1 Rule 10 (Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee).

(a) Affirmanc

e Without O pinion. The Court, with the concurrence of all judge s participating in the case, may

affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumst ances e xist and are

dispositive

of the ap peal: (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary

implication by the trial cou rt. (2 ) t he re is ma te ri al ev id en ce to su pp or t t he ve rd ic t o f t he ju ry. (3) no reversible error of law a ppears. Such cas es may

be affi rmed as f ollows: “A

ffirmed in accor dance w ith Court of

Appeals Rule 10(a).” 

# FILED

October 3, 199 6 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACK SON JOSEPH COL LINS, III ) From the Chancery Court ) for Lake County , Tennessee Plaintiff/Appellant, ) The Honorable Joe G. Riley, Jr., Judge vs. ) ) Lake County

Chancery

No. 3807 HELENE LAROSE CLEGG, ) Appeal No. 02A01-9502-CH-00028 ) ) AFFI RMED ) Defendant/Appellee. ) Jo sep h C ol li ns, III ) Ridgely, Te

nnessee ) Pro Se ) ) John Vaughn ) Tiptonville, Tennessee ) Attorney for D efendant/Appellee

RULE 10 ORD ER AND OP INION

This matter appears appropriate for consideration pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. 1 The facts in this case are well summarized in the Memorandum Opinion by the Honor

able Jo e G . R il ey: The mother and father lived together in Michig an for approxima

tely fifteen (15) years but were ne ver mar ried. They had a d augh ter, Cna nah, now seven (7) years of age. The father moved from Michigan to Tenne ssee in February 1993. The mother and daught

er stay ed in Mich

igan. T he mother

and daug

hter visit ed the fa ther in Tennessee around May 1993. The daughter remained with the father after that visit and finished the school ye ar in Tennessee. Both parents are ga

infully employ ed. The m

other ha s been em ploy ed at a mortga ge company for

seven (7) y ears and makes approximately $1,700 per

month.2 On June 2, 1993, the father filed a petition for custody giving notice of a June 15thhearing

date. The mother

was serv ed with thi s p rocess i n Michigan on June 14th. At the mother’s re quest fa ther’s c ounsel ag

reed to a continuance until July 6th. Just prior to July 6th the mother came to Tennessee. O n July 6th the mother was without counsel and wa s in significant distress. In the off ice of the father’s counsel the mothe

r agre ed to joint c

ustody with prima

ry phy sical cu stody

being w ith the father. She was very

upset and crying. She immediately appea red in court and advised the Court that she was agreea ble to entry of this order

. The father and the child went to Michigan in Aug ust 1993. The parents got into a violent argument. The mother was assaulted by the father and

had much of her property de stroyed. The f ather was arrested. The mother filed a custody pr oceeding in Michigan. Michiga n dismissed her petition for lack of jurisdiction. The mothe r also sou ght rel

ief in federal court under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. The Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed her action for lack of jurisdiction. On November 3, 1993, the mother filed her Motion to Modify Child Custody in this Court. In or

der to re solve this litigation in Tennessee she has taken leave fr om her empl oym

ent and ha s been sta

yin g in a she

lter in this state . It is her inte

ntion to return to Michigan to her stable employ ment upon terminat

ion of the se procee dings. Mem. Op. at 1-2. The trial judge noted that the Michigan courts had appare ntly

deferred to Tennessee, and therefore the trial court assumed jurisdiction over this matter. The trial court observed that this was the first occasion in which the best interest of the minor child was addressed because the mother appare ntly agreed t o the o rigi nal custody order unde r pressure and without counsel. After considering the ev idenc e prese nted a t the h earing, the trial court concluded that it would be in the best interest of the child for the mother and father to have joint cus tody with primary phy sical custody with the mother and a ppropriate visitation with the father. The standard of review of the tri al court ’s order is de novo upon the record, accompanied by

a presumption of correctness of the finding, unless the pre ponderanceof

evidence is otherwise. Hass

v. Knighton , 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984); Musselman v. Acuff , 826 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tenn. App. 1 991). The paramount consideration, of course, rema ins the best interest of the child. Musselman, 826 S.W.2d a t 922; Bah v. Bah , 668 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tenn. App. 1983). Alth ough this is a review of a proce eding to

modify child custody, we note that the judg ment below was the f

irst time th at a cour

t had addr essed the best inter est of the parties’ minor chil d in this

cause. From

our examination of the record, the evidence clea rly preponde

rates in favor of the trial court’s order awarding joint custody to the mother and father

with primary phy sical custody to the mother. Therefore, we concur in the facts as found by

the trial court and no reversible error of la w3

appear s. Affirmed in accord ance wi th Court of Appeals Rule 10(a

). Costs ar

e taxed to th

e Appella nt, for which execution may issue, if necessary .

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

CONCUR:

W. FRAN K CRAWF ORD, P. J., W.S.

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.