### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Ja nua ry 20, 200 9 S es sio n CYNTHI A DIANE FREE v . JAMES JASO N FREE, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Henry County No. 18990 Ron E. Harmon, Chancellor

No. W2008-01329-C OA-R3-C V - Filed February 17, 2009

This is a post-divorce a ction seekinga cha ng e in child custody

. The ini tial action wa s filed by the natura l mother, t he Appellee herein, and the trial court de termined that primar y residential c ustody should be with her. The pat er n al grandpa rents, the Appe llants herein, a lso moved the court f or custody of t he two minor children. The trial court denied the g randpa rents’ pe tition for custody . The g ra nd pa re nts a pp e a l. F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff ir m.

Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancer y Court Af firme d

J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., d el i v er ed t h e opinion of the c ourt, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.

La rry J . L og a n, Mc Ke nz ie , T N, fo r A pp e lla nts , J a me s Ja son Fr e e , H a nk Sta nf ie ld a nd Fr a nk ie Stanfield

James H. Bra dberry, Dre sden, TN, f or Appe llee, Cynthia Diane Free
OP IN ION Appellee Cy

nthia Diane F ree and James J ason Fr ee wer e divorce d by order of the Chanc ery Court of H e n r

y Co u n ty o n A p r il 9 , 2 0 0 3

. O n A u g u s t 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 , tw o c h il dr e n w e r e b orn to the marria g e–twin g irls, J .L .F. a nd J .A.F. Concurre nt with the order of divorce , the trial cour

t entere d a Perma nent Parenting Plan, na

ming Mr. Fr ee as the primary residential pare nt, a nd g iving Ms. Fre e visitation wit h the childre n. Following the di vorce , Mr. Free moved i nto the Appellants Hank a nd Fr ankie Stanfie ld’s home. Fr ankie Stanfie ld is Mr. Fre e’s mother; Mr. Stanfield is his step-father. Al tho ug h th e e xac t da

te is no t c le a r in the re c or d, a t so me po int , M r. F re e mov e d f ro m th e Sta

nf ie lds ’ home, leavingthe two childre n in the Stanfields’ ca re. On Octobe r 16, 2006, af

ter Ms. F ree discovere d that her e x -husband ha d moved from the home and lef

t th e ch i l d re n i n the ca

re of the Stanfields, Ms. Fr ee f iled a petition to modify

the-2-

previous child custody order , reque sting that she be named pr imary residential pa

rent. Mr. F ree then fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss Ms. F re e ’s pe tit ion . B y Or de r o f M a y

16 , 2 00 8, the tr ia l c ourt

g ra nte d M s. Fr ee’ s petition and named he r the primar y residential pa

rent of the children. On Aug u s t 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the Stanfields interve ned and pe titioned the court for custody of the chil dren. I

n their petition, the Stanfields alleg ed that Ms. Fr ee w as living w ith a reg istered se x offe nder, that she repe atedly failed to super

vise the children, and that her tre atment of the c hildren posed a substantial risk of phy sical and e motional harm. Following a hea ring on Fe bruar

y 19, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e d

t h e S t a n f i e l d s ’ p e t i t i o n f

o r c u s t o dy.
The Stanfields a

nd Mr. Free appea led this decision; however , at ora l argument, counsel for M r

. F r e e i n f

o r m e d t h e C o u rt t h a t h i s c l i e n t n o l o n g e r w i s h e d t o p u r s u e t h e a p p e a l

. C o n s e qu e n t l y, the Stanf ie lds a re the so le a

pp e lla nts he re in. Th e iss ue s, a s st a te d in the ir br ie f, a re a s f

oll ow s:
1. Wa s th e r e a

mate r ia l c h a n g e in

c ir c u ms ta

n c e s , o c c u r

ring
s u b s eq u en t t o t h e i n i t i al cu s t o dy d et er m i n at i o n , s u ff

i ci en tt o ch an ge the desig nation of th e primary residential pa

rent fr om J ames Jason Fr ee, the natura l father , to Cy nthia Diane F ree , the natura l mother?

2. Were the a ctions of the natur al mother, Cy nthia Di an e Free , and her f amily sufficie nt to cause the p re s u mption of superior par ental rig hts to be forfe ited?

3. I f so, does the e vidence justify a cha ng e of c ustody

to the pater

nal g randpa rents, Ha nk Stanfield and wife , Fr ankie Stanfie ld?

We no te th a t, b e c a

u s e M r

. F r e e is n o lo n g e r a p a rty to th is a p p e a l, w e p r e te r

mi t is s u e one, which conte sts the custody awa rd to Ms. Fre e. The sole issue befor e this Court is whether the trial
c o u rte r r e d i n d e n yi n g t h e S t a n f

i e l d s ’ p e t i t i o n f

o r c u s t o dy.
Be cause this case wa s tried by the cour t sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview the case de novo up on the re c or d w itha

pr e su mpt ion

of c or re c tne ss o f t

he fi nd ing s o f f

a c t by the tr ia l c ourt . U nle ss the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent er

ror of law. SeeTe nn . R. App. P. 13(d). F urthermor e, wh en t h e re solution of the issues in a case depends upon the tr uth fu lne ss o f w itn e sse s, the tr ia l judg e wh o ha s the op po rt un ity to obs e rv e the wi tne sse s and the ir
mann e r a nd de me a no r w hil e te sti fy

ingis i n a

fa r bet ter po si tion tha

n th is C ourt

to d e c ide tho se i s sues. See McCaleb v

. Satu rn Cor

p. , 9 10 S.W. 2d

41 2, 41 5 ( Te nn .1 99 5) ; W hi ta k e r v . Whit aker , 95 7 S. W.2 d 8 34 , 8 37 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 99 7) . T he we ig ht, fa ith , a nd c re dit to b e g ive n to a ny

wi tne ss' testimony lies, in the first instance with the trier of fac t, a nd the cre dibilit y acc orded will be g iven g reat weig ht by

the appe llate cour

t. See id. ; se eals o W

alt on v . Young , 950 S.W .2d 956, 959 (Tenn.1997)

. The Stanfields pe titioned the court for custody of the c hildren. B ased upon the evidenc e, the trial court de nied their re quest. As discussed in Ri c ha rd s o n Te nn esse e Fa mi ly

Law:-3- [E] ven thoug h the best interest of the child i s the para mount concer

n of the c ourt in making custody deter minations, a constitutional right of privac y arises w hen the custody dispute is betwee n a natur al par ent and a third pa

rty . I n a ser ies of re cent c as es , the supreme court ha s made c lear

the rule that in a custody

dispute betwee n a third par ty and a natur al par ent, the par ent may not be depr ived of c ustody without
a sh ow ingof

pa re nta l un fi tne ss o r a

sh ow ingof

su bs tantial harm to the child. The supr eme c ourt rea ff i rm ed the doctrine of super ior pare ntal rig hts in Blair v. Badenh ope a s f oll ow s:
Th ro ug h A rt ic le I , s e c tio n 8 and its imp lic it
rec og nitio n o f p ar en t al p ri v acy rig hts, our Constit utio n require s that courts dec iding initial
cus to d y disputes give natura l pare nts a presumption of

' ' superior pa

renta l rig hts'' reg ardingthe custody of their childre n. Simpl y

stated, this presumption
rec og nizes that '' pare ntal rig hts are supe rior to the ri gh ts of others and c ontinue without interruption
un le ss a bio log ic a l par e nt co ns e nts to re lin qu ish the m, abandons his or he r child, o r forfeits his or her pa re nt al ri g hts by

so me c on du c t th a t su

bs tanti a lly harms the c hild.”

J anet L . Richards, Ri c ha rd s o n Te nn esse e Fa mi ly

Law § 8-(3) (b)( 8) (3d e d. 2008) (f ootnotes omitted).

The trial c ourt specif

ically found t hat M s. Fr ee’ s pare ntal rig hts were para mount to thos e of the Sta nf ie lds . In o rd e r t o o ve rc ome that f ind ing , th e re c or d mu st c ontai n proof that Ms . F re e is
e ith e r u n f i t , o r t h a t s h e p o s e s a s u

b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f h a r

m t o t h e c h i l dr e n

. W e h a v e r e v i e we d th is
re c or d, a nd

fi nd no e vid e nc e to s up po rt

e ith e r o f t

he se c on c lus ion s.
Th e Stanf ie lds ’ p ri mary

ob je c tio n to Ms. F re e ’s be ing name d the c us tod ia l par e nt se e ms t o be the f act that she dated a reg istered sex offe nder. Although Ms. Fr ee does not deny having a brie f
re la tio ns hip wi th t

his man, the re c or d ind ic a te s that, a t that tim e , M s. F re e ha d n o k no wl e dg e of

his status as a sex offende r. More over, the rec ord indicate s that the re lationship between Ms. F ree and this man was neve r ser ious, that the children we re ne ver u n s u p ervised with him and, more importantly , as soon as Ms. F ree was informed that this man was a sex offende r, her response was e xac tly a s it sh ou ld h a ve be e n– sh e sto pp e d s e e inghim imm e diate ly . T he re is n o in dic a tio n th a t Ms

. Fr ee is c urre ntly

seeingthis man, or that she has a ny plans to resume a

relationship wit h him in the future. The Stanfields a lso rely upon the fa ct that, in 2003 (whe n the childre n wer e five y ear s old), Chi ld P r o t e c t i v e S e r

v i c e s o f K e n tu c ky

r e c e i v e d a r e p o rtt h a tM s

. F r e e ’ s m o t h e r h a d p h y s ic a lly abused one of the c hildren by hitting her

with a belt. This investigation was considered by the t rial-4-

court, whic h order ed that the children’s visitation with Ms. Free be super vised by Ms. Fre e’s sister. The mandate for supervised visi tation was li fted by the trial cour t in 2005. There is no indication in the rec ord that Ms. Fr ee failed to comply with the supervise d visitation. Furthermore , the re port fr om t he Ke ntu c ky

Chi ld P ro te c tiv e Se rv ic e s in dic a te s o nly that Ms . F re e ’s mot

he r ove rr e a c te d in her punishment of the child; there is no finding that Ms. Fre e wa s abusive. I t appea rs from the
rec ord that this was an isolated e vent. Ther e have been no f urther investigations of Ms. F ree or her family , nor we re the re a

ny proven inc idents prior to this.

This court addr essed this same issue in Elm ore v. Elm ore, 173 S.W

. 3d 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). I n Elmore , n o w J u s t i ce S h ar o n L ee wr o t e t h e f o l l o wi n g:
I n a conte st betwee n a par en t an d a non-pa rent, a pare nt cannot be d ep ri v edo f t h e c u s t o dy

o f a ch i l d

u n l es s t h er e h as b ee n a f i n d i n g, afte r notice r equire d by due process, of substantial harm to the child. Only then may a cour t eng ag e in a gene ral "best int ere st of the child"
e v a l u a t i o n i n m a k i n g a

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f

c u s t o dy.
In Re Adoption of Female Child (Bond v . McKenzie )

. 896 S.W .2d at 548.

Fur ther, this Court has held that the re qu i re d showing of risk of substantial harm to the children m u s t b e demonstrated by clea r and convincing evidenc e . Ray v. Ray , 83 S.W .3d 726, 733-34 (Te nn. Ap p. 20 01 ); Hall v. Bookou t, 87 S.W . 3d 80, 86 (Tenn. A pp. 2002); He nde rso n v

. M ab ry , 838 S.W . 2d 537, 540 (Tenn. A pp. 192). As the Supreme Court discusse d in Blair v. Badenh ope , 77 S.W .3d 137 (Tenn. 2002),the applicable analy sis is som ewhat differ ent when
a natur a l pa

re nt i s se e kin g to m od if

y a va lid or de r g ra

nti ngc us tod

y to a non-pa rent. B ut [ * * 6 ] i n the pre sent ca se, there is no prior dec ree g ranting custody

to a non-parent, and so the Grandpare nts and Aunt
wer e re quired to make a showing , by clea r and convinc ing e vidence , that g ranting custody

to Fathe r subjecte d the childre n to a ri sk of
su bs tanti a l ha

rm

. Elmore at 449

I n order for the Stanf

iel d s t o preva il they

wer e re quired to show by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that allowi n g M s

. Fr ee to have custody of the c hildren subjecte d them to a risk of substantial harm. Our r eview of the re cord r evea ls they

failed to mee t their burden of proof.

Ba sed on the fore g oing, w e af firm the dec ision of the trial court. The costs of this appea l are
a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e A p p e l l a n t s , H a n k a n d F r a n k i e S t a n f

i e l d , a n d t h e i r s u r e t y.-5- 

### ____ ____ ____ ____ ________ ____ ___ J. S T E V E N S T A FF O RD , J.