WPCG1 B;e"JvR~MH߾'u*7?4N<(V t+X4d l$ G*x_Pr ϱmuZ-.b72C RL|s,Xg_OLe~6";'z.!V^h)9:߸!u0ȳ?V: HI_yrYvaE@$~:L S7pv@B0f $*U'?m2!ȺD;J6%E@AϠx aeEC\.XO-.doSCYshN:AoP(e!Nr<ncu,qipՊIKOMzvb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 4   Q 0UN2 0D4 0xE[ 0] 0" 0 0 0M 0 0 0B 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0= 0 0 0} 0' 0 0i b! 0 ! 0! B-%" R"L_#$U>5's'=+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0D,D,D,D, B/-/- 0L- D3- D-#. 0KP.P. AS.. 0/ 0DX0 A0HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0sy.+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+am Files쒴 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU GorskiRagainsDeskbookHoalcraftAdelspergerPlacenciaCaudillFulbrightEatherlyTortorichSuttlesHelsonEldridge AabyLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h - -()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   )Hairline d  RjW$      2    _ActofApril22,1998,ch.910,1998Tenn.Pub.Acts637,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.366108(Supp.  2000). B RjW$      3    _TheActprovidedthatittakeeffectuponbecominglaw,andtheGovernorsignedthebillonMay7,1998.  ActofApril22,1998,ch.910,2,1998Tenn.Pub.Acts637,640.  RjW$      1    _5Taylorv.Taylor,849S.W.2d319,328(Tenn.1993);Gorskiv.Ragains,No.01A019710GS00597,1999  WL511451,at*45(Tenn.Ct.App.July21,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);seealsoNational t InterdisciplinaryColloquiumonChildCustody,LegalandMentalHealthPerspectivesonChildCustodyLaw:A 8 DeskbookforJudges5:1,at51(1998).#5́#\  `&Times New Roman  RjW$      4    _NeitherthetrialcourtnorthelawyersshouldbefaultedfornotinvokingTenn.CodeAnn.366108during  thetrialcourtproceedingsbecauseitbecameeffectiveonlyfivedaysbeforethetrialcourtenteredthefinalorder. t However,thepartiesaddressedTenn.CodeAnn.366108intheirappellatebriefs.Thestatutebecameeffectivewhile 8 thecasewasstillpendinginthetrialcourtand,asremediallegislation,isapplicabletoproceedingsfiledbeforeits L effectivedate.Caudillv.Foley,21S.W.3dat208;Adamsv.Adams,No.01A019711CV00626,1998WL721091,  at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.16,1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). 3 RjW$      5    _Wenoteparentheticallythatourdecisiononthisissuewouldhavebeenthesameifwehadusedtheprinciples  containedintheAabyv.Strangedecision.(|G2jW$ !.8\dXXd8         0   d(|3 k$ !.8\dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 k$ !.8\dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\dd8     _  \8YXXdd8  @ S\INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#\S #Ԉ &   April15,1999Session L XYX\ #\XXY#SUZETTEMARIEELDERv.SIDNEYLEEELDERXYX\  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforFranklinCounty  J @@No.9850CVJ.CurtisSmith,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199800935_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember14,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisappealinvolvesapostdivorcecustodydisputeprecipitatedbythecustodialparentsdecision x  toacceptajobinTexas.ThecustodialparentrequestedtheCircuitCourtforFranklinCountyto d permitthepartieschildrentoaccompanyhimtoTexasandtoadjustthevisitationarrangements P accordingly.Thenoncustodialparentrespondedbyrequestingthetrialcourttochangecustody. < Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtdeclinedtochangetheexistingcustodyarrangementand (x permittedthecustodialparenttomovetoTexas.Onthisappeal,thenoncustodialparenttakesissue d withboththedenialofherpetitiontochangecustodyandtheapprovalofthecustodialparents P movetoTexas.Wehavedeterminedthattherecordsupportsbothofthesedecisionsand,therefore, < affirmthetrialcourt. (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #\XY`#XYX.\WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. t TamraLeeSmith,Shelbyville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SuzetteMarieElder. L  RobertL.Huskey,Manchester,Tennessee,fortheappellee,SidneyLeeElder. $"t!   OPINION #\XXYJ #XYX\ #L#  I.  %$!% #\XXY' #  XYX\  SuzetteElderandSidneyElderweredivorcedinApril1997.Mr.Elderreceivedcustodyof '"' theirtwopreteenchildren.Ms.Elderreceiveddefinedvisitationrightsandwasorderedtopaychild (#( support.Ms.ElderdidnotremarryandcontinuedtooperateadaycarecenterinWinchester.Mr. )$) Elderlaterremarried,andhe,hisnewwife,andtheircombinedfourchildrenalsoremainedinthe p*%* Winchesterarea. \+&+   H,',   Whiletheparties,forthemostpart,wentonwiththeirlivesfollowingthedivorce,they   experiencedsomedifficultyadjustingtotheroleofdivorcedparents.Theirchildren,asismostoften  thecase,havebornethebruntoftheseproblems.Ms.Elderhadproblemsreachingthechildrenby  telephoneandvisitingthematschool.Thepartiessquabbledfrequentlyaboutvisitation.Theywere t alsounabletoagreeontheproperapproachtoraisingtheirchildren.Ms.Elderparticularly ` disagreedwiththemannerinwhichMr.Eldersnewwifephysicallydisciplinedtheparties L  daughter.Apparentlytheirdaughterdidnotgetalongwellwithherstepbrotherandbelievedthat 8  herstepmotherwasnottreatingherfairly. $ t   Mr.Elderbeganlookingforabetterjobbecausehehadalargerfamilytosupport.InJanuary  L  1998,afterlookingclosetohomewithoutmuchsuccess,heacceptedahigherpayingjobinHouston,  8  Texasasaprojectschedulerintheoilandgasindustry.Thereafter,Ms.Elderfiledapetitioninthe $  CircuitCourtforFranklinCountyassertingthatshewasnotreceivingthevisitationshewasentitled   tounderthedivorcedecree.Mr.Elderthenfiledapetitionrequestingthetrialcourttoauthorizehis   relocationtoTexasandtoadjustMs.Eldersvisitationrightsaccordingly.Ms.Elderrespondedwith   apetitionrequestingthetrialcourttochangecustodyortodenyMr.Elderpermissiontomovethe   childrentoTexasbecausemovingtoTexaswouldnotbeintheirbestinterests. p   FollowingabenchtrialinFebruary1998,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatMs.Elderhadnot H provedthatachangeofcustodywaswarrantedorthatmovingtoTexaswasnotinthechildrensbest 4 interests.Accordingly,thetrialcourtpermittedMr.EldertomovethechildrentoTexasand  p modifiedthevisitationarrangementstoaccommodatethemove.Onthisappeal,Ms.Elderinsists  \ thatthetrialcourterredbynotgrantingherpetitiontochangecustodyandbypermittingMr.Elder H tomovethechildrentoTexas. 4 @) II.    @  Ms.EldersPetitiontoChangeofCustody     Ms.Eldersfirstargumentisthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingtorecognizeamaterial  changeinthechildrenscircumstancesfollowingMr.Eldersremarriage.Specifically,sheasserts l thatherdaughtersdifficultieswithherstepmotherandstepbrotherprovideamplegroundsfor X  changingcustody.Wedisagree. D! @) A.  #l!   Becauseoftheimportanceplacedonstabilityandcontinuityofplacement,4 #  1      ׀thereisastrong $D # presumptioninfavorofanexistingcustodydecision.Taylorv.Taylor,849S.W.2dat332; %0!$ Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3d822,828(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Infact,acustodydecision,once &"% madeandimplemented,isresjudicatauponthefactsinexistenceorreasonablyforeseeablewhen  thedecisionwasmade.Youngv.Smith,193Tenn.480,485,246S.W.2d93,95(1952);Solimav.  Solima,7S.W.3d30,32(Tenn.Ct.App.1998);Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2d482,485  (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). t   Lifeincontemporarysocietyis,however,rarelystatic.Accordingly,ourstatutoryand L  decisionallawempowersthecourtstoaltercustodyarrangementswheninterveningcircumstances 8  requiremodifications.Tenn.CodeAnn.366101(a)(1)(Supp.2000)(statingthatcustodydecrees $ t are subjecttosuchchangesormodificationastheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire).Thus,the  ` courtsmaymodifyanexistingcustodyarrangementwhenrequiredbyunanticipatedfactsor  L  subsequentlyemergingconditions.Smithv.Haase,521S.W.2d49,50(Tenn.1975);Adelsperger  8  v.Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat485.Intheinterestsofstabilityinthechildslife,acourtshouldnot $  alteranexistingcustodyarrangementuntil(1)itissatisfiedthatthechildscircumstanceshave   changedinamaterialwaysincetheentryofthepresentlyoperativecustodydecree,(2)ithas   carefullycomparedthecurrentfitnessoftheparentstobethechildscustodian,and(3)ithas   concludedthatchangingtheexistingcustodyarrangementisinthechildsbestinterests.Gorskiv.   Ragains,1999WL511451,at*3. p   Therearenobrightlinerulesfordeterminingwhenachangeofcircumstanceswillbe H deemedmaterialenoughtowarrantchanginganexistingcustodyarrangement.Taylorv.Taylor,849 4 S.W.2dat327;Solimav.Solima,7S.W.3dat32.Thesedecisionsturnontheuniquefactsofeach  p case.Asageneralmatter,however,thefollowingprinciplesilluminatetheinquiry.First,thechange  \ ofcircumstancesmustinvolvethechildscircumstancesratherthanthoseofeitherorbothparents. H Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19S.W.3dat829.Second,thechangedcircumstancesmusthavearisenafter 4 theentryofthecustodyordersoughttobemodified.Turnerv.Turner,776S.W.2d88,90(Tenn.   Ct.App.1988).Third,thechangedcircumstancesmustnothavebeenreasonablyanticipatedwhen   theunderlyingdecreewasentered.Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat485.Fourth,the  circumstancesmustaffectthechildswellbeinginsomematerialway.Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19  S.W.3dat829;Daltonv.Dalton,858S.W.2d324,326(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).    Afindingofamaterialchangeinthechildscircumstancesisthethresholddeterminationthat X  atrialcourtmustmake.Placenciav.Placencia,48S.W.3d732,736(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Ifthe D! partyseekingthechangeofcustodycannotdemonstratethatthechildscircumstanceshavechanged 0"  insomematerialway,thetrialcourtshouldnotproceedtoreexaminethecomparativefitnessofthe #l! parents,Caudillv.Foley,21S.W.3d203,213(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),orengageina bestinterests $X" ofthechildanalysis.Rather,intheabsenceofproofofamaterialchangeinthechilds $D # circumstances,thetrialcourtshouldsimplydeclinetochangecustody.Hoalcraftv.Smithson,19 %0!$ S.W.3dat828. &"% @) B.  (#'   Ms.Eldersrequestforachangeofcustodyrestssolelyonherchildrensrelationshipwith |*%) theirnewstepmotherandstepbrother.ShetakesissuewithMr.Eldersnewwifesapproachto h+&* disciplineandpointsoutthatthechildren,especiallythepartiesdaughter,doesnotlikeherslightly  olderstepbrother.Atthetimeofthehearing,thechildrenwerenotgettingalongandwere  apparently tattlingfrequentlyoneachotheroutofvindictiveness.    Thiscourthasheldfrequentlythatremarriagealoneisnotthesortofmaterialchangein ` circumstancesthatwilltriggerareexaminationofanexistingcustodyarrangement.E.g.,Fulbright L  v.Fulbright,No.E200002040COAR3CV,2001WL839692,at*9(Tenn.Ct.App.July25, 8  2001);Smithsonv.Eatherly,No.01A019806CV00314,1999WL548586,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App. $ t July29,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Arnoldv.Arnold,774S.W.2d613,618  ` (Tenn.Ct.App.1989).However,thechangesinachildshomeenvironmentfollowingaparents  L  remarriagemayamounttoamaterialchangeinthechildscircumstancesiftheyareadversely  8  affectingthechildinsomematerialway.Richardsonv.Richardson,No.W200002374COAR3 $  CV,2001WL687074,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.June14,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application   filed);McCainv.Grim,No.01A019711CH00634,1999WL820216,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.   15,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Davenportv.Davenport,No.03A019804   CV00154,1998WL880915,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.17,1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11   applicationfiled);Tortorichv.Erickson,675S.W.2d190,192(Tenn.Ct.App.1984). p   Mr.Elderssecondmarriagewasonlysevenmonthsoldwhenthetrialcourtconductedthe H hearinginthiscase.Thereisabundantevidencethatthemembersofthenewfamilywerestill 4 adjustingtoeachother.Thechildrenwerevyingforattentionandforfavoredstatus,andtheparents,  p particularlyMr.Eldersnewwife,werebeingprotectiveoftheirownchildren.Mr.Eldersdaughter  \ andhisnewwifehadclearlynotadjustedtoeachother.Mr.Eldersnewwifehadslappedher H stepdaughteronmorethanoneoccasionandonanotheroccasionhadshakenhersohardthatitleft 4 bruises.TheseincidentsdidnotrepeatthemselvesafterMr.Elderandhisnewwifeagreedonmore   appropriatewaystodisciplinethechildren.     Ms.Elderalsocomplainsaboutanotherincidentwhenthechildrenwerecaughtplayingwith  kitchenknivesinthehouse.Theevidenceindicatesthatthiswasaspontaneousoccurrencethathas  notbeenrepeated.Mr.Elderandhisnewwifedidnotcondonethebehaviorand,infact,punished l allthechildren.Thissingleincidentofmisbehaviordoesnotprovideastrongenoughreasonto X  revisitasettledcustodyarrangement.Cf.Adelspergerv.Adelsperger,970S.W.2dat487(holding D! thatasingleincidentoffalliblebehaviordoesnotsupplyastrongenoughreasontoreadjudicate 0"  custody). #l!   Trialcourtsnecessarilyhavebroaddiscretiontofashioncustodyandvisitationarrangements $D # thatbestsuittheuniquecircumstancesofeachcase.Parkerv.Parker,986S.W.2d557,563(Tenn. %0!$ 1999);Suttlesv.Suttles,748S.W.2d427,429(Tenn.1988);Helsonv.Cyrus,989S.W.2d704,707 &"% (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Itisnotourroleto tweak[thesedecisions]...inthehopesofachieving '#& amorereasonableresultthanthetrialcourt.Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3d82,88(Tenn.2001). (#' Atrialcourtsdecisionregardingcustodyorvisitationshouldbesetasideonlywhenit fallsoutside )$( thespectrumofrulingsthatmightreasonablyresultfromanapplicationofthecorrectlegalstandards |*%) totheevidencefoundintherecord.Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3dat88. h+&* Ї  ItisnotdifficulttounderstandMs.Eldersconcernabouthowherchildrenhavebeenfairing  withMr.Elderandhisnewwife.ShehadgoodcausetoobjecttothemannerinwhichMr.Elders  newwifehadtriedtodisciplineherdaughter.Butasfarasthisrecordshows,similarincidentshave  notoccurredsinceMr.Elderrequestedhisnewwifetofollowadifferentcoursewhendisciplining t thechildren.Whilewedonotcondonethestepmothersconduct,wedeclinetofindthatthese ` incidents,inandofthemselves,amounttoamaterialchangeinthechildrenscircumstancesthat L  requireareconsiderationoftheinitialcustodydecision.Basedonthisrecord,wehavenoreason 8  toconcludethatthetrialcourtbaseditsdecisionnottochangecustodyonthewronglegalprinciples $ t oronanincorrectapplicationoftheseprinciplestothefactsofthiscase.  ` @^^( III.   8  @ Mr.EldersMovetoTexas  $    Ms.ElderalsotakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdecisiontopermitMr.Eldertorelocatethe   childrentoTexas.Sheassertsthattheevidencedoesnotsupportthetrialcourtsconclusionsthat   Mr.EldersdecisiontomovetoTexaswasnotvindictiveandthatmovingthechildrentoTexas   wouldnotexposethemtoathreatofspecificandseriousharm.Wehavedeterminedthatthe p evidencefullysupportsthetrialcourtsdecisiontopermitMr.EldertomovethechildrentoTexas. \   WhenthiscasewastriedinFebruary1998,theprinciplesgoverningtherelocationofchildren 4 werederivedexclusivelyfromAabyv.Strange,924S.W.2d623(Tenn.1996).However,beforethe  p trialcourtentereditsfinalorder,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyenactedastatuteprovidinga  \ procedureandthegoverningprinciplesforrelocationcases.2 #  2      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.366108took H effectonMay7,19983 #  3      ׀and,therefore,governedthetrialcourtsorderthatwasfiledonMay12, 4 1998.6h #  4      ׀Accordingly,wewillreviewMs.Elderschallengetothetrialcourtsrelocationdecision   usingTenn.CodeAnn.366108.7  #  5              Tenn.CodeAnn.366108(d)reflectsalegislativelymandatedpresumptioninfavorof   relocatingcustodialparentswhospend thegreateramountoftimewiththechild.Itprovidesthat  8  8`   Theparentspendingthegreateramountoftimewiththechildshall t bepermittedtorelocatewiththechildunlessthecourtfinds:`` x` x 8  8`   (1)Therelocationdoesnothaveareasonablepurpose;L ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Therelocationwouldposeathreatofspecificandseriousharm 8  tothechildwhichoutweighsthethreatofharmtothechildofa $ t changeofcustody;or `` x` x 8  8`   (3)Theparentsmotiveforrelocatingwiththechildisvindictivein  L  thatitisintendedtodefeatordetervisitationrightsofthenon  8  custodialparentortheparentspendinglesstimewiththechild.$ ` x` x  ShouldthetrialcourtfindthatanyoneofthethreecircumstancesidentifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.   366108(d)exists,itmustthendeterminewhethertheproposedrelocationisinthechildsbest   interestsusingthefactorsincludedinTenn.CodeAnn.366108(e).     EventhoughthetrialcourtdidnotapplyTenn.CodeAnn.366108whenitrenderedits \ decision,itsfindingsareconsistentwithaconclusionthatMs.Elderfailedtoprovethatanyofthe H threecircumstancesidentifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.366108(d)exist.Thetrialcourtconcluded, 4 ineffect,thatMs.ElderhadfailedtoproveeitherthatthemovetoTexasposedathreatofspecific  p andseriousharmtothechildren[Tenn.CodeAnn.366108(d)(2)]orthatMr.Eldersmotivefor  \ movingtoTexaswiththechildrenwasvindictiveinthatitwasintendedtodefeatordeterher H visitationrights[Tenn.CodeAnn.366108(d)(3)].Theevidencesupportsthetrialcourts 4 conclusion.     Mr.Eldertestifiedthatheandhisnewfamilywere livingfromweektoweek.Because  hisemployerwasintheprocessofcuttingbackandlayingoffemployees,hewasnotsureabouthis  employmentfutureduetohislowseniorityamonghiscoworkers.Becauseofhislargerfamilyand  cloudedemploymentfuture,hebeganinvestigatingjobopportunitiesintheHuntsville,Alabamaarea l becausehepreferredtoremaininFranklinCounty.Mr.Elderssearchforlocalemploymentwas X  unsuccessful,butheheardthroughwordofmouthaboutajobopportunityinHouston.Whenhe D! pursuedthislead,theHoustoncompanyofferedhimajobandanover40%increaseinsalary.Mr. 0"  Elderstatedthathisdecisiontoacceptthejobwas strictlyeconomicalandwasmotivatedbyhis #l! desire toprovideformywholefamily.Likethetrialcourt,wehavenoreasontodoubtthatMr. $X" Elderneededtoincreasehisincometomaintainthestandardoflivinghewantedtoprovideforhis $D # family.Accordingly,therecordfullysupportstheconclusionthatMr.Elderhadareasonable %0!$ purposeformoving[Tenn.CodeAnn.366108(d)(1)]. &"%   Ms.Elderfailedtopresentanyevidencedemonstratingthesortsofspecificandseriousharm (#' describedinTenn.CodeAnn.366108(d).Becausethesecircumstancesarenotintendedtobe )$( anexhaustivelistofthecircumstancesthatjustifydenyingacustodialparentsrequesttorelocate, |*%) wehavereviewedtherecordinanefforttoidentifyanyotherevidencethatthechildrenmightbe h+&* exposedtosomesortofotherspecificharminTexasthattheywouldnotbeexposedtoinFranklin  County.Wehavefoundnosuchcircumstances.Accordingly,weagreewiththetrialcourts  conclusionthatMs.Elderfailedtopresentevidencetosupportherclaimthatthechildrenwillbe  exposedtoathreatofspecificandseriousharmiftheyaccompanyMr.EldertoTexas. t   Finally,weturntoMs.EldersassertionthatMr.Elderisbeingvindictiveandthathischief L  motiveformovingtoTexasistofrustratehervisitationrights.Thereisnoquestionthatthe 8  relationshipbetweenMr.ElderandMs.ElderfromtheirdivorceinApril1997throughtheFebruary $ t 1998hearinghadnotbeenharmonious.ItisalsoevidentthatMr.Elderhadnotbeenassupportive  ` ofMs.Elderseffortstovisitwiththechildreninpersonandbytelephoneasheshouldhavebeen.  L  However,onbalance,Mr.Eldersconductdoesnotrequireustoconcludethatheaccepted  8  employmentinHoustontogetbackatMs.Elderandtofrustratehereffortstovisitherchildren. $    ThiscourtunderstandsfullwellthatitwillnotbeeasyforMs.Eldertobeseparatedbysuch   adistancefromhertwoyoungchildren.However,whenparentsdecidetodivorce,theysurrender   themaritalprivilegeofjointlyrearingtheirchildren,andthecourtsmustapportionthechildraising   responsibilitiesbetweenthem.Wallv.Wall,907S.W.2d829,834(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Oncethe p courtshavefashionedacustodyandvisitationarrangementinwhichoneparentisawardedprimary \ physicalcustody,thedecisionsregardingthechildrenseducationandresidencefalltothecustodial H parent.Rustv.Rust,864S.W.2d52,55(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Ms.Eldercertainlymaycontinue 4 tovisitthechildrenandtakepartintheirlives,butshemaynot,underthefactsinthisrecord,insist  p thattheybekeptnearher.  \ @dd) IV.  4   Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurther   proceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoSuzetteMarieElderandhersurety  forwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.     `     h   _____________________________ D!    `     h   WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE