ÿWPC> ¬’Ãæ|šÙ>‰›áJ M…­7βòÔö(vþ°åîJD¶ƒÓ>‹›~¡:ïÙ²­]ó]0—Quí\‘ßyHúwëO´ºl¹@ÂéÌÈìtÏ»·xvŒ$?A=åáh½±Ð‹žØg|³¸†ÊðF¥Ù”cÙ‰–xù åÈ*—7H‰“ˆ:Ï›ãs7,ᤗ—À´•1ë¶+zWø©Tɺï üå-óøC4^Ž ¸Å#hXš½7€§cÕô÷Cý±œÜÆÆìY=øL¦½ûABpœÌzü~Í=[fö€æÀ:cÙG}Ï ú‚(—lëÄÝÿ‘ñP)^p8ö ίô‹U¦~2@bøé±¯U­€ýµ5E ::æ?„r×〵EæGkt^"ÄÎ5ªmãþ^®¢YÆþ¡€)¢´$¨7jKÅÕ~¨B¾Ü ÄAk ¾ˆvcÿ¥‹°òœÕ溺\fW[ñ"ÁÙ²eˆ„DôúÌs;¸Õ" ©.6È/öÜZŒûó_-œÀ…R PÚÞ /GÖqÛ†@”~d+s¯¬¶ê8;ªÒŽj3pù‚q·¸H޳­1˜.Â0¦v(D”aíô[7Ùi©öªl‹B ÆPsͯؼh1“b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí 0D³N÷þù8÷E////////////////////////b111111111111111111111111111111111111 0ë9999 B$$ 0¤A D5å D- 0KGG AS’Æå 0¤« 0DO A«“˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» ž/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó WisemanKious ren"infrastructuralt]hisConnellfianc)SchrempKendrickShoemake AabyLamons COA .Ý ƒR÷á$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôúùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Both€parties€have€cited€a€number€of€unpublished€opinions€of€this€court.€However,€neither€of€them€has€compliedÐ ° Ðwith€Rule€12(a)€of€the€Rules€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€requires€that€copies€of€any€such€cited€opinions€be€includedÐ tÄ Ðin€appendices€to€briefs,€or€to€any€other€papers€citing€them€which€are€filed€with€this€court.€See€also€Rule€4(I)€Rules€of€theÐ 8ˆ ÐSupreme€Court.€€- ù-(|G2÷á$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€JM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôúùò»»Ô d(|3‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€JM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€JM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼JM»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îMJMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼JM»îîM#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€November€3,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XÙX»¼JMÔÌò òÔ#†¼JM»XXÙ#ÔCONAN€DOYLE€CLARK,€JR.€v.€CAROL€MICHELLE€CLARKÔ‡XÙX»¼JMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00DR„200€€€€€€Royce€Taylor,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„03071„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€30,€2003ó óÔ#†¼JM»XXÙ„#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼JMÔò òÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€divorced€mother€of€two€girls€sent€a€letter€to€her€former€husband,€declaring€her€intention€to€moveÐ xÈ  Ðwith€the€children€to€Virginia€in€order€to€marry€her€new€fianc.€€The€father€filed€a€petition€objectingÐ d´ Ðto€the€relocation€and€asking€for€a€change€of€custody.€€The€trial€court€held€that€under€the€provisionsÐ P  Ðof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108,€the€mother€was€entitled€to€relocate€once€she€remarried.€€We€affirm.Ð <Œ ÐÔ#†¼JM»XXÙ<#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼JMÔÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ d ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼JM»àXÙä#ÔÔ‡XÙX.¼JMÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€and€òòFrankÐ Ø( ÐG.€Clement,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJim€Wiseman,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Conan€Doyle€Clark.Ð œì ÐÌDavid€W.€Kious,€Janet€D.€Powell,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Carol€Michelle€Clark.Ð tÄ ÐÓ¢ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼JM»XXÙÑ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼JMÔÐ L œ ÐÌÔ#†¼JM»XXÙÀ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÙX»¼JMÔà@‹ ‹ ìàò òòòI.€Divorce,€Custody€and€VisitationˆÐ $"t! Ðóóó óÌà  àConan€Doyle€Clark€Jr.€and€Carol€Michelle€Clark€divorced€in€Rutherford€County€on€JanuaryÐ ü#L# Ð26,€2001.€€The€divorce€decree€incorporated€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€that€included€aÐ è$8 $ Ðparenting€plan€for€their€two€daughters,€who€were€ten€and€eight€years€old€respectively€at€the€time.€Ð Ô%$!% ÐThe€plan€made€both€parties€jointly€responsible€for€major€decisions€concerning€their€children,€andÐ À&"& Ðdeclared,€ð ðThis€is€a€co„parenting€plan,€with€each€party€having€equal€rights€regarding€the€child(ren),Ð ¬'ü"' Ðbut€the€Mother€shall€be€considered€the€primary€residential€parent.ðð€€The€agreement€specificallyÐ ˜(è#( Ðexcluded€alimony,€but€provided€that€the€husband€would€pay€child€support€of€$884€per€month.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àThe€visitation€schedule€deviated€somewhat€from€the€standard€schedule€for€non„custodialÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âparents,€in€part€to€accommodate€the€partiesðð€work€schedules.€€The€mother€worked€at€Southern€TitleÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔServices,€and€apparently€followed€a€typical€40€hour€a€week€schedule.€€The€father,€a€BridgestoneÐ ° Ðemployee,€worked€twelve€hour€shifts€that€resulted€in€alternating€work€weeks€of€36€and€48€hours.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€father€was€granted€visitation€with€the€girls€every€other€weekend€during€the€school€year,Ð tÄ Ðas€well€as€the€first€Wednesday€and€Thursday€and€the€second€Monday€after€their€weekend€with€him,Ð `° Ðwith€the€periods€of€weekday€visitation€to€run€from€the€end€of€the€school€day€to€8:00€p.m.€€TheÐ L œ Ðchildren€were€also€given€the€option€of€visitation€with€the€father€on€the€second€Tuesday€after€theirÐ 8 ˆ Ðweekend€with€him.€€The€same€schedule€was€to€be€followed€during€Winter€and€Spring€vacation,€ð ðasÐ $ t Ðlong€as€father€works€for€Bridgestone.ðð€€The€father€was€given€additional€days€of€visitation€eachÐ  ` Ðsummer,€in€accordance€with€his€work€schedule.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€proof€showed€that€the€parents€cooperated€quite€well€on€visitation.€€While€they€adheredÐ Ô$  Ðreasonably€closely€to€the€visitation€schedule€in€the€parenting€plan,€they€usually€managed€to€reachÐ À  Ðagreement€when€the€circumstances€of€their€lives€or€of€their€childrenððs€schedules€required€them€toÐ ¬ü  Ðdeviate€from€the€plan.€€The€maternal€grandmother€and€different€babysitters€provided€childcare€duringÐ ˜è  Ðtimes€when€neither€parent€was€able€to€be€present.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€July€of€2001,€Ms.€Clark€became€re„acquainted€with€Jeff€Lamons,€a€man€she€had€brieflyÐ \¬ Ðdated€in€high€school.€€Mr.€Lamonsðð€parents€and€his€other€relatives€live€in€Middle€Tennessee,€but€heÐ H˜ Ðhimself€had€been€living€in€Richmond,€Virginia€for€the€previous€eleven€years,€and€working€as€aÐ 4„ Ðcomputer€specialist€at€Capital€One€Corporation.€€Ms.€Clark€and€Mr.€Lamons€became€engaged.€€Mr.Ð  p ÐLamons€had€been€previously€married€and€divorced.€€His€ex„wife€and€son€live€in€the€Richmond€area.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€or€about€March€28,€2002,€Ms.€Clark€sent€a€letter€to€her€ex„husband€stating€that€due€to€herÐ ä4 Ðplanned€remarriage,€she€was€preparing€to€move€to€Richmond,€Virginia€and€that€the€letter€was€toÐ Ð  Ðserve€as€her€sixty€day€notice€of€her€intent€to€relocate€with€the€children.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð ¼  Ð108(a).€Mr.€Clark€responded€on€April€24€with€a€Petition€Objecting€to€Relocation€and€to€ChangeÐ ¨ø ÐCustody.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€the€Petition,€Mr.€Clark€claimed€that€he€and€his€wife€were€ð ðactually€spending€equal€intervalsÐ l¼ Ðof€time€with€the€children.ðð€€He€also€set€out€reasons€why€he€believed€that€the€proposed€relocationÐ X ¨ Ðwould€not€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€children,€and€contended€that€it€would€negate€the€ParentingÐ D!” ÐPlan€that€both€parties€had€agreed€to.€€The€father€asked€the€court€to€allow€the€mother€to€relocate€toÐ 0"€  ÐRichmond€ð ðif€she€wishes,ðð€but€to€transfer€custody€of€the€girls€to€him,€and€to€order€the€mother€to€payÐ #l! Ðchild€support.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€mother€filed€an€Answer€and€Counter„Petition€on€June€7,€2002,€in€which€she€denied€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€father€spends€substantially€equal€amounts€of€time€with€the€children.€€She€also€discussed€theÐ Ì&"% Ðreasons€she€desired€to€relocate€and€the€steps€she€had€taken€to€ensure€that€the€children€would€be€ableÐ ¸'#& Ðto€adjust€to€their€new€home.€€She€further€suggested€a€new€Parenting€Plan€that€would€involve€lessÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfrequent€visitation€with€the€father€during€the€school€year€(one€weekend€a€month)€but€longer€visitationÐ )à$( Ðduring€the€summer,€with€the€parties€to€divide€the€costs€of€transportation€equally€between€them.€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà@ÙÙ ìàò òòòII.€Court€ProceedingsˆÐ ° Ðóóó óÌà  àAfter€a€continuance,€a€hearing€on€the€Petition€was€conducted€on€September€23,€2002.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðjudge€announced€at€the€inception€that€the€hearing€would€be€bifurcated,€with€the€first€phase€to€focusÐ tÄ Ðon€the€current€visitation€arrangements,€so€the€court€could€determine€which€section€of€the€relocationÐ `° Ðstatute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108€should€be€applied.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àUnder€the€statute,€if€the€parents€actually€spend€substantially€equal€amounts€of€time€with€theÐ $ t Ðchildren,€then€there€is€no€presumption€for€or€against€relocation,€and€the€court€must€decide€theÐ  ` Ðquestion€based€upon€the€best€interests€of€the€children€after€consideration€of€enumerated€factors.€Ð ü L  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(c).€€However,€if€the€parent€wishing€to€relocate€spends€the€greaterÐ è 8  Ðamount€of€time€with€the€children,€a€presumption€is€created€in€favor€of€relocation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ô$  Ððð€36„6„108(d).€€Relocation€will€be€allowed€in€the€absence€of€proof€of€at€least€one€of€threeÐ À  Ðcircumstances:€that€there€is€no€reasonable€purpose€for€the€relocation;€that€there€is€a€risk€of€harm€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€child€arising€from€the€relocation;€or€that€the€custodial€parent€is€acting€out€of€a€vindictive€motive,Ð ˜è  Ðòòi.e.óó,€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€other€parent€of€visitation.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ˆÐ \¬ Ðó óÌà  àMr.€Clark€argued€that€the€court€should€decide€this€case€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(c).€Ð 4„ ÐHe€contended€that€if€one€calculated€the€time€each€parent€spent€with€the€children€on€the€basis€ofÐ  p Ðwaking€hours€alone,€their€time€would€be€substantially€equal.€€Since€the€custody€of€the€children€duringÐ  \ Ðweekends€was€€equally€divided,€his€testimony€focused€on€a€comparison€of€the€number€of€after„schoolÐ øH Ðhours€he€and€the€mother€spent€with€the€children€on€weekdays.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€Clark€calculated€his€time€on€the€basis€of€the€hours€between€2:30€or€3:00€p.m.€on€the€daysÐ ¼  Ðwhen€he€picked€the€children€up€from€school,€and€8:00€p.m.€when€he€returned€them€to€the€mother.€Ð ¨ø ÐHe€calculated€the€motherððs€time€on€the€days€when€he€did€not€exercise€visitation€as€beginning€at€5:30Ð ”ä Ðp.m.€when€she€returned€from€work,€and€continuing€until€the€childrenððs€9:00€p.m.€bedtime.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€Mr.€Clark€conceded€that€his€calculations€did€not€include€the€timeÐ X ¨ Ðafter€8:00€p.m.€when€the€children€had€been€returned€to€the€mother€and€she€had€to€get€them€ready€forÐ D!” Ðbed.€€He€also€omitted€weekday€mornings,€during€which€the€mother€awakened€the€children€at€6:00Ð 0"€  Ða.m.,€gave€them€breakfast,€and€got€them€ready€for€school.€€Further€testimony€showed€that€the€girlsÐ #l! Ðparticipated€in€chorus€and€Girl€Scouts,€and€that€on€the€days€when€they€did€so,€Mr.€Clark€did€not€pickÐ $X" Ðthem€up€until€several€hours€after€the€end€of€the€regular€school€day.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€first€phase€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€he€had€calculatedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€father€exercised€custody€of€the€children€for€46.7%€of€their€waking€hours,€which€heÐ ¸'#& Ðcharacterized€as€ð ða€substantial€time.ðð€€It€is€unclear€exactly€how€he€reached€this€conclusion.€€However,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€court€also€held€that€it€was€inappropriate€to€base€its€decision€on€waking€hours€alone,€because€suchÐ )à$( Ðan€analysis€discredits€the€motherððs€continuing€responsibility€for€the€children€during€the€time€they€areÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€school,€and€even€when€they€are€asleep.€€The€court€therefore€held€that€the€mother€spent€the€greaterÐ h+¸&* Ðamount€of€time€with€the€children€within€the€meaning€of€36„6„108(d),€and€ordered€the€hearing€toÐ ° Ðproceed€€solely€on€the€question€of€whether€any€of€the€statutory€factors€in€that€subsection€would€barÐ œì Ðher€from€relocating.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ˆÐ `° Ðó óÌà  àOnce€the€trial€court€determined€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€36„6„108(d)€applied€to€the€fatherððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetition,€the€burden€shifted€to€him€to€prove€either€a€lack€of€reasonable€purpose€for€the€proposedÐ $ t Ðrelocation,€a€risk€of€harm€to€the€children€arising€from€the€relocation,€or€that€the€mother€was€actingÐ  ` Ðout€of€a€vindictive€motive.€€For€the€purpose€of€the€statute,€vindictive€motive€means€that€the€moveÐ ü L  Ðis€ð ðintended€to€defeat€or€deter€visitation€rights€of€the€non-custodial€parent€or€the€parent€spending€lessÐ è 8  Ðtime€with€the€child.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(d)(3).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àVindictive€motive€is€not€an€issue€in€this€case.€€The€parents€have€cooperated€with€theÐ ¬ü  Ðestablished€visitation€schedule€and€accommodated€adjustments.€€The€mother€expressed€a€willingnessÐ ˜è  Ðto€adhere€to€a€new€visitation€schedule€that€would€enable€the€father€to€enjoy€three€day€weekends€withÐ „Ô  Ðthe€children€whenever€their€school€schedule€permitted,€as€well€as€expanded€visitation€in€the€summer,Ð pÀ Ðand€during€winter€and€spring€breaks.€€Such€a€schedule€would€at€least€partly€compensate€the€husbandÐ \¬ Ðfor€the€reduction€in€the€frequency€of€weekend€visitation€during€the€school€year€to€one€weekend€perÐ H˜ Ðmonth,€necessitated€by€the€distance€between€Nashville€and€Richmond.€€The€mother€also€expressedÐ 4„ Ða€willingness€to€bear€the€greater€part€of€the€transportation€costs€involved.€€No€evidence€was€presentedÐ  p Ðof€any€intent€on€the€motherððs€part€to€deter€visitation€with€the€father.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àA€risk€of€harm€to€the€children€was€also€not€an€issue.€The€proof€showed€that€both€girls€wereÐ ä4 Ðwell„adjusted€and€doing€well€in€school.€€The€younger€girl€had€some€vision€problems,€and€theÐ Ð  ÐMurfreesboro€Public€Schools€had€furnished€her€with€an€optical€magnifier€and€large€print€textbooks.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€mother€testified€that€she€could€obtain€similar€accommodations€in€Richmond.€€None€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðexamples€of€specific€and€serious€harm€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(d)€was€shown.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€reasonableness€of€the€motherððs€purpose€for€relocating€thus€became€the€focus€of€theÐ l¼ Ðsecond€phase€of€the€hearing.€€The€fatherððs€attorney€questioned€Ms.€Clark€about€the€fact€that€she€andÐ X ¨ ÐMr.€Lamons€had€not€yet€married,€seeking€to€raise€an€inference€that€she€was€not€sufficientlyÐ D!” Ðcommitted€to€the€marriage€to€justify€uprooting€the€children.€€But€Ms.€Clark€testified€that€she€had€notÐ 0"€  Ðyet€gotten€married€because€the€question€of€relocation€was€still€uncertain,€that€she€would€definitelyÐ #l! Ðmarry€if€the€court€allowed€her€to€relocate,€and€that€she€had€not€decided€what€she€would€do€if€theÐ $X" Ðcourt€did€not€allow€her€to€relocate.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€attorney€also€questioned€Ms.€Clark€as€to€why€Mr.€Lamons€wanted€her€to€move€toÐ Ì&"% ÐRichmond,€rather€than€moving€to€Middle€Tennessee€himself.€€She€testified€that€the€only€jobsÐ ¸'#& Ðavailable€in€his€area€of€expertise€(which€she€described€as€€ð ðinfrastructural€networking€of€computersðð)Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwere€to€be€found€in€the€Washington€D.C.€area.€€She€also€testified€that€in€his€current€job,€he€earnedÐ )à$( Ðâ âenough€to€enable€her€not€to€work€outside€the€home,€so€she€could€function€as€a€full„time€mother€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðhomemaker.€€The€motherððs€attorney€attempted€to€question€her€about€her€fiancððs€income,€but€theÐ ° Ðfatherððs€attorneyððs€objection€on€the€ground€of€hearsay€was€sustained€by€the€trial€court.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€judge€announced€from€the€bench€that€Ms.€Clark€hadÐ tÄ Ða€reasonable€purpose€for€wishing€to€relocate,€and€that€she€would€be€permitted€to€do€so€once€she€hadÐ `° Ðremarried.€€His€Final€Order€of€September€30,€2002,€also€set€out€a€new€visitation€schedule,€withÐ L œ Ðtransportation€costs€shared€between€the€parties.€€The€court€also€ordered€a€reduction€in€the€fatherððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðchild€support€obligation€to€balance€his€contribution€to€the€cost€of€transportation.€€One€clause€of€theÐ $ t ÐFinal€Order€stated€that€ð ð[t]his€Order€will€not€go€into€effect€until€the€order€is€a€final€order€of€theÐ  ` ÐCourt.ððÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€father€subsequently€filed€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€or€to€Set€Aside€the€Judgment.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€court€amended€its€order€to€make€some€small€adjustments€in€the€visitation€schedule€that€theÐ À  Ðfather€had€asked€for,€but€declined€to€set€aside€the€judgment.€€However,€following€another€motion€andÐ ¬ü  Ðhearing,€the€court€issued€a€formal€stay€of€its€decision€allowing€the€mother€to€relocate,€in€the€eventÐ ˜è  Ðthe€father€chose€to€appeal€the€decision€upon€the€issue€of€ð ðwaking€hoursðð€being€substantially€equalÐ „Ô  Ðbetween€the€parties.€€He€did€so,€and€that€issue€is€now€squarely€before€us.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@å å ìàò òòòIII.€The€Issue€of€ð ðWaking€HoursððˆÐ H˜ Ðóóó óÌà  àThe€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108€in€1998€established€different€standards€forÐ  p Ðdeciding€relocation€disputes,€depending€on€whether€or€not€both€parents€spend€ð ðsubstantially€equalÐ  \ Ðintervals€of€time€with€the€child.ðð€€The€question€of€how€one€is€to€determine€whether€this€requirementÐ øH Ðhas€been€met€is€not€addressed€in€the€statute,€nor€has€it€been€conclusively€addressed€by€the€courts.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€òòConnell€v.€Connellóó,€No.€03A01„9808„CV„00282,€2000€WL€122204€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.Ð ¼  Ð28,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€trial€court€found€that€the€non„custodialÐ ¨ø Ðfather€exercised€visitation€with€his€children€less€than€40%€of€the€time,€and€that€since€this€was€notÐ ”ä Ðsubstantially€equal€to€the€time€the€mother€cared€for€them,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(d)€appliedÐ €Ð Ðto€the€motherððs€motion€for€relocation.€€This€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€determination€in€allÐ l¼ Ðrespects.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòMonroe€v.€Robinsonóó,€M2001„02218„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€132463€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.Ð 0"€  Ð16,€2003)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€the€trial€court€found€that€the€divorce€decreeÐ #l! Ðgave€the€husband€physical€custody€of€the€partiesðð€daughter€approximately€43%€of€the€time,€and€theÐ $X" Ðwife€physical€custody€57%€of€the€time.€€The€court€held€that€this€amounted€to€substantially€equalÐ ô$D # Ðâ âamounts€of€time.€This€court€affirmed,€observing€that€the€statute€ð ðdoes€not€require€that€the€time€beÐ à%0!$ Ðexactly€equal,ðð€and€that€it€ð ðdoes€not€set€any€concrete€perimeters€as€to€what€qualifies€as€substantiallyÐ ° Ðequal,ðð€but€that€the€evidence€did€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€òòIdóó.€at€*5.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€father€argues€that€since€the€trial€court€found€that€he€was€exercising€custody€of€theÐ tÄ Ðchildren€for€46.7%€of€their€waking€hours,€this€falls€well€within€the€parameters€established€by€òòConnellóóÐ `° Ðand€òòMonroe€v.€Robinson.€€óóWe€note,€however,€that€Mr.€Monroe€apparently€had€overnight€visitationÐ L œ Ðwith€his€children€about€ten€days€each€month,€while€Mr.€Clarkððs€overnight€visitation€was€about€fourÐ 8 ˆ Ðdays€each€month.€€There€are€no€cases€in€which€the€courts€of€this€state€have€approved€of€a€comparisonÐ $ t Ðòòóóof€custodial€time€based€upon€waking€hours€only.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThus,€we€believe€that,€contrary€to€Mr.€Clarkððs€argument,€the€reasoning€of€the€trial€court€wasÐ è 8  Ðcorrect.€€There€is€no€mention€of€waking€hours€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108.€€€Further,€theÐ Ô$  Ðresponsibilities€of€a€parent€do€not€end€when€the€children€go€to€sleep€or€when€they€are€in€school.€€InÐ À  Ðthis€case,€Ms.€Clark€testified€that€her€older€daughter€frequently€awakens€during€the€night€when€sheÐ ¬ü  Ðhas€stomach€problems.€€Her€younger€daughter€sometimes€awakens€with€aching€legs€from€growingÐ ˜è  Ðpains.€When€this€occurs,€the€mother€must€herself€awaken€to€take€care€of€the€girls.€€Similarly,€whenÐ „Ô  Ðthe€girls€are€in€school,€it€is€the€mother€who€has€to€leave€work€to€pick€them€up€when€they€are€sick,Ð pÀ Ðor€bring€them€a€lunch€they€have€forgotten,€or€a€pair€of€tennis€shoes€they€will€need€for€gym.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€see€no€reason€to€adopt€the€ð ðwaking€hoursðð€methodology€proposed€by€Mr.€ClarkÐ 4„ Ðeither€as€a€general€principle€or€for€the€purposes€of€this€particular€case.€€We€therefore€affirm€theÐ  p Ðdecision€of€the€court€to€examine€Ms.€Clarkððs€request€to€relocate€under€the€requirements€of€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€38„6„108(d).Ð øH ÐÌà@, , ìàò òòòIV.€The€Question€of€Reasonableness€ˆÐ Ð  Ðóóó óÌà  àMr.€Clark€argues€on€appeal€that€the€admissible€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€that€hisÐ ¨ø Ðformer€wife€had€a€reasonable€purpose€for€her€proposed€move.€€He€relies€in€particular€on€Mr.Ð ”ä ÐLamonsððs€failure€to€appear€at€the€hearing€and€on€his€own€attorneyððs€numerous€objections€to€Ms.Ð €Ð ÐClarkððs€testimony€as€to€her€fiancððs€circumstances€as€inadmissible€hearsay.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àTo€support€this€argument,€Mr.€Clark€cites€òòButler€v.€Butleróó,€M2002„00347„COA„R3„CV,€2003Ð D!” ÐWL€367241€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€20,€2003)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€In€that€case,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€found€that€a€motherððs€desire€to€move€to€the€Dallas„Fort€Worth€area€to€advance€herÐ #l! Ðcareer€was€reasonable,€but€denied€her€Petition€to€Relocate€for€other€reasons.€€This€court€disagreedÐ $X" Ðwith€the€trial€courtððs€analysis,€but€affirmed€the€result€on€the€ground€that€the€proposed€relocation€didÐ ô$D # Ðnot€have€a€reasonable€purpose.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€our€opinion,€we€quoted€extensively€from€those€portions€of€the€trial€transcript€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðshowed€the€mother€offering€a€series€of€evasive€and€inconsistent€answers€to€questions€aboutÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprospective€jobs€and€possible€salaries.€€The€mother€claimed€to€have€a€firm€job€offer,€but€failed€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âproduce€as€witnesses€any€of€the€three€people€she€claimed€could€offer€proof€concerning€a€job€inÐ |*Ì%) ÐTexas.€€Instead,€she€offered€into€evidence€letters€that€allegedly€included€a€job€offer,€but€the€admissionÐ ° Ðof€those€letters€ð ðwere€promptly€and€properly€objected€to€by€fatherððs€attorney.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€*5.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€transcript€in€the€case€before€us€shows€that€Mr.€Clarkððs€attorney€objected€to€virtually€allÐ tÄ Ðthe€testimony€Ms.€Clark€offered€as€to€her€fiancððs€circumstances€(including€her€assertion€that€heÐ `° Ðcould€not€be€present€on€the€day€of€the€hearing€because€he€was€starting€a€new€position).€€The€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€sustained€many€of€these€objections,€but€allowed€her€to€testify€as€to€the€nature€of€Mr.€LamonsððÐ 8 ˆ Ðemployment,€her€belief€that€his€support€will€enable€her€to€stay€home€with€the€children,€and€that€sheÐ $ t Ðhad€researched€the€availability€of€jobs€in€Middle€Tennessee€in€the€area€of€her€fiancððs€specialty,€andÐ  ` Ðfound€there€to€be€none.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€courtððs€evidentiary€rulings€were€in€error,€and€it€appears€to€usÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€motherððs€testimony€was€sufficient€to€establish€a€reasonable€purpose€for€her€proposed€move.€Ð À  ÐShe€was€getting€married,€and€her€intended€spouse€was€long€settled€in€Virginia€and€had€a€career€there.Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€note€that,€in€contrast€to€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Butler€in€the€case€cited€above,€Ms.€ClarkððsÐ ˜è  Ðtestimony€was€forthright€and€consistent€in€the€face€of€aggressive€cross„examination,€and€she€was€ableÐ „Ô  Ðto€articulate€a€plan€and€a€rationale€for€relocation€that€was€well€thought„out€and€took€into€account€theÐ pÀ Ðbest€interests€of€her€children.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€also€cites€òòSchremp€v.€Schrempóó,€No.€W1999-01734-COA-R3-CV,€2000€WLÐ 4„ Ð1839127€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.7,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€11€application€filed),€a€case€in€which€thisÐ  p Ðcourt€found€that€a€Memphis€motherððs€purpose€in€relocating€to€another€state€to€be€with€her€newÐ  \ Ðhusband€was€unreasonable.€€However,€the€facts€of€that€case€are€distinguishable€from€the€one€beforeÐ øH Ðus.€€In€the€òòSchrempóó€case,€the€new€husband€was€a€Federal€Express€pilot,€whose€job€involved€frequentÐ ä4 Ðtravel€and€did€not€require€that€he€live€in€any€particular€place.€€Although€the€husband€chose€to€makeÐ Ð  Ðhis€residence€in€Charlotte,€North€Carolina,€he€could€easily€have€moved€to€Memphis.€€Both€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€and€this€court€ruled€that€his€reasons€for€remaining€in€North€Carolina€were€not€compellingÐ ¨ø Ðenough€to€outweigh€the€disruption€that€a€move€to€North€Carolina€would€have€on€the€children.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€mother€testified€that€her€fianc€is€employed€in€Richmond,€Virginia,Ð l¼ Ðand€he€cannot€find€a€comparable€job€in€Tennessee€in€his€area€of€expertise.€€His€job€is€remunerativeÐ X ¨ Ðenough€that€if€the€mother€moves,€she€will€be€able€to€stay€at€home€and€take€care€of€the€children€full„Ð D!” Ðtime.€€The€trial€court€found€that€it€would€not€be€reasonable€for€the€mother€to€move€without€firstÐ 0"€  Ðmarrying€Mr.€Lamons,€but€the€court€made€the€motherððs€removal€of€the€children€contingent€on€herÐ #l! Ðmarriage.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àUnder€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðfact€are€presumed€to€be€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€We€do€not€believe€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Ms.€Clark€has€a€reasonable€purposeÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€wishing€to€relocate,€and€we€must€therefore€affirm€that€finding.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÐ  |*Ì%) Ðà@¤¤ìàò òòòIV.€Change€of€Custody€ˆÐ ° Ðóóó óÌà  àMr.€Clarkððs€final€argument€is€that€the€motherððs€relocation€plan€showed€such€poor€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðthat€it€constitutes€a€material€change€of€circumstances€that€would€justify€transferring€custody€of€theÐ tÄ Ðchildren€to€the€father.€€He€notes€that€she€is€proposing€to€quit€her€job€and€leave€the€Middle€TennesseeÐ `° Ðarea€where€all€of€her€relatives€live€in€order€to€live€with€a€man€she€is€not€yet€married€to.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€despite€any€uncertainty€about€the€ultimate€wisdom€of€herÐ $ t Ðproposed€move,€the€mother€has€shown€the€ability€to€think€clearly€about€her€plan€and€to€prepare€forÐ  ` Ðits€consequences.€€The€proof€shows€that€she€has€never€ignored€the€needs€of€her€children.€€SheÐ ü L  Ðinvestigated€the€possibility€of€Mr.€Lamons€moving€to€Tennessee.€€When€that€proved€unfeasible,€sheÐ è 8  Ðresearched€the€ability€of€the€Richmond€school€system€to€duplicate€the€accommodations€that€theÐ Ô$  ÐMurfreesboro€school€system€has€provided€for€her€daughter.€€She€agreed€to€a€visitation€schedule€thatÐ À  Ðwould€enable€the€children€to€maintain€their€relationship€with€their€father.€€Finally,€she€put€her€ownÐ ¬ü  Ðdesires€on€hold€by€deciding€not€to€marry€or€to€move€until€the€court€reached€its€decision.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€a€finding€that€the€move€was€reasonable€eliminates€any€argument€that€such€aÐ pÀ Ðmove€is€a€change€of€circumstances€ð ðwhich€makes€a€change€in€custody€in€the€childððs€best€interests,ððÐ \¬ Ðwhich€is€the€standard€for€modification€of€an€existing€custody€order.€€òòSee€Kendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€90Ð H˜ ÐS.W.3d€566,€570€(Tenn.€2002).€€In€òòAaby€v.€Strangeóó,€924€S.W.2d€623,€630€(Tenn.€1996),€our€SupremeÐ 4„ ÐCourt€noted,€ð ðA€move€in€any€childððs€life,€whether€he€or€she€is€raised€in€the€context€of€a€one€or€twoÐ  p Ðparent€home,€carries€with€it€the€potential€of€disruption;€such€common€phenomena€„€both€the€fact€ofÐ  \ Ðmoving€and€the€accompanying€distress€cannot€constitute€a€basis€for€the€drastic€measure€of€a€changeÐ øH Ðof€custody.ðð€€The€relocation€statute€addresses€the€situation€in€which€a€change€of€custody€may€beÐ ä4 Ðordered€where€there€is€a€planned€relocation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(e).€€Absent€the€findingsÐ Ð  Ðrequisite€to€the€application€of€subsection€(e),€a€change€of€custody€is€not€warranted.€€Those€findingsÐ ¼  Ðwere€not€made€herein.€€The€statute€applies€to€requests€for€ð ða€change€of€custody€related€to€the€move.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„108(f).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€relocation,€no€change€ofÐ ”ä Ðcustody€was€justified.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ˆÐ X ¨ Ðó óÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ 0"€  ÐRutherford€County€for€any€further€proceedings€that€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÐ #l! Ðthe€appellant,€Conan€Doyle€Clark,€Jr.€Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE