ÿWPCU$ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð : 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,e D3‘ BÄU>á 0@U 6_B)•DC¾ AMU*N"xÔšýnkólv~_vÓÝ AO°"Æÿ" 0DÅ# D/ $ B8$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ,-./0E12E34Ó€@à~| 3|x@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco++++'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òApril€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔIn€addition€to€decreeing€visitation€during€the€summer€and€at€springÏbreak,€Thanksgiving,€and€Christmas,€the€trial€court€ordered€weekend€visitationÏas€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àThat€Mr.€Gracey€shall€arrange€for€Anna€to€visit€himÏand€for€Joshua€to€visit€his€mother€for€a€full€weekendÏat€least€once€a€month€so€that€both€children€areÏtogether€for€those€two€(2)€weekends€each€month.ÌÌIn€other€words,€the€trial€court€mandated€transcontinental€weekend€visitationÏfor€each€child€ð ðat€least€once€a€month.ððÌ óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔT.C.A.›€ðð€36„6„102€(1994)€was€repealed€by€Chapter€428€of€the€Public€ActsÏof€1995,€effective€June€12,€1995.€€It€was€in€effect€when€Fatherððs€motion€wasÏfiled€and€when€the€trial€court€received€the€childrenððs€testimony€in€chambers.€ÏIn€pertinent€part,€it€provided€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àIn€a€suit€for€annulment,€divorce€or€separateÏmaintenance,€where€the€custody€of€a€minor€child€orÏminor€children€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€or€older€is€aÏquestion,€the€court€shall,€upon€motion€by€either€partyÏthat€such€child€or€children€has€expressed€a€desire€toÏmake€a€custody€preference€known€to€the€court,€andÏprior€to€the€award€of€care,€custody€and€control€ofÏsuch€child€or€children,€seek€the€preference€of€suchÏchild€or€children€relative€to€the€parent€with€whom€theÏchild€or€children€desire€to€live.Ì ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔFather€remarried€on€September€4,€1993.Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔWe€note,€in€passing,€that€this€provision€was€deleted€when€the€custodyÏpreference€provision€was€re„codified€at€T.C.A.›€Ô€.XÔðð€Ô€.ôÔ36„6„106(7)€(1995)€followingÏthe€repeal€of€œT.C.A.›€Ô€.XÔðð€Ô€.ôÔ36„6„102€(1994).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€.ÔÑ7€%MXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€130;+'h|ž ` Å `€€Lß›ÌCATHY€ANN€GRACEY,à àà àà à€€€)€C/A€NO.Ïœ03A01›„9511„CV„00419Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HAMILTONÏCOUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€L.€MARIE€WILLIAMS,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌJOSEPH€DOUGLAS€GRACEY,€JR.,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€VACATEDÌà àà àDefendant„Appellant.€€€)€REMANDED€WITH€INSTRUCTIONSÌÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€M.€œSIBLEY›,€Chattanooga,€for€AppellantÌÌALBERT€L.€WATSON,€III,€Chattanooga,€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€post„divorce€case.€€It€revolves€around€theÏefforts€of€the€appellant,€Joseph€Douglas€Gracey,€Jr.€(Father),€toÏmove€with€his€two€minor€children€from€the€Hamilton€County€area€toÏCalifornia.€€The€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€July€5,€1995,Ïchanging€the€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child,€Anna€Rebekah€LeeÏGracey€(Anna),€from€Father€to€the€childððs€mother,€the€appelleeÏCathy€Ann€Gracey€(Mother).€€The€order€provided€that€the€custody€ofÏthe€other€minor€child,€Joshua€Joel€Gracey€(Joshua),€would€remainÏwith€Father.€€The€order,€by€implication,€allowed€Father€to€move€toÏCalifornia€with€Joshua.€€It€contained€œa€number€of€provisions›Ïaddressing€visitation€back€and€forth€between€Hamilton€County€andÏCaliforniaœ× ƒ4 ××  ×›.€€Father€appeals,€raising€two€issues.ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€changing€the€custody€of€Anna€from€Father€toÏMother?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretionÏin€the€visitation€schedule€it€established€forÏeach€of€the€children€and€the€childððs€now„custodial€parent?ÌÌÌÌÓÓAt€the€time€of€the€most€recent€hearing€on€June€9,€1995,€Anna€(œdob›:Ï7/2/84)€was€almost€11€and€Joshua€(œdob›:€10/17/81)€was€approximatelyÏfour€months€shy€of€his€œ14th›€birthday.ÌÌà@ àI.€€òòProcedural€HistoryóóÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€divorced€by€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏon€October€1,€1992.€€That€judgment€awarded€Father€custody€of€bothÏof€the€partiesðð€children.€€Mother€was€awarded€the€followingÏvisitation:€ð ðovernight€visitation€on€weekdaysðð€because€herÏemployment€ð ðœrequire[d›]€[her€to]€work€weekendsðð;€three€weeks€in€theÏsummer;€Christmas€Day€to€New€Yearððs€Day;€alternate€Thanksgivings;Ïand€alternate€œEasters›.€€The€judgment€of€divorce€contained€theÏfollowing€injunction:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à.€.€.€each€of€the€parties€is€enjoined€fromÏmoving€the€children€from€the€State€ofÏTennessee€without€first€petitioning€the€CourtÏfor€a€hearing€on€such€a€proposed€move.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOn€April€24,€1995,€Mother€filed€a€complaint€allegingÏthat€Father€had€moved€with€the€children€to€California€in€violationÏof€the€courtððs€injunction.€€She€asked€for€temporary€and€permanentÏcustody.€€On€May€3,€1995,€Mother€filed€an€amended€complaintÏalleging€that€her€complaint€had€not€been€served,€but€that€theÏchildren€had€returned€to€Hamilton€County.€€She€again€sought€theÏchildrenððs€custody.€€An€order€was€entered€the€same€day,€apparentlyÏfollowing€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing,€awarding€temporary€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€children€to€Mother.€€After€Mother€was€awarded€temporaryÏcustody,€Father€filed€his€answer€and€a€ð ðcounter„petitionðð€seekingÏpermission€to€relocate€to€California€with€his€children.€€FatherÏalleged€that€he€wasÌÌÓÓà àà8 à.€.€.€contemplating€moving€to€California€withÏthe€children€of€the€marriage.€€His€reasons€forÏcontemplating€this€move€are€that€it€wouldÏenable€him€to€take€care€of€his€81„year€oldÏfather,€that€it€would€reduce€his€livingÏexpenses,€that€it€would€provide€an€increasedÏeconomical€opportunity€for€him€and€his€wifeÏand€it€would€provide€improved€educationalÏopportunities€for€the€children.ÌÌà àà8 àIt€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children€toÏcontinue€custody€with€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà8 à[Father]€understands€the€need€to€provideÏvisitation€for€[Mother]€and€has€attempted€toÏdiscuss€a€modified€visitation€schedule€withoutÏavail€due€to€[Motherððs]€unwillingness€toÏdiscuss€the€matter.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOn€May€15,€1995,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€theÏpartiesðð€competing€pleadings.€€After€that€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€(on€June€1,€1995)€vacating€its€award€of€temporaryÏcustody€to€Mother€and€providing€that€custody€of€the€children€wasÏð ðrestored€to€defendant,€Joseph€Douglas€Gracey,€Jr.ðð€€The€orderÏfurther€providedÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[œt]hat›€[Father]€shall€not€be€allowed€toÏrelocate€the€partiesðð€minor€children€toÏCalifornia,€and€the€provisions€of€the€partiesððÏfinal€decree€of€divorce€that€each€of€theÏparties€are€[sic]€enjoined€from€moving€theÏchildren€from€the€State€of€Tennessee€withoutÏfirst€petitioning€the€Court€for€a€hearing€onÏsuch€proposed€move€shall€continue€in€fullÏforce€and€effect.ÌÌÌÌÓÓWhile€we€do€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€May€15,€1995,€hearing,€weÏdo€have€the€trial€courtððs€findings€as€set€forth€in€the€preamble€ofÏits€order:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à.€.€.€the€Court€finds€that€neither€party€hasÏcarried€their€respective€burdens€of€proof.€ÏThe€plaintiff,€Cathy€Ann€Gracey,€has€shown€noÏchange€of€circumstances€which€would€warrant€aÏchange€of€custody.€€The€defendant/counter„petitioner€has€not€been€able€to€show€that€hisÏrelocation€to€Los€Angeles€County,€CaliforniaÍis€in€the€partiesðð€childrenððs€best€interest,Ïand€in€fact,€the€Court€finds€these€children,Ïages€ten€(10)€and€thirteen€(13),€are€atÏvulnerable€ages,€needing€stability€in€theirÏenvironment€and€the€continuation€of€theÏconsistent€contact€they€have€had€with€theirÏmother;€that€there€is€no€necessity€to€move€toÏCalifornia€dictated€by€the€fatherððs€current€orÏpast€employment€requirements.€€Mr.€Gracey€isÏcommended€for€his€responsible€attitude€towardÏhis€elderly€father€living€in€California,Ïwanting€to€be€near€him,€however,€Mr.€GraceyððsÏtestimony€indicated€he€had€tried€in€the€past,Ïunsuccessfully,€to€convince€his€father€to€moveÏhere€and€even€though€the€move€to€CaliforniaÏmight€be€in€the€elderly€fatherððs€bestÏinterests,€it€is€not€in€the€childrenððs.ÌÌÌÌÓÓFollowing€the€May€15,€1995,€hearing,€œthe›€parties€and€theirÏchildren€found€themselves€in€a€posture€identical€to€the€situationÏthat€existed€immediately€following€the€divorce:€€Father€hadÏcustody€of€both€children,€Father€and€Mother€were€residing€inÏHamilton€County,€and€both€parents€were€enjoined€from€removing€theÏchildren€from€Tennessee€without€first€petitioning€the€court€for€aÏhearing€on€the€proposed€move.ÌÌà àà àAgainst€this€ð ðbackdrop,ðð€the€œtrial›€court€œtook€the€actionÏthat›€prompted€this€œappeal.›€€On€June€2,€1995,€Father€filed€a€motionÏto€alter€or€amend,€which,€among€other€things,€asserted€that€ð ðpost„hearing€events€have€substantially€changed€critical€factors€germaneÍto€the€decision€of€the€court.ðð€€The€motion€sought€to€introduceÏð ðadditional€evidence€relating€to€these€circumstances.ðð€€On€theÏsame€day,€Father€filed€a€motion€asking€the€court€to€receive€theÏtestimony€of€Joshua€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„102€(1994),€since€repealed.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€œheard€testimony›€on€Fatherððs€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€œon›€June€9,€1995.€€We€have€a€transcript€of€thatÏhearing;€however,€we€do€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€testimony€ofÏAnna€and€Joshua€received€ð ðseparately€[by]€the€Court€in€chambers.ðð€ÏFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€(on€JulyÏ5,€1995)€awarding€custody€of€Anna€to€Mother.€€Despite€the€factÏcustody€of€Joshua€was€already€with€Father€by€virtue€of€the€June€1,Ï1995,€order,€the€trial€court€decreed€in€its€most€recent€order€thatÍð ðcustody€of€[Joshua]€is€awarded€to€his€father.ðð€€Curiously,€theÏorder€does€not€explicitly€state€that€the€trial€court€was€liftingÏits€injunction€with€respect€to€Fatherððs€planned€move€toÏCalifornia;€but€it€is€clear€from€the€order€and€the€courtððsÏmemorandum€opinion€that€the€move,€with€Joshua,€was€allowed.ÌÌà àà àThe€appeal€now€before€us€is€from€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏof€July€5,€1995.ÌÌà@ àII.€€òòFactsóóÌÌà àà àIn€the€spring€of€1995,€Father€was€advised€that€hisÏmother€was€terminably€ill€with€cancer.€€He,€his€wife× ƒ6 ××  ×,€and€theÏchildren€went€to€Los€Angeles€County,€California,€to€be€with€her€inÏher€last€illness.€€This€temporary€move€was€apparently€whatÏprompted€Mother€to€seek€custody€of€the€children.ÌÌà àà àFatherððs€mother€died€on€May€5,€1995.€€Father€and€hisÏwife€were€in€California€for€approximately€four€weeks;€however,€theÏchildren€were€only€there€during€their€spring€break€and€for€a€fewÍdays€after€that.€€They€flew€back€to€Chattanooga€and€stayed€withÏMother€who€took€them€back€and€forth€to€school.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€his€wifeððs€death,€the€childrenððs€paternalÏgrandfather€asked€Father€and€his€wife€to€move€to€California€œandÇlive›€with€him€in€his€house.€€He€is€82€years€old.€€FatherÏencouraged€him€to€return€with€them€to€Chattanooga,€but€he€refused,Ïsaying€that€he€wanted€to€remain€in€the€house€he€had€shared€withÏhis€wife€of€60€years.ÌÌà àà àFather€and€Mother€are€both€natives€of€California.€ÏNeither€has€any€relatives€in€Tennessee.€€In€addition€to€hisÏfather,€the€appellant€has€ð ðsome€aunts€and€uncles€and€cousinsðð€inÏCalifornia.€€Motherððs€grandmother,€age€92,€and€her€two€brothersÏalso€live€in€California.€€While€acknowledging€a€good€relationshipÏwith€her€grandmother,€Mother€testified€that€she€had€not€talked€toÏher€brothers€in€three€years.ÌÌà àà àFatherððs€wife€is€a€nurse,€who€was€working€as€a€nursingÏsupervisor€in€the€Chattanooga€area€prior€to€the€partiesðð€decisionÏto€move€to€California.€€Father€had€worked€as€an€accountant€forÏChattanooga€Office€Supply€for€9„1/2€years€before€he€was€laid€offÏin€September,€1994.€€In€his€last€year€there,€he€earned€in€theÏrange€of€$28,000„„$30,000.€€He€then€went€to€work€for€Coats€AmericaÏfor€$8€per€hour.€€Father€is€less€than€ð ðone€year€away€from€his€B.S.Ïin€accounting.ðð€€He€plans€to€pursue€his€degree€in€California.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€hearing€on€May€15,€1995,€Father€and€hisÏwife€sold€the€two€houses€owned€by€them€in€the€Chattanooga€area€andÏmade€œthe›€decision€to€move€to€California.€€This€firm€decision€wasÏprecipitated€by€the€fact€œthat,€following€the€May€15,€1995,Ïhearing,›€both€had€been€offered€employment€in€œCalifornia.›€€œFather›Ïwas€offered€a€job€with€Accountants€on€Call€at€a€wage€rate€of€$11Ïto€$15€per€hour.€€His€wife€was€offered,€and€accepted,€a€nursingÏposition€with€Premier€Health€Care€making€$45,000€to€$50,000€perÏyear,€approximately€$8,000€more€than€her€last€employment€inÏChattanooga.€€Her€job€started€June€12,€œ1995.›ÌÌà àà àFather€and€his€wife€testified€that€each€of€them€had€anÏexcellent€relationship€with€both€of€the€children.€€They€explainedÏthat€they€wanted€to€move€to€California€to€live€with€the€childrenððsÏpaternal€œgrandfather›€because€of€better€employment€œopportunities›Ïand€to€pursue€a€life€that€they€thought€would€be€in€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€children€as€well€as€their€own€best€interest.€ÏThere€was€testimony€that€a€dry,€hot€climate€would€be€better€forÏthe€childrenððs€stepmother€who€has€rheumatoid€arthritis€and€has€hadÏa€total€joint€replacement€three€times.€€There€was€also€testimonyÏthat€the€educational€and€recreational€opportunities€for€theÏchildren€in€California€were€excellent.€€Their€grandfatherððs€houseÍis€located€in€a€ð ðniceðð€neighborhood€with€more€than€ampleÏaccommodations€for€the€children.€€Apparently,€both€of€the€childrenÏare€good€students.€€Anna€had€a€99.3€grade€average€at€œOoltewah›ÏIntermediate€School.Ì̜Ǜà@ àIII.€€òòLaw€and€AnalysisóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€initially€refused€to€allow€Father€toÏmove€to€California€and€also€refused€to€change€custody.€€Since€weÏdo€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€May€15,€1995,€hearing€thatÏprompted€that€initial€decision,€we€must€presume€that€the€trialÏcourt€had€before€it€sufficient€evidence€to€justify€those€decisionsÏat€that€œtime.€€òòò òSherrod€v.€Wixó óóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€783€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).€€Furthermore,€neither›€party€appealed€from€the€June€1,€1995,Ïorder€memorializing€the€May€15,€1995,€hearing.€€As€previouslyÏindicated,€that€order€put€the€parties€in€exactly€the€same€positionÏthey€were€in€following€the€divorce.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€order€œ(of€July€5,Ï1995)€now›€before€us,€it€is€clear€that€Father€had€the€burden€ofÏproving€that€relocation€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€Ïòòò òTaylor€v.€Tayloró óóó,€849€S.W.2d€319,€332€(Tenn.€1993).€€There€wasÏan€injunction€prohibiting€removal€of€the€children€from€TennesseeÏon€a€permanent€change€of€residence.€€òòò òTayloró óóó,€under€thoseÏcircumstances,€places€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€custodial€parentÏwhen€that€parent€seeks€to€lift€such€a€prohibition:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIf€.€.€.€the€custodial€parent€files€forÏrelief,€seeking€to€lift€a€prior€prohibition€onÏremoval€or€asking€the€courtððs€permission€toÏmove€from€the€jurisdiction,€or€both,€theÏcustodial€parent€has€the€burden€of€provingÏthat€removal€is€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€ÏThat€burden€can€be€shifted€by€a€prima€facieÏshowing€of€a€sincere,€good„faith€reason€forÏthe€move€and€a€prima€facie€showing€that€theÏmove€is€consistent€with€the€childððs€bestÏinterest.ÌÌÌÌòòIdóó.€€ÓÓThe€appellee€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€Father€met€his€burden€òòas€far€as€Joshua€isÏconcernedóó.€€Therefore,€we€will€not€concern€ourselves€further€withÏthat€aspect€of€this€case€except€to€examine€how€that€ruling€impactsÏthe€decisions€that€are€challenged€on€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àUnfortunately,€we€do€not€have€a€complete€transcript€ofÏthe€most€recent€hearing„„the€one€that€led€to€the€rulingsÏchallenged€on€this€appeal.€€We€do€not€have€the€testimony€of€theÏchildren.€€This€is€troublesome€because€it€is€clear€that€JudgeÏWilliams€took€into€consideration€her€private€conversations€withÏthe€children.€€We€do€not€mean€to€criticize€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€receive€the€childrenððs€testimony€out€of€the€presenceÏof€the€parents.€€Such€a€procedure€was€authorized€by€the€provisionsÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„102€(1994)€œthen€in›€œeffect.›€€(ð ðThe€court,€in€itsÍdiscretion,€may€receive€the€testimony€of€such€child€or€childrenÏout€of€the€presence€of€the€parties€to€such€action.ðð)× ƒ7 ××  ×€€However,€weÏdo€not€understand€why€that€testimony€was€not€preserved€since€itÏwas€received€by€the€trial€court€at€œa›€hearing€œattended€by€a›€courtÏreporter.€€We€note€the€trial€courtððs€comment€that€ð ðin€talking€withÏthe€children,€I€promised€them€I€would€not€discuss€what€they€hadÏsaid.ðð€€If€the€trial€court€made€the€decision€not€to€permit€thisÏtestimony€to€be€preserved,€that€was€error.€€While€childrenððsÏtestimony€in€custody€cases€can€be€extremely€sensitive,€parties€areÏentitled€to€a€œtranscript›€of€that€evidence€unless€they€freely€waiveÏtheir€right€to€preserve€that€testimony.€€The€better€procedure€isÏto€preserve€that€testimony€in€case€an€appeal€becomes€necessary.ÌÌà àà àJust€as€Father€had€his€burden€of€proof,€Mother€likewiseÏhad€hers„„it€was€her€burden€to€prove€that€the€circumstances€of€theÏparties€had€changed€so€as€to€require€a€change€of€custody.€€ð ðTheÏburden€is€therefore€upon€the€party€who€seeks€to€modify€the€courtððsÏcustody€decree€.€.€.€to€prove€that€a€material€change€inÏcircumstances€has€occurred€which€requires€an€alteration€ofÍcustody.ðð€€ò òòòœWoodard›€v.€œWoodard›óóó ó,€783€S.W.2d€188,€189€(Tenn.€œApp›.Ï1989).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€change€theÏcustody€of€Anna,€we€are€mindful€of€the€very€clear,€unambiguousÏholding€in€ò òòòTayloróóó ó:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à.€.€.€removal€is€not,€in€and€of€itself,€aÏchange€of€circumstance€sufficient€to€justifyÏmodification€of€the€custody€order.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ849€S.W.2d€at€332.ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€do€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€childrenððsÏtestimony,€we€believe€the€trial€courtððs€motivation„„what€reallyÏprompted€it€to€change€Annaððs€custody„„can€be€clearly€gleaned€fromÏher€comments€following€the€hearing:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€First,€it€is€the€finding€of€thisÏCourt€that€both€parents€are€well€intended,Ïlove€their€children€and€will€try€to€do€what€isÏin€the€best€interest€of€the€children.€€Second,Ïthere€is€no€question€in€the€Courtððs€mind€thatÏit€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€10„year„oldÏdaughter€to€stay€in€Chattanooga€and€toÏrestrain€her€removal€from€this€state€for€theÏpurpose€of€permanent€residence.€€The€Court€isÏwell€aware€of€established€law,€that€the€bestÍinterest€of€the€child€is€intertwined€with€whatÏis€in€the€best€interest€of€the€custodialÏparent.€€Additionally,€the€convenience€of€theÏnoncustodial€parent€is€not€a€determiningÏfactor.€€However,€this€is€a€loving€andÏvulnerable€[sic]€who€is€feeling€very€stronglyÏthe€effects€of€her€fatherððs€decision€to€moveÏall€way€across€the€country€and€who€has€a€needÏfor€a€consistent€contact€with€her€mother.€€TheÏCourt€finds€that€this€10„year„old€girl€cannotÏadequately€maintain€that€relationship€with€herÏmother€by€the€telephone€or€by€letter€and€needsÏto€be€in€geographic€proximity€to€her€mother.€ÏThe€son€presents€very€different€problems.€€HeÏis€in€formative€years€and€very€much€in€need€ofÏa€fatherððs€strong€guidance,€and€the€Court€isÏwell€aware€of€the€goals€of€and€the€interest€ofÏkeeping€the€children€together.€€In€this€case,Ïthe€Court€is€very€concerned€that€if€the€sonÏstays€here€in€Chattanooga€and€is€forced€toÏstay€here,€he€will€become€rebellious€and€outÏof€the€control€in€the€fatherððs€absence.€ÏTherefore,€the€son€is€permitted€to€go€with€theÏfather.€€The€daughter€is€not.€€I€find€itÏdifficult€to€understand€how€a€father€who€hasÏbeen€a€good€custodial€parent€cannot€understandÏthe€huge€difficulties€he€is€creating€for€hisÏchildren€by€deciding€to€make€this€move€and€howÏhe€can€honestly€testify€the€move€is€in€theÏlong€term€best€interest€of€the€children.€€TheÏonly€rational€explanation€is€that€this€is€hisÏway€of€dealing€with€a€huge€loss€in€his€lifeÏand€the€responsibilities€he€has€gained€as€aÏresult€of€the€death€of€his€mother,€and€he€mustÏbelieve€that€California€is€the€land€ofÏopportunity€and€that€the€mother€will€succumbÏto€his€move€by€moving€to€California,€also.€ÏThere€was€proof€to€that€effect.€€The€CourtÏfinds€the€plaintiff€has€not€carried€the€burdenÏof€proof€as€to€Anna,€and€the€plaintiff€isÏprohibited€from€moving€her€from€thisÏjurisdiction€with€the€intention€ofÏestablishing€residency.€€He€has€carried€theÏburden€of€proof€as€to€Joshua.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThere€is€absolutely€no€indication€in€the€trial€courtððsÏmemorandum€opinion€that€it€was€changing€Annaððs€custody€for€anyÏreason€other€than€the€planned€relocation€to€œCalifornia€and€itsÏnatural€outgrowth.›€€There€is€not€one€scintilla€of€proof€in€theÏrecord€before€us€that€Father€is€other€than€a€fit€and€properÏcustodian.€€He€was€found€to€be€such€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€ÏThat€has€not€changed.€€We€are€convinced€that€if€the€trial€judgeÏhad€heard€something€to€the€contrary€in€talking€with€the€children,Ïshe€would€have€put€that€on€the€record.€€Her€œfindings„„ððthat›€bothÏparents€are€well„intended,€love€their€children€and€will€try€to€doÏwhat€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€œchildrenðð€and€that€ð ðfatherÌ.€.€.€has€been€a€good€custodial€parentðð„„are€so›€incompatible€withÏa€finding€that€Father€is€not€a€fit€custodian,€we€are€sure€the€òòinÏcameraóó€examination€of€the€children€did€not€disclose€anything€thatÏis€not€in€the€record€before€us.€€Under€the€unusual€circumstancesÏof€this€case,€we€believe€we€can€review€this€case€even€in€theÏabsence€of€a€transcript€of€the€childrenððs€testimony.ÌÌà àà àThe€only€reason€advanced€by€the€trial€court€to€changeÏAnnaððs€custody€is€directly€related€to€Fatherððs€relocation.€€TheÏtrial€court€held€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à.€.€.€this€is€a€loving€and€vulnerable€[sic]Ïwho€is€feeling€very€strongly€the€effects€ofÏher€fatherððs€decision€to€move€all€way€acrossÏthe€country€and€who€has€a€need€for€aÏconsistent€contact€with€her€mother.€€The€CourtÏfinds€that€this€10„year„old€girl€cannotÏadequately€maintain€that€relationship€with€herÏmother€by€the€telephone€or€by€letter€and€needsÏto€be€in€geographic€proximity€to€her€mother.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€reason€given€by€the€trial€court€is€nothing€more€or€less€thanÏthe€move€to€California.€€òòò òTayloró óóó€clearly€does€not€permit€thisÏrationale€as€a€justification€for€a€change€of€custody.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€another€reason€why€we€cannot€approve€AnnaððsÏchange€of€custody.€€While€the€trial€court€crafted€extensiveÏvisitation€between€Hamilton€County€and€California€to€insure€theÏchildren€would€be€together€as€much€as€geography€would€permit,€theÏcourtððs€order€cannot€mask€the€fact€that€these€siblings€are€beingÏseparated.€€There€is€absolutely€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggestÏthat€they€have€other€than€a€loving€brother„sister€relationship.€ÏThere€is€certainly€nothing€in€the€record„„not€one€scintilla€ofÏproof„„to€indicate€that€these€children€should€be€separated€andÏraised€in€separate€households,€some€two€thousand€miles€apart.€€ItÏis€generally€not€a€good€idea€to€separate€minor€children€by€aÍcustody€order.€€ò òòòTerry€v.€Terryóóó ó,€361€S.W.2d€500,€504€(Tenn.€œApp›.Ï1960);€ò òòòœBaggett›€v.€œBaggett›óóó ó,€512€S.W.2d€292,€294„95€(Tenn.€œApp›.Ï1973).€€Generally€speaking,€œsiblings,€following€a€divorce,›€have€aÏright€to€spend€their€minority€together€in€the€absence€of€proof€ofÏpotential€harm€to€one€of€œthem€or€other€extenuating€circumstances.›ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€has€allowed€Father€to€relocate€toÏCalifornia€with€Joshua.€€The€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€father€should€not€be€permitted€toÏrelocate€with€Anna.€€When€the€factors€set€forth€in€ò òòòTayloróóó ó€areÏapplied€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€849€S.W.2d€at€332,€it€is€clearÏthat€the€move€is€in€the€best€interest€of€both€of€the€children.€ÏParticularly€relevant€here€are€the€ð ðstrong€presumption€in€favor€ofÏcontinuity€of€the€original€œaward,ðð€òòidóó.;›€the€fact€that€the€welfareÏof€the€children€is€ð ðaffected€by€the€welfare€of€the€custodialÏœparent,ðð€òòidóó.;›€advantages€of€the€move€to€the€œchildren,€òòidóó.;›€and€theÏfact€that€the€motive€of€Father€in€moving€is€clearly€ð ðnot€intendedÏto€defeat€or€deter€visitation€by€the€non„custodial€œparent.ðð€€òòIdóó.›ÌÌà àà àRelocation€cases€almost€always€present€a€trial€courtÏwith€a€number€of€less€than€ideal€choices;€but€such€is€the€naturalÏoutgrowth€of€divorce.€€A€court€cannot€ð ðmake€it€well.ðð€€It€can€onlyÍdo€what€it€thinks€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children,€underÏthe€law,€in€view€of€the€fact€the€children€can€no€longer€live€withÏboth€of€their€parents.€€Judge€Williams€tried€to€do€that€in€thisÏcase€by€crafting€an€extensive€plan€of€visitation,€including€evenÏweekend€œvisitation€between€California€and€Tennessee;›€however,€inÏthe€final€analysis,€what€she€has€decreed€is€not€workable€and€notÏin€the€childrenððs€best€interest.€€Under€her€decree,€the€childrenÏwould€spend€too€much€of€their€free€time€getting€on€œairplanes›€forÏtranscontinental€flights.ÌÌà àà àThe€Supreme€Courtððs€words€in€ò òòòTayloróóó ó€are€particularlyÏpoignant:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIt€is€essential€that€the€courts€dealÏpragmatically€with€circumstances€such€as€thoseÏpresented€in€this€case.€€We€all€recognize€thatÏð ð[œi]n›€a€perfect€world,€every€chid€would€liveÏin€a€loving,€two„parent€home.€€Unfortunately,Ïwe€do€not€live€in€such€a€world.€€When€parentsÏare€divorced€or€separated,€the€family€unit,Ïeven€from€the€perspective€of€the€child,€isÏbroken.€€The€parents€no€longer€live€in€harmonyÏbut€have€competing€and€often€irreconcilableÏinterests.ðð€€(Citation€omitted).ÌÌà àà8 àFurthermore,€ð ð[œi]n›€considering€the€parentalÏrelationship€between€the€child€and€the€non„custodial€parent,€it€must€be€recognized€thatÏafter€a€divorce€the€child€of€the€marriageÏbecomes€a€member€of€two€separate€families,€theÏmotherððs€and€the€fatherððs.€€The€family€unityÍwhich€is€lost€as€a€consequence€is€lostÏirrevocably,€and€òòthere€is€no€point€in€judicialÏinsistence€on€maintaining€a€wholly€unrealisticÏsimulation€of€unityóó.ðð€€(Citation€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓ849€S.W.2d€at€333.€€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àThe€highest€court€of€New€York,€the€respected€New€YorkÏCourt€of€Appeals,€recently€addressed€the€same€issue:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àLike€Humpty€Dumpty,€a€family,€once€broken€byÏdivorce,€cannot€be€put€back€together€inÏprecisely€the€same€way.€€The€relationshipÏbetween€the€parents€and€the€children€isÏnecessarily€different€after€a€divorce€and,Ïaccordingly,€it€may€be€unrealistic€in€someÏcases€to€try€to€preserve€the€noncustodialÏparentððs€accustomed€close€involvement€in€theÏchildrenððs€everyday€life€at€the€expense€of€theÏcustodial€parentððs€efforts€to€start€a€new€lifeÏor€to€form€a€new€family€unit.€€In€some€cases,Ïthe€childððs€interests€might€be€better€servedÏby€fashioning€visitation€plans€that€maximizeÏthe€noncustodial€parentððs€opportunity€toÏmaintain€a€positive€nurturing€relationshipÏwhile€enabling€the€custodial€parent,€who€hasÏthe€primary€child„rearing€responsibility,€toÏgo€forward€with€his€or€her€life.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòœTropea›€v.€œTropea›óóó ó,€1996€WL€137476€at€*7€(March€26,€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€vacated.€€ThisÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€with€instructions€to€enter€anÏorder€immediately€placing€the€custody€of€Anna€Rebekah€Lee€GraceyÏwith€the€appellant,€Joseph€Douglas€œGracey,€Jr.;›€however,€œshe›€willÏremain€with€her€mother€until€the€end€of€the€current€school€year,Ïafter€which€she€will€immediately€go€to€California€at€FatherððsÏexpense.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€will€craft€a€newÏvisitation€arrangement€utilizing,€in€a€fair€fashion,€the€time€thatÏthe€children€are€not€in€school,€i.e.,€Easter€(or€spring€break),ÏThanksgiving,€Christmas,€and€the€summer€period.€œ€The›€œcourtððs›€œorder›Ïœwill›€permit€visitation€by€the€appellee€in€California,€at€herÏexpense.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€do€not€believeÏit€is€realistic€to€structure€visitation€at€times€other€than€œthose›Ïindicated€in€this€opinion.€€To€the€extent€possible,€the€trialÏcourt€is€directed€to€take€into€consideration€the€childrenððsÏorganized€activities€in€California€in€the€summer.€€The€trial€courtÏwill€also€need€to€review€its€support€order€in€view€of€the€factÏthat€both€children€will€now€be€living€with€Father.ÌÌà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌHouston€M.€œGoddard›,€œP.J.›ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDon€T.€œMcMurray›,€J.