WPC" # VUNa % 0P 0 0D 0 0D` w@ 4  0J 0TQ 0^ 0h k 0rs 0| 0a 0 1uwU, 0dU,|U>U*U* B:B)WDC D3 AMC 0@Bv~'v AOx  0D! D/! B"HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX((-$   (D3m$ -!      0  .($$  0  (D(3o$ -!        0  (#$  0   YZD[_`abDcd Ӏp~| ddd`3|xp2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times<  9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'''''dxd-)C << G !$  &&   YYY FILED&X April22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !$   $       By noncustodialparentsparentingrights,Irefertoalltherightsrelatedtothenon custodialparentsrelationshipwiththechildwhichincludes,ataminimum,visitation rights,butwhichalsoincludestherighttoparticipateinthechildseducational,social, religious,recreational,andrelatedactivitiesthatoccuronnonvisitationdays.  !$   $       Examplesofsuchamovewouldbeoneforthepurposeofdefeatingvisitation,  interferingwiththenoncustodialparentsrelationshipwiththechildorparticipationinthe childsactivities,ordeterringthenoncustodialparentsinvolvementwithordevelopment ofarelationshipwiththechild.  !$   $       Examplesofsituationsthatwouldposea specific,seriousthreatofharmtothechild wouldinclude,forexample,amovethatwouldtakeachildwithseriousmedicalneedsto anareawherenoadequatetreatmentwasreadilyavailable;amovethatwouldtakeachild withspecialeducationalneedstoanareawithnoadequateeducationalfacilities;ora movethatwouldplacethechildinclosecontactwithapersonwithaconfirmedhistoryof childabuseorviolence.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &##Xd&###Xd#$     &%%X8d&&\RA'\L+,);+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLEGENEV.AABY,    )  FORPUBLICATION       ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   ) KnoxChancery       ) v.      ) Hon.FrederickD.McDonald,      ) ChancellorJUDYE.AABYSTRANGE,  )       ) No.03S019507CH00073 Defendant/Appellant. @ DISSENTINGOPINION̜  Idissentfromthedecisionreachedbythemajoritywhich,asapracticalmatter,endorsesathirdmoveforthisyoungchildwhohasjustreachedschoolage,becausetheformulationoftherule,inmyestimation,underminestheimportanteffortsofthosenoncustodialparentswhoworkdiligentlytobemorethaneveryotherweekendmothersandfathers.Whileadjustingvisitationschedulestoaccommodateamoveaimstoallowthenoncustodialparentacontinuedrelationshipwiththechild,itdoesnothingtoaccommodateorencouragethenoncustodialparentwhowantstoattendJohnnyschoirrecital;Maryssoccergame;orbothchildrensmonthlyparentteacherconferences.Therulesetforthbythemajorityallowsacustodialparenttorelocatetoadistancethat,ineffect,prohibitstheimportantnoncustodialparentalinvolvementdescribedabove.Themovecouldbefornoreasonatall,solongasitcouldnot beproved thatthemovewas  vindictive or intended todefeatvisitationrights.Ibelievethatsuchanapproachundulyimpedesthatwhichwealldesireanopportunityforchildrenofdivorcedparentstohavemeaningfulrelationshipswithbothparentsdespitetheparentsinabilitytoremainmarried.  Ratherthantherulesetforthbythemajority,Iwouldrequirethecustodialparenttoestablishsomereasonforthemovethatwasunrelatedtothenoncustodialparentsparentingrights .   .Additionally,Iwouldrequirethecustodialparenttodemonstratethatthemovewouldnotbeadversetothechildssocial,educational,psychological,andhealthneeds.Aftersuchashowingbythecustodialparent,themovewouldbeallowedunlessthenoncustodialparentestablished,byapreponderanceoftheevidence(1)thatthemovewasforreasonsrelatedtointerferingwith,defeating,orunderminingthenoncustodialparentsparentingrights; /   ׀or(2)thatthemovewouldposeaspecific,seriousthreatofharmtothechild. 0     Sucharulewouldobligethecustodialparenttodeliberatehisorherdecisiontomovesinceitwouldrequirethecustodialparenttoinitiatetheactioninthecourtintheeventanagreementconcerningvisitationcouldnotbereached.This,Ibelieve,wouldservetoimpressuponthecustodialparenttheneedtoponderthedecisionandtoevaluateitinlightofallthefactsandcircumstances,includingthosepertainingtothechild.Sucharulewouldnotimpedethecustodialparentsfreedomofmovement,whichthemajoritydeemssoessential;itsimplywouldimposeuponthecustodialparenttheobligationtoconsiderwhethertheexerciseofthatfreedomisconsistentwiththeneedsofthechildwhotheparenthasrequestedtheexclusiverighttoparent.Itwouldnotbury,asIbelievethemajorityruledoes,aconsiderationofthechildsinterests.Anditwouldnotdestroytheeffortsofthoseparentsnotfortunateenoughtobeawardedcustodybethatbecauseofeconomicorgenderstereotypicalreasons7.XXdXXd7фtoparticipatefullyintheirchildrenslivesinamoremeaningfulwaythaneveryotherweekend,orperhaps,morelikely,fourweeksinthesummer,allows.      ________________________________      PennyJ.White,Justice