ÿWPCE  /°Ó©½w]ú1L8$ÚR]‡Á²Ã :}6ïµ» “ì3°ré}î›QyÛ2®„òÔ&f/ž˜Òhƒ"ŒZ1àcbbA)„ޏ!ÊžíÜFÌ×t,ÍóˆéG2íZTk*AÞ¶mZ!³Bh4Ä:¢n¬7¡¢èëå”ü/“ŸV€²Ãr¿âí(ÀðòGsrú“¨#ãX¬ðQ3'tþ¡7ß:Õöœ7K"$†üó= $²5‡*RŒ¹ÒÈDdN˜ “Ö‹vþ£³êŽí‘ì]˜tVNëœxåMÙÏ&ÿ¤Öõ"5M®’5͵(“ùA.Ohþ.±!–Ì-DºHVÐËå`XvPk…sÜÿ©S§ „4¿? ‡a¸L2fù.*jxÐÿ´` `€€@E˜D` 8ttxPÐð ´ tß›ñ] ññL ñÌÌAMY€(KELLEY)€SMITH,à  àà h àà À à)€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à h àà À àò ò)€€Williamson€Chancery€No.€24120Ð P   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌVS.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9711„CH„00657Ð 0 € Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌALTON€WADE€KELLEY,à  àà h àà À à)Ð `  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óDefendant/Appellant.à À àò ò)ó óÐ ð@  ÐÌÌà@yyìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYˆÌà@ÊÊìàAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEˆÌà@  ìàTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJ.€RUSSELL€HELDMANó óÐ ` ÐFranklin,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌò òJAMES€L.€CURTISó óÐ °"  ÐNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ ,`'* ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.Ð €4Ð/3 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌñL ññS ññL ñÑ<ÑÑ7€ Ð XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ<ÑÑ#€ i Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑñL ññS ññL ñHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óÔ#†X¬ÅXX XÐ,#ÔÔ‡ XÐXXX¬ÅÔñL ñà h àœñM ñÐ ÒÒ°` s>ÒñO ñœñO ñÌÔ#† Xp~XXXp~Â;#ÔÓ>ÓÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~ÔThe€Supreme€Court€then€proceeded€to€set€out€the€appropriate€procedure€for€removal.Ô#† Xp~XXXp~sD#ÔÐ @)$' ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒñO ñœñO ñÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~ÔÓÓWith€regard€to€procedure,€we€conclude€that€if€the€partiesÐ  +p&) Ðcannot€agree€on€an€acceptable€visitation€schedule,€theÏcustodial€parent€seeking€to€remove€must€file€a€petition€with€theÏcourt€to€reapprove€or€revise,€as€the€case€may€require,€theÏexisting€visitation€schedule.€€In€the€hearing€on€the€petition,€theÏnon-custodial€parent€may,€if€he€or€she€wishes,€presentÏevidence€that€the€custodial€parent's€motives€for€moving€areÏvindictive;€€also,€any€petition€for€a€change€of€custody€based€onÏthe€above-discussed€grounds€shall€be€heard€at€this€time.€òòÐ  2ð-1 ÐÓbEÓÓÓIdóó.€at€630.€€œÐ 3à.2 ÐñO ñ›ñO ñÌ›ÌÒ°` EÒÒ°` *EÒñO ñœñO ñÌÓÓGÓà  àÔ#† Xp~XXXp~CE#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XX Xp~ÔIn€the€case€before€this€Court,€there€was€a€specific€provision€placed€in€the€MDAÐ P7 26 Ðwhich€prohibited€the€parties€from€moving€more€than€sixty€(60)€miles€from€Nashville,Ð 09€48 ÐTennesseeÔ#† Xp~XX Xp~ŽH#ÔÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~Ô.€Husband€first€contends€that€there€exists€no€new€circumstances€which€justifyÐ ° Ða€change€in€the€ð ðsixty€mileðð€residential€restriction.€He€cites€case€law€which€holds€that€theÏð ðremarriage€of€either€parent€does€not€of€itself€constitute€a€change€of€circumstance€thatÏwould€warrant€a€change€of€custody.ðð€òòTortorich€v.€Ericksonóó,€675€S.W.2d€190,€192€(Tenn.Ð P   ÐCt.€App.€1984).€€While€this€statement€of€the€law€is€correct,€we€point€out€that€Wife€was€notÏseeking€to€change€custody,€but€rather€permission€to€remove€the€child€from€the€state€andÏa€redetermination€of€œvisitation.Ì›ÌÔ#† Xp~XXXp~¥I#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XX Xp~Ôà  àHusband€contends€that€the€removal€language€in€the€MDA€is€contractual€in€natureÐ ° Ðand€should€be€enforced€as€written.€He€argues€that€the€only€way€the€agreement€can€beÏmodified€is€pursuant€to€the€modification€clause€in€the€MDA€which€states€that€the€agreementÏcan€only€be€modified€by€the€parties€in€writing.€Husband€contends€that€the€Chancellor€wasÏtherefore€without€authority,€absent€the€partiesðð€agreement,€to€permit€this€œremoval.Ì›Ìà  àIn€òòPenland€v.€Penlandóó,€521€S.W.2d€222,€224€(Tenn.€1975),€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ ð@ ÐTennessee€held€that€when€a€husband€and€wife€contract€with€respect€to€the€legal€duty€ofÏchild€support,€upon€approval€of€that€contract,€the€agreement€of€the€parties€becomesÏmerged€into€the€decree€and€loses€its€contractual€nature.€The€Supreme€Court€stated€thatÏthe€reason€for€stripping€the€agreement€of€the€parties€of€its€contractual€nature€was€theÏcontinuing€statutory€power€of€the€Court€to€modify€its€terms€when€changed€circumstancesÏjustify.€òòId.óó€at€224.€Ô#† Xp~XX Xp~SL#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XX Xp~ÔTrial€courts€have€continued€authority€in€post„divorce€matters€concerningÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€care,€custody€and€control€of€children.€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„6„101(a)€œstates:›Ïœð ðSuch›€decree€shall€remain€within€the€control€of€the€court€and€be€subject€to€such€changesÏor€modifications€as€the€exigencies€of€the€case€may€require.ðð€Provisions€which€restrict€whereÏthe€child€shall€reside€are€provisions€which€concern€the€care,€custody€and€control€of€theÏchild.€Therefore,€the€removal€provision€in€the€MDA€was€merged€into€the€decree€and€lostÏits€contractual€nature.€It€may€therefore€be€modified€if€the€correct€procedure€is€followed.ÏSuch€procedures€have€been€spelled€out€in€œòòTayloróó€and›€œòòAabyóó.›€Ô#† Xp~XX Xp~¦P#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XX Xp~Ô€Ô#† Xp~XX Xp~·S#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XX Xp~ÔÐ P7 26 ÐÔ#† Xp~XX Xp~úS#ÔÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~Ôà  àHusband€contends€that€the€òòTayloróó€and€òòAabyóó€line€of€cases€are€not€applicable€to€theÐ 09€48 Ðcase€at€hand.€In€this€case€there€was€a€specific€provision€placed€in€the€MDA€whichÏprohibited€the€parties€from€moving€more€than€sixty€(60)€miles€from€Nashville,€Tennessee.ÏNeither€òòTayloróó€nor€òòAabyóó€contained€a€similar€provision.€However,€in€Taylor,€there€was€aÐ pÀ Ðstanding€court€order€which€prohibited€the€Mother€from€removing€the€child€to€another€state.€œÌ›Ìà  àWhen€laying€out€the€procedural€framework€for€removal€in€òòTayloróó,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ `  Ðstated,€ð ðIf,€on€the€other€hand,€the€custodial€parent€files€for€relief,€òòseeking€to€lift€a€priorÐ ð@  Ðprohibition€on€removal€or€asking€the€courtððs€permission€to€move€from€the€jurisdiction,€orÏbothóó,€the€custodial€parent€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€removal€is€in€the€childððs€bestÐ ° Ðinterest.ðð€òòTayloróó€at€332.€(Emphasis€added).€While€it€was€later€clarified€in€òòAabyóó€that€theÐ à Ðburden€rests€upon€the€non„custodial€parent€to€show€a€vindictive€purpose€for€the€move,€theÏlanguage€in€òòTayloróó€states€that€a€parent€may€seek€relief€in€the€courts€to€lift€a€prior€prohibitionÐ P  Ðon€removal.€The€Supreme€Court€did€not€limit€such€ð ðprior€prohibition€on€removalðð€to€oneÏplaced€upon€the€parties€œby€the€court€in€a›€prior€œproceeding.›€The€language€used€by€theÏSupreme€Court€is€broad€enough€to€encompass€a€prior€prohibition€on€removal€found€in€œañQ ñnñQ ñ›ÏœMDA.Ì›Ìà  àAdditionally,€in€òòHill€v.€Robbinsóó,€859€S.W.2d€355€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€this€CourtÐ $à" Ðreversed€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€change€physical€custody€to€the€father€until€the€motherÏrelocated€to€the€state€of€Tennessee.€In€òòHill,óó€the€final€decree€incorporated€the€maritalÐ P( #& Ðdissolution€agreement€in€which€the€wife€agreed€not€to€move€from€the€state€of€TennesseeÏwith€the€children€during€their€minority.€On€appeal€this€Court€stated€that€ð ðany€agreement€orÏarrangement€concerning€the€custody€of€minor€children€is€subject€to€modification€.€.€.ðð€citingÐ ð-@), ÐòòRogero€v.€Pittóó,€759€S.W.2d€109€(Tenn.€œ1988).Ð Ð/ +. ЛÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€court€was€at€liberty€to€lift€the€prohibition€onÏremoval€found€in€the€final€decree.€Wife€followed€the€proper€procedure€outlined€in€òòTaylorÐ p5À04 Ðóóand€òòAabyóó€by€petitioning€the€court€to€allow€her€to€remove€the€child€from€Tennessee€andÐ P7 26 Ðasking€for€a€new€visitation€schedule€for€Husband.€The€burden€then€was€upon€the€HusbandÐ 09€48 Ðto€show,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€Wifeððs€motives€for€moving€wereÏvindictive,€that€is,€intended€to€defeat€or€deter€Husbandððs€visitation€rights.€òòAabyóó€at€€629.€€Ô#† Xp~XXXp~QT#ÔÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~ÔÐ à Ðà  àÔ#† Xp~XXXp~î_#ÔÔ‡Xp~XX Xp~ÔÌà  àWife€testified€to€her€reasons€for€desiring€to€move€to€Texas€with€the€minor€child.€WifeÏstated€that€she€had€remarried€and€her€husband€lived€and€worked€in€Texas.€œWife›€was€ableÏto€find€employment€there€with€a€pay€increase€of€$6,000.00€and€additional€œbonuses.›€œSmith,›ÏWifeððs€current€husband,€testified€that€he€would€not€be€able€to€move€to€Tennessee€as€hisÏemployment€was€in€Texas€and€he€also€has€two€minor€children€in€Texas€and€has€regularÏvisitation€with€them.€Smith€testified€that€if€the€court€did€not€allow€Wife€to€move€with€the€childÏto€Texas,€Wife€and€Smith€would€be€forced€to€carry€on€a€long€distance€œmarriage.Ì›Ìà  àWife€testified€that€she€was€willing€to€work€with€Husband,€if€the€court€allows€her€toÏremove€to€the€State€of€Texas,€to€transport€the€child€back€and€forth€to€Husband€inÏTennessee.€ñO ñœñO ñÔ#† Xp~XXXp~Q`#ÔÐ ` ÐñO ñœñO ñÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓQ:à ¸ àNow,€tell€Judge€Bell€what€you€are€willing€to€do.Ð ð@ ÐA:à ¸ àWell,€I€want€Alton€to€have€every€opportunity€to€spend€as€Ð à0 Ѐ€€€€€€à ¸ àmuch€time€with€him€as€he€can.€And€we€are€„€I€am€Ð Ð  Ðà ¸ àprepared€to€bring€him€back€at€my€expense€every€six€¼à ¸ àweeks€for€nine€days€and€transport€the€child€at€my€¼à ¸ àexpense.ÌQ:à ¸ àNow,€are€there€any€other€times€that€you€would€propose€Ð $à" Ðà ¸ àfor€there€to€be€visitation€between€the€father€and€the€¼à ¸ àchild?ÌA:à ¸ àYes,€sir.€We€would€like€to€have€him€spend€a€week€with€Ð `'°"% Ðà ¸ àhim€at€Christmas€and€two€separate€two„week€periods€¼à ¸ àduring€the€summer€and€then€any€weekend€out€of€the€¼à ¸ àmonth€that€he€would€like€to€come€to€Dallas.ÌQ:€€à ¸ àSo€you€donððt€object€to€him€visiting€at€least€once€a€monthÐ  +p&) Ðà ¸ àin€Dallas€if€he€wants€to€come€or€can€come?ÌA:€€€à ¸ àI€encourage€it.Ð -P(+ ÐÒ°` dÒÒ°` ùcÒñO ñœñO ñà  àà ` àñO ñœñO ñÌÓdÓWhen€Wife€was€questioned€about€whether€her€move€was€done€to€defeat€or€deter€visitation,ÏWife€stated€that€it€was€not€and€that€she€encourages€visitation€between€Husband€and€theÏœchild.Ì›Ìà  àHusband€testified€as€to€numerous€and€substantial€reasons€why€he€would€like€theÏchild€to€remain€in€Tennessee.€While€this€Court€admires€and€encourages€the€bond€HusbandÏseeks€to€maintain€by€keeping€the€child€in€close€proximity€to€Husband€and€the€childððsÐ  :p59 Ðextended€family,€this€Court€is€bound€by€the€holding€in€œòòAabyóó.€The€custodial€parent€will€beÐ ° Ðallowed€to€move€with€the€child€unless€the€non„custodial€parent€proves€a€vindictive€purpose.ÏThere€was€simply€no€proof€in€this€case€that€Wife€was€seeking€to€defeat€or€deter€HusbandððsÏvisitation€rights.€Quite€the€contrary,€the€proof€showed€that€Wife€was€willing€to€undertake€theÏrather€costly€expense€of€transporting€the€child€to€and€from€Tennessee€at€six„week€intervalsÏfor€visitation€periods€with€Husband.€Wife€also€expressed€that€Husband€was€welcome€toÏtravel€to€Dallas€for€periods€of€visitation€as€well.€This€Court€holds€that€the€trial€court€was€notÏin€error€in€allowing€Wife€to€remove€the€minor€child€from€the€state.ÌÌà@€€ìàò òòòIV.€€€Visitation€Scheduleóóó óˆÐ à ÐÌ€à  àBoth€parties€object€to€the€visitation€schedule€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€Ô‡Xp~XX Xp~ÔIn€òòTayloróó€theÐ P  ÐSupreme€Court€discussed€the€visitation€issue.Ì›Ò` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[R]emoval€of€the€child€from€the€jurisdiction€may€requireÏrescheduling€of€the€non-custodial€parent's€visitation;€.€.€.€thatÏthe€courts€must€be€sensitive€to€the€non-custodial€parent'sÏefforts€to€maintain€his€or€her€relationship€with€the€children,€andÏthat€visitation€should€be€arranged€in€a€manner€most€likely€toÏenhance€that€relationship€.€.€.€These€factors,€and€any€relatedÏfactual€circumstances€found€by€the€court€to€be€significant€in€aÏgiven€situation,€must€be€weighed€individually€and€collectively.ÌÒ°` nÒÒ°` nÒñO ñœñO ñà  àà ` àòòTayloróó€at€œ332.›à h àÔ#† Xp~XXXp~n#ÔÔ‡X<»XX Xp~ÔÐ $à" ÐÔ#† Xp~XXX<»?q#ÔÔ€Xp~XX Xp~ÔÌÓ«nÓThe€Supreme€Court€also€addressed€the€visitation€issue€in€òòAabyóó.Ð p&À!$ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒñO ñœñO ñÔ‡ Xp~XXXp~ÔÓÓWith€regard€to€procedure,€we€conclude€that€if€the€partiesÐ P( #& Ðcannot€agree€on€an€acceptable€visitation€schedule,€theÏcustodial€parent€seeking€to€remove€must€file€a€petition€with€theÏcourt€to€reapprove€or€revise,€as€the€case€may€require,€theÏexisting€visitation€scheduleÔ#†Xp~XX Xp~Lr#ÔÔ‡X<»XXXp~Ô€.€.€.€Ô#†Xp~XXX<»½s#ÔÔ‡Xp~XXXp~ÔAs€is€the€case€in€the€initialÐ ,`'* Ðproceedings,€neither€party€shall€bear€the€burden€of€proof€onÏthe€visitation€issue;€€rather,€the€trial€court€shall,€in€its€soundÏdiscretion,€fashion€an€acceptable€revised€visitationÏarrangement.€Any€prior€law€inconsistent€with€these€conclusionsÏis€expressly€overruled.€€òòAabyóó€at€œ630.Ô#†Xp~XXXp~t#ÔÔ‡X<»XXXp~ÔÐ Ì0,/ ÐñO ñ›ñO ñÌ›ÌÒ°` %rÒÒ°` 3rÒñO ñœñO ñÌÔ#†Xp~XXX<»šu#ÔÓkrÓÔ‡ Xp~XXXp~Ôà  àIt€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€had€discretion€to€fashion€an€acceptable€visitationÐ Œ4Ü/3 Ðschedule.Ô#†Xp~XX Xp~Ev#ÔÔ‡X<»XXXp~Ô€Ô#†Xp~XXX<»w#ÔÔ€Xp~XXXp~ÔDue€to€the€distance€of€the€move€in€this€case,€it€would€be€highly€impractical€toÐ l6¼15 Ðretain€the€original€visitation€schedule.€Husbandððs€visitation€proposal€requested€that€he€haveÏthe€child€at€least€two€weekends€per€month€and€the€entire€time€he€is€out€of€school€duringÐ D:”59 Ðthe€summer.€Wife€proposed€a€visitation€schedule€consisting€of€111€days€while€HusbandððsÏschedule€requested€184€days.€The€trial€judge€decided€to€keep€the€visitation€at€the€sameÏlevel€as€it€had€previously€been€exercised.€The€trial€judge€ultimately€approved€a€visitationÏschedule€patterned€after€Wifeððs€schedule,€but€consisting€of€170.5€days€per€year.€œÌ›Ìà  àWife€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€import€into€its€visitation€schedule€theÏcurrent€law€in€Tennessee.€She€claims€the€trial€court€incorrectly€concluded€that€HusbandÏwas€necessarily€entitled€to€ð ðthe€same€kind€of€visitationðð€he€had€in€the€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement.€Wife€contends€that€her€original€visitation€proposal,€which€providesÏapproximately€111€days€of€visitation,€requires€significantly€less€travel.€She€claims€that€whileÏthis€has€a€positive€impact€on€her,€it€is€also€beneficial€to€the€œchild.Ì›Ìà  àIt€is€clear€from€the€language€of€òòTayloróó€and€òòAabyóó€quoted€above€that€the€trial€court€isÐ 0€ Ðfree€to€modify€the€visitation€schedule€and€is€not€restricted€to€the€same€kind€of€visitationÏoriginally€provided€for.€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€which€convinces€this€CourtÏthat€the€trial€judge€was€not€aware€of€this€fact€when€it€fashioned€the€new€visitation€schedule.ÏThe€trial€court€was€equally€at€liberty€to€increase€or€decrease€the€amount€of€visitation.€InÏsetting€the€new€visitation€schedule€the€Chancellor€made€the€following€comment.€ð ðI€think€heÏis€entitled€to,€and€I€think€in€the€interest€of€the€child,€half€and€half€forever€is€not€going€toÏwork.€Half€and€half€for€the€foreseeable€future€I€hope€will€œwork.ðð›€This€language€evidencesÏthe€trial€courtððs€recognition€that€it€was€not€required€to€award€the€same€amount€of€timeÏHusband€previously€had,€but€that€for€now,€the€split€of€time€would€continue€to€work.€For€theÏreasons€stated,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€error€in€granting€Husband€170Ïdays€of€visitation,€with€Wife€providing€all€transportation€costs.ÌÌòòò òà@9 9 ìàV.€€Husbandððs€Request€for€Attorney€Feesó óóó€ˆÐ 3à.2 ÐÌà  àParagraph€œThree›€of€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€reads€in€pertinent€part:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒñO ñœñO ñòòÓÓNON„COMPLIANCEóó.€Should€either€party€incur€any€expense€forÐ 09€48 Ðlegal€fees€as€a€result€of€the€breach€of€any€portion€of€this€MaritalÐ  :p59 ÐDissolution€Agreement€by€the€other€party,€the€Court€shallÏaward€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€and€suit€expenses€to€theÏnon„defaulting€party€which€are€reasonably€incurred.ÌÌÓaÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒHusband€argues€that€Wife€breached€the€ð ðsixty€mile€provisionðð€and€the€estrangementÏprovision€of€the€MDA,€and€that€he€should€therefore€be€awarded€his€fees€and€expensesÏpursuant€to€Paragraph€œThree›€of€the€MDA€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„5„103(c).€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€Wife€followed€the€correct€procedure€in€coming€to€court€to€get€permissionÏto€move€and€as€such€she€did€not€breach€the€agreement.€œÌ›Ìà  àIf€Wife€had€removed€the€child€from€the€jurisdiction€and€subsequently€filed€thisÏpetition,€or€by€her€removal€actions€caused€Husband€to€file€a€petition€for€relief,€we€wouldÏhave€a€clear€case€of€breach€of€the€agreement.€However,€Wife€was€aware€of€this€provisionÏin€the€agreement,€and€sought€the€courtððs€approval€in€order€to€avoid€breaching€theÏagreement.€Wife€followed€the€correct€procedure€to€avoid€violating€the€ð ð60€mile€provision.ððÏFor€reasons€that€will€be€explained€hereinbelow,€Wife€also€did€not€violate€theÏð ðestrangementðð€provision€of€the€MDA.€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€this€Court€finds€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€commit€error€in€declining€to€award€attorney€fees€to€Husband.ÌÌà@‡‡ìàò òòòVI.€€Change€of€Custody€Issueóóó óˆÐ $à" ÐÌà  àHusband€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€Husband€sole€andÏexclusive€custody€of€the€child.€He€claims€that€Wife€violated€the€estrangement€provision€ofÏthe€MDA€which€states€that€ð ðNeither€party€shall€do€anything€which€may€estrange€the€childÏfrom€either€parent€or€hamper€the€natural€development€of€their€[sic]€love€for€either€parent.ððÏHe€claims€Wife€violated€the€estrangement€provision€by€becoming€engaged€to€a€man€andÏnot€telling€him€until€after€she€was€married€that€she€had€decided€to€move.€He€claims€that€thisÏshows€that€Wife€does€not€want€in€good€faith€to€exercise€joint€custody€of€the€minor€child€andÏthat€she€would€rather€ð ðestrangeðð€or€alienate€the€child€from€Husband.€He€cites€cases€inÏwhich€this€Court€has€refused€to€permit€the€alienating€parent€to€have€custody€of€the€childrenÏand€insured€that€the€parent€who€has€suffered€alienation€because€of€the€other€parentððsÐ 09€48 Ðactions€is€awarded€custody€so€that€no€further€alienation€œoccurs.Ì›Ìà  àIn€this€case,€there€was€absolutely€no€evidence€offered€to€support€the€contention€thatÏWife€has€attempted€to€alienate€the€child€from€Husband.€There€has€never€been€any€problemÏwith€Husband€exercising€his€visitation.€œ€There›€have€been€no€allegations€that€either€partyÏhas€criticized€or€otherwise€talked€poorly€about€the€other€parent€in€the€presence€of€the€child.€ÏRather€there€was€evidence€by€both€parties€that€they€shared€in€the€upbringing€of€the€child.ÏBoth€parties€testified€that€the€other€was€a€fit€œparent.›€Husband€appears€to€base€hisÏestrangement€claim€on€the€fact€that€Wife€desires€to€move€with€the€child€to€œTexas.Ì›Ìà  àÔ‡Xp~XXXp~ÔRelocation,€standing€alone,€does€not€constitute€a€basis€for€a€change€of€custody.Ð pÀ ÐòòTayloróó€at€332.€The€Supreme€Court€subsequently€discussed€what€is€necessary€for€a€changeÐ P  Ðof€custody€in€œremoval€situations›€Ô#†Xp~XXXp~Ž#ÔÔ‡ Xp~XXXp~Ôin€òòAabyÔ#†Xp~XX Xp~X#ÔÔ‡Xp~XXXp~Ô€v.€Strangeóó.Ð 0€ ÐÓÓñO ñœñO ñÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThis€conclusion€does€not€mean,€however,€that€a€non-custodialÏparent's€hands€are€tied€where€removal€could€pose€a€specific,Ïserious€threat€of€harm€to€the€child.€€In€these€situations€theÏnon-custodial€parent€may€file€a€petition€for€change€of€custodyÏbased€on€a€material€change€of€circumstances.€€The€petitionÏwould€state,€in€effect,€that€the€proposed€move€evidences€suchÏbad€judgment€and€is€so€potentially€harmful€to€the€child€thatÏcustody€should€be€changed€to€the€petitioner.€BecauseÏTennessee€law€allows€custody€to€be€changed€if€the€behaviorÏof€the€custodial€parent€clearly€posits€a€danger€to€the€physical,Ïmental€or€emotional€well-being€of€the€child,€òòMusselman€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐAcuffóó,€826€S.W.2d€920€(Tenn.App.1991),€such€a€petition€wouldÐ `'°"% Ðnot€violate€òòTayloróó--which€only€prohibits€a€change€of€custodyÐ P( #& Ðbased€solely€on€the€fact€of€the€move.€However,€expertÏpsychological€and/or€psychiatric€testimony€that€removal€couldÏbe€generally€detrimental€to€the€child€will€usually€not€suffice€toÏestablish€an€injury€that€is€specific€and€serious€enough€to€justifyÏa€change€of€custody.€€A€move€in€any€child's€life,€whether€he€orÏshe€is€raised€in€the€context€of€a€one€or€two€parent€home,Ïcarries€with€it€the€potential€of€disruption;€such€commonÏphenomena--both€the€fact€of€moving€and€the€accompanyingÏdistress--cannot€constitute€a€basis€for€the€drastic€measure€ofÏa€change€of€custody.€òòAabyóó€at€œ629„30.Ð °1-0 ÐñO ñ›ñO ñÌ›ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒñO ñœñO ñÔ#†Xp~XXXp~¤#ÔÓçÓà  àHusband€did€not€offer€any€evidence€Ô‡ Xp~XXXp~Ôthat€the€proposed€move€evidenced€such€badÐ p5À04 Ðjudgment€and€was€so€potentially€harmful€to€the€child€that€custody€should€be€changed€toÏHusband.€€No€evidence€was€introduced€that€the€behavior€of€Wife€clearly€posits€a€dangerÐ 09€48 Ðto€the€physical,€mental€or€emotional€well-being€of€the€child.€In€fact,€the€evidence€in€thisÏcase€showed€that€Wife€had€found€a€higher€paying€job€in€Texas,€she€and€Smith€were€in€theÏprocess€of€purchasing€a€home,€she€had€made€arrangements€for€a€suitable€day€schoolÏprogram€for€the€child,€and€she€had€gotten€references€for€doctors€in€the€Dallas€area€whoÏcould€treat€child€for€his€medical€condition.Ô#†Xp~XX Xp~ƒ–#Ô€Wife€further€agreed€to€pay€the€cost€to€transportÐ 0 € Ðthe€child,€accompanying€him€both€to€and€from€Tennessee,€for€his€scheduled€visitation€withÏHusband.€It€appears€that€Wife€is€doing€everything€possible€to€ensure€a€smooth€transitionÏfor€the€child€and€facilitate€ample€visitation€with€œHusband.Ì›Ìà  àCustody€will€not€be€changed€to€the€Husband€based€solely€on€the€fact€of€WifeððsÏmove.€Husband€did€not€offer€sufficient€evidence€to€support€his€estrangement€claim,€nor€didÏhe€offer€evidence€that€the€move€would€posit€a€danger€to€the€childððs€physical,€mental€orÏemotional€well„being.€Ô‡ Xp~XXXp~ÔFurthermore,€the€language€in€òòAabyóó€suggests€a€very€strong€showingÐ 0€ Ðof€danger€would€need€be€shown,€as€expert€testimony€that€the€move€itself€would€beÏgenerally€detrimental€to€the€child€will€œnot€usually›€œsufficeÔ#†Xp~XX Xp~°›#Ô.›€Such€a€showing€was€not€made€byÐ ð@ ÐHusband.€The€trial€court€did€not€commit€error€in€failing€to€award€Husband€sole€andÏexclusive€custody€of€the€minor€child.ÌÌà@ìì*ìàœˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ìì*ìàñR ñˆÐ 09€48 Ðà@üü"ìàñR ñò òòòVII.›€€ConclusionˆÐ ° ÐÌóóó óà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÐ pÀ Ðthe€Husband,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P  Ðóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHIGHERS,€J.Ð ð@  ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ pÀ ÐFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  p ÐLILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌ›