1 Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Memorandum Opinion . -- (b) The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges pa rticipating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memora ndum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINI ON,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. 1 

# FILED October 3, 199 6 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT JACKS ON

_______________________________________________________ ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9512-CH-00279 LINDA DIANE STAMPS , ) Henry County Chancery

Court ) No. 14904 Plaintiff/Appellee. ) ) HON. WALTON WEST, ) CHANCELL OR VS. ) ) STEPHEN RA Y STAMP S, ) AFFI RMED ) Defend ant/Appe

llant. ) OPINI ON FIL ED: ) STEPH EN RAY STAMPS , Pro Se.

______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORAN

DUM OP

INION 1

______________________________________________________________________________ FARMER, J.
Stephen Ray Stamps appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing his “Petition for Visitation Rights” for lack of jur is diction. The parties were divorced in the court below a nd Linda Diane Stamps was awarded custody of the parties minor d aughte r. Mr . Stamps was incarcerated at that time.

The petition for visitation rights recites that Mr. Stamps is presently incarc erated and asks that his daughter be brought to his place of incarceration at least once eve ry six months and

that his father, who resides in Midland, Texas, be awarded visitation with the child for two weeks ever y year.

The trial cou rt’s judgment dismis sing the petition r

ecites th at the pla

intif f, Ms. Stamps, te stified a

t the hea ring and furthe

r recite s that2 The Court further finds that the plaintiff and the parties’ mi nor child, Gennife

r Ly nn Stamps, h ave resided outside the State of Tennessee for approximately two y ears, that they continue to reside outside of Tennessee, that Tennessee is no long er the “homestate” of the parties’ minor child, Jennifer Ly nn Stamps, and that this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s initial “Petition for Visitation Rights”.

“Home sta

te” is defined in T .C.A. § 36- 6-202 as f ollows:
(5) “Home state” means the state in whi ch the child immediate

ly preceding the time involved lived with such child’s parents , a parent or a person a cting as parent for at least six (6) cons ecutive months, and in the ca se of a child less th an six (6 ) months old the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. Periods of temporary absence of any of the namedpersons are counted as part of the six (6) months or other period;

The record

before us consist s only

of what i s gene

rall y refe rred to as the technical record and Appellant’s brief. The trial court determined fr om the evidenc e prese

nted bef ore it that mother and child

have re si ded outside the State of Tennessee for approximately two years. Our review is de novo on the record with a presumption that the trialcourt’s findings of fact are c orrect unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Rule 13(d) T .R.A .P. However, in the absence of a transcr ipt or stat ement of the evide nce, it is conclusively presumed tha t the lower court’s findi ngs and decree

were c orrect . It isthe duty of the party see

king appellate review to prepare and present the record to be reviewed. Harrison v. Arnold , 558 S.W.2d 831 (Tenn . 1 977). The chancellor’s finding that mother and child have resided outside t he State of Tennessee for approximately two yearsis a factual determination. Therefore, the judg ment entered below dismissing thepetition for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.

Appellant present s as an ad

ditional issue “[ w]hether the trial court should have
n otified Mr. Stamps of Mrs. Stamps’ address so that he could file motion in court that did h av e jurisdiction?”. We do not view that as the responsibility of the trial cour t. The record

in this matter is a public record and Mr. Stamps would be entitled to any information along these lines contained therein. We note that the judgment of divorce recites that Plaintiff, Mrs. Stamps, be ordered to keep3

her then attorney, B arton F. Robison, apprised of her current address. The rec ord indicates that Mr. Robison wa s no long er repr esenting her at the time of t

he hear ing whic h resulte d in this ap

peal.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and costs of this cause are taxed to Stephen Ra y St am ps , f or wh ic h e xe cu ti on ma y is su e i f n ec es sa ry.

______________________________ FAR MER , J.

______________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Conc urs)

______________________________ LI LL ARD, J. (Conc

urs)