### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE D ec em be r 8, 200 4 S es sio n PA ULA JEAN WILLIAM S v. KEV IN M AC K WILLIA MS Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Monroe County No. 13330 Hon. Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

No. E2004-00964-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 7, 2005

The Trial Court chang ed primary custody of t he parties’ child from mot her to father. O n appea l, we re ve rs e on the g ro un ds that th e fathe r d id n ot p ro ve a ma te ri a l c ha ng e of

c ir c ums ta nc e s.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined. B ra nd y Sla y baug h, Kn oxvil le , T e nn e sse e , f or app e lla nt. J . Reed Dixon, S wee twater , Tenne ssee, f or appe llee.

OP IN ION I n this post-divorce ac tion, the father p et i t i o ned the Court to be de signated as the primary residential c ustodian of the parties’ minor chil d o n t h e g rounds that there had “be en a signific ant cha ng e of c ircumstance ”.

Following an evide ntiary hearing, the Trial Court awa rded primary

custody of the child to the fathe r and the mother has a ppeale d. The pa rties have one child, a son, born on Dec ember 30, 1996, and t h eywer e div or c e d o n F e br

ua ry 19 , 200 2. At the tim e of the div or c e , th e mothe r w a s a wa rd e d c us tod y

wi th rea sonable visitation to the father

.

On Novembe r 17, 2003, the father filed a petition to chang e custody on the g round-2-

the mother had subjected the child to her ill icit and im moral activiti es and withheld the child from the pe tit ion e r, a ndha d mo ve d the c hil d to a no the r sc ho ol. F urthe r, that the mothe r wa s f inanc ia lly irresponsible a nd “petitioner f eels the minor c hild is i n an envir onment that is not c onducive to the proper upbring ing of a minor child”. At the c onclusion of the evide ntiary hearing, the Trial Court e sse nti a lly

c on c lud e d th a t a

c ha ng e of circ ums ta nc e s h a d o c c ur re d a ndit w a s in the c hil d’ s b e st interest to awa

rd primary

custody to the fathe r. On app e a l, the mothe r r a ise s th e se iss ue s: 1. Whether the Trial Court erre d in rea ssessing primary residential c ustody

of the parties minor ch i l d from Ms. Thompson, appellant, to appe llee without fin d in g a mate r ia l c h a n g e o f c ir c u ms tan c e s to th e c h il d , w h ic h was not rea sonably

fore seea ble at the time of the initial custodydetermination; and 2. whether

the Trial Court er

red a ssuming ther e wa s a materia l chang e of circ umstances by failing to determine whether a chang e in re sidential custody wa s in the c hil d’ s b e st i nte re st? The Trial Court in her ruling observe d:

Th is i s n ot an e a sy

c a se . B othof

the pa rt ie s ha ve g oo d a ndba d p oin ts. Mo the r h a s e xhibi te d p oo r j ud g me nt sin c e the div or c e stay ing wi th vari ou s men to whom she is not married, e x hibiting an immoral lifesty le to the child, moving the child t o fo u r d i ff

ere nt homes within less than 18 months. The child, however , appea rs t o be doing well in school, probably beca use this is an exceptional child. He is a ble to o ve rc ome the ob sta c le s th a t ha ve be e n thr ow n into his path by the pa re nts

. Th e Tria l Co urt th e n o rd e re d a c ha ng e in c us tod y , w ith ou t a dd re ssi ng a ll of the fa c tor s se t f orth i n Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-106. I n this reg ard, the Supreme Court has noted:

. . . After finding that a material chang e in circ umstance ha s occur red, the Trial Court must determine whe ther modification of custody is in the c hild’s be st inter est using the fa ctors enume rate d in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-106. Cranstone v. Combs , 106 S.W .3d 641 at 644 (Te nn. 2003).

Ou r s ta nd ardof

re vie w o n a

pp e a l is de novo a c c o mp a n ie d b y a p r e s u mption of corr ectne ss of t he fact findings, unless the evide nce pr eponder ates other wise. Hass v. Knighton , 676 S.W .2d 554 (Tenn. 1984), Rule 13(d) Tenn. R. A pp. P. The Supreme Court opinion of Kendrick v

. Shoemake , 9 0 S. W.3 d 5 66 (T e nn . 2 00 2) , te a c he s:

Whil e “[t]her e are no ha rd and f ast rules for

determining whe n a child’s circ umstances ha ve chang ed suff iciently to war rant a chang e of his or her custody ,”-3- the following fac tors have f ormed a sound basis for determining whether a material chang e in circ umstances ha s occur red: the chang e “has occur red after the entry

of the or de r s ou g ht t o be mod if

ie d, ” the c ha ng e “ is n ot o ne that w a s k no wn or re a so na bly anticipate d when the or der w as ente red,” and the c hang e “is one that aff ects the c hil d’ s w e ll- be ing in a

me a nin g fu l w a y .” W e no te th a t a pa re nt’ s c ha ng e in circ umstan ce s m ay

be a material c hang e in circ umstances f or the purpose s of m o d i fy i n g cu s t o d y

i f s u ch a c h an ge a ff

ec t s t h e c h i l d ’s we l l -b ei n g. As s u m i n g a rguendo t h at a c h an ge i n ci rc u m s t an ce s h as o cc u rr ed as fo u n d b y t h e T ri al Court, we conc lude these c hang es ar e not “a materia l chang e in circ umstances for the purpose of modify ing c ustody ”, bec ause the ev i d ence does not establish that the c hang es have aff ecte d the c h i l d ’ s w e l l

- b e i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y Kendrick. Also see , Blair v. Badenhope , 77 S.W .3d 137 (Tenn. 2002); and Cranstone.

Th e hu sb a nd ha s the bu rd e n of e sta bli sh ing ma te ri a l c ha ng e of ci rcumsta nc e s. Rogero v. P itt, 759 S.W .2d 109 (Tenn. 1980) . The e vidence does not establish that any of t he conditions mentioned by

the Trial Court have imp ac t ed on the child’s we ll-being in a meaning ful way . Se e Mu sse lm an v . A c uff , 826 S.W .2d 920-922 (Te nn. Ct. App. 1991). I ndeed, th e evide nce showed that the c h il d w a s d o in g w e ll in s c h o o l an d w a s o th e r w is e w e ll a d ju s te d

. T h e c h il d d o es have a hearing problem, but the mother had a ppropriate ly

tended to his condition. We hold that the conditions e stablished by the evidenc e have not a ffe cted the child’s well-be ing in a meaning ful way a s r e q u i r e d b y Kendrick

.

Acc ording ly , we r ever se the Judgment of the Trial Court and rema nd for the e ntry of a n O r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e P e t i t i o n f

o r C h a n g e o f

C u s t o d y. Th e c os t of

the app e a l is a sse sse d to Ke vinMa c k Wil lia ms.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.