### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O c to be r 2 7, 200 9 Se ss io n D A V I D M . S H A R P v . D E B B I E F . S T E V E N S O N , E T AL . D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r O b ion C o u n ty N o. 24, 758 W . M i chael M al oan, C hancel l or

N o. W 2009- 00096- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M arch 10, 2010

DI S S EN T

____________________________________ H O L L Y M

. K I R B Y , J U D G E , di s s ent i ng: I m u st re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t in th is ca se . U n f o rtu n a tely , I f

in d th a t I d isa g re e w ith b o th t he maj or i t yopi ni on and t he conc ur r ence . F i rs t , I beli eve t hat t he fi nd i ng of t he t ri al cou rt below w as n ecessar i l y based, atl east i n par t , on i t s as s es s m ent of M r . Sharp’ s cr edi bi l i t y . M r . Sharp cl ai m ed i n hi s t es t i m onyt hat he w as e it h er uni nfor m ed orm i s l ed aboutw het hert he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an w as an aw ard o f p erm an en t cus tod yto the S teve n so n s. T h e tri al c o u rtfo u n d that h e w as n eit h er. T he m aj or i t y s t at es t hat M r . Sharp’ s t es t i m ony w as undi s put ed, but “t he t r i erof fa cti s fr ee t o bel i eve ordi s bel i eve a l l orpar tornone of a w i t nes s ’ [s ] tes t i m ony , even w her e t he t es t i m onyi s uncont r adi ct ed. ” C or nel l v. State of

T ennes s ee , 118 S. W

. 3d 374, 378 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2003)

. T he t r i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on of a w i t nes s ’ s cr edi bi l i t yi s “bi ndi ng on t he appel l at e cour t unl es s fr om ot her r eal evi dence t he appel l at e cour t i s compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ar y . ” W

r i ght Me d. Tec h. , I

nc . v . G r is oni , 135 S. W

. 3d 561, 585 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2001) ( quot i ng Hudson v. Capps , 651 S. W

. 2d 243, 246 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 1983) ) ( compar i ng w i t nes s ’ s t r ans cr i bed cour t r oom t es t i m onyw i t h tr an scribed r ecor ded conve r s at i on)

. T he m aj or i t yr ever s es t he t r i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on of M r . Sharp’ s cr edi bi l i t y , butci t es no “r eal evi dence ” contr adi ct i ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng. Ind ee d , the re co rd in clud es a m p le su p p o rtfo r th e tr ial co u rt ’s f ind ing that M r. S h arp ’s cl ai m w as notbel i evabl e. Pr i or t o t he di s put e w i t h t he St evens ons , M r . Sharp w as i nvol ved i n di vor ce pr ocee di ngs w i t h t he chi l dr en’ s m ot her

. A s a r es ul t , M r . Sharp w as named as t he chi l dr en’ s “pr i m ar yr es i dent i al par ent ” i n t hei rm ar i t al di s s ol ut i on agr eement

. C er t ai nl yhe w o u ld hav e un d erstoo d fro m this ex p erien ce that h e h ad cu stod yo f h is ch il d ren . A fter M r.The fact th at Mr. Sharp ’s motiv ation in agreeingto the p arentingplan w as to g et more v isitation 1 with his ch ildren does not a ffect this conclu sion. -2- S h arp ’s c o n d u ct re su lt ed in an aw ard o f tem p o rarycu stod yto the S teve n so n s in 2 0 0 5 , M r. Sharp t es t i fi ed t hatt w o y ear s of l egal w r angl i ng ens ued, i ncl udi ng at t empt s atm ed i at i on, l et t e r s b a c k a n d f

o r t h , a n d n u me r o u s d i s c u s s i o n s . M r . Sh a rp was r e p r e s e n t e d b ycouns el dur i ng t hes e l engt hynegot i at i ons , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n hi s cons ent t o t he per m anentpar ent i ng pl an. A gai ns tt hi s backdr op, M r . Sharp as ked t he t r i al co u r tt o bel i eve thathe di d not u n d e rs ta n d th a t th e p ro d u c t o f th e m e d ia tio n , le tte rs a n d n e g o tia tio n s in v o lv e d “ c u s to d y .” T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t b e liev e h is a s s e r tio n a n d th e re c o rd su p p o rts its c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on. Fur t her , M r . Sharp’ s t es t i m onys how s t hathe under s t ood t he eff ect of t he perm anent par ent i ng pl an. R efe r r i ng t o t he per m anent par ent i ng pl an, M r . Sharp compl ai ned t hat“t he C our tor ders ay s t hatt hey[t he St evens ons ] have c om pl et e cont r ol , ” w hi ch i s , of cour s e, t he eff ectof an a w ard o f cu stody

. H e under s t ood t hatt he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an w as “bi ndi ng. ” M r . Sharp acknow l edged t hat , befor e agr eei ng t o t he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an, he w as advi s ed t hathe coul d onl yas k t he cour tt o change t he par ent ing o rde r“bas ed on a m odi fi cat i on of ci r cumst ance s . ” Thi s is, in ef fec t , t he l egal cons equenc e of a val i d or der t r ans ferr i ng cus t odyt o a non-pa r ent : cus t ody can be m odi fi ed onl yw hen “a m at er i al change in circ um s t ance s has occurr ed. ” B lairv. B adenhope , 77 S. W

. 3d 137, 148 ( T enn. 2 0 0 2 ). T hus , des pi t e M r . Sharp’ s pr ot es t at i ons , hi s ow n t es t i m onys how s t hathe w as ful l yadvi s ed aboutt he cons equenc es of hi s choi ce. 1
T h e m ajorit y is tr o u b led by the fa ct t h at M r. S h arp an d the S teve n so n s u sed a stan d ard f o r m f o ra p e r ma n e n tp a r e n t i n g p l a n f o r t wo d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s t h a th a d b e e n mo d i f i e d t o n a me t he St evens ons , t he gr andpar ent s , as t he “pr i m ar y r es i dent i al par ent s . ” T he conc er ns r ai s ed byt he maj or i t yappea rt o be ( 1) t he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an us es t er m i nolog y s uch as “pr i m ar yr es i dent i al par ent ” and “ par ent i ng t i m e” i nstead o f m or e t r adi t i onal t er m s , l i ke “cus t odi an” a nd “vi sit at i on”; ( 2) M r . Sharp r et ai ned i nputi nt o par ent i ng deci s i ons and par ent i ng r es pons i bi l i t i es w hen t he chi l dr en w er e w i t h hi m ; and ( 3) t he perm anentpar ent i ng plan doe s not s t at e t hat M r. S harp w ai ves his superi or parent al ri gh t s. Fi r s t , t he l anguage i n t he perm anentparen ti n g p la n. T ennes s ee’ s l egi s l atur e has r ecogni zed thatt he t er m i nol ogyus ed i n fami l yl aw cas es , r efe r r i ng t o “cus t ody ” of c hi l dr en, “cus t odi al ” and “ non- cus t odi al ” par ent s , and t he non- cus t od ial par ent ’ s “vi s i t at i on, ” w as di vi s i ve, fr ei ght ed w i t h “nega t i ve w i n/ l os e connot at i ons , ” and w as ul t i m at el ynotdes cr i pt i ve o f th e a llo c a tio n o f

p a re n tin g re s p o n s ib iliti e s i n a d iv o rc e . See J AN ET L. R I C HA R DS , R I C HA R DS ON T ENN ES SE E F AMI L Y L AW (2 D E D .) § 8 -2 (e ) at 1 8 4 , a n d 2 0 0 7 C u m . S u p p . A t § 8 -2 (e ); D o n L . A s h , B r i dge O ver Troubl ed W at er : C hangi ng t he C us t ody Law i n Tennes s ee ,Iam c on ce rn ed

th at th e m ajority ’s r el ianc e on th e “p ar enti ngp lan” te rmin ol ogy to s up po rtit s 2 decision w ill serv e to destabiliz e ex istingagreed perm anent parentin gplan s be tween pare nts. The m ajority ’s r ea so ni ngc ou ld c erta in ly b e re li ed u po n by c ount le ss “ al te rn at iv e re si de nt ia l p ar ents ” to c la im that the y did not understan d that the perm anent parentin gplan to whic h the y

agreed was in fact a cu stody or de r. -3- 2 7 U. M EM
. L. R EV
. 769, 804 ( Sum m er1997)

. C ons equent l y , t he l egi s l atur e i ndi cat ed t hat c ou r t s a r e t o r e pl a c e “ c us t od y ” or de r s w i t h “ pa r e nt i ng pl a ns , ” us i ng l a ng ua ge t hat i s l ess di vi s i ve and mor e acc ur at e i n des cr i bi ng t he r ol es of di vor ced pa r ent s . T

. C

. A

. § 36- 6- 404 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. A p a r e n t who f o r me r l y wou l d h a v e b e e n “ a war d e d c u s t o d y ” wou l d now be

“ d e sig n a ted a s th e c h ild ’s p rim a ryre sid e n tial p a re n t.” T h e f o rm e r “ n o n -c u sto d ial p a re n t” is n o w th e “ a ltern a te r e sid e n tial p a re n t.” “ V isitatio n ” is n o w “ re sid e n tial p a re n tin g tim e .” T h is nom encl atur e r ecogni zes t hatt he “ a l t e rn at e r es i dent i al par ent ” s t i l l r et ai ns par ent al r i ght s and r es pons i bi l i t i es , par t i cul ar l yw hen t he chi l d i s i n hi s car e, and t hatt he chi l d has a s econd h o m e w ith th e a lte rn a te re s id e n tia l p a re n t a n d is n o t ju s t a “ v is ito r.” O u r a p p e llate c o u rts h a v e b e e n so m e w h a t u n e v e n in u sin g th e c u rre n t term in o lo g yin opi ni ons . For exampl e, t he cour ti n B lair v. B adenhope u se d th e ter m “ c u sto d y ” re p e a ted ly in its d e c isio n . T h is u n e v e n u sa g e d o e s n o t ch a n g e th e leg a l im p o rt o f th e lan g u a g e u se d in fami l yl aw or der s . A “perm anent par ent i ng pl an” t hat “des i gnat es ” t he “pr i m ar yr es i dent i al par ent ” i s s t i l l t he equi val ent of an or der aw ar di ng per m anent pr i m ar y cus t ody of t he chi l d. Th e ma j o r i t y s t a t e s : “ A p a r e n t i n g p l a n i s s i mpl y n o t t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f a v al i d or der aw ar di ng cus t odyt o a non- par ent

. ” B ec aus e t he maj or i t ydi d notfi nd t hatt he or der in c o rp o ra tin g th e p a re n tin g p lan w a s in v a lid o r v o id , I as s u m e th a t th is s tate m e n t re f lec ts conce r n t hatus age of

“par ent i ng pl an” t er m i nol ogyi n t he cont extof an or derw i t h a no npar ent , i ns t ead of

bet w een pa r ent s , m ayhave c onfus ed M r . Sharp. T he m aj or i t yeven goe s 2 so f a r a s to sta te th a t “ [ t]h e re is n o th in g in th e p lan to su g g e st th a t M r. S h a rp a g re e d

. . . to g ra n t th e S tev e n so n s p e r m a n e n t cu sto d y .” B u t th e p e rm a n e n t p a re n tin g p lan c lea rly d e s i g n a t e s t h e S t e v e n s o n s a s t h e p r i ma r yr e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t s . M r . S h a rp h a d h a d t h e s a me des i gnat i on i n a pr evi ous or derw i t h t he chi l dr en’ s m other and t hus had t o under s t and t hat th e “ p rim a ryre sid e n tial p a re n t” m e a n t cu sto d y , an d M r. S h a rp h a s n o t as se rte d th a t h e d id n o t u n d e rs ta n d th e w o rd “ p e rm a n e n t.” T he m aj or i t y al s o not es t hat , undert he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an, M r . Sharp r et ai ned s om e par ent i ng r i ght s and re s pons i bi l i t i es , s uch as t he ri ght t o m ake de ci s i ons r egar di ng t he c h ild re n ’s d a y -to -d a yc a re w h ile th e ya re w ith h im , the rig h t to d isc u ss m a jo r d e c isio n s w ith the S teve n so n s, an d th e s tand ard statu toryri g h ts. Itn o tes t h at, u n d er c u rren t st an d ard par ent i ng pl ans , t he al t er nat e r es i dent i al par ent-4-

. . . i s n o t r e l e g a t e d t o a l e s s - t h a n - p a r e n t s t a t u s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t he cur r ent par ent i ng pl ans , w hi ch ar e des i gned t o ful l ydes cr i be ea ch par ent ’ s r i ght s and re sp o n sib ili ties a s a f

u ll p a re n t, pr e se rv e e a c h p a re n t’s s u p e rio r p a re n tal rig h ts w ith re sp e c t to a n yc laim s w h ich m ig h t b e a ss e rte d b ya n o n -p a re n t. T hati s cer t ai nl yt r ue. B utt he s ame can be s ai d of t he ol d- t i m e “cus t ody ” or der

. E ven t he m o st on e-side d “c u stod y ” o rde r b e tw e e n a c h ild ’s p a re n ts h as ne v er aff ec ted e ith er p are n t’ s a b ili tyto a ss e rt h is s u p e rio r p a re n tal rig h ts a s a g a in st a n o n -p a re n t. F in a lly , the m a

jo ri ty s ta te s : “T h e re is n o th in g in th e [ p e rm a n e n t p a re n tin g ] p lan to su g g e st th a t M r. S h a rp a g re e d to re lin q u ish h is su p e rio r pa re n tal rig h ts t o th e c h ild re n .” T h is p o rtio n o f

th e m a jo rity ’s r e a so n in g se e m s to c o in c id e w ith Ju d g e S taf f o rd ’s c o n c u rre n c e , in t hatt hi s pr ong of t he m aj or i t y ’ s deci s i on i m pl i es t hat t her e m us t be an expr es s w r i t t en w ai ver re lin q u ish in g th e p a re n t’s s u p e rio r p a re n tal rig h t to c u sto d yo f h is c h ild . T h e re f

o re , I w ill addr es s t hi s par t of t he m aj or i t y deci s i on att he s ame t i m e t hatI r es pond t o t he conc ur r ence . I n B lairv. B adenhope , 77 S. W

. 3d 137 ( T enn. 2002) , t he C our thel d: Pr es um i ng t hata par enti s aff or ded t he oppor t uni t yt o as s er ts uper i orpar ent al r i ght s i n t he i ni t i al cus t ody pr ocee di ng, t hen t he par ent ’ s vol unt ar yt r ans ferof c u s to d yto a n o n -p a re n t, w i t h know l edge of t he cons equenc es of t hatt r ans

f er , eff ect i vel y oper at es as a w ai ver of t hes e funda m ent al par ent al r i ght s . U nder th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e C o n stitu tio n d o e s n o t ag a in e n tit le th e n a tu ra l p a re n ts t o as s er ts uper i orpar en tal ri ght s t o m odi fya val i d cus t odyor der , even i f no c o u rt h a s p re v io u slyf

o u n d th e n a tu ra l p a re n t to b e u n f it. I d. at 147- 48 ( foot not e om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added)

. T he B la ir cour tdi d noti ndi cat e w hatw as m eantby“know l edge of t he con seq u ences ” of vol unt ar i l yt r ans ferr i ng cus t odyt o a nonp a re n t. I n r eac hi ng i t s decisi on, t he B la ircour ts ur vey ed t he l aw i n ot hers t at es r egar di ng p roc ee d ing s filed b ya b iolog ical p are n t to m o d ifya p ri o r cu stod yaw ard to a n o n p are n t. It w as per s uaded byt he maj or i t yv iew in others t at es t hat“t he vol unt ar yr el i nqui s hm entof ind ef init e c u stod yto a n o n -pa ren t” i s “c o n d u ct t h at [is] i n co n sist en t w ith th e p are n t’ s cons t i t ut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s . ” B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at146. T he m aj or i t y of ot her s t at es s awThe B la ir court cho se n ot to followothe r states that ap ply the parental preferenc e in all cus tody 3 pr oc ee di ng s, whe th er

th ey are in it ia l p ro ce ed in g s or p ro ce ed in g s to modif

y , and a ls o es ch ew ed

th e smal l minority of courts that ap ply

a best interest test in all circum stances, inclu dingan initial cus tody procee dingbetw een a parent an d a non-parent. See Gu inta v. Doxtator , 2 0 A .D .3d 47 , 5 2, 794 N. Y. 2d 51 6, 5 20 (N

. Y

. App . 2 00 5)

. -5- s u c h a d e c i s i o n a s a “ f

o r f e i t u r e ” o f

t h e p a r e n t ’ s s u p e r i o rr i g h tt o c u s t o d y. I d. at147. T he 3 B la ircour temphasi zed: H avi ng once pr ot ect ed the par ent ’s r ight s t o cus t ody, at t he r is k of s acr i f i ci ng t he chi l d’s bes ti nt er es t s , w e s hould nott hen s acr i f i ce the chi l d’s need f

or sta b ili ty in its c a re a n d livin g a rr a n g e m e n ts by m o d ifyin gth o se a rr a n g e m e n ts m or e r eadi l

y than i n a par ent

-

par ent cas e. I d. at145 ( quot i ng C. R. B. v . C. C. , P

. 2 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 0 ( A l a s k a 1 9 9 8 ) ( e m p h a s i s b y B la irco u rt )). T hus , t he B la ircour tcar eful l ybal ance d pr ot ect i on of t he par ent ’ s s uper i orr i ghtt o cus t ody agai ns tt he chi l d’ s need f ornur t ur i ng and s t abl e ca r e. T he Supr eme C our tappl i ed B la ir i n I n r e : A . M. H. , 2 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 3 (T en n . 2 0 0 7 ). I n A . M. H. , t h e Cou r ts t a t e d t h a ti twas r e q u i r e d t o a d d r e s s t h e c o n s e n to r d e rt r a n s f e r r i ng c u sto d yto n o n - p a re n ts b e c a u se , “[ u ]n les s w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o n se n t o rd e r is unenfor cea bl e, t he par ent s of A

. M

. H

. have no supe r i or r i ght s t o t he cust ody of A

. M

. H

. ” I d. at811. T he A . M. H. C o u rt th e n sta ted th a t itw a s a p p ly in g a n d in te r p r e tin g th e p h ra se in B la irt hatt he maj or i t yi nt erpr et s i n t he i ns t antcas e: R ec o g n izi n g the p o ssibil itythat in th e inf o rm al sett ing o f ju v en il e c o u rt unr epr es ent ed par ent s coul d ent eri nt o a for m al or derw i t houtunder s t andi ng t h e a c t u a l e f

f e c to f t r a n s f e r r i n g c u s t o d y, w e h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h a ti ti s o n l y a p a re n t’ s “ v o lu n ta ry tr a n s f e r o f c u s to d yto a n o n -p a re n t, w i t h know l edge of t he conseq u en ces of

t hatt r ans

f er , ” t hatw i l l defe ata par ent ’ s cl ai m t o s uper i or ri g h ts o f c u s to d y . [ B la ir , 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d ] at 14 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). I d. ( emphasi s i n A . M. H. )

. T he A . M. H. C our t al s o quot ed t he l anguage i n B la ir , r el i ed upon byt he maj or i t yher ei n: A s w e s t at ed i n B la ir : W her e a natur al par ent vol unt ar i l y r el i nqui s hes cus t odyw i t hout know l edge of

t he ef fec tof t hatact , t hen i tcan n o t be s ai d t hat thes e righ ts [to the ca re a n d cu stod y o f o n e’s c h il d ] w ere-6- acc or ded t he pr ot ect i on demanded byt he C ons t i t ut i on. A s s uch, appl i cat i on of t he s uper ior ri g ht s doct r i ne i n a s ubs equent m odi fi cat i on pr ocee di ng w oul d be j us t i fi ed. B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at148 n. 3. I d. at812 ( br acke t ed l anguage added i n A . M. H. )

. A ppl y i ng B la ir , t he A. M . H. C our tt hen cons i der ed t he bi ol ogi cal par ent s ’ evi dence t hat , at t he t i m e of the i ni t i al cus t odyor der , t hey w e re to ld th a t th e o rd e r w a s tem p o ra rya n d th a t th e ir late r re q u e st f o r re tu rn o f

c u sto d yw o u ld b e re f u s e d o n ly if t h e y e n g a g e d in m is c o n d u c t s u c h a s s u b s ta n c e a b u s e . I d. T he A . M. H. C our tfound t hatt hi s evi dence es t abl i s hed t hat t he par ent s ’ t r ans ferof cus t odyw as notdone “w i t h know l edge of

t he cons equenc es . ” I

d. T hus , t he A . M. H. C our ti ni t i al l yr ecogni zedth at , unl es s t he cons entcus t odyor derw as unenfor cea bl e, t he par ent s w oul d be dee m ed t o have w ai ved t hei rs uper i orr i ghtt o cus t ody o f th e ir c h ild

. I

d. at811. A tno po int d id the S u p rem e C our ti n A . M. H. i ndi cat e t hatt he bur den w as o n the pet i t i onerB aker s t o s how t hatt he bi ol ogi cal par ent s w er e i nfor m ed of t hei rs uper i orpar ent al r i ght s ort hatt heyexpr es s l yw ai ved them i n exec ut i ng t he cons ent or der on cus t ody

. T hi s i s cons i s t entw i t h t he B la ir co u rt ’s d esc ri p ti o n o f a p are n t’ s v o lun tary r el i nqui s hm entof per m anentcus t odyt o a non- par entas a “f or fei t ur e” o f

t he par ent ’ s s uper i or ri g h t to c u s to d y . B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at147. T he ac ti t s el f i s “conduc tt hat[i s ] i ncons i s t ent w i t h” a pa r ent ’ s as s er t i on t hathe i nt ended t o r et ai n t he s uper i orr i ghtt o cus t odyi n t he futur e. I d. a t 1 4 6 . T h u s, th e o rd e r tra n sf e rrin g c u sto d yto th e n o n -p a re n t n e e d n o t g o o n to sta te expr es s l yt hatt he par ent s agr ee t o r el i nqui s h t hei rs uper i orr i ght s t o cus t odyof t hei rchi l dr en. A s s how n i n A . M. H. , how ever , t he bi ol ogi cal par enti s notfor ecl os ed fr om as s er t i ng hi s s uper i orr i ghtt o cus t ody i f he can s how t hathe ent er ed i nt o t he cons entor dert r ans ferr i ng cus t odyw i t hout“know l edge of t he cons equenc es of t hatt r ans fer

. ” A . M. H. , 215 S. W

. 3d at 811 ( quot i ng B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at147)

. I n A . M. H. , t he bi ol ogi cal par ent s su b m it t ed aff i r m at i ve evi dence t hat , des pi t e t he l anguage i n t he conse nt or der t r ans ferr i ng cus t ody , t hey w e re to ld th a t th e tra n sf e r o f c u sto d yw a s te m p o ra rya n d th a t, ab se n t m is c o n d u c t o n th e ir par t , t heycoul d r egai n cus t odyi n t he futur e i f t hey chos e t o do s o. T hi s evi dence fr om t he par ent s s how ed t hatt hei rvol unt ar yr el i nqui s hm entof cus t odyw as done w i t hout“know l edge o f th e c o n se q u e n c e s.” T h u s, th e yw e re p e rm itt e d to a ss e rt th e ir su p e rio r rig h t to c u sto d yin th e s u b s e q u e n t m o d if

ic a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . I

d. at811- 12. C ons i s t entw i t h t he Supr eme C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of B la iri n A . M. H. , I w o u ld h o ld t hat , abs entot herevi dence , once bi ol ogi cal par ent s agr ee t o a val i d cons entor dert r ans ferr i ng cus t odyof t he chi l d t o a non-p are nt , t her eaf t er , t he par ent s “have no s uper i orr i ght s t o t he c u s to d yo f

” th e ir c h ild

. A . M. H. , 215 S. W

. 3d at 811. T he par ent s , how ever , have t he-7-

oppor t uni t yt o s how t hat , w hen t heyagr eed t o r el i nqui s h cu stody , t heydi d nothave know l edge of

t he cons equenc es of t hei rdeci s i on. I f t heycan c ar r yt he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat t heydi d nothave s uch know l edge, t hen t heycan a s s er tt hei rs uper i orr i ghtt o cus t odyi n t he m o d if ic a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . I

d. at811- 12. T hi s can be done, as i n A . M. H. , bys how i ng t hat t he par ent s w er e t ol d t hatt he or derw as t empora r y , ort hatt heyw er e t ol d t hatt heyw oul d not h a v e t o s h o w a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n o r d e rt o r e g a i n c u s t o d y. I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he m ajor i t ydoes notdi s agr ee w i t h t he t r i al cour t ’ s hol di ng t hat t he perm anentpar ent i ng pl an underw hi ch t he St evens ons r ece i ved cus t odyi s a val i d cus t ody o rde r. T h e c o n cu rren ce stat es ex p li cit ly that itis a v ali d , fin al ord er. D esp it e M r. S h arp ’s a ss e rtio n s to th e c o n tra ry , the trial c o u rt f o u n d th a t th e o rd e r c lea rlysh o w s th a t th e o rd e r is n o t t em p o rary , b u t i s a f inal, p erm an en t a w a rd o f c u stod yto the S teve n so n s, an d that M r. Sharp, r epr es ent ed bycouns el at t he t i m e, knew t hat t he or der w as fi nal and perm anentw hen h e c o n se n ted to it. M or eover , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatM r . Sharp’ s s uper i orr i ghtt o cu stod y w as not f u l l yp r o t e c t e d i n t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . M r . S h a rp d o e s n o tc o n t e n d t h a t , a tt h e t i me h e e n ter e d in to th e c o n se n t o rd e r, h e w a s n o t a w a re th a t h e , a s the c h ild ’s b io lo g ica l p a re n t, h a d a s u p e r i o rr i g h tt o c u s t o d y o f h i s c h i l d

. K n o w i n g t h a t h e h a d a s u p e r i o rr i g h tt o c u s t o d y, M r . Sharp vol unt ar i l

y f or f ei t ed c u s t o d y t o t h e S t e v e n s o n s – n o tt e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y, per m anent c u s t o d y . Th i s a c t i s i n h e r e n t l y i n c o n s i s t e n t wi t h M r . Sh a rp ’ s c l a i m t hat he bel i eved he w as r et ai ni ng hi s s uper i orr i ghtt o cus t odyi n t he futur e. A s i n A . M. H. , M r. S h a rp h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto p ro d u c e e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s to ld s o m e th in g c o n tr a ry to th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e in itia l c u s to d yo rd e r, i

. e. , he w as t ol d t hatt he o rd e r w a s te m p o ra ryo r th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to a ss e rt h is su p e rio r rig h t to c u sto d yin t he fu tur e. H e di d notdo s o. T hus , M r . Sharp pr oduced no e vi dence t hathe di d nothave

“ k n o w le d g e o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f [ th e ] tra n s f e r” o f c u s to d yto th e S te v e n s o n s . B la ir , 77 S

. W

. 3 d at 14 7

. U n d er A . M. H. , t hen, M r . Sharp no l onger has s uper i orr i ght s t o t he cus t ody of t he chi l d. T h e c o n cu rren ce in this ca se w o u ld g o ev en fu rt h er f rom the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s hol di ngs i n B la irand A . M. H. T he conc ur r ence w oul d hol d t hata non- p ar entw ho has per m anentcus t odyof a c hi l d pur s uantt o a val i d cons ent or der , w hen face d w i t h a pet i t i on t o m odi fy cus t ody , m us t pr ove by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat , w hen t he bi ol ogi cal par ent ent er ed i nt o t he cons entor der , he s peci fi cal l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o as s er thi s s uper i or r i ghtt o cus t odyi n futur e pr ocee di ngs . T hi s i s cl ear l yan ext ens i on of B la ir

. T he onl ycas es ci t ed byt he conc ur r ence i n s uppor t of i t s appr oach a r e t w o K entucky cas es w hos e fa ct s ar e s o di ffe r entfr om t he ca s e atbart hatt heym us tbe cons ide r edIn its analy sis, the Grea thou seC ourt c ites Boa twrigh t v. Walker , 7 15 S.W. 2d 237 (Ky. C t. A pp. 4 19 86 ); Grea thou se , 8 91 S.W. 2d at 39 1. In Boa twrigh t , th e C ourtn ot ed th at ap ar ent’ s su

pe ri or r ight to the care an d cu stody

of his ch ild can

be “contrac ted aw ay ” by exe cuting“an

agreem ent o f a perm anent

(continued...) -8- i nappos i t e. I n G r eat

house v. Shrev e , 891 S. W

. 2d 387 ( K y . 1995) , t he chi l d’ s par ent s never m a rrie d a n d in iti a lly liv e d w ith th e c h ild ’s m a ter n a l g ra n d m o th e r. W h ile th e c h ild w a s s til l an i nfant , t he fat her m oved out , and l at er t he m ot her depar t ed as w el l , l eavi ng t he chi l d i n t he g ra n d m o th e r’ s c a re . I

d. at388. A ft er s ever al y ear s , t he fat her es t abl i s hed hi s pat er ni t y . T he gra ndm ot hert hen fi l ed an ac t i on t o adopt t he chi l d and t er m i nat e t he par ent al r i ght s of bot h par ent s . T hi s cl ai m w as l at er dr opped, and t he mat er nal gr andmot herj oi ned for ces w i t h t he mot heri n fi l i ng a pet i t i on f o r j o in t c u s to d y , to th e e x c lu s io n o f th e f a th e r. I d. H ow ever , t he mot herl i ved outof s t at e, a n d it b e c a m e a p p a re n t th a t sh e w a s m e re lya sh ill , a d e v ic e to p e rm it th e g ra n d m o th e r to o b t a i n le g a l c u s to d ya n d e x c lu d e th e f a th e r. I d. at388, 390. N ever t hel es s , beca us e t he m othersoug ht cust od yjo in tly w i t h the grandm other , t he tr i al cou rtem ploy ed a “b est interests” a n aly sis an d g ran ted th e req u est fo r j o int cu stod yto the m o ther a n d g ran d m o ther. I d. at389. T h e f a th e r a p p e a led to th e in ter m e d iate a p p e llate c o u rt. T h e in ter m e d iate a p p e llate cour taff i r m ed t he aw ar d of cus t ody , w i t hout addr es s i ng t he por t i on of t he or der t hataw ar ded jo in t c u s to d yto th e m o th e r. I d. I ns t ead, i t found t hatt he fa t her , byl eavi ng t he chi l d i n t he gr andmo ther’s ca r e, had w ai ved hi s s uper i orpar ent al r i ghtt o cus t odybeca us e he “su rren der ed t he ca r e and c us t odyof t he chi l d t o anot her ” and “ acqui es ced i n t he chi ld’s r emai ni ng t her e for an ext ended per i od of t i m e. ” I d. at 38 9

. T h e interm ed iat e a p p ell ate c o u rt then ap p li ed a be st interests an aly sis an d af firm ed the aw ard o f c u stod yto the g ran d m o ther. I d. T he fa t herappea l ed aga i n. T he K entuckySupr eme C our tfound that joini ng t he m otheri n the grandm other ’s peti t i on for cust od yas a basi s for apply i ng t he best i nter est s t est

“ w a s a p u re lytec h n ica l d e v ice , a m e th o d f o r e v a d in g th e n a tu ra l f a th e r’s su p e rio r c laim to cus t ody

. ” I

d. at 390. I tal s o di s agr eed w i t h t he i nt er m edi at e appe l l at e cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he w ai ver pr i nci pl e. I tnot ed t he fa t her ’ s as s er t i on t hat , fors ever al y ear s , “he di d notr eal i ze he had a nyr i ghtt o hi s s on b eca us e of the fa ctt hathe and the chi l d’ s m ot herw er e neve r m ar r i ed. ” I

d. T he K entucky Supr eme Court s ai d t hat , under t he fac t s of t hatcas e, t he t r i al cour tneede d t o m ake fac t ual fi ndi ngs on t he i s s ue of w ai ver , obs er vi ng t hatt he fa t her ’ s l ong t er m acqui es cenc e i n t he l i vi ng ar r angementw as a fa ct ort o be cons i der ed, butw as not c o n c lu s iv e . I

d. T her efor e, t he G re a th o u se C our tr emanded t he ca s e t o t he t r i al cour tfor fact ual fi nd i ng s. 4(...continued) 4 nature , ” su cha s a co ns ent f or a do pt io n. In su chac as e, o nc e su chac ontr ac t h as b ee n ex ec ut ed , e v en if conse nt is later w ithdrawn, “the n atural p arent h as w aiv ed its superio r right, and the b est intere sts of the child tak e pre ceden ce.” Boa twrigh t , 7 15 S.W. 2d at 24 4. -9- G reath ou se , t hen, i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr o m the ca s e atbari n num er ous i m por t ant re s p e c ts . U n lik e th e in s ta n t c a s e , G reath ou se i nvol ved t he f i rst pr ocee di ng r egar di ng t he cus t odyof th e chi l d. M or eover , t he pr ocee di ngs i n G reath ou se w er e compl i cat ed byt he m ot her ’ s par ti cipa ti o n i n t he gr andmot her ’ s pet i t i on forcus t ody

. I n cont r as tt o t he i ns t ant cas e, t he K entuckyi nt er m edi at e appe l l at e cour tdi d not fi nd w ai ver of t he fa t her ’ s s uper i or r i ghtfr om hi s vol unt ar ycons entt o an orde r aw ar di ng per m anent cus t ody , butr at herfr om t he father ’ s actof l eavi ng t he chi l d i n t he gra ndm ot her ’ s car e at a t i m e w hen t he fa t herdi d not h a v e le g a l c o u n s e l a n d w a s n o t a w a re o f h is s u p e r i o r p a r e n ta l r ig h t. T h u s , G reath ou se in v o lv e s th e p ro tec tio n o f th e p a re n t’s s u p e rio r rig h t i n t he f i rs ti ns tance . O f

c o u rse , “p a re n ts i n t he i ni t i al pr ocee di ngs enj oya s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hatt hey are en t i t l ed t o t he phy s i cal cus t odyof t hei rchi l dr en. ” B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at 146. I n t he i ns t ant cas e, M r . Sharp’ s s uper i or par ent al r i ght s w er e ful l y pr ot ect ed i n t he fi r s tpr ocee di ng. U nl i ke G reath ou se , M r. S h arp n o w se e k s to m o d if

yth e p e rm a n e n t c u sto d y o rd e r t o w h ich h e c o n se n ted , w ith f u ll b e n e f it o f c o u n s e l. C le a rl y , G reath ou se i s w hol l yi nappl i cabl e. A s t o t he s econd K entuckycas e ci t ed byt he conc ur r ence , al t houg h it i ndeed c i t es G reath ou se , i tdoes not s uppor tt he appr oach a dvocat ed byt he conc ur r ence . I n Mullins v. P i ckles im er , 2010 W L 246063 ( K y . 20 10) , a bi ol ogi cal m ot herand hers ame- s ex par t ner e x e c u t e d a c o n s e n t o r d e r a war d i n g t h e n o n - b i o l o g i c a l p a r e n t c u s t o d y r i g h t s . Aft er t he p a rt n e rs c e a s e d liv in g to g e th e r, l e g a l p ro c e e d in g s re g a rd in g th e c h ild ’s c u s to d ye n s u e d

. I d. a t * 2

. T h e p ri o r a g re e d c u s to d yo rd e r w a s in v a lid a te d o n th e b a s is o f f ra u d

. I d. at*6. T he Mul lins C our thel d t hat , even thoug h the chi l d w as nevers epar at ed fr om t he bi ol ogi cal par ent , and eve n t hough t he bi ol ogi cal p are n t w as not r epr es ent ed bycouns el w hen s he exec ut ed t he now

- i nval i dat ed cons entcus t odyor der , her exec ut i on of t he conse ntor derw as
“ a s a b s o lu te w a iv e r o f

p a rt o f h e r su p e ri o r c u s to d y ri g h ts a s th e n a tu ra l p a re n t o f th e c h ild .” I d. at*8, *10. I n s o hol di ng, t he Mul lins C our tr el i ed on a N or t h C ar ol i na ca s e t hat “couc hed i t s anal y s i s i n t er m s of w het hert he natur al par enthad ac t ed i n a manner i ncons i s t entw i t h hercons t i t ut i onal l ypr ot ect ed s t atus as a natur al par ent

. ” Id at*9 ( ci t i ng Heat z i g v. MacLean , 664 S. E

. 2s d 347, 350- 51 ( N

. D

. C t

. A pp. 2008) )

. T he Mul lins C o u rt found t hatt he bi ol ogi cal par ent ’ s actof s et t i ng up a fa m il yuni tw i t h t he par t nerand exec ut i ng a cus t odyagr eementcons t i t ut ed “c l ear and convi nci ng evi dence ” t hats he “w ai ved h e r s u p e ri o r c u s to d yri g h ts ” to th e c h ild

. I d. at*10. I ndeed, nei t her K entucky cas e i ndi cat es t hatt he bi ol ogi cal par entm us thave ex p re ss ly w aive d h is o r h er su p erior p are n tal ri g h t in o rde r to m ak e a fa ctua l fi n d ing o f w aive r. R athe r,Mr. S harp claim s that his atto rney at th e tim e assured h im

that he w as n ot g iv ingup his parental 5 ri ght s. Th is is , o f co ur se , c or re ct

. M r. S harp to th is d ay r et ai ns h is p ar enta l right s. H is p ar enta l right s are sep arate an d d istinct from his superio r right to custod y of his ch ild. -10- b o th of t he K entuckycas es focus on w het hert he bi ol ogi cal par ent ’ s act i ons w er e i ncons i s t ent w i t h hi s orherpr ot ect ed s t atus . T hus , t he K entucky cas es ci t ed by t he conc ur r ence do not supp ortt he ap proach adv ocated i n t he co ncu rr ence. Th e con curr ence p oint s t o n o o t her case i n any juri sd ict ion that g o es so fa r. T he conc ur r ence cl ai m s t hat , under the s t andar d i tadvoca t es , “no for m al orw r i t t en w ai veri s r equi r ed. ” Thi s i s w i s hful t hi nki ng. A bs ent a “f or m al orw r i t t en w ai ver , ” how can the ch il d ’s cu stod ian pro v e t h e p are n t’ s k n o w ledg e a t th e ti m e o f th e initi al cu stod yo rde r? T h e e v iden ce p rof

fe red b yM r. S h arp in this ca se is a p ri m e e x am p le. T h e inf o rm ati o n M r. Sharp s ay s t hathe w as gi ven at t he t i m e he e nt er ed i nt o t he agr eed pe r m anentpar ent i ng pl an w a s c o rre c t. H e se e k s to n o w v iti a te th e a g re e d p e rm a n e n t p a re n tin g p lan b a se d o n lyo n h is

5 cl ai m ed pr es um pt i on, ar t i cul at ed t o no one att he t i m e, t hathe w oul d r et ai n hi s s uper i orr i ght t o cus t ody

. A s found byt he t r i al cour t , t he unde rst an d ing now cl ai m ed byM r . Sharp i s at odds w i t h t he l anguage i n t he agr eed per m anent par ent i ng pl an and w i t h hi s unequi vocal act o f r e l i n q u i s h i n g p e r m a n e n tc u s t o d y. U n d er the stan d ard ad v o ca ted b ythe c o n cu rren ce , ev en if t h e b iolog ical p are n t’ s s uper i orr i ghtt o cust o d y i s ful l ypr ot ect ed i n t he i ni t i al pr ocee di ng and t he or dergi vi ng cus t odyt o a non- par enti s val i d, fi nal and perm anent , t he chi l d’ s cus t odi an musti n eff ect p ro v e b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e p a r e n t m a d e a n a d d iti o n a l p ro m ise n o t to a s s e r th i s s u p e r i o rr i g h tt o c u s t o d yi n t h e f u t u r e . Th i s h o l d i n g e f f e c t i v e l yt r a ns fo r ms T ennes s ee i nt o a j ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch “the par ent al pr efe r ence [i s appl i ed] in all cus t ody p ro c e e d in g s , w h e th e r t h e y a re in itia l p ro c e e d in g s o r p ro c e e d in g s to m o d if yp ri o r o rd e rs .” G uinta v. D oxtator , 2 0 A .D .3 d 4 7 , 5 2 , 7 9 4 N .Y .2 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 (N .Y . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). T h is appr oach w as s peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed i n B la ir , i nas m uch as i t “w oul d eff ect i vel y r enderexi s t i ng or der s of cus t odyt o non- par ent s pr act i cal l yw or t hl es s . ” B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at149. T he Supr eme C our ti n B la ircar eful l ybal ance d pr ot ect i on of t h e p are n t’ s s uper i or ri g h t t o cu stod y a g a in s t th e c h il d ’s ne ed fo r pe rm an en cy an d stab il ity . M r. S h arp ’s cons t i t ut i onal s uper i orr i ghtt o cus t odyof hi s chi l d w as ful l ypr ot ect ed i n al l of t he proceed i ng s l eading u p to t he p erm anen torder, and he n evert heles s ch o se t o rel i nq uis h cus t ody per m anent l y . A s emphasi zed i n B la ir , at th is p o in t w e sh o u ld p ro tec t “th e in ter e sts of t he chi l d i n a s t abl e and s ecur e envi r onm ent

. ” B la ir , 77 S. W

. 3d at149.-11-

I w o u ld a f

f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e trial c o u rt. T h e re f

o re , I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t.

_______________________________________ HOL L Y M

. KI RB Y, J UDGE