R u l e 1 0 . M E M OR A N D U M OP I N I ON [.] T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in 1 t h e ca s e, ma y a f

f i rm, revers e or modi f

y t h e ac t i on s of

t h e t r i al c ou r t by me mor an du m opi n i on w h en a f or mal opi n i on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y m em o ran d um o pi 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 I N I O N , ” s hal l not be publ i s hed, an d s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Marc h 23 , 200 4 S es sio n MELI SSA FRAZ IE R NORWOO D HOFFMEI STER no w BRINK v. JOHN KENN ETH HO FF MEIST ER Appeal f romthe Chancery Court for Knox Coun ty No. 152339-1 John F. We aver, C hancellor

F ILED MAY 4, 2004 No. E2003-02022-COA- R3-CV

The c ustody

of a f our-year old boy is the pi votal issue in this case . The Chanc ellor found that the fathe r wa s the better qua lified to be the primar y residential c ustodian of his son following a rec itation of thebiza rr e c on du c t of

themot he r. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancery Court Affi rm ed W I L L I AM H. I

NMAN , S R
. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., E.S., and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R , J ., joined. Melissa Hoff

meister B rink, Abita Spring s, L ouisiana, Pro Se. Way ne De catur

Wy koff, Knoxville, Tennessee , for a ppellee, John Kenneth Hof fmeister.
M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION 1
Ea c h o f t he se pa rt ie s is a pr a c tic ingatto rn e y . T his lit ig atio n f oc us e s o n th e c us tod

y of the ir son Daniel, who w as born Ma rch 19, 1999. The parties wer e separ ated in September 2001, when they wer e pra cticinglaw in Knoxvil le, and a final dec ree of divorcewas e ntere d J uly 7, 2003, which decr eed that Fathe r wa s better qua lified to be the primary domiciliary custodian of Da

niel. Mother a pp e a ls, ins ist ingthat th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot j us tif y the fi nd ing by the Cha

nc e llo r that the “ F athe r i s the better choice as the re sidential pare nt give n his gr eate r stability .”-2-

Mother has be en mar

ried thre e times. Her

last marr i age, to Mr. Brink in L ouisiana, appar ently

occur red in January

2003, six months before her divorce from Mr. Hoffmeister. B efor e her ma rriag e to Mr. B rink she bec ame enamore d of Mr. Snedeker , also of L ouisiana, whom she ha d known for a

number of year s. She trave led to L ouisiana to liaison with him. At that time, she wa s employed by

a law f irm in Knox ville, and represe nted to the firm that her stepfathe r had been killed in t he 9/1 1 Pe nta g on

dis a ste r a

nd that sh e wa s atte nd inghis fu ne ra l in Was hin g to n. Th is w a s a fabricated ta le to cover

her trip to L ouisiana for a job interview and liaison with Mr. Snedeker, a nd she concocted yet another spurious tale to cove r the initial fabrication. She eve ntually was lice nsed in L ouisiana whe re she now pra ctices la w. It would not be productive to recite the full body of the evidenc e conside red by

the Chance llor. Suffice to state that the Appellant’s u n d i s puted conduc t clea rly ref lects adve rsely

on her pa

renta l stability

and her profe ssion. The evidenc e does not pr e po nd e rate a g a ins t th e jud gme nt whic h is a ff ir me d at th e c os ts o f t

he Ap pe lla

nt.

___________________________________ WI L L IAM H. I

NMAN, SENI OR J UDGE