R u le 1 0 o f t h e R u le s o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f T e n n e sse e p ro v id e s: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al c o urt b y m em o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ced en t i al v alue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ugus t 3, 200 4 S es sio n TINA MA RIE WE NIN GERv. JER RY CR AIG WE NIN GER
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Stewart County No. 02-11-046 Le onard W. Martin, Judge

No. M2003- 02018-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 9, 2004

Th is a pp e a l ari se s f

ro m a div or c e a c tio n. Th e tr ia l cou rt a wa rd e d p ri mary

re sid e nti a l c us tod y

to mothe r a ndsta nd ardvis itatio n to fathe r. We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in whic h A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Markley Runy on Gill, Erin, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, J erry

Craig Weninge r. L arry B. Watson, Clarksville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, T ina Marie Weninge r. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 This appea l arises fr om a divorce action in w hich the trial c ourt awa rded primary

residential custody of the pa rties’ two minor childre n, born 1998 and 2001, to the Mother, Tina Marie Wening er (“Mother ”). F ather , J erry Craig Weninge r (“Father” ) wa s awa rded standa

rd visitation. The g rounds for divorc e we re stipulated, a nd the only issues befor e this Court are: (1 ) Whe the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a wa

rd ing primary

re sid e nti a l c us tod y

to Mother.-2-

(2) Whether the trial c ourt err ed in awa rding Father standa

rd visitation. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

ma de no fi nd ing s o f f

a c t. T he fi na l de c re e of

div or c e simply

state s th e pa

rt ie s’ ag ree ment as to property

and aw ards c ustody

to Mother and visitation to Fathe r. Thus, we revie w the re cord in this case de novo to de termine whether the pre pondera nce of the evidenc e supports the trial court’ s judgme nt. Lee v. Lee , 66 S.W .3d 837, 843 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Upon re view of the record and afte r having heard or al ar g ument in this C ourt, we c annot say the t rial court err ed in its determination. The gist of Father’ s arg ument is that Mother is unfit to have custody of the c hildren bec ause she had an extramarital aff air, exposed the children to it, and violated a p r e - d i v o r c e c o u r to r d e r

e n j o i n i n g h e r

f r o mb r i n g i n g t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o h e r p a r a m o u r ’ s c o m p a n y. Mother conc edes tha t she had a n extramarital rela tionship and that she was found in contempt for violating a

court orde r restraining her f rom permitting the children to be in the company of her pa ra mou r. Ho we ver, sh e ar g ue s th a t sh e ha s b e e n th e prima ry c are -t ake r o f the c hil dr e n a ndthat, beca use F ather

leave s for wor

k betwee n 4:30 and 5:30 A.M., finishes work be tween 3:00 a nd 4:00 P.M., and g oes to bed a t 8:00, he simplyis not available to ca re f or the children. As a re sult, when the children are with F ather , Father’s pare nts a re, in f act, the car e-takers. She further ass er t s t h at Father’s pa

rents have g reatly

contributed to the a crimony betwee n the parties, and that even w hen Father wa s unemploy ed and Mothe r wa s employ ed outside the home, the children wer e left in the car e of F ather ’s par ents. The re cord supports Mother’s asse rtion that she is the primary car e-taker of the children a nd that Father’s pa

rents, and not Father, care for the children while they are at Father’ s home. Father simplyhas fa iled to car

ry his burden of de monstrating that he is the m ore fit pare nt and that the trial court e rre d i n its determination. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the a war d of primary residential c ustody to Mother. We also aff

irm the visitation a wa rd t o Fa t h er. It is not di sputed that Father moved f rom Stewart County

to Houston Countyafte r t h e p ar t i es we re se parated, and that ther e is a drive of approximately

fifty minutes betwee n the parties’ re sidence s. I n light of this distance, F ather ’s work schedule , and the practica l difficulties of visitation in this case, we cannot sa y the trial court erre d by awa rding Father standa

rd visitation.
I n light of the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the trial court is a ffirme d. Costs of this a ppeal a re ta xedto the Ap pe lla nt, Jer ry Cr a ig Wen ing er, and hi s su re ty , f or wh ic h e xec uti on ma y

iss ue if n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE