WPC x;RhCuF@ЫDh #;R |3Tml;ewl~4*HVD^7lpI wTE\O@rC-[n aZz;,Y/l<@}36$ut~)0%`O|`?0F'VmaGj dPѥ~rahY_L YUB",}G:n{Ԇ,4S"O4 ww鲿IG°֙]Yb#\ % ^ # 0/ U!N w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;U>=R{Eb 0 B 0 D3v D- 0K AS!t 0: 0D A"HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(+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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman H R!f$      4  ҄  _Webynomeanssuggest,however,thatanyfactorismoreimportantthantheothers.Thesefactorsshould  becarefullyexaminedinlightofthecircumstancesofeachindividualcase.- -(|G2!f$ !.8\dd8         0  ҄  R!f$      1  ҄  _AsapilotforFederalExpress,Mr._Hendry_sjobconsistedofflyingplanesfromvariouslocationsacrossthe  country.SometimesMr._Hendry_stripswouldbegininMemphis,whileothertripswouldoriginateindifferentcities. x Often,Mr._Hendry_Ԁwasrequiredtoflyacommercialairlinetothestartingpointofhisassignedtrip.Itwasthismobile @ natureofMr._Hendry_sjobthatallowedhimto commutefromCharlottetohisjobforFederalExpress.  R!f$      2  ҄  _Mr._Schremp_Ԁarguesthatheisspendingasubstantiallyequalamounttimewithhischildrenifcalculatedby  hischildrens wakinghours.Asadeterminationinthismatterwillhavenooutcomeinthefinaldecisioninthiscase, x wedeclinetoaddressitatthistime. R!f$      3  ҄  _Webynomeanssuggestthatthesearetheonlyreasonablepurposesfortherelocationofminorchildren. d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\dd8     _  \8XXdd8  @ \INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#\ #Ԉ ,   AssignedOnBriefSeptember21,2000 X XX\ #\XX#MARYCATHERINE_BERNI_Ԁ_SCHREMP_Ԁ(_HENDRY_)v.DAVIDBRUCE  ` _SCHREMP_XX\  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.151117_R.D._ԀJohnR._McCarroll_,Jr.,Judge  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W199901734_COA_ԄR3CV ?  AV) ` dE<` A     X|XXXMother,thecustodialparentofminorchildren,desiredtorelocateoutofstatetolivewithhernew  husband.Fatherprotestedthemoveandfiledapetitioninopposition.FindingthatMothersnew   husbandcouldeasilymovetoMemphistolivewithhisnewfamilyandthatdislocatingthechildren  wasnotintheirbestinterest,thetrialcourtgrantedthepetition.Weaffirm.   #XXXX|##\XX"#XX\y Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and n Remanded  ^   #\X#XX.\DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., > andHollyK.Lillard,J.,joined. .~ WandaBSheaandLisaE._Circeo_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MaryCatherine_Berni_ ^ _Schremp_Ԁ(_Hendry_). N AmyJ._Amundsen_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DavidBruce_Schremp_.  .  OPINION #\XX#XX\ "! #\XX #  XX\X|XXX  In1996,Mary_Schremp_ԀandDavid_Schremp_ԀweregrantedaFinalDecreeofDivorcewhich $# incorporatedaMaritalDissolutionAgreementexecutedbytheparties.Underthisagreement,the % $ partieswereawardedjointcustodyoftheirtwominorchildren,thoughthechildrenweretoprimarily v&!% residewithMs._Schremp_.Mr._Schremp_Ԁwasawardedaminimumofninedaysamonthvisitation. b'"&   Afterthedivorce,thepartiesremainedinMemphislivingwithinafewmilesofeachother. :)$( ThoughsomedisputesarosebetweenthepartiesovervisitationbyMr._Schremp_,bothparentswere &*v%) greatlyinvolvedinthelivesoftheirchildren.Ms._Schremp_Ԁwasworkingonadoctorateatthe +b&* UniversityofMemphis.Mr._Schremp_ԀmaintainedhispredivorceemploymentwithBoeingAirline +N'+ Company. ,:(,  -&)-   ThisactionaroseafterMs._Schremp_ԀmetandmarriedMr.Stephen_Hendry_.Mr._Hendry_  wasapilotemployedbyFederalExpress.AccordingtoFederalExpressrecords,Mr._Hendry_Ԁwas  domiciledinMemphis.However,duetothespecificsofhisjob,Mr._Hendry_Ԁchosetomaintainhis  primaryresidenceinCharlotte,NorthCarolina._S  #  1      _ԀAftertheirmarriage,Ms._Schremp_ԀinformedMr. t _Schremp_ԀofherintentiontomoveherselfandtheminorchildrentoCharlottetolivewithMr. ` _Hendry_.Mr._Schremp_ԀprotestedthismoveandfiledaPetitioninOppositiontotheRemovalofthe L  Children. 8    Thetrialcourt ruledthatMr._Schremp_Ԁdidnotspend substantiallyequalintervalsoftime  ` withthechildrenwhencomparedwithhisexwife.Then,afterexaminingthecircumstances  L  surroundingtheproposedmove,itfoundthatMs._Schremp_Ԁdidnothaveareasonablepurposein  8  movingthecoupleschildrentoCharlotte.Inaddition,thecourtfoundthatsuchamovewouldnot $  beinthebestinterestofthechildren.Assuch,thecourtgrantedthePetitioninOppositiontothe   RemovaloftheChildren.ThecourtalsoassessedallcourtcoststoMs._Schremp_.Ms._Schremp_   appealedthisrulingandthetrialcourtsassessmentofcosts,aswellasitsfailuretoawardher   attorneysfees.Mr._Schremp_Ԁappealedthefindingthathedidnotspendequaltimewiththechildren.     Theissuesasweperceivethemareasfollows: \ 8  1.0`   DidthetrialcourterrinfailingtofindthatMs._Schremp_Ԁdidnothavea 4 reasonablepurposeforherrelocationtoNorthCarolina? p` `    2.0 ` Didthetrialcourterrinfindingthatitwasnotinthebestinterestofthechildrento H movetoNorthCarolina?4` (#` (#   3.0 ` DidthetrialcourterrinitsfailuretoawardattorneysfeestoMs._Schremp_? ` (#` (#     4.0 ` DidthetrialcourterrinitsassessmentofcostsagainstMs._Schremp_?` (#` (# Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de l novo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynot X  reversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. D!  See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).With 0"  respecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionof #l! correctness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_, $X" P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). $D #  &"%   ReasonablePurpose         Section366108(d)oftheTennesseeCodeappliestoparentalrelocationwhentheparties  arenotspendingsubstantiallyequalintervalsoftimewiththechildren._T  #  2      _ԀThepertinentsection t providesthat `  S#XXXX| #X|XXX8  [_t]he_Ԁparentspendingthegreateramountoftimewiththechildshallbepermittedto 8  relocatewiththechildunlessthecourtfinds:$ t   8   ` (1)Therelocationdoesnothaveareasonablepurpose;c    8   ` (2)Therelocationwouldposeathreatofspecificandseriousharmtothe    childwhichoutweighsthethreatofharmtothechildofachangeofcustody;or    8   ` (3)Theparent'smotiveforrelocatingwiththechildisvindictiveinthatitis   intendedtodefeatordetervisitationrightsofthenoncustodialparentortheparent   spendinglesstimewiththechild.    Tenn.CodeAnn.#XXXX|7##X|XXX366108(d)#XXXX|&#X|XXX(Supp.2000).Thetrialcourtfoundthatitneedonlydetermineif #s therelocationhadareasonablepurposeasMs._Schremp_srelocationwasneithervindictivenor _ harmfultothechildren. K   ItisthusnecessaryforustodetermineifMs._Schremp_srelocationhasareasonablepurpose. y Thisdeterminationrequiresustoexaminethespecific,factualrationalesfortherelocation.Wehave e previouslycitedseveralgeneralreasonsinwhicharelocationmaybereasonable,includingmoving Q toanotherlocationwhereapartysnewspouseworksandlives,movingtoliveclosertorelatives, = ormovingtoenhancethecustodialparentseducationorcareer.U  #  3      ׀ See_Caudill_Ԁv.Foley ,No.01A01 )y 9903CH00187#XXXX|@'#X|XXX,1999WL976597at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.28,1999). e   Inthecasebeforeus,Ms._Schremp_Ԁunderstandablydesirestolivewithhernewhusbandand  Mr._Hendry_ԀcurrentlyresidesinCharlotte,NorthCarolina.However,Mr._Hendry_Ԁisnotrequiredto   liveinNorthCarolinaforhisemployment.Indeed,accordingtohisowntestimony,itdoesnot k! matterwhereintheUnitedStatesheresides.Accordingtotherecordsofhisemployer,Federal W" Express,Mr._Hendry_ԀisdomiciledinMemphis.HisstatedreasonsforremaininginNorthCarolina C# arehistiestothecommunityandhisproximitytohiselderlymotherwhomhevisitstwodaysa /$ month.Uponourreview,wecannotfindthatthesearecompellingreasonsforMr._Hendry_Ԁtorefuse %k  tomovetoMemphistolivewithhisnewwife. &W!! Ї  Ms._Schremp_ԀhasprovidedthiscourtwithnootherreasonablepurposetomovetoNorth  Carolina.NeithershenorherchildrenhaveanyrelativesinNorthCarolina.Therehasbeenno  suggestionthatthemovewillenhanceMs._Schremp_seducationorcareerprospectsinthenear  future.Whileitisclearthatahusbandandwifeshouldlivetogether,itisalsoobviousthatbothmay t havetomakesacrificestoensurethattheyhavethatopportunity.Mr._Hendry_Ԁhasnocompelling ` reasontoliveinNorthCarolinaandmayeasilymovehisresidencetoMemphis.AsMr._Hendry_Ԁhas L  nocompellingreasontostayinNorthCarolina,wefinditdifficulttosaythatMs._Schremp_Ԁwould 8  bereasonableindislocatingherchildrentojoinhim.Assuch,weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthat $ t Ms._Schremp_ԀhasnoreasonablepurposeinmovingtoNorthCarolina.  `   BestInterestoftheChildren          Section366108oftheTennesseeCodestatesthatifacourtdeterminesthataparentwho  \  desirestorelocatedoesnothaveareasonablepurposefortherelocation H  8  thecourtshalldeterminewhetherornottopermitrelocationofthechildbasedonthe v bestinterestofthechild.Ifthecourtfindsitisnotinthebestinterestsofthechild b torelocateasdefinedherein,buttheparentwithwhomthechildresidesthemajority N ofthetimeelectstorelocate,thecourtshallmakeacustodydeterminationandshall : considerallrelevantfactorsincludingthefollowingwhereapplicable:&v   0  0` (#(#(1)Theextenttowhichvisitationrightshavebeenallowedandexercised;e` (#` (# 8   ` (2)Whethertheprimaryresidentialparent,onceoutofthejurisdiction,is  likelytocomplywithanynewvisitationarrangement;   8   ` (3)Thelove,affectionandemotionaltiesexistingbetweentheparentsand  child;    8   ` (4)Thedispositionoftheparentstoprovidethechildwithfood,clothing, J medicalcare,educationandothernecessarycareandthedegreetowhichaparenthas 6 beentheprimary_caregiver_; "   8   ` (5)Theimportanceofcontinuityinthechild'slifeandthelengthoftimethe "a childhaslivedinastable,satisfactoryenvironment;"M      ` (6)Thestabilityofthefamilyunitoftheparents; <$ 0  0` (#(#(7)Thementalandphysicalhealthoftheparents;{% ` (#` (# 8   ` (8)Thehome,schoolandcommunityrecordofthechild;& "    8   ` (9)Thereasonablepreferenceofthechildiftwelve(12)yearsofageorolder. 'I#! Thecourtmayhearthepreferenceofayoungerchilduponrequest.Thepreferences (5$" ofolderchildrenshouldnormallybegivengreaterweightthanthoseofyounger )!%#  children;* &$   8   ` (10)Evidenceofphysicaloremotionalabusetothechild,totheotherparent   ortoanyotherperson;and   8   ` (11)Thecharacterandbehaviorofanyotherpersonwhoresidesinor + frequentsthehomeofaparentandsuchperson'sinteractionswiththechild.#XXXX|+#X|XXX @    Tenn.CodeAnn.366108(e)(Supp.2000). E    Thetrialcourtfocuseditsattentionon(5),findingthattheotherfactorswere,forthiscase,    nonfactors.Examiningtherecordbeforeus,weagreethat(5)isthemostimportantfactortobe   consideredinthiscase.  #  4      ׀ThetrialcourtfoundthattheminorchildrenhaveresidedinMemphisfor   thelastsixyears.Theyhavebecomeestablishedinthelocalcommunityduringthisperiod,   attendingthesameschoolsystemandremaininginthesamesocialenvironment.Uponour s  examinationoftherecord,weagreewiththisassessment. _    Ms._Schremp_Ԁhasarguedthatseveralotherfactorsshouldbeconsideredincludingherown - happinessandwellbeing,thefactthattheminorchildrendonotconsiderMemphistheirpermanent  home,thefactthatthechildrenadjustedwelltoanearliermovebyMr.andMs._Schremp_Ԁseveral  yearsagowhentheyweremarried,andthattheoriginaldivorcedecreecontemplatedachangein  visitationifMr._Schremp_Ԁwasrelocatedtoothercity.Wefindthesefactorstobeunpersuasive.    WhileMs._Schremp_ԀarguesthatthechildrendonotconsiderMemphistobetheirpermanent  [ home,wefindnothingintherecordtocorroboratethisclaim.Indeed,thelengthofthechildrens G stayinMemphiswouldsuggesttothiscourttheopposite.Inaddition,thechildrensadjustmentto 3 amoveseveralyearsagowhilethepartieswerestillmarriedprovidesnoinsightontheirabilityto  movetoday.Thefactthatachangeinvisitationwascontemplatedatthetimeofthedivorcehasno   bearingonthequestionofthebestinterestofthechildrentomovetoday.    WefindthatMs._Schremp_sargumentthatherownhappinessandwellbeingshouldbe %!u consideredisvalid.Sheobviouslydesirestolivewithhernewhusband,whochoosestolivein "a NorthCarolina.However,duetothenatureofhisemployment,Mr._Hendry_Ԁcouldeasilymoveto "M Memphis.Outsideofthisfactor,Ms._Schremp_Ԁhasofferedonlythemostgeneralreasonsastowhy #9 herhappinessandwellbeingwouldbeincreasedbyamovetoNorthCarolina.Uponreviewing $%  thesereasons,wefindthattheyarenotcompellingenoughtooutweighuprootingherminorchildren %!  fromthestableenvironmentandcommunityinwhichtheyhavespentthelastsixyears.Assuch, &!! weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsrulingthattherelocationoftheminorchildrenfromMemphisto '"" Charlotte,NorthCarolinaisnotinthebestinterestofthechildren.   x  (## Ї@RR# AttorneysFees     Section366108oftheTennesseeCodeaddressestherelocationoftheparentsofminor .~ children.Uponourexaminationofthisstatute,wecandiscernnoprovisionauthorizingacourtto j awardattorneysfeestoeitherparty.Ms._Schremp_Ԁcitessection365103(c)oftheTennesseeCode  V inherargumentrequestingattorneysfees.Thissectionstatesthat  B 8  [_t]he_Ԁplaintiffspousemayrecoverfromthedefendantspouse,andthespouseorother p  persontowhomthecustodyofthechild,orchildren,isawardedmayrecoverfrom \  theotherspousereasonableattorneyfeesincurredinenforcinganydecreefor H  alimonyand/orchildsupport,orinregardtoanysuitoractionconcerningthe 4  adjudicationofthecustodyorthechangeofcustodyofanychild,orchildren,ofthe  p  parties,bothupontheoriginaldivorcehearingandatanysubsequenthearing,which  \  feesmaybefixedandallowedbythecourt,beforewhomsuchactionorproceeding H  ispending,inthediscretionofsuchcourt.4   Tenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)(Supp.2000).Wenotethatthisstatuteonlyprovidesfortheaward b ofattorneysfeesupon theadjudicationofthecustodyorthechangeofcustodyofanchild. Id. N  Thiscasedoesnotinvolveeitherissue. SAssuch,neitherpartyisentitledtoanawardofattorneys : fees,andweherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsrulinginthismatter. &v @( Costs  N   Trialcourtsareaffordedagreatdealofdiscretionwhenconsideringwhethertoawardcosts. & Absentaclearabuseofdiscretion,appellatecourtsgenerallywillnotalteratrialcourt'srulingwith  respecttocosts. _Placencia_Ԁv._Placencia_ ,3S.W.3d497,503(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citing Perdue  v.GreenBranchMiningCo. ,837S.W.2d56,60(Tenn.1992)). XXUponourreviewoftherecordin  thecasebeforeus,wecanfindnoevidenceofanabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsruling  assessingcostsagainstMs._Schremp_.Assuch,weaffirmthetrialcourtsrulinginthismatter. r     `     h   Conclusion 6#     Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.Costs %^ ! onappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,MaryCatherine_Berni_Ԁ_Schremp_Ԁ(_Hendry_),andher %J!" surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. &6"# #XXXX|@#   `     h     ___________________________________ *%'    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE