ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€ìªv~–vÓ Bç D3 0@7 AOwÆÆ 0DŒ D/Ð Bÿ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ùDúûüEýþDÿÓ€ DÒ 3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÑ7€µXXdìdÈ7ÑÓ  Óà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÙ€€ÙßL€ ";+'h|h ` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌRONNIE€WILSON€PERRY,€€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óWilson€Equity€No.€8435Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARLA€RENEE€PERRY€(ROBINSON)€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9602„CH„00088ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellant.à àò òà àà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€LEBANON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€€K.€SMITH,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌJessica€Dawn€Duggerà àà àà àà àJon€S.€JablonskiÌGregory€S.€Gill€€€à àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌLebanon,€Tennessee€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àIN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓ›Ñ7€µXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€is€a€child€custody€case.€€Appellant€Marla€Perry€sought€to€move€out€of€state€with€theÏminor€children€of€her€previous€marriage.€€In€œresponse,›€œAppellee›€Ronnie€Perry€filed€a€petitionÏseeking€a€change€in€custody.€The€trial€court€held€that€custody€would€be€changed€in€the€event€thatÏthe€mother€moved€out€state.€€We€reverse,€based€on€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€inÏò òòòAaby€v.€Strangeó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€623€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ìà àIn€1992,€Appellant€Marla€Perry€(Mother)€and€Appellee€Ronnie€Perry€(Father)€wereÏdivorced.€€The€parties€have€three€minor€children.€€The€divorce€decree€gave€the€parties€joint€custodyÏof€the€children,€with€Mother€having€primary€physical€custody€and€Father€having€liberal€visitationÏprivileges.€€The€Marital€Dissolution€œAgreement,€incorporated€into€the€divorce€decree,€›€specificallyÏprovided€for€the€possibility€of€Mother€moving€elsewhere€with€the€children.€€œIn›€the€event€thatÏMother€moved€from€Tennessee,€Father€was€to€get€additional€visitation.Ìà àIn€1995,€Mother€decided€that€she€wanted€to€move€to€Tulsa,€Oklahoma,€and€notified€FatherÏto€that€effect.€€Father€filed€for€a€change€in€custody.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mother€had€done€anÏexcellent€job€raising€the€children€and€that€ð ðit€would€be€devastating€to€the€childrenðð€if€custody€wereÏchanged€to€Father.€€On€the€other€hand,€there€was€no€justification€for€Motherððs€planned€move€toÏOklahoma,€the€children€did€not€want€to€move,€and€œð ð[i]t›€would€be€crushing€to€the€children€if€theyÏmoved€to€Oklahoma.ðð€€The€court€stated€that€the€primary€consideration€was€the€best€interest€of€theÏœchildren›€and€that€the€courtððs€authority€could€not€be€abrogated€by€the€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement.€€Furthermore,€œthe€court€concluded€that€ð ðthe›€stability€of€the€children€dictates€that€theyÏstay€in€school€where€they€are,€stay€in€the€environment€they€are€accustomed,€stay€in€theirÏcommunity€and€close€to€their€relatives.ðð€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€custody€of€theÏminor€children€remain€with€Mother€unless€she€decided€to€leave€the€state,€in€which€case€custodyÏwould€be€changed€to€Father.€€Mother€now€appeals€this€decision.Ìà àResolution€of€this€appeal€is€controlled€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòò òAabyÏv.€Strangeó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€623€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€òòò òAabyó óóó,€the€parties€were€divorced€by€a€judgmentÏwhich€incorporated€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€giving€custody€of€the€minor€child€to€theÍmother.€€The€judgment€provided€for€visitation€for€the€father€and€contained€no€prohibition€againstÏthe€mother€moving€out€of€Tennessee€with€the€child.€€When€the€mother€requested€permission€of€theÏcourt€to€move€to€Kentucky,€the€father€petitioned€to€have€custody€changed€to€him€if€the€motherÏmoved,€claiming€that€a€move€to€Kentucky€would€not€be€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€624.€ÏThe€trial€court€ultimately€ruled€that€the€mother€had€not€shown€that€the€move€would€be€in€the€childððsÏbest€interest€and€that€custody€would€be€changed€to€the€father€if€the€mother€did€move.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€624„25.€€The€appellate€court€affirmed,€and€the€mother€then€appealed€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€Ïòòò òId.ó óóó€at€625.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€granted€the€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€order€toÏclarify€the€law€of€removal.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€The€Court€reviewed€the€law€of€removal€in€Tennessee,€especiallyÏòòò òTaylor€v.€Tayloró óóó,€849€S.W.2d€319€(Tenn.€1993),€its€earlier€effort€to€provide€guidance€onÏremoval€issues.€€òòò òAabyó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€625„28.€€The€Court€œreaffirmed€that›€the€two€predominateÏgoals€in€the€law€of€removal€are€to€limit€judicial€intervention€in€family€decisions€after€divorce€and€toÏmake€it€easier€to€resolve€legal€disputes€which€must€be€litigated.€€òòò òAabyó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€629.€€TheÏCourt€noted€that€the€traditional€œtest,›€determining€the€best€interests€of€the€child,€made€achievingÏthese€goals€difficult.€€In€addition,€the€Court€recognized€that€the€interests€of€the€child€and€of€theÏcustodial€parent,€while€not€always€identical,€are€ð ðbasically€interrelated.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€In€light€of€thisÏbackground,€the€Court€held€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœTherefore,›€we€conclude,€as€the€mother€insists,€that€a€custodial€parent€will€beÏallowed€to€remove€the€child€from€the€jurisdiction€unless€the€non„custodial€parentÏcan€show,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€the€custodial€parentððs€motivesÏfor€moving€are€œvindictive„„that›€is,€intended€to€defeat€or€deter€the€visitation€rights€ofÏthe€non„custodial€parent.ÌÌœ›à8 àœà àThis›€conclusion€does€not€mean,€however,€that€a€non„custodial€parentððsÏhands€are€tied€where€removal€could€pose€a€specific,€serious€threat€of€harm€to€theÏchild.€€In€these€situations,€the€non„custodial€parent€may€file€a€petition€for€change€ofÏcustody€based€on€a€material€change€of€circumstances.€€The€petition€would€state,€inÏeffect,€that€the€proposed€move€evidences€such€bad€judgment€and€is€so€potentiallyÏharmful€to€the€child€that€custody€should€be€changed€to€the€petitioner.ÌÌÓÓòòò òœId.€ó óóó(footnote€omitted).€€The›€Court€then€explained€what€was€needed€to€establish€a€specific,€seriousÍthreat€of€harm:ÌÓÓà8 àHowever,€expert€psychological€and/or€psychiatric€testimony€that€removal€could€beÏgenerally€detrimental€to€the€child€will€usually€not€suffice€to€establish€an€injury€that€isÏspecific€and€serious€enough€to€justify€a€change€of€custody.€€A€move€in€any€childððsÏlife,€whether€he€or€she€is€raised€in€the€context€of€a€one€or€two€parent€home,€carriesÏwith€it€the€potential€of€disruption;€such€common€œphenomena„„both›€the€fact€ofÏmoving€and€the€accompanying€œdistress„„cannot›€constitute€a€basis€for€the€drasticÏmeasure€of€a€change€of€custody.ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.ó óóó€at€630.€€The€Court€noted€some€examples€of€the€type€of€threat€of€harm€which€could€warrant€aÏchange€of€œcustody,›€such€as€a€desire€to€take€a€child€with€a€serious€medical€condition€to€an€areaÏwhere€adequate€treatment€was€not€available.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€œ629›€n.2.Ìà àThe€ò òòòAabyó óóó€Court€found€that€the€motherððs€motive€for€moving€was€not€œvindictive›€and€that€theÏevidence€did€not€demonstrate€a€harm€that€was€specific€and€serious€enough€to€warrant€changingÏcustody€to€the€father.€€The€Court€therefore€reversed€the€appellate€court.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€630.Ìà àFather€attempts€to€distinguish€òòò òAabyó óóó€by€arguing€that€the€custodial€parent€in€that€case€hadÏòòò òsoleó ó€óócustody,€while€the€parties€in€this€case€have€joint€custody,€with€Mother€having€primaryÏphysical€custody.€€This€is€a€distinction€without€a€difference.€€The€resolution€of€this€case€is€clearlyÏcontrolled€by€ò òòòAabyó óóó.€Ìà àœThere›€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Motherððs€move€is€œvindictive.›€€œFurther,€the›€recordÏœdoes€not€demonstrate€any›€harm€to€the€children€beyond€the€general€emotional€and€social€harms€allÏchildren€face€when€their€family€moves€from€one€area€to€another.€€Therefore,€Mother€may€move€toÏOklahoma€without€surrendering€physical€custody€of€the€children.€€The€cause€œis›€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€any€further€proceedings€required,€such€as€modification€of€the€visitation€œschedule,€ifÏnecessary.›Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€decision€denying€the€petition€for€change€of€custody€is€affirmed.€€The€orderÏproviding€that€custody€would€be€changed€to€œAppellee›€if€œAppellant›€chooses€to€relocate€is€reversed.€ÏœThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€further€proceedings€required,€consistent€with€thisÏOpinion.€€Costs›€on€appeal€are€taxed€œto€Appellee,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€€J.ó óÌœ›