Court Opinion

ID: 9949460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 18:07:11.038805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.490301
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                            STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 2023 CU 0576

                              ROBERT BRIDGES

                                    VERSUS

                             DATE OF JUDGMENT.-          MAR 1 120

 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
             PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                         NUMBER. 2020- 15133, DIVISION L

                   HONORABLE DAWN AMACKER, JUDGE

Vincent F. Wynne, Jr.                      Counsel for Appellant -Plaintiff
Shannon K, Lowry                           Robert Bridges
R. Gary Higgins, Jr.
Whitney H. Germany
Covington, Louisiana

Ana E. Lopez                               Counsel for Appellee -Defendant
Covington, Louisiana                       Katherine Laurel Bridges

               BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

Disposition; AFFIRMED.
CHUT2, J.

      Plaintiff-appellant, Robert " Cole"      Bridges,   appeals the family court' s

judgment,   granting the request for relocation asserted by defendant -appellee,

Katherine " Katy" Bridges to move with the parties'       children from St. Tammany

Parish to Houston, Texas. We affirm.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      Katy and Cole were married in April 2013 in Texas. In October 2013, they

moved to St. Tammany Parish, where they had two children and built a house in

Madisonville. In November 2020, Cole initiated this litigation, seeking a divorce

from Katy and requesting joint and/ or shared custody of their two minor children.

Katy answered the lawsuit. On August 20, 2021, the family court signed a consent

judgment, stipulating to the parties'     joint custody of the children with Katy

designated as the domiciliary parent. The parties agreed to Cole' s physical custody

of the children every other weekend and every Tuesday from 6 p.m. until

Wednesday at 8 a.m. Holiday and summer schedules were also established in

accordance with the parties' agreement.

      On March 20, 2022, Katy filed a request for relocation of the children to

Houston. According to the notice of intention to relocate that she sent to Cole,

Katy' s whole family lived in Texas and the children would have access to a vast

support system if they relocated. Cole formally objected to the relocation.

      The family court signed a judgment on August 9, 2022, rendering a final

divorce between Katy and Cole. A hearing on Katy' s request to relocate was

subsequently held before a hearing officer. The hearing officer recommended the

granting of Katy' s request to relocate. Cole timely objected.

      On November 2, 2022, a hearing was held before the family court judge.

Subsequent to the receipt of testimonial and documentary evidence, the family

court rendered judgment, granting Katy' s relocation request and modifying Cole' s

                                           2
visitation schedule. A judgment in conformity with the family court' s ruling was
signed on February 7, 2023.; Cole timely appealed.

                                        DISCUSSION

       Generally, the relocation of a child' s principal residence to a location out of

state is governed by Louisiana' s relocation statutes. See La. R.S. 9: 355. 1- 9: 355. 19;

La. R.S. 9: 355. 2.   When the relocation of the children' s principal residence is

contested, La. R.S.     9: 355. 10 requires that the relocating parent prove that the

proposed relocation is: ( 1)    made in good faith; and ( 2) in the best interest of the

children.   Thus, Louisiana' s relocation statutes retain the " best interest of the

children" standard as the fundamental principle governing decisions made pursuant

to its provisions. Bridges v. Bridges, 2020- 0300 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11110120), 316

So.3d 17, 24. A family court' s determination in a relocation matter is entitled to

great weight and will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of an

abuse of discretion. Gathen v Gathen, 2010- 2312 ( La. 5/ 10/ 11), 66 So.3d 1, 8 n.4.

Good Faith:

       The jurisprudence has defined the meaning of "good faith" in the context of

relocation as a legitimate or valid reason for the move. A legitimate reason for

relocation includes to be close to significant family or other support networks. See

Dragon v Dragon, 2022- 0076 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8130122), 2022 WL 3754615, at

I A rule to modify custody filed by Cole, requesting that he be designated as domiciliary parent,
was also before the family court. The judgment signed by the family court expressly decreed that
the parties remained joint custodial parents, with Katy designated as domiciliary parent and
dismissed as moot Cole' s custody modification request. Cole was granted physical custody of the
children one weekend of every month. Evidence established that all but one month of the
children' s school year included a long weekend. Thus, the judgment stated that if the school
calendar included a long weekend, it was deemed as Cole' s weekend to have physical custody of
the children; otherwise, he was awarded physical custody on the first weekend of the month and
any time he is in Houston with 48 hours advance notice. Katy was ordered to transport the
children from Houston to Covington for Cole to exercise his monthly physical custody. The
holiday schedule determined by the August 20, 2021 consent judgment remained in effect,
except that Cole was awarded physical custody of the children during Spring Break in lieu of the
Mardi Gras holidays. A compliance hearing was set for April 25, 2023 to address the summer
schedule if the parties were unable to determine one for themselves.

                                                3
 2,   citing Wylie v. Wylie, 52, 800 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 5/ 22/ 19), 273 So. 3d 1256,

1259.

        In its oral reasons for judgment, the family court found no evidence that

Katy had an ill motivation or a desire to punish Cole in seeking the relocation,

emphasizing instead Katy' s testimony that she wanted to relocate to Houston to be

around her friends and family, i.e., her support group, and to return to where she

lived when she met and married Cole. The family court expressly determined that

Katy was credible and that the relocation was good for her and the children to have

a new start with a support system upon which Katy could rely.

        In challenging the family court' s conclusion that Katy' s request to relocate

was made in good faith, Cole asserts that Katy' s reasons were not legitimate, valid,

or truthful. Insofar as the support system that the family court found Katy sought to

rely upon, Cole points out that Katy was raised in Port Lavaca, over two hours

from Houston, which is where her parents reside. He also suggests that those Katy

offers as a support group,         including her sister,      Erin Piper, and best friend,

Katherine " Kate" Vaughn, are not realistically readily available since they are

mothers with young children, who live about 25- 30 minutes from Katy' s proposed

relocation   address.'   Thus,   he maintains that Katy' s " claim of a super support

network in Houston was not a legitimate reason" and is insufficient to satisfy the

requisite good faith showing necessary to grant her request to relocate.

        Katy testified that she met Cole in Houston, where she began living after she

graduated high school and obtained her college degree. Cole resided in Houston

after having graduated with an engineering degree because there were better career

opportunities for him. The couple eventually married in Houston. They moved to

St. Tammany Parish because Cole had a job opportunity, but it was never Katy' s

 Katy proposed to live at 615 Dinorah Court, Houston, Texas, in a 4 bedroom, 2- 112 bath, 2900
square f-oot, two-story house in the Krystal Lake Estates subdivision.
                                                12
intention to remain permanently, and she thought Cole did not intend that they stay

permanently either. Katy stated that she had been back to Houston 31 times since

2018, most often driving the approximately five-hour trip because it is " just as

easy" as the 60 -minute nonstop flight that she has also traveled.

      Katy advised the family court that she wanted to move to Houston because

 that' s home," and she has a support system there. According to Katy, Houston is

central to where the entire support system is located, with Cole in Louisiana, and

numerous relatives in various parts of Texas including Port Lavaca and Austin.

Katy identified Erin and Kate, along with two other friends who had been

bridesmaids in her wedding, as part of her Houston-based support system, and

introduced into evidence 20 photographs of friends located in Houston who Katy

maintained were available to lend support to her and the children.

      Although she has two good friends in St.         Tammany Parish, Katy feels

 isolated over here in Louisiana" and indicated that she wanted the children to

have more frequent access to her family. Her isolation was particularly apparent to

Katy after Hurricane Ida. She explained that she does not have a working

relationship with any of Cole' s family in Louisiana. Although Katy described

Cole' s mom as " a very nice person" and that she " comes from a caring place," in

dealing with Katy and the children, Katy cannot rely on her, as evidenced by the

inability of Cole' s mom to install a car seat meaning she is unable to pick up the

children from school.

      Katy also testified that Cole has a drinking problem and is unreliable as

support. When she first called out Cole' s drinking issues in 2020, he undertook a

program he found on the internet that encourages people to control their drinking

but did not require abstinence. Katy admitted that she was naive about the scope of

Cole' s drinking problems and did not bring them up when the parties first went to

court. It was not until the parties separated and Cole continued drinking despite

                                           5
having to care for the children without her present that Katy realized the depth of

Cole' s alcohol issues and stopped making excuses for him. Katy introduced into

evidence eleven photographs she took throughout 2022 showing empty beer and

seltzer cans in the back seat and bed of Cole' s pickup truck. After she came to the

realization that she and Cole were not going to reconcile and began to focus on

coparenting, Cole' s shortcomings became apparent to her and she changed her

mind set. Katy stated that she felt like she was " doing it alone," referencing her

attempts to raise the children in a healthy manner."

      Katy' s sister, Erin, who has lived in Houston for about ten years, testified

via Zoom at the relocation hearing. She stated that Katy visits Texas once or twice

every couple of months. Erin' s two children are close in age to the parties'

children, and she described that the cousins have good and close relationships.

Although Katy' s proposed relocation address is 15 to 30 minutes from their home

depending on traffic), Erin testified that she and her husband have flexible jobs

and, therefore, are available to assist Katy as she may need.

      Erin explained her own support system, identifying particular individuals

who have known Katy for 15 to 20 years and suggesting that five adults were in

close proximity to Katy, available to render assistance. Additionally, Erin noted

that Katy knew others m the greater Houston area and described the network of

friends committed to helping Katy and the children as a " kind of ... support web."

According to Erin, Cole was not available to Katy on a daily basis and Katy could

not count on him to show up within 30 minutes of a request. The remainder of

Cole' s family did not live as close to Katy as Erin would in Houston.

      Katy' s best friend, Kate, appeared in person at the relocation hearing. She

has lived in Houston for twelve years and sees Katy frequently both in Louisiana

and Texas. Kate has four children whose relationships with the parties'    children

she described as " close."   She stated that Katy' s proposed relocation address is

                                          RI
about 25 minutes from her home, and that she " will drop anything" to be available

for Katy and the children. Kate identified Katy' s support system of consisting of
her sister and countless friends.

        The above -outlined testimonial and documentary evidence that the family

court relied upon in rendering a decision is entitled to great weight. As such, we

find no error in the family court' s conclusion that Katy' s request to relocate to be

close to significant family or other support networks was made in good faith. As

such,
        we cannot say the family court abused its discretion in granting Katy' s
request for relocation on this basis?

Best Interest:

        La. R.S. 9: 355. 14( A) sets forth twelve factors which the family court must

consider in determining whether the proposed relocation is in the best interest of

the child!    The family court is not required to expressly analyze each factor in its

3 Cole also complains that Katy' s statements in her motion to relocate, averring that Houston
offered her significant job opportunities and that the children would benefit from a great
educational system as well as testimony elaborating about the diverse and premier community
and extracurricular activities available for the children in Houston, were insufficiently supported
by the evidence so as to constitute the requisite good faith showing needed to allow a relocation.
The family court did not base its finding of good faith on either of these bases. Since the family
court did not err in finding Katy was in good faith in seeking relocation to be close to her support
network, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the evidence was additionally supportive
of a good faith request for either of these alternative bases and pretermit such a discussion.

4 La. R.S. 9: 355. 14( A) provides:

        In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court shall consider
        all relevant factors in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the
        child, including the following:

         1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the relationship of
        the child with the person proposing relocation and with the non -relocating person,
        siblings, and other significant persons in the child' s life.

         2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the
        relocation will    have   on   the   child' s physical,   educational,   and   emotional

        development.

         3) The feasibility of preserving a good relationship between the non -relocating
        person and the child through suitable physical custody or visitation arrangements,
        considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

         4) The child' s views about the proposed relocation, taking into consideration the
        age and maturity of the child.

                                                    fd
oral or written reasons for judgment in a relocation case. Gathen, 66 So.3d at 9.

And there is no requirement that the court give preferential consideration to any
particular factor. Hernandez v. Jenkins, 2012- 2756 ( La. 6121/ 13); 122 So. 3d 524,

528- 29, citing Gray v, Gray, 2011- 0548 ( La. 7! 1111), 65 So.3d 1247, 1255.

      On appeal, Cole claims that the family court' s oral reasons for judgment do

not reflect that it thoroughly examined and analyzed the evidence in accordance

with all the relevant statutory factors but instead concentrated on only those factors

it found particularly compelling, " the majority of which weighed in favor of the

children remaining in St. Tammany Parish." Cole consequently maintains that an

analysis of each statutory factor that the family court considered shows that Katy

failed to meet her burden of proving relocation was in the children' s best interest.

      Although the Gathen court has made clear that the family court is not

required to expressly analyze each factor, our review of the evidence shows that

every relevant factor was discussed in the oral reasons for judgment. Insofar as

factor one --   the nature,     quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the

relationship of the children with the person proposing the relocation and with the

       5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by either the person seeking
      or the person opposing the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship
      of the child and the other party.

       6) How the relocation of the child will affect the general quality of life for the
      child, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit and educational
      opportunity.

       7) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation.

       8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each person and how
      the proposed relocation may affect the circumstances of the child.

       9) The extent to which the objecting person has fulfilled his financial obligations
      to the person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and
      community property, and alimentary obligations.

       10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting person.

       11) Any history of substance abuse, harassment, or violence by either the person
      seeking or the person opposing relocation, including a consideration of the
      severity of the conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.

       12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.
non -relocating person and other significant persons in the children' s lives -- the

family court stated, "[ B] oth of you have a very loving relationship with your

children; ...
                  you have family members that are very attached, friends and family.

    T]wo sides of the family ... love and care about [ the children]." The family

court also determined, "[ B] oth ...        can certainly take care of [ the      children' s]

educational needs, their physical, emotional development, [ and] financially," in an

apparent     reference,   at least in part, to factor two, which addresses the ages,

developmental stages, needs of the children, and the likely impact the relocation

will have on the children' s physical, educational, and emotional development.

       As to factor three, directed at the feasibility of preserving a good relationship

between the nonrelocating person and the children through suitable physical

custody      or   visitation   arrangements   considering    the   logistics   and   financial

circumstances of the parties, the family court stated, "[ T]he Court would find that

certainly the relocation could work because it' s Texas, it' s Houston to here." The

family court remarked that it was a destination most of those present in the

courtroom had traveled either by vehicle or air and pointed out that Cole' s

employer had an office in Houston at which Cole worked from time to time. Also,

the family court stated, " Houston' s five hours, five and a half hours away....          You

do have cheap airfare .... [ The children] are little. You will have to go with them if

you do that. But it' s not so far that a plan could not be worked out between the two

of you ...   where dad sees the children plenty." And in its reasons, the family court

indicated that Cole might have a better relationship with the children if Katy

relocated and the physical custody schedule were adjusted.

       As to whether there is an established pattern of conduct by either the person

seeking or the person opposing the relocation either to promote or thwart the

relationship of the children and the other party set forth as factor five, the family

court "   didn' t hear anything at all ... that indicate[ d] ... that [ the parties] are trying
to undermine the children' s relationship with the other parent," commending the

parties for putting aside their differences and opinions about the other parent' s

ability to parent and " present[ ing] a pretty solid front" to the children. Insofar as

how the relocation of the children will affect the general quality of life for the

children, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit and educational

opportunity, as provided in factor six, the family court concluded, " St. Tammany

Parish is a great place," noting the " great schools, pretty good infrastructure" but

also concluded, " Houston, ,just as good a place, wonderful place," and summarized

 you can have a good life in Louisiana; you can have a good life in Texas, no

doubt about it."    Additionally, the family court was " impressed by the support

group that [ Katy] has in Houston. [ Katy' s] been doing this on her own with an

alcoholic partner for a long time, who was not available at times."

      The family court combined its comments about the reasons each person

sought or opposed the relocation of factor seven with factor eleven' s inquiry into

the history of substance abuse, including a consideration of the severity of the

conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation. According to

the family court' s oral reasons:

      This case is a story of generational alcoholism. And it is sad but true
      that three generations in the paternal line; you' ve had fathers who are
      alcoholics. The term " alcoholic" ... isn' t used so much because it' s a
      disease. There' s no blame.... [   T]hey do believe there is a genetic
      factor to it. What we do know is that environmentally if you see it in
      the family, and particularly if there are enablers who excuse it in the
       families, which oftentimes mothers, wives, fathers, others will ... it
      tends to be repeated. We know that if your children have a parent
      that' s an alcoholic that they have a very high probability that they will
      be too... .

             Unfortunately, [ Cole] ... for many, many years, has struggled
       with alcoholism, and not until all this came to court was it important
       enough or maybe even within his capability to quit. And the question
       is: Has he quit now? I don' t know; I' ll be honest with you. I know at
       best if he has, it' s been two and a half months[.] ... [ Dr.] John
       Mehlhorn --    who is [ a] very well-qualified [ licensed addictions
       counselor] ... looked at [ Cole' s alcohol issues] in great detail -- ...

                                          10
and the level of concern [ Dr. Mehlhorn] has as to what has to happen
to make sure this is a real quit....

         One thing that ... [ Dr.] Mehlhorn knows ... is that you have to
keep people honest.... [ B] ecause if you know you can get caught and
you know that to get caught might mean you lose custody of your
children,     then you have real motivation. ...     And you see [ Dr.]
Mehlhorn saying a year. I don' t know. I would say longer than a year
with most cases ...  to really establish [ a] sobriety that will continue,
but I think one year would be the minimum.

         I agree with Dr. Mehihorn, having listened to [ Cole], that the
prognosis is good for him. I thoroughly agree with that. He' s young.
He is acknowledging he has an issue. I think he minimizes it to some
extent. And people that have struggled with alcohol probably haven' t
been the clearest thinkers for awhile because they' ve been under the
influence, and the damage that was done to your relationship with
your former wife or even to your relationship with family members or
your children, you really don' t even completely understand the extent
of it....

         The other good thing that I' m hearing, and I do believe from
 Cole]      he thoroughly means [ it], is his children mean more to him
than alcohol does. It' s got to. If they don' t mean more to you than a
drink, then this won' t end well.... They' re young enough ... that if
you change and you do what you say you' re going to do, they' ll forget
everything else that happened before, and they' ll never know. Their
new normal will be you' re sober dad....

         What concerns me ...    is that so many of the things that [ Dr.
Mehlhorn]       suggests,   so many things that the treatment facility
suggests,
              in my opinion, have not been implemented. And to be
successful you' re going to have to do it. You can' t continue to have
alcohol around you, not with the kind of problem you [have] had. This
is a severe alcohol disorder in my opinion ....

      If your girlfriend drinks, you might want to think about what' s
more important to you. If she can' t quit alcohol when she' s around
you, you might have to quit her.... Your dad drinks excessively. It
will be very hard for you to be around your father and not have a
drink. And he' s not helping out by drinking a 12 pack a day. And I' m
very concerned about your children that see that and think that' s
normal. That' s not good....

You can' t have alcohol in the trunk or in the cab or wherever, your
truck or your car. It' s can' t be there. It' s a drug to you.... It' s what
you' ve used for years to rely on to get away from the world and you
can' t do it anymore. You can' t.

                                       11
       As to factor eight examining the               current   employment      and   economic

circumstances of each person and how the proposed relocation may affect the

circumstances of the child of factor eight, the family court stated:

              Katy] doesn' t make nearly what [ Cole] does, and it' s hard for
       her here. And no one would tell you that they don' t recognize that
       Houston has more job opportunities than ... here at the type of things
       you [ parents] would do. Yes, there are job opportunities here, but I

       didn' t really hear any real information that would lead me to believe
       that she has a real opportunity to better herself.... She obviously is
       ambitious and ...
                           she has good reasons and good contacts for trying to
       seek employment, has employment that she now can use to propel
       herself into another job hopefully in the Houston area.E51

                Cole]     is well-employed.161 That' s good. He is in an industry
       that' s doing real well right now where he can work probably
       anywhere [ that] he wants to that are oil states, particularly Louisiana
       and Texas, but that' s good that he is able to do that and also support
       the family.

       The evidence of factor nine, addressing the extent to which the objecting

person has fulfilled his financial obligations to the person seeking relocation,

including child support, showed that Cole has paid his child support. Problems that

the parties had about him paying his portion of the children' s extracurricular

activities expenses have been worked out. Thus, the family court noted that Cole

has fulfilled his factor nine obligations.

       The family court made a passing comment on factor ten -- the feasibility of a

relocation by the objecting person -- in its factor three discussion. Specifically, the

family court remarked that Cole could get a job in Houston probably making more

money than he presently earns. It also alluded to the ease of relocation but stated

s
 Katy has a remote job selling legal software, for which she earns $ 54,000. 00 annually, that she
can perform in either Louisiana or Texas. Katy' s B.A. degree from the University of Houston
included a minor in health communication. She testified that she wants to work in healthcare
marketing, identified particular healthcare connections she has in the Houston area, but explained
that she did not want to apply for any positions or use her connections until she knew she would
be allowed to relocate.

I Cole works as a subsea engineer with LLOG Exploration, a privately -owned, large independent
oil and gas company, earning at least $200,000.00 annually. Although his employer has an office
in Houston, it is not used for the work that Cole does.

                                                 12
that Cole' s family, girlfriend, and life are in Louisiana and he was not required to

relocate.

       Based on our reading of the family court' s oral reasons for judgment, it

clearly considered all the relevant statutory factors. Overwhelmingly, it appears

that no individual factor weighed heavily in favor of either parent. While the

family court did not weigh the evidence as to each factor, reach a conclusion

factor -by -factor as to which parent benefitted, and determine that the majority of

factors weighed in favor of a particular outcome, this type of mechanical approach

is not required. See Gathen, 66 So. 3d at 9- 10.

       On review, we are tasked with examining the entire record to determine

whether the family court abused its discretion in granting Katy' s request for

relocation. See Gathen, 66 So.3d at 8 n.4. Cole asserts the totality of the evidence

 reveals ...   that relocation was granted not because it was in the best interests of

the children, but because it was in [Katy' s]; she wanted and need to go ' home'."

       In reaching the conclusion that relocation was in the children' s best interest,

the family court' s primary focus was on Cole' s alcohol issues ( factor eleven). The

family court also concentrated on the children' s quality of life if they moved,

particularly insofar as the support available for Katy in Houston (factor six).

       Cole reported to Dr. Mehlhorn he began consuming alcohol when he was 15

years old increasing the amounts and frequency over time. In 2020 or 2021 Katy

told Cole that he had a drinking problem. Although Cole voluntarily joined a

program and was able to go weeks without consuming any alcohol, he admitted at

his June 20, 2022 assessment he had last been intoxicated the night before and " full

blown" intoxicated about a month earlier.

       Cole established that on August 15, 2022, he was admitted into an intensive

outpatient program ( IOP) as recommended by Dr. Mehlhorn. In the IOP, his blood

alcohol was screened twice a week. He graduated from the program on October 17,

                                           13
2022, which was 16 days before the relocation hearing. In accordance with Dr.

Mehlhorn' s recommendation that he obtain an alcohol detection device, Cole

started using BACtrack View, which recorded his blood alcohol daily and ensured

his identity by taking a video of his face as he blew into the device. He produced a

printout showing no positive readings commencing on September 16, 2022.

      Cole testified that he realizes the effect alcohol was having on the children,

indicating that Katy' s request to relocate helped make his commitment to sobriety

easier to undertake. He admitted having been under the influence of alcohol in the

children' s presence but stated that he had not since he entered the IOP. Cole also

conceded that he had driven after having consumed alcohol, although he denied

ever having done so with the children in the vehicle.

      Cole acknowledged that while he maintains his sobriety, his girlfriend drinks

one or two seltzers every day. His father, who Cole sees two to three times a week,

also drinks six to twelve beers every day. Cole believes that he is " strong enough"

to be around his girlfriend and father without drinking alcohol himself

      Insofar as Katy' s efforts in caring for the children, as discussed fully in our

review of whether Katy was in good faith when she made her request to relocate,

the record contains sufficient evidence of Katy' s strong support system in the

Houston metro area and that the relocation places her in closer proximity to her

other family members who reside elsewhere in Texas. Katy testified that she

cannot rely on Cole' s mother, who lives in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, to assist in

the care for the children, stating that the children' s grandmother does not initiate

phone or Facetime calls to the children and has had to stop at a firehouse to have

car seats installed for the children to ride in her vehicle. According to Katy, she has

never had an amicable relationship with Cole' s father, who lives about an hour

away from her. Cole' s father testified that he had not talked to Katy since the

parties separated. Cole' s brother, who lives approximately five miles from Cole' s

                                          14
father' s home, admitted that his relationship with Katy has become strained over
time since the divorce.

      The record also shows that Cale is not always reliable support for Katy in

tending to the children. Cole testified, and Katy confirmed, that at Katy' s

insistence, Cole could not pick up the children from school but was required to

adhere to the 6 p.m. pick-up time as set forth in the parties' consent judgment,

because Katy wanted to be sure he was sober. Katy testified that when she was out

of town for work, she talked to Cole on Facetime to ensure he was sober before he

picked up the children. Katy offered testimonial and documentary evidence of

Cole' s failure to timely pick up one of the children from school without having

given notice to either Katy or the school. Cole also failed to attend a school event

for fathers, arriving after the event was over. Additionally, Katy testified that Cole

has had to ask her for school uniforms for the children because he does not have

any for them at his house.

      The above -outlined evidence is entitled to great weight and fails to show the

family    court   abused   its   discretion   by   granting   Katy' s   relocation   request,

particularly in light of Cole' s tender sobriety and the support system that Katy has

in Houston. The record contains evidence establishing that a reliable support

system is available in Houston to provide Katy with necessary assistance in caring

for the children, which is clearly in the best interest of the children. Accordingly,

the family court' s grant of Katy' s request to relocate was not erroneous.

                                         DECREE

         For these reasons, the family court judgment is affirmed. Appeal costs are

assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Robert " Cole" Bridges.

         AFFU MED.

                                              15