r e of t he chi l d, i nc l udi ng

ne w f a c t or s or c ha nge d c ondi t i ons whi c h c oul d not be

a nt i c i pa t e d by t he c us t ody or de r . Dalton v . Dalton, 858

S. W. 2d 324 ( Te nn. App. 1993) . We c onc l ude f r om our r e vi e w of

t he r e c or d t ha t t he e vi de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t t he

Tr i a l Cour t ’ s f i ndi ng of no ma t e r i a l c ha nge . The e vi de nc e

t ha t t he c hi l d ha s gr own c l os e r t o he r f a t he r a nd s t e p- mot he r

i s a c i r c ums t a nc e t ha t i s hope d f or i n gr a nt i ng r e gul a r

vi s i t a t i on, not a n une xpe c t e d c i r c ums t a nc e . We a f f i r m t he

j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t . 

The f a t he r r a i s e s t he i s s ue ?di d t he Cha nc e l l or e r r

i n de c lini ng to inc r e a s e a ppe lla nt ’ s vi s ita tion? ? The i ssue

i s r a i s e d in the s e c tion title d ?I s s ue s Pr e s e nt e d on Appe a l . ?

Howe ve r , i t i s not di s c us s e d i n t he br i e f . Whe n a pa r t y f a i l s

t o br i e f a n is s ue , the is s ue is wa i ve d. T. R. A. P. 2 7; Tay l or

v . St at e , 875 S. W. 2d 684 ( Te nn. Cr i m. App. 1993) .

We a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t a t

a ppe l l a nt ’ s c os t , a nd r e ma nd.

________________________
4

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .