APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Johnny Glenn Hilliard (Father) appeals from the order of the trial court granting visitation rights to his son’s maternal grandmother. Father and Misty Lynn Hilliard (now Schrems) (Mother) married in 1992. Alexander Glenn Hilliard (Alex) was born in May 1993. The parents divorced in January, 1995 and temporary custody1 was awarded to Terry Minton, the maternal grandmother. At that time, Mother was living with her mother, Terry Minton. Mother currently resides in Florida with her present husband.

In this unemployment compensation case, James Mitchell (“Mitchell”) filed a claim 2 for unemployment compensation with the Tennessee Department of Employment Security (“TDES”). TDES approved Mitchell’s claim, and Mitchell’s employer, NOMA Outdoor Products, Inc. (“NOMA”), appealed TDES’ claim approval. On appeal, the Appeals Tribunal ruled that Mitchell was not eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2) due to work-connected misconduct and declared that the $1,190.00 in unemployment benefits that Mitchell had previously received was an overpayment. Mitchell thereafter requested that TDES waive his $1,190.00 overpayment pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(d)(2). The Appeals Tribunal denied Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment, and Mitchell appealed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal to the Board of Review. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and decision of the Appeals Tribunal and denied Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment. Mitchell thereafter filed a petition to rehear which was denied by the Board of Review. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-304(i), Mitchell filed a petition for certiorari in chancery court seeking judicial review of the Board’s decision. The chancery court dismissed Mitchell’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Board of Review, denying Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment. Mitchell appeals from the order of the chancery court arguing that the chancery court erred in admitting additional evidence and erred in not vacating or setting aside the decision of the Board of Review. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court.
 

This is a child custody case. The trial court awarded Appellant William Thomas Winchester (“Husband”) and Appellee Glenda Rachelle Winchester (“Wife”) joint custody of the minor child of the marriage, which both parties appeal. We vacate the trial court’s award of joint custody and remand the case to the trial court to conduct further findings of fact concerning each party’s comparative fitness and to award custody to either Husband or Wife.