APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiff Virginia Lynn Woolsey appeals the trial court’s order removing Jennifer McPherson from her custody and placing the child in the custody of Defendant Douglas Harmon McPherson. McPherson appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay the $15,000 fee of the Guardian ad Litem. We affirm in all respects.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

A jury in Cumberland County Criminal Court convicted the defendant, James Christopher Tatrow, of two counts of felony murder and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping in the deaths of Roger Zammit and John Harry. The defendant was also convicted of two counts of premeditated and deliberate murder of the same victims. The trial court set aside those verdicts, however, as the thirteenth juror. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33 (f). In the sentencing phase, the jury declined to impose the death penalty or life without parole and sentenced the defendant to serve life sentences with the possibility of parole. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve two consecutive life sentences concurrently with sentences of 22 years for the kidnapping convictions. The defendant now challenges the validity of the convictions and the propriety of consecutive sentencing pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern with the language on page 10 of that opinion which states that, “[i]n order to be compelling enough to warrant the dramatic remedy of changed custody, the change of circumstances must be such that ‘continuation of the adjudicated custody will substantially harm the child.’” I acknowledge that this language appears in Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tenn. App. 1995), an opinion of the middle section of this court. However, I further note that Wall cited Contreras v. Ward, 831 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. App. 1991). Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290. The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), wherein the Maryland Court of Special Appeals stated that “[t]he custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, the change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not that of the parents.”

A prisoner at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, claiming that the Board of Paroles had acted illegally in revoking his parole, and in refusing to recondiser the revocation. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board of Paroles.  We affirm.