R u le 1 0 o f t h e R u le s o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f T e n n e sse e p ro v id e s: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m em o randum o p i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue . W he n a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ugus t 4, 200 4 S es sio n WENDY KI NG (GRAHAM) v. TI MOTH Y KING Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty

No. 9859 Charles D. Haston, Judge

No. M2002- 01202-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 9, 2004

The trial c ourt denied Mother ’s petition to chang e custody of the pa rties’ minor children from F ather to M oth e r. We a ff

irm. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t heCi r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e dth e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Cla rk L e e Sha w, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e llant, Wen dy

Ki ng Gr aham. Ke i t h s . S m ar t t , M cM i n n v i l l e, T en n es s ee , fo r t h e ap p el l ee , T i m o t h y Ki n g. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 Wendy King Graham (“ Mother”) and Timothy King (“F ather ”) wer e divorce d in 1999. After nu me ro us he ari ng s, thetria l c ou rt a wa rd e d c us tod y of the pa

rtie s’ fo ur min or

c hil dr e n to F a the r i n J anuary 2000, and Mot her was awarde d liberal visi tation. Mother appealed and this Court affirmedT he genesi s o f t hi s cust o d y ba t t l e i s o ut l i ned i n K i n g I as foll o w s: 2

O n D ecem b er 15, 1998, t h e t r i al c ou r t g r an t ed t empor ar y l eg al c u s t ody of t h e par t i es ' fou r mi n or c h ild re n to the D e p a r tm e n t o f C h ild re n ' s S e rv ic e s w ith te m p o ra ry p h ysic a l cu sto d y to re m a in w ith M ot her

. O n J un e 8, 199 9, t he part i es wer e gr ant ed a di vor ce on t he gr ounds of i nappropri at e mar i t al conduct

. O n N ovemb er 24, 199 9, t he cour t order ed t hat phy s i cal cus t od y of t he chi l dren be r emo ved f rom M o t her and b e p l aced w i t h the p at ernal grand p arent s, C eci l a nd E vel y n K i ng. Final l y , on Ja nuary 28 , 200 0, the t r i al cour t awa r ded p hy s i cal an d l ega l cu s t od y t o Fat her , an d t he cour t gr ant ed l i bera l vi si t at i o n t o M o t her.
Ki ng , 2001 W L 1035175, a t * 1.

T he T exas court dis m i ss ed M o t her’ s p et i t i o n fo r l ack o f jur i sdi ct i o n. 3 -2- the trial court’s determination. King v. King , No. M 2000-00424-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 1035175 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2001)( here inafter , “ King I ”). 2 Mother re marrie d and reloc ated to T exas. I n April and May 2001, the trial court amended Mother’s visitation t o p ro v i d e a t hreewee k visitation period at Mother’s home in Te x as. In J une 20 01 , M oth e r f

a ile d to re turn the c hil dr e n to F a ther a t the e nd of thethr e e we e k p e ri od . M oth e r a lso filed a pe tition in Texas f

or a chang e in custody

of the c hildren fr om Fathe r to Mother. On June 25, 2001, Father filed a

petition for contempt in the trial court. On J une 26, 2001, the tria l court asse rted continuing jurisdiction over the matter and orde red the children r eturne d to Fathe r. 3
I n J uly 2001, Mother petitioned the tria l court to chang e custody of the c hildren fr om Fathe r to Mother. The tria l court denie d Mother’s pe tition, appointed a g uardian ad litem to repre sent the c hil dr e n, a ndor de re d th e pa rtie s a ndthec hil dr e n to un de rg o e va luatio n b y a fo re ns ic ps y c ho log ist or psy chiatrist. In Marc h 2002, afte r multip l e hearings and afte r considering the testimonyand documen ts s ub mitte d b y

se ve ral e xpe rt s, thetria l c ou rt de nie d M oth e r’ s p e tit ion . M oth e r a g a in appeals to thi s Court. Issues Presented Mo the r r aise s th e fo llo wi ng iss ue s, a s w e sli g htl y re state the m, f

or re vie w b y

thi s Co urt: (1) Whether trial court ab u s ed its discretion in failing to c hang e custody from Father to Mother; (2) Whether trial court erre d by awa rding some discre tionary

costs to Fathe r. Ad dition a lly , M oth e r r e qu e sts a tto rn e y ’s fe e s o n a pp e a l. Father ne g lected to include a Statement of the I ssues in h i s b ri ef

. We consider an issue waived w hereit is ar g ued in the brie f but not desig nated a s an issue. Childress v. Union Realty Co. ,-3-

97 S.W .3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). A ccor dingly , Father ha s waived issues not desig nated as such in his brief

. Sta nda rd of Re v ie w Ou r re vie w of a tria l c ou rt ' s c on c lus ion s o n is su e s o f l a w i s de novo , with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Kendrick v . Shoemake , 9 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 9 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ). Ou r r ev i ew o f atri al co u rt 's fi nd ing on iss ue s of

fa c t is de novo up on there c or d, a c c omp a nie d b y a pr e su mptionof

c or re c tne ss un le ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Kendrick , 90 S.W .3d at 569. Whe rethetria l c ou rt

make s n o s pe c if

ic fi nd ing s o f fa c t on a matte r, we mus t r e vie w the re c or d to de te rm inewh e rethepr e po nd e ranc e of thee vid e nc e lie s a nda c c or d n o p re su mptionof c or re c tne ss to the conclusion of the c ourt below. Kendrick , 90 S.W .3d at 569. Anal y sis A party petitioning for

modification of a valid child custody order must demonstrate a mate ri a l chang e of c ir c ums ta nc e s has oc c ur re d whi c h mak e s a chang e in cu sto dy in the be st i nte re st of t he children. Cranston v. Combs , 1 0 6 S. W. 3 d6 4 1 , 6 4 4 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 3 )

. T h u s , th e c o u rt mu s t u ti li ze a two-part te st in determining whether a chang e in custody

is warr anted. Id. First, it must determine whether a material chang e of circ umstances has occur red that aff

ects the c hildren’s we ll-being

. Id. Second, if it finds a mate rial chang e of circ umstances, the court must utiliz e the f actor s enumerated in T e nn e ss ee Co de Anno tate d § 36 -6 -1 06 to d e te rm inewh e the r a c hang e in c us tod y

is i n th e be st interests of the c hildren. Id. I n this case, it is clea

r fr om the rec ord that both parties ha ve eng ag ed i n al i en at ing the children f rom the other pa

rent. We do not find it ne cessa ry to r eiterate the details of the underly ing relationship between the parties which are contained in King I . Clearly , this is a case w here in the acc usations are fly ing and the courts and, more importantly , these c hildren, havebecome vehicles fo r c o n t i n u ed , es ca l at i n g h o s t i l i t i es . Up o n re v i ew o f t h e e n t i re re co rd , we fi n dn o m at er i al ch an ge of circ umstance that warr ants rec onsideration of the trial court’ s cus t o d y awa rd. The rec ommendation of one of the sever al experts in this c ase was that c ustody of the two older

children remain with F ather while custody of the two y oung er children be chang ed to Mother. The trial court a ddre sse d th is r e c omm e nd a tio n a s f oll ow s: Although w ell-intended a

nd thoughtf

ul t es t i m o n y

has emerg ed re commending that two of the four

minors should be relocated with the mother, t h e [c]ourt, upon c on sid ered re fl e c tio n, ha s c on c lud e d th a t w hat th e min or s n e e d n ow mos t of a ll i s eac h other. We ag reewith the trial court. Mother simply has failed to c arry her bur den of de monstrating that the trial court erre d in denying her petiti on to chang e custody

. Further, we cannot say the trial court a bused its discretion in its award of discretionary

costs in this case.-4- Holdin g We aff irm the j udg ment of t he trial court in all respe cts. I n light of the fore g oing, Mothe r’s re qu e st fo r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s on app e a l is de nie d. Cos ts of thi s app e a l are ta xed to th e Ap pe llant, W e n d y K i n g G r ah a m , a n dh 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 ary.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE