### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Fe br ua ry 14, 200 7 S es sio n
IN R E E
. J. M
. ( d. o. b. 10/ 31/ 94)

LE E T
. M Y ER S v. S A N D R A BR OW N
An Appeal f

rom the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. G 2405; R8527 G eorge E. Blan cet t, Sp. Ju dge

No. W2005-02520-C OA-R3-JV- F iled Jul y 19, 2007

This case involves the third and four th appea ls (consolidated) of successive petitions to modi fy custody . The mother a

nd fathe r of the c hild at issue were never marrie d. The mother w as desig nated the primary residential pare nt f or the child, and the f

ather was g iven desig nated pa

renting time and order ed to pay child support. I n 2002, the fathe r filed a petition to modify custody

. The trial c ourt denied the fathe r’s petiti on, and the decision was af firmed by this Court (“

E.J.M. I ”). During the pendenc y of that appe al, the father filed a second pe tition for a cha

ng e of c ustody

based on f

acts that
aro se a ft e r h is f

ir st p e tit ion

wa s d e nie d. A h e ari ngon thi s p e tit ion

wa s c on du c te d s ho rt ly

a ft e r t his Court issued its decision in E.J.M. I . A juv e nil e c ourt jud g e he ld t hat, t ho ug h h e mig ht o the rw ise chang e custody

to the fathe r, he w as bound by the appellate dec ision in E.J.M. I to give final decision-makingauthority to the mother. Ne verthe less, joint custody was orde red. The fathe r now appea ls that decision. Shortly afte r that, the fathe r filed another petition to modify custody , based on fac ts that arose a fter the decision t o awa rd joint custody . Another juve nile court judg e conduc ted a h ea ri n g, h ea rdt es t i m o n y , an d re v i ew edt h e e n t i re re co rd

. Af t er d o i n g s o , t h e j u v en i l e c o u rt j u d ge strong ly criticized the father’s lit igiousne ss and, in light of the pending appea l of the joint custody
awa rd, dismissed the fathe r’s pe tition for lac k of jurisdiction. The father a ppeals that de cision as well. B oth appea ls were conso l i d at ed , b ut the appea l was dismissed due to a proc edura l defe ct ( E.J .M . I I ). Th e pr oc e dura l de fe c t wa s c ur e d, and we no w h e ar t

he c on so lid a te d a

pp e a l. We re ve rs e the c on c lus ion

by bo th j uv e nil e c ourt

jud g e s, ho ldi ngthat th e tr ia l c ourt ha s juri sd ic tio n

and a uth or ity to m od if y c us tod y e ve n w hil e an a

pp e a l is p e nd ing , s o lo nga s th e mod if ic a tio n is ba se d o n n e w f

a c ts and cha ng ed conditions that arose afte r t he trial court judgment t hat i s the s ubject of the appea l. The
c a u s e i s r e m an d e d

f o r a d e c i s i o no nt h e f

a t h e r ’ s p e t i t i o n s t o m o d i f y c u s t o dy.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nile Co ur t i s

Reve rsed and Rem anded f or F urther P roce edings

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he C ourt, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined, and W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., did not participate.-2-

Mit c he ll D . M os ko vit z an d A dam N. Cohe n, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, L e e T. My e rs

. Sandra B rown, pr o s e (no brief filed).

OP IN ION

Petitioner L ee T . My ers, D.D .S. (“F ather ”), a nd Respondent/Appellee Sandra B rown (“Mother ”) are the natura l pa rents of the minor child, a daug hter, E.J .M., born Octob er 3 1 , 1994. T h e p ar e n t s w e r e n e v e r m ar r i e d

. In J u n e 1 9 9 5 , p u r s u an t t o a v o l u n t ar y a c kn o w l e d g m e n to f

p a t e r n i t y, the J u v en i l e C o u rt for Shelby County enter ed an or der of

leg itimation. I n 1996, afte r a f lurry of litigation over

visitation and child suppor t matters, Mother was de signated as the pr imary residential pa re nt o f t he c hil d, and

F a the r w a s g ra

nte d v isi ta tio n a

nd or de re d to pa

y c hil d s up po rt

. Sin c e the n, the c hil d h a s b e e n th e su bje c t of pr otr a c te d a

nd c on te nti ou s li tig a tio n, pr ima ri ly
conce rning custody , visitation, and decision-making for he r we lfare

. This consolidated appe al is the third appea l in this case

. The hist ory betwee n the par ties is set forth in detail in the opinion in the first appe al, In r eE.J

.M

. , No. W 2003-02603-COA- R3-J V, 2005 WL 562754 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar

. 20, 2005) (“

E.J.M. I ”).

Th e ins tant m a tte r i s a

c on so lid a tio n o f t

wo se pa ra te a pp e a ls, re fe rr e d to he re in a s App e a l 1 and Appe al 2, both arising from F ather ’s most rece nt petitions t o obtain custody of t h e child. Appea ls 1 and 2 wer e hea rd by differ ent trial judg es. B oth concluded that proce eding s in this C ourt restric ted the trial c ourt’s abili ty to act on F ather ’s petitions. Howeve r, af ter he aringtestimony , eac h
a pp e are d to have dif

fe re nt v ie ws of

the pa rt ie s. By way of backg round, we will briefly explain the facts and the holding in E.J.M. I . We wi ll then discuss the fa cts which g ave r ise to Appea l 1. After that, we will s et out the fa cts underly ing Appea l 2, which occ urre d while Appea l 1 was pending

. The issues raised in both a ppeals will then be conside red tog ether

.
E.J.M. I

Mo the r i s a

sin g le mot

he r, and E. J.M. i s h e r o nly

c hil d. She wo rk s in

a su pp or t po sit ion in a phar macy , and she and E.J .M. live in Southaven, Mississ ippi. Father is a dentist with a succe ssful pr a c tic e in Me mph is, Te nn e sse e

. Sin c e a pp ro xima te ly 20 00 , F a the r h a s b e e n ma rr ie d to I ri s Me y e rs , a te a c he r, and the y have on e c hil d se ve ra l y e ars y oung e r tha n E. J.M. F a the r and his wi fe l iv e in Memphis, Tennesse e. During extensive litigation reg arding E.J .M., Father ha s been r epre sented by
c ouns e l; M oth e r was ini tia lly re pr e se nte d b y

an atto rn e y , b ut a s th e lit ig a tio n w or e on , h a s h a d to repr esent he rself

pr o s e

. During much of the l itigation, there has been a g uardia n ad litem appointed to repre sent the child.

I n April 2002, in order to resolve the litigation and the frequent dis putes reg ardingE.J .M.’s wel f ar e , th e p arti e s r e a c h e d an a g r e e me n t r e g ar d in g h e r c u s to dy an d c ar e

. T h e a g r e e ment was-3-

incorpora ted i nto a comprehensive consent order entered by the J uvenile Court on April 22, 2002. I n th e or de r, Mo the r re ma ine d the pr ima ry re sid e nti a l par e nt; F a the r h a d d e sig nate d p are nti ngtim e and had decision-making authority in cer tain are as. The pa

rties wer e re quired to consult with one another on all major dec isions reg arding E.J .M.’s “hea lth, education, extracurr icular a ctivities, and g ener al welf

are .” The April 2002 order also provided that psy cholog ist Peter Z inkus (“Dr . Z inkus”), who had wor

ked with E.J.M . for some time, would be the final arbiter on any dispute reg ardingsuch issues.

I n the s ummer of 2002, not long af ter the c onsent order

was e ntere d, another

dispute arose

. E.J .M. had completed the sec ond g rade at Hanle y Elementar

y , a public school in Memphis, but was struggl i n g ac ademica lly . I n violation of a Juvenile Court order, Mother r emoved the c hild from
e nr oll me nt in the thi rd g ra de a t Ha nle y El e me nta

ry , and e nr oll e d he r in se c on d g ra de a t Sa c re d H e a rt , a private school. This g ave r ise to other disputes, and F ather filed petitions for conte mpt , for injunctiv e re l i ef

, and for a cha

ng e in custody

reque sting that he be desig nated a s the primary
re sid e nti a l pa

re nt.

I n September 2002, pr ior to the final hea ring on Fat h er ’s petitions, Father was g rante d temporar y custody of the c hild; thi s lasted for a period of a

bout t en m o n t h s

. M o re petitions were filed by the parties. I n J une 2003, J uvenile Court Re fer ee Cary Woods conducted a he aringon the parties’ outstanding pe titions . Refer ee Woods conc luded th at Fa t h er had not proven a materia l
c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s so a s to wa rr ant pe rm ane ntl y de sig natin g him a s p ri mary re sid e nti a l pa

re nt. He r ecommende d that Mother be r estored a s the primary residential pa

rent, a nd that the par

ties be require d to continue t o participate i n counseling with Dr. Z inkus. This order omitted the provision in t he pr ior c on se nt o rd e r r e qu ir ingtha t D r. Z inku s be the f

ina l arb ite r o f t

he pa rt ie s’ dis pu te s. Refer ee Woods’ f

indings and rec ommendations wer e approve d by a juvenile court j u d ge. Fa ther filed a r equest for

a hea ring befor e a juve nile court judg e on Refe ree Woods’ decision and F ather ’s reque st for an injunction to preve nt Mother from r emoving E.J .M. from Ha nley Elementary

. See E.J.M. I , 2005 WL 562754, at *4-*7.

I n Se pte mbe r 2 00 3, Juve nil e Court Re fe re e Herb ert L ane wa s a pp oin te d Sp e c ia l Juve nil e Court J udg e. Judge L ane c onducted a t h re e- d ay h ear ing on F ather ’s petitions for custody and for inj un c tiv e re lie f. Judg e L ane foun d th a t, a lth ou g h M oth e r h a d in te rf e re d to so me e xten t w ith Father’s parenting time, the parties’ primary dispute was over

the child’s educ ation. Observingthat the par ties “simply

can’ t talk to one another” and wer e “pr obably never g oing to be able to ag ree ” on E.J

. M.’s school issues, he c oncluded that the pr imary residential pa

rent, Mother , would be pe rm itt e d to make the fi na l de c isi on s on su c h iss ue s. He sa id that F a the r w ou ld r e ma in i nv olv e d in the child’s educ ation and could br ing any problems to the cour t’s attention, and he c autioned Mother
n o tt o i n t er fe re wi t h Fa t h er ’s re s i d en t i al t i m e at th e ri s k o f l o s i n g cu s t o dy o f E

. J

. M

. T h er ef o re , J u d ge L ane a ffirme d Refer ee Woods’ rec ommendation to r estore Mother as E.J.M.’s primary residential pare nt. On appeal, t his Court aff irmed the de cision by

Refer ee Woods and Judge L ane. Id. at *21. We noted that both pare nts had shown themselves to be f it and lovingpare nts. W e re cog nized thatNo

. W 2 0 0 5

- 0 2 5 2 0

- C OA

- R 3

- C V. 1

-4- the child was pla ced in F ather ’s tempora ry cust o dy as a r esult of Mother’ s disobedience of cour t order s relatingto E.J .M.’s place ment in school, noting that Mother s h o u l d n o t be re moved as the primary resident ial pare nt as punishment for her disobedience absent a

deter mination that her ac tions adver sely aff

ecte d the well-be ing of

the child. Id. a t *20- *2 2. Gi vin g du e de fe re nc e to the Juve nil e Court ’s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns , th is C ourt c on c lud e d t hat the e vid e nc e did no t pr e po nd e rate
a g a ins t th e Juve nil e Cou

rt ’s fi nd ingthat no ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s e xiste d su ff ic ie nt t o chang e custody

to Fathe r. Id. at *22.

I n E.J.M. I

, F a the r a rgue d in the a lte rn a tiv e tha

t th e Juve nil e Court

e rr e d in div e sti nghim of fi na l de c isi on -m a kin g a

uthori ty wi th re sp e c t to E. J.M.’ s w e lf are . We a g re e d w iththe Juve nil e Court that the overw helming e vi d en ce established the par ties’ inability

to compromise and wor

k tog e the r f or the be ne fi t of

the c hil d, wi th o r wi tho ut the he lp of Dr

. Z ink us

. Th e re fo re , w e he ld t

hat, in a sit uatio n w he re the pa

rt ie s are un a

ble to c omp ro mis e , o ne pa re nt m us t be g ive n th e a

uth or ity to
make fi na l de c isi on s:
Di ve sti ngon e pa

rt y or the oth e r of fi na l de c isi on -m a kin g a uth or ity be c ome s the on ly option, and it is in the best interest of E.J .M. at this juncture that the dec ision-maker be the pr ima

ry re sid e nti a l pa

rent, Mothe r. Th e pa

rt ie s are sti ll r e qu ir e d to c on su lt wi th D r. Z ink

us to r e so lve the ir

c omm un ic a tio n p ro blems. I f Mo the r r e fu se s to comply with the order to c onsult with Dr. Z inkus, the J uvenile Court ca n addre ss the issue at that time in its di scre tion.

Id. at *23. Acc ording ly , we a ffirme d the dec ision to deny Father’s pe tition for a chang e of custody
and to d e sig nate Mo the r a s th e pa re nt w ithfi na l de c isi on -m a kin g a uth or ity fo r E .J.M.
App e al 1 1

I n May 2004, while the appea l in E.J.M. I was pending, Mother beg an takingE.J .M. to a new psy cholog ist, Dr. Shirley Wil son (“Dr . Wil son”). Ne ither F ather nor Dr. Z inkus were told that E.J .M. was see ing D r. Wilson. I n Dec emb er 2004, Mother took the child to a new phy sician, Re mil e kun S. Ad e so

ji, M. D. (“ Dr . A de so

ji” ), a g a in w ith ou t in fo rm inge ith e r F a the r o r D r. Z ink us

. Dr. Ade soji presc ribed Ri talin to E.J .M. for attention defic it disorder (“ADD ”). As bac kg round, Dr. Z inkus had previously

evaluated E.J.M . and wa s of the opin i on that she did not need suc h medication. In order

to preve nt Fathe r fr o m l earning that E.J .M. was takingADD medic ation, Mo the r g a ve E. J.M.’ s sc ho ol a su pp ly of the Rita lin

to ad min ist e r to he r o n F a the r’ s p are nti ngda y s. Despite Mother ’s ef

forts, in J anuar

y 2005, Father le ar n ed fr o m the school that E.J.M. was taking Ritalin. After discover ing this, F ather reque sted the child’s medic al rec ords from Dr . Adesoji. Dr. Adesoji, howeve r, re fused to release the records to F ather , beca use in the intake infor

mation give n to D r. Adesoji, Mother had not list ed anyone as E.J.M.’s father . The guardia n ad litem (“G AL ”) f

or E.J .M., appointed y ear s ear lier in pr ior proce eding s, reque sted that Mother sign a rele ase so that she could obtain the child’s medic al re cords, but Mother r efuse d.F a the r a sse rte d tha t E .J .M . ha d no t m a d e a n y D s a n d w a s a n a v e ra g e stud e n t. 2

-5- Ba sed on Mother’ s conduct, on F ebrua ry 1, 2005, Father filed a

petition to modi fy

custody and to find Mother in c ontempt of court. Be cause Mother had ref used to sig n the rele ase, the GAL also filed a pe tition for contempt ag ainst Mother. On Februa ry 9, 2005, Father filed a

n emer g ency mot ion a sk ingthe Juve nil e Court to en joi n Moth e r fr om co nti nu ing to a dmi nis te r R ita lin to E .J.M. Th e mot ion

wa s g ra nte d, and Mo the r w a s enjoin e d f

ro m a dmi nis te ri ngthe me dic a tio n to E. J.M. pending a report from Dr. Zinkus. The order further required Mother t o list Father a s E.J .M.’s fathe r in D r. Ad e so

ji’ s r e c or ds

. Af te r F a the r w a s li ste d a s a

pa re nt o n E .J.M. ’s me dic a l r e c or ds , h e ob ta ine d a c op y of the m. When he did so, he discover ed that, unbeknow n s t to him, Mot her ha d been taking E .J .M. for treat m en t with the psy cholog ist, Dr. Wil son, since May 2004. Father then pr ocure d Dr. Wilson’s
rec ords, which indicated that Mother had told Dr

. Wil son that Dr. Z inkus ha d previously diag nosed E.J .M. with AD HD , which he ha d not. Dr. Wilson’s records a lso indicated that Mother told Dr. Wil son that E.J .M. was a be low-ave rag e, C/D student, which F ather felt wa s inacc urate

. 2

O n M ar c h 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , tw o w e e k s a f te r th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls is s u e d it s d e c is ion in E

. J .M. I , Refer ee Woods conduc ted a he aring on Father’s petitions. Mother, Father, a nd the GAL

appea red at the hea ring . Father wa s repr esente d by counsel; Mother a

ppear ed pr o s e

. At the out set of t he hearing , the GAL strong ly criticized Mother for having E.J .M. seen by
a ps y c ho log ist

oth e r t ha n D r. Z ink us and fo r h a vin g E. J.M. p la c e d o n Ri ta lin wi tho ut d isc los ingthe se fa c ts t o F a the r o r D r. Z ink us . T he GA L a c kn ow le dg e d, ho we ve r, that sin c e Mo the r’ s a c tio ns c a me to l ig ht, Dr . Z ink

us ha d r e c on sid e re d his op ini on , and he tho ug ht p e rh a ps that E .J.M. wo uld

be ne fi t from takingRitalin and wanted he r to take it for a trial pe riod.

At the hea ring , Mother did not testify under oath, but Refer ee Woods asked for her position. She admitted that she did not consult with either Fat h er o r Dr

. Z inkus before taking E.J .M. to the second psy cholog ist, Dr

. Wil son, or to the second phy sician, Dr. A desoji, or bef ore pe rmitting the child to take Ritalin. Mother said that she f elt from the pr ior court pr ocee dings that she had the authority to seek sec ond o p i n i o n s and make decisions in E.J .M’s best intere st as the primary
re sid e nti a l pa

re nt. She e xpla ine d th a t th e of fi c e s o f D r. Wils on

and Dr . A de so

ji w e re in M iss iss ipp i,
ne ar wh e re sh e liv e d an d whe re the c hil d w e nt t o s c ho ol, and we re mor e c on ve nie nt t

ha n D r. Z ink

us ’ office in downtown Memphis, Tennesse e.

Father testified at the hear ing. H e noted that, under t he Apr il 2002 consent order , the par ties
wer e re quired to consult with one another on major issues a nd, in the event of

a dispute, Dr. Z inkus had fina l decision-makin g authority . He a cknowledg ed, howe ver, that the appellate court ha d deter mined in E.J

.M . I that Mother, as the primary residential pa

rent, shoul d h av e final decisionmaking authority

. Father said that, in the s pring of 2004, he and Mother consulted with Dr. Z inkus reg ardingthe possibilit y

that E.J .M. had ADD or ADH D. Afte r testing , Dr. Z inkus was of the opinion that E.J .M.’s difficulties in school we re no t b ec au s e of ADD or ADH D, but he-6-

rec ommended that E.J.M. be held back a g rade beca

use she ha d started sc ho o l t oo ear ly . L ater , F a the r s a id, he wa s su

rp ri se d to le arn fr om a

sc ho ol e mpl oy e e that E .J.M. wa s ta kin g Rita lin , b e c a

us e Mother not consulted with hi m about E.J .M. being on such medication. Father noted that he ha d pare nting time with E.J.M . for se vera l day s in Dece mber, a nd he was not told at that time that she had bee n taking Ritalin. Father indi cate d that he was not strictly opposed t o the child t aking Ritalin, but he thoug ht that he should have be en consulted f irst and made a

war e whe n the child was pla ced on the medication. He stated, “ I ’m not suffe ring , [Mot her’ s] not suffe ring

. I t’s [E.J .M.] s uffe ring beca use she f eels – doe sn’t even f

eel f ree enoug h to even e x press to someone she ’s on medication.” F a the r r e qu e ste d th a t he be de sig nate d a s p ri mary pa re nt, or that a t le a st M oth e r b e re qu ir e d to
c on su lt h im a

bo ut t he c hil d’ s me dic a tio ns and oth e r i mpo rt ant i ssu e s.
At the conc lusion of the hear ing, Re fer ee Wo o d s found that Mother intende d to dece ive Father a bout the fac t that E.J .M. had been presc ribed medic ation, and that her conduct wa s “a blatant vio la ti on of t he [ Apr il 20 02 ] con sen t o rder ,” s peci fi cal ly th e pro vi si on requ ir in g the p art ies to c on su lt wi th o ne ano the r o n s uc h is su e s and , i n the e ve nt o f a dis pu te , s ub mit

the iss ue to D r. Z ink

us to resolve. B ased on this, R efe ree Woods stated t hat he had decided to “g rant the pe tition t o modify primary residential status of [E.J .M.] and awar d custody to the fathe r.” At that point, Mother, p r o s e , mentioned to Refer ee Woods the Court of Appe als dec ision issued two wee ks prior, gra nting her decision-making authority

. Father’s c ounsel ac knowledg ed the appellate court opinion but contende d that Mother wa s never permitt ed t o m ak e such de cisions without consulting F ather . He noted that Mother had not only failed to consult but had in fact trie d to conce al her

decision fr om Fathe r. Refe ree Woods st ated that he bel i ev ed that Mother wa s “enda ng eringthe wel l -beingof [E.J .M.] by initiating, I

consider, a

major hea lth issue without
c on su lti ngDr . Z ink

us and /or the fa the r i n th e pr e sc ri pti on

of

. . . a sig nif ic ant m e dic a tio n th a t a ff

e c ts he r w e ll- be ingand

me nta l st a tus wh ile a t sc ho ol a nd a t home .” Re fe re e Woo ds the n to ok a re c e ss t o r e v i e w t h e C o u rto f

A p p e a l s o p i n i o ni ni t s e n t i r e t y.
After revie wing the appellate court decision, Refer ee Woods concluded that he w as bound by it to vest final decision-making authority in Mother:

Ibe lie ve I a m boun d by the a pp e a ls co ur

t de c isi on . A nd

in r e vie wi ngthe ma tte r, it say s, divesting one party

or the other of the final decision-makingauthority become s the only option. And it is in the best interest of E J M at thi s juncture that the decision-make r be the primary residential pa

rent, a nd it say s the mother.

Ba sed on the a

ppellate c ourt dec ision, then, Refere e Woo d s stated that he would de ny Father’s petition to modi fy

custody to desig nate him a s the primary residential pare nt. Howeve r, afte r fur ther argument and inquiries by Father’s attorney

and t h e GAL , Refer ee Woods cha ng ed his mind and g rante d Father’s petition i n part, a war ding the parties joint custody , with Mother being the primary
c us tod ian. Mo the r w a s o rd e re d to c on su lt w ithF a the r o n “ any maj or deci si ons c on c e rn ingsa id child, such as educational, medical, or health decisions.” I n addition, Mother was held in contempt of cour t and was or dere d to pa

y $1,000 of Father’s attorney ’s fee s. On the same da y , Refer ee WoodsIni t i al l y , Father a p p eal ed the juveni l e co urt ’ s d eci si o n t o t he She l b y C o unt y C i rcui t C o urt

. T he ci rcui t co urt 3 d i smi ss ed t he ap p eal for lack o f juri sdi ct i o n. Fa t her ap p eal ed to t hi s C o urt

. T hi s C o urt de t erm i ned t hat t he ci rcui t co urt
was cor r ect i n f

i ndi ng t hat i t l ack ed j ur i s di ct i on over t he appeal , but t hat i t er r ed in d i sm i ssi ng the ca s e; r at her t han d i smi ss i ng t he case, t he ci rcui t co urt s ho ul d have t rans f erred i t t o th is C o urt

. T heref o re, t hi s C o urt revers ed and

rem and ed t he case t o t he ci rcui t co urt wi t h i nst ruct i o ns f o r t he ci rcui t co urt t o ent er an o rder t rans f erri ng t he case t o t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. I

n r e E

. J

. M. , N o. W 2005- 02520- CO A- R3- CV , 2006 W L 2052713 ( T en n

. Ct

. App. J u l y 25, 2006) (“ E .J.M

. II

” ). A fter re m a n d , t h e c a se w a s tra n sfe rr e d b a c k to this C o u rt.

No

. W 2 0 0 6

- 0 0 3 6 5

- C OA

- R 3

- J V. 4

-7- issued finding s and re commendations consistent with his oral rul i n g. Those finding s and
rec ommendations were confirme d by the J uvenile C ourt J udg e. Father now appea ls the trial cour t’s Marc h 24, 2005 order . This appea l is refe rre d to in this Opinion as Appea l 1. 3
App e al 2 4

The sec ond appea l, Appeal 2, a rises out of events that occur red a fter the hear ing a

nd order that is the s ubject of Appea l 1. Mother advised Father that she wanted to take E.J.M. t o Sandersville, Geor g ia, for spr ing br eak. F ather acquie sced to Mother ’s pl ans. As it turned out, over spr ing br eak, Mother ac tually took the child to N orth Carolina, rathe r than Geor g ia. Severa l months l ater , Mother took E.J .M. to New York; Father was awa re of this trip. Unbeknownst to Father, howe ver, Mother and E.J.M. were a ccompa nied by Mother’s boy friend and Mother’s aunt on the trip. Br ingingthe bo y fr ie nd on the tr ip wa s con tr ary to Re fe re e Woo ds ’ ad mon iti on that Mo the r n ot e xpos e the c hil d to a ny un re la te d o ve rn ig ht v isi tor s o f t he op po sit e se x. Whil e in N e w Y ork, Mo the r t oo k E .J.M.
ac ro s s t h e b o rd er

t o C an ad a t o Ni agr a F al l s o na d ay t ri p , wi t h o u tFa t h er ’s kn o wl ed ge. T h ro u gh
conver sations with E.J .M., Father found out a bout these eve nts.

E.J .M.’s school y ear beg an on Aug ust 4, 2005. Under the J uvenile Court orde r, once school beg an, F ather

was permitted to ha

ve overnig ht pare nting time with E.J.M . ever y Wednesday

that he did no t ha ve we e ke nd

vis itatio n. On

F a the r’ s f

ir st We dn e sday , Augus t 10 , 2 00 5, E. J.M. w e nt t o Mother’s h o m e wi th her re g ular c arpool drive r. F ather ’s wife went to E.J.M .’s school to pick up E.J .M. and she was not there

. When Father contacted Mother to advise her that it was his pare nting d ay, M o t h e r

i n s i s t e d t h a ti tw a s n o t , an d

F a t h e r e n d e d u p m i s s i n g h i s p ar e n t i n g d ay.

Ba sed on these events, on Aug ust 12, 2005, while Appea l 1 was pending , Father filed a nother petition to mod i fy

custody and for contempt. On Nove mber 9, 2005, while that petition was pending , another

instance oc curr ed in which F ather did not have par enting time on a W ed n es d ay wh e n h e wa s supp os e d to hav e the c hil d af te r sc ho ol. On

ano the r o c c a sio n, Mo the r c a lle d F a the r t o consult with him about E.J .M.’s school p erformanc e. Mother told F ather that E.J .M. was fa iling three of her s i x s u b

j ec t s , and that she ha d rec eived multiple failing g rade s on assig nments in the
s u b j e c t s s h e w a s p a s s i n g

. F a t h e r ’ s r e s p o n s e w a s t o s u g g e s tt h a tE

. J

. M

. l i v e w i t h h i m t e mp o r a r i l y. Th is pr omp te d anang ry

e xch ang e tha

t in c lud e d M oth e r c ur sin g a t F a the r. F a the r t he n h e ard E. J.M. in the backg round def

ending him to Mot her, a

nd it was clea

r that E.J.M. had overhea rd Mot h er’s ang ry rema rks to Father.-8-

Father’s Aug ust 12 petition was set f or an initial hea

ring in the J uvenile Court on Novembe r 17 , 20 05

. On that

date , h ow e ve r, c ouns e l f or F a the r w a s in fo rm e d th a t Mo the r w a s n ot p ro pe rl y serve d with notice of the hearing and that, conseque ntly , the matter w as stricke n from the Court’s do c ke t. D e sp ite thi s, F a the r, his c ouns e l, a nd the GA L , in Mo the r’ s a

bs e nc e , a pp ro a c he d Juv e nil e Court Refer ee D an Micha el and made an e xpa rter e qu e s tf

o r a n i m m e d i a t e c h an g e o f c u s t o dy, alleg ing that E.J .M. was depe ndent and ne g lect ed beca use Mother ha d neg lected he r educ ation. Refer ee Mic hael told them that i f t h ey returne d to court the followingday with a petition for de pe nd e nc y

and ne g le c t and

fo r a pr ote c tiv e or de r, he wo uld e xec ute a pr ote c tiv e c us tod

y or de r i n favor of F ather . This was done, a nd Refer ee Michael gra

nted t empora

ry custody of E.J .M. to Fathe r. Re fe re e Mic ha e l’ s te mpo ra ry c us tod y or de r wa s af

fi rm e d at a p re lim ina

ry he ari ngbe fo re Juve nil e Court Refer ee Ca

ry Woods. R efe ree Woods ordered te mporary custody to r emain with Father pending further order s of the court. The J uvenile Court r eset Father’s Aug ust 12 pe tition for custody and his Novembe r 18 petition for a protec tive order

for a hear ing on D ece mber 1, 2005.

The he aringcommence d on Dec ember 1, 2005, as schedule d, befor e J uvenile Court Refe ree Mic ha e l. P re se nt w e re F a the r’ s atto rn e y , F a the r a nd his wi fe , the GA L , and Mo the r. Mo the r a g a in appea red pr o s e

. At the out set, Mother asked for a continuance to obtain funds to hire counse l. That reque st was denied, a

nd the hea

ring proce eded.

At the outset of the he aring , Father’s attorney g ave Re fer ee Mic hael a

leng thy outline of the history of the litigation from Father’s pe rspe ct i v e, covering the April 2002 conse nt order, the require ment that disputes be submitted to Dr. Zinkus, the orde r of tempor ary custody to Fathe r, the
re sto ratio n o f M oth e r a s p ri mary re sid e nti a l pa

re nt, the a

pp e a l of that ord er, Mo the r’ s a c tio ns in taki n g E.J .M. to a second psycholog ist and phy sician and obta ining a presc ription for ADD medication and conce aling it from Father, the de cision of the appe llate cour t in E.J.M. I

, the hea ring by Refer ee Woods on the issues surrounding the ADD me dication, Refe ree Woods’ readingof the appellate court opinion in E.J.M. I and his or der of joint custody , the appea l of that order in Appeal 1, and finally a detailed rec itation of the events since Appea l 1 reg arding Mother’s trips with E.J.M ., disputes over F ather ’s par enting time and the angr y telephone e x chang e. The GAL then told Refer ee Michae l that she ag ree d with Fathe r’s attorney and ag ain advoc ated in fa vor of F ather ’s position.

Re fe re e Mic ha e l th e n a sk ed Mo th er fo r h e r p os iti on , w hic h s he state d b ri e fl y . Sh e fi rs t
a llu de d to the thi c kn e ss o f E. J.M.’ s J uv e nil e Court fi le fr om the many c ourt pr oc e e din g s. She sa id that the problems ar ose betwee n Father and her, and that she had bee n able to co- pare nt with Father ’s wi fe , w ith ou t th e inv olv e me nt of F a the r’ s atto rn e y , th e GA L , o r a jud g e . Sh e a dd e d, “ Yo u w a nt t o know why Idon’t have any witnesses? They ’re tired, Your H onor. They ’re tired. Tea cher s can’ t teac h, my friends can’ t w ork, they can’ t be pare nts beca use eve ry time we look up we’ re in c ourt.”

F a the r t e sti fi e d f

ir st. He no te d th a t Mo the r h a d in iti a lly tol d h im that sh e and

E. J.M. w ou ld take a spring brea

k trip to Georg ia but they ended up g oing to North C arolina. F ather emphasized that he did

no t ob je c t to the de sti natio n b ut ob je c te d to the fa c t that he wa s n ot t old of the c ha ng e in iti ne ra ry . Re g ard ingthe tr ip t o N e w Y or k, F a the r o bje c te d to the fa c t tha t he w a s n ot t old the y wo uld take a day trip to Canada and that Mother and E.J .M. were acc ompanied by Mother’s boy friend a

nd-9-

aunt, in violation of the prohibit i o n aga i nst Mother exposing E.J.M . to overnig ht visit ors of the op po sit e se x. F a the r te sti fi e d a bo ut the tw o Wed

ne sd ay s on

wh ic h E .J.M. did

no t c ome to h is h ome as schedule d. He also rec ounted the incident in which Mother tele phoned him to consult reg arding E.J .M.’s failing g rade s, he re sponded by sug g esting that E.J .M. stay with him, and Mother re acte d by cursing him. At the end of the c onversation, Father said, he c ould hear

E.J .M. in the backg round protesting what Mother had s ai d about Father, a nd then Mother hungup. Father c onfirmed that E.J .M. was indee d doing poor ly in school and said that joint custody was not working i n l i g ht of Mother’s r efusa l to co-par ent. He noted t hat, despit e the fac t that he paid Dr . Z inkus’ fee s, Mother had told him that she did not want to go ba ck to see Dr. Z inkus. Fathe r aske d to b e desig nated a s pr ima ry re sid e nti a l pa

re nt. Mother testified, pa

rtly in response to qu es t i ons from the trial c ourt and fr om Fathe r’s attorney . Mother asse rted that the instanc es in which F ather did not ge t his W ednesda y pare nting time arose be cause either she or the c hild were confuse d as to the day and the tra

nsi t i o n fr o m the summer sche dule. She confirmed t hat she fa iled to inform Father of the chang e in itinerar y for the spring brea

k trip or of the da

y trip from Ne w York to Niagra Fa l l s i n C anada. Refe ree Michae l ind ic a te d th a t he wo uld

e njo in M oth e r f

ro m ha vin g a bo y fr ie nd sp e nd the nig ht, e ith e r at the ho me or o n a t ri p, in the child’s pre sence , and Mother a g ree d. Father’s attorney questioned Mother at leng th about eac h incident. I n response to que stions about her fa ilure to consult with Fathe r on the pr e sc ri pti on of AD D me dic a tio n an d othe r ma tte rs , Moth e r did no t disp ute that sh e fa ile d to c on su lt wi th h im, statin g , “

. . . [E ]ve ry tim e Idis c us s so me thi ngwi th h im he ob je c ts [a nd ] we e nd

up in court.”

F ina lly , F a the r’ s wi fe te sti fi e d. An e le me nta ry sc ho ol t e a c he r, sh e de sc ri be d w or kin g wi th E.J .M. at leng th on schoolwork, o ft en making up assig nments that were missed or late during E.J .M.’s stay

with Mother.

At the end of the he aring , Refer ee Mic hael told the par ties that, in light of the c omplicated his tor y of the lit ig a tio n, he wo uld

take the c a se un de r a dv ise me nt a nd iss ue a ru lin g in s e ve ra l da

y s. Meanw hile, the child would re main with Fathe r while the Court revie wed the rec ord and c onsidered the testimony

and evide nce.
On Dec ember

13, 2005, Refer ee Mic hael issued a rec ommendation that Father’s Aug ust 12, 2005 petition for custody

and for contempt be dismissed, and the re commendation wa s approve d by the Juve nil e Court

Judg e . T he or de r s ta te s th a t F a the r’ s p e tit ion fo r c us tod y wa s d ism iss e d “ be c a

us e the iss ue of c us tod

y in thi s ma tte r is on

a pp e a l w iththe Te nn e sse e Court of Ap pe a ls, ” and

be c a us e Father ha d alre ady

rec eived tempor ary

custody of the c hi l d b y v i rtue of the November 18, 2005 order . On Dec ember

19, 2005, without f

urther hear ings, Ref

ere e Micha el issued a r ecommendation that Father’s pe tition for a protec tive custody be dismiss ed. This re commendation wa s confirme d
a s w e ll. On

De c e mbe r 2 0, 20 05 , a g a in w ith ou t f ur the r h e ari ng s, Re fe re e Mic ha e l f ound tha t “ a ll matters per

taining to said child are within the jurisdiction of the Tenne ssee Court of A ppeals . . . .” The amended or der r eiterated that Father’s pe tition for a prot ec t i v e cu stody order was to be dismiss ed. Custody

of E.J.M. was returne d to M o t h er . The orde r did not include an injunction-10-

ag ainst Mother having a boy friend ove rnig ht in the child’s prese nce. T his order w as appr oved by the J uvenile Court J udg e.
On Dec ember

20, 2005, appar ently

unawa re that the J u v en ile Court had enter ed the De c e mbe r 1 9 a

nd 20 or de rs , F a the r a

nd the GA Lfi le d a

joint mot ion

re qu e sti ngthat th e Juve nil e Court issue finding s of fact and conclusions of law, and seeking a ruling i n open cour t reg ardingthe court’s f indings. This j oint motion was set for a he aringon Fe bruar y 9, 2006. On J anuar

y 10, 2006, Father a ppeale d the Dec ember

20 dismiss al of his petition.

Th e F e br ua ry 9, 20 06 he ari ng wa s he ld a s sc he du le d. On that date , Re fe re e Mic ha e l r e a d h is finding s and re commendations fr om a pre pare d text and decl i n ed t o en tertain que stions or hear argument, emphasizing that the hearing was only for a ruling in open cour t. At the outset, Refer ee Mic ha e l in dic a te d th a t he ha d re vie we d an d dig e ste d the e nti re fi le of lit ig a tio n b e tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s, not simpl y

the pleading s and evide nce pe rtinent to the most rece nt dispute:

This Co u rt is in ti mate ly f a mi li ar w it

h th e f a c ts in th is c a s e a s th e li ti g a tion ha s c on tin ue d f o r o v e r t e ny e ar s , w i t h t h e f

i l i n g o f n o l e s s t h an3 0 a c t i o n s f o r s p e c i fi c re lie f i n o v e r 2 0 O r d e r s , f o u r a p p e a l s , t w o o f w h i c h ar e c u r r e n t l y p e n d i n g . I t is instruct[i ve] to note that the liti g ation filed to date – that of the litigation filed to date, the mother ha s filed five a ctions, all of which c oncer n child support. The father ha s filed 25 ac tions, the va st majority of which a lleg e conte mpt ag ainst the mother, and
a re quest for c ustody

of the minor child.

Refer ee Mic hael then summar ized the va rious petitions, motions, or ders and appea ls f iled. He c ited
case law indicating that, once a not ice of appea l has been filed, t he jurisdi ction of t he appe llate cour t
a ttaches and

the tr ia l c ourt

los e s a uth or ity to a c t in the c a se wi tho ut l e a ve of the a pp e llate c ourt

. Refer ee Mic hael obse rved that Fathe r had f iled “numer ous actions” in the J uvenile Court re questing custody “af ter filing notices of appea l to the C ourt of Appeals to challeng e dec isions that awarde d custody to the mother;” a ll were filed “w ithout leave of the Appellate Court.” He then stated:

The shee r vo l u m e and timi ng of the fa ther’s ple ading s, the nature of the alleg ations contained w ithin, and the fathe r’s inability to preva il in the majority of his a c tio ns le a d this tr ibu

na l to c on c lud e that the fathe r’ s a c tio ns bo rd e r o n a n a bu se of the jud ic ia l pr oc e ss. The father’s r elentless appr oach to r esolving this matter throug h litigation indicates a

n extraordinary

vigilanc e of minor infrac tions of the custodial pare nt, and an unbendingbias ag ainst cooper ation.

Refer ee Mic hael r eiterated that Father’s latest petition for custody was “ dismi s s ed for lac k of jurisdiction.” He added, “Parties are prohibited from filing any further actions for

custody , pending either a ruling from the Court of Appeals or by their l eave .” J uvenile Court Refe ree Her bert L ane, appointed as Spec ial J udg e, conf irmed Refe ree Michae l’s rec ommendation. Appea l 2 is Fath er’ s appea l of the Juvenile Court’s rulings on De cembe r 13 and 20, 2005, a nd Fe bruar

y 9, 2006.-11- ISS UES ON APP EAL

I n Appea l 1, Father contends that the J uvenile Court Refe ree Woods erred in findingthat the ap p ellate c ourt dec ision prevented him fr om desig nating Father a s primary residential pa

rent, a nd
err ed in orde ring only

joint custody

with Mother as the pr i m ar y re s i dential par ent, rather than de sig natin g F a the r a s th e pr ima ry re sid e nti a l pa

re nt.

I n Appea l 2, Fathe r ra ises sever al issues. First, Father c ontends that J uvenile Court Refe ree Michae l erre d in holding that, in light of the pendingappea l, the J uvenile C o u rt did not have jurisdiction to address F ather ’s most rece nt petition fo r cu s t o d y . Father c ontends that Refe ree Michae l also err ed in enjoining the par ties from filing any

additional petitions for custody while the latest appe als wer e pending , and in fa iling to gra n t Fa ther’s pe tition t o be desig nated a s primary residential pa

rent. He arg ues t hat R efe ree Michae l’s char acte rization of Father’ s repe ated pe titions
a s “ bo rd e r[i ng ] on an a

bu se of the jud ic ia l pr oc e ss” is e rr on e ou s, a nd that he a lso e rr e d in

fa ili ngto include in his order

an injunction prohibiting Mother fr om having a boy friend sta y overnig ht in the child’s pre sence

.
Be cause both Appeal 1 a

nd Appea l 2 involve the issue of the pa rame ters of the trial court’ s authority to enter

tain a petiti on for custody in light of an appe al involving c ustody , we a ddress that iss ue fi rs t. We the n a dd

re ss t he oth e r i ssu e s r a ise d o n a pp e a l.

AN AL YSI S

Jurisdi ction

We consider f

irst the issue raised in Appe al 1 and Appe al 2, namely , the ex tent of t he trial court’s au t h o ri t y t o consider a petition for custody

in light of a

n appea l conce rning custody . The issue of the trial c ourt’s jurisdicti o n t o h ea r a petition for c ustody is a question of law, w hich we revie w de novo

. Butt

on v . W ait e , 208 S.W .3d 366, 369 (Tenn. 2006)

. As noted by

J uvenile Court Refer ee Michae l in the Fe bruar y 9, 2006 hear ing, upon the filing of a notice of appe al, jurisdiction over the c ase attaches t o t h e ap p el l ate c ourt, and the tria l court loses jurisdiction ove r the matter that is the subject of the a ppeal. Fir

st A m. Tru st C

o. v . FranklinMurray Dev. Co. , 59 S.W .3d 135, 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). The dec ree which is the subject of the appe al “is final a

nd conclusive upon a ll the fac ts and conditions w hich exist ed and upon w hich the decr ee w as made .” Smith v . Ha as e , 5 2 1 S

. W

. 2 d

4 9 , 5 0 (T en n

. 1 9 7 5 (q u o t i n g Hicks v. Hicks , 176 S.W .2d 3 7 1 , 3 7 5 ( T e n n

. Ct

. A p p

. 1 9 4 3 ) )

. H o w e v e r , w h e r e th e tr ia l c o u rt h a s a c qu ir ed continuing jur isdi ct i o n o v er the custody and we lfare of a minor c hild, this continuing jur isdiction is not abrog ated by

the filing of an a

ppeal. As w e re cog nized in E.J.M. I , “eve nts and lives have not stood stil l while [t he initial] custody dispute has bee n in the courts.” E.J.M. I , 2005 WL 562754, at
* 2 0 (q u o t i n g Go rsk

i v . Ra ga ins , N o. 01 A0 1- 97 10 -G S- 0059 7, 1999 WL51 14 51 , at *4 (T e nn . Ct

. App. J uly 21, 1999)). “[A] chang e in circ umstances whic h could justify chang es in custody

can occur at any time. There are times when a se cond petition for c hang es in custody may be filed and-12-

hear d by the trial cour

t while the first petition is on appeal.” Frey v. Me ade , 8 T.A.M. 27-13 (T enn. Ct. App. May

16, 1983). This Court has stated:
. . .[T] he appeal o f a d issatisfied pare nt does not tie the hands of a Trial Judge a

nd pr e ve nt h is co nti nu e d co nc e rn and pr ote c tio n of a wa rd of the c ourt pe nd inga

pp e a l. . . . Such an appe al does not transf er to the distant appe l l at e co u rt the continuing supervision of the we lfare of the c hild. Pending a ppeal, the da

y to day supervision of [the child’s welfa

re] must be left to the Trial Judge s. . . .
Mittw ede v

. Mittw ede , 490 S.W .2d 534, 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969). Thus, if there are new f acts a nd chang ed conditions since the decr ee, the trial court may issue any order s nece ssary for the welfa re of the minor child, base d on the new c ircumstance s. Se eSmith , 521 S.W .2d at 51.

I n the case at bar , the J uvenile Court ac quired c ontinuing jurisdiction over E.J.M. by virtue of t h e orig inal pater

nity action. See E.J.M. I

, 2005 WL 562754, at *1 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2005). Our de cision in E.J.M. I was “ final and c onclusive upon all the fa cts and c onditions which exis ted” at the time of the orde r that wa s the subject of that appea l. Smith , 521 S.W .2d at 50. The issuance of the appe llate dec ision in E.J.M. I , howeve r, did not abrog ate the Juvenile Court’s
co n t i n u i n g j u ri s d i ct i o nt o i s s u e o rd er s ad dre s s i n g n ew fa ct s an d ch an gedco n d i t i o n s whi ch ar ose af ter the issuance of the orde r beingappea led. Id. a t 51 ; Mittw ede , 490 S.W .2d at 536.

There fore , althoug h the hear ing that is the subject of Appea l 1 took pla ce sh o rt l y after issuance of the appe llate dec ision in E.J.M. I , F a the r’ s pe tit ion fo r a

c ha ng e in c us tod

y wa s c le a rl y based on e vents that occ urre d afte r entry of the orde r beingappea l in E.J.M. I , n am ely Mother’s actions r e lated to the Ritalin, failing to c onsult with Father, a nd conce aling medical infor mation from F a th e r

. Co n s e qu e n tl y , th e Ju v e n il e Co u rt h a d f u ll a u th o r it y to g r an t F a th e r ’ s p e ti ti o n in t oto , if
wa rr ante d b y

the c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s.
Simi larly , in Appeal 2, F ather ’s petition for custody was based on e vents that occ urre d afte r entry of the order t h at was the subjec t of Appea l 1, namely , Mother’s trips take n with E.J .M., F a t h e r ’ s m i s s e d

W e dn e s d ay p ar e n t i n g t i m e , an d M o t h e r ’ s an g r

y t e l e p h o n e r e m ar

k s

. A c c o r d i n g l y, despite the fa ct that Appea l 1 was still pending at the time, the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to hear Father’s petition a

nd g rant the reque sted chang e in c ustody if it de termined that these fa cts war rante d such a c hang e.
Th e re fo re , to the e xten t tha t J uv e nil e Court Re fe re e Woo ds he ld t

hat th e Juve nil e Court

did
no t have jur isd ic tio n o r a

uth or ity to g ra nt F a the r’ s p e tit ion

fo r a c ha ng e of c us tod y in A pp e a l 1, thi s holding is reverse d. L ikewise, J uvenile Court Refe ree Michae l’s dismiss al of F ather ’s petition for custody based on la ck of jurisdiction in Appea l 2 is also rever sed.-13- Cha nge in D e sig nat ion of P r im ar y R e side nt ialP ar e nt

I n b oth Ap pe a l 1 a

nd Ap pe a l 2, F a the r c on te nd s th a t th e Juve nil e Court e rr e d in fa ili ngto d e s ig n a te h im

a s the p r im ar

y r e s id e n ti a l p ar e n t, an d

h e u r g e s th is Co u rt t o d o s o o na p p e a l. We consider F ather ’s ar g uments on this is sue in the contex t of both appe als. I n both, Fathe r conte nds that events whic h occur

red a fter the prior custod

y o r d e r constitute a mater ial chang e in circ umstances wh ic h w arr ant c ha

ng ingc us tod

y and de sig natin g him

a t th e pr ima

ry re sid e nti a l pa

re nt.

The standa

rd of r eview on this issue is set forth in our Opinion in E.J.M. I :

We r e vie w the Juve nil e Court ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de novo on the re cord, pr esum ing those finding s to be corr ect unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise. Kendrick v. Shoem ake , 90 S.W. 3d 56 6, 57 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; Hass v. Kni ghton , 676 S.W .2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). We revie w issues of law de novo , with no such pre sumption of corre ctness. Kendrick , 9 0 S. W.3 d at 569- 70 ; T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 13 (d ). I n c a se s r e g ard ing c us tod y , the Juve nil e Court

ha s b ro a d d isc re tio n b e c a us e such “de cisions are factually driven a

nd require the ca

ref ul consideration of numerous fa ctors.” Mo rri s v . M orris , N o

. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 2 2 7 5

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 1 0 5 9 2 2 2 , at * 2 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. S ep t

. 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Bah v. Bah , 668 S.W .2d 663, 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)). The tria l judge is in a position t o observe the demea nor of the witnesses and to make deter minations of cre dibilit y

. Id. There fore , the Juve nil e Court ’s c us tod y de te rm inatio n wi ll b e re ve rs e d o nly if it h a s a bu se d it s discretion. Id. Custody order s are res judicata and ca nnot be modified unless there has been a
ma te ri a l c ha

ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s th a t make s a c ha ng e of c us tod y in t he c hil d' s b e st interest. Kendrick , 90 S.W.3d at 5 70 ; Blair v. Badenh ope , 77 S.W .3d 137, 148 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; s e ea l

s o W o o d a r d v . W oo da rd , 783 S.W .2d 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). The “thre shold issue” is w hether a materia l c hang e in circumstanc es occ urre d afte r t he ini tial custody deter mination. Bla ir , 77 S.W .3d at 150. The Supre me Court has explained that “[t] h er e ar e no hard and fa st rules” in making such a deter mination: Whil e “[t]here a re n o h ard and fast rule s for de termining when a ch i l d ’s ci rc u m s t an ce s h av e c h an ged s u ff i ci en t l y t o wa rr an ta c h an ge of h is o r h e r c u s to dy , ” th e f o ll o w in g f

a c to r s h a v e f

o r me d a sound basis for de termining whether a mater ial chang e in circ umstances ha s occur red: the c hang e “ha s occur red after the entry of t he orde r soug ht to b e mod if

ie d, ” the c ha

ng e “ is not on e that w a s k

no wn or re a so na bly anticipated w hen the or der w as ente red,” and the chang e “is one that
a ff e c ts the c hil d’ s w e ll- be ingin a me anin g fu l w ay .” We n ote that a pa re nt’ s c ha

ng e in ci rc ums tanc e s ma y be a ma te ri a l c ha

ng e in ci rc u m s t an ce s f

o r p u rp o s es o f m o d i fy i n g cu s t o dy i f s u ch a c h an ge af fe ct s th e c h i l d ’s we l l b ei n g.It i s curi o us, how ever, t hat R ef eree W o o d s st at ed t ha t h e f el t “ b o und ” b y t he ap p el l at e d eci si o n, and 5
nevert hel ess ord ered joi nt c u sto d y, w hen t he ap p el l at e o p i ni o n em p hasi zed t hat t he reco rd supp o rt ed Juveni l e C o urt R e fer e e H e rb e rt L a n e ’s co n c lus io n tha t th e p a re n ts sim p ly co u ld no t wo rk c o o p e ra tive ly, tha t t h e c o n sta n t p o w e r stru g g le bet ween t hem ca us ed t he mo s t ha r m t o t he chi l d, and t hat i t was t her ef ore nec es s ar y t o des i gn at e one par ent or t he ot her

a s the d e c isio n -m a k e r. S e e E .J .M . I , 2005 W L 562754, a t * 22- * 23.

-14- Kendrick , 9 0 S. W.3 d at 57 0 ( c itatio n o mit te d)

. On c e it h a s b e e n d e te rm ine d th a t a materia l chang e in circ umstances ha s occur red, the n th e i s sue bec omes whethe r a modification of custody is in the child’s best interest, considering th e f actor s enumer ated in Te nnessee Code Annotated § 36- 6-101(a ). Id. “ Th e tr ia l c ourt mus t
rec og nize a strong presumption in favor of continuity

of plac ement.” Mo rri

s , 2002 WL 31059222, at *2 (quotation omitted).

E. J

. M. I , 2 0 0 5 W L 562754, at *16. We look now at the fa ctual finding s and the trial c ourt’s
a sse ssm e nt o f t

he de me a no r a nd c re dib ili ty

of the pa rt ie s in bo th a pp e a ls.

I n the hea ring in Appeal 1, Juvenile Court Refer ee Woods hear d testimony and ar g ument on Mo the r’ s a c tio ns in t a kin g E. J.M. t o s e e ps y cho lo gist Dr . Wil so n a nd ph y sic ian D r. Ad e so

ji, ob ta ini nga

pr e sc ri pti on

fo r A DD me dic a tio n for E. J.M. an d a dmi nis te ri ngthe me dic a tio n to he r, a ll wi tho ut c on su lti ngor

e ve n in fo rm ingF a the r, and in g ivi ngthe me dic a tio n t o E. J .M .’s sc ho ol t o administer on Fa

ther’s pa renting day s, in an eff

ort to conce al from h i m t h e fact that E.J.M. was taking medication. Af

ter he aringFather’s te stimony and Mother’ s position pr o s e , Refer ee Woods conclude d that Mother intentionally dece ived Father about the fac t that their daug hter wa s on ADD medication, and that she enda ng ere d E.J .M.’s well-be ing by placingher on suc h medication without
c on su l t i n g o r

i n f o r m i n g F a t h e r

. H e f

o u n d t h a tM o t h e r ’ s c o n d

u c tw a s a

s u f f i c i e n tc h an g e in circ umstances to wa

rra nt desig nating Father a s primary resid en t i al p arent, althoug h he did not ultimately

do so beca

use of a misconception about the eff ect of the appellate decision in E.J.M. I

. 5

Re fe re e Woo ds ’ i nit ial fi nd ingtha t Mo the r’ s c on du c t w a s a su ff ic ie nt c ha

ng e in circ umstances to warr ant cha ng ing the desig nation of primar y residential pa

rent is fully

supported by t h e e v i d e n c e

. S e r i o u s p r o b l e m s c o u l d h a v e ar i s e ni f

E

. J. M

. h a d

h a d a m e d i c a l c r i s i s w h i l e in F a the r’ s c are and

he wa s una

wa re that sh e wa s ta

kin gme dic a tio n. E. J.M. wa s p la c e d in the dif fi c ult position of n o t b e in g a

b le to te ll F a th e r

th a t s h e w a s ta

k in g me d ic a ti o n

. Re g ar d le s s o f M o th e r’s
rea sons f or her decisions, hiding f

rom Father the f

act that their

child was takingsuch medication was sim ply wr on g . F a the r, a s E .J.M. ’s pa re nt, ha d a

ri g ht t o th is i nf

or ma tio n, e ve n if

it r e sult ed in Mother beingin court ag ain or being preve nted from a cting on her be liefs about the c ause of E.J .M.’s
c on tin ue d s c ho ol d if

fi c ult ie s. Th is c on sti tut e s a c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s su ff ic ient ly mater ia l to jus tif y a c ha ng e in t he de sig natio n o f p ri mary re sid e nti a l pa

re nt.
We look now at the hea

ring in Appeal 2 before J uvenile Court Refe ree Michae l conce rning Mothers’ trips with E.J.M ., Father’s missed p ar en ting da y s, and the a

ng ry exchang e in E.J.M .’s p r e s e n c e w h e n M o t h e r t e l e p h o n e d F a t h e r t o c o n s u l to nd e t e r i o r a t i n g s c h o o l p e r f o r m an c e

. In i t i a l l y, Refer ee Mic hael g rante d em er gen cy protec tive custody

to Fathe r, base d on the rather puzzl ing
r e p r e s e n t a t i o nt o t h e C o u rt , a p p ar e n t l y m a d e b y F a t h e r ’ s c o u n s e l an d

/ o r t h e G A L e

xpa rte , that-15-

E.J .M. was “de pendent a

nd neg lected” beca

use Mother was purporte dly “neg lecting ” her

education. I n the subsequent he aring , Refer ee Michae l he ard an outline of the history of the case from F ather ’s
c ouns e l, F a the r’ s te sti mony , M ot her’s pr o s e direc t testimony and leng thy

cross-e x amination by Fa the r ’ s a tt o r

n e y a s w e ll a s th e G A L

. Co mm e n d a b ly , Re f e r e e M ic h a e l th e n to o k th e c a se under advisement for

the express purpose of

revie wing the extensive file and c onsidering the most rece nt conflict in the c ontext of the ove rall litigation. Bec ause Re fe re e M i ch ael ultimately dismiss ed Father’s petition to be desig nated pr imary residential pa

rent on jurisdictional g rounds, he made no fac tual finding s on the eve nts which g ave r ise to the petition. I n his order, how ever , he lef t no doubt as to which pa

rty he viewe d as beingprimarily responsible for

the unending series of disputes. A fter he ari ngthe pa

rt ie s’ te sti mony and the le ng thy e xami natio n by c ouns e l, Re fe re e Mic ha e l re fe rr e d to Father’s “ rele ntless approa ch to re solving this mat t er t h ro ug h litigation” a nd his “extraordinary vigilanc e for

minor infrac tions” by

Mother. He then cha

rac terized Father a s having “an unbe nding bias ag ainst cooper ation” and sa id his “actions borde r on an a buse of the judicia l proce ss.” Giving due defe renc e to the trial c ourt’s assessment of t he demeanor and cre dibilit y of the pa rt ie s, and his vie w o f t

he mos t r e c e nt c on fl ic ts i n th e c on te xt of the ov e ra ll l iti g a tio n, we mus t conclude that Refer ee Mic hael’ s findings a re a lso fully

supported in the re cord. A re view of the
rec ord cor roborates Refe ree Michae l’s impression of Father’s y ear s of o v e r
- r e liance on litig ation and his dogg ed ca

talog uing of Mother’s e very failure and tra

nsg ression. This results in barr en g round in which to try

to cultivate a c ooperative pare nting r elationship, as wel l as incre ased pr essure on E.J .M., who by

now is surely

awa re that her simply

rec ounting to F ather

the eve nts on a vac ation with Mother is likely

to result in more litigation between he r par ents over he r.
Thus , in thi s c on so lid ate d a

pp e a l, b e c a

us e of the un iq ue pro c e dure s in the Juve nil e Court , we a re f ace d with a “trial court” below with differ ing views of t he par ties’ re lative culpability . One finds that Mother has c rossed the line and that her actions to de ceive Father may war rant de signating him a s p ri mary

re sid e nti a l pa

re nt; the oth e r c le arl y

po int s to F a the r’ s c e a se le ss l iti g a tio n a g a ins t Mother as preve nting a cooper ative pare nting relationship. Both trial judg es hea rd the pa rties testify and asse ssed their de meanor and cr edibi l i t y , both rea ched c onclusions that are supported by the
rec ord.

Un der

the se c ir c ums tanc e s, a lth ou g h w e have fo un d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ha s ju ri sd ic tio n to addre ss fully

Father’s pe titions , we de cline F ather ’s re quest that we de s i gn at e him as the primar y re sident ia l pa

re nt a t th is j un c tur e . Ins te a d, we mus t r e mand the c a us e to t he Juve nil e Court

to de te rm ine thi s is su e in l ig ht o f o ur c lari fi c a tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r t he la te st of F a the r’ s pe tit ion s fo r c us tod y . T he Juve nil e Court

is a ff ir me d o n a ll o the r i ssu e s r a ise d o n a pp e a l.

There fore , we r emand the c ase f or the Juvenile Court t o re co n s i d er F ather ’s petition. On
rema nd, the J uvenile Court should take a c omprehe nsive view of the case , including but not limited to consideration of the parties’ longsta nding pa ttern of non- cooper ati o n , Mother’s most rec ent de c e p ti o no f

F ath e r r e g ar d in g th e A D D me d ic a ti o n , an d F a th e r ’ s u n r e mi tt in g li ti g ation. I mplementation of any

joint-custody

arr ang ement in this case is discour ag ed. The J uv enile Court is also directe d, on rema nd, to re-e valuate w het h er t h er e i s a continued ne ed for the GAL , Dr.-16-

Z ink us , an d the a

pp aratus of

re qu ir ingthe pr ima

ry re sid e nti a l pa

re nt, wh oe ve r t

hat ma y be , to c on su lt wi th n ot o nly

the oth e r p are nt, bu t a lso the GA Land /or Dr . Z ink us on sig nif ic ant d e c isi on s.

I n the meantime, the pa

rties ar e enjoined f

rom exposing the child t o overnig ht visit s by unrelated visitors of the opposite sex. All remaining issues r aised on a ppeal a re pr eter mitted.

There fore , the J uvenile Court’s dec ision to award j o int custody in Appeal 1, Case No. W2005-02520-COA-R3-CV, is reve rsed. The J uvenile C ourt’s decision to dismi ss Fathe r’s pe tition for lac k of jurisdiction in App ea l 2, Case No. W2006-00365-COA- R3-J V, is also reve rsed. The
cause is remande d for c onsideration of the issues noted above . Costs of this appea l are assessed one

half to Appe llant L ee Me y ers a nd one-ha lf to Appellee Sandra B rown, for which execution may

issue i f n e c e s s ar y.

__________________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE