FILED

August 4, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

AT KNOXVILLE

HEATHER ALICIA ROACH THOMSON, ) UNION CHANCERY

 ) C. A. NO. 03A01-9705-CH-00165

 Appellant )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs. ) HON. BILLY JOE WHITE

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

PATRICK JAMES THOMSON, ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

 )

 Appellee )

A. THOMAS MONCERET, Knoxville, for Appellant

F. D. GIBSON, Maryville, for Appellee

O P I N I O N

McMurray, J.

This is an appeal from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the

appellant sought a change in custody of the parties minor child on

the grounds that there had been a material change of circumstances

justifying such a change. The trial court dismissed the complaint

and this appeal resulted. We affirm th e ju dgment of the trial

court.
2

The appellant states her issue as follows:

The trial court erred by not finding as a matter of

l a w a material change of circumstances justifying a

change of custody when a custodial father endangers the

health safety and welfare of the child by neglecting the

child, engaging in violent behavior in front of the child

and cohabitating [sic] with an unrelated female.

W e first wish to make the observation that the issue as framed

i s stated argumentatively and the alleged error of law asserted is

necessarily based upon facts that must be determined by the court

before the law can be applied. Therefore, we choose to treat the

issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Our standard of review is as follows: "Unless otherwise

required by statute, review of findings of fact by the trial court

in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial

court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the

finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise."

Rule 13(d), Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In a de novo

review, the parties are entitled to a reexamination of the whole

matter of law and fact and this court should render the judgment

warranted by the law and evidence. Thornburg v. Chase, 606 S.W.2d

672 (Tenn. App. 1980); American Buildings Co. v. White, 640 S.W.2d

569 (Tenn. App. 1982); Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule

36. We note, however, that no such presumption attaches to

conclusions of law. See Adams v. Dean Roofing Co., 715 S.W.2d

341, 343 (Tenn. App. 1986).
3

The judgment of the trial court reflects that the court found

that only one change of circumstance had occurred since the

previous hearing wherein custody was established. That change was

that the appellant had since married. Upon due consideration of

the entire record in this cause, we do not find that the evidence

preponderates against the finding of the trial court. We further

are of the opinion that the evidence does establish by a p r e -

ponderance of the evidence, the facts asserted in the appellant's

issue. A finding of these facts w ould be necessary before the

appellant can successfully challenge the judgment of the court. In

essence, the appellant failed to carry her burden of proof. Thus,

we find no error on the part of the trial court.

W e affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Costs are taxed to the appellant and this case is remanded to the

trial court.

 ________________________________

 Don T. McMurray, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

___________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

AT KNOXVILLE

HEATHER ALICIA ROACH THOMSON, ) UNION CHANCERY

 ) C. A. NO. 03A01-9705-CH-00165

 Appellant )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs. ) HON. BILLY JOE WHITE

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

PATRICK JAMES THOMSON, ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

 )

 Appellee )

JUDGMENT

This appeal came on to be heard upon the recor d from th e

Chancery Court of Union County, briefs and argument of counsel.

Upon consideration thereof, this Court is of opinion that there was

no reversible error in the trial court.

W e affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Costs are taxed to the appellant and this case is remanded to the

trial court.

PER CURIAM