### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Marc h 16
, 200 4 S es sio n

B. M. M. v. P . R . M

. Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wilson County No. 3300DV Clar a W. Byrd, Jud ge

No. M2002- 02242-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Augu st 18, 2004

This is a child cust ody

dispute. The mother a nd fathe r ente red into a pe rmane nt pare nting plan naming the m other the primary residential parent of their daug hter. Unde r the plan, thefathe r had supervised visitation beca use t he mot her was concerne d about s exual abuse by the fa ther. The fathe r later soug ht to modify the par enting plan to allow for unsupe rvised visitation. The mother then f iled a notice that she intended to move to Florida w ith the daug hter, whic h the fa ther opposed. T he trial

c ou rt g rante d th e father’s peti tio n f or un su pe rv ise d v isi ta tio n a ndde nie d th e mothe r’ s r e qu e st t o reloc ate to F lorida with the child. The mother and daug hter then left for a sche duled trip to Florida, with the understanding that they would return for the father ’s sche duled visitation. The mother

re ma ine d in F lorida

wi th the daug hte r f

or si x week s, a sse rt ing that sh e , th e mothe r, wa s to o il l to trave l. The father wa s g rante d an eme rg ency chang e of c ustody . The father then re trieved the daug hte r thr ou g h a

pr ivate inv e sti g a tor , c oo rd inatin g wi th F lorida of fi c ia ls. Up on re turn to Tenne ssee, the trial court found the mother i n cr iminal contempt for interf ering with the fathe r’s visitation and for moving to Florida. The fathe r wa s named the primary residential pa rent a nd the mothe r w a s g ra nte d su pe rv ise d vis itatio n. Th e mothe r wa s a lso re qu ir e d to pa y the fathe r f

or the c os t of the private investig ator. The mother appe als the denia l of her r equest to move to F lorida with the child, the awa

rd of unsupe rvised visitation to the father , the finding of con t em p t , t h e change of custody , the re quirement that he r visitation be sup er v i s ed
, and the requireme nt that she pay the private inv e sti g a tor ’s fe e . We a ff ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J
., W.S
., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

Pa ula Og le B la ir , N a sh vil le , f

or the app e lla nt B . M . M

.

An dr e w M . Cate , N a sh vil le , f or the app e lle e P. R. M.-2- OP IN ION

Ap p el l an t B. M. M. (“Mother ”) a nd Appellee P. R. M. (“Fa ther” ) we re divorc ed by final decr e e o n Ja n u ar y 2 9
, 2 0 0 1

. A t th e ti me , th e p ar ti e s a g r e e d o n a “ Pe r man e n t Pa r e n ti ng Plan”

conc er n i n g the parties’ then six -y ear -old daug hter, Chrissy , which wa s incorporated into the final decr ee. U nder the pare nting plan, Mother was named the primary residential pa

rent a nd Father wa s g rante d supervised visitation, subject to subsequent modi fica tion by mutual ag ree ment. Mother had insisted on the supervised visitation based on her belief that Chrissy was at risk for sexual abuse by Father. Mother ’s conc erns a bout possible sex ual abuse arose from F ather ’s viewing of interne t pornog raphy , and Mother’ s interpr et ation of g ames F ather play ed with Chrissy

as having sexual

ov e rt on e s.

On Octob er 5, 2001 , F a the r f ile d a pe tit ion to m od if

y the pa re nti ng plan to pe rm it unsupervised visit ation with Chrissy

. I n the petit ion, Father maintained that there had neve r bee n
a ny jus tif ic a tio n f or ha vin g his vis itatio n s up e rv ise d, bu t th a t he ha d a g re e d to the re strict ion on ly beca use Mother a ssured him that she would later permit overnig ht, unsupervised visitation. Fathe r alleg ed that, rather than loosening the re strict i o n s , M o t h er increa sed them, so he soug ht court permission for unsuper vised visitation. The trial court issued a n order for Mother

to show cause why F a the r s ho uldno t ha ve un su pe rv ise d vis itatio n. I n h e r r e sp on se , M oth e r a lle g e d th a t F a the r s ho uld not be permitted unsupe rvised visitation bec ause he “suff ers from par aphilia and se x ual addiction and . . . F ather ’s inappropriate beha vior, including his behavior with or i n the presence of t he child,

m ak es [ u n s u p er v i s ed v i s i t at i o n ] i n ap p ro p ri at e. ” M o t h er al s o as s er t ed t h at t h er e ha d b ee n n o ch an ge in material c ircumstance s to justi fy modify ing the ag ree d-upon par enting plan.

Sho rt ly the re a ft e r, on Oc tob e r 2 5, 20 01 , M oth e r s e nt F a the r n oti c e of he r int e nt to r e loc a te to Florida w ith Chrissy , pursuant to sec tion 36-6-108 of the Te nnessee Code Annotated. In the

no tic e , M oth e r s a id tha t sh e a ndChriss y ha d li ve d in Te nn e sse e wi th M oth e r’ s mo the r, L e e M. (“G randmother ”), and that Gr andmother w as moving to Florida f or work. Mothe r asse rted that she depende d on Gra ndmother to help pay for utilities and repa irs to the residenc e as well as clothes f or Chrissy . Mother a l s o contende d that Florida had better

home schooling opportunities than wer e available in Tennesse e. Af ter re ceiving the notice, F ather filed a pe tition oppos i n g the move on November

30, 2002, maintaining that there was no rea sonable purpose f or the move, that Mother had vindictive purposes for

the move, and that the move to F lorida posed a thre at of spec ific and se rious harm to Chrissy . On Dec ember 17, 2001, Mother filed a n answe r to Father’s pe tition oppos ing he r reloc ation to Florida w ith Chrissy , deny ing any g rounds for F ather ’s opposition to her move.

A trial was conducte d on the i ssues of Mot her’ s proposed relocation and Father ’s petition for unsupervised visitation. Most of the testimony was he ard on May

22 and June 19, 2002. Reg arding the pr op os e d r e loc a tio n, Mo the r te sti fi e d tha t she wa nte d he r an d Chr iss y to m ov e to F lorida wi th Gr a nd mothe r, be c a us e sh e re lie d o n G rand mothe r “ ph y sic a lly a nde mot ion a lly ,” a ndbe c a us e Gr a nd mothe r h e lpe d pa y bil ls an d wa tc h af te r Chriss y . Moth e r b e lie ve d th a t Ch ri ssy ’s re la tio ns hip with Grandmoth er was as important as Chrissy ’s re lationship with Father. Mothe r admitted, howeve r, that she wa s not financially depende nt on Gra ndmother. Mother te stified that, in addition-3-

to child support, Mother ea rned be tween $34,000 and $35,000 per y ear perf ormi ng medical transcription, which s h e d i d fr om her home. Mother said that she did not have w orker ’s compensation or insurance benef its from her wor

k, but she had a cce ss to VA doctors and r ece ived $1 00 pe r m on th i n V A b e ne fi ts.
Chrissy testified as we ll. Chrissywas asked about her relationship wit h Father a nd the contemplated move to Florida. She sa id that, under the pa renting plan, she visited Father ofte n
e no ug h, bu t th a t “ a

lot of tim e s I ’l l be real ly loo kin g fo rw ardto s e e ing him be c a us e I

re a lly mis s him .” Whe n a sk e d ab ou t the po ssi bil ity of se e ing F a the r le ss of te n, sh e re sp on de d, “ I

wo uld n’ t r e a lly like it, because I rea lly

miss him .” She testified: “I f I moved to Florida

I would want to see him at least as of ten as I —at least a s often as I

could. . . . ”

Af te r h e ari ng the te sti mon y

on thi s is su e , th e tr ia l c ou rt de nie d Mo the r’ s pe tit ion to r e loc a te to Florida w ith Chrissy . The trial court found no rea sonable purpose for the move , rea soning tha t Mo the r d id n ot n e e d G ra nd mothe r’ s su pp ort to raise Chriss y :

The mom has a home here
, friends here, a j ob. She makes 34,000, 35,000 a y ear

. . . . She can w ork whe n she wa nts t o o r at n i gh t when the c hild is i n bed. She’s g ot VA bene fits and g ot a VA hospital rig ht here

. . . . * * * [B]asically

y ou’re in better financial cir cumstance s rig ht he re than 99 perc ent of the single moms or single da ds that I have c ome bef

ore this Court.

The trial court also hear d testimony reg arding Father’s petition to modify the par enting plan to permit u n s u p er v i s ed vis itation. I n her te stimony , Mother maintained that supervised visitation

was ne cessa

ry beca use C hrissy

was a t risk of sexual abuse fr om Fathe r. Mother sa id that she had tol d F a the r that she wa s only wi lli ng to lif t the vis itatio n r e stric tio ns if sh e be c a me c on vin c e d Ch ri ssy was in no dang er, and that F ather ’s see king c ounseling was only a first step to alleviating he r
conce rns. She testified that she f irst beca me conc erne d for Chrissy ’s safe ty when she discover ed that F a the r h a d b e e n view ing po rn og ra ph y on the int e rn e t, s ome of

wh ic h s he be lie ve d in c lud e d c hil d pornog raphy . She introduced i n t o ev i dence photogr aphs and g raphic s from their c omputer’s te mpo ra ry internet fi le s. Ac c or din g to D a vidCol lin sw orth ( “ Col lin sw orth” ), wh o te sti fi e d a s a computer e x pert on be half of M o t h er, temporary internet files a

re te x t and g raphic s from interne t pa g e s auto ma tic a lly

sa ve d o n c omp ute rs a ft e r b e ing vie we d o n th e int e rn e t. Al tho ug h the fi le s d id

no t di re c tly

ind ic a te that c hil dr e n we re in the po rn og ra ph ic ph oto g ra

ph s, Mo the r b e lie ve d th a t so me of the subjec ts looked y oung enoug h to be under ag e.

Mother testified that, a fter she d i s co v ered that Father ha d been looking at interne t pornog raphy , she re evaluated ac tiviti es she ha d observe d betwee n Father a nd Chrissy during the marria g e, and ha d come to suspec t that th o s e ac tiviti es had unde rly ing se x ual connotations. She

re c a lle d g a me s in wh ic h F a the r a nd Ch ri ss y pret e nd e d to be a nim a ls a ndlic ke d o ne a no the r i n various plac es and sniff

ed ea ch other ’s ea

rs. I n her de position, Mother testified about an inc ident-4-

in w hic h F a the r w a s b low dry ing Chriss y ’s ha ir a ndhe pu lle d ba c k he r und e rw e ar, po int e d th e ha ir dry er dow n her ba ck and sa id “hot pants.”

Mother objec ted to a number of F ath er ’s activities with Chrissyduring his supervised visitation. Father and C h ri s s y b u ilt tents and forts with blankets and furniture, a g ame, Mother imp lie d, wh ic h F a the r o rc he str a te d in or de r t o h ide ina pp ro priat e con duc t. M oth e r a sk e d th e m to

s t o p b u i l d i n g t en t s an d fo rt s

. M o t h er s ai d t h at t h e an i m al gam es t h at o cc u rr ed d u ri n g t h e m ar ri age continued; Father a nd Chrissy appar ently

play ed a g ame in which Chrissywas a stray dog and F ather would ca t ch her a nd put her in the dog pound. Mother told them to “stay out of the dog pen.” Mother objec ted to Father a nd Chrissy sword fig hting, playing Pete r Pan and Capta in Hook, since she consider ed it to be inappropriate. On one occa sion, Fathe r and Chrissy had bee n play ing in the ba c k y ard wh ile Mo the r s a t in the ba c k y ardre a din g a bo ok . Wh e n M oth e r w e nt t o th e bathr oo m, F a the r t oo k Ch ri ssy

to s ome ne arb y

wo od s, wh e re the y

we re un su pe rv ise d for fi ve to t e n mi nu te s. After Mother came bac k from the bathroom, she y elled re peate dly , and they returne d.

I n o ne inc ide nt, F a the r a nd Chriss y we re in the ba c k seat of the c ar a ft e r a

sh op pin g tr ip t o the mall, and Chrissy

complained of

her le g s being tired or sore . Mother then obs er v ed Father

ma ss aging Chr iss y ’s up pe r thig h a s sh e sa id “ oo h” a nd“ a h. ” Mo the r, in the fr on t se a t, p oin te dly clea red he r throat, a nd Father stopp ed

. Gr an d m other told Mother than she once obse rved F ather massag ing Chrissy ’s bare back and pelvic ar ea a s he tucke d her into bed; ther eaf ter, it was a

rra ng ed

so that Fa the r wo uld no lon g e r tuc k Chr iss y int o be d. Mo the r tol d Fathe r that it wa s in app ro pr ia te for him to rub Chrissy ’s leg s and maintained tha t Fathe r should not touc h Chrissy in any way that he would not touch a ne ighbor ’s child.

Mother admitted that she ha d told friends t hat Father was “in kiddy porn” and that she had told Father ’s fa milythat he had t o u ch ed Chrissy inappropriately . She reported to the police that Father ha d been vie wing child pornog raphy . She acknow ledg ed that, in the past, she wa s rape d by her first husband and beaten to the point that she requir ed re constructive sur g ery . Mother said she chose to home- school Chrissy beca use Chrissy

had been te sted and found to be a g ifted child, and Mother fe lt that gifte d children in public schools we re f reque ntly bored.

Father pre sented testimony from his first wife, Rebecc a M., to whom Father wa s marrie d for six y ear s and who wa s the m other of Father’s son, Be n, Chrissy ’s half-brother. Father a nd Rebec ca M. share d joint custodyof B en. Rebe cca M. test i fi ed t hat Father wa s an excellent par ent to Be n, very patient, mellow and e asy -g oing, a nd that she neve r saw any inappropriate beha vior toward B en or any other c hild. She had been told the a lleg ations that Father wa s interested in c hild pornog raphy and that he had e ng ag ed in inappropriate conduc t with Chrissy . She commented, “ I bet y ou a million do lla rs that no ne of

that’ s tr ue ,” a ndsa id that sh e wo uld“ st ake my li fe” on the fa c t th a t he wa s a g reat father

.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

a lso he ardte sti mon y

fr om F a the r’ s son, B e n, a fi ft e e n- y e ar- oldho no r s tud e nt. B e n s a id tha t he ha d a

g oo d r e la tio ns hip wi th F a the r, that he an d h is f ri e nd s w ou ld p la y

sp orts w ith Father, a nd that he wa s “re ally fun to be wi t h

. ” He said that Father a nd Chrissy had fun pla y ingC o l l i nswort h al so t est i f i ed t hat
, al t ho ugh al l of t he p i ct ures and graphi cs he r et ri eved had ap p eared on t he 1

co m p ut er s creen, only one of t he f i l es t hat M o t her as ser t ed m ay have had unde rage s ub ject s i nd i cat ed t hat t he

c o m p u te r u se r in te n d e d to vie w it . T h e re m a ind e r w e re b a n n e rs o r “th u m b n a il” link s to o the r w e b sites

.
-5- toge ther, a nd Father tucked Chrissy in at night, with no inappr opriate be havior. B en obser ved that Chriss y a lw a y s lo ve d b e ing aro un d F a the r. B e n s a id that he ha d a g ood re la tio ns hip wi th C hr iss y and he w oul d l i k e t o s ee he r more of ten. B en desc ribed his re lationship with Mot her, his stepmother, as “unea sy ,” and said that when Mother and F ather wer e mar ried, B en and Mothe r did not g et along . He c hara cterized her as “ controlling and strict,” and s ai d that Mother criticiz ed him as

“ ir re sp on sib le ” a nd “ a ba d inf lue nc e on Chriss y .” B e n te sti fi e d that Mo the r wa s “v ery par a no id about how Chrissy

might g et hurt or how pe ople might take advanta g e of Chrissy .”

Father a lso testified. I nitially , he explained that as his m a r riag e dete riorate d, Mother belittled

a ndde me a ne d h im, a ndthe ir se xua l c on ta c t g re a tly dim ini sh e d. As a se xua l ou tle t, a

pp ro xima te ly a y ear befor e the pa

rties divorce d, he beg an viewing pornog raphy on the internet. He wa s “not rea l proud” of

having done it. Father de nied v i ew i ng or sea rching for c hild pornog raphy . He

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t a

nu mbe r o f the te mpo ra

ry int e rn e t file s r e tr ie ve d b y the c omp ute r e xpe rt , D a vid Colli nsworth, had r efe renc es to subjects who we re “ y oung ” or “tee ns,” but said that these we re links or h ea d er s to pornog raphy sites that he did not nece ssarily acc ess. He a cknowledg ed having

1

acc essed a

few that involved bestiality
, out of curiosity . Father said that he ag ree d to the pare nting plan, which pr o v i d ed fo r s u pervised visitation, bec ause he was upset at having failed at another

marria g e , h e wa s d e mor a lize d by Mo the r’ s bel itt lin g of him , an d be c a us e Mo the r h a d th re a te ne d to pu bli c ly e xpos e his vie wi ng of

po rn og ra ph y . H e sa id that Mo the r p ro mis e d h im that, i f h e wo uld

see a counselor, she would rela x the re strictions on his vis itation. F ather obtained counse ling f rom
a psy cholog ist, a s ag ree d, but Mothe r incre ased, rathe r than decr ease d, the re strictions. W hen F ather

c on fr on te d h e r, Mo the r r e fu se d to c on sid e r r e la xing the re stric tio ns

.

F a the r f la tly de nie d e ve r se xua lly

abu sin g Chriss y . F a the r t e sti fi e d th a t he ma ssa g e d Ch ri ssy on her ba ck, stomach, a nd leg s to he lp her slee p, and had done so since Chrissy was a baby , but that h e n ev ert o u ch ed h ergen i t al ar ea

. Fa t h erm ai n t ai n ed t h at i t wa s n o ti n ap p ro p ri at e f o r h i mt o m as s age Chriss y in a way that he wo uld no t mas sa g e a no the r ch ild . He de nie d th a t th e g a me s h e play e d w ith Chrissy wer e for sexual gratification and said that Mother had no objec tion to them prior to learning that he had be en viewing pornog raphy . Father sug g ested that Mother had a history of over rea cting to seeming ly b en i gn circ umstances a nd said that, afte r she lea rned of the pornog raphy , she beg an putting a “ sexual spin” on innocuous behavior.

Father re counted a number of incidents in w hich he said Mother ove rre acte d or re ad sexual overtone s into harmless activities. When Father a nd Chriss ymade blow g uns out of construction paper and tape and ac cidentally knocked ove r a drink, Mother put an end to their game and asked Chrissy ominously , if this was the sort of g ame she would play with her friends? Mother objec ted to the g ame in which Father was the dog catc her and Chrissy was the stray dog and the dog catc her would catc h her w hen she sne aked out. Mother said it was not appropriate to put Chrissy in the dog p e n a n d a d m o n i s h e d C h r i s s y r e p e a t e d l y , “ I s t h i s t h e s o r to f g a m e y o u w o u l d p l a y

w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s ?”-6-

Mo the r o bje c te d to Chriss y a ndF a the r m akin g te nts a ndfo rt s w ith blank e ts and c ha ir s, be c a us e Mother believe d Father used this method to g et alone with Chrissy
, out of Mother’s sig ht. Mother disapproved of Father and Chrissy play ing Peter Pan with toy swords and hats, because it was too violent. She thought it was inappr opriate f or F ather and Chrissy

to pretend to be animals and sniff

eac h other’s f

ace or ea rs, bec ause she believed F ather was doing this for sexual gr atifica tion. Father said that they

prete nded to lick eac h other’s fac e or ear s, but did not r eally lick, and that they did not sniff re ar e nds as dog s do. After a trip to the mall, Chrissy complained that he r leg s were tired, and Father said that he , in the back se at with Chrissy , “lig htheartedly ” massag ed the top of he r leg , and Mother objec ted. I n the incident with the hair dry er, Father said he wa s dry ing Chrissy ’s hair a nd play fu lly pu lle d th e ba c k o f h e r p a nti e s a nd ble w the ha ir dry e r andsa id “ Ho t Pa nts ,” a ndChriss y g igg led. He w as unaw are of Mother’ s objection unt il her deposition. On one occa sion, Fathe r took Chriss y ou t of the ba c k y ard t o lo ok a t so me ne arb y c on str uc tio n, a ndMo the r b e c a me ve ry up se t. When Fathe r sig ned up to g o with Chrissy o n t h e fa t h er/daug hter c amping trip org anized by Chrissy ’s home-sc hool co-op prog ram, Mother told persons associa ted with the prog ram that F ather ha d b e e n v ie wi ng c hil d p or no g ra ph y , a nd , a c c or din g to F a the r “ the y qu ic kly de c ide d that I wa s u nf it to go on that trip.”

F a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a tM o t h e r

tr e a t e d h i s s o n B e n “ p o o r l y” a n d w a s o v e rp r o t e c t i v e o f C h r i s s y. Mother fe lt that Ben w as “a delinquent” a nd “a ba d influence on Chrissy

. ” M o t h er b ec ame ve ry ang ry when B en let his mother into their house to see his Hallowee n pumpkin, be ca u s e o f her

c o n c e r n t h a tB e n ’ s m o t h e r m i g h td o s o m e t h i n g t o C h r i s s y.

Father said that Mother

chose to home- school Chrissy in part bec aus e s h e d i d not want Chrissy influence d by

the type of c hildren in public schools. Father said that Mother usually signe d up to te a c h Chr i s s y ’ s S u n d a y S c h o o l c l a s s , a n d s e e m e d u n w i l l i n g t o l e tC h r i s s y o u to f h e r s i g h t. Father wa s conce rned tha t Mother’s over protec tiveness of Chrissy limit ed her experience s, and that the re strictions on Fathe r’s visitation with Chrissymade his conta ct with her “artific ial.” He thought that Mother communicated to Chrissy a distrust of men in g ener al, resulting in pa rt from Mother’ s abusive fir st husband. Father de nied any inappropriate conduc t with Chrissyand soug ht standard, unsupervised visitation.

At the conc lusion of th e t estimony on J une 19, 2002, the only testimonyrema ining wa s
e xpe rt ps y c ho log ic a l te sti mon y . A t th a t po int , th e tr ia l ju dg e tol d th e pa rt ie s:

Well, at this time I

find no rea sonable purpose for the move to Florida. The mom has

. . . a n id e a l situa tio n he re

. . . . Th e re is no way sh e c ou ld make thi s mo ve a t th is t ime without totallyalienating this child from her da ddy . . . . I ’m g oing to r eser ve any finding s on whether

or not I think this is a tot al attempt to alienate the child from the fathe r o r w he the r I thi nk the mov e is vin dic tiv e

. I ’m re se rv ing tho se fi nd ing s a t th is time, because I

do want to se e what the psy cholog icals show.

. . . I rea lly don’t know that su p er v i s i on is nece ssary any more, but I ’m g oing to let [the expert] finis h her

rec ommendation and see

. . . .-7-

Th us , th e tr ia l c ou rt

a t th a t ju nc tur e tol d th e pa rt ie s th a t sh e wa s in c lin e d n ot to perm it Mo the r t o move to Florida and that she did not seea nee d to have F ather ’s visitation with C hrissy supervised. The testimony

resumed on A ug ust 2, 2002.

The trial c ourt hea

rd testimony

and re ceive d a re port from an expert appointed by the court to evaluate Chrissy , Dr. Lisa Dupre e (“ Dr. Dupr ee” ), who also worke d with the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nv e sti g a tio n o n id e nti fying c hil d p orno g ra ph y . D r. Du pr e e c omm e nted o n the po rn og ra ph ic imag es ad m i t ted into evidence , noting that, a lthough ther e we re some photos in evide nce that depicted subjects whose a g e wa s questionable, the pornog raphy submitt ed into evidenc e did not d ep i ct an y

p re p u b es ce n tch i l d re n

. Dr

. Du p re e al s o ex p l ai n ed t h e di ff i cu l t y o f i d en t i fy i n g u n d er age pornog raphy

on the interne t. She noted that “virtually every pornog raphic site that we ha ve see n has some adve rtisement of tee ns.” She sug g ested t hat it would be nea rly impossibl e to view a ny pornog raphy

on the interne t without encountering some mention of teens. She a lso noted:

There are virtually

no internet sites that don’t talk about teens.

. . . The re ality is that

. . . a male with normal sexual arousa l is going to have se x ual ar ousal to teens beca use they have se condary

sexual chara ct er i s tics. . . . So that is not a devia nt behavior . That is a ctually normal sexual a rousal.

. . . [t houg h] i t’s inappropriate and it’s expl oitative.

Dr . D up re e ’s re po rt

no te d th a t F a the r h a d a dmi tt ed to tw o is olate d in c ide nts of se xua lly de viant b e ha vio r a s a

te e na g e r, on e inv olv ing a y ou ng c hil d a ndthe oth e r i nv olv ing a se xua l in te re st in anim a ls. Th ou g h F a the r f it no se xua l of

fe nd e r p ro fi le , th e se inc ide nts , a lon g wi th s ome be sti a lit y internet files in e vidence , raised some conce rns. She noted that zoophili a is found in “a signific ant minorityof sex offende rs who eng ag e in in ce s t -o nly offe nding.” Howeve r, the re sear ch involved those in carce rate d o r a lr e a dy ide nti fi e d a s a

bu se rs , “ [s]o it

c e rt a inl y is n ot t ota lly

app ro pria te to g ener alize that to the entire population.” She te stified that these fac tors raised some conce rns but

we re no t pr e dic tor s o f f

utu re abu se :

I ’m no t c omf orta ble sa y ing that e ve n rise s to the le ve l of a DSM d ia g no sis . B ut j us t the intere st [ in bestiality ] t hat’s ther e and othe r history o f t h e y o u n g er c hild, even though that was sometim e ago, those two things, a g ain, they just increase my

level of conc ern. It’s not a pre dictor.

Dr . D up re e sa id that she ta lke d with F a the r ab ou t his mas sa g ing Chriss y un de r h e r n ig htg ow n to he lp her go to sleep and that Father c ateg orica lly denied that the ma ssag es we re se x ual in nature . She was asked whether she had an opinion on whether the massag es we re a

ppropriate , and she r esponded tha t there was no way

for he r to know whe ther Father’s intent was sexual or “g rooming in nature.” She define d g rooming as “dese nsitiz ing a child to touch, y ou know, putting a child in a situation where something normal is going on and then moving it to a situation that’s uncomforta ble or a violation of bo un da ri e s, ” a nd ob se rv e d tha t suc h g ro omi ng “ te nd s to hap pe n slow ly ov e r a pe ri od of tim e wi th sex offender s and child re n.” Dr . Dupre e said that, ba sed on all of the inf ormation she had, e ven-8-

though F ather ’s past ra ised the l evel of conce rn hi g her than it would have been for someone w ithout F a t h e r ’ s p a s t , D r

. D u p r e e d i d n o tp r e d i c tt h a tF a t h e r w o u l d ab u s e C h r i s s y.

I n her r epor t , Dr. Dupr ee sta ted that she found no e vidence of child abuse . She noted that Gr a nd mothe r, wh o h a d te sti fi e d th a t sh e sa w F a the r t ou c hin g Chriss y ’s pe lvi c are a , w a s n ot s ur e if Father a ctually

touched the g enital ar ea. A lthough Chrissy ca t egorically

denied F ather

had eve r touched he r g enitals, Dr. Dupr ee obse rved tha t Chrissyindicated a fea r that F ather

would touch her in i na pp rop ri ate pl aces . D r. Du pr e e sa id that Mo the r h a d to ld C hriss y that sh e ha d f

ou nd“ dirty pic tur e s” on F a the r’ s c omp ute r, a nd that Chriss y tol d Dr . D up re e that, a ft e r s he le arn e d th is, Chriss y be g a n to wo rry

that Fa the r mig ht tou c h he r in pr ivate pla c e s. Chriss y wa s aw are that her vis its wi th Father we re supe rvised in orde r to protec t her fr o m t h e possibili ty of F ather

touching her ina pp ro pria te ly

. Dr

. Du pr e e tol d Mo the r that sh e fe lt it wa s ina pp ro pria te fo r he r to dis c uss t hese types of thing s with Chrissy

.

Dr . D up re e a lso no te d th a t Mo the r d e c ide d to bring Chriss y to the Rape a ndSe xua l A bu se Center f or counse ling and that she di sag ree d with this decision. She observed that there w as nothing to s up po rt

the c on c lus ion that se xua l a bu se ha d o c c urr ed, and th at re se arc h in dic a te s th a t it is i lladvised to put a child in the rapy for se x ual abuse wher e ther e has be en no finding of such a buse. Dr. Dupre e wa s conce rned tha t Chrissy ’s anxiety was picke d up from the a dul t s wh o s u rr o unded her

. Moreove r, prior to Chrissy ’s visit to t he Rape and Sexual Abuse Center, Mother told Dr. Dupre e that she did not believe F ather

had sexually abused Chrissy
, that Mother wa s simplyseeing behavior s that

conce rned he r. Afte r Mother took Chriss y to the Center, howe ver, Mother ’s view c hang ed, and she became convince d that Chrissy had in fa ct bee n abused.

Under these c ircumstance s, Dr. Dupr ee pr edicted that at least an a lleg ation of a buse wa s likely without intervention. This predic tion was not based on F ather ’s beha vior but rather on Mo the r’ s a

pp are ntl y g e nu ine be lie f tha t se xua l a bu se ha d o c c ur

re d; this me a nt that Mo the r w ou ld likely be more ag g ressive i n looking f or sexual abuse in the futur e. Dr . Dupre e testified that the lik e lih oo d th a t Mo the r w ou ld a lle g e abu se in the fu tur e pr e se nte d a pr ob le m:

[J ]ust g oing to a p la c e c a ll e d th e Ra p e a n d Se xu a l A b u s e Ce n te r s e n d s th is c h ild a messag e about her experience and tells he r what her experience is. W hether indeed that’s re al or not isn’t even considere d.

. . . I am very conce rned tha t without effec tive famil y int e rv e nti on

. . . a t so me po int the re wi ll b e a no the r a lle g a tion. An d if thi s child has bee n in therapy

for se x ual abuse for an extended period of time, it may be imp os sib le to a c c ur a te ly a c c e ss [sic ] o r inv e sti g a te a fu tur e a lle g a tio n of se xua l a bu se beca use of prior treatment that may well be c ontaminating . . . any information y ou might re ceive

. Thus, Dr. Dupr ee w as conc erne d that if Chrissy continued to be tre ated a s if she had been a bused, in the absence of evidenc e to the contrary
, it would be im possible to determine the leg itimacy of any po te nti a l f

utu re a lle g a tio ns . Dr . Dup re e a dd e d tha t Chri ssy ’s re sp on se to M oth e r’ s b e ha vio r c ou ld

cause further

problems in manag ing the situation: “I t appea rs that [Chriss y ] ex perie nces h e r mo ther’s-9-

anxietyas her own reg ardle ss of whether there is a ctual dang er to her.” Dr. Dupr ee did not rule out the possibilit y

that the anxieties Mother passed to Chrissy wer e the r esult of Mother’ s own persona l iss ue s:

I t may

be that [Mot her] has recog nized that her daug hter is in dang er a nd her r eac tion is defensive in nature. . . . It is also possibl e [Mother] is rea cting to p er ce ptions of dang er tha t are rela ted to her ow n persona l issues rathe r than some rea l dang er to he r daug hte r. B a se d o n in fo rm a tio n g a the re d d uring the a sse ssm e nt, bo th s c e na ri os mus t be conside red e qually

possible.

Dr . D up re e su mma

ri zed he r fi nd ing s: “A t this time se xua l abu se is not fo un d to be p re se nt. Howeve r, t his child appea rs t o be at incre ased risk for sexual abuse. It is also clear that an alleg ation of se xua l a bu se in the fu tur e is l ike ly .” Th us , D r. Du pr e e ma de re c omm e nd a tio ns “ de sig ne d to reduc e the risk of sexual a buse

. . . and to r educe the risk of a f alse a lleg ation or an a lleg ation that

c a n’ t be a c c ur a te ly

a sse sse d in the fu tur e .” She re c omm e nd e d f a mil y the ra py c ou ns e lin g fo r C hr iss y in a setting that would involve both Mother and F ather . She also rec omme n d ed individual counseling for Mother an d Father. Dr . Dupre e urg ed that Chrissy ’s counse ling at the Rape a nd Se xua l A bu se Ce nte r b e termi nat ed. She didno t c omm e nt o n w he the r F a the r’ s v isi ta tio n w ith Chrissy should be supervised.

At t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e te s t i m o n y o n Au gu s t2
, 2 0 0 2
, t h e t ri al co u rt i s s u ed an o ra l ru l i n g. I nitially , the trial court reiterated its J une 19 ruling that there was no rea sonable purpose f or Mother’ s p r o p o s e d mo v e to F lo r id a , a n d d e n ie d h e r r e q u e s t t o reloc a te w ith Ch r is s y

. T h e tria l c o u r t n e xt revie wed the w itnesses’ testimony in some detail. I t then g rante d Father’s pe tition t o m o dify the pare nting plan to permit unsupervised visitation. The trial court found that there was no e vidence sh ow ing Chriss y

ha d b e e n s e xua lly

abu se d. Th e c ou rt

state d:

I find no rea son for the visitation to be supervise d. And I find [Father] to be a ve ry
cre dible witness, and I

believe him whe n he say s he hasn’ t abused this child. I believe this child when this c hild sa y s he hasn’t molested he r. And I rely upon the experts. And I

see a bsolutely no rea son for this fathe r to be den i ed standa rd visitation. And Icertainly don’t believe it’s in this child’s best intere st. I n fac t, I believe it’s a dang er to he r mental hea lth to continue this supervised visitation based on the re cord I

have a nd what the witnesse s have state d.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

c omm e nte d o n th e ha

rm that th e su pe rv ise d v isi ta tio n in fl ic te d o n Ch ri ssy :

. . . I just believe this supervised visit ation has done nothing but harm to this child, beca use she is being sent the me ssag e that she c an’t be trusted alone, that her father can’ t be trusted alone , and they ’re living their e ntire visitation under a micr oscope. . . . I ’ve ha d the psy cholog icals pre pare d on [Father], and [the expert] di d not find

a nythi ng the re a t a ll to ind ic a te that he ha d e ve r abu se d thi s c hil d o r w ou ld e ve r a bu se this c h il d

. T h e o n ly

q u e s ti o n ab le a c t h e ’ s e v e r d o n e h a s b e e n w h a te v e r a c t he-10-

indicated that may

be he did whe n he was a teenag er. But [ Father] is in his 40s now. An d s inc e the n h e ’s raise d o ne 15 y e ar o ld that’ s ju st turnin g ou t e xce lle nt.

The trial c ourt order ed that the ther apy at the Rape and Abuse Center be immediately discontinued, and orde red c ounseling with a psy cholog ist recommende d by Dr. Dupr ee. T he trial judg e stated:

My co n ce rn is this t houg ht has bee n put in [ Chrissy ’s] mi nd that she and he r dad have a n improper r elationship, and I think that’ s not f air to this child. S he shouldn’t loo k on the ir g a me s a s be ing dirty . T his c hil d n e e ds to f e e l th a t sh e is l ov e d b y

bo th of her pare nts, that she is safe w ith both of her paren t s , b ec au se they haven’ t been anything but g ood to he r. And it’s a shame if w e’ve come to the point in time where y ou can’ t r

ub a child’s back without be ing acc used of inappr opriately touching y our child. . . . That’s what pare nts are f or.

Ac c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ou rt lif te d the re stric tio ns on F a the r’ s v isi ta tio n a ndde nie d M oth e r’ s r e qu e st to stay the orde r pending appea l. The written order deny ing Mother permission to move to Florida and re moving the r estrictions on Father’s visitation was not ente red until September 3, 2002.

I mmediately

foll o wi ng the conc lusion of the Aug ust 2, 2002 procee dings, Mother took Chrissy on an ag ree d-upon trip to Florida to see Gr andmother
, wi t h the under standing that they would return on A ug ust 9 in ti me for Father’s first schedule d overnig ht visitation with Chrissy

. But it was not to be.

For the t ri p to Florida, Mother packe d Chrissy ’s school books, her dog , sever al stuffe d

a nim a ls, s e v e r a l c h a n g e s o f c l o t h e s a n d p a i r s o f

s h o e s , a n d c h i l d r e n ’ s b o o k s

. A tab o u tt h e s a me time, sometime d uring the first we ek of A ug ust, Mother turned ove r possession of her Tenne ssee home to a third party

under a lease -purc hase a g ree ment which she a ppare ntly had ente red into on J une 18, 2002. The lease -purc hase a g ree ment had orig inally been co n t i n g ent upon the trial c ourt allowing her to move to F lorida with Chrissy
, but Mother appa rently waived that continge ncy . When they left for Florida, Mother left in her Tenne ssee home pe rsonal prope rty such as f urniture a nd clothing, w hich the tenants place d in stora g e. I n Florida , Gra ndmother wa s living in a home w hich ha d M oth e r’ s n a me on the tit le . Wh e n M oth e r andChriss y arri ved in Flo ri da , th e y stay e d in thi s home with Gra ndmother. While M o t h er and Chrissy wer e in Florida, Chrissy ’s home-sc hooling continued and she beg an participating in activities with the Florida home-sc hool co-op in the a rea

. Mother and G randmother dy ed Chrissy ’s hair a

lighter color.

I n the day s leading up to his scheduled Aug ust 9 visit ation with Chrissy , Father tried

unsucce ssfully

to call Chrissy . On Aug ust 5, 6, and 7, he c alled both Mother’ s cell phone a nd Gr a nd mothe r’ s h ome ph on e a ndre a c he d n o o ne . O n A ug us t 8, Mo the r ans we re d th e ph on e a ndtol d him she wa s s i ck and unable to return Chrissy to Tennesse e for

the Aug ust 9 visit ation. Mother called Fathe r o n A u g u s t 1 0
, a n d to ldh im th a t s h e w a s o n me d ic a ti o n a n d u n ab le to d r iv e

. Wh en Father a sked to speak wi t h C h rissy , Mother told him Chrissydid not want to speak with him and disliked talking with him on the phone. On August 13, the date of Father’s ne x t scheduled visitation,W hen asked i n her l at er t est i m o ny whet her s he t al ked t o Father whi l e she was i n Flori d a, C hri ss y s ai d “ U h- 2
h u h .”

-11- Father we nt to Mother’s Tennessee residenc e. The tenants, who we re at the home, informed F ather that Mother and Chrissy

no longe r lived there

.

Father then made plans to g o to Grandmother ’s home in Florida to g et Chrissy and bring her to Tennesse e for

his visit ation. Due to the c ircumstances
, Fa ther planne d to bring with him an associate pastor fr om his church. On A ug ust 21, Fathe r wa s finally able to re ach M o ther by the telephone. H e discussed the planned trip with her , g ave he r th e fl i gh t i n fo rm ation, told her the associate pastor would be w ith him, and asked her to bring Chrissy to the airport. Mother objected to F a the r b ri ng ing the a sso c ia te pa sto r an d re fu se d to tak e Chriss y to the a ir po rt . She su bs e qu e ntl y called the senior pastor of the churc h, as well as the churc h’s district of fice

. She told them Father might enga g e in inappropriate s exual conduct with Chrissy , sent them excerpts fr om Dr. Dupre e’s report, and threatene d to sue t he church if the associate pastor acc ompanied Father . Father c ance lled his tr a ve l pl a ns

. During this ti me period, roug hly the latter part of Aug ust or in September, Gr andmother f lew to Tenne ssee to retrie ve it ems from the Te nnessee house. The te nants living in Mother’ s Tennesse e house loade d a truc k with furniture a nd belong in gs an d Gra ndmother drove it to Florida. During Gra ndmother’s trip to Tenne ssee, Mother and Chrissy

rema ined i n Florida

. There is no sugg estion in the rec ord that F ather

was told at the time that Grandmother wa s traveling to Tennesse e.

Father maintained that, during this ti me, he wa s not permitted to speak to Chrissy on the telephone, a n d t h at when he rea ched Mothe r or Gr andmother on the telephone, he was told either that Chrissy

was not there or that she did not want to talk to him. On Aug ust 28, Fathe r ca lled and 2 Gr a nd mothe r an sw e re d the te le ph on e

. He a sk e d to spe ak to Chriss y a ndwa s to ld that Ch ri ssy did

no t w a nt t o s pe ak w ith him . Wh e n F a the r q ue sti on e d th is, Mo the r, in the ba c kg ro un d, a sk e d Ch ri ssy lou dly , d o y ou wa nt t o s pe ak to y ou r fathe r? Chriss y re sp on de d no

. Th is wa s r e pe a te d, thi s ti me appar ently

closer to the te lephone, a nd then the telephone was hung up.

Father c alled the F lorida home a g ain on September 5 to speak with Chrissy . Father tape

rec orded the conver sation:

Gra ndmother: “He llo.” Father: “Hi, L ee. It’s [Father]. Could y ou put” -- G r a n d m o t h e r : “ C a n y o u h o l d j u s to n e m o m e n t ?” Father: “Sure.” G r a n d mo th e r

[t a lkin g in to c e ll p h o n e ]: “Aunt Ree ny , I ’ve g ot to g o. I ’ll g ive y ou a call bac k later, ma y be tonig ht. Yeah, it’s the a _ _hole.” * * *-12-

G r a n d m o t h e r

( t o F a t h e r ) : “ Y e s , o k a y

. I ’ mw i t h y o u

. Y e s ?” Father: “I ’m ca lling to talk to Chrissy .” Gra ndmother: “I ’m sorry . Chrissy is not here a ny more.” Father: “Could y ou tell me how I could get a hold of he r, please .” Gr a nd mothe r: “ Ac tua lly , I do n’ t kn ow

. I ha ve no ide a wh e re sh e is. I don’t know whe re [Mother] is, but they ’re no longe r here . They

left.” F a the r: “ Ok a y . D o y ou kn ow if the y c a me back up he re [to T e n n e s s e e ] ?” Gra ndmother: “I

haven’ t the fog g iest idea.” F a the r: “ Yo u do n’ t kn ow ? Wel l, ok a y

. Wel l, that’ s re ally

interesting .” G r a n d mo th e r : “ I t r e a ll y

is
, b u t I ’l l t e ll y o u s o me th in g , [F a th e r ]. Don’t bother me any more. Okay . I don’t nee d to be bo the re d b y

a pe rv e rt e d a

_ _ho le , p ie c e of

do g s_ _t, and t h at ’s , basica lly , what I think of y ou. So don’t bother me. D on’t come ne ar me . Don’t come afte r
me . Just do n’ t bo the r m e be c a us e I don’ t a sso c ia te with the type people y ou are .” Father: “Tha t’s fine.” G r a n d m o t h e r : “ O k a y ?” Father: “As long as y ou are n’t ly ing to me and —” Gra ndmother: “Listen. Don’t y ou ever call me a liar ag ain, y ou son of a b _ _ c h , or I ’ll be bac k to Nashvil l e af ter y our damn a_ _” F a the r: “ Th a t’ s f

ine . Y ou ’r e ha

rb oring so me on e wh o is brea king the law.” Gra ndmother: “I ’m not harboring any b o d y . L et me tell y ou somethi n g. I f somebody

wants to brea

k the law, let

me t el l y ou, y ou come ne ar me , I ’ll show y ou what kind of la w c a n b e br ok e n, y ou pie c e of do g s_ _t. Th a t’ s th e on ly

thi ng y ou are . Y ou ’v e be e n th e c a us e of no thi ng bu t g ri e f b othfo r m y daug hte r an d my g randdaug hter.” Father: “Ye ah, that’s what y ou say .” Gra ndmother: “Ye s. L et me tell y ou, man.” Father: “The re’ s nothing y ou have to say to me. Good-by e.” Gra ndmother: “Ye s. Good-by e. Don’t ever bother me ag ain, eve r, be c a us e if

y ou do , I ’l l ha ve y ou r f

_ _ _in g a

_ _ in jail.”-13-

At that po int
, the n, F a the r did no t kn ow wh e re Mo the r a ndChriss y we re . N ot s ur

prisi ng ly , h e did not call Gra ndmother’s F lorida home a g ain.

Not long a fter this, on September 10, 2002, Fat h er filed a pe tition for contempt with the Tenne ssee tria l court. Reciting many of the a bove fa cts, he asserted that Mother had in fac t moved to F lorida in d e fi a nc e of the tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r, that sh e wa s p re ve nti ng him fr om e xer c isi ng his court-or dere d rig ht to visitation, and that he had been unable e ven to speak with Chrissyby telephone since Aug ust 21. I n addition, based on Mother ’s allege d i n t entional interfe renc e with his and Chrissy ’s re lationship, Father requested temporary emer g ency custody and an eventual pe rmane nt desig nation as primary residential pare nt. On September 11, the trial court issued an orde r g ranting Father e merg ency

custody of Chrissy

. Right aw ay , Father set a

bout hiring privat e i n v es t i g ators in Florida to locate Mothe r and Chrissy . Wit hin a fe w day s, the private inve stigators learned that Mother and Chrissy wer e in fa ct still living with Gra ndmother. F ather had the private investig ators conduc t surveillance on G r a n d m o t h e r ’ s h o m e a n d o n M o t h e r ’ s a n d C h r i s s y’ s c o m i n g s a n d g o i n g s d u r i n g t h e d a y e v e r y d a y, wh ile the la wy e rs wo rke d o n g e tti ng the Te nn e sse e or de r f or e me rg e nc y

c us tod y do me sti c a te d in F lorida . T his pr oc e ss t oo k app ro xima te ly tw o we e ks

. F a the r the n fl e w do wn to F lorida
, me t w ith his Florida law y er to f

inalize the order s, coordina ted with the local F lorida sheriff’s de partment a nd met with the private investigator s. On S eptember 26, as Father and the private investig ators wa ited in se parate vehicles a short distance from Gra ndmother’s home, a sheriff ’s deputy attempted to serve th e d o me s ti c a te d o r d e r o n M o th e r , b y k n o c k in g o n th e d o o r o f G r a n d mo th e r ’ s home and by telephoning h er h o m e as well. There was no a nswer to e ither. The she riff’ s deputy then left a nd Father a nd the private investigators continued the surve illance of Gra ndmother’s home.

Af te r s ome tim e , G ra nd mothe r c ame ou t of the ho us e a ndloo ke d a ro un d. She the n g ot i n Mo the r’ s c ar, in the g a

ra g e , d ro ve aro un d th e ne ig hb orho odbrie fl y a ndre turne d. Soo n a ft e r tha t, Mother and Chrissy

emer g ed, g ot i n Gr an d m other’s c ar, a For d Mustang , and drove away from wher e F ather

and the private investig ators we re pa rked. F ather contac ted the sheriff ’s depa rtment

an d t h e p ri v at e i n v es t i gat o r s t ar t ed h i s v eh i cl e a n d d ro v e b eh i n d M o t h er an d C h ri s s y i n t h e M u s t an g. Sho rt ly , G ra nd mothe r, in M oth e r’ s c ar, pu lle d in be hin d th e private inv e sti g a tor ’s v e hic le . With Father’s ve hicle last in line, all of t he cars beg an winding their wa y throug h the neig hborhood and

o n t o t h e m a i n r o a d

. W h i l e o n t h e m ai n ro ad
, Gr an d m o th ergo th erv eh i cl e b eh i n d t h e M u s t an g, which Mother w as driving , and bumped the private investigator ’s vehicle twice to pre vent him from g oing a round her . A sherif

f’s c ar the n beg an pursuit, and the c ar tha t Grandmother was driving

swerve d at Father’s ve hicle, for cing it temporarily off the r oad. The Mustang then pulled i n t o a dead- end stree t and the pursuit ende d. Gra ndmother proteste d that the s heriff ’s deputies should not g ive F a the r c us tod y of Chriss y be c a us e he wa s a dan g e r to he r. Th e private inv e sti g a tor a lle g e d to the deputies that Gr andmother ha d intentionally struck his ve hicle with he rs, and Gra ndmother wa s p l a c e d i n h a n d c u f

f s a n d p u ti n t h e p o l i c e c ar

. F a t h e r t h e n o b t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f C h r i s s y.

After Father re turned with Chrissy to Tennesse e, he e nrolled her in a l ocal sc hool and broug ht C h r i s s y t o s e e t h e c o u n s e l o r o r d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. A f t e r F a t h e r g a i n e d c u s t o d y o f

C h r i s s y,-14-

Mother spoke w ith Chrissyby telephone virtually

every day . I n the middle of October, 2002, Mother returne d to Tenne ssee a nd moved into a somewhat smaller house while c ontinuing to lease out her orig inal Tenne ssee home. Pending the hearing on Father’s contempt petition and his petition for a p er m anent c hang e of c ustody , the trial court ordere d supervised visitation for Mother at Father’s discretion. Mother visited with Chris s y at the Exchang e Club and attende d Chrissy ’s school

a c tiv iti e s su c h a s c he e rl e a din g pr a c tic e s a ndba sk e tba ll g a me s. Mo the r a lso me t w ith sc ho ol o ff ic ia ls and Chrissy ’s teac her.

During this ti me period, Fathe r tape -re corde d Chrissy ’s te lep h o n ec o n v e r s ati ons with Mother

a ndGr a nd mothe r. I n th e te le ph on e con versatio ns , M oth e r andGr a nd mothe r a sk e d Ch ri ssy repe atedly

if she was rea dy to “come home” and told her that they wer e wor king to g et her

“home.” Mo the r a lso a sk e d Chr iss y if a ny on e ha d tri e d to touc h he r ina pp ro pria te ly . Moth e r a dv ise d Ch ri ssy to th r o w te mp e r ta n tr

u ms in p u b li c p la c e s if F a th e r r e s is te d le tt in g h e r ta lk to Mother on the telephone. Mother t old Chrissy that Father was try ing to have her put in jail. Moreove r, a c opy of Dr. Dupr ee’ s ear lier re port was se nt to the principal of Chrissy ’s school by an anonymous “conc erne d citizen.”

The he aring on the contempt char g e and Father’s petition for a perma nent cha ng e of c ustody was he ld November

13-14 and D ece mber 10, 2002. At the hearing
, both Mother and G randmother te sti fi e d, off

eri ng inn oc uo us e xpla na tio ns fo r the ir a c tio ns . M oth e r c la ime d th a t sh e ha d g on e to F lorida fo r va c a tio n on ly
, a nd that sh e ha d p la nn e d to bring Chriss y ba c k to Te nn e sse e on Au g us t 9, the da y of F a the r’ s sch e du le d visi ta tio n. Mo the r a c kn ow le dg e d th a t Ch ri ssy wa s in vo lve d in ho me school co-op in Florida
, but e x plained that she was only involved in their social ac tiviti es, and note d that, o n August 2 7, sh e ha d e nr oll e d Ch ri ssy in a Te nn e sse e ho me sc ho ol p ro g ram. M oth e r a lso pointed out that after

she ar rived in F lorida, she ha d made a n appointment for Chrissy with the Tenne ssee psy chiatrist for A ug ust 14, pursuant to the trial court’ s order , althoug h the appointment

wa s late r c a nc e lle d. Gr a nd mothe r t e sti fi e d th a t Ch ri ssy a lw a y s pa c ke d sc ho ol bo ok s, he r do g , to y s, and numer ous clo t h es and shoe s on trips. Mother explained that the house in Florida was in he r name only

beca use Gra ndmother had ha d a bankruptc y in the past, and Mother qualified for

a lower i n tere st rate. Althoug h Mother tec hnically made the dow n pay ment, the money for the dow n pay ment had come from Gr andmother. Mother t es t ified that, althoug h the trial court denied her reque st to move w ith Chrissy to F lorida, she went ahe ad with the lea se-pur chase ag ree ment on her Tenne ssee home beca

use she wanted to downsize to a smaller home . Mother asse rted that during the litigation, she ha d been looking for a new, s m al l er p l ac e in Tennessee, a nd when she left for Florida she “ha d a new place in mind.” Mother claimed that the furniture that was moved to F lorida be lon g e d t o G r a n d m o t h e r , n o t t o h e r

. S h e s a i d t h a t h e r o w n f u r n i t u r e r e m a i n e d i n s t o r a g e in Tenne ssee so that it could be move d to a new home in Tennesse e. Mother said she and G randmother

c ha ng e d Ch ri ssy ’s ha ir

c olo r o nly

be c a us e Chriss y wa nte d he r ha ir “ do ne the c olo r o f M ary [K]a te and Ashley ” (te en ce lebrities) a nd asserted that it did not drastically alter Chrissy ’s appe ara nce.

Mo the r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d n o p ur po se or int e nt t o v iol a te the tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r. She sa id that G rand mothe r h a d mo ve d to F lorida in Oc tob e r 20 01
, a nd sa id that sh e ma de F a the r a wa re we ll in advanc e of her plan to visit Gra ndmother at the conclusion of the he aring . Although she plannedM o the r a n d G ra n d m o the r a sse rte d tha t t h e y ha d talk e d to a re tire d frien d in K e n tuc k y a b o u t t h e frien d ’s 3

p la n n e d visit to F lo rid a in O c to b e r a n d inq u ire d a b o u t ge tti n g the frien d to a ssist M o the r in b rin g ing C h rissy b a c k to T enness ee i n O ct o b er, s o m e t wo m o nt hs af t er Fat her’ s scheduled A ugust 9 vi si t at i o n.

-15- to bring Chrissy

back to Te nnessee on Aug ust 9 for her visitation wit h Father, Mother testified that sh e be c a me ill

. She sa id that sh e e xpe ri e nc e d d iarr he a , n a us e a , v omi tin g , mu sc le je rk s a ndtw itc he s, and sever e heada ches that cause d vision disturbanc es. Mother soug ht medical help a nd, on the day sh e h a d b e e n s c h e d u le d to r e tu r n w ith Ch r is s y to T e n n e s s e e , s h e w a s s e d a te d b y p o w erf ul presc ription medication, including Xana x , and stay ed in bed for a couple of day s. She told Father by telephone of

her illness, and told him that her sy mptoms and the medicine made it impossi ble for her to drive Chrissy

to Tennesse e, and that she did not know when she would be a ble to do so. Over the c ou rs e of

the ne xt two mon ths , M oth e r s a id, sh e sa w m e dic a l pr of e ssi on a ls at le a st f

if te e n ti me s. She said that, at one point, her condition beg an to improve, but then de teriorated ag ain around the middle of September. G randmother testified that Mother trie d sever al times to pack up a nd return with Chrissy to Tenne ssee, but that Mother would cry , shake and hyperve ntilate, and would end up at the doctor ’s offic e ag ain. Mother acknowledg ed that she was “deva stated and terrified” afte r the 3
tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r a wa

rd ing F a the r u ns up e rv ise d v isi ta tio n, a nd th a t sh e ha d “ ve ry re a l c on c e rn s” about Chrissy ’s safe ty . She said that nothing she had hea rd had dimi n i s h ed h er belief “ that

so me thi ng mig ht h a ve ha pp e ne d to Chriss y .” I n F lorida , w he n s he t ho ught of the se fi rm ly -h e ld be lie fs , s he be c a me ill

.
Mother acknow ledg ed that, while Chrissy was in F lorida, Chrissy rar ely spoke by telephone to Fathe r, per

haps only once. She said that this was because Chrissy did not want to talk to Fathe r. Mother wa s asked about her eff orts to ge t Chrissyto talk to Father . At first, Mother said, she was “not up for” a fig ht with Chrissy over the issue. Mother said that later, howeve r, she tried to make Chrissy talk to Fathe r. Mother sa id that she and Gr andmother phy sic al l y ca rr i ed C hrissy to the te le ph on e a ndhe ld the ph on e up to Chriss y ’s fa c e

. She te sti fi e d that Chriss y “ we nt jus t a bs olu te ly bo ardri g id a nd

. . . tu rn e d w hit e in the fa c e .” Chriss y didno t ta lk t o h im.

I n h e r t e sti mon y , G ra nd mothe r w a s a sk e d abo ut the te le ph on e c on ve rs a tio n w ith F a the r i n wh ic h s he tol d h im Ch ri ssy wa s n ot the re any mo re. At thi s p oin t, G rand mothe r w a s a pp are ntl y
unawa re that the conver sation had been tape- rec orded. She said she came home fr om work that day and Mother and Chrissy wer e not the re. She said that when Father called, she told him t h at t h ey
wer e not there , that she did not say that they wer e not the re “anymore.” Gra ndmother testified that Father immediately

responde d by

calling her a liar and a ccusing her of harboring a

criminal and that he “ke pt pressing ” her. She acknow ledg ed calling him a rude name and said she told him, “I pref er y ou don’t ca ll me.” When confronte d with the tape of the conve rsation, Gra ndmother ac knowledg ed that she had in fa ct told F ather that Chrissy was not at her home “anymore” and that she r esponded to F ather ’s rathe r civil inquiries about Chrissy with foul lang uag e. Gr andmother c laimed that, when Mother and Chrissylater r eturne d, Mother ca lled Father a nd told him t hat they wer e at Gra ndmother’s house.M o t her i nsi st ed t hat i t was i m p erat i ve t hat C hri ss y be gi n t aki ng C l ari t i n at t he “ f i rs t onset ” o f

al l ergy 4

sym p to m s a n d sta y o n it se v e ra l m o n ths , b e c a u se C h rissy “h a s a histo ry o f ha v ing d e v e lo p e d p n e u m o n ia fro m p o stnas al dri p. ”

-16- Gra ndmother admitted t h at s h e had tr avele d to Tennesse e while Mother and Chrissy

wer e in F lorida , an d sai d tha t sh e c ou ld n ot b ri ng Chriss y to T e nn e sse e fo r h e r s c he du le d v isi ta tio n w ith Father be cause Mother’s a nx iety and fe ar f

rom having to turn Chrissyover to F ather cause d Mo the r’ s il lne ss. Mo the r a lso ackn owle dg e d th a t G rand mothe r c ou ld h a ve br ou g ht C hriss y to Tenne ssee, but said that Gr andmother w as re luctant to do so and she could not make Gr andmother bring her.

Mothe r a n d G r a n d mo th e r a ls o e xp lain e d th e Se p te mb e r 2 6 c ar c h a s e th a t r e s u lt e d in the p o l i c e t ak i n g c u s t o d y o f

C h r i s s y a n d t u r n i n g h e r

o v e r t o F a t h e r

. M o t h e r

t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n t h e d a ys prior to Se pte mbe r 26
, un kn ow n pe rs on s wo uld pe ri od ic a lly kn oc k o n th e ir

do or , ring the be ll, c a ll on the telephone , and run a round the house y elling and bang ing on w indows. She did not answer the door or the telephone out of fea r. Mother said that this occurr ed five or six times, sometimes at night. Eve n though the y

wer e “ve ry

scar ed,” the y

d i d n o t ca l l t h e police. On Septembe r 26, an unknown per son knocked on the door and ra ng the bell, and the te lephone a lso rang . Mother wa s afr aid, and Gr andmother came home from work and looked a round the ne ighbor

hood. Chrissy

was schedule d to play with friends f rom the F lorida home-sc hool co-op, so Mother and Chrissy left for that. S inc e Chriss y

lik e d Gr a nd mothe r’ s Mu sta ng , the y too k Gr a nd mothe r’ s c ar. Whe n th e pr ivate investigator’s vehic le ca me up behind the c ar Mother was driving , Mother said, she was “ petrified.” She said she did not know t he people following her and Chrissy

. During the car chase, she a sserted, sh e wa s try ing to g e t to the loc a l ma ll, fe e lin g that w ou ld b e a sa fe pla c e . Wh e n s he ina dv e rt e ntl y turned into a de ad-e nd street, she was “ very relieve d” to see the police c ars pulling up. Mo the r a sse rt e d th a t sinc e F a the r obt a ine d cu sto dy of Chriss y , h e ha d n ot b e e n a de qu a te ly te nd ing to C hr iss y ’s mul tip le he a lth iss ue s, inc lud ing re c ur ri ng bla dd e r i nf

e c tio ns , p ro ble ms w ith

c on tr ol o f h e r b ow e l, anda lle rg ie s. Al tho ug h M oth e r s a id she w a s “ ha pp y wi th” the sc ho ol i n 4 which Chrissy

was e nrolled, she f

elt that Father did n o t adequately addre ss Chrissy ’s educ ational

ne e ds

.

Du ri ng the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt re qu ir e d Moth e r to s ub mit me dic a l r e c or ds to s ub sta nti a te her c laim that, while in Florida, she had bec ome t oo ill to drive safely to Tenne ssee. The medical

rec ords from F lorida in fac t supported Mother’ s assertions of illness and we nt on to note that Mother neede d psy chother apy

to addre ss depre ssion and anxietyas we ll as to improve problem solving a nd coping skills. The Florida recor ds stated that Mother should not drive unde r the medic ations presc ribed. F ather ’s counse l noted sever al statem en t s i n the medica l rec ords in which Mother described her

situation and the source of her anxiety . Although some of the re cords de scribed Mother as “visiting” Florida
, other rec ords said she had “moved” to F lorida and desc ribed Mother ’s fea rs about F ather . One r ecor d dated Aug ust 12, 2002 said: “She states that she c ame to F lorida beca use she is afr aid t hat t he father will molest their daug hter if he is allowed unattende d visitation.” A second note that day

say s: “She states that she r ece ntly moved to Florida

with her daug hter. . . .” A re cord dated September 6, 2002 noted: “She stated that she is doing he r best to obtain leg al advice-17-

while in Florida to preve nt her daug hter fr om being returne d to her father in Tenne ssee.” An entry on September 13, 2002 sa id: “She states that she came to F lorida beca use she is afra id that the fathe r wi ll mol e st the ir daug hte r if he is a llo we d un a tte nd e d vis itatio n. ” Mo the r d e nie d th e a c c ur a c y on ly of the stateme nts indicating tha t she had in fa ct moved to Florida.

At the c on c lus ion of

the he ari ng , th e tr ia l ju dge iss ue d a n o ra l ruli ng in w hic h s he c le arl y
re je c te d M oth e r’ s in no c uo us e xpla na tio ns fo r h e r a c tio ns

. I n he r ru lin g , the tr ia l ju dg e ind ic a te d th a t, when she had pre viouslyconsidere d Mother’s pe tition t o move to Florida , she had suspe cted that the purpose be hind the proposed move w as to aliena te Chrissy from F at h er , an d t hat Mother’ s
su bs e qu e nt a c tio ns pr ov e d th a t th is su sp ic ion wa s c or re c t. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

no te d th a t, at th a t po int
, Mother could ha ve soug ht to protect Chrissy by appe al i n g t he trial c ourt’s ruling , seeking a stay pe nd ing app e a l and pa

rt ic ipatin g in the c ou ns e lin g or de re d by the tr ia l cou rt , but that Mo the r c ho se
no t to do so . I ns te a d, sh e mov e d o ut o f h e r T e nn e sse e ho me a nd in fa c t mo ve d to F lorida , d e sp ite Mother’s pr otestations otherwise. The t ri al court pointed out that Mother did not provide documentation of a ny

medical attention for her claimed illness prior to Aug ust 10, 2002, when she

was a lrea dy

in contempt of court for not having returne d Chrissy to Fathe r for

his visit ation.

The trial c ourt discre dited Mother’s a nd Gra n d m other’s te stimonyin other re spects. The judge noted that Gra ndmother had testified that Father “basic ally g oaded he r into cussing him out,” and that the tape of the conver sation “didn’t sound at all like what she de scribed.” The trial c ourt ob se rv e d th a t bo th M oth e r andGr a nd mothe r m a int a ine d th a t nu me ro us pe op le ha d c ome t o th e ho me
on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns ba ng ing on the do or , a ndthat th e y we re a fr a id the se un kn ow n p e rs on s w ou ld attempt to snatch Chrissy

. Despite this, the trial court pointed out that the police wer e not ca lled and observe d that an explanation for this beha vior would be if Mother wer e “hiding out from the law or try ing to a void the police coming to the house to take the child . . . .”

The trial c ourt g rante d Father’s pe tition t o be perma nently desig nated the primary residential pa re nt. I n d oin g so , the tr ia l cou rt fi rs t re ite rate d its be lie f that Fa the r wa s a c ari ng pa re nt w ho wo uld

n o t h ar m C h r is s y

a n d r e v ie w e d th e e v id e n c e w h ic h s u p p o r te d th is c o n c lu s io n

. T h e tria l c o u r t n e xt noted seve ral c hang es in circ umstances since the Aug ust 2 oral ruling which jus tified a pe rmane nt chang e in custody . These circ umstances included: Mother g iving up her home within the wee k of the or ig ina l dec isi on ; a re du c tio n in Mo the r’ s sa lary by a lmo st h a lf

of the a mou nt s ta te d a t th e fi rs t trial; Mother’s reloca tion to Florida with Chrissy in defia nce of the t rial court’s order ; and the a ctions by Mother and G randmother to deprive F ather

of his court-or dere d visitation rights. The trial court contra sted this with Father ’s ac tions since o b t aining temporary custody of Chrissy , which we re supportive of Chrissy ’s re lationship with Mot her.

The trial c ourt also cited as a chang e in circ umstance the deterioration of Mot her’ s mental he a lth . T he tr ia l c ou rt

c omm e nte d o n M oth e r’ s d e me a no r d uring the tr ia l:

[W ]hen I look at her me dical re cords, I can’ t tell any differ ence in the depre ssion state and a nx iety

state fr om the date of

Au gu s t 10th, when this lady couldn’t function, until now. This psy chiatrist down in Florida —they wer e talking about herT he o ri gi nal ord er on t hi s m at t er was f i l ed on Ja nuary 30
, 20 0 3

. H o wever, t he t ri al co urt am end ed t he 5
fina l o rd e r b y w a y o f a M a y 2 , 2 0 0 3 o rd e r m o d ifyi n g it s h o ld ing o n c o n te m p t an d se tti n g the a m o u n t o f atto rn e ys fees awarde d t o Father
, an i ss ue t hat had be en res erved i n t he January 3 0 ord er. T he M ay 2 ord er was f i l ed af t er t he

reco rd o f

t hi s ap p eal had be en f

i l ed wi t h t hi s C o urt

. M o t her t herefo re f i l ed a m o t i o n t o s t ay t he ap p eal unt i l t he

reco rd was supp l em ent ed wi t h t he M ay 2 ord er. A n ord er f rom t hi s C o urt was f

i l ed June 2 5
, 20 0 3 noti ng t hat t he

rec o rd ha d b ee n sup p l em en t ed o n J un e 1 8 an d gra nti ng M o t he r f i f t ee n d ays t o f

i l e h er b rief

. H o w ev er, t he o rd er a l so st at es: “ A l l other m at t ers , i ncl ud i ng t he ef fect of t he p o st

-judgm ent i t em s co nt ai ned i n t he supp l em ent al record
, are

r es er v ed pen di n g c ompl et i on of t h e br i ef

i n g s ch edu l e an d or al a r g u men t

. ” W e wi l l t h er ef or e con s i der t h e M ay 2, 2 0 0 3 o rd e r a s tho u g h it ha d b e e n fi le d w ith the o rig ina l re c o rd

.

A ltho u g h the trial c o u rt issu e d a n o ra l ru ling o n A u g u st 2 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e w ritten o rd e r w a s n o t en te re d un til 6 Sept emb er 3, 200 2. M ot her ’ s not i ce of appeal of

t hi s order was f

i l ed on Sept emb er 16, 200 2. M ot her al s o s ough t an ext raord i nary ap p eal pursuant t o R ul e 1 0 of t he T enness ee R ul es of A p p el l at e P roce d ure, whi ch was denied. T he wri t t en o rder o n t he t ri al co urt ’ s D ecem b er 10
, 20 0 2 oral rul i ng was not ent ered unt i l January 30
, 20 0 3
, and M ot h er ’ s n ot i ce of

a ppea l w as f

i l ed on Fe br u ar y 28, 2003.

M o the r o rig ina lly a lso a p p e a le d the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n lea v ing visita tio n a t F a the r’s d isc re tio n . T h is 7
i s s u e i s moot i n l i g h t of t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s pos t

- j u dg men t or der e s t abl i s h i n g a c ou r t

- or der ed v i s i t at i on s ch edu l e for M o t her.

-18- bei n g te ar f

u l a t ti me s a n d a t o th e r ti me s d is p lay in g w h a t th e y d e s c r ib e d a s mood incong ruent laug hter. I f y ou took this up to the Court of Appea ls, it wouldn’t show it. B ut [M oth e r] l aug hs a t th e wr on g tim e s, a ndthat r e c or d is n ot g oin g to s ho w i t.

The trial c ourt emphasized that the chang e in custody was not punishment for Mother ’s contempt of c ou rt : “I jus t do n’ t th ink

sh e c a n b e trus te d w ith thi s c hil d a nymor e . T hat r e a lly c on c e rn s me , th is child’s safe ty .” The trial court g rante d Mother super vised visitation at Father ’s discre tion.

On the conte mpt petition, t he trial c ourt found Mother gu i l ty of fifte en counts of c riminal

c on te mpt fo r the de nia l of F a the r’ s vis itatio n a ndon e c ou nt o f c ri min a l c on te mpt fo r m ov ing Chriss y to Florida in violation of the tria l court’s earlier order

. The trial judg e wa s relucta nt to put Mot her

5 in jail beca

use C hrissy would think that Father had put Mother in jail. Consequently , althoug h the trial judg e sente nced Mothe r to ten day s in jail for ea ch of the fi ft ee n counts reg arding Father’s visitation, she ga ve Mother the option, in li eu of ja il, to pay Father restitution under sec tion 29-9-105 of the T en nessee Code for the $14,800 in the private inve stigator fee s that resulted fr om Mother’s violation of the order

forbidding her from moving with Chrissy to F lorida. I n the eve nt that Mother pa id the re sti tut ion to F a the r p ri or to se rv ing the e nti re se nte nc e , th e tr ia l c ou rt state d th a t it

wo uld suspend the re mainder of

Mother’s jail sentenc e. The trial court a lso permane ntly desig nated F ather

a s Ch r is s y ’ s p r im ar y r e s id e n ti a l p ar e n t. F in a ll y , b e c a u s e M o th e r h a d b e e n f o u n d g u il ty

of willful

c on te mpt , F a the r w a s a wa rd e d a tto rn e y ’s fe e s in the a mou nt o f $ 15 ,1 27 .5 0. Mo the r n ow app e a ls. 6

Mother li sts sever al i ssues on appea l, including w hether the trial court erre d in first deny ing her r equest to reloc ate, g ranting Father unsupervised visitation, and permitting testimony about the marital re lationship, and later f inding Mother g uilty of criminal contempt, desig nating Father a s the prima ry re side nti a l pa

re nt, lim iti ng Mo the r t o s up e rv ise d v isi ta tio n, a wa rd ing a tto rn e y ’s fe e s to 7 Father, a nd ordering Mothe r to pay Father’s private investig ator fe es.-19-

On appe al, we will pr esume the trial court’s fac tual finding s to be corr ect unless the evidenc e pr e po nd e rate s oth e rw ise

. Te nn

. R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Hun tley v. Huntley, 61 S.W .3d 329, 334 (Tenn. Ct. App.1991). Dec isions reg arding visitation and custody are g ener ally reve rsed only for a buse of discretion, as “ ‘the de tails of custody and visit at i o n with children a re pe culiarly

within the broad discretion of the trial judg e.’ ” Eldridge v. Eldridge , 42 S. W

. 3 d 8 2
, 8 5 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted). Reg arding the findi ng of criminal contempt aga inst Mother, we “ must review the r ecor d to determine if the proof a dduced at tria l s u p p o rt s the finding of the trier of fa ct of g uilt bey ond a

rea sonable doubt.” Le v en h ag en v. L even hag e n, No. M1998-00967-COA- R3-CV, 2000 WL 1292446,

a t *7 -* 8 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . Se pt. 14 , 200 0) ; see Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); Thi gp e n v . T hig pe n, 874 S.W .2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App.1993) ( noting that, f or conte mpt, an appellate court doe s not view the evidenc e in the ligh t m o s t fa vorable to the acc used; rathe r, a f inding of criminal conte mpt will be

reve rsed only

when the e vidence does not support the convic tion bey ond a re asonable doubt). The trial court’ s punishment for contempt and its aw ard of att orney ’s fe es ar e re viewed f or an a buse of discretion. Aaron v. Aaron , 909 S.W. 2d40 8, 41 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) (c on sid e ri ng a tto rn e y ’s fe e s) ; Haw k

v . Ha wk , 855 S.W .2d 573, 583 (Tenn. 1993) (considering punishment imposed for contempt). As to the trial court’ s determinations reg arding cre dibilit y , the weight, faith, and credit to be given to any witness’s testimony

lies in the first instance w ith the trial court, which ha s the opportunity to observe the wit nesses’ manner a nd demea nor while testifying, and the cr edibilityacc orded by the trial court will be g iven g reat weig ht by the appe llate court. In re Estat e of Walton v. You ng ( In re Estate of Wa lto n) , 950 S.W .2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997) . Th e t ri al court's c onclusions of law a re r eviewe d de
novo, with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Hun tley, 61 S.W .3d at 334. W e a d d r e s s f

i r s tt h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n tF a t h e r u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h C h r i s s y. Mother ar g ues that the pa rties had in plac e an a g ree d -u p o n m arital diss olution agr eeme nt and pare nting plan w hich provided f or super vised visitation for Father, a n d t hat in order to modify

the vis i t at i o n arr ang ement, the tria l court wa s require d first to find a material chang e in circ umstances

a nd the n tha t the mod if

ic a tio n wa s in the c hil d’ s bes t inte re st. She c ite s Adelsperger v. Ade lsperger
, 970 S.W .2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 ). Mother maintains that the c ircumstance s which

war rante d the supervise d visitation st ill ex i s t ed
, and that Father ’s alleg ed sexual behavior towa rd Chrissy made it clea

r that re moving the r equire ment of super visi on for F ather ’s visitation was not in Chrissy ’s best intere st. Mother arg ues that F ather ’s massag es of Chrissy wer e ca use for conce rn, that his g ames with Chrissy wer e inappr opriate, a nd that Father tried to e vade supe rvision during the visitation. S he discusses se lected portions of Dr. Dupre e’s testimony and re port, emphasizing Dr

. Dupre e’s state ment that there was “information that sug g ests an increase d risk for this child,” and the discus s i o n o f t h e two incidents whe n Father wa s a tee nag er, one involving a y oung er c hild and another involving an inter est in bestiality

. She notes Dr. Dupr ee’ s statement that “whe never y ou see one sexually

deviant beha vior y ou’re likely to see other

sexuallydeviant beha viors.” As to F ather ’s

ma ssa g e s o f C hr iss y , M oth e r p oin ts o ut D r. Du pr e e ’s state me nt that it wa s not po ssibl e fo r h e r “ to know if indee d his intent was sexual or gr ooming in natur e.”

As Mo the r kno ws we ll at thi s poin t, sup e rv isi on of a pa re nt’ s visi ta tio n with his or he r c hil d is a signif icant intrusion on the pare nt-child rela tionship. I t is sometim es nec essary in order to pr otect-20-

the c hil d y e t pe rm it c on tin ua tio n o f the re la tio ns hip . It i s not to be un de rt ake n li g htl y or wi tho ut a

re a so na ble ba sis

.
Mother cor

rec tly points out t hat an a g ree d-upon par enting plan, incorpor ated into a c ourt

or de r, be c ome s re s ju dic ata

. Adelsperger , 970 S.W .2d at 485. Normally , modification of the a g ree dupon desig nation of the primary residential p ar en t and the allocation of pare nting time ca lls for sh ow ing a

ma te ri a l c ha ng e in circ ums ta nc e s a ndthat a mod if ic a tio n w ill se rv e the c hil d’ s b e st interest. Id. By its nature , howeve r, supervision of a pare nt’s visitation with a child must be viewe d in a diffe rent c o n t ex t

. Un l ike, for e x ample, the de signation of the primary residential pa

rent, such supervision is normally

intended to continue only so long a s there is a

rea sonable ne ed for

it. Othe r
c ou rt s h a ve no te d th a t a

tr ia l c ou rt

sh ou ld m od if

y the c on dit ion s o f s up e rvis e d v isi ta tio n o r e ndit altog ether when “ the alleg ati o n s that nece ssitated the supervision ar e dete rmined to be without ‘cr edible evide nce’

. . . or .

. . the noncustodi al parent had demonstrated a c lear ability to control the propensities which ne cessitated the supervision.” Carter v. Carter , 470 S

. E

. 2 d 193, 200 (W.VA. 1996) (internal citations omitted). As alway s, “the be st interests of the c hildren should determine the pa c e of a ny vis itatio n mo dif

ic a tio n to a ssu re that th e c hil dr e n’ s e mot ion a l a ndph y sic a l w e ll b e ing is not harmed.” Id.

I ndeed, in this case , Mother does not dispute Father’s testimony that the parties discussed the conditions under which the supervision of Father’ s visitation would end. The y certainly disag ree on the conditions that would have to be met in orde r to end the supe rvision, but there is no indication that t h e p ar t i e s a g r e e dt h a tt h e s u p e r v i s i o n w o u l d c o n t i n u e u n t i l C h r i s s y r e a c h e d m a j o r i t y. Sin c e su pe rv isi on ste ms f ro m th e de lic a te ba la nc ing of pr ote c tio n o f the chi ld wi th prese rvation of the c hild’s relat i onship with her par ent, we a re c ompelled to rec og nize that such decisions hing e on the tria l court’s a ssessment of the pa rties’ c redibility , specific ally , whether the pa re nt c a n b e trus te d to sp e ndtim e a lon e wi th the c hil d with ou t viol a tin g the ne c e ssa ry bo un da ri e s. As we ha ve noted a

bove, such c redibility

determinations are pe culiarly within the province of the tria l court, a nd the appellate court must acc ord such cre dibilit y decisions gre at weig ht. See Walton , 950 S.W .2d at 959.

I n this case, the trial court hear d exhaustive e vidence on the issue of Father’s alleg ed sexual p r o c l i v i t i e s , f

r o mt h e p ar t i e s , n u m e r o u s w i t n e s s e s a n d e v e n e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y. T o M o t h e r ’ s d i s m a y, the trial judg e her e found F ather and the witnesse s who testified on hi s b eh al f credible. The tria l judge looked at Dr

. Dupre e’s testimony in overa ll context , and found that it did not support Mother’s

assertion that Father was a threat to Chrissy ’s well-being

. I n assessing the cr edibilityof Mother a nd the witnesses who te stified on her be half, the tria l court found that Mother ’s r ea ct i o n to Fathe r’s viewing of pornog raphy

had re sulted in Mother convincing herself of phantom threats to Chriss y ’s

sa fe ty that si mpl y

ne ve r e xiste d. Makin g su c h c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns wi th r e sp e c t to the we llbe ing of a c hil d is perha

ps a tr ia l ju dg e ’s mos t impo rt a nt r e sp on sib ili ty , a ndthe app e llate c ou rt is ob lig e d to a c c or d g re a t de fe re nc e to i ts f ind ing s.

I n this appeal, Mother

rig htly asks that her conce rns about sexual abuse of her be loved daug hter be taken se riously . This we must do. Whi le we a ccor d appropriate de fe re n ce t o the trial-21-

court’s a ssessment of t h e wi t nesses’ c redibility , we a re a lso obliged to e x amine the r ecor d independe ntly

and re view the trial court’s decisions car efully . This, likewise, has bee n done. Af ter revie wing the evidence in detail, we c annot disag ree with the trial court’ s decisions to g rant F ather unsupervised visitation.

Viewe d as a w hole, the evide nce simply does not support Mother’s c onclusion that Fa ther’s viewing of pornog raphy as their marria g e disintegr ated a nd the isolated incidents that occ urre d when he wa s a tee nag er me an that Father has eng ag ed in sexuallyinappropriate beha vior with their daug hter or that he is likely

to eng ag e in such be havior. The trial j u d ge fo u n d t h at t he g ames a nd massag es
wer e appr opriate pa

renta l behavior, a nd we cannot disag ree . This is corroborated by the testimony

o f Fa t h er ’s fi rst wife a nd his son, Ben, both found c redible by the trial court. Even Dr. D upree ’s testimonyand re port, althoug h heavily relied upon by Mother, when viewed in total context, does not support her a ssertion that Father’s time with Chrissy should be supervised.

I ndeed, the evidenc e strong ly s u p p o rts the trial court’s conclusion that Mother’ s h yp e r v i g i l a n c e r e g ar d i n g F a t h e r ’ s a l l e g e d s e x u a l ab u s e o f C h r i s s y h a s d o n e r e a l h ar mt o C h r i s s y. Mother’s ove rre action re sulted in Chrissybeing t re at ed as a survivor of se x ual abuse , without any

e v i d e n c e t h a ts u c h ab u s e h a d o c c u rr e d

. M o th e r w a t c h e d F a t h e r ’ s e v e r y m o v e ar o u n d C h r i s s y, signa ling disappr oval at indications of normal phy sical affec tion, fre quently asking Chrissy if Father had touched her inappropriately and making it c lear to Chrissy that Mother’s fea r o f s u ch s ex ual misconduct was the r eason his visitation was super vised. Chrissy was e ven broug ht to the Rape and Sex ua l A b u s e Ce n te r f

o r c o u n s e li n g a s a s e xu a l ab u s e v ic ti m. I n h e r te s ti mo n y , D r . Dupre e acknow ledg ed but downplay ed any risks reg arding Father. How ever , she unequivoc all y said that Moth er ’s ex ag g erated re sponse was unhe althy for Chrissy

and would likely

result in future

a c c us a tio ns of

se xua l a bu se , r e g ard le ss o f w he the r the re wa s a ny ba sis fo r s uc h a c c us a tio ns

.
Wit h defe renc e to the trial court’s determinations of credibility , we c annot find that the trial court e rr e d

in g ranting Father unsuper vised visitation, in concluding that Chrissy should not be treate d

as a se x ual abuse survivor whe n no such abuse had occ urre d, and in determining that F ath er and Chrissy should be permitted to have a normal fathe r-daug hter relationship. The trial court’s dec ision to awar d Father unsuper vised visitation is aff irmed.

Mother also a

rg ues that, during t h e fi rs t hearing on w hether Father’s visitation should be supervised, the trial court e rrone ously permitted F ather

to testify about eve nts that occurr ed in the

marria g e . Cl e arl y

thi s te sti mon y

wa s a pp ro pria te to g ive ne c e ssa ry ba c kg ro un d f

or th e pa rt ie s’

a g re e d- up on pa

re nti ng pla n. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Next, Mot her c ontends that the t rial court err ed in ref using to permit her to re locate to F lorida with Chrissy

. The trial c ourt initiallyconclude d that there was no re asonable purpose f or Mother’ s proposed move and that there was a threat of serious harm to Chrissyfrom the move, namely , the destruction of he r re lationship with Father. T he trial c ourt rese rved a ny ruling on the issue of whe ther the re location was pr oposed for a vindictive purpose . L ater , in the course of the hea ring on Father’s-22-

petition for contempt, the tria l court concluded t hat M other had in fac t proposed the move to Florida for a vindictive purpose.

T h e tr i a l c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t M o t h e r w a s i n a c o m f o r t ab l e p o s i t i o n i n T e n n e s s e e e v e n if Gra ndmother no long er lived with them. I t was undisput ed that Mother wa s not financially depende nt on Gra ndmother. The trial court a lso consider ed t he almost ce rtain destruc tion of Chrissy ’s relationship wit h Father
, al rea dy burdene d by

Mother’s ove rre action to Father’s vie wing of po rn og ra ph y a ndMo the r’ s r e su lti ng hy pe rv ig ila nc e re g ard ing se xua l a bu se . We c a nn ot d isa g re e wi th this conclusion. Mother’s conduc t indicated that, despite her p ro t es t ati ons otherwise, she did not appropriately

value Chrissy ’s re lationship with her father, ev en go i n g so far as to testify

that she be lie ve d th a t Ch ri ssy ’s re la tio ns hip wi th G rand moth e r w a s a s i mp o r

t an t a s C h ri ssy ’s re la tio ns hip wi th Father. The trial court rightly conclude d that a move to F lorida would likely result in the destruc tion of the father-da

ug hter re lationship.

Moreove r, as discusse d more fully b el o w, t h e trial court did not er r in conc luding that the reloc ation to Florida w as propose d for a vindictive re ason. The pr oposed move followe d closely on the hee ls of F ather ’s re quest that the re strictions on his vis itation be remove d, and Mother’ s actions pr omp tin g the c on te mpt

he ari ng sh ow that, i n mo vin g to F lorida , M oth e r i nte nd e d to se ri ou sly damag e, if not destroy
, Chrissy ’s relationship with Father. Theref ore, the trial court’ s decision not to permit Mother to reloc ate to F lorida with Chrissy is affirme d.

We n e xt ad dr e ss the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that Mo the r w a s in c on te mpt of c ou rt fo r b oth p r e v e n t i n g F a t h e r

f r o mh a v i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h C h r i s s y a n d f o r m o v i n g t o F l o r i d a

w i t h C h r i s s y. Se c tio n 29- 9- 10 2( 3) of the Te nn e sse e Cod e pr ov ide s tha t the tr ia l cou rt ha s the po we r t o h olda pa rt y in contempt of court for “[t]he willful di sobedienc e or r esistance of any

. . . party

. . . to any lawful . . . order . . . of such c ourts.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102( 3) (2000). Mother arg ues t hat her failure to return Chrissy to Father for the court-order ed vis itation could not be considered willful under the statut e , b e c a us e sh e int e nd e d to re turn Ch ri ssy to T e nn e sse e fo r h e r v is it ati on bu t w a s p hy sic a lly unable to do so. She also arg ues that the evidenc e does not support the trial court’ s finding that she i n f a c tm o v e d t o F l o r i d a

w i th C h r i s s y.
The undisputed evide nce sh ows that within day s of the orde r g ranting Father unsuper vised visitation, Mother lease d her Tenne ssee home and g ave up possession of it, left for F lorida without any arr ang ements for

housing upon r eturn t o T e n n e s s e e , to o k many of Chrissy ’s belong ings, inc luding he r s c ho ol b oo ks , in vo lve d C hris sy in a F lorida ho me sc ho ol c oo p p ro g ram, andliv e d w ith Gra ndmother in a Florida home purcha sed i n her own name. Theonly documentary

evidenc e off

ere d by Mother that she even considere d returning to Tennesse e wa s a letter of fer ed by Mother showing

acc eptanc e to a Tennessee home s chool prog ram, dated Aug ust 27, 2002, nearly a month afte r Mother and Chrissy

arrived in F lorida and eig hteen day s afte r Chrissy missed he r first unsupervised visitation

w i t h F a t h e r

. A l l o f

t h i s i n d i c a t e s M o t h e r

i n t e n d e d f

r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g t o s t a y i n F l o r i d a i n d e f i n i t e l y.

Mo the r i ns ist s th a t he r f

a ilu re to br ing Chriss y ba c k to Ten ne sse e wa s caus e d b y he r i lln e ss, which wa s documented, and t hat consequently it was not intentional, which is requir ed for a finding-23-

of conte mpt. I ndeed, the evidenc e shows that Mother w as in fac t ill, but it also indicates c lear ly that Mother’s illness re sulted from her intens e an x iety

at having to turn Chrissyover f or unsuper vised visitation wi t h Fa t h er. Mother’s statements to medica l professionals, a s well as Gr andmother’ s observations of Mother bec oming ill at the prospe ct of returning Chrissy to Tennesse e, demonstrates this. Mo the r a

pp e ars to a

rg ue that sh e sh ou ld h a ve be e n p e rm itt e d to ke e p Ch ri ssy in F lorida

wi th her inde finitely

or at lea st until she wa s no longe r sickene d b y the prospec t of Father visiting unsupervised with Chrissy . But a fter he aring exhaustive evidence , the trial court found that Mother’s fea rs, howeve r re al, wer e without basis; Mother was bound by law to ac cept a nd abide b ythe trial court’s r uling, a nd failed to do so.

Despite rather implausible testimony by both Mother and Gr andmother tha t they wer e supportive of Chrissy ’s re lationship with Fat her, the ir conduc t belied this. For many of F ather ’s te le ph on e c a lls to C hr iss y , M oth e r andChriss y we re g on e , altho ug h Moth e r o ste ns ibl y wa s to o il l to bring Chrissy

to Tennesse e or even to bring her to the airport to meet Father

. Mother did not testify about any eff

orts by her to c all Father ba ck whe n he lef t messag es. On a

telephone c all from F ather wh e n Ch ri ssy

a ndMo the r h app e ne d to be ho me , Mo the r y e lle d to Chriss y , do y ou wa nt to s pe ak to y ou r f a the r? C hr iss y , of c ou rs e , du tif ull y re sp on de d no , a nd thi s c ha ra de wa s re pe a te d fo r e mph a sis

. I n an astonishi ng display of cruelty
, Gra ndmother t old Father that Chrissy was not there “anymore,” that she did not have “ the fog g iest idea” wher e they wer e, and c alled him vile names for having the te me ri ty to q ue sti on her abo ut his daug hte r’ s w he re abo uts . G rand mothe r, of c ou rs e , r e turne d to Te nn e sse e to r e tr ie ve y e t mo re fu rn itu re bu t g a ve no c on sid e ratio n to bring ing Chriss y fo r h e r c ou rt

order ed visitation. W hen F ather made a rra ng ements to trave l to Florida to g et Chrissy , acc ompanied by his pastor bec ause of

his justifiable conce rns over what Mot her might do, Mother called chur ch of fi c ia ls a ndthr e a te ne d le g a l actio n a g a ins t th e c hu rc h if the y su pp orte d F a the r’ s e ff

orts t o s e e his daug hter. When the Florida sheriff’s deputy came to Gra ndmother’s house to serve her with an order
, she said she w as af

raid to come to the door bec ause a g roup of unknown per sons had bee n coming to the home at odd hours, ba ng ing on the door, ringin g t h e b el l , calling on the telephone and eve n bang ing on w indows and y elling outside. D espite this, no law enfo rc ement off icials wer e ca lled. Both Mother and Gra ndmother offe red a varie ty of fallac ious e x planations for this c ondu ct , wh ich the trial court rig htly

and categ orica lly

reje cted. The evidenc e in t he record c lear ly supports the trial court’s f inding of criminal conte mpt, including the requisite int ent, bey ond a reasonable doubt, and the finding of conte mpt is affirmed.

Ne xt, Mo t h e r c h a l l e n g e s t h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l p ar e n t i n g p l a n to desig nate F ather

as the primary

residential pa

rent. A c hang e of c ust o d y m aybe made if there has be e n a ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e s a ndif the mod if

ic a tio n is in the c hil d’ s b e st i nterest s. Adelsperger , 970 S.W .2d at 485. When determining whe ther t h er e has been a chang e in material circ umstances, c ourts should consider whe ther “the chang e ‘has occur red afte r the e ntry

of the orde r soug ht to be modifi ed
, ’ t h e cha ng e ‘is not one that wa s known or re asonably anticipated w hen the order was e ntere d,’ and the chang e ‘is one that affe cts the child’s we ll-being in a meaning ful way .’ ” Kendrick v. Shoem ake , 90 S.W .3d 566, 570 (Tenn. 2002) (citations om itted). Further, a parent’s ch an ge i n ci rc u m s t an ce s m ayj u s t i fya c h an ge i n cu s t o d y i f t h e ch an ge af fe ct s t h e c h i l d ’s we l l -b ei n g. Id. A material chang e in circ umstances may also include a par ent’s fa ilure to follow the par enting-24-

p l an

. T en n

. C o d e An n

. § 3 6 -6 -1 0 1 (a )( 2 )( B) (S u p p

. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e d et er m i n at i o n o f w h et h ert h e c h an ge in custody

is in the child’s best interests shoul d be made acc ording to the fac tors set out in Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 36-6-106. Kendrick
, 90 S.W. 3da t 57 0. Th e se fa c tor s in c lud e the pa re nts ’

m en t al an d p h y s i ca l h ea l t h an d t h e w i l l i n gn es s an d ab i l i t y o f ea ch p ar en t t o fa ci l i t at e a n d en co u ra ge
a re lationship with t he other pare nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-106 (2001)

.

Mo the r a rg ue s th a t, e ven if sh e is found t o b e in c on te mpt of c ou rt , h e r p ro lon g e d s ta y in Fl o ri d a w as n o ta s u ff

i ci en tch an ge i n ci rc u m s t an ce t o wa rr an ta c h an ge i n cu s t o d y , an d t h at a c h an ge
wa s n ot i n Ch ri ssy ’s be st i nte re st. Th e tr ia l c ou rt c or re c tly fo un d th a t Mo the r h a d in fa c t mo ve d to F lorida , a ndthi s w a s a mpl e jus tif ic a tio n f or de sig natin g F a the r a s th e prima ry res iden tia l pa

re nt. Howeve r, the trial c ourt did not rely on this as t he basis for its decision. Rather , the trial court based its de cision on other chang ed circ umstances, such as the fac t that Mother had g iven up possession of her Te nnessee home, with no repla ceme nt Tenne ssee home, without informing any one; that Mother testified that she wa s only making half as m u ch money as a me dical tra nscriptionist; and that Mother’s pa

renting decisions wer e poor, suc h as sug g esting to Ch ri s s y t h at she throw a temper tantru m i n a public place if Father re sisted letting Chrissy call Mother. Most importantly , the trial court ba sed its de cision on Mother’s deteriorated mental health, laid out c lear ly in the Florida medical

rec ords Mother introduc ed into evidenc e to show her inability to return Chrissy

to Tennesse e for visitation. The trial court obser ved that ther e wa s no evidenc e that Mother’ s mental state had improved and that in fact Mother ’s demeanor in court, such as mood incong ruent laug hter, indica ted that her me ntal and emotional condition re mained unstable. The trial court a lso based its decision on the be ha vio r o f bo th Mo the r a nd Gr a nd mothe r i n F lorida , c le arl y dir e c te d to wa

rda lie natin g Chriss y from F ather

and making it impossible for him to see her, and the trial judg e’s justifiable c onclusion that Mother could not be trusted with Chrissy

. The trial c ourt contra sted this with Father ’s conduc t since re ceiving custody

of Chrissy , which wa s to facilitate Chrissy ’s re lationship with Mot her:

[Fathe r] a c tua lly

le t he r t a lk t o th is c hil d w ith in 2 4 h ou rs a ft e r h e ’s fi na lly g ott e n to see this child for the first time in six wee ks, wh i ch am az es m e. I t shows me which par e n t h a s th e b e s t p ar e n ti n g s k il ls
, w h ic h p ar e n t i s n o t g o in g to a li e n a te th e c h ild, [F a th e r ].

Al l of thi s e vid e nc e su pp orts the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing of a ma te ri a l c ha ng e in c ir c ums ta nc e s.

M o th e r ar g u e s th a t a

c h a n g e o f

c u s to d y is n o t i n Ch r is s y ’ s b e s t i n te r e s t, b e c a u s e F a ther

re pr e se nts a c on tin ue d thr e a t of abu se to C hriss y , a ndbe c a us e F a the r n e g le c ts C hriss y ’s ma ny he a lth iss u e s

. M o th e r ’ s ar g u me n t th a t F a th e r r e p r e s e n ts a

c o n ti n u e d th r e a t o f

s e xu a l a b u s e is d iscussed above and must b e re

j ecte d. Mother ar g ues that, af ter ha ving obta ined custody of Chrissy , Father neg lects Chrissy ’s medica l needs. This ar g ument must be rejec ted as we ll. Although F ather does not duplicate Mother ’s nea

r-obse ssive attention to Chrissy ’s health issues, the evidence does not support Mother’s a ssertion that this differe nce in p ar en ting c onstitut es neg lect. Ove rall, the e vidence

overw helmingly

supports the trial court’s desig nation of Father as the primary residential pa

rent, a nd it is affirmed.As di s cu s s ed su p ra not e 5, al t houg h t he t r i al cour t ’ s M ay 2, 200 3 order s et t i ng at t orn ey ’ s f ees was added 8

t o t h e r ec or d on a ppea l
, t h e or der i s g i v en f u l l e f fec t

. M ot h er i n ex pl i ca bl y r es er v ed ar g u men t on t h e i s s u e of

a tto rn e y’s f

e e s. N o furth e r b rie fing is ne c e ssa ry o r p e rm itt e d o n the issu e o f atto rn e y’s f e e s.

-25- Mother nex t appea ls the trial court’s r equire ment that her visitation be super vised. Mother clea rly rema ins convinced tha t Fathe r i s a dang er to Chrissy , and that her actions in kee ping F ather from Chrissy wer e in Chrissy ’s best intere st. Mother to this day fails to understand how her c onduct d e p r i v e s C h r i s s y o f

a n o r m a l p ar e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e i t h e r h e r f a t h e r o r h e r m o t h e r

. G e n e r a l l y, the details of visitation with ch i l d re n ar e wi t h in the broad discr etion of the trial judg e and w ill be

revers ed only

on a showing that the trial judg e abuse d that discretion. Eldridge , 42 S.W .3d at 85. The trial judg e in this case f ound that Mother’s conduct demonst rate d that she could not at thi s point be trusted with unsupervised visitation of C hrissy . Sadly , the evidenc e fully supports this conclusion. F ind ing no abu se of

dis c re tio n, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s re qu ir e me nt that Moth e r’ s v isi ta tio n w ith Chrissy be super vised.

Mother arg ues next that it wa s an abuse of discretion for the trial court to a war d Fa t h er the $14,800 in private investig ator fees he incurre d to retrie ve Chrissy in Florida, unde r Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-9-105. Mother arg ues t hat Father did not plead these fee s as damag es and tha t they wer e ther efor e improper

under Rule 9.07 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e. Howe ver,
our re view of the rec o rd indicates that Mother failed to raise this issue at trial. I ssues not raised at trial may not be ar g ued on appe al. Sim pson v. Fron tier Credit Uni on , 810 S.W .2d 147, 153 (Tenn. 1991). More over, the trial court assessed these fee s ag ainst Mother as a n alternative to her spending 10 day s in jail for ea ch of thefiftee n counts of criminal contempt, a total of 150 day s in jail. The trial court did this appar ently beca use Mother had told Chrissy that Father was attempting to ha ve her put in ja il, a nd the trial judg e did not want F ather blamed bec ause Mother

chose to de fy

the trial court’s

or de r andpla c e he rs e lf

in c on te mpt

of c ou rt . We se e no e rr or

in the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on , a ndit i s aff irmed.

Mother also a

ppeals the a war d to Fathe r of $15,127.50 in attorne y ’s fe es, ac crue d aft er Mother took Chrissyto Florida. Our review of the affidavit of F ather ’s counse l’s confirms the tria l court’s 8

con c lu s io n th a t th e a tt o r n e y ’ s f e e s w e r e r e a s o n ab le a n d n e c e s s ar y in th is c a s e

. T h e c o n te mp t a nd chang e of c ustody

proce eding s were nece ssitated by Mother’s f

ailure to re turn Chrissy

for F ather ’s visitation. The trial court dec ision to assess attorney ’s fe es ag ainst Mother wa s not an abuse of dis c re tio n, a ndit i s a ff

ir me d a s w e ll.

The de cision of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Costs of this a ppeal are taxed to P laintiff/Appellant B

. M

. M

. a n d h e r

s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE