WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* , Bv~,v D3} 0@ AO? 0D D/I Bxv 3|xP($ <D=D>D?@DABCDӀP2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial " !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#X June13,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  dPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#        \RA'\7XXdd7ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION TAMMYLYNNE.TYNDALL,  )C/ANO.03A019601CV00032ٜL"$!;+'h|iX`  `Lߛ      ) PlaintiffAppellee,  )HAMILTONLAW      )v.      )HON.WILLIAML.BROWN,      )JUDGEDONALDRAYTYNDALL,   )      )AFFIRMEDAND DefendantAppellant. )REMANDEDSHERRYB.PATY,Chattanooga,forPlaintiffAppellee.J.ESTESCOCKE,EastRidge,forDefendantAppellant.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Inthisdivorceaction,themotherwasawardedcustodyofthepartiessonanddaughter,agesfourandthreeatthetimeofthedivorce.Thehusbandhasappealed,insistingthatitwaserrorfortheTrialCourttoawardcustodyofthechildrentothemother,andthenallowingthemothertomovefromChattanoogawiththetwochildrentoScottCounty,Tennessee.  Thepartiesweremarriedin1987inChattanooga,buthadmetinScottCounty,Tennessee.Themotherwasaregisterednurse,andhadreturnedtoScottCountyshortlypriortothisdivorce,whereshewastheDirectorofPersonnelatOneidaNursingHomeHealthcare.Themothertestifiedthatwhileshewasonthejob,hermotherwouldcareforthechildren.  Thehusbandessentiallyarguesthatitwasinthebestinterestofthechildrenforcustodytobeawardedtohim.HisextendedfamilylivesintheChattanoogaarea,andhewasoftheopinionthechildrenwouldreceiveabettereducationifleftwithhim.  Theevidenceestablishesthateachoftheparentswouldbeapropercustodialparent.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourtsdecisiontoawardcustodyofthetwochildrentothemother.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).  Thehusbandsremainingissueisinterrelatedwiththeissueofcustody,i.e.,removaltoanothercounty.AsnotedinAabyv.Strange,___S.W.2d___(Tenn.April22,1996),oncecustodyvestsinoneoftheparents,thatparentmaymovethechildunlessthenoncustodialparentcanshowbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheparentsmotivesarevindictive.Thereisnoevidenceofvindictivenesshere.ThemothersextendedfamilyisintheScottCountyarea,andsheobtainedemploymentasfavorable,ifnotmorefavorable,thanshecouldobtainintheChattanoogaarea.Inhertestimonysheconcededthatatonetimeshehadagreedwiththehusbandastowherethechildrenwouldbeeducated,butuponfurtherinvestigationsheconcludedtheeducationalopportunitiesinScottCounty, ismuchbetterthanweeverthought.Thecrimerateismuchlowerthanwethought,also,muchlowerthanHamiltonCounty.   InRogerov.Pitt,759S.W.2d109(Tenn.1980),themotherhadpetitionedtoremovethechildrentoOhiowhichtheϜSupremeCourtallowed.ThecaseisinstructivebecausethepartiesinRogerohadjointcustodyofthechildrenatthetimeoftheremoval.TheSupremeCourtallowedthemothertomovewiththechildren,uponconcludingthemotherwasafitparenttohavecustody,wasnotvindictiveinherdesiretorelocate,Ϝshecouldremarryuponrelocation,andthechildrenwouldbenear theirgrandmotherandotherrelatives.   WecanfindnobasistodisturbtheTrialCourtsawardofcustodytothemotherandaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt.  Costsoftheappealareassessedtotheappellantandthecauseremanded.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________̜HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________̜CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̛