IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 27, 2013 Session

THOMAS GOODMAN RUTHERFORD v. MELODEY JOICE LAWSON

RUTHERFORD

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 05D-692 Joe Binkley, Jr., Judge

No. M2012-01807-COA-R3-CV - Filed May 7, 2013

Mother, who spent greater time with the parties’ minor child, notified Father via certified

letter of her intent to relocate out of state. Thirty-three days later, Father filed a petition in

opposition to the move. The trial court allowed Father to oppose relocation, despite his

failure to formally oppose the move within thirty days, noting that Mother had learned of

Father’s opposition within the thirty-day period and that she had not relocated until “well

after” Father filed his petition.

In this statutory construction case, we conclude that Tennessee’s parental relocation statute,

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108, mandates that a parent wishing to oppose

relocation file a petition in opposition within thirty days of receipt of notice of the proposed

relocation. If no written petition in opposition is timely filed, the parent proposing to relocate

with the child shall be permitted to do so, notwithstanding the absence of harm or prejudice

to the relocating parent due to the untimely petition. Because Father failed to file a written

petition in opposition to Mother’s proposed relocation within thirty days of receipt of her

certified letter, we find the trial court erred in conducting any further analysis pursuant to

section 36-6-108. The decision of the trial court is reversed, and Mother is permitted to

relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child. Father’s request for appellate attorney

fees is denied, and all remaining issues are deemed pretermitted.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed

ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HOLLY M. KIRBY,

J., concurred separately and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., dissented.
George Davis, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford

Paul A. Rutherford, Wende J. Rutherford, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Thomas

Goodman Rutherford

OPINION

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Thomas Goodman Rutherford (“Father”) and Melodey Joice Lawson (“Mother”)

divorced in 2007 after an approximate seven-year marriage. The parties have one minor

child. In 2010, the parties entered into an “Agreed Order,” which incorporated a revised

Parenting Plan allowing Mother 214 days of parenting time with the child and allowing

Father 151 days with the child.

On January 3, 2012, Mother sent Father a certified letter notifying him of her intent

to relocate to Omaha, Nebraska. The letter, which Father acknowledged receiving on

January 4, 2012, stated as follows:

This is to notify you, that on March 5, 2012, I plan on moving to Omaha

Nebraska.

My company is transferring me there to take a new position.

Thomas, you may file a petition in opposition to my move within thirty days

of receipt of this notice. If you do that we will have to fight this in court.

Otherwise we need to sit down and come up with a new parenting plan that

will make the best of this for us all.

Apparently on January 25, 2012, Mother and Father met to discuss Mother’s proposed

relocation. It is undisputed that at the meeting, Father verbally expressed his opposition to

relocation, and the parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the proposed

relocation.

On February 6, 2012–33 days after receiving Mother’s relocation notice letter–Father

filed a “Petition in Opposition to Proposed Parental Relocation, and to Modify” (“Petition

in Opposition”). Father alleged that relocation would be detrimental to the child, and he

sought to be named the child’s primary residential parent. In response, Mother filed a

“Petition to Relocate” claiming that the move had a reasonable purpose, that it would not

harm the child, and that it had no vindictive motive. Additionally, Mother noted that Father

-2-
had failed to file a petition in opposition to the move within thirty days of receipt of the

certified notice letter, and, therefore, she requested that she be allowed to relocate and that

1

Father’s visitation be modified as set forth in an attached proposed Parenting Plan.

On February 13, 2012, the trial court entered a Temporary Restraining Order

preventing Mother from relocating with the minor child. Thereafter, on April 25, 2012,

Mother filed a “Motion to Determine Status of Case Pursuant [to] TCA 36-6-108(g)”

questioning why she had been temporarily enjoined from relocating with the child when

Father had failed to timely oppose the move in writing. In response, Father argued that his

untimely filing was the result of excusable neglect because “he was without the financial

resources to hire an attorney at the time he received notice of Mother’s intent to relocate” and

because his present attorney, who agreed to serve as a favor to Father’s father, was unable

to meet with him until after the thirty-day period had expired. Following a hearing on May

2

22, 2012, the trial court entered an Order finding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-

6-108(g)’s thirty-day time period should not “be applied to bar Father’s right to contest

Mother’s relocation[,]” noting that “[t]here is no proof of harm or prejudice to Mother

resulting from the date of his filing.”

A trial on the merits was conducted in July 2012. On August 1, 2012, the trial court

entered an order in which it rejected Father’s argument that the parties were spending

3

substantially equal time with the minor child; the court concluded that Mother spent greater

time with the child. However, the trial court found that Mother’s proposed relocation lacked

4

a reasonable purpose because it was the result of a voluntary lateral move–rather than an

employer “transfer” as she had alleged–and because Mother had “only a belief and a hope

that she w[ould] advance in her career in her position in Nebraska[.]” After determining that

the move lacked a reasonable purpose, the court conducted a best interest analysis, and it

determined that relocation was not in the child’s best interest. It then designated Father as

the child’s primary residential parent. In light of the trial court’s findings, a new parenting

On appeal, Father argues that Mother waived the defense of Father’s failure to file his Petition in 1

Opposition within 30 days because she failed to raise the issue in her March 9, 2012 Answer to Father’s

Petition in Opposition. However, we find no waiver, as Mother specifically asserted this defense in her

February 9, 2012 Petition to Relocate. 

The trial court ultimately found that excusable neglect was not an issue in the case because it 2

determined that the 30-day period for filing a petition in opposition was permissive, rather than mandatory. 

The excusable neglect issue is not pursued on appeal.

The orderspecifically incorporated the trial court’s oral findings following the July 3, 2012 hearing. 3

This finding is not challenged on appeal. 4

-3-
plan was entered on August 1, 2012, and a final order was entered on October 26, 2012.

Mother timely appealed to this Court.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

On appeal, Mother asks this Court to construe Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-

6-108 to determine whether its thirty-day period for filing a petition in opposition to

relocation is permissive or mandatory. Additionally, Mother asks this Court to find that the

evidence preponderates against the trial court’s conclusion that her relocation lacked a

reasonable purpose, and Father asks this Court for an award of attorney fees pursuant to

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108(I) and/or because Mother’s appeal is frivolous.

For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court, and we permit

Mother to relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This is a matter of statutory interpretation, which presents a question of law. In re

Estate of Trigg, 368 S.W.3d 483, 490 (Tenn. 2012). Accordingly, our review is de novo,

with no presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Id. As our

Supreme Court has explained:

When interpreting statutes, a reviewing court must ascertain and give effect to

the legislative intent without restricting or expanding the statute’s intended

meaning. The courts must examine the language of the statute and, if the

language is unambiguous, apply the ordinary and plain meaning of the words

used. Furthermore, every word in a statute is presumed to have meaning and

purpose. In short, “[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to effectuate

legislative intent, with all rules of construction being aides to that end.”

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 277 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn. 2009)

(citations omitted).

-4-
IV. DISCUSSION

A. Requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108

The requirements and purposes of Tennessee’s parental relocation statute, Tennessee

Code Annotated section 36-6-108, have previously been explained by this Court:

“In 1998, our state legislature enacted Tennessee Code Annotated

section 36-6-108, which applies when a parent seeks to relocate outside the

state or more than 100 miles away from the other parent residing within the

state.” Kawatra v. Kawatra,182 S.W.3d 800, 802 (Tenn. 2005). The statute

was enacted to provide consistency in relocation proceedings. Helton v.

Helton, No. M2002-02792-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 63478, at *4 (Tenn. Ct.

App. Jan. 13, 2004). It provides that a parent who desires to relocate shall

send notice by mail to the other parent of his or her intent to move at least sixty

days prior to the move unless excused by a court for exigent circumstances.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(a). The notice must contain the location of the

proposed new residence, reasons for the proposed relocation, and a statement

that the other parent may file a petition in opposition to the move within thirty

days. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(a)]. In the event no petition in opposition

to the proposed relocation is filed within thirty days of receipt of the notice, the

parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 36-6-108(g).

Under the statute, the appropriate standard to be applied when the other

parent does file a petition in opposition to removal of the child depends upon

whether the parents actually spend substantially equal amounts of time with the

child. Thus, the trial court must first decide whether the parents are “actually

spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child.” Tenn. Code

Ann. § 36-6-108(c), (d). If they do, no presumption in favor of or against

relocation arises, and the court decides the petition to relocate on the basis of

the child’s best interest. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(c). “The approach

differs if the parents are ‘not actually spending substantially equal intervals of

time with the child.’” Kawatra, 182 S.W.3d at 802. The statute “reflects a

legislatively mandated presumption in favor of relocating custodial parents

who spend ‘the greater amount of time with the child.’” Elder v. Elder, No.

M1998-00935-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1077961, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept.

14, 2001). If the parent who seeks to relocate with the child spends the greater

amount of time with the child, the court “shall” permit the relocation unless the

other parent can establish that the relocation: 1) does not have a reasonable

-5-
purpose; 2) poses a threat of specific and serious harm to the child that

outweighs the threat of harm from a change of custody; or 3) is due to a

vindictive motive in that it is intended to defeat or deter visitation rights of the

other parent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(d). The parent opposing the

relocation bears the burden of proof to establish one of these three grounds,

and if he or she fails to do so, the relocation shall be permitted. In re Iyana

R.W., No. M2002-03071-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 23094000, at *3 (Tenn. Ct.

App. Dec. 20, 2003)). If one of these three circumstances is shown, the court

then proceeds to a best interest analysis. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(e).

Lima v. Lima, No. W2010-02027-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3445961, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App.

Aug. 9, 2011).

In this case, it is undisputed that Father filed his Petition in Opposition thirty-three

days after he received notice, via certified letter, of Mother’s intent to relocate. Based upon

5

Father’s failure to file his petition within thirty days, Mother, relying upon section 36-6-

108(g), essentially argued in the trial court that she should automatically be allowed to

6

relocate with the child without further consideration by the court. The trial court, however,

determined that subsection (g) did not operate to bar Father’s attempted relocation contest.

It acknowledged that Father’s written petition was untimely, but it found that the statutory

purposes behind section 36-6-108 had been fulfilled and that Mother had not been prejudiced

by the three day delay because Mother had undisputedly learned of Father’s opposition to

relocation within thirty days of her notice letter and because Mother did not actually relocate

“until well after” Father filed his Petition in Opposition. Essentially, the trial court concluded

that the thirty-day petition filing period is “permissive” rather than “mandatory.” Therefore,

notwithstanding Father’s untimely petition, it inquired into the motives behind Mother’s

relocation, ultimately determining that they were unsatisfactory, and it conducted a best

interest analysis, concluding that Father should be named the child’s primary residential

parent.

In his appellate brief, Father implies that Mother’s January 3, 2012 notice letter was insufficient. 5

He briefly states, “Nowhere in the letter did Mother state that she was proposing to take the minor child with

her to Nebraska when she moved[.]” It is unclear whether the sufficiency of Mother’s notice was raised in

the trial court, but in any event, insofar as Father attempts to challenge Mother’s notice on appeal, we find

that Father has waived consideration of this issue by failing to include such in his statement of the issues. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) (“Review generally will extend only to those issues presented for review.”).

Subsection (g) providesin part that “[i]n the event no petition in opposition to a proposed relocation 6

is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, the parent proposing relocation with the child shall

be permitted to do so.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(g).

-6-
On appeal, we are asked to construe the stringency of Tennessee Code Annotated

section 36-6-108. That is, we are asked to determine whether the statute mandates or simply

permits a parent who wishes to oppose relocation to file a written petition in opposition

within thirty days of receipt of relocation notice. Our inquiry primarily focuses upon

subsection (g) which, again, provides in relevant part that “[i]n the event no petition in

opposition to a proposed relocation is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice, the

parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so.” Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 36-6-108(g) (emphasis added).

On appeal, Mother argues that section 36-6-108(g), by its plain language, requires the

filing of a written petition in opposition to a proposed relocation within thirty days of receipt

of relocation notice. She maintains that oral notification does not satisfy this requirement,

that proof of harm or prejudice is not necessary to enforce the requirement, and that failure

to comply with the requirement results in the proposed relocating parent being permitted to

move without further consideration by the court.

In response, however, Father contends that a trial court considering a relocation

request–whether or not a timely written petition in opposition has been filed–must consider

both the factors set forth in subsections (d) and (e) of the statute. Father acknowledges that

7 8

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108, subsection (d), provides:

7

(1) If the parents are not actually spending substantially equal intervals of time with the

child and the parent spending the greater amount of time with the child proposes to relocate

with the child, the other parent may, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, file a

petition in opposition to removal of the child. The other parent may not attempt to relocate

with the child unless expressly authorized to do so by the court pursuant to a change of

custody or primary custodial responsibility. The parentspending the greater amount of time

with the child shall be permitted to relocate with the child unless the court finds:

(A) The relocation does not have a reasonable purpose;

(B) The relocation would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child that

outweighs the threat of harm to the child of a change of custody; or

(C) The parent’s motive for relocating with the child is vindictive in that it is

intended to defeat or deter visitation rights of the non-custodial parent or the parent

spending less time with the child.

. . . .

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108, subsection (e), provides:

8

If the court finds one (1) or more of the grounds designated in subsection (d), the court shall

determine whether or not to permit relocation of the child based on the best interest of the

child. If the court finds it is not in the best interests of the child to relocate as defined

herein, but the parent with whom the child resides the majority of the time elects to relocate,

the courtshallmake a custody determination and shall consider all relevant factorsincluding

(continued...)

-7-
subsection (g) “does appear to make the filing of the petition within thirty (30) days

mandatory to being heard[,]” but he contends that when subsection (g) is considered in

conjunction with three other subsections of the statute, the thirty-day written petition

procedure appears to become “permissive or even optional.”

First, Father points out that subsections (a) and (d) state that if a parent opposes

relocation he or she “may” file a petition in opposition:

(a) If a parent who is spending intervals of time with a child desires to relocate

. . . the relocating parent shall send a notice . . . . The notice shall contain the

following:

. . . .

(4) Statement that the other parent may file a petition in opposition to

the move within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice.

. . . .

(d) If . . . the parent spending the greater amount of time with the child

proposes to relocate with the child, the other parent may, within thirty (30)

days of receipt of the notice, file a petition in opposition to removal of the

child. . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(a), (d) (emphasis added). He also suggests that subsection (b)

(...continued) 8

the following where applicable: 

(1) The extent to which visitation rights have been allowed and exercised;

(2) Whether the primary residential parent, once out of the jurisdiction, is likely to

comply with any new visitation arrangement;

(3) The love, affection and emotional ties existing between the parents and child;

(4) The disposition of the parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical

care, education and other necessary care and the degree to which a parent has been

the primary caregiver;

(5) The importance of continuity in the child’s life and the length of time the child

has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment;

(6) the stability of the family unit of the parents;

(7) The mental and physical health of the parents;

(8) The home, school and community record of the child;

(9)(A) The reasonable preference of the child if twelve (12) years of age or older;

(B) The court may hear the preference of a younger child upon request. The

preferences of older children should normally be given greater weight than those of

younger children;

(10) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent or to

any other person; and

(11) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the

home of a parent and such person’s interactions with the child.

-8-
is “most notable[,]” and he claims that it requires the court to consider the subsection (d) and

subsection (e) factors–even when no petition in opposition is filed–if the parties cannot agree

upon a visitation schedule, and therefore that the legislature must have also intended for the

factors to be considered in every relocation case.

Again, as explained above, in construing a statute we must “ascertain and give effect

to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding the statute’s coverage beyond

its intended scope.” Hathaway v. First Family Fin. Servs., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 634, 640 (Tenn.

1999) (citations omitted). To ascertain legislative intent, we must consider the natural and

ordinary meaning of the statutory language within the context of the entire statute, avoiding

a construction which would limit or expand its scope. See In re M.R.W., No. M2005-02329-

COA3-PT, 2006 WL 1184010, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2006) (citing JJ & TK Corp. v.

Bd. of Comm’rs, 149 S.W.3d 628, 630-31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citations omitted)).

This Court has previously been called upon to construe the term “shall.” In In re

M.R.W., 2006 WL 1184010, at *2, we considered whether Tennessee Code Annotated

section 36-1-113(k)–which provides that a trial court, following a parental termination

hearing, “shall enter an order that makes specific findings of fact and conclusions of law

within thirty (30) days”–required the vacation of a trial court order entered after thirty days.

In ultimately determining that remand–as opposed to vacation–was required, we contrasted

the decisions rendered in Garrett v. State, 717 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn. 1986) and Kardoush,

L.L.C. v. City of Memphis Alcohol Comm’n, No. W2005-00104-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL

3017602, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2005).

In Garrett, the Supreme Court considered the use of “shall” in Tennessee Code

Annotated section 4-5-314(g), which concerned the forfeiture of property to the state. In re

M.R.W., 2006 WL 1184010, at *2-3 (citing Garrett, 717 S.W.2d at 291). The statute

provided:

A final order rendered pursuant to subsection (a) or initial order rendered

pursuant to subsection (b) shall be rendered in writing within ninety (90) days

after conclusion of the hearing or after submission of proposed findings in

accordance with subsection (f) unless such period is waived or extended with

the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown.

Id. at *3 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(g) (emphasis added)). The Garrett Court

concluded that the word “shall,” as used in subsection (g) was “directory,” and therefore, that

the administrative law judge’s failure to render an initial order upholding the property

forfeiture until 112 days after the hearing was harmless error. Id. (citing Garrett, 717

S.W.2d at 291). In so concluding, the Court specifically noted that the legislative intent

-9-
behind the ninety-day limit in section 4-5-314 was unclear. Id. (citing Garrett, 717 S.W.2d

at 291).

In contrast, in Kardoush, this Court held that “shall” as used in Tennessee Code

Annotated section 57-3-208(e) was “mandatory.” Id. In that case, we considered whether

the Memphis Alcohol Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to act on a license

application after the sixty-day period set out in section 57-3-208(e) had expired. Id. The

statute provided in relevant part:

(e) A failure on the part of the issuing authority to grant or deny the certificate

within sixty (60) days of the written application for such shall be deemed a

granting of the certificate.

(f) The requirement imposed by this section to submit a certificate shall not be

applicable to any applicant if:

(1) The authority of the county or municipality charged with the responsibility

to issue the certificate required herein shall have failed to grant or deny the

certificate within sixty (60) days after written application for such certificate

is filed[.]”

Id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-208(e), (f) (2002) (emphasis added)). In Kardoush, we

noted that “[w]hen a statute uses the word ‘shall,’ it is generally construed as being

mandatory as opposed to discretionary. . . . On the other hand, statutory provisions

concerning the time frame in which an act must be done ordinarily are considered directory

rather than mandatory.” Kardoush, 2005 WL 1017602, at *3 (citations omitted). However,

we held that the legislature “clearly intended” “shall,” as used in section 57-3-208, to be

mandatory because, unlike the statute construed in Garrett, section 57-3-208 provided a

remedy for failure to act within the statutorily prescribed sixty-day period. In re M.R.W.,

2006 WL 1184010, at *3 (citing Kardoush, 2005 WL 1017602, at *4); see also id. at *3 n.2

(noting that the statute construed in Garrett prescribed no consequence for failure to adhere

to the ninety-day period).

Like Kardoush, the statute under construction here provides a remedy for failure to

comply with the thirty-day period for filing a petition in opposition to relocation; “[i]n the

event no petition in opposition to a proposed relocation is filed within thirty (30) days of

receipt of the notice, the parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do

so.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(g). This remedy specifically aligns with the statutory

purposes of providing consistency in relocation proceedings and affording a presumption in

favor of relocating parents who spend a greater amount of time with the child. See Lima,

-10-
2011 WL 3445961, at *3 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that the legislature

intended the thirty-day opposition period to be mandatory, and where timely opposition is not

rendered, the factors set forth in the statute are not implicated.

We are simply unpersuaded by Father’s arguments that subsections (a), (b), and (d)

of the statute necessitate a different conclusion. That subsections (a) and (d) state that a

parent opposing relocation “may” file a petition in opposition does not render the thirty-day

petition period “permissive;” the use of “may” simply reflects the obvious–that relocation

will not be opposed in every case. Additionally, we find that subsection (b) does not render

the thirty-day petition period “permissive” because it merely requires the court to consider

“all relevant factors” when fashioning a visitation schedule–not in determining whether to

permit relocation. Moreover, in light of the statute’s requirement that an objecting parent file

a “petition,” we reject the trial court’s conclusion that the requirements of section 36-6-108

are satisfied by oral notification. Furthermore, finding no basisfor invoking such restrictions

and bearing in mind that the legislature was free to impose restrictions of its choosing, we

reject the trial court’s conclusion that the thirty-day period may be invoked only where noninvocation would result in harm or prejudice to the relocating parent.

Finally, we must note that our conclusions reached herein do not deprive a court from

considering potentially harmful circumstances, as Father suggests. Section 36-6-108(g)

expressly provides that “[n]othing in this section shall prohibit either parent from petitioning

the court at any time to address issues, such as but not limited to, visitation, other than a

change of custody related to the move.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(g). The requirement

that a parent opposing relocation file a petition in opposition within thirty days of receipt of

notice of the proposed relocation in no way ties the court’s hands with respect to issues

unrelated to the move.

In sum, we conclude that section 36-6-108 mandates that a parent wishing to oppose

relocation file a petition in opposition within thirty days of receipt of notice of the proposed

relocation. If no written petition in opposition is timely filed, the parent proposing to relocate

with the child shall be permitted to do so, notwithstanding the absence of harm or prejudice

to the relocating parent due to the untimely petition. Because Father failed to file a written

9

Father briefly argues in his appellate brief that automatically allowing relocation when no timely

9

petition in opposition is filed deprives him of his right to due process. He mistakenly contendsthat allowing

relocation when no petition in opposition is filed automatically results in a change of custody to the

relocating parent and/or decreased parenting time with the non-relocating parent. As stated above, when no

petition in opposition is filed, the parent is simply allowed to relocate; if a visitation schedule cannot be

agreed upon, “all relevant factors” are then considered in fashioning a visitation schedule. In any event, we

find that Father has waived consideration of the due process issue by failing to include such in his statement

(continued...)

-11-
petition in opposition to Mother’s proposed relocation within thirty days of receipt of her

certified letter, we find the trial court erred in conducting any further analysis pursuant to

section 36-6-108. The decision of the trial court is reversed, and Mother is permitted to

relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child. Father’s request for appellate attorney

fees is denied, and all remaining issues are deemed pretermitted.

V. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the decision of the circuit court, and we

permit Mother to relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child. Father’s request for

appellate attorney fees is denied, and all remaining issues are deemed pretermitted. Costs

of this appeal are taxed to Appellee, Thomas Goodman Rutherford, for which execution may

issue if necessary.

_________________________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S.

(...continued) 9

of the issues. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) (“Review generally will extend only to those issues presented for

review.”). 

-12-