## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

a t Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00041

- C V

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court H ood County, Texas Trial Court No. D2018067
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack



### C.B. , Appellant

V


### . A.B. , Appellee2 M EMORANDUM OPINION
I. I NTRODUCTION Appellant C.B. (Father) appeals portion s of the trial court ’s final decree of
divorce . I n two issues, Father argues (1) that the evidence does not support the trial

court ’s division of the marital estate and (2) that t he trial court abused its discretion by ordering that appellee A.B. (Mother) has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the couple ’ s child (Chi ld) “ within Hood County, Texas [,] an d within 60
mile s of A nchorage, Alaska

. ” We will affirm.
I I. B ACKGROUND At the f inal divorce hearing, Mother testified that she and Father marr ied in August 2013 and that the couple had one child tog ether

— Child. Mother also has an older daughter from a prior marriage (Sister), whose father lives in Anchorage. According to Mother, she was born and raised in Ancho rage , and that is where her family lives. It is a lso where she met Father. Because Father is employed by the Army Corps of Engineers, and because the work he was performing in An cho rage had been comple ted, the couple moved to Texas afte r Fat her de cided that he would rather take a position with the Army Corp s of Engineers in Fort Worth, Texas, rather
than Nebraska. But Mother said that it was always the couple’s plan to move back to Anchorage after Fath er had accrued enough time with the Army Corps of Engineers. By Mother’s account, whe n the couple lived in Anchorage, Father had a busy
schedule that often included hi s going on four

- week

- long work trips. Since th e couple3

had been in Texas, Father’s wor k sche dule e volved into hi s being on the road for one to two weeks at a time, with Father routinely only staying in the couple’s residence on
the weekends. Mother testified that she had b een a stay

- at

- hom e mom since the family moved to Texas. While Mothe r was on the stand, her attorney introduced a W

- 2 demonstrating that Father had made $87,621 gross income in 2017. Mother also

s aid that Father received $1,600 monthly for disability pay and that Child ha d medical
ins u rance available to her thr ough Tricar e. Mother averred that she had begun working two weeks prior to the September 24, 2018 h earing. Accor ding to Mother, she works six and one

- half hours a day and earn s $10 per hour. Mother said that if she remained in Texas, her monthly
expens es would be $4,771.70, but if she moved back to Anchorage her monthly expenses would reduce to $3,201.67. By Mother’s account, her expenses would be
le ss in Anchorage b ecause she would be living wi th her grandparents, who raised her, and they would help h er with chi ldcare and expenses

. She also said that if she
returned to Anc horage, her earning capacity would increase , and she belie ved s he
could retu rn to her old job there ma kin g $13 per hour.
Mother said that the reason she filed for divorce was becau se she lear ned that Father was having an affair. She also said that Father is now living with the person he

was havi ng the aff

air with (Girlfriend), w ho li ves two and one

- half hours away from
where Mother and Child live. By Mother’s account, this distanc e has affec ted Father’s ability to have a relationship with Child, but Father does routinely Skyp e wit h Chil d.4

Mothe r said that Father’s wor k and other commitments often interfered with his ability to pick Child up for visitation and that Girlfriend had p icked up Ch ild multi ple
times because F ather was either working or hunting. Moth er sai d that co mmunicating
with Fat her h ad been “stressful” and that “something always comes up” when the
two discuss visitation with Child. Mother testified that during the pendenc y of the divorce, Father had paid the bills sporadically

— i nclud ing th e rent wh ere she and
Child we re li ving

— and that because of this, she had to borrow money from her grandparents to pay bills. She also said that during th e marriage, she and Father had
borrow ed large amounts of money from her grand paren ts. Mother averred tha t she was asking the court to allow her and Child to move to Anchorage. Mother proposed that Father have standard possession of and visitation
with Child, including her stayin g with him during summers and major holid ays. She
als o said that Father could visit Child in Alaska “any time he wanted to come up.”
Mother testified that it was feasible for Father t o visit Child in A nchorage because he had multiple friends there , and h e own s a r e ntal home forty

- f ive minutes away fr om Anc horage that was housing long

- time friends of his. Mother stipulated that the Alaska home was Father’s separate property. Ac cording to Mother, there are direct flights from DFW airpo rt to Ancho rage that la st six h ours and co st rou ghly $500. She also asked the court that, when he comes to visit Child, Father’s visits occur within sixty miles of Anchor age
— a distance th at would allow for visitations to occur at the5

home Father owns in Al aska. She stated t h at her sch edule in Anchorage would be flexible enough to accommodate Father’s visits with Child.
Mother averred that at Father ’ s request , she submitted to a drug test and that the results were negativ e. As she t estified, the trial court admitted into e vidence the results of her drug test. Mother stated that even though she had taken her drug t est, Father had not take n one because when he went for the test, his nails were no t lon g

enou gh for a sa mple. Mothe r said, however, that this was unusual because , even thou gh his fingernails varied, he typically had long toe nails and that he did not

nor mally get mani cures or pedicures.
Mother stated that return ing t o Anch orage would have a positive impac t o n her
and Child’s life because Mother had missed her fa m ily, and th e ability to live with her grandparents would provide a better home f or Child. She also said that all of her
cousins live in Ancho rage and th at there ar e multiple relatives t hat are around Child’s
age. Mother recalled a recent visit to Anchor a ge and how she was able to take Child camping and fishing “ and kind of gav e her the life that [Mother] had growing up.”
Mothe r said that altho ugh she had relatives liv ing in Texas, she did not know many of them, had not seen many of them in years, and di d not know w here they lived.
Mother acknowledged t hat she had a babysitter she trusted for Child that l ived a few houses away and that she had star ted recently dating someone she has known for many years that lives nearby . Neverthe less , she averr e d that neither she nor Father had any real suppor t system in Te xas. She also said that because of his job, Father6

was ra rely around their Texas residence. M other stated that the parenting arrangment that she proposed was in Child’s best interest.
Moth e r’s grandfather (Gr andfat her) testified at the hearing. Grandfather said
that he had rai sed M other m ost of he r life and that he an d hi s wife had visited Mother, Father, Child, and Sister once or twice a year since they had moved to Texas.
Grandfather sa i d t hat it was a via b le option for Mother and her daughters to move to the gran dpare nt’s ho me in Anc horage because they h ave a large home that contains up to seven bedrooms (some of which currently serve as offices that can easily be converted to bedrooms)

. Grandfa ther said that there is a large support system in Anchorag e for Mother and her daughters, including hims elf, his wife, Mother’s mother, and two of Mother’s uncles.
Grandfather said that he had l oaned Father and Mother mon ey in the past, including an $18,000 loan f or the purpose of paying off debts from Fa the r’s pr ior
divorce. He also said that during the pendency of the divorce, he had financially assisted Mother, mainly for legal bills. Grandfather said that he has nev er had any
concerns about M other’s parenting abilities and t hat he be lieved it was i n Chi ld’s best interest that she be allowed to move to Anchorage with Mother. Grandfather also said that he could think of no g ood reason for Child to remain li ving in Texas given the minor support network she has i n T ex as versus the robust sup port network Child would have in Anchorage.7

Father also testified at the hearing. Father averred that he had made between $87,000 and $89,000 gross income in 2017 and receive s $1,600 monthly as a disability
p aym ent. Father said that he was currently paying $1,420 a month in child support to
Mother. Father stated that as a driller for the Army Corps of Enginee rs, he works “regions” and that currently he was assigned to a regio n that covered “Fort Worth to
W a co to Fort Hood.” Father said that he objected to Child moving to Anchorage because he bel ieved that he would not have the ability “to be he r father or spend any time with her.”
Father sa id th at h is rese arch into flights from DFW to Anchorage revealed t hat flights
can l ast between eight and twenty

- three hours and can cost between $60 0 and $1,200.
He also stated that if h e were to drive to Anchorage from his home, it wo uld take hi m

t wo d ays if he drove eighteen hours each day. According to Father, at t he time of the he aring , his current visitation schedule
was to vis it Child on the first, third, and fifth weeken d of every month on Saturday s from 10:00 a.m. unt il 7:00 p .m . a nd on S unda ys from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. According to Father, visitations w i th Child were dif ficult because he lived 112 miles
away from her, and he routinely was scheduled to wo rk every other weekend. But
Father av erred tha t he and his boss were trying to work out a schedule so that he
could be off for more visitation wee kends. By Father ’ s acc ount, he and Mother had communication problems regarding
visi t ations and that after Mot her and her daughters had spent t he entire month of July8

in Alaska, she did not communicate with him for three weeks after she returned. He
also said t hat Mother did no t effectively communicate with him regarding Child ’ s medical n eeds. Father denied having an affai r while t ogether with Mother and said that he only started dating Girlfriend after he and Mother had se parated, but he agreed that he had
k n own Girlfriend pr ior to the separation

— he met her through one of his friends
when h e went with a group to a bar one night. According to Father, he was unaware that the drug test he was to take would b e done via nail clippings , and he had gone and attempt e d to take the tes t , but the lab determin ed t hat his nail s w ere too short to retrieve a sample. By Father’s account, he returned a week later and the lab took nail clippings, but he had not heard back regarding any results of a test. Father said that
he r outinely trims hi s fingernails bec ause he works with his hands and that he

ro utinely t rims his toe nails because he wears steel

- toed boots to work.
Father sa id that most of Mother’s family in Alaska have “an extensive criminal record” and that the grandp a r ents lived in Fl or ida duri ng winters. Father sta ted that he was concerned that if Child moved to Anchorage she would not see him often enough a nd that eventually she would not remember him well and not have “the father figure in her life tha t she need s. ” He also said th at he does not accrue enough

va cation time to be able to visit Anchorage regularly and that frequent travel would be cost prohibitive. Father said that he was asking the court to set a ge ographical

restr ic tio n tha t Child remain in Texas a nd that he would be willing to travel anywhere9

in Texas to visit Child. He also averred that he had “years of work lined up” in his current region and that it was unlikely that he would be relo cating any time soon . On cross

- examination, Mother’s attorn e y intro duced a p h otograph of Father and Girlfriend getting pedicures. Fat her agreed that he had captioned the photograph, ostensibly on social media, with the statement, “ [I]t’s what you do wh e n
yo ur plans with your daughter get denied.” F ather sai d tha t he did not know exactly when the photograph was taken but that it must have “been just a couple of weeks” before the hearing when he allegedly was told that he c ould not visit w ith C h ild that
weekend. According to Father, Mother had deni ed him visitatio n because she
beli eved he “was under the inf luence t h a t w e e k e n d .” But Father agreed that he got
his manicure either a week before or a week after he was una ble t o provide a nail sample to the lab for drug testing

. Mother’s attorney also introduced a ser i es of text messag es between Father and
his friend that transpired before divorce papers were served on him

. Initially, Fat her
said t h at he did not know who had sent the texts, at one p oint e ven claim ing that his phone had been “tapped” and that Mother ha d “hacked” his Fac ebook account. But eventually, Father reluctantly agree d that he had texted his friend a pictur e of
Girlf r iend, allegedly before she was his girlfriend, and a pict ure of a pro se divorce petition. Specifically, Father texted his friend t hat he would be “ dropping divorce papers soon.” Fa ther also texted his fri end that he had not been h a ppy being married to Mother “for a long time” but t hat he was “not looking forward to the child10

support.” Father further texted that he was going to off e r Mother $800 a m onth in child support as well as his house in Al aska. On the s t and, Father admitted that he was surprised by Mother’s fi ling for divorce.
Other texts between Father and his friend state d that Father was happy when
he was with Girlfrien d . The texts also revealed, and Father adm itted, that Girlf ri end
had v isited him in New Mexico for a week prior to him being se rved , but he swore that the two were just friends at that time. In other texts, Father asked his friend not to say anything to a nyone about Girlf riend unti l “t he dust settled.” Another t ext from Father stated that he would be bringing Girlfrie nd t o “the ranch” soon. The friend replied that he did not think that wa s a good idea while Father and Mother were still
married.
Furthe r text s between Fa ther and his friend showed e xte nsive c o nversations about marijuana

—

including a discussion about the friend’s dad growing marijuana

— and about cocaine use. In one particular text, Father stated that he was quitting marijuana “until after t h is is over” and t hat i f “ she tri e [d] to pull anything, [Father could] use [

Mother ’ s own dr ug u se] against her.” In the same series of texts, Father relaye d how Girlfriend “knows everything,” apparently regarding his drug use and the marijuana growing. A n other te xt from F a t h er stated that Mother did not “know about” Girlfriend, b ut “ [Mother] has suspicions.” The texting goes on to reveal a conversatio n between Father and his friend
wherein the friend tells Father to be careful and tha t if Mot her could pr o ve Father11

h ad bee n committing adultery, it would look bad in court and a ffect the division of the marital estate. Father responded to that text by st ating, “She can’t prove anything.”
Other texts stated that Father was wil ling to let Mother m ove to Ala s k a with
Child and that he would pursue custody of Child i n th e future. In another text, Father asked his friend, “How can I get custody if I am gone all the time [ ? ] ”
F ather testified that initially he was okay wit h the idea of Child m oving to Anchorage with Mother and t hat was why he texted tho se messages . Father also
admitted that he had offered Mother at least three settlements wherein Mother would
have been all owed to take Child with her to An chorage , but that Mother ha d deemed
the offered settlemen t s as “ not good en ough

. ” Father s aid that he changed his mind about Child moving to Anchorage after he had experienced visitation issues regarding
Child.
Father sta ted that he and Mothe r had bot h habitually used marijuana in the past
and that Mother ha d us ed marijuana wh ile p regnant with Child, but Father admitted that he “didn’t say anything” to Mother about her use while pregnant. Father claimed
that he had stop ped using mar ijuan a ri g ht after he and Mother separated because he
“realized tha t [h e] was u sing it as a crut ch for [his] emotional discontent.” According to Father, Mother’s mother and one of her uncles smoke marijuana. Fat her clai med
that he h ad ev en s m oked mariju ana with both of them.12

In the fina l di vorce decree , the co urt ordered, among o ther things , that Father and Mother were to be joint managing conservators of Child with Mother having primary custody and “ t he exclusive right t o des igna t e [Child ’ s] pr imary residence
within Hood County, Texas [, ] an d within 60 mile s of A nchorage, Alaska

. ” The trial

court further ordered that “ as long as [C hild ] is under three (3) years of age and Respondent, [Father], does not res ide in Alaska, [Mother] shall reimburse [Father] for

t went y
- five per cent (25%) of his travel (coach flight costs only ) to Ala s k a for his periods of possession as set out herein

. ” Child was on e year old at the time the trial
court entered its final decree. This appeal followed.
III. D ISCUSSION A. Division of the Marital Estate
Even though Father br iefs two issues on appeal , h is first issue argui ng that the evidence does not support th e tri al co u rt ’ s division of the couple ’ s estate is now moot.
Fathe r co mplains specifically in his first issue that the trial court erred by ordering him

to m aintain a Survivor ’ s Benefit Plan with M o ther as the sol e beneficiary as well as ordering him to execu te a “ Form RI 76

- 10 ” to permanently assign Father ’ s Federal
Gro up L ife Insurance benefits to Mother. But as Mother points ou t in her brief, a fter
Father submitted his brief to this court in Jul y , the trial c ourt enter e d a n agreed “ Final
Decree of Divorce Nunc Pro Tunc ” on Se ptem ber 11, 2019. In the nunc pro tunc decree, the specific orders that Father complains of regarding hi s Surviv or ’ s Bene fit
P l an and his Federal Group Life Insurance have b e en removed , a nd F a the r i s no13

longer obligated to provide such benefits to Mother. Th us, w e overrule Father ’ s first
issue.
B
. The Domicile Restriction In his second issue, Father arg ues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Mother h ad the excl usi ve righ t to determine the primary residency of
Child. Spe cifically, Father argues that despite the trial court’s ordering “nominal
reimbursement” to assist him in v isiting C hild in Anchorage, the trial court abused its discretion by findi ng th at a g eographic al restriction allowing Mother to relocate Child

to Anc horage was in Child’s best interest. We disagree.
We review the trial court ’ s decisions on custod y, contro l, posses sion, and
visitation matters for an abuse of discretion. See Gil le s pi e v. G illespie , 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982); In re M.P.B. , 257 S.W.3d 804, 811 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, no pet.);

see In re W.M. , 172 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 20 05, no pe t.) ( reasoning that the trial court has “wide latitude in determi ni n g the b e st intere sts of a minor child”). To determine whether a tria l court abused its discretion, we must decide whether the court acted without reference to any guidin g rules or principl es; in other words, we must decide whether the act was arbitrary o r u nreas o nable. L ow v. Henry , 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Ci re v . Cummings

, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838

– 39 (Tex. 2004); W.M. , 172 S.W.3d at 725. An appellate court cannot c onclude th at a tria l court abused its discretion merely because the appellate court w o ul d hav e rul ed di fferently14

in the same circumstances. E.I. du Po nt d e Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see Low

, 221 S.W.3d at 620.
An abuse of discretio n does no t occur when the trial court bases its decisions on conflicting ev

i de nce. In re B ar

ber , 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998) (orig.
proc eedi ng). Furthermore, an abuse of discretion does not occur as long as some
evidence of substantive and probative character exists to support the trial court ’ s decision. Butnaru v. Ford Mo t or Co. , 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002); W.M. , 172 S.W.3d
at 725. We must be cognizant that the trial court is in a better position to decide custody cases because “it fa ced the pa rties and their witnesses, observed their demeanor, and had the opportuni ty to eval u ate the c lai ms made by each parent.” In re J.R.D. , 169 S .W.3 d 740, 743 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied).
In our review of a child

- custody ruling under the ab use

- of

- dis cretion s tandard, legal and factual sufficiency are not independent groun ds of erro r but are relev ant factors in deciding whether the trial c ourt abused its discretion. In re T.D.C. , 91 S.W.3d 865, 872 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (o p. on reh ’ g); see W .M. , 172 S.W.3d at 725. In determining whether there has been a n a bu se of
discretio n becaus e the evidence is legally or factually i nsuf ficient to support the trial

court ’ s decision, we consider whether the trial court had sufficient inf ormation u pon which to exercise its discretion and whether it erred in its applicat io n o f tha t discreti on. W.M. , 172 S.W.3d at 725; T.D.C. , 91 S.W.3d a t 87 2. “The traditional sufficiency review comes into play with regard to the first question. With rega rd to15

the second qu estion, we determine, based on the elicited evidence, whether th e t ri al

co u rt made a reasonabl e decision.” W.M. , 172 S.W.3d at 725 (foo tnote omitted). Texas does not have any specific statute regarding residency restrictions in custody cases. 1 See Lenz v. Lenz , 79 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tex. 2002); In re M.M.M. , 307 S.W.3d 84 6 , 85 0 (Te x . App.

— F ort Worth 2010 , no pet.). In Lenz , the Texas Sup reme Court provided a variety of factors relevant to the determination of whether a geographic restrictio n is in the best int erest of the child, including: (1) the reasons for and against t h e m ove, i ncluding the parents ’ good faith motives in requesting or
opp o sing it; (2) health, education, and leisure opportunities afforded by the move; (3) the degree of ec onomic, emo tional, a nd educational enhancement for the custodial parent and child; ( 4

) t he ef f ect on e xtended family relationships; (5) accommodation

o f th e child ’ s special needs or talents; (6) the effect on visitation and communication
with the non custo dial parent to maint ain a full and continuous relationship with the child; (7) the po s si bility of a vis itation sched ule allowing the continuation of a

m eani ngful relationship between the non custodial parent and child; and (8) the ability

1 In his brief, Father cites to Texas Famil y C ode Section 153.001 and asserts th a t Section 153.001 “ provides factors for the court to use in evaluat ing whe ther lifting the geographic restriction violates Texas publ ic policy. ” Tex. Fam . Code Ann. § 153.001

. I t is t rue that the Lenz cour t stated that the pub l ic policy announced in S e cti on 153.001 outlin ed the “ framework upon which we may b uild gu idelines for . . . residency restriction for purposes of rel ocation, ” but the Lenz factors were designed to “ give meaning to the[] public policy imp eratives ” found in Section 153.001. Lenz , 7 9 S .W.3d at 14

. Bec ause Section 153.001 does not it self set out fac tors in the relocation context , the Lenz court dev eloped the Lenz factors. Id

.16

of the non custod ial parent to reloca te. 2 79 S.W.3d at 15

– 16. In doing so, the
supreme court recog

nize d that ca s es such as these are intensely fact

- driven and
therefore in

vo lve the balancing of these numerous factors, as opposed to formulaic

tests. 3 Id

. In this case, t he major ity of the Lenz fac tors support the trial court ’ s ordered geographical rest rict

i on.

2 Although Lenz involved a modifi cat ion proceeding, the fac tors are also applicable in an appeal of a trial c our t ’ s decision rega rding geographic restriction in a div orce decree. See Yasin v. Yasin , No. 03

– 10

– 00774

– CV, 2011 WL 5009895, *3 & n. 3 (Te x. App.

—

Austin Oct. 21, 2011, no pet.) (me m. op.) (explaining tha t while Lenz involved a motion to modify, “the fa c tor s are also applic able in an appeal of a trial court ’ s decision regarding geographic restriction in a divorce decree ”).

3 Although both part

ies cite to and analy ze the Holley fact ors that reviewing
cou rts t ypically utilize to address the inquiry of wheth e r t ermination of a p arent ’ s rights to a child is in the b est interest of a child, we decline to use these factors beca use they address a completely different inquiry th an the one posed in relocation or resi dency

- restriction cases . See Holley v. Adams , 54 4 S. W.2d 367, 371

– 72 (Tex. 1976) (articulating factors to be analyz ed by reviewing courts in determining the best in te rest of a child in termination of parental righ ts cases) . Indeed, Lenz was written twe n ty

- s ix years after Holley , and the Lenz court did n ot address the Holle y factors when discus sing how a numbe r of jurisdictions dealt with the question of relocation or geographi c restriction s . 79 S.W.3d at 15

– 16 . Wh il e it is true that some courts hav e mi xed the Lenz and Holley factors together when addr e ssi ng a relocation o r geographic

- restriction case, this c ourt has not

. Compare Womack v. Womack , No. 10

- 05

- 00182

- CV, 2006 WL 1911004, *5 (Tex. App.

— Waco July 12, 200 6, no pet.) (mem. op.) (utilizing b oth the Lenz and Holley factors in a relocation case) w ith M.M.M. , 307 S.W. 3d at 849 (utilizing only the Lenz fa ctors , this court held that trial court did not abuse its di scretion by declin ing to include geographic restr ic tion on child’s domicile); see al

so I n re M.V. , 583 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2 019 , no pet.) ( analy zing only the Lenz factors and holdin g that trial court did not abuse its discretion by lifting g eographic

- residency re striction).17

1. T h e R easons for and A

gainst the M

ove, I ncluding t he P arents ’ G oo d F

aith M otives in R equesting or O

pposing it Here, Mother ’ s stated reasons for wanting to move to A nchorag e were so that
Mother ’ s grandparents could provide a stable h ome a nd economic s upport f o r her

an d Child and that Child wou ld be able to grow up a round family members with whom Mother had a relationship. Mother also said that she had a greate r e arning capacity in Anchorage than in Texas. Conversely, Mother and Gran dfath er both

test i fied tha t Mother and Child ha d an almost no n existent support syste m in Texas. There is nothing in t he record that would have led the trial court to quest ion Mother ’ s good faith in request

ing the move.
Father ’ s state d reason for opposi ng th e move was th a t he wou l d not be able to
visit Child enough to establish a p roper pa re nt

- child relationship and that he had difficulty with Mother in arra n g ing visitatio n with Chi ld . But the record ind icates , especially through the text messages he se nt to his friend, t hat Fath e r a ppear ed more concerned with the financial ramification s of pote ntial child support than he was
concerned with where Child lived. Indeed, in h is text me ssages, Father told his friend that he was going to ask that Mother tak e the h ome in Alaska and rece i ve only $800 a month in child support and then he would a llow Child to move to Anchorage with
Mother . Father also admitted at trial that he had attempted to agree to three different

set tlements which i ncluded Mother ’ s right to move Child with he r to Anch o rage , bu t that he had been told the offers were “ not good enou gh

. ” The trial court was free to18

conclude that Father ’ s motives for not wanting C hild to move to An chorage were not
in good faith and to find that this factor w eigh ed in favor of the o rdered g eogra phic al
restriction.
2. H ealth, Ed ucation , and L eisu re O

p portunities A

fforded by the M

ove Mother testified that she and Child had recently v isited Anchorage a nd that she
had take n C h ild camp ing and fishing and that she desi red t hat Child woul d have t h ese

same leisure opp ortunities afforded to her in the fut u re. Child has health coverage through Tri c are whether she lives in Anchorage or in Tex as. And the recor d is de void of any ind ication of either Mother ’ s o r Fat her ’ s intentions as fa r as Ch i ld ’ s education

. The trial court was free to find that t his fac tor weighed in favor of the ordered geographical restriction.
3. T he D egr ee of E conomic, E motional, and E duc ational E nhancemen t for the C ustodial P arent and C

hil d As mentioned, some o f Moth e r ’ s stated reason s for wanting to move to Anchorag e wer e so that she could benefit from being able to earn more money and be provided supp o rt from her famil y in the form of h aving some where for her and her
da ughters to li ve. Mother also testified t hat sh e missed her famil y and that she wanted
Child to ha ve a similar upbring in g to hers. Mother further said that she ha s relatives
in Anchora ge that were similar in age to Child

. Grandfather testified that the grandparents would allow Mother and her d aughter s to live with the m in their seven

bedroom home. He al so said that M other would not initially have to pay rent.19

Although there is no evi dence in the record regarding how C h ild ’ s education might be
enhanced (she was one year old at the time of tri a l), the trial court was f ree to find
that this factor wei gh ed in favor of the ord ered geographical restriction given the testimony of Mother and Grandfather regarding how Child ’ s si tuation could be emotionally and e conomically e nhanc ed.
4. T he E ffect on E xtended F

amily R elationsh ips
Both Mother and Grandfather testi fied that Child would be around an extended family i f she moved to Anchorage , a f amily to whom Mother is cl ose . Conver sely, Mother and Grandfather both testified t ha t Mother and Child lack a

s u pport s y stem in Texas. A nd Mother testified that althoug h she knew of relatives
who lived in Texas, she did not have a relationship with a ny of them , and she did not
know wher e many of them lived. Father off ered no evidenc e that he had any
extended fam i ly in Te x as who would be i mpacted by Child moving to Anch orage . The trial court was free to find that t his fac tor weighed i n favor of the ordered geographical r estriction.
5. A ccommodation of the C hild ’ s S pe ci al N eeds or T alents
The re is no evidence in the reco r d that Child has special needs or talents given
that she was one year old at the time of the final divorce hearing. This facto r neither weigh s for n or against the trial court ’ s order ed geographical rest ri ction.20

6. T he E ffect on V isitation and C

ommunic a tion with the N

on c ustodial P arent to M aintain a F ull and C ontinuous R elationship with the C hild
Mother testified tha t she would be willing to accomm odate Father ’ s visiting
Child in A nchorage any time he w anted. She also s tated that Father would b e allow e d
to possess C hil d during summers and holidays. Further more, Father would still have
the ability to S kype with Child , a metho d of communication with Child that Mother
averred Father primarily utilized

. E ven though Father said that Child ’ s moving to A nch o rage would affect his ability to visit Child, the trial court had before it evidence
that Father had difficulties coo rdinating visitations with C hild when s he lived in Texas. Indeed, after separating fr om Mother , Father moved 112 miles away from

w here Ch i ld lived, and he testified that this distance mad e it di fficult for him to visit
Child. The trial court also had bef ore it evidence tha t Father missed multiple
visitations with Child in Texas beca use he w as either working or hunting.
There was a lso evi d ence that because of Father ’ s work schedule, he i s often away for weeks at a time. And the trial court had before it a text from Father to his
friend stating, “ How can I get custody if I am gone a ll the t ime [ ? ] ” Th e trial court was
free to concl u de that the barriers that prevented Father f rom having a continu ous relationship with Child in Texas were similar to the barr iers he would face if Child
lived in Anchorage. Furthermore, the trial court reli eved s ome of Father ’ s financial
concerns of trav e ling to Anchorage by orde ring that Mother pay for one

- fou rth of his21

travel costs to see Child until Child reaches the age of three

. The trial court was free

to find that t his fac tor weighed in favor of the orde re d geographical restriction.
7. T he P ossibi l ity of a V isitation S ched

ule A llowing the C

ontinuation of a M

ean i ngful R elationship B etween the N

on c ustodial P arent and C

hil d
As described under the last facto r, Mother said that she was willing to

accommo date F ather ’ s visitation in Anchorage any time he wanted. She also said th at Fath er could possess Child du ring su mmers and holidays. And the trial court had
before it evide nce that Father ’ s ability to visit C hild in Anchorage would not be significantly d iffe re nt than his ability to visit Child in Texas

. The t r ial court was fre e to find that t his fac tor weigh ed in f avor of the ordered geographical restriction.
8. T he A bility of the N

on c ustodial P arent to R elo cate Father testified that he had years of wor k li ne d up in Texas and that he did not anticipate being r e located anytime i n the near future. But the tria l court had evidence
be fore it that Father owns a house forty

- five miles away from where Child will li ve in Anchorage as well as evidence that Fathe r ha d intended to move back to Anchorage
after acc r uing mo r e time with the A rmy Corps of Engineers. The tri al cour t was free
to find that t his fac tor weighed in favor of the ordered geographical restriction.
H aving concluded that the trial court had s ufficien t information before it upon
which to exercise its dis c retion to find th at the majority of the Lenz fact ors sup port the tr ial court’s ordered geographical restriction, we conclude that the trial court did22

n ot abuse its discretion by ordering the re strictio n. See W.M. , 172 S.W.3d at 725. We
overrule F ather ’ s second issue.
IV
. C ONCLUSION Having overruled b oth of Father ’ s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court ’ s judg ment
. /s/ Dana Womack
D ana Womack J ustice
Deliver ed: January 16, 20 20