WPC $DD.$4>#W T5C, UW87"|Co@ՑN@Рo__[#$wD NXH}R }y2wIpzDkL*pEȚz4۶<)gOx=!/VTF @KXu)'{W~Mxo tώ87&P1OFS q.$l;SۄŻ`_Bd#cwU)0QgܶB_!x ڌ2?C6;!졒c]o{c.6*n>X%HnG"W=bUK e^mh`8 ´SG ^4"UXc}efRD8`A^V$Z^y ԟn<ΌA4m$Kc# F UNQ % 0( UF wL 4_ s UP  0l 0D\ U: B D3 0D********************************************************************************** AOn 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular DDEDӀh&3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular  XaXXX X Xa   Ad FILED     June29,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.   AppellateCourt  Clerk ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular d 'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P Xv7XXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7FNXXdXXd7  r *<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP r@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEVICKIESUEANDERSON, h   )C/ANO.03A019810CV00366 *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.   `     h   )McMINNCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )RONNYLEEANDERSON,   h   ) 2    `     h   )HONORABLEJOHNB.HAGLER,JR.   ` DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGE   #q XXv7  RZ   #q@g g !CONCURRINGOPINION# #q   RZ##Xv7X  #q# !h    ` Thedivorcejudgmentinthiscasedoesnotaddress,inanyway,theroleorprerogatives,ifany,ofthejointcustodian,Mr.Anderson,intheformulationofsignificantdecisionsregardingtherearingofthepartiesminorchild.Withoutquestion,adecisiontohomeschoolachildisamajordecisionimpactingachildsdevelopment;butwearefacedwithadivorcejudgmentthatsimplyawardsjointlegalcustodywithnofurtherguidanceastowhatrightssuchanawardgrantstoajointcustodianwhoisnottheresidentialcustodian.WhileT.C.A.366101(3)(A)(F)setsforthcertainrightsflowingfromajointcustodyaward,neitheritnoranyotherstatuteknowntotheundersignedaddressestheiissueoftherightsofajointcustodiantoparticipateinmajordecisionsaffectingtherearingofachild.IfandwhentheconceptsembodiedinT.C.A. ^:09 366401,etseq.,areaccordedstatewideapplication,the P  problempresentedbythedivorcejudgmentinthiscasemayberectified.Untilthathappens,attorneysandjudgeswhocraftjointcustodydecreeswouldbewelladvisedtospecificallyaddresstherightsandprerogativesofjointcustodiansinmajordecisionsaffectingtheirminorchildren.Suchdecreesshouldalsoaddresshowtoresolveanimpassebetweentheparents.Alternativedisputeresolutionshouldbeconsideredasapossibleoptiononethatmaybepreferabletofurtherburdeninganalreadyoverburdenedcourtsystem.   ` WhileIamreluctanttocountenanceinterferenceofthestatewithaparentsdecisionregardinghowachildistobeeducated,Iampersuadedthatthisisanappropriatecaseforsuchintervention.Thisisnotbecauseofanyinherentdeficiencyinhomeschoolingingeneral.Onthecontrary,Tennesseehasrecognizedthelegalityofhomeschoolingunderappropriatecircumstances.SeeT.C.A.4963050.Rather, &x" interventioninthiscaseisrequiredbecausetherecordbeforeusraisesaseriousdoubtregardingtheabilityofMrs.Andersonsabilitytotohomeschoolherchild.Sincethisverymajorand,Ibelieve,erroneousdecisiontohomeschoolwasmadeinthefaceoftheoppositionofthejointcustodian,Mr.Anderson,Iconcurinthemajoritysdecisiontoaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentorderingthatthechildbeplacedinaregularschoolsetting.Ihastentoaddthatmyconcurrenceshouldnotbereadasanendorsementofcourtinterventionineveryjointcustodycasewherethepartiesareunabletoagreeonwhatisinthebestinterestoftheirchildandthecourtsdecreeregardingjoint 89.8 custodyisessentiallysilentastotherightsofthenonresidentialcustodian.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,J.