### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O CT O BE R 9 , 200 7 S es sio n SHEA RER

RE BEC CA AG EE v. DA VID STEV EN AGE E

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Croc kett County No. 8037 GeorgeR. Ellis, Ch ancellor

No. W2007-00314-C OA-R3-C V - Filed May 16, 2008

Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s mod if ic a tio n o f a

c hil d’ s c us tod

y du e to a mate ri a l c ha

ng e in
c ir c ums tanc e s. Mo the r/Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ’s c ha ng e of c us tod y of he r m ino r c hil d to Father/Appe llee. Specifica lly , M o t h er /Appellant asser ts that the evidenc e does not support the finding of a materia l c hang e in circ umstances and also ra ises issues conce rning trial court’ s relianc e on c e rt a in e vid e nc e . F ind ingno e rr or by the tr ia l c ourt , w e a ff

ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the C hancery Court Affir med

A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H O L LY M. K I RBY , J., joined, and W. F R ANK C RAW FORD , J., did not participate. Betty St aff

ord Scott, Mary Jo Middlebrooks, Jac kson, TN, for A ppellant Magan W hite, Jackson, TN , for Appe llee

OP IN IONT h i s C o u rt h as t h o ro u g h l y rev i ew ed t h e sp ec i fic all eg ati o n s l o d g ed ag ain st F ath er. H o w ev er, i n t h e in t ere st 1 of pr ot ec t i ng t he pr i vac y of t he par t i es , a nd e s pec i al l y of t he chi l d, w e w i l l not e num er at e t he al l ega t i ons he r ei n. -2- F acts and P roce dural Hi story On September

8, 2000, Appellant, Shear er Rebe cca Ag ee ( here inafter , “Moth er ”) and Appellee , David S t ev en Ag ee ( here inafter , “F ather ”), w ere marrie d. In J une of 2001, the parties separ ated; and, on July

5, 2001, Mother filed for di vorce

. After separ ating , Mother gave birth to the pa rt ie s’ on ly

c hil d ( he re ina ft e r, “ R. I . A ” or “ the c hil d” ) on F e br ua ry 8, 20 02 . I n c on

jun c tio n w ith their divorce , the parties enter ed into a Marital Dissolution Agre ement and a Permane nt Parenting Plan, under whic h Mother wa s desig nated as the Primary Residential Parent (he reina fter, “ PRP ”). The F inal Dec ree of Absolute Divorc e wa s entere d on August 28, 2002.

I n ear ly 20 0 4 , M o t h er l ea rned that her National Guard Unit was on an “ aler t order” for a po ssi ble tw o (2 ) y e ar de plo y me nt to I ra q. In July

of 20 04 , M oth e r w a s o ff

ic ia lly no tif ie d th a t he r u

nit would be deploy ed to Iraq. O n J uly 9, 2004, Mother alleg edly beca me suspicious that R. I . A. was beingsex u al l y ab u s ed while in Father ’s custody

. The ne x t day , Mother conta cted the N ational 1 Guar d and wa s removed f rom the “mobiliz ation and deploy ment manning roster.” The following Monday , J uly

12, 2004, Mother re ported he r alleg ations to the Milan Police Depa rtment. Mother also contac ted the De partment of Children’ s Service s (her einaf ter, “DCS”) and was directe d to take R. I . A. to the Memphis Sex ual Assault Resourc e Center (her einaf ter, “ MRC”). On August 23, 200 4 , t h e MR C perfor med a visual ra

pe examination on R. I . A. The examination was inconclusive. There afte r, and upon MRC’s re commendation, Mother a lso starting collectingand datingR. I . A.’s g arme nts after h er re t u rn from visits with Father . On August 27, 20 04 , M oth e r t oo k thre e g arm e nts to t he Mil an Po lic e De pa

rtme nt. Ar ound

thi s ti me , M oth e r a lso beg an takingR. I . A. to see Julia Austen, a license d clinical socia l worker

. The Milan Police Depa

rtment interviewe d Father a nd took samples of his blood, but did not proce ss or test R. I . A.’s g arme nts. Mother retrie ved R. I . A.’s g arme nts and delivere d them to Work Care Re source s, an i n d ep en dent laboratory in J ackson, Te nnessee . Tests wer e per formed on the g arme nts and yielded inconclusive results. FollowingWork Care Resourc es’ testing , the Tenne ssee Bur eau of

I nvesti gat i o n (TB I ) tested the g arme nts. The TB Itest results wer e neg ative for the prese nce of

bodily fluids. No criminal cha

rg es we re e ver br oug ht ag ainst Father.

I n Oc tob e r of 20 04 , Mo the r too k R. I . A . to the e me rg e nc y ro om a t Jac ks on -M a dis on

County Hospital, alleg ing that R. I . A. complained of buttocks and stomach pa in. Mother told the hospital staff that R. I

. A. might have been sexually assaulted. The staff conducte d a visual examination of R. I . A.’s g enitalia and dir ecte d Mother to re turn in a fe w day s for a fo l l o w- up exam. Mother returne d, as direc ted, a n d t h e s t af f examined the R. I . A. ag ain. Their e x amination yielded inconclusive re sults. On Octobe r 6, 2004, F ather filed a Petition for Change in Primary Residence , alleg ing that Mother had wrong fully acc used him of abuse, and had for ced R. I . A. to underg o horrific medicalT he C ent er f o r Chil d ren i n C ri si s i s p art o f t he LeB o nheur C hi l d ren’ s M ed i cal C ent er, C ent er f o r Chil d ren and 2
P arent s (“ C C P ”).

Severa l L eBo nh eur psychol og i s t s and l i cens ed cl i ni cal s oci al w orker s cond uct ed t he eval uat i on of t he part i es 3 and R

. I

. A

. t hroug h a m yri ad of obs er vat i on s , i nt er vi ew s , ass es s m ent s of pare nt

- chi l d i nt er act i on s , and psychol og i cal t es t s
. A “ M ul t i

- di s ci pl i nar y Tea m Sum m ar y” r epor t c onveye d LeBonheur ’ s fi ndi ngs a nd r epr es ent ed a com pr ehe ns i ve su m m ary o f ea ch o f t h e p ro fessio n al’s co n clu si o n s. -3- examinations, which were harmful to the c hild. Father further alleg ed that these acc usations were made in orde r to alienate R. I . A. from him. On Oc tober 28, 2004, Mother filed a Response and a Motion f o r Ci v il Co n te mp t, a ll e g in g th a t F a th e r h a d v io late d v ar io u s p r o v is io n s o f

th e p ar enting p la n

. O n N o v e mb e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , F a th e r f il e d an A n s w e r , d e n yin g a ll th e mate r ia l a ll e g a tions of Mother’s motion.
When R. I . A. re turned fr om visit ing F ather over Christmas bre ak, Mother a sked her neig hbor, a r eg istered nur se, to examine R. I . A.’s g enital ar ea. On Dec ember 30, 2004, Mother filed a Motion for Civil and C riminal Contempt alleg ing that Father ex erc ised more parentingtime than he wa s entitled to under the Par enting Plan. On J anuar y 10, 2005, Father filed a Response, de nying
a ll o f M oth e r’ s mate ri a l a lle g a tio ns . O n Jan ua ry 14 , 20 05, F a the r f

ile d a Pe tit ion fo r C on te mpt , al l egi n g that Mother had a ssaulted him, and had made derog atory rema rks in front of the ir child. Additionally , Father filed a Motion for Custodial E v al u at i o n reque sting that the Chanc ery Court
or de r t he pa rt ie s to su bmi t to ps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns

. On J anuar

y 25, 2005, Mother filed a Mot ion to Terminate or Require Supervised Pare nting Time, alleg ing that Fathe r had se x ually abused R. I . A.. Shortly there afte r, on F ebrua

ry 1, 2005, Mother filed a

Petition for a RestrainingOrde r, and the Chance ry Court issued a tempora ry restra ining or der t

h a t same day . Father re sponded on F ebrua ry 4, 2005, denying Mothe r’s a lleg ations
and fi lin g his ow n Peti tio n for Conte mpt , all e g ing that Moth e r re fu se d to a llo w h im v isi tatio n w ith R. I . A. On F ebrua

ry 7, 2005, Father filed an Answer to the Petition for the Restraining Orde r and denied a ll materia l alleg ations contained therein. After the r estrainingorder was issued, Mother

took R. I . A. to the UT Medic al Group f or a f ollow-up visit, st emming f rom the MRC visit in Aug ust of 2004. Another e x am was pe rfor med, and, a g ain, all tests wer e inconc lusive.
The Chanc ery

Court held a hea

ring on Fe bruar

y 23, 2005. In April of 2005, the t rial cour t issued an Or der, r equiringboth parties to submit to a Center for Children in Crisis Evaluation (her einaf ter, “ CCP Evaluation”)

. The Chanc ery Court also contin ued the he aringon Mother’s 2 temporar y restra ining or der until J une 6, 2005.

Pur su ant t o th e Cha

nc e ry Court ’s Ap ri l or de r, the part ies su bmi tte d th e mse lve s to a

CCP psy cholog ical eva luation at the L eB onheur Cente r for Children and Pare nts (here in af t er,

“ L e B onhe ur ” ). Af

te r c on du c tin g indiv id ual psy c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns of F a the r, Mo the r, and

R. 3 I . A., L eB onheur opine d that it was extremely un l i k el y t h at Father ha d sexually abused the child. L eB onheur f

urther opine d that the re lationship between F ather and R. I

. A. wa s positive, and that Mother exhibited many

persona lity

tr a it s wh ic h

s u g g e s t B o r d e r li n e Persona lity Disorder . L eB onheurM o th e r w a s firs t ta k e n o ff th e d e p lo y m e n t list f o llo w in g th e f irst a c c u sa tio n in J u ly 2 0 0 4 a n d w a s h o n o ra b ly 4 di s cha r ged f ol l ow i ng t he ac cus at i on i n J anua r y 2006.
-4- conclude d that, as between the two pare nts, Fathe r “w ould clear ly be the be tter primar

y residential pare nt, by far .”
The trial c ourt revie wed L eB onheur’ s findings a nd allowed F ather

to have supe rvised vis itatio n w ithR. I . A . T he c ourt a lso or de re d th a t R. I . A . atte nd c ouns e lin g wi th a lic e ns e d c hil d p s y c h o l o g i s t , w i t ht h e p art i e s b e i n g r e qu i r e d t o p art i c i p a t e c o l l a

b o r a t i v e l y i nR

. I. A

. ’ s th e r a p y
. In
a dd iti on, Mo th er wa s o rd e re d to c omp le te lon g -t e rm int e ns ive the ra

py wi th a lic e ns e d th e ra

pis t, skilled in personality

disorders. R. I

. A. bega

n counselingwith Dr. David Pickering , and both Father and Mother pa

rticipated c ollaboratively in that therapy . Fr om J une 2005 until November 2005, Mother attende d thera

py sessions with Dr. Richard Spring , a license d psy cholog ist. I n a letter dated Octobe r 1 0 , 2 0 0 5, Dr. Springrele ased Mother , stating that she had c omplied with the individual thera py require ment s a

n d th at he ha d not “see n any

thing c linically

that would confirm the L eB onheur repor t saying that she has B order line Personality Disorder .”

On Oc tob e r 1 1, 20 05 , th e Cha nc e ry Court

e xten de d F a the r’ s v isi tatio n to inc lud e vis its in h is ho me and

re qu ir e d th e pa

rt ie s to c on tin

ue se e ing Dr . Pi c keri ng for family c ouns e lin g . Sh or

tly there afte r, Mother le arne d that her job w ith the Army ’s Counter Dr ug Unit would be terminate d due to lack of f

unding. Mothe r sold her r esidenc e and notifie d Father of he r re location to Fulton, Kentucky . Both F ather

and Dr . Pickeringobjected to Mother ’s moving outside the court’s jur isd ic tio n. I n r e sp on se to t he ir ob je c tio ns , M oth e r m ov e d to South F ult on , Te nn e sse e , to liv e wi th her mother

and to re main within the trial court’s jurisdiction.

On D ec em b er 12, 2005, the Chance ry Court entere d an Or der dismissing the nume rous pe tit ion s and

mot ion s. Th e pa

rties were in str

uc te d to a bid e by the “ Sha re d Pa re nti ngPr ov isi on s” of the Perma

nent Pare nting Plan and to c ontinue family counselingwith Dr. Pickering

. On Janu ary 8, 20 06 , R. I . A . a lle g e dly c omp la ine d th a t he r “ bo tto m” hurt . M oth e r t oo k R. I . A. to the emerg ency room at P arkw ay Reg ional Hospital in Fulton, Kentucky for a n examination. The e x amination included a sw ab test, which pr oved to be inconclusive. Father c laims that Mother made a n additional acc usation of sexual abuse the following day , J anuar y 9, 2006. Father c ontends that Mother made these a ccusations in ord er t o avoid beingdeploy ed over seas with her National Gu ard un it. 4

On J anuar

y 10, 2006, Father filed a

Petition for a C hang e in Primary Phy sical Residenc e on a Te mporary

and Perma

nent B asis and for

a Restra ining Ord er

. T h e C hance ry Court issued a temporar y restra ining order ag ainst Mother, prohibit ing her from having contac t with R. I . A. The tr ia l c ourt he ld s e ve ra l he ari ng s in

or de r t o de te rm ine wh e the r the c ha ng e in c us tod

y sh ou ld r e ma in perma nent. Duringthe cour se of these proce eding s, J ulia Austin, the social worke r who ha d been counselingR. I . A. throug h play thera p y , testified that, base d on her obse rvations and inter action wi th R . I . A ., sh e wa s o f t he op ini on

that se xua l a

bu se ha d o c c ur

re d. In d ir e c t c on tr a dic tio n to Ms.-5-

Austin’s testimony , Dr. Picker ing, the psy cholog ist who had co unseled with both parties a nd the child, testified that he obse rved no indication of sexu al ab u s e, an d opined that Mother’ s leading qu e sti on s and

a c tio ns we re g e are d to wa rd s f ur the ri nghe r o wn

int e re sts ins te a d o f t

he be st i nte re sts of the c hild.

On J anuar

y 11, 2007, the Chance ry Court ordere d that Father would be the Primary Re sid e nti a l Pare nt o f R . I . A . p e rm ane ntl y . T he or de r f ur the r s tate d:

. . . [T ]he Court

fou nd a sig nif

ic ant a nd mate ri a l c ha

ng e in circ umstances suff

icient to war

rant a chang e in custody

and the c ourt ruled that tempora

ry cu s t o dy

of the minor child shall be w ith the fathe r, David Steven Ag ee, a nd the mother should have sup ervised visitation t hroug h the Carl Perkins Center

. I t further appea rs that the psy cholog ist, Dr. David Picker ing, who was
a g re e d upo n by th e pa

rt ie s to us e in t

his c a se , te sti fi e d th a t in

his
e xpe rt op ini on he ha s no t se e n sig ns that th e c hil d h a s b e e n s e xua lly
a bu se d a nd fu rt he r t hat Ms . Sh e are r R e be c c a Ag e e ha s n ot b e e n a ble to work towar d th e best interests of the child and that in his expert op ini on the re ha s b e e n a

mate ri a l c ha

ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s.

. . . IT IS THERE F ORE, ORDERED, ADJUDG E D, AND DECREED:

1. Th a t t h e F a th e r , D av id

St e v e nA g e e , s h a ll b e th e Pr ima ry Re sid e nti a l Pare nt o f R a c he l A g e e on a pe rm ane nt b a sis

. 2. That the Mother , Sheare r Rebec ca A g ee, shall continue to re ceive supervised parenting time twice per we ek at the Ca rl Perkins Center in Alamo, Tenne ssee. I n addition, Mother shall telephone the minor chi ld o n c e d u r in g th e w e e k , an d

o n c e e a c hd ay

o nSatu r d ay and Sunday pursuant to the Consent Orde r ente red w ith this C o u rt on Fe bruar y 13, 2006.
3. That the father’ s child support obligation cea sed as of January 2006 and the mother is or dere d to pay child support retroa ctive to J anuar y 2006. That the pa

rties shall provide c ouns el wi t h the following documentation in orde r to ca lculate c hild support pursuant to the g uidelines, retr o ac tive to J anuar y , 2006; 2005 and 2006 income tax returns, proof of

health insuranc e pre miums attributable to the minor child, and cur

rent wa g e information.-6- 4. That a Per

manent Pare nting Plan should be e ntere d which incorpora tes all of the a

bove.
5. That the M other, Shea rer Rebec ca A g ee, w as found to have not pa rt ic ipate d in the re qu ir e d co un se lin g wi th Dr . Pi c ke ri ngin t he la st 4 1⁄2 months and she is instructed to do so.
6. That this Order

sh al l rema in in full force and ef fec t until further
or de rs of thi s c ourt

. Issues

Mo the r a pp e a ls a nd ra ise s se ve n ( 7) iss ue s f

or re vie w a s st a te d in

he r b ri e f:

1. Whe the r a

mate ri a l c ha

ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s o c c ur re d to
war rant modification of the Permane nt Parenting Plan. 2. Whether re location in the State of Te nnessee , less than 100 mil e s, is a

mate ri a l c ha

ng e in c ir c ums ta

nc e s. 3. Whether Dr. D avid Pickering , as an a rm of the Court, is an unbiased, ne utral advisor. 4. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in abdicating its dec ision
m ak i n g t o a

t h i r d p arty. 5. Whether this modification of the Perma nent Pare nting Plan violates T.C.A. § 36-6-112( c), the Protective Pare nt Reform Ac t. 6. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in admitting into evidenc e, and re ly ing upon, a

letter fax ed fr om Dr. Pickeringon J anuar y 23, 2006. 7. Whether this Court should award Mother attorney ’s fe es and c os ts i nc ur

re d to fi le thi s a

pp e a l.

Stand ard of Review
Th i s Court review s findings of fac t made by

a trial c ourt sitting without a jury under a de
novo standard w ith a presumption of corr ectne ss f or those finding s, unless the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e is otherwise

. Tenn. R. App . 13(d) (2007). This Court r eviews a trial court' s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Uni o n Carbide Corp. v. Huddl eston , 854 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g Estate of Adkin s v. White Con sol. Indu s., Inc. , 788 S.W .2d 815, 81 7 (T e nn . Ct. App . 198 9)

. We not e that the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s is a matte r p e c uli arl y

wi thi n the province of the trial c ourt. See Bowm an v. Bowm an , 836 S.W .2d 563, 567 (T en n

. Ct. App. 1 9 9 1 )

. O na

p p e a l , w e g i v e g r e a tw e i g h t t o th e tr i a l c o urt ’ s a b i l i ty t o a s s e s s a

w i tn e s s ’ s m e m o r

y, acc urac y and truthfulness. Id.The f ac t or s a r e enum er at ed i n T. C. A

. § 36- 6- 106: 5
( a) I n a s ui t f or a nn ul ment , di vor ce, sep ara t e m ai nt ena nce , or i n a ny ot her pr oce edi n g r equ i r i n g t h e cou r t t o mak e a cu s t ody de t er mi n at i on r eg ar di n g a mi n or ch i l d, t h e det er mi n at i on s h al l be ma de on t h e bas i s of t h e bes t i n t er es t of t h e ch i l d. T he court shall co nsid er a l l releva nt f ac t o rs, i nc l ud i ng t he f

o l l o w i ng , w he re a p p l i cabl e: (1) T he l o ve, af

f ect i o n and em o t i o nal t i es exi st i ng b et ween t he p arent s o r caregi vers
an d t h e ch i l d;
( 2) T h e di s pos i t i on o f

t h e par en t s or c ar eg i v er s t o pr ov i de t h e ch i l d w i t h f ood, cl ot hi ng , medi cal ca r e, educ at i on an d ot her ne ces s ar y ca r e a nd t he degr ee t o whi ch a p arent or caregi ver has be en t he p ri m ary caregi ver; (3 ) T h e im p o rta n c e o f co n tinu ity in th e c h ild ' s lif e a n d the len g th o f t im e the c h ild ha s liv e d i n a st ab l e, sati sf ac t o ry env i ro nm en t ; p ro vid ed , t ha t , w he re ther e is a f i n di n g , u n der s u bdi v i s i on (a ) ( 8) , of ch i l d abu s e, as def

i n ed i n § 39- 15- 401 or § 39- 15

- 40 2, or chi l d s exu al abus e, as def i ned i n § 37

- 1

- 60 2, b y o ne ( 1) par ent , an d t hat
a no np erpe t rat i ng p arent o r caregi ver has rel o cat ed in o rder t o fl ee t he p erpe t rat i ng p a re n t, tha t t h e re lo c a tio n sh a ll n o t we igh a g a ins t an a w a rd o f cu sto d y; (4 ) T he st ab i l i t y of t he f am i l y unit o f

t he p are nts or c are give rs; (5 ) T he m en t al and p hysi ca l he alt h o f t he p are nts or c are give rs;
( 6) T h e h ome, s ch ool a n d c ommun i t y r ec or d of t h e ch i l d;
(7)(A ) T he reasonab l e p ref erence o f

the chil d , if

twel ve (12 ) y ears o f

age o r ol d er; (B ) T he co urt m ay hear t he p ref erence o f

a y o unger chi l d on req uest

. T he (c o n tin u e d ...)
-7- Discussion Material Change in Circumstances I n c h il d c u s to dy c a s e s , th e la w is w e ll e s ta

b li s h e d th a t w h e n a d e c r e e aw ar d in g c u s tody of
c hil dr e n h a s b e e n e nte re d, that de c re e is re s ju dic ata and is conc lusive in a subsequent a pplication to chang e custody , unless some new f act ha s occur

red, which has a l t ere d the circ umstances in a materia l way , so that the welfa re of the child re quires a c hang e of c ustody

. L o ng v . L o ng, 488 S.W .2d 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972). I n short, once the trial court ha s made a n initial determination with respec t to custody , it cannot entertain a subsequent petiti on to modify custody absent a materia l chang e in c ircumstance s, such that the welfa re of the child demands a re d et ermination. See, e.g., Massengale v. Massengale, 91 5 S .W. 2d 81 8, 81 9 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 1 99 5) . A“ mate ri a l c ha ng e in circ umstances” justify ing modific ation of a c hild custody order may include fac tors arisingafte r the initial determination or cha ng ed conditions that could not be anticipated at the time of the orig inal order

. See Blair v. Badenhope, 9 4 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 6 (T en n

. C t

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Dalton v. Da lto n, 858 S.W.2d 324, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)). If the trial court f inds that there ha s been a
ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e s, it w ill the n c on sid e r the pe tit ionto m od if y c us tod y u sin g a

“ be st interest” sta ndard. Wo ols e y v . M c Phe rso n, No

. 02A01-9706-JV-00125, 1998 WL 760950, at *2 5(

. . . cont i nued) 5
pr ef

er en ce s of

ol der c h i l dr en s h ou l d nor mal l y be gi v en gr ea t er w ei g h t t h an t h os e of y o unger chi l d ren; (8 ) E v id e n c e o f p h ysic a l o r em o tio n a l ab u se to the c h ild , t o the o the r p a re n t o r to any ot her per s on; provi ded, t hat , whe r e t her e ar e al l ega t i ons t hat one ( 1) par ent ha s com mi t t ed ch i l d abus e, as def i ned i n § 39

- 15

- 40 1 or § 39

- 15- 40 2, or chi l d s exu al abus e, as def

i ned i n § 37- 1- 60 2, aga i ns t a f ami l y mem ber, t he cour t s hal l cons i der al l evi d ence re le v a n t to t he p hy si cal and em o t i o nal s af et y of t he chi l d , and det er mi ne, by a cl ear pre po nder anc e of t he evi dence , wh et her s uch abus e h as occur r ed. T he cour t s hal l i ncl ude i n i t s d eci s i on a w r i t t en f i ndi ng of al l ev i dence , a n d a ll find ing s o f fac ts c o n n e c te d to the e v id e n c e

. In a d d iti o n , the c o u r t s h a ll,
w he re a p p ro p riat e, refer an y i ssue s o f ab use t o the j u v e n ile c o u r t f o r f urthe r p ro ce ed i ng s; (9) T he charact er and b ehavi o r o f a ny o t her p ers o n w ho resi d es i n or f reque nt s t he ho m e o f a pa rent or caregi ver and t he p ers o n' s i nt eract i o ns wi t h t he chi l d ; and
( 10) Eac h p are n t or c ar eg i v er ' s pa s t a n d pot en t i al f or f u t u r e per f

or man ce of p arent i ng res p o nsi b i l i t i es, i ncl ud i ng t he wi l l i ngness and ab i l ity o f each o f t he p a re n ts a n d c a re g iv e rs to fac ili ta te a n d e n c o u ra g e a c lo se a n d c o n tinu ing p a re n tc h ild re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e c h ild a n d b o th o f th e c h ild ' s p a re n ts, co n siste n t with t h e bes t i n t er es t of

t h e ch i l d.
( b) N ot wi t hs t andi ng t he provi s i ons of any l aw t o t he cont r ar y , t he cour t ha s j ur i s di ct i on t o make an i ni t i al cus t od y d et er mi nat i on r ega r di ng a mi nor ch i l d or may
mo di f y a pr i or order o f

chi l d cus t od y upo n f

i ndi ng t hat t he cus t od i al par ent ha s been
co nvi ct ed of o r f

o und ci vi l l y l i ab l e f

o r t he i nt ent i o nal and wrongfu l de at h of t he chi l d ' s o t her parent or l egal guardi an.

( c) As u s ed i n t hi s s ect i on, "car egi ver " ha s the m ean i ng as cr i bed t o t hat t er m i n § 37- 5- 501.

( d ) Not h i n g i n s u b s e c t i o n s ( a ) a n d ( c ) s h a l l b e c o n s t r u e d t o a f f e c t or d i m i ni sh t he co nst i t ut i o nal ri ght s o f p arent s t hat m ay ari se d uri ng and are i nherent i n c usto d y pro ce ed i ng s. T

. C. A. § 36- 6- 106.

-8- (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 1998) . As t h i s C o u rt h as pre viously rec og nized, there is a strong presumption in favor of

the exist ing c ustody

arr ang ement. Sm iths on v. Eath erly, No. 01A01-9806- C V- 0 0 3 1 4 , 1 9 9 9 W L5 4 8 5 8 6 at * 2 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u l y 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g T

a y l or v . T ay lor , 849 S.W .2d 319, 332 (Tenn. 1993) ). The party seeking to chang e the exis ting custody arr ang ement has the burde n of proof to show both that the child's circ umstances have materially chang ed in a wa y that was not re asonably

fores ee ab l e at the time of the orig inal custody decision, and that chang ing the exis ting c ustody

arr ang ement will serve the child' s best interests. Geiger v . Boyle, No. 01A01-9809- C H- 0 0 4 6 7 , 1 9 9 9 W L4 9 9 7 3 3 at * 3 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u l y 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Sm ith v. Haase, 521 S.W. 2d 49 , 5 0 ( Te nn .1 97 5. )) ; Mc Da nie l v . M c Da nie l, 743 S.W .2d 167, 169 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Hal l v. H all , No. 01A01-9310- PB-00465, 1995 WL316255, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. May 25, 1995).-9-

Un d er t h i s s t an d ar d , t h e p ri m ary i n qu i ry i s wh et h er th er e ha s b ee n a ma t er i al ch an ge in t h e c h i l d 's circ umstances. Although the re i s n o co ncre te def inition for what constitutes a mater ial chang e of circ umstances, this Court has enumer ated se vera l fac tors t h at should be taken into consider ation when de termining whether such a c hang e has occur

red. In g ener al, t he chang e mus t occur afte r the
e ntr y of the or de r s ou g ht to be mod if ie d, and the c ha

ng e c ann ot be on e that wa s kno wn or re a so na bly anticipated when the or der w as ente red. Tur n er v. Turne r, 77 6 S. W.2 d 8 8, 90 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. 19 88 ); Da lto n v

. D alt on, 858 S.W .2d 324, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). I n addition, the materia l ch an ge i n circumstances must be a c hang e in the child' s circumstanc es, not the circ umstances of either or both of the par ents. M

c C a i n v . G r i m, No. 01A01-9711- CH-00634, 1999 WL820216 at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct.15, 1999). Finally , the chang e mus t aff ect the child' s well-be ing in a mater ial way

. Dailey v

. Dailey, 635 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). Tenne ssee c ourts have ba sed modification of c hild custody decr ees on the following c riteria: the cha rac ter of the custodian; the conduct of the custodian; and the c hild's we lfare

. Townsh end v. B i ng h a m, No. 02A01-9801-CV- 00019, 1999 WL 188290, at *4-*5 (T enn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 1999)

. The c hild's pre fer ence is only one fa ctor to be considere d in decidingcustody . See T.C.A. § 36-6- 106 (2 00 1) ; Wil

so n v . W ils on, 98 7 S.W. 2d 55 5, 56 4 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. 19 98 ); He lso n v . Cy rus , 989 S.W .2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). The party seeking a chang e in custody has t he ini tial burden to show a materia l c hang e of circ umstances which aff ects the welfa

re of the child. Har

ris v . Ha rri s, 832 S.W .2d 352, 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). The burden remains on the m oving party to show that he or she is comparatively more fit than the pa

rty with c ustody under the cha lleng ed custody decr ee and to show th a t i t w o u ld b e in th e c h il d ' s b e s t i n te r e s ts f o r th e mo v in g p arty

to b e th e c u s todial pare nt. Go rsk

i v . Ra ga ins, No . 0 1A 01 -9 71 0- GS- 00 59 7, 19 99 WL51 14 51 a t *4 , ( Te nn .Ct .App . July 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Nic hol

s v . N ic hol s, 79 2 S. W.2 d 7 13 , 7 15 (T e nn . 1 99 0) ); Rust v . Rus t, 864 S.W .2d 52, 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). As se t out abo ve , th e tr ia l c ourt sp e c if ic a lly fo un d th a t Mo the r’ s su

bje c tin g R. I . A . to numerous exams constitutes a materia l chang e in circ umstances. On a ppeal, Mother

contends, inter ali a , that this finding violates the Protective Parent Reform Ac t, T.C.A. § 36-6-112. Section 36-6- 11 2( c ) p ro vid e s:

I f a pare nt ma

kes a g ood faith alleg ation based on a rea sonable be lief
su pp or te d b y fact s th at th e c hil d is the vic timof c hil d a bu se , c hil d
ne g le c t, o r t

he e ff e c ts o f d ome sti c vio le nc e , a nd if that pa re nt a c ts lawf ull y and in g oo d f

a ithin r e sp on se to t

hat r e a so na

ble be lie f t o pr ote c t th e c hil d o r se e k tr e a tme nt f or the c hil d, the n th a t pa

re nt s ha ll not be depr ived of c ustody , visitation , o r contac t with the child, or restric ted in custody , visitation, or contac t, ba sed solely on that belief or the re asonable actions take n based on that belief.
T. C. A. § 36-6-112
Mother ar g ues that her

conce rns and a ctions were based on a g ood-fa ith belief that R. I . A.
wa s b e ingse xua lly

a bu se d b y F a the r. Mo the r con te nd s th a t R. I . A .’ s b e havio rs and state me nts-10-

provide a n adequa te ba s is for her

to have a rea sonable be lief that F ather was sexually

abusingthe
c hil d. Ac c us a tio ns of

c hil d a bu se by on e pa re nt a g a ins t ano the r p are nt i s o ne of the mos t di ff

ic ult issues fac ed by

the cour ts. Ke isl ing v . Ke isl ing , 19 6 S.W. 3d 70 3, 72 2 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. 20 05 ). Whil e we c on c e de that any

su sp ic ion

of se xua l a bu se is a g ra ve a c c us a tio n, whi ch mu st be tho ro ug hly inv es t i gated, the mistake n conclusion that a pa rent a bused his or her

child when, in fa ct, no such abused ha s occur

red a lso has serious conse quence s. Id. Theref o re , “a ny conce rn about re porting alleg ations of child sexual abuse must be balanced w ith the awar eness that f alse a ccusations of such abuse c an be a ‘re prehe nsible tool’ ag ainst an ex-spouse, rema rkable for its ‘bruta l effe ctiveness.’ ” Id.

I n the instant case , Mother’s a ccusations were inve stigated by DC S an d law enf orce ment officia ls. Numerous tests and examinations were perf ormed; y et, none y

ielded any

sort of proof indicating that Father ha d sexually abused R. I

. A. Professionals at L eB onheur e valuated the parties and dec lare d that there was no evidenc e, nor any persona lity

traits, which would indicate that Father
was a n abuser . I n addition, Dr. Pickeringtestified that he obser ved no sig ns of abuse by

Father, a nd fu rt he r o pin e d th a t R. I . A . is c omf or ta ble se pa ratin g fr om h e r p are nts (s ome thi ngthat a se xua lly abused child ty

pically will not do). ConcerningMother’s a ctions, Dr. Picker ing te stified that there
wa s e vid e nc e to s ug g e st that Moth e r “c oa c he d” R. I . A. into ta lki ng a bo ut ev e nts that did n ot a c tua lly
oc c ur , to wi t:

I t’s my

opinion, f

rom the work that I ’ve done with the [parties], t hat [Mot her] often d o es ask que stions of the child and do thing s in a le a din g so rt of wa

y that re su lts in the c hil d po ssi bly havin g so me ill fee lings towa

rd her fathe r, which may not - which do not appe ar to be
war rante d. The c hild does not have those fee lings with [Father ]. The child does not exhibi t those fee lings with [ M o t her]. But on two
o cc as i ons Ihave be en played tape s that involved [M other] qu e sti on ing the c hil d in

a wa y that e nc oura g e d th e c hil d to a g re e wi th her, whether

what she w as say

ing w as true or

not.

Fr om our revie w of the rec ord, there wer e at least four instances wher e t h e c h i l d was s u b j e c t e d t o m e d i c a l e x am i n a t i o n s , n am e l y:
1. The visit to an emer g ency room and to the MRC in August of 2004; 2. At le a st one vis it be tw e e n Augus t 2004 and Janu ary 20 06 to t he Jac ks on -M a dis on

County Ge ne ra l H os pit a l E me rg e nc y Roo m; 3. An examination by

Mother’s ne ighbor , a Reg istered Nur se, and, 4. A visit to P arkw ay

Reg ional Hospital in J anuar y of 2006. Duringthese e x aminations, R. I

. A. under went visual inspections, in one oc casion having he r g enitalia photogra

phed, and she was also g iven num erous swab and blood tests. Father c ontends that Mother subj ecte d R. I

. A. t o these ex aminations and tests i n order to: (1) avoid deploy

ment to I raq, and (2) keep him fr om the child. Mother conte nds that her c oncer ns were g rounded in fa ct, that the tests and exams were nece ssary , and that they wer e only

perf ormed in the b es t interest of R. I . A.-11-

Her e, the tria l court spec ifically held that the Mother is “ in much need of counseling ” and that the R. I . A. has be en “subje cted to four rape ex am i n at i o n s o f som e sort or a nother in her

y oung life.” Th e tr ia l court no te s that R. I . A.’ s expos ur e to the se e xami natio ns (a nd the po ssi bil ity

futur e e xams ) would be potentially harmful for the child. In its orde r desig nating Father a s the perma nent Primary Residential Parent, the tria l court held that a materia l chang e in circ umstances ha d o ccur red. The trial court’ s finding w as due, in part, to Dr. P icker ing’ s statement t hat he had not “see n signs that the
c hil d h a [d] be e n s e xua lly

a bu se d, ” and that the Mo the r “h a d not be e n ab le to w or k to wa rd the be st interests of the c hild.”

I n this ca s e, i t is clear that the acc usations of sexual abuse we re taken ser iously and investigated thoroug hly . After a full investig ation, psy ch o l og ical eva luations, and numerous h ea ri n gs , the trial cour

t concluded une quivocally that Father did not abuse R. I . A. The r ecor d supports the trial cour

t’s finding that Mother’s alleg ations wer e, in fa ct, fa lse. Fur thermore , there is sufficient evide nce to support the tr ial court’s deter mination that the nume rous interrog ations and intrusive examinations, t o which R. I . A. was subjected, w ere fuele d by Mother’s hostility

towards Father, a nd/or, by her de sire to avoid deploy ment to I raq. Whil e we conce de that Mother’ s intentions may have initi ally been based upon her care and concer n for R. I

. A.’s welfare , the shee r number of ho sp ita l and

do c tor s’ vis its , a

nd the fa c t that e ve ry te st pe rf or me d yie lde d n o p ro of

of a bu se , s ho uld have g iven Moth er pause. The rec ord shows, howe ver, that, despite the lac k of proof , Mother continued to assert her position that Father a bused R. I . A. The e nd result, i.e ., R. I . A. being
su bje c te d to t

he same inv a siv e te sts ov e r a nd ov e r, and Mo the r’ s in sis te nc e that R. I . A . w a s a vic tim , worke d a sig nificant a

nd harmful disser

vice to the c hild’s best interests. This is, indeed, a mate rial
c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s.
As this Court has st ated, “harm can result to a child when a pare nt’s natura l an dex pecte d protec tiveness re g ardingthe prospec t of sexual a buse by the other pa

rent g oes beyond rea son” and become s obsessive hy

per vig ilance. Ke isl

ing , 196 S.W .3d at 723. Mother’s pe rsistent alleg ations
a g a ins t F a the r and he r re le ntl e ss qu e st fo r e vid e nc e of se xua l a bu se may ve ry

we ll h ave re su lte d in lasting psy cholog ical damag e to the child. The trial court’s decision to na me Father as P ri m ary Re sid e nti a l Pare nt i s w e ll- su pp or te d b y thi s r e c or d, a

nd thi s Co ur t is satis fi e d that th is c ha

ng e is i n R. I . A .’ s b e st i nte re st.
Dr. Picke ring
Mother also a sserts t hat Dr. Pickering is not an unbiased, neutra l advisor. Mother a rgues that Dr. Pickering has found fa ult with every

action she ha s taken. Conseque ntly , she conte nds that she

“ s h o u ld n o t b e r e qu ir e d

to c o u n s e l w it

hD r

. Pi c k e r in g an d

th a t h e s h o u ld

n o t d ic tate an y

le g al
ra mif ic a tio ns in t

his c a se .” Al tho ug h M oth e r a rgue s D r. P ick eri ng’s obje c tio n to he r d e sir e to moving that he r desire to move to F ulton, Ke ntucky , was a persona l attack, ba sed upon the re cord,
we dis a g re e . D r. P ick eri ng te sti fi e d th a t he did no t be lie ve the mov e wo uld be in R . I . A .’ s b e st interest bec ause it would involve “moving from an area wher e [ R. I

. A.] was comfortable a nd knew the people around her to an unfamiliar situation.” Dr. P icker ing also voiced c oncer ns about Mother-12-

moving out of the trial court’ s ju ri s d i ct ion. Dr. Pickering ’s conc erns a ppear to be re levant and voiced out of c oncer

n for R. I . A.

On appea l, Mothe r also attacks Dr. Pickering ’s alleg ed bias and asser ts that the trial court e rr e d in its re lia nc e up on Dr . Pi c ke ri ng ’s re c omm e nd a tio ns . Sp e c if ic a lly , M oth e r take s is su e wi th the trial cour

t’s allowing into evidence Dr. Picker ing’ s J anuar y 23, 2006, opinion letter, in which he state s, in r e le va

nt p art , h is r e c omm e nd a tio n th a t: [ R

. I. A

. ] r e m a i n , f

o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , i n h e r f

a th e r ’ s p h ys i c a l c u s t o dy, but that she beg in supervised visi t at i o n with her mother. Since her mother cur

rently resides in South Fulton, with [R . I . A.]’s maternal g ran d m o t her, I

see no r eason why

her grandmother

cannot be included in the visits, should she and Mrs. Ag ee w ish.

. . . Iwo u l d t h er ef o re re co m m e n d th at th e v i s i t s o cc ur a tth e E x ch an ge Clu b - Carl Pe rk ins Ce nte r f

or the P re ve nti on

of Chi ld A bu se , w ith Center staf

f providingthe supervision.
We first addre ss whether Dr. P icker ing’ s letter was proper ly admitted. We aff ord t he trial
co u rt wi d e d i s cr et i o n re gar d i n g t h e ad m i s s i b i l i ty o f ev i d en ce an d wi l l n o to v erturn th e t ri al co u rt 's deter mination absent an a

buse of that discr etion. Tire Shr edders, Inc. v . ERM-North Central, I

nc. , 15 S.W .3d 849, 857 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). The transcr ipt indicates that Mother’s la wy er c oncede d kn ow le dg e of

the le tte r at th e tim e it w a s in tr od uc e d, to w it: The Court (to Mother’s counsel, Ms. Scott): Have y ou seen this [Dr. Pi c k e r in g ’ s le tt e r ]? Ms. Scott: Yes, sir, Your Honor, this morning

. Th e C o urt: Well, i t appea rs the Court has a lrea dy

ruled a bout Dr. Pickering ’s re commendations on 12 Dec ember

. L et’s make this part of the re cord. It’s a fax from Dr . Pickering

. (Evidenc e 1 wa s marke d and filed, and is ma de a pa rt of this transcr ipt of evidenc e). No objection wa s lodge d at the time the letter was admitted. I t is we ll-settled that objections to the introduction of evidenc e must be timely and spec ific. See, e.g., Ove rstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc. , 4 S. W.3 d 6 94 , 7 02 (T e nn . Ct . App . 1 99 9) . A n e vid e nti ary ob je c tio n is c on sid e re d ti me ly if it i s made ei t h er i n a mot ion in limine or at the time that the obje ctionable e vidence is about to be introduced. Se e Wri

ght v . Uni te d Se rv s. Auto . As s’

n. , 789 S.W .2d 911, 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). I t w a s n ot u

nti l a ft e r t he lun c h r e c e ss t

hat Mo the r o bje c te d to the le tte r, to w it: Ms. Sc ott : Y our H on or , d ur ingthe lun c h b re ak, Iha d a c ha nce to look over the le tter submitted by Dr. Picker ing that was admitted as an exhibit, an d Inoticed it was fax ed to Attorney Spencer ’s offic e.-13- An d I wi ll not have the a

bil ity to cr os s- e xami ne Dr . Pick e ri ngon thi s letter to Mr. Spenc er. The Court: You’r e talkingabout the letter dated January

23? Ms. Scott: Yes, sir. I ’d like to obje ct to the admission of that based on that. Th e Court : I

g ue ss I ’l l ha

ve to t re a t that a s a c ourt re c or d sin c e it’ s a letter to me. The objection will be noted. Ms. Scott: Okay . Ithought it was mailed to you, but Isaw at the top that it was faxed to Mr. Spence r’s off ice. Th e Court : E xhibi t 1 i s a - - a c tua lly

it was - - y ou ’r e e xac tly

ri g ht. Do we have the or ig ina l? Mr . Sp e nc e r [F a the r’ s c ouns e l]: Judge, whe n I sp ok e wi th h im Fr iday , he said, “ I ’m prepa ring the l etter, and I will forwa rd it to the Court .” Isa id, “ Ok ay . H e re is my fax numb e r i f you ’l l a lso fax it to me,” whic h was done this morning. I , in turn, called my office enroute from Brownsville to here and said, “ When that ge ts here, make sure t hat y ou fax it over to Alamo s o that I ’ve got a copy .” S o, Idon’t know his other protoc ol on how he sent the othe r. Ms. Scott: W hen we first started, I was handed it ve ry quickly befor e it w a s e nte re d, and

Idid n’ t c a tc h th a t. The Court: Well, when the orig inal g ets here , I ’ll rule that it’s par t of the cour t rec ord. . . .

On appe al, Mother a lleg es that the lett er s h o u l d have be en omitted beca use it contains h e ar s ay. H o w e v e r , t h e s o l e o b j e c t i o n l o d g e d a t tr i a l , s u

p r a , w a s t o th e f

a c t th a t th e l e t t e r w a s a

c o p y. A p art y may no t argue fo r the e vid e nc e ’s e xclu sio n ba se d up on on e e vid e nti ary law a t the tr ia l le ve l, and then a dvocate a diffe rent re ason for the evidenc e’s exclusion at the appellate le vel. Se eSta te
v . D ob bin s , 7 54 S.W. 2d

63 7, 64 1 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). Ha vin g no t ma de a

sp e c if ic or tim e ly objection of he arsa

y at the hea

ring , Mother ca

nnot be hea

rd to complain on appe al. Mother next argues that the trial court relied too he avily upon Dr. Picker ing’ s opinions, and, in fac t, abdicate d its decision making r ole to the doc t o r. W e d i s ag ree . At the J anuar y 23, 2006 he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt

ma de the fo llo wi ngre le va nt s tate me nts : I t appea rs that the Court found that whe n y o u ’re talking a bout an alleg ation of this seriousness, the Court take s it very s er i o u s ly , and has on all th es e h ea ri ng . Be cause of the c omplex ity of this, is the
rea son this C ourt dec ided , ra t her tha n do a license d social worke r, le t’ s h ave a

ps y c ho log ist

or ps y c hiatr ist

.-14- I t further appea rs that the Court found that due to the complexit y of this, thi s Co u rt is s a ti s f

ie d th a t s e n d in g it to a c h il d p s y c h o lo g is t or ps y c hiatr ist , D r. Pic kering , w a s th e a pp ro pr iate thi ngto d o in thi s matter.

I t f ur t h e r a p p e ar s t h a t t h e C o urt f

o un d th a t w e h av e a p ar e n t w ho is in m uc h n e e d o f c ouns e lin g . N ow , w hic h on e of the se tw o p are nts it is, th is Co urt’s g oin g to h ave to t ake the po sit ion that it ’s g oin g to continue g oing w ith the psy chiatrist, Dr. Picke ring . I ’m g oing to take the direc ted advice of Dr. Picke ringand leave the temporary custody with [Father], but I ’m g oing to or der that [Mot her] and he r m other have the rig ht to start visiti ng with the child under supervision of the Carl Perkins Exchang e Club until further orde rs of this Court.

I t f ur the r a pp e ars that th e Cou

rt fo un d it e xtre me ly dis tur

bin g that th is chil d h as been subje cted to four rape examinations of some sort or another in her young life. And the Court fur ther found that to be potentia ll y v e r

y h ar mf u l to th e c h il d an d th a t is th e r e a s o n th a t the Court is goingto keep the T em porar y Restraining Orde r in place , with the excep t ion that [ Mother] will have visitation rights to be supervised through the Carl Perkins Center

.

At the conc lusion of the same he aring , Mother aske d the trial cour t whether she would be
a llo we d to te le ph on e the c hil d. Th e fo llo wi ngdia logue oc c ur re d: The C o u rt: L e t’ s r

u n th a t thr o u g h D r

. Pi c k e r in g

. I f h e g iv e s it the g re e n li g ht, I ’d

say y e s. B e sp e c if

ic wi th th e day s and

the tim e s. Do es y o u r c l i en ts t i l l h av e h er ap p o i n t m en twi thDr

. P i ck er i n g? Ms. Scott [ Mother’s Counsel]: Yes, sir. The Court: Well, she needs to tel l him what’s transpire d here and about this telephone visitation and see what ca n be done.

Our re view of the rec ord re veals that the tria l court re lied not only upon Dr. Picker ing’ s sug g estions, but also considere d the t estimony of ot her witnesses. Specifica lly , the trial cour t placed g reat importance upon the testimony conce rning the number a nd nature of examinations, to which R. I . A. was subjec ted. The e vidence adduce d at the Jul y 11, 2006, and Nove mber 4, 2006 hearing s included the testimony from Mother, F ather , R. I . A.’s mater nal g randm o t h er , M s

. Austin, and Dr. Picker ing. The trial c ourt also consider ed the r eport fr om L eB o nheur, a letter fr om Dr. He rman De Boa rd, a letter fr om Dr. Richar d Spring, the Kentucky State Police L ab Report, and documents from the Carl-15-

Perkins Center, a s well as transcr ipts from prior hea ring s in this m atter. The rec ord simply does not
s u p p o rt a f in d in g th a t t

h e tr ia l c o u rt a

b d ic a te d it s d e c is io n

ma k in g to D r

. Pi c k e r in g

. Mot her also argues that the trial c ourt err ed in continuing to require Mother to attend c ounseling with Dr. Pickering . I n support of her contention, Mother a sserts, inte r a lia , that she does not live close to Dr. Pickering ’s offic e, that her schedule is not compatible with Dr. Pickering ’s office hours, a nd that she cannot a ffor d counselingwith Dr. Pickering. T h e record re veals that a ny conflict a s to Mother’s beingcounsele d individually by Dr. Picker ing ha s been r esolved b y the fa ct that she is now being seen by Dr. De Boa

rd. Howeve r, Mother is still required to see Dr. Picker ing pe riodically as par t of her pa rticipation in R. I . A.’s therapy . I n J une of 2005, the trial court or dere d that R. I . A. attend c ounseling with a licensed c hild psy cholog ist, that the parties par ticipate collaboratively in the child’s thera py , and that the par ties split t he cost of the thera py . Additionally , Mo t h er was dire cted to complete long- term intensive thera

py with a license d thera

pist skilled in dealingwith personality disorders. B eca

use Dr. Pickeringhas bee n workingwith R. I . A. and he r par ents since 2005, it appe ars that a chang e in the
c hil d’ s th e ra

pis t, i n or de r to a c c omm od a te Mo the r’ s w ish e s, wo uld no t be in t he c hil d’ s b e st i nte re st. The pa rticipation of both par ents in this ther ap y i s wa rr anted and nece ssary . Despite the inconvenienc e alleg ed by Mot h er , we do not find that the tria l court’s re quirement that Mother participate in child’s thera py wi t h Dr . Pickeringis an “impossible g oal.” Rathe r, Mother’ s inconvenienc e pale s in c omparison to the child’s need f or stability , continuity , and par ticipation by both pare nts in her thera

py . Mother’s individual thera py needs a

re be ing me t by

Dr. De Boa

rd. The tr ia l c ourt ’s or de ri ngMo the r t o c on tin ue he r p art ic ipatio n in

R. I

. A. ’s the ra

py by Dr

. Pic ke ri ngis
no t ov e rt ly

ha rs h w he n c on sid e re d in

lig ht o f t he c hil d’ s n e e ds and

int e re sts

. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm t h e j u d gm ent of the trial court. Mother’ s reque st for at torney ’s fe es, pursua

nt to T.C.A. § 36-5-103( c) , i s d e n i e d

. C o s t s o f th i s a p p e a l ar e a s s e s s e d to Ap p e l l an t , S h e ar e r

R e b e c c a A g e e , an d

h e r s ur e ty f o r w h i c he x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ AL ANE. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.