WPC eY A-?03$gwyu\`#rJBlD!WHqlce&bpƉx;~)k'_5^yƚ/icFfN|Pc_Qc7[ !31NOI1sCǓ'bM*b<׫;f]4<ʜ&{Ë Z&x`B8O20V252Z,+|'؉[ #Bm%%2K^TYc_@ie\N6*otڍ-`ՠ-cd]=#B ˰ V!SQKC}ϟawuT="xK^'H^r%CwU!vBxUxdϦ˘'`]B4"ёb %\U@b 0 0D*U NnU: z O ^ ! w- j1 4  u;N mE#b 0 B 0 D3h D- 0K ASf 0, 0D A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    (#$  0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular  R[$      2  *   _  *ThepartiesappeartodisputewhyHusbandlefthisemploymentwithWalmart.MotherallegesthatFather  leftvoluntarily,whileFatherarguesheleftbecauseofhisunwillingnesstoparticipatein somethingthatendangered t individualsandwascontrarytothelaw. 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.wptA)  ` R[$      1  *   _  *Forpurposesofthisopinion,wewillrefertoourprioropinionin Placenciav.Placencia ,3S.W.3d497(Tenn.  Ct.App.1999),as  PlacenciaI .Oo)bk2WLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0- -(|G2[$ !.8Sd d 8         0  / d(|3N $ !.8Sd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N $ !.8Sd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8W,d d8     _  W,8#\XXdd 8  @ W,INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#W, #Ԉ    November27,2000Session 8 X#\XW, #W,XX#\#_ELPIDIO_ԀPETE_PLACENCIA_v.LAURENROCHELLE_PLACENCIA_X#\XW,  . @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  & @@No.138164_R.D._ԀTheHonorableGeorgeH.Brown,Jr.,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<}` A ~  @@TTNo.W199901812_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember27,2000 w  AV) ` dE<J` A K     XXXX#\Thisisapostdivorceactioninvolvingcustodyandrelocationofthepartiesminorchild.Father, D  primarycustodialparent,filedapetitiontorelocate,andMotherfiledapetitionforchangeof 0 custody.ThetrialcourtawardedcustodyofthechildtoMother,andFatherappealed.ThisCourt l reversedthecustodyawardandremandedthecasetothetrialcourt.Pendingapplicationfor X permissiontoappealtotheSupremeCourt,Motherfiledapetitionforstayofexecutionanda D temporaryinjunctionandalsorequestedachangeofcustodybasedonchangedcircumstances.After 0 theSupremeCourtdeniedtheapplicationforpermissiontoappeal,thetrialcourtentereditsorder  denyingMothersrequestforahearingonherpetitionanddenyingotherreliefsought.Motherhas  appealedtothisCourt.  #X#\XXXD##W,XX#\#X#\XW,8 _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacatedand d Remanded  N   #W,X#\ #X#\X.W,W.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer, "r J.joined,and#W,XX#\ #X#\XW,HollyKirby_Lillard_#W,XX#\ #X#\XW,,J.joinedwithseparateconcurringopinion  \ RobertA._Talley_,Memphis,ForAppellant,LaurenRochelle_Placencia_ !0! EdwardM._Bearman_,JamesM.Allen,Memphis,ForAppellee,_Elpidio_ԀPete_Placencia_ ## g  OPINION #W,XX#\ #X#\XW, % % #W,XX#\#X#\XW,  8;X XdXXd8XXXX#\  ElpidioPetePlacencia( Father)andLaurenRochellePlacencia( Mother)weredivorced \'"' inMayof1992.Thepartiesmaritaldissolutionagreement,whichwaslaterincorporatedintothe H(#( finaldivorcedecree,providedthatFatherwouldhavecustodyofthepartiesminorchild,Megan 4)$) Placencia( Megan),andthatMotherwouldhavereasonablevisitationwiththechild.Fiveyears  *p%* later,FatherfiledapetitionseekingtorelocatetoGeorgiatoacceptabetterpayingjob.Atthattime,  +\&+ MotherfiledapetitiontopreventFatherfromremovingthechildfromTennessee,andseekinga +H',  changeincustody.ThetrialcourtgrantedMothercustodyofMegan,findingachangeinmaterial ,4(-9 circumstances,andFatherappealed.ThisCourtreversedthetrialcourt  #  1      ,andonSeptember13,1999,   theTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedMothersapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.    Following PlacenciaI ,MotherfiledtheinstantactioninShelbyCountyCircuitCourt, t allegingadditionalchangesincircumstanceswarrantingmodificationofcustody,andseekinga ` hearingonFathersintentiontorelocatewithMegan.ThetrialcourtdeniedMotherspetition, L  findingthatthecourt tookintoconsiderationallissuesandfactorsintheCourtsoriginalrulingand 8  theCourtofAppealshasspokentothoseissues.Duringthethreeyearsthepartiespursuedlegal $ t actioninthismatter,Meganresidedwithhermotherpursuanttocourtorder.  `   Thepartiesraisetwoissuesonappeal:(1)Whetherthetrialcourterredinrefusingtogrant  8  Motherahearingonherpetitiontomodifycustody;and(2)Whetherthetrialcourterredinrefusing $  tograntahearingontheissueoftheremovaloftheminorchild.Forthereasonsbelow,wefindthat   thetrialcourterredindenyingMotherahearingonbothpetitions.     ThetrialcourtsdenialofMothersrequestforahearingisaquestionoflaw.Assuch,our   reviewofthetrialcourtorderis denovo upontherecordwithnopresumptionofcorrectness p accompanyingthetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); _Waldron_Ԁv._Delffs_ , \ 988S.W.2d182,184(Tenn.Ct.App.1998); Simsv.Stewart ,973S.W.2d597,599600(Tenn.Ct. H App.1998). 4   OurSupremeCourthassaid, EverymanhasarighttohisdayinCourt,thatistohavea  \ hearingafterduenotice.... RealEstate_Commn_Ԁv._McLemore_ ,306S.W.2d683,686(Tenn. H 1957).Additionally,the OpenCourtssectionoftheTennesseeConstitutionprovides: 4 8  8`   Thatallcourtsshallbeopen;andeveryman,foraninjurydonehim   inhislands,goods,personorreputation,shallhaveremedybydue  courseoflaw,andrightandjusticeadministeredwithoutsale,denial,  ordelay.SuitsmaybebroughtagainsttheStateinsuchmannerand  insuchcourtsastheLegislaturemaybylawdirect.l` x` x Tenn.Const.art.1,17.TheTennesseeConstitutionalsoprovides: D! 8  8`   Thatnomanshallbetakenorimprisoned,ordisseizedofhis #l! freehold,libertiesorprivileges,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinany $X" mannerdestroyedordeprivedofhislife,libertyorproperty,butby $D # thejudgmentofhispeersorthelawoftheland.%0!$` x` x Tenn.Const.art.1,8. '#&  (#'   Tennesseehaslongrecognizedthataparentsrighttocustodyisafundamentalliberty  interestwhichmaynotbeabridgedabsentdueprocessoflaw. See,e.g.,  Inre_Knott_ ,197S.W.1097,  1098(Tenn.1917); Stateexrel._Bethell_Ԁv._Kilvington_ ,45S.W.433,434(Tenn.1898); _Neely_Ԁv.  _Neely_ ,737S.W.2d539,542(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)  .Undertheauthoritiescitedabove,therefore, t itwouldbeaviolationofMothersrightsifsheweredeniedherdayincourtoneitherthepetition ` tomodifyortheoriginalpetitiontorelocateinthismatter.Wemust,therefore,determineifMother L  hasbeenaffordedanopportunitytobeheardonthepetitionswhicharethesubjectofthisappeal. 8    WefirstaddresstheoriginalPetitiontoModifyFinalDecreeofDivorcewhichMotherfiled  ` onMarch12,1997inresponsetoFathersPetitiontoRelocate.Motherarguesthat,initsinitial  L  rulingonwhichparentshouldhavecustodyofMegan,thetrialcourtandthisCourtpretermittedthe  8  issueofrelocation.Motherexplainsthatshehasarighttobeheardontheissueofwhether $  relocationisappropriateinthiscase.Weagree.     T.C.A.366108(d)governstheissueofrelocationinasituationwhereoneparentspends   greatertimewiththechildthantheotherparent.Thatsectionprovides,inrelevantpart:   8  8`    (d)Iftheparentsarenotactuallyspendingsubstantiallyequal \ intervalsoftimewiththechildandtheparentspendingthegreater H amountoftimewiththechildproposestorelocatewiththechild,the 4 otherparentmay,withinthirty(30)daysofreceiptofthenotice,file  p apetitioninoppositiontoremovalofthechild.Theotherparentmay  \ notattempttorelocatewiththechildunlessexpresslyauthorizedto H dosobythecourtpursuanttoachangeofcustodyorprimary 4 custodialresponsibility. Theparentspendingthegreateramount   oftimewiththechildshallbepermittedtorelocatewiththechild  unlessthecourtfinds:` x` x 8  8`    (1)Therelocationdoesnothaveareasonablepurpose;` x` x 8  8`    (2)Therelocationwouldposeathreatofspecificand \  seriousharmtothechildwhichoutweighsthethreatofharmto H! thechildofachangeofcustody;or4" ` x` x 8  8`    (3)Theparent'smotiveforrelocatingwiththechildis  $\" vindictiveinthatitisintendedtodefeatordetervisitationrights $H # ofthenon-custodialparentortheparentspendinglesstimewith %4!$ thechild. & "%` x` x 8  8`   Specificandseriousharmtothechildincludes,butisnotlimitedto, (#' thefollowing:)$(` x` x   *%) 8  8`    (1)Ifaparentwishestotakeachildwithaseriousmedical   problemtoanareawherenoadequatetreatmentisreadilyavailable;` x` x 8  8`    (2)Ifaparentwishestotakeachildwithspecificeducational t requirementstoanareawithnoacceptableeducationfacilities;`` x` x 8  8`    (3)Ifaparentwishestorelocateandtakeupresidencewith 8  apersonwithahistoryofchildordomesticabuseorwhoiscurrently $ t abusingalcoholorotherdrugs; `` x` x 8  8`    (4)Ifthechildreliesontheparentnotrelocatingwho  8  providesemotionalsupport,nurturinganddevelopmentsuchthat $  removalwouldresultinsevereemotionaldetrimenttothechild; ` x` x 8      8  8`    (5)Ifthecustodialparentisemotionallydisturbedor   dependentsuchthatthecustodialparentisnotcapableofadequately   parentingthechildintheabsenceofsupportsystemscurrentlyin p placeinthisstate,andsuchsupportsystemisnotavailableatthe \ proposedrelocationsite;orH` x` x 8  8`    (6)Iftheproposedrelocationistoaforeigncountrywhose  p publicpolicydoesnotnormallyenforcethevisitationrightsof  \ non-custodialparents,whichdoesnothaveanadequatelyfunctioning H legalsystemorwhichotherwisepresentsasubstantialriskofspecific 4 andseriousharmtothechild. ` x` x T.C.A.366108(d)(Supp.2000)(emphasisadded).    In _Placenia_ԀI ,neitherthetrialcourtnorthisCourtbasedtheirrulingsontheissueofthe  proprietyofFathersrelocation,butdisposedofthecaseonthecustodyissueofchanged l circumstances. See 3S.W.3dat502503. Fatherarguesthatbothcourtsaddressedtherelocation X  byimplicationinaddressingtheissueofcustody.While,atfirstglance,thisargumenthasappeal, D! wefeelthattheissuesinvolvedinallowingacustodialparenttorelocatewithachildaretoo 0"  importanttoleaveto implication. #l!   Thestatutegoverningrelocationspecificallysetsoutthreeconsiderationswhichfactorinto $D # acourtsdecisiontoallowthecustodialparenttorelocate:(1)areasonablepurposeforthe %0!$ relocation;(2)whethertherelocationwouldposeathreatofspecificandseriousharmtothechild; &"% and(3)whethertheparentsmotivefortherelocationisvindictive. See T.C.A.366108(d).The '#& onlyissuethisCourtaddressedin PlacenciaI waswhetherFathersmotiveforrelocatingwas (#' vindictive. See 3S.W.3dat500.ThisCourtnotedthatitwasnot. Id.  )$(   |*%)   T.C.A.366108(d)doesnotappeartorequirespecificfindingsastothethreeelements   listedabove,andwehavefoundnoTennesseecasewhichdirectlyaddresseswhethersuchfindings  arerequired.However,giventhefundamentalnatureoftheinterestsinvolved,weholdthatthetrial  courtrulingshouldatleasthaveaddressedtheissuesof reasonablepurposeand specificand t seriousharminitsopinioninthismatter. `   Further,weholdthat,evenifthetrialcourthadaddressedallthreeprongsoftheapplicable 8  statute,MotherssecondPetitiontoModify,datedMay25,1999,shouldbeconsideredasan $ t amendmenttoheroriginalresponsetoFathersPetitiontoRelocate.Motherhasallegedcertain  ` facts,specifically:(1)thatHusbandhaslefthisjobinGeorgiaandisattendinglawschoolinTopeka,  L  Kansas; #  2      ׀and(2)that,forthepasttwoyears,MeganhasresidedwithherMotherinTennessee.  8  WhethertheproofundertheseallegationshasabearingonFathersrighttorelocateisamatterfor $  thetrialcourttodetermine.WeholdonlythatMothershouldbeallowedanevidentiaryhearingon   Fathersproposedrelocation.     Evenassuming, arguendo ,thatMotherhashadherdayincourtontheissueofrelocation,   weholdthatthetrialcourterredindenyingherrequestforahearingpursuanttoherPetitionto p ModifyfiledMay25,1999.Aswenoted,thatpetitionallegesamaterialchangeincircumstances \ warrantingmodificationofcustody.Thisisanewpetition,andallegesnewfactswhichthetrial H court must considerunderT.C.A.366101(a)(1)(Supp.2000),whichprovidesthattheissueof 4 custody shallremainwithinthecontrolofthecourtandbesubjecttosuchchangesormodifications  p astheexigenciesofthecasemayrequire. Id. Aswenotedin _Placencia_ԀI :  \ 8  8`    Whenconsideringapetitiontomodifycustody,thethreshold 4 issueiswhethertherehasbeenamaterialchangeincircumstances   occurringsubsequenttotheinitialcustodydetermination.Ifthetrial   courtdeterminesthattherehas,infact,beenamaterialchangein  circumstances,thecourtthenseekstodeviseacustodyarrangement  thatisinthebestinterestsofthechild.Absentamaterialchangein  circumstances,however,thepetitiontomodifycustodymustbe l denied.X ` x` x 3S.W.3dat499(citationsomitted).Again,wedonotholdthatMothersallegationsamounttoa 0"  materialchangeincircumstanceswarrantingmodificationoftheoriginaldecree.Weonlyholdthat $X"  Motherhasarighttopresentevidenceinsupportofherpetition. %0!$   Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtisvacatedandthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourt   foranevidentiaryhearingontheissueofFathersrelocationandontheissueofcustodybecauseof  changedcircumstancessubsequenttothedateoftheCourtofAppealsOpinion.Costsoftheappeal  areassessedtoappellee,ElpidioPete_Placencia_.#X#\XXX##W,XX#\z#X#\XW, t    `     h   __________________________________________  n    `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.