### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Fe br ua ry 15, 200 5 S es sio n

BRETT W. WO ODROO F v. NATHAN E. FIS HER, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Sull ivan Coun ty No. 29888(M ) John S . McLe llan, I II, Chancellor

No. E2004-00303-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 28, 2005

This appea l involves a d i s p u t e betwe en the biolog ical father, B rett W. W oodroof, who f iled a petition to establish paternity of the nine y ear

old child, Tay lor L eig h Fisher , and the stepf ather , Nathan E . Fisher , with whom the child h as l i v ed s i n ce she wa s two y ear s old. The trial court determined that Mr. Woodroof was the natura l f ather and awa

rded him visi tation rig hts, but did not
a wa rdhim c us tod y

. A re vie w of the re c or d indi c a te s th a t Mr . Wo od ro of a sk e d f or c us tod y ini tia lly in his petiti on to determine pa renta g e, but subsequently wit h d re w his request in his amende d petition, and repe atedl y

advised the c ourt throug hout the leng thy court proc eeding s that spanned six teen months that h e s oug ht only visitation wit h the child, and not custody . Mr. Woodroof reque sted custody

only at the end of

the trial proc ess, af

ter the te stimonyof the medic al experts and oth e r p e rs on s h a d b e e n p re se nte d, a nd a ft e r num e ro us a sse rtion s in c ou rt that he wa s n ot p re se ntl y seeking custod y . We hold that his request for c ustody came too late and ther efor e we aff irm the judgme nt of the trial court and re mand for f urther a ction consistent with this opi nion.
Tenn.R.App .P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed as Modif ied; Case Re m anded

S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER S CHE L P. F RAN KS , P.J . and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., joined.

Thomas F. B loom, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the Appellant, B rett W. W oodroof.

Mark D. H arris, Kingsport, Tennesse e, and Phillip L arry Boy d, Roge rsville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appellee , Nathan E . Fisher

.
P a u l R

. W o h l f

o r d , B r i s t o l , T e n n e s s e e , f o r In t e r v e n i n g P e t i t i o n e r s , R o b e r tR

. B ar n e t ta n d C ar o l yn Kay Ba rnett. PollyA. Peterson, Johnson C ity , Tenne ssee, g uardia n ad litem for Tay lor L eig h Fisher

.-2- OP IN ION

I. Fac tua l an d P

ro c e dur al B ac kg ro und

B re tt W. Woo dr oo f i nit ia te d th is c aus e of a c tio n o n July 9, 19 99 by

fi lin g a pe tit ion to establish pare ntag e of Tay lor L eig h Fisher (her einaf ter “ Tay lor” or “ Child”), bornF e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1996. Acc ording to the petition, Mr. W o o d ro o f and the child’s mother, Kimberly Ba rnett F isher (“Mother ”), me t and dated in the mid-1980' s. Mr. Woodroof joined the milit ary and af ter his two y ear s of servic e, he and Kimberly Fisher rene wed their friendship. At that time, Kimberly Fisher was marrie d to Natha n F ish e r, bu t sh e tol d M r. Woo dr oo f that sh e and he r h us ba ndwe re e sse nti a lly separ ated a nd she had be en dating someone e lse for a substantial period of time. Mr. W oodroof a nd Kimberly Fisher ’s relationship continued and during Memorial Da y wee kend in 1995, they

eng ag ed in unprotecte d sexual intercour se. Tay lor L eig h Fisher was born a

pproxi mately

nine months later. Mr. Woodroof was not told of her birth until S eptember

or Oc to b er of 1996 whe n in a telephone
c on ve rs a tio n, Mo the r t old him sh e ha d g ive n birth to a ba by g ir l bu t sh e g a ve him

a n in c or re c t date for the birth of the child. Mr. Woodroof and Mother c ontinued their re lationship and spent the New Yea r’s we ekend tog ether in 1997. Mr. Woodroof first saw Child in Fe bruary of 1997 and w as struck by Child’s st rong phy sical re semblance to himself. I n the meantime, Mother and Nathan Fishe r divorce d in April of 1997 and Mother was a war ded custody

of Child subject to Nathan F isher’s visitation rights. Mother sent Mr. W oodroof a picture of Child in Dec ember of 1997, and ag ain he noticed a “strong phy sical re semblance ” betwe en Ta y lor and himself. The rea fter, in 1998, Mother and Mr. Woodroof continued their telephone rela tionship and on severa l occa sions, he confr onted her a bout Chil d’s par entag e and she denied that he was Child’s fathe r. On Aug ust 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , M o ther c ommitt ed suicide. Mr . Woodroof was a pallbear er at the funer al. While at the funeral home, Mr. W oodroof saw Child and beca me convince d that he wa s the fathe r. After a short transition period when Child was appare ntly stay ing primarily with her mate rnal g randpa rents, she c ame to live with Mr. Fisher and his new wife , Tony a F isher, in Octobe r of 1998. Tay lor has continually

lived with the Fisher s since that time.

As noted above , Mr. Woodroof filed a petition to establi s h p at er n i t y of Tay lor on J uly

9, 19 99 , r e qu e sti ng a s f

oll ow s: [T]he Pla int if

f d e ma nd s tha t th e Cou rt or de r the pr op e r p art ie s to underg o g enetic te s t i n g pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-7-112; that upon a conclusive finding f

rom such testing , the Court enter an Or der decla ring the Plaintiff to be the natur al fa ther o f t h e ch ild, Tay lor L eig h Fi s h er ; that the Plaintiff, upon such finding s and Orde r be g rante d phy sical custody

of the c hi l d an d all rig hts, privilege s and responsibilities of a natura l f ather ; that the child’s name be chang ed to Tay lor L ei gh Woodroof, and that the Plaintiff be g rante d such other, further a nd g ener al re lief which the Court finds appropriate.-3-

On Aug ust 21, 2001, the trial court e ntere d an orde r appointing a g uardia n ad litem to repre sent the best interests of the Child. On Aug ust 22, 2001, the materna l gr andpar ents, Robert R. Ba rnett and Caroly n Kay

Ba rnett (“ Gra ndpare nts”), filed a petition to intervene reque sting c ustody of Tay lor.
On April 15, 2002, Mr. Woodroof filed a motion to amend his petit ion to establish parenta g e, statin g in r e le va nt p a

rt a s f oll ow s:

F or g ro un ds in s up po rt

of thi s Mo tio n to Am e nd , th e Pla int if f w ou ld show that his experts, Dr

. Be rnet a nd Dr. L anthorn, ha ve advise d Plaintiff that it would not be appropriate for him to have full phy sical
c us tod y of Ta y lo r L e ig h F ish e r at th is t ime , a ndthat he sh ou ld o nly be g rante d visitation rights with said child at this ti me. . . B eca use of the opinions of Dr. B erne t and Dr. L anthorn, P laintiff s eeks to amend his pray er fo r re l ief in his Complaint t o Establish Parentag e which
was filed on J uly

9, 1999 in o rde r to se e k

ap prop ria te pa re nta l ac c e ss with T aylor Leigh Fisher, including only visita t i o n rights w ith the child at this t ime and custody of the child i n t h e fut ure. [emph a sis added]

Two sets of he aring s t o o k p l ac e b efore the tria l court. The f irst beg an on Aug ust 14, 2002, and
c on tin ue d o n A ug us t 15 , 2 00 2, Oc tob e r 9 , 2 00 2, a nd De c e mbe r 1 1, 20 02 . A mon g the wi tne sse s to testify wer e two psy chiatrists, a c linical psy cholog ist and a psy chother apist, all of whom had
e va luate d th e Chi ld. Al tho ug h th e e xpe rt s w e re no t in c omp le te a c c or d r e g ard ing the ir dia g no se s, the y a ll a g re e d th a t th e Chi ld s uf fe rs fr om v e ry

se ri ou s e motio na l a ndps y c ho log ic a l pr ob le ms. Evidence was pre sented that she ha s been dia g nosed with Ty pe I bipolar disorder by at least thre e psy chiatrists.

Th e re c or d c on ta ins a larg e a mou nt of te sti mon y re g ard ing Ta y lor ’s be ha vio ra l sympt oms , all of which ne ed not be de tailed in th i s o p i nion; but an example is provided by Dr. John Burke Robertson, J r., Tay lor’s t reating psy chiatrist, who desc ribed what happene d when she started kinderg arte n:
A: She ’s ha d he r ups a nd do wn s. She ini tia lly re g re sse d s e ve re ly

wi th the beg inning of

school. I t’s kind of

–the situation wa s such that she had maximal support and nobody was kind of bothering things, a nd then all of a sudden we put her into another environment that she w as e xpe c te d to pe rf

or m a t a le ve l of a no the r kin de rg art ne r, a ndsh e jus t couldn’t do it, and she de compensa ted horribly at that time.
Q: J ust let me stop y ou a sec ond.

A: Sure.-4- Q: Could y ou explain to the Court, a nd to us, what dec ompensation is a ndwh a t it

me a ns ?

A: Sure. F or Tay lor’s ca se, or a ny body ’s ca se. Q: Rig ht.

A: De c ompens ati on ba sic a lly me a ns a wo rs e nin g of

the ps y c hiatr ic sy mpt oms of

be ha vio ra l di stu rb a nc e s, e mot ion a l sy mpt oms that a person would have. And we usua lly rese rve the word de compensa te,
me a nin g that it ’s pr e tty

se ve re , a s o pp os e d to the y had a sma ll
s D e e tb co ac m k p , e o n r s th at e e r e u s w u a s l l a y s m lig ea h n t s w t o h r i s n e g n s i n h g a v o e f s g y o m ne p t b o a m ck s. to a sever e state, may be bac k to baseline, or e ven worse t han baseline, befor e they wer e on medication.
*** Q : A n d th e n a f

te r th e d e c o mp e n s a ti o n , h o w w o u ldy o u c h ar a c te r iz e her psy chotic condition?
A: Well, are y ou talking a bout during the dec ompensation?
Q: Yes, sir.

A: I mean, we –y eah. I

mean, she blacke d–during t hat time, she blacke d teac hers’ ey es, smearing fec es, scratching herse lf, pulling he r ha ir ou t, b iti ng he rs e lf, a ndbit ing p eers . And , y ou kn ow , o f c ou rs e they just c ould not manag e her. I mean, the sc hool sy stem had to g et inv olv e d, a ndthe y

pu lle d h e r o ut. And we tr ie d s ome ho me schooling , and we tried some thing s with m ed i cation, and she continued to do very

poorly during that time, and eve ntually was p s y c h iatric a ll y

h o s p it a li ze d in N o v e mb e r [o f 2 0 0 1 ].

On Se pte mbe r 1 8, 20 02 , th e Gr a nd pa re nts fi le d a

“ pr op os a l f

or c on ta c t” be tw e e n the Chi ld and Mr. Woodroof, stating that “[ t ] his proposal has bee n g ener ated by , and appr oved by the counselor, L aura

Arnfie ld. . . and essentially trac ks her r ecommendations.” On September 20, 2002, Mr. Fisher filed a

proposal for

contac t with Mr. Woodroof, which conc urre d in and adopted the Gr a nd pa re nts ’ p ro po sa l.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

e nte re d a n o rd e r o n F e br

ua ry 21 , 2 00 3, e sta

bli sh ing pa

re nta g e a ndse tti ng fo rth a visitation schedul e fo r M r. W o o droof. B ased on D NA test re sults, the trial court dec lare d Mr. Woodroof to be th e b i o l og ical father a nd established a sc hedule of g radua lly incre asing visitation
a s f oll ow s in re le va nt p art :-5- [T]he Pla int if

f s ha ll b e g ra nte d vis itatio n wi th Ta y lor L e ig h F ish e r i n acc ordanc e with the P roposal for Contact submitt ed to this court by the [Grandpar ents], which. . .w as g ener ated by and appr oved by

L aura Arnfie ld, Tay lor L eig h Fisher ’s thera pist. . .however, pa

rag raph 2 of
s ai d P ro p o s al fo r C o n t ac ti s h er eb y m o d i fi ed s o t h at T ay l o r Lei gh Fisher will not st art to be a dvised of the e x istence of Plaintiff until at least thirty

(30) da y s after

the birth of Nathan and Tony a Fisher’s upcoming child, whateve r date that is, wi t h t h e t i ming to be in the sole discre tion of L aura

Arnfie ld. During the interim period be tween now and the time that Tay lor L eigh Fi s her is introduce d to Plainti ff
a s h e r b io lo g ic a l f

a th e r , th e Pl a in ti f

f a n d N a th a n a n d T o n y a F isher shall meet with L aura

Arnfie ld and start the pr ocess of learning how to h a nd le thi ng s, ho w t o d isc us s th ing s, a ndho w t o b e on the sa me pag e, so to speak, w ith reg ard to Plaintiff’s int ro d u ct i o n to and upcoming visitations wit h Tay lor L eig h Fisher , and, IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s contac t
sc he du le ba se d on sa id Pr op os a l fo r Con ta c t ( a s mo dif ie d) a t th is t ime sh a ll b e a s f

oll ow s: (a) That there will be no chang e of c ustody from the Def endant [sic], Nathan Fisher

. (b) That the i ntroduction of the Plaintiff to the minor child as her biolog ical father shall not start until at le ast thirty (30) da y s after the birth of Nathan and Tony a Fisher ’s upcoming child with the timing to be in the sole discr etion of L aura Arnfie ld; (c) That L aura

Arnfie ld, and. . .Natha n Fisher , and his wife, Tony a F isher, shall ag ree upon the presentation of the e x istence of the Plaintiff to the minor child. (d) That there sha ll be a minimum of a si x (6) we ek period of
a sse ssm e nt a nde va luatio n b e tw e e n eac h s te p o f this pr op os a l to determine how the minor child is adapting to eac h step. (e ) T h a t s te p tw o s h a ll b e a ti me w h e r e th e Pl a in ti f

f s e n ds pictures, letter s, telepho n e ca lls, e-mails, etc., to the minor child. During this ti me there will b e a meeting with the Plaintiff and [Mr. F ish e r] t og eth er to he lp the a du lts inv olv e d to be able to p re se nt a more unified f

ront for the minor child. (f) That step three shall be a short supervised visitation at the off ice of L aura Arnfie ld, lasting 1-2 hour s on a we ekly basis, or as d etermined by

Ms. Arnfield. B efor e this step could occ ur, the Pla int if f wo uld ha ve to ha ve me t wi th his the ra pis t, a ndthe the ra

pis t
a n d M s

. A r n f

i e l d w o u l d h a v e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o i n s u r e c o n t i n u i t y. This visit ation would not take plac e at sc hool, because the minor child needs to be able to func tion i n s ch o o l at a much hig her le vel befor e any

additional stress is added.-6- (g ) That step f

our shall be long er w eekly visits up to 4 hours sti ll su pe rv ise d by so me on e wi th wh om the min or c hil d is comforta ble. This could occ ur at the ba by sitters’ h o m e o r at the Def endant’ s home, with a family friend available

. I n addition, there should be a we ekly

phone ca ll from the Plaintiff to the minor child. (h ) T ha t st e p f

ive sh a ll b e a

sh ort 2- 4 h ou r u ns up e rv ise d v isi t wi th the Pla int if

f t akin g the min or

c hil d to pla c e s sh e is c omf orta ble and fa miliar within the Tri-City , Tenne ssee, a rea

. (i) T h a t s te p s ix s h a ll b e lo n g e r , u n s u p e r v is e d v is it s , 4-6 ho ur s, sti ll at pl a c e s fa mil iar t o th e min or c hil d. Du ri ng the se vis its , a mea l would be share d betwee n the Plaintiff and the minor c hild. (j) That step seven shall be to g o to 6-8 hour long visitations with two meals, occ urring still in the Tri-City are a. (k ) T ha t ste ps tw o thr ou g h fo ur sh a ll oc c ur on a we e kly ba sis for six weeks ea ch. The six wee ks will be consec utive not cumulative. (l ) T ha t th e Plai nt if

f; th e De fe nd a nt, Natha n F ish e r, a ndhis wife, Tony a F isher; the [Grandpar ents]; t he minor child’s school; the mi no r chil d’ s b aby sit te r; the min or c hil d; a ndDr . Ro be rt so n w ill provide c ommunication to Ms. Arnfield on the minor c hild and her prog re s s

. I t i s imp o r ta n t th a t M s

. A r n f ie lda s s e s s th e mi n o r

c h ild’ s functioning to see if a move to the next level of visitation i s possible, or whe ther the minor c hild h as re gressed and a move needs to be made ba ckwa

rds to a pre vious step. ** * (n) That if sever e re g ression or de compensa tion occurs, steps four throug h six should occur on a three wee k basis with step seven to go to a once a month status in additi on to moving bac kwar d to the previous step. (o) That Ms. Arnfield shall have sole d i s cretion, as betwee n the parties, in de termining whether the minor child ca n move to the next proposed step, or whether there should be reg ression in the steps by rea son of her

level of f unctioning. (p) That Dr. Robertson will be informed of every step and the
re a c tio n th e re to; he wi ll a lso mon ito r t he min or c hil d’ s si tuatio n a s a tr e a tin g ph y sic ia n. He a lon e sh a ll h a ve me dic a l de c isi on -m akin g in this case. ** * IT IS FUR T H E R O RDERED, that a ll p artie s sh a ll f oll ow Ms. Arnf ie ld’ s r e c omm e nd a tio ns , a ndif a party dis a g re e s w ith Ms. Arnfie ld’s rec ommendations, the n a petition should be filed bef ore this court, and this court will consider a ny of the co n cerns of any party in that reg ard.M r. F ish e r te stif ie d tha t his sa la ry in c re a se d fro m $ 9 1 ,0 0 0 to $ 1 5 5 ,0 0 0 p e r ye a r a s a re su lt o f t h e c h a n g e in 1

e m p lo ym e n t. F u rth e r, this inc re a se a llo w e d M rs . F ish e r to r e m a in a t h o m e a n d ta k e c a re o f T a ylo r, w h ic h M s. A rn field te stif ie d w a s b e n e ficia l t o he r.
-7- The trial c ourt named N athan a nd T o n y a Fi s h er as the re sidential pare nts of the Child. The court
rese rved se vera l issues in the case, inc luding method of pay ment of child support, Mr. Woodroof’s reque st for a dow nwar d deviation of c hild support, and attorney fee s and court costs.

This alrea dy

difficult ca se bec ame e ven more complicated w hen Mr. Fi s h er a cce pted new employ ment in March of

2003, requiring the Fisher family to move t o Columbus, Ohio. M r. F isher
app are ntl y

stay e d in a n apa

rt me nt in Col umb us un til the e ndof Ta y lor ’s sc ho ol y e ar, wh e n th e fa mil y reloc ated. L aura

Arnfie ld, Tay lor’s thera

pist, testified tha t due to the pending move, she propose d speeding up the proce ss of telling Tay lor about her biologica l f ather , which wa s d o n e. T ay lor learned of Mr . Woodroof’s exist ence on or about April 18, 2003.

On Ap ri l 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. W o o d ro o f f i l ed a p e t i t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o v e, re q u es t i n g a restra ining or der pr ohibiting Mr. F isher fr om removing Tay lor from King sport. The pe tition further
re qu e ste d tha t Mr. Woo dr oo f “b e de c lare d as ha vin g le g a l c us tod y of his daug hte r, ” a nda s f

oll ow s:
That this Court’s order of visitation in the s tate of Tenne ssee by the p l a i n t i f f b e a c c e l e r a t e d a n d t ha t upon conclusion of the visitation
s c h e d u le , t h at t he Court re view the issue a s to whether or not the pla int if f s ho uldbe de c lare d th e pr ima ry re sid e nti a l pa

re nt of his daug h te r a n d a ll o w h im

to ta k e h e r to h is h o me in N a s h v ille, Tenne ssee unde r whatever safe g u ar d s for he r ca

re, upbr inging and
nece ssary trea tment the Court deems nec essary . [Emphasis added]

On J une 3 0 , 2003, appar ently shortly befor e the move to Columbus, a sing le fa ce- to-fac e meeting took place be tween Mr . Woodroof and Ta y lor, with Ms. Arnfield pre sent.

On J uly 30, 2003, Mr. Woodroof filed a motion reque sting “that the court amend its Order of Pare nta g e e nte re d in thi s c a us e on F e br ua ry 21 , 2 00 3, to a

uth or ize Pla int if

f’ s e xpe rt s to re e va luate Tay lor L eig h Fisher

within the next 12 months for purpose of d et er m i n i n g when it would be appropriate for

Plaintiff to be awa

rded sole c ustody

of his child.”

On Dec ember

8 and 9, 2003, a he ari n g wa s held on Mr. Woodroof’s motions and on the
rema ining issues that ha d been r eser ved in the court’s prior orde r. I n its memorandum opinion de li v e r e d a t c lo s e o f p r o o f a n d in c o rp o r a te d in to it s f in a l ju d g me n t, th e tria l c o u r t f o und that the reloc ation to Colum bus was f or a r easona

ble purpose, did not pose a risk of se rious harm to the

1 Chi ld, a ndwa s n ot d on e wi th v in di cti ve mo tive . T he c ou rt dis mis se d M r. Woo dr oo f’ s mo tio n to ha ve Ta y lor

re e va luate d b y

his e xpe rt s a s “ pr e ma tur e ly fi le d, ” statin g :-8- I fi ndthat ba se d o n M s. Arnf ie ld’ s te sti mon y

that th e mot ion is n ot i n the best intere st of the c h i l d and is probably harmful to the c hild. I find it is counterproductive to the rela tionship between the pa rties
nece ssary to allow a re asonable environment that would assist Tay lor in developing the trust of the Plaintiff re quired to progres s to a meaning ful time-sharing arr ang ement.

. .Now, by this ruling I ’m not say ing that there w ill not be an appropriate time i n the future based upon the re lationship developi n g an d th e tr u s t developing betwee n the biologica l father

and this child that this motion might be a ppropriate , but based on the r ecor d I have tod ay I

find it is premature a nd I ’ve said it is dis missed.
Mr. Woodroof appe als, raising the sole issue of whether the trial court err ed in f ailing to g rant him custody

of hi s b i o l o gi ca l child. Mr. Fishe r, the Gr andpar ents and the g uardia n ad litem have filed sepa rate briefs, e ach a

rg uing that the judgme nt of the trial court should be aff irmed.

II. Stan dard of Revie w

I n th is n on -j ury

c a se , o ur re vie w i s de novo upon the re cord of the proc eeding s below; but the re cord c omes to us with a presumption of correc tness as t o the t rial court's f actua l determinations wh ic h w e mus t ho no r u nle ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t th os e fi nd ing s. Te nn

. R. A pp . P. 13 (d ); W right v. City of K

noxville, 89 8 S .W .2 d 1 77 , 1 81 (T e nn .1 99 5) ; Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W .2d 87, 91 (Tenn.1993) . The trial c ourt' s conclusions of l aw , h o we v er, a re acc orded no such pre sumption. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn.1996) ; Pre sle y v . B e nn e tt, 860 S.W .2d 857, 859 (Tenn.1993)

.
III . Ana ly sis

I n determining whether the issue of custody was prope rly

befor e the tria l court, a r eview of the statements made to the court by counsel for the parties is helpful. We beg in by noting that Mr. Woo dr oo f’ s a me nd e d p e tit ion sp e c if ic a lly re qu e ste d “o nly vis itatio n rig hts wi th the c hil d a t th is t ime and custody

of the c hild in the future.” At the beg inning of the hea ring , on the first day , counsel for Mr. Fisher stated to the court, without contradiction, “this isn’t a custody case .” The same da y , Mr. Woodroof’s own attorne y asserted to the court, “custody ’s not even a n i s s u e rig ht now. We’re talking a bout the limit ed visitation period with the child.” Mr. Woodroof hims elf testified as fo llo ws : Q: Okay . Please e x plain t o t h e C ourt what pa renta l acc ess y ou’re seeking at this tim e with re g ard to Ta y lor L eig h Fisher

. A: I am re questing a g raduated visitation that is being re commended by a prof essional that I ’ve a sked to look into thi s matter.-9-

On October 9, 2002, the t hird day of t he hearing , near the end of t he day ’s t estimony and af ter the m edica l psy chiatric testimony had been heard, Mr. Woodroof’s counse l reiterated that “this isn’t a custody case at this point. W e’r e asking for visi tation.” The tria l court stated that “ as I understand it, we’re just dealing with timesharing and not with custody .”

On Dec ember

11, 2002, afte r the c lose of proof as re g ards the initial set of hearing s on the petition to establish paternity , Mr. Woodro o f’ s counsel made the following statements to the trial
c ou rt du ri ng c los ing arg ume nt:

I think in terms of the–the main issue in this case is dec iding whe ther Plaintiff should have par ental ac cess t o Tay lor in the form of vis it a ti o n r ig h ts a t th is ti me

. T h e s e c o n d ar y is s u e w o u ld be the economic support that my client should be re quired to pay for Tay lor.
*** [U] nder the Ray v. Ray c a s e [8 3 S. W. 3 d 7 2 6 , ( T e n n

. Ct

. A p p

. 2 0 0 1 ) ], y ou know, he c annot be den i ed ac cess to this child unless there’ s substan t ial harm. An d I

thi nk the ex pe rts ha v e ag re e d th at t he re would be substanti al harm to the child if custody were transferred. And Ithink that’s something I think all the experts ag ree

. Bu t we ’re not talking about transferring custody here

. W e’re talking about visitation . I

think all the experts ag ree that Tay lor should know about h e r b io lo g ic a l f

a th e r

. [E mp h a s is a d d e d ] During the Dec ember

8, 2003 hearing, the following exchang e took place bet we en the
a tto rn e y s a ndthe c ou rt :

TH E CO UR T: Th e re ’s no t a c tua lly a pr e se nt m oti on ri g ht n ow to alter the curr ent order of parentag e that we have a nd the provisions of that other than ma y

be modify ing the –I

g uess, the information of the pr oc e ss o r h ow Ta y lor ’s g oin g to b e inf orme d o f thin g s. So I

g ue ss we c a n a ssu me fo r tod a y that, y ou kn ow , th e c us tod y is n ot g oin g to be aw arde d beca

use it’s not been a sked for at this tim e. *** MR. HARRI S: [attorney for Mr. Fisher ]: Your Honor, just a second. I ju s t w a n t to ma

k e s u r e w e g e t in th e r e c o r d , b e c a u s e th e ir motion, petition in opposi t i o n to removal, doe s ask that he be decla red a s ha vin g le g a l c us tod y

of his daug hte r. So if the y ’r e no t a sk ing fo r tha t,
we ne ed to make sure that’s in the re cord–tha t that part of that motion is withdrawn.
*** TH E CO UR T: I

a ssu me d th is w a s a

pr a y e r t o a c c e le rate the pr oc e ss so that he c ou ld–so that th e bio log ic a l f a the r c ou ld t ake the c hil d to Nashville. I

g uess, I ’m as s u m i n g from re ading that and under the-10- prese nt state of the re co rd then, the r ecommendations that he’s not meaning perma nently . I

thought f or time-sharing pur

poses. . .
MR. HARRI S: Ijust want to make sure , beca use in my rea ding of number 2, that’s the way I rea d it. And that’s the way every body rea d it.

THE COURT: Mr. Chiles , ar e y ou all g oing to be prese nting a n expert that say s–on that issue?

MR. CHI LES [ attorney

for Mr. Woodroof]: Your Honor , no, sir.

THE COURT: Be cause I

don’t have a report f

rom one, if y ou wer e. So y ou ’r e no t?

MR. CHI LES: W hat this moti o n was–ha d to do with the objections of the re moval to the state of Ohio.

TH E CO UR T: Ri g ht. B ut y ou ’r e no t e arn e stl y g oin g to c on te nd–if y ou’re not going to have a n expert in here , y ou’re earnestly under the state of this rec ord–fr om day one, y o u ’r e not g oing to c ontend that
a nd a sk me to ch a ng e ph y sic a l c us tod y to the bio log ic a l f

a the r at th is time, are y ou?

MR. CHI LES: No, sir.

The ne x t day , Dec ember 9, 2003, Mr. Woodroof’s counsel stated the following to the trial
c ou rt :
MR. CHI LES: I f Your Honor please, y esterday when I was pre senting the petition in opposit ion to the Fishers’ rem o v al o f the c hild, there
was some confusion on my part, if Your

Honor plea se, and I

did not ha ve a c ha nc e to c on su lt wi th my c lie nt wi th re g ard to the iss ue of his
re qu e sti ng theCou rt

to awa rdhim c us tod y –le g a l c us tod y

of his daug hte r. An d h e wo uld lik e to b e able to j us t brie fl y state his re qu e st to the Court, know ing Your Honor’s position on t he thing on the ca se, a ndthe n w e ’l l–tha t’ ll b e the e ndof that. B ut I –w e ’dlik e to b e able to put him on t he stand for that purpose, if Y our Honor ple ase. *** THE COURT: I

thin k when Ms. Arnfield wa s on the stand, I
re qu e ste d th a t my se lf

to b e su re the re wa s a

c le ar un derstan din g so that we c ould elicit her opinion based on that positi on. So I don’t–I d o n ’t ac ce p tt h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h at t h er e w as a m i s u n d er s t an d i n g.-11- There might have been a chang e of mind last night, but I think it was perf ectly clea r, and it’s just a chang ing of the m ind. So I don’t ac cept y ou r p ro po sit ion . I

thi nk it w a s a bs olu te ly c le ar. I t wa s ask e d o nc e if not three times to be sure . So I don’t see h ow it could be a mistake

. MR. CHI LES: W ell, if Your Honor please , I believe he did testify that w he n th e y

re a d thi s p ara g ra

ph in the pe tit ion that th a t w a s h is po sit ion . H e take s th e po sit ion that– THE COURT: You spoke f or him as counse l when the que stion was specific ally

as k ed , an d s ee wh at

– an d t h en M s

. Ar n fi el d t es t i fi ed based upon his counsel’s statement. And see, that could have chang ed her te sti mon y or it m ig ht h a ve g e ne ra

te d mo re qu e sti on s f

ro m Ms

. Arnfie ld in response to wha t I assume now is his overnig ht positi on of wa nting c ustody

at this tim e. And, of course , she’s not her e now. So that co u l d be pre

judicial to the other pa

rties in this case, a nd I just–I just don’t ac cept y our re prese ntation that he didn’t understa nd.

T h e t ri al co u rt al l o we d M r. W o o d ro o f t o m ak e a n o ff ero f p r o o f a t t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e h ea ri n g. He te sti fi e d in re le va nt p art a s f oll ow s: Q: Mr . Wo od ro of

, y ou –a re y ou a sk ing that the Cou rt de c lare y ou to have le g al custody

of y our child?

A: Ye s, I a m. Q: And what is the ba sis of y our re quest, sir?

A: I fee l that I have a consti tutional rig ht to custody of my daug hter. That I am the only biologica l pa

rent, the only living, biologica l pare nt to Tay lor L eig h Fisher

and that I

fee l that I h av e that constit utional ri g ht.
*** Q:

. . .M r. Woo dr oo f, y ou we re he re ba c k in De c e mbe r and p ri or to that a t th e oth e r h e ari ng s, c or re c t?

A: Th a t is c or

re c t. Q: And y ou prese nted two experts that y ou hired on y our own a t that time?

A: Th a t’ s c or

re c t.-12- Q: And both tho se e xpe rt s te sti fi e d a t th e pr e vio us he ari ng s th a t to tr a ns fe r c us tod y

of thi s c hild to y ou a t th a t ti me wo uldc a us e substantial harm to the child?

A: At that ti me the y

te sti fi e d to that. T ha t is c or re c t.
Q: As a matter

of fa ct, all four ex p er t s who testified in this case, testified to that fac t. I s that true?

A: At that ti me , th e y

did . T ha t is c or

re c t.
Q: No w, a s we sit he re tod a y , do y ou ha ve a ny e vid e nc e to p re se nt t o c o n t r a d i c tt h o s e f

o u r e x p e r t s ’ t e s t i m o n y?

A: I do no t ha ve a ny e vid e nc e to c on tr a dic t tho se fou r ex pe rt s’ testi m o n y ex ce pt for my testimonythat I

fee l that I

have the constitutional right to my daug hter. . .
Q: Do y ou. . .

A : a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t t h a ts u p e r s e d e s a n y m e d i c a l e x p e r t s ’ t e s t i m o n y.
As ca n be see n from the above excerpts, the t rial court was face d with a re quest to consider
c u s t o d y a s a n i s s u e o n l y aft e r six day s of hearing s sprea d over a period of some six teen months, afte r numerous witnesses ha d testified an d m o re than a thousand pa g es of their testimony

had bee n transcribed, and a fter the court a nd opposing l itigants ha d been r epeatedly told that “custody

isn’t an issue in this case.” Funda mental fa irness supports the j udg ment of the trial c ourt, which listened to and eva luated the pr oof under the impression that visitation was the issue being litigated. Mr

. Woo dr oo f’ s p art y

op po ne nts pr e se nte d e vid e nc e a ndc ro ss- e xami ne d w itn e sse s u nd e r the sa me impression. S ee In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W .3d 26, 32 (Tenn.2001) (stating “[w]e are of the opinion that there is little diffe renc e betwe en an issue imprope rly raised be fore the trial court at the la st m inu te a ndon e that w a s n ot r a ise d a t a ll. ” ). We f indno e rr or in the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on no t to alter or amend its previous orde r desig nating the Fishe rs as ha ving primary residential c ustody

.

Further, while c ustody

was not tried a s an i ssue, ex pert testim ony was elicited or deve loped on the potential eff

ects of a chang e in custody , primarily beca use the e x perts g ener ally

testified that when Tay lor discover ed she had “anothe r father,” this knowledg e would potentially be a sour ce of fea r and conce rn t o her if she t houg ht it raised the possibili ty that she would be r emoved f rom the only family unit she has ever

known. As alre ady

quoted above , both Mr. Woodroof and his counsel
rea dily admitted that the experts ag ree d that g iven Tay lor’s m edica l and psy cholog ical problems, a chang e of c ustody

to Mr. Woodroof would cause substantial harm to her. All of the evidenc e re g ard ing the Fis he rs ’ f

a mil y ind ic a te s th a t th e y

ha ve pr ov ide d a

lov ing , n urturing a ndde e ply supportive fa milystructure for Tay lor. I t is significa nt in this case that Mr. Fishe r, who was mar ried-13-

to Mother at the time of Tay lor’s birth, and who thoug ht he w as t h e biol og ical father until DNA testing took plac e, is the only fathe r Tay lor has eve r known.

Whil e it i s c le ar tha t Mr . Wo od ro of a s the bio log ic a l f a the r h a s c on sti tut ion a l pa re nta l r ig hts to a re lationship with hi s child, see, e .g., In re Adoption of Female Child (Bond v . McKenzie ) , 896 S.W .2d 546 (Tenn.1995) , we wish to make it clea r that custody

was not an issue in the c ase, pur suant to Mr. Woodroof’s amende d petition and his r epeated statements to the trial court that, in e ffe ct, he
wa s n ot yet

seeking custody , but rather visitation onl y . There fore , o ur dec ision does not affe ct
c us tod y of the c hil d a s be tw e e n the pa rt ie s. Mr . Wo od ro of ’s pe tit ionfo r c us tod y ma y be he ardin the future , if he c hooses to pursue sa me, as an initial petition for custody with no require ment that he show a materia l chang e in circ umstances, r ather than a pe tition for chang e of c ustody

.
Mr. Woodroof has not appe aled the visitation schedule set fo rt h by the trial court’s order

. He testified that “I

would dear ly

like to f ollow the visitation sche dule that was set up by this Court.” Th e de la y in i mpl e me nti ng the vis itatio n sch e du le ha s b e e n le ng thy a ndun fo rtun a te , a ndit i s ti me to be g in that pr ocess. I t is a ppare nt, however , that since the F ishers’ move to Columbus, Tay lor has
a new set of primary

medical c are g ivers. Upon r emand, the trial court is direc ted to amend its order to ref le c t th e c u rr e n t r e a li ty

o f th e id e n ti ti e s o f

h e r c u rr e n t t r e a ti n g me d ic a l p r a c ti ti o n e r s a n d h er c ur re nt the ra pis ts, a ndto g ra nt the app ro pr ia te de c isi on -m akin g a uth or ity to the app ro pr ia te pe rs on s, ke e pin g in m indMr . Wo odro of ’s c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o at tem pt to fo ste r a re la tio ns hip wi th h is biologica l child. Pending the trial co u rt’s re view of the visitation schedule, we or der tha t Mr. Woodroof shall have visitation with the Chil d fo r four hour s eac h wee k under the supervision of Child’s therapist, or t he therapist’s desig nee, for a pe riod of eig ht weeks. I f at the e nd of that eig ht
wee k period, the tria l court has not ac ted, then Mr. Woodroo f’ s v i s itation shall increase to eig ht hours ea ch we ek of unsupe rvised visitation in Col umbus, Ohio.

IV . Conclu sion

F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d, a ndthe c a se rema nded with instructions to the trial court to a m en d i t s v i s itation order in ac corda nce w ith the pr e c e din g pa

ra g ra ph . Co sts on app eal are a sse sse d to the Ap pe lla nt, B re tt W. Woo dr oo f, a ndhis
s u r e t y.

_____________________________________ SHARON G. LEE, J UDGE