ÿWPC óÌ×äO™Ë¯ùJƒóírŒ—³t®ùJGþ°\™N’liàÕ¡ÐÅ?ÿQp!þ…9ƒ6L¶ZŠíMÕMÂVöX5[Uø|]tÆ[7­Ÿý(›¨Ãåœ68E¢“§sn éæŒ-LØv aA®UÍ‹µS¯½ó¶½\*á׋T/æÊ;ØÍ-Æ(£®Î]šGz€iŸ¼ hÝåÐÂ0ÓoùE³åàeGTßKÉi÷sÛpka‚×Ûæ1Іi+‡tp<—ãîéØœËäTVÅÉNf‘ò±kp\‡<´†v³èO¿<³’ ÷Ëo”yîÝsìbݧ%RO'‡&“ðɤ§EHÂ1 ¨´´‘ÊÞY7<) “Õè ¬ 6TŠŸ]sà¢Úïg- I±+Pw9fA§ÄÂÿÁÅ,å ãåln0†ñÎ- ç<Öç“š½ò1»PüäìÄÈ>ëÀwésDv:$0ëì]g ¯. KàT4+}±YŽs»ERq˜‘Šv6ÚI·6Æúq¥Œ3ŠF-?¾¦ø¢ž)F—«[I(±P¬ŸIÜæé§ÀÈê_Íg¢.¨NyÒ8®,;nIEc+íÕ»ìO;R¢M¤bf¿†ÇÒKïágb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ ™ Ƴ ÆyÆ?ÆNËË 0DÍEAûT¾OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOb                                     0ë B 0¤ D5Á D-ö 0K## ASnÆÁ 0¤‡ 0D+ A«o»ý|i1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0  P.J.DunawayLaFolletteGalactosemia I]t T]he VeyLoudont]rialc]ustodyGaskillRuylecaregiverLambernedisLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 7Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€time€in€which€to€file€a€Rule€11€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòCummingsóó€had€not€yet€expiredÐ ° Ðwhen€our€Opinion€in€the€present€case€was€released.€€ ñÝ ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€does€not€mean€that€Mother€could€not€have€been€held€in€contempt€for€refusing€to€obey€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ ° Ðorder€that€she€relocate€to€Tennessee.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Frye€v.€Fryeóó,€80€S.W.3d€15,€18„19€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002)€(ð ð[I]n€òòStateÐ tÄ Ðv.€Jonesóó,€726€S.W.2d€515€(Tenn.€1987),€our€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€the€principle€that€with€proper€jurisdiction,€ððevenÐ 8ˆ Ðthough€the€trial€judgeððs€order€is€erroneous€and€is€reversed€on€appeal,€an€adjudication€of€contempt€for€failure€to€obey€thatÐ üL Ðorder€will€be€sustained.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€517.ðð). ´Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€òòÔ_ÔRoacheÔ_Ôóó,€we€went€on€to€add€that€ð ða€custodial€parent's€actions€which€interfere€with€the€relationship€betweenÐ ° Ðthe€child€and€non-custodial€parent€may€constitute€a€material€change€of€circumstancesðð€for€purposes€of€changing€custodyÐ tÄ Ðafter€a€final€custody€order€has€been€entered.€€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€756,€at€**€18,€19.€€While€what€is€involved€hereÐ 8ˆ Ðis€an€initial€custody€determination€rather€than€a€change€of€custody€determination,€the€principle€remains€the€same.€- ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»Ô d(|3?y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N]»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼N]»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îX¬î»¼N]ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼N]»îîX¬ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€22,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼N]ÔÌò òÔ#†¼N]»XX ÷#ÔBRENT€G.€JOHNSON€v.€KIMBERLY€S.€JOHNSONÔ‡X X»¼N]Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ#†¼N]»XX d#ÔÔ€X X»¼N]ÔAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Union€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€3935€€€€€€Billy€Joe€White,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„01962„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€NOVEMBER€9,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aßó óÐ }Í  ÐÓ  ÓÌÌBrent€G.€Johnson€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Kimberly€S.€Johnson€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€married€with€their€only€child,Ð d´ Ða€daughter,€being€born€in€October€of€2000.€€The€child€was€born€with€a€rare€metabolic€disorderÐ P  Ðresulting€in€developmental€delays,€among€other€things.€€The€parties€separated€shortly€after€theirÐ <Œ Ðdaughter€was€born.€€Mother€then€moved€to€West€Virginia€with€the€partiesðð€daughter.€€Father€filed€forÐ (x Ðdivorce€and€Mother€counterclaimed€also€seeking€a€divorce.€€Both€parties€sought€to€be€designated€asÐ d Ðthe€primary€residential€parent€of€their€young€daughter.€€At€a€hearing€to€determine€temporary€custody,Ð P Ðthe€parties€reached€an€agreement€whereby€Mother€would€return€to€Tennessee€within€three€monthsÐ ì< Ðand€Mother€would€be€designated€as€the€primary€residential€parent€pending€the€trial.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ Ø( Ðentered€an€order€setting€forth€this€accord€and€establishing€Fatherððs€visitation€schedule€pendingÐ Ä ÐMotherððs€return.€€Mother€reneged€on€her€agreement,€refused€to€return€to€Tennessee,€and€then€setÐ ° Ðabout€to€systematically€and€intentionally€prevent€Father€from€having€any€meaningful€co„parentingÐ œì Ðtime.€€The€Trial€Court€later€entered€a€final€judgment€designating€Mother€as€the€primary€residentialÐ ˆØ Ðparent,€but€requiring€Mother€to€return€with€the€child€to€Tennessee€and€to€stop€interfering€withÐ tÄ ÐFatherððs€co„parenting€time.€€Mother€appeals€claiming€the€Trial€Court€was€without€authority€to€orderÐ `° Ðher€to€return€to€Tennessee.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€order€designating€Mother€as€the€primary€residentialÐ L œ Ðparent€is€affirmed€if€Mother€voluntarily€returns€to€Tennessee.€€If€Mother€chooses€not€to€return,€theÐ 8!ˆ  ÐTrial€Courtððs€judgment€designating€Mother€as€the€primary€residential€parent€is€vacated,€and€the€TrialÐ $"t! ÐCourt€is€instructed€to€determine€which€parent€then€should€be€designated€as€the€primary€residentialÐ #`" Ðparent€consistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€child,€with€the€understanding€that€should€primaryÐ ü#L# Ðresidential€custody€remain€with€Mother€in€West€Virginia,€Mother€will€continue€to€do€her€best€toÐ è$8 $ Ðprevent€Father€from€having€any€meaningful€relationship€with€his€daughter.€€Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌÌà@üü ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ChanceryˆÐ ˜(è#( Ðà@  ìàCourt€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€RemandedˆÐ „)Ô$) Ðòòó óÌÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,€óóandÐ H,˜', ÐòòSharon€G.€Lee,€J.,€óójoined.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡Johnny€V.€Dunaway,€LaFollette,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Kimberly€S.€Johnson.Ð ° ÐÌÌD.€Vance€Martin,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Brent€G.€Johnson.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ  ` ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€and€Father€were€married€on€May€28,€1995.€€The€parties€lived€in€UnionÐ À  ÐCounty,€Tennessee,€when€their€daughter€was€born€on€October€23,€2000,€but€the€parties€separated€twoÐ ¬ü  Ðmonths€later.€€The€partiesðð€daughter€was€born€with€a€rare€metabolic€disorder€known€as€Galactosemia.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€child€has€a€variant€form€of€Galactosemia€which€is€less€severe,€but€which€nevertheless€hasÐ „Ô  Ðresulted€in€her€exhibiting€developmental€delays€in€speech€and€motor€skills,€as€well€as€social€andÐ pÀ Ðemotional€delays.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€February€of€2001,€Father€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Union€County€Chancery€CourtÐ 4„ Ðseeking€a€divorce€from€Mother.€€Father€still€lived€in€Union€County€when€the€complaint€was€filed,Ð  p Ðbut€Mother€recently€had€moved€to€West€Virginia€and€had€taken€the€young€child€with€her.€€MotherÐ  \ Ðanswered€the€complaint€and€filed€a€counterclaim€asserting€that€she€was€entitled€to€a€divorce.€€FatherÐ øH Ðand€Mother€each€sought€to€be€designated€the€primary€residential€parent€of€their€young€daughter.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àA€hearing€was€held€in€May€of€2001€and€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€Order€in€JulyÐ ¼  Ðmemorializing€its€findings€from€that€hearing.€€In€relevant€part,€the€Order€provides€as€follows:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[I]t€duly€appeared€to€the€Court€that€temporary€custody€of€the€partiesððÐ €Ð Ðminor€child€should€be€placed€with€the€Mother,€that€the€Father€shouldÐ l¼ Ðhave€co„parenting€time€with€the€child€under€one€of€two€arrangementsÐ X ¨ Ðthat€were€presented€to€counsel€and€the€parties,€with€the€hope€that€theÐ D!” Ðparties€could,€after€discussion,€decide€upon€an€arrangement€for€co„Ð 0"€  Ðparenting,€and€absent€an€agreement,€the€Court€would€decree€anÐ #l! Ðarrangement.€€Whereupon,€the€parties€discussed€the€options€outlinedÐ $X" Ðby€the€Court€and€reached€an€accord€concerning€which€of€the€optionsÐ ô$D # Ðunder€which€they€would€proceed,€and€it€is€therefore€ORDERED,Ð à%0!$ ÐADJUDGED,€and€DECREED€as€follows:ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à1.€€The€Mother€is€hereby€granted€custody€of€the€partiesðð€childÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð8ð€pending€the€trial€of€this€cause;Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à2.€€The€Mother€shall€have€a€period€of€three€months€from€theÐ ° Ðâ âdate€of€the€hearing€to€make€arrangements€to€obtain€employment€andÐ œì Ðresume€her€residence€in€Tennessee.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌThe€Trial€Court€then€established€Fatherððs€co„parenting€time€which€the€Trial€Court€noted€wouldÐ `° Ðprovide€Father€the€opportunity€to€educate€himself€regarding€treatment€of€the€childððs€medicalÐ L œ Ðcondition.€€Upon€Motherððs€return€to€Tennessee,€Father€would€begin€exercising€standard€co„parentingÐ 8 ˆ Ðtime.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àLess€than€a€mother€after€the€above€Order€was€entered,€Father€filed€a€Petition€forÐ ü L  ÐContempt€claiming€that€Mother€was€refusing€to€allow€him€co„parenting€time€in€violation€of€the€JulyÐ è 8  Ð2001€Order.€€Six€days€after€Father€filed€the€Petition€for€Contempt€and€one€day€before€the€deadlineÐ Ô$  Ðagreed€to€by€Mother€for€her€return€to€Tennessee,€Mother€filed€a€motion€asking€the€Trial€Court€toÐ À  Ðreconsider€its€previous€Order€requiring€her€to€move€back€to€Tennessee.€€According€to€Mother:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[At€the€May€16€hearing,]€this€Court€instructed€[Mother]€toÐ „Ô  Ðseek€employment,€temporary€living€arrangements,€and€child€careÐ pÀ Ðarrangements€in€Tennessee.€€[Mother]€has€not€been€able€to€complyÐ \¬ Ðwith€this€directive€and€does€not€have€the€economic€ability€to€relocate.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àFurther,€it€is€not€in€the€best€interest€of€the€partiesðð€minor€childÐ  p Ðto€relocate€from€West€Virginia€back€to€Tennessee.€Ð \` x` x ÐÌMother€also€filed€a€response€to€the€Petition€for€Contempt,€generally€denying€that€she€engaged€in€anyÐ ä4 Ðcontemptuous€behavior€or€that€she€interfered€with€Fatherððs€co„parenting€time.€€Father€later€filedÐ Ð  Ðanother€Petition€for€Contempt€based€on€Motherððs€failure€to€return€to€Tennessee€within€the€time€frameÐ ¼  Ðas€agreed€to€by€the€parties€and€as€previously€ordered€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àA€hearing€was€held€on€the€various€pending€motions€and€the€Trial€Court€entered€anÐ €Ð ÐOrder€on€March€12,€2002,€setting€forth€its€findings€and€conclusions.€€Due€to€the€nature€of€some€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€Trial€Courtððs€findings,€we€will€quote€at€length€from€this€Order:€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à1.€€This€case€is€the€same€situation€as€on€May€16,€2001.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€has€made€a€mistake€in€hearing€this€matter€any€further.€€TheÐ #l! ÐOrder€of€May€16€is,€in€all€respects,€confirmed.€€(For€the€record,€thisÐ $X" Ðmatter€gets€down€to€what€the€Court€faced€then,€that€ninety„nine€timesÐ ô$D # Ðout€of€a€hundred€if€a€Mother€moves€out€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,€theÐ à%0!$ ÐCourt€approves€it,€it€being€ordinarily€to€the€best€interest€of€the€child,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€in€most€cases€it€is.)и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à2.€€In€this€case€weððve€had€a€terrible€experience€with€visitation.€Ð )à$( ÐThere€has€been€a€concerted€effort€by€Mother€to€stop€and€interfere€withÐ |*Ì%) ÐFatherððs€visitation.€€There€has€been€no€meaningful€visitation,€noÐ h+¸&* Ðmeaningful€co„parenting€in€this€matter.€€Thereððs€been€no€meaningfulÐ ° Ðeffort€to€comply€with€this€Order€of€May€16,€and€had€there€been€aÐ œì Ðmeaningful€visitation€type€situation,€at€least€some€co„parenting€at€aÐ ˆØ Ðdistance,€this€Court€would€have€considered€other€alternatives.€€TheÐ tÄ ÐCourt€would€have€considered€that€back€in€May.€€Thereððs€a€lot€of€goodÐ `° Ðreasons€why€Mother€should€not€have€been€back€in€Knoxville,€shouldÐ L œ Ðnot€have€to€be€in€Knoxville.€€But€not€only€did€the€Court€have€half€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðday€or€more€of€proof€in€May,€the€Court€has€about€the€same€proofÐ $ t Ðtoday€that€visitation€is€totally€impossible€under€the€circumstances€ofÐ  ` Ðher€being€in€West€Virginia.€€Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à3.€€This€child€certainly€is€in€special€circumstances.€€This€ladyÐ Ô$  Ðis€an€overprotective,€if€anything,€Mother.€€Thatððs€not€necessarilyÐ À  Ðbad.ð8ð.€€Sheððs€a€good€Mother.ð8ð€But€itððs€harmful€to€a€child€to€alienateÐ ¬ü  Ðit€from€its€Father€and€from€his€family€in€most€situations.€€The€CourtÐ ˜è  Ðfinds€that€this€child€has€not€been€given€any€chance€to€be€with€[her]Ð „Ô  ÐFather.€€It€is€insulting€to€go€to€a€home€of€an€in„law€where€ð!ð€this€youngÐ pÀ Ðlady€lived€with€the€grandparents€in€this€case€for€some€period€ofÐ \¬ Ðtime.ð8ð€€They€go€to€her€home€and€they€find€this€note€shushing€them.€Ð H˜ Ðð ðMother€and€baby€are€taking€an€afternoon€nap.€€We€will€call€youÐ 4„ Ðwhen€we€wake€up.ðð€€Thatððs€not€so€bad€except€these€people€justÐ  p Ðtraveled€five€hours€for€visitation,€and€then€thereððs€not€a€call€made.€Ð  \ ÐBut€then€another€note,€ð ðPlease€leave€purse,€bags,€weapons,€mace,€andÐ øH Ðall€recording€equipment€in€your€vehicle.€€Please€remove€your€shoesÐ ä4 Ðbefore€entering.ðð€€The€Court€would€not€enter€under€thoseÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances,€but€I€guess€the€Father€has€to€if€he€wants€to€visit€hisÐ ¼  Ðchild.ð8ð€€[There]€will€never€be€a€meaningful€relationship€with€thisÐ ¨ø ÐFather€and€this€child€under€the€circumstances€as€they€now€exist.ð8ð€Ð ”ä Ð[T]he€Mother€in€this€case€has€pushed€this€matter€almost€to€the€pointÐ €Ð Ðof€challenging€this€Court€and€saying,€ð ðWe€donððt€care€what€you€sayÐ l¼ Ðand€we€donððt€care€what€you€think.€€This€is€what€Iððm€going€to€do.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐAnd€the€Court€doesnððt€like€to€be€challenged.€€The€Court€feels€veryÐ D!” Ðchallenged€in€this€matter.€€That€all€these€preparations€have€been€notÐ 0"€  Ðto€come€to€Tennessee,€not€to€give€the€father€any€information€on€howÐ #l! Ðto€feed€and€take€care€of€this€child.€€The€Court€personally€thinks€itÐ $X" Ðwould€be€a€crime€almost€for€this€child€to€be€taken€away€from€itsÐ ô$D # Ðmother,€but€sometimes€crimes€have€to€be€committed.€€This€MotherÐ à%0!$ Ðshould€be€in€custody€of€this€child,€but€there€are€other€principals€(sic)Ð Ì&"% Ðinvolved€also.€€This€Father€has€a€right€to€some€near€equal€co„Ð ¸'#& Ðparenting€time,€and€it€has€been€denied€and€denied€intentionally,€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Courtððs€going€to€do€something€about€it.€Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐThe€Trial€Court€then€reaffirmed€its€previous€order€requiring€Mother€to€return€to€Tennessee€and€setÐ ° Ðâ âforth€Fatherððs€co„parenting€time€pending€Motherððs€return.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€March€2002€order€was€entered,€Father€filed€several€more€motions€claimingÐ tÄ ÐMother€still€was€refusing€to€relocate€to€Tennessee€and€was€continuing€to€interfere€with€his€abilityÐ `° Ðto€exercise€co„parenting€time€with€his€child.€€A€final€hearing€was€conducted€in€April€of€2003.€€TheÐ L œ ÐTrial€Court€admitted€into€evidence€a€psychological€evaluation€which€had€been€prepared€by€Dr.€VeyÐ 8 ˆ ÐMichael€Nordquist,€but€refused€to€allow€Mother€to€introduce€any€other€additional€evidence€onÐ $ t Ðparenting€issues.€€According€to€the€Trial€Court,€it€already€had€heard€enough€on€these€issues€at€theÐ  ` Ðprevious€hearings.€€In€its€Final€Judgment,€the€Trial€Court€addressed€the€various€matters€typicallyÐ ü L  Ðpresented€in€divorce€proceedings,€such€as€distribution€of€the€marital€property€and€the€like.€€WithÐ è 8  Ðregard€to€custody€of€the€minor€child,€the€Trial€Court€designated€Mother€as€the€primary€residentialÐ Ô$  Ðparent,€ordered€Mother€to€relocate€to€Tennessee€within€60€days€of€its€judgment€becoming€final,€andÐ À  Ðset€forth€Fatherððs€co„parenting€schedule.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àEight€days€after€the€Final€Judgment€was€entered,€Father€filed€another€Petition€forÐ „Ô  ÐContempt€claiming€Mother€denied€him€visitation€on€the€weekend€of€July€4,€2003.€€Father€furtherÐ pÀ Ðclaimed€Mother€was€denying€him€telephone€contact€with€the€child.€€Father€filed€yet€another€PetitionÐ \¬ Ðfor€Contempt€after€Mother€allegedly€denied€him€visitation€on€the€weekend€of€July€18,€2003,€as€wellÐ H˜ Ðas€his€summer€visitation€which€was€to€take€place€in€August.€€A€hearing€was€held€on€Fatherððs€motionsÐ 4„ Ðand€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€Order€giving€Father€additional€visitation€with€his€child€to€make€upÐ  p Ðfor€the€time€that€was€missed€in€July€through€September.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€appeals€raising€the€following€two€issues€which€we€quote€from€her€brief:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.à ¸ àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€by€entering€an€Order€compellingÐ ¼  ÐAppellant€to€move€back€to€Tennessee€from€West€Virginia€simply€toÐ ¨ø Ðmake€it€easier€for€Appellee€to€have€visitation,€where€such€a€move€isÐ ”ä Ðnot€in€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€child?ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.à ¸ àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€by€refusing€to€receive€testimony€fromÐ X ¨ ÐAppellantððs€witnesses€at€the€trial€on€the€merits€of€this€case,€conductedÐ D!” ÐApril€22,€2003,€as€evidenced€by€the€offer€of€proof,€which€testimonyÐ 0"€  Ðhad€not€been€heard€previously€and€which€had€a€direct€bearing€on€theÐ #l! Ðwelfare€of€the€minor€child?€€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ )à$( Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ h+¸&* ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€€In€applying€this€standard€of€review,€we€are€mindfulÐ ° Ðthat€"[t]rial€courts€are€vested€with€wide€discretion€in€matters€of€child€custody"€and€that€"the€appellateÐ œì Ðcourts€will€not€interfere€except€upon€a€showing€of€erroneous€exercise€of€that€discretion."€€òòKoch€v.Ð ˆØ ÐKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Because€"[c]ustody€and€visitationÐ tÄ Ðdeterminations€often€hinge€on€subtle€factors,€including€the€parents'€demeanor€and€credibility€duringÐ `° Ðthe€divorce€proceedings€themselves,"€appellate€courts€"are€reluctant€to€second-guess€a€trial€court'sÐ L œ Ðdecisions."€€òòGaskill€v.€Gaskillóó,€936€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€The€courts'€paramountÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcern€in€a€custody€case€is€the€welfare€and€best€interest€of€the€parties'€minor€children.€€òòRuyle€v.Ð $ t ÐRuyleóó,€928€S.W.2d€439,€441€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€€This€determinationÐ  ` Ðnecessarily€turns€on€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€€òòKochóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€575.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)€requires€a€trial€court€to€consider€all€relevant€factorsÐ Ô$  Ðwhen€making€a€custody€determination,€including€but€not€limited€to:€Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€€The€love,€affection€and€emotional€ties€existing€between€theÐ ˜è  Ðparents€and€child;Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€€The€disposition€of€the€parents€to€provide€the€child€with€food,Ð \¬ Ðclothing,€medical€care,€education€and€other€necessary€care€and€theÐ H˜ Ðdegree€to€which€a€parent€has€been€the€primary€caregiver;Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€€The€importance€of€continuity€in€the€child's€life€and€the€length€ofÐ  \ Ðtime€the€child€has€lived€in€a€stable,€satisfactory€environment;Ð øH Ðprovided,€that€where€there€is€a€finding,€under€ðð€36-6-106(8),€of€childÐ ä4 Ðabuse,€as€defined€in€ðð€39-15-401€or€ðð€39-15-402,€or€child€sexualÐ Ð  Ðabuse,€as€defined€in€ðð€37-1-602,€by€one€(1)€parent,€and€that€aÐ ¼  Ðnon-perpetrating€parent€has€relocated€in€order€to€flee€the€perpetratingÐ ¨ø Ðparent,€that€such€relocation€shall€not€weigh€against€an€award€ofÐ ”ä Ðcustody;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€€The€stability€of€the€family€unit€of€the€parents;ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€€The€mental€and€physical€health€of€the€parents;Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€€The€home,€school€and€community€record€of€the€child;Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)€€The€reasonable€preference€of€the€child€if€twelve€(12)€years€of€ageÐ à%0!$ Ðor€older.€€The€court€may€hear€the€preference€of€a€younger€child€uponÐ Ì&"% Ðrequest.€€The€preferences€of€older€children€should€normally€be€givenÐ ¸'#& Ðgreater€weight€than€those€of€younger€children;Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)€€Evidence€of€physical€or€emotional€abuse€to€the€child,€to€the€otherÐ |*Ì%) Ðparent€or€to€any€other€person;€provided,€that€where€there€areÐ h+¸&* Ðallegations€that€one€(1)€parent€has€committed€child€abuse,€[as€definedÐ ° Ðin€ðð€39-15-401€or€ðð€39-15-402],€or€child€sexual€abuse,€[as€defined€inÐ œì Ððð€37-1-602],€against€a€family€member,€the€court€shall€consider€allÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€relevant€to€the€physical€and€emotional€safety€of€the€child,Ð tÄ Ðand€determine,€by€a€clear€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€whetherÐ `° Ðsuch€abuse€has€occurred.€€The€court€shall€include€in€its€decision€aÐ L œ Ðwritten€finding€of€all€evidence,€and€all€findings€of€facts€connectedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthereto.€€In€addition,€the€court€shall,€where€appropriate,€refer€anyÐ $ t Ðissues€of€abuse€to€the€juvenile€court€for€further€proceedings;Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(9)€€The€character€and€behavior€of€any€other€person€who€resides€in€orÐ è 8  Ðfrequents€the€home€of€a€parent€and€such€person's€interactions€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðchild;€€andÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(10)€€Each€parent's€past€and€potential€for€future€performance€ofÐ ˜è  Ðparenting€responsibilities,€including€the€willingness€and€ability€ofÐ „Ô  Ðeach€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuingÐ pÀ Ðparent-child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,Ð \¬ Ðconsistent€with€the€best€interest€of€the€child.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition€to€the€foregoing,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36-6-101(d)€establishes€"theÐ  p Ðlegislative€intent€that€the€gender€of€the€party€seeking€custody€shall€not€give€rise€to€a€presumption€ofÐ  \ Ðparental€fitness€or€cause€a€presumption€or€constitute€a€factor€in€favor€or€against€the€award€of€custodyÐ øH Ðto€such€party."Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€argues€on€appeal€that€the€Trial€Court€was€without€authority€to€require€her€toÐ ¼  Ðreturn€to€Tennessee.€€Very€recently,€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€released€its€opinion€inÐ ¨ø ÐòòCummings€v.€Cummingsóó,€No.€M2003„00086„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€676€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ”ä ÐApp.€Oct.€15,€2004).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòCummingsóó,€we€addressed€the€propriety€of€a€trial€courtððs€injunctionÐ €Ð Ðprohibiting€the€mother€from€moving€outside€of€Williamson€County€absent€the€express€consent€of€theÐ l¼ Ðfather.€€In€vacating€the€injunction,€we€stated€we€could€find€ð ðno€basis€in€law€for€the€trial€court'sÐ X ¨ Ðinjunction€preventing€an€adult€citizen€from€living€where€she€may€choose.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€at€*€46.€€We€went€onÐ D!” Ðto€add€that€to€the€extent€the€injunction€was€in€response€to€a€concern€about€the€mother€relocating€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€future,€that€situation€was€governed€by€the€parental€relocation€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð #l! Ððð36-6-108.€€Even€that€statute,€however,€was€ð ðnot€designed€to€give€the€courts€the€authority€to€dictateÐ $X" Ðwhere€divorced€parents€must€live,€but€only€to€protect€the€visitation€rights€of€non-custodial€parentsÐ ô$D # Ðin€situations€where€the€custodial€parent€wishes€to€relocate€to€another€state€or€more€than€100€milesÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âfrom€the€residence€of€the€non-custodial€parent.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€at€**€46,€47.€€We€agree€with€Mother€that€theÐ Ì&"% ÐTrial€Court€was€without€authority€to€order€her€to€move€back€to€Tennessee.€€However,€resolution€ofÐ ° Ðthis€appeal€remains€far€from€over.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àIt€is€important€to€emphasize€exactly€what€the€Trial€Court€ultimately€held,€i.e.,€that€itÐ tÄ Ðwas€in€the€childððs€best€interest€for€two€events€to€occur.€€Specifically,€(1)€that€Mother€be€designatedÐ `° Ðas€the€primary€residential€parent;€and€(2)€that€Mother€return€to€Tennessee€with€the€child.€€With€regardÐ L œ Ðto€the€first€aspect€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€ruling,€Mother,€obviously,€agrees€with€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðconclusion€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€for€her€to€be€designated€the€primary€residentialÐ $ t Ðparent.€€On€appeal,€Father€does€not€challenge€this€aspect€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€ruling€and€does€notÐ  ` Ðargue€that€he€should€have€been€designated€the€primary€residential€parent€if€Mother€relocates€toÐ ü L  ÐTennessee.€€Unfortunately,€the€two€aspects€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€ruling€are€intertwined€and€cannotÐ è 8  Ðeffectively€be€separated€at€this€point€because€the€Trial€Court€did€not€state€what€would€be€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðchildððs€best€interest€if€Mother€refuses€to€relocate€to€Tennessee.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€argues€that€even€if€the€Trial€Court€could€require€her€to€relocate€to€Tennessee,Ð ˜è  Ðsuch€a€move€would€not€be€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€€At€trial,€Mother€went€to€great€lengths€arguingÐ „Ô  Ðthe€medical€care€her€daughter€was€receiving€in€West€Virginia€was€superior€to€that€which€is€availableÐ pÀ Ðin€the€East€Tennessee€area.€€Father€disagrees€and€argues€that€the€medical€care€providers€in€EastÐ \¬ ÐTennessee€certainly€are€able€to€address€his€daughterððs€special€needs.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àOne€of€the€childððs€treating€physicians€is€Dr.€Ann€Lambernedis,€a€pediatrician€with€aÐ  p Ðmedical€practice€in€Scott€Depot,€West€Virginia.€€Dr.€Lambernedis€has€been€treating€the€partiesðð€childÐ  \ Ðsince€February€of€2001.€€According€to€Dr.€Lambernedisðð€deposition€testimony,€she€did€ð ðnot€have€anyÐ øH Ðreservations€that€there€are€adequate€people€[in€East€Tennessee],€medical€physicians€as€well€asÐ ä4 Ðtherapists€who€can€provide€the€òòsameóó€care.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€When€asked€if€there€was€any€reasonÐ Ð  Ðwhy€Mother€could€not€return€to€East€Tennessee€and€adequately€care€for€the€child€with€the€presentÐ ¼  Ðmedical€community,€Dr.€Lambernedis€responded:€ð ðFrom€a€medical€standpoint,€I€donððt€see€aÐ ¨ø Ðproblem.ðð€€Dr.€Lambernedis€further€testified€that€she€did€not€have€any€reason€to€believe€that€FatherÐ ”ä Ðcould€not€get€ð ðup€to€speedðð€on€matters€such€as€the€restrictions€in€the€childððs€diet€or€the€monitoringÐ €Ð Ðand€scheduling€processes.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€discussions€with€Motherððs€counsel€following€opening€arguments,€the€Trial€CourtÐ D!” Ðstated€that€the€medical€proof€established€proper€medical€care€was€available€both€in€Knoxville€andÐ 0"€  ÐOak€Ridge.€€Motherððs€counsel€responded€that€ð ð[o]bviously,€there€are€good€programs€available€inÐ #l! ÐTennessee,€but€we€have€folks€[in€West€Virginia]€that€have€been€working€with€her€on€a€dailyÐ $X" Ðbasisð8ð.ðð€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àWe€are€confident€that€if€the€Trial€Court€had€any€reservations€about€the€quality€ofÐ ° Ðâ âmedical€care€available€to€the€child€in€East€Tennessee,€it€would€not€have€required€Mother€to€relocate.€Ð œì ÐIn€our€opinion,€when€the€Trial€Court€required€Mother€to€relocate€to€Tennessee,€albeit€incorrectly,€itÐ ˆØ Ðimplicitly€agreed€with€Father€regarding€the€quality€of€medical€care€available€to€the€child€in€EastÐ tÄ ÐTennessee.€€We€have€reviewed€the€medical€related€proof€contained€in€the€record€and€conclude€thatÐ `° Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€weigh€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€theÐ L œ Ðmedical€care€available€to€the€child€in€the€East€Tennessee€area€is€such€that€the€partiesðð€daughter€canÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceive€appropriate€medical€care€here.€€We€reach€this€conclusion€even€after€considering€the€proofÐ $ t Ðwhich€Mother€claims€was€excluded€improperly€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Therefore,€even€if€the€Trial€CourtÐ  ` Ðerred€when€excluding€this€medical€related€evidence,€we€hold€that€any€such€error€was€harmless.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àMother€also€claims€that€she€does€not€have€the€financial€ability€to€move€to€Tennessee.€Ð Ô$  ÐMother€is€a€graduate€of€Marshall€University€in€Huntington,€West€Virginia.€€Mother€worked€forÐ À  Ðvarious€pharmaceutical€companies€for€over€thirteen€years.€€Mother€earned€an€annual€salary€in€excessÐ ¬ü  Ðof€$90,000€at€her€most€recent€job€prior€to€moving€to€West€Virginia.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Mother€wasÐ ˜è  Ðworking€at€home€on€a€part„time€basis€earning€$6.25€per€hour.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€Trial€Court€issued€its€final€judgment,€it€also€distributed€the€marital€propertyÐ \¬ Ðand€its€ruling€in€this€regard€is€not€challenged€on€appeal.€€The€Trial€Court€ordered€the€maritalÐ H˜ Ðresidence€and€a€1995€Malibu€boat€be€sold€at€public€auction.€€The€Trial€Court€awarded€Mother€a€lienÐ 4„ Ðin€the€amount€of€$43,504.30€against€the€proceeds€from€the€sale.€€Any€remaining€money€was€to€beÐ  p Ðdivided€equally€by€the€parties.€€The€marital€residence€and€the€boat€eventually€were€sold€at€publicÐ  \ Ðauction€for€a€combined€total€of€$247,500.€€Although€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record,€theÐ øH Ðoutstanding€balance€on€the€mortgage€for€the€house€was€between€$192,000€and€$195,000.€€There€wasÐ ä4 Ðno€indebtedness€on€the€boat.€€The€sale€price€for€the€house€and€boat€certainly€appears€to€this€CourtÐ Ð  Ðto€be€sufficient€to€cover€Motherððs€lien€of€$43,504.30,€even€after€deducting€the€expenses€incurred€inÐ ¼  Ðauctioning€these€items.€€The€point€being,€$43,504.30€will€go€far€if€Mother€does€decide€to€move€toÐ ¨ø ÐTennessee.€€Further,€we€find€no€support€in€the€record€for€Motherððs€position€that€her€financialÐ ”ä Ðsituation€would€be€any€better€in€West€Virginia€than€it€would€be€in€Tennessee.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€remand,€Mother€shall€have€fifteen€(15)€days€from€the€date€this€Opinion€becomesÐ X ¨ Ðfinal€in€which€to€notify€the€Trial€Court€whether€she€voluntarily€will€return€with€the€child€to€the€EastÐ D!” ÐTennessee€area.€€If€Mother€indicates€that€she€is€going€to€return,€her€relocation€must€be€completedÐ 0"€  Ðwithin€sixty€(60)€days€from€the€date€this€Opinion€becomes€final.€€Assuming€Mother€has€relocatedÐ #l! Ðwithin€this€time€frame,€then€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€designating€Mother€as€the€primary€residentialÐ $X" Ðparent€is€affirmed.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€we€have€reversed€that€portion€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€which€orderedÐ Ì&"% ÐMother€to€return€to€Tennessee,€we€must€discuss€what€is€to€happen€on€remand€if€Mother€chooses€toÐ ¸'#& Ðremain€in€West€Virginia€or€does€not€accomplish€her€relocation€in€a€timely€manner€under€thisÐ ¤(ô#' ÐOpinion.€€If€either€of€these€situations€occur,€then€the€portion€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€whichÐ )à$( Ðdesignated€Mother€as€the€primary€residential€parent€is€vacated.€€The€Trial€Court€then€must€conductÐ |*Ì%) Ðadditional€proceedings€as€may€be€required€in€order€to€determine€what€is€in€the€best€interest€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðminor€child€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„6„106(a),€with€the€understanding€that€MotherÐ ° Ðwill€remain€in€West€Virginia€and€cannot€be€ordered€to€return€to€Tennessee.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€obviously€was€frustrated€with€Motherððs€repeated€and€effectiveÐ tÄ Ðattempts€at€denying€Father€co„parenting€time.€€The€Trial€Court€even€went€so€far€as€to€find€that€FatherÐ `° Ðnever€would€have€a€meaningful€relationship€with€his€child€if€Mother€remains€in€West€Virginia.€€TheÐ L œ Ðproof€in€the€record€overwhelmingly€supports€this€finding.€€Mother€has€repeatedly€refused€to€allowÐ 8 ˆ ÐFather€co„parenting€time€in€direct€defiance€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€various€orders.€€There€is€nothingÐ $ t Ðwhatsoever€to€suggest€to€this€Court€that€Motherððs€behavior€will€change.€€In€fact,€Dr.€Nordquist€statedÐ  ` Ðthe€following€in€his€report:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€also€is€no€doubt€that€[Mother]€harbors€very€hostile€feelingsÐ Ô$  Ðtoward€[Father]€and€is€not€capable€right€now€of€supporting€his€role€asÐ À  Ð[the€childððs]€parent.€€Nothing€that€I€or€the€Court€may€say€will€changeÐ ¬ü  Ðher€views€about€[Father].€€She€has€no€insight€into€the€contribution€sheÐ ˜è  Ðis€making€to€alienating€[the€child]€from€her€father.€€If€left€unchecked,Ð „Ô  Ð[Mother]€will€do€serious€harm€to€the€father„child€relationship€onceÐ pÀ Ð[the€child]€has€the€cognitive€awareness€to€know€how€[Mother]€feels.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€when€determining€on€remand€what€is€in€the€childððs€bestÐ 4„ Ðinterest€if€Mother€does€not€move€back€to€Tennessee,€the€Trial€Court€properly€may€accept€that€FatherÐ  p Ðwill€be€prevented€from€having€any€meaningful€relationship€with€his€daughter€if€Mother€remains€inÐ  \ ÐWest€Virginia€and€is€designated€the€primary€residential€parent.€€The€Trial€Court€need€not€hear€anyÐ øH Ðadditional€proof€on€this€particular€point€since€we€are€hereby€affirming€that€finding.€€This€òòshould€notÐ ä4 Ðóóbe€taken€as€an€implicit€directive€by€this€Court€either€to€or€not€to€designate€Father€as€the€primaryÐ Ð  Ðresidential€parent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„106(a)(10)€instructs€a€trial€court€to€consider€ð ðtheÐ ¼  Ðwillingness€and€ability€of€each€of€the€parents€to€facilitate€and€encourage€a€close€and€continuingÐ ¨ø Ðparent-child€relationship€between€the€child€and€the€other€parent,€consistent€with€the€best€interest€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€child,ðð€but€this€is€not€the€only€relevant€factor€to€be€considered.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€previously€affirmed€in€this€Opinion€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€proper€medicalÐ X ¨ Ðresources€are€available€in€East€Tennessee€to€treat€the€partiesðð€daughter,€a€conclusion€we€reached€evenÐ D!” Ðwhen€considering€the€medical€related€evidence€excluded€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Because€we€haveÐ 0"€  Ðaffirmed€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€on€this€issue,€the€Trial€Court€need€not€entertain€any€further€proofÐ #l! Ðon€the€quality€of€medical€care€in€West€Virginia€v.€East€Tennessee.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àAn€important€issue€raised€by€Mother€which€we€have€yet€to€address€is€her€argumentÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€child€has€become€accustomed€to€her€health€care€providers€in€West€Virginia€and,€therefore,Ð Ì&"% Ðit€now€is€not€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€to€return€to€Tennessee.€€We€fully€understand€that€suchÐ ¸'#& Ða€move€may€be€a€difficult€adjustment€for€this€child.€€However,€based€on€the€record€before€us€we€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconfident€that€such€an€adjustment€can€be€made.€€Mother€informed€the€Trial€Court€at€the€hearing€inÐ )à$( ÐMay€of€2001€that€she€voluntarily€would€return€to€Tennessee,€and€this€ð ðaccordðð€was€incorporated€intoÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€Trial€Courtððs€order.€€When€she€later€refused€to€return,€she€violated€both€her€agreement€and€theÐ h+¸&* ÐTrial€Courtððs€order.€€Had€she€returned€to€Tennessee€when€she€originally€agreed€to€do€so,€she€and€theÐ ° Ðchild€would€have€been€here€for€over€three€years€and€would€have€developed€relationships€and€becomeÐ œì Ðwell€adjusted€to€the€health€care€providers€here.€€Of€course,€this€never€happened€because€MotherÐ ˆØ Ðchanged€her€mind€and€ignored€both€her€agreement€and€the€Trial€Courtððs€order.€€If€further€proceedingsÐ tÄ Ðare€necessary€on€remand,€the€fact€that€the€child€may€or€even€will€have€some€difficulty€in€adjustingÐ `° Ðto€a€move€to€East€Tennessee€cannot€be€held€against€Father€since€this€difficulty€has€come€about€in€theÐ L œ Ðfirst€place€solely€because€Mother€reneged€on€her€initial€agreement€and€refused€to€comply€with€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐTrial€Courtððs€orders.€€In€short,€Mother€will€not€be€allowed€to€refuse€to€comply€with€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ $ t Ðorders€which€were€based€on€her€initial€agreement€to€return€to€Tennessee€and€then€use€the€resultingÐ  ` Ðsituation€to€argue€the€childððs€best€interest€mandates€that€she€wins.€€Therefore,€further€proof€on€thisÐ ü L  Ðissue€likewise€is€unnecessary.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€child€has€certain€daily€routines€which€are€required€due€to€her€medical€condition.€Ð À  ÐFather€has€had€difficulty€learning€these€routines€because€Mother€has€systematically€set€about€toÐ ¬ü  Ðexclude€Father€from€this€childððs€life.€€If€the€Trial€Court€finds€on€remand€that€Father€still€is€not€ð ðupÐ ˜è  Ðto€speedðð€on€these€matters€and€to€the€extent€this€can€be€attributed€to€Motherððs€preventing€FatherððsÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€ordered€co„parenting€time,€the€Trial€Court€is€instructed€not€to€hold€this€fact€against€Father.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€noted€previously,€Mother€made€an€offer€of€proof€after€the€Trial€Court€refused€toÐ H˜ Ðhear€additional€testimony€from€various€witnesses.€€The€result€we€have€reached€so€far€has€resulted€inÐ 4„ Ðour€affirming€the€exclusion€of€much€of€this€evidence,€except€for€the€testimony€of€Kim€Reagan,€SusanÐ  p ÐMiller,€and€Sherri€Lott.€€The€offer€of€proof€was€detailed€and€Fatherððs€counsel€was€given€theÐ  \ Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€these€three€witnesses.€€After€our€review€of€this€testimony,€we€hold€theÐ øH ÐTrial€Court€shall€consider€the€testimony€of€these€three€witnesses€and€give€it€whatever€weight€it€deemsÐ ä4 Ðappropriate€if€further€proceedings€are€required€on€remand.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€has€been€a€very€difficult€and€frustrating€case€for€the€Trial€Court.€€The€obviousÐ ¨ø Ðintent€behind€ordering€Mother€to€return€to€Tennessee€was€so€Mother€could€remain€the€primaryÐ ”ä Ðresidential€parent€and,€at€the€same€time,€Father€could€have€the€opportunity€to€play€an€important€roleÐ €Ð Ðin€his€childððs€life,€something€Mother€consistently€has€denied€to€him.€€If€Mother€chooses€not€to€returnÐ l¼ Ðto€Tennessee€with€the€child,€the€Trial€Court€on€remand€will€have€a€most€difficult€decision€to€make.€Ð X ¨ ÐQuite€simply,€the€ball€now€is€back€in€Motherððs€court.€€She€can€ensure€her€designation€as€the€primaryÐ D!” Ðresidential€parent€by€returning€to€Tennessee€with€the€child.€€Or,€she€can€remain€in€West€Virginia€andÐ 0"€  Ðrun€the€risk€of€having€Father€designated€as€the€primary€residential€parent.€€While€we€are€certainÐ #l! ÐMother€will€deem€having€to€make€this€choice€unfair€or€wrong,€the€fact€is€that€she€is€fully€responsibleÐ $X" Ðfor€the€situation,€due€in€large€part€to€her€successful€efforts€at€excluding€Father€from€this€childððs€life.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€already€have€been€several€hearings€where€proof€was€taken€as€well€as€a€full€trial.€Ð Ì&"% ÐWe€have€tried€to€limit€the€issues€on€remand€in€hopes€that€this€matter€can€proceed€quickly€to€a€finalÐ ¸'#& Ðresolution.€€It€is€in€no€oneððs€best€interest€for€custody€determinations€to€linger€in€the€court€system€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðyears.€€We€hope€the€Trial€Court€will€be€able€to€expedite€this€matter€so€a€resolution€can€be€reachedÐ )à$( Ðin€the€near€future.€€If€further€proceedings€are€necessary,€we€believe€it€is€likely€that€another€appeal€willÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€filed,€regardless€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€ultimate€custody€determination.€€Therefore,€if€the€Trial€CourtÐ h+¸&* Ðmust€decide€what€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€vis„a„vis€Mother€living€in€West€Virginia€v.€FatherÐ ° Ðin€Tennessee,€then€the€Trial€Court€is€instructed€to€be€as€detailed€as€possible€in€its€final€order,Ð œì Ðincluding€but€not€limited€to€listing€each€of€the€factors€it€relied€on€in€reaching€its€conclusion€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðweight€given€to€that€particular€factor,€etc.€€There€is€one€final€point€which€must€be€mentioned.€€TheÐ tÄ ÐTrial€Courtððs€frustration€with€Mother€is€understandable€given€her€calculated€defiance€of€numerousÐ `° Ðcourt€orders,€and€it€is€clear€that€the€effect€of€her€actions,€i.e.,€excluding€Father€from€the€childððs€life,Ð L œ Ðis€an€entirely€relevant€consideration€in€determining€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€However,Ð 8 ˆ Ðdesignating€Father€as€the€primary€residential€parent€is€not€appropriate€simply€to€punish€Mother€forÐ $ t Ðviolating€the€court€orders€regarding€visitation.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òò€Roache€v.€Bourisawóó,€No.€M2000„02651„Ð  ` ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€756,€at€**€18,€19€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€20,€2001),€òòno€appl.Ð ü L  Ðperm€appeal€filedóó€(A€ð ð[c]hange€of€custody€is€not€appropriate€as€a€method€to€punish€a€parent€forÐ è 8  Ðfailing€to€comply€with€court€orders€regarding€visitation.ðð).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÔ$  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓÞ¬ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part,€and€this€cause€Ð pÀ Ðis€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€thisÐ \¬ ÐOpinion€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,Ð H˜ ÐKimberly€S.€Johnson,€and€her€surety.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE