Child Custody Appellant's Brief: A Guide for Parents Navigating Custody Appeals

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF [STATE]

[APPELLANT'S NAME],

Appellant,

v.

[APPELLEE'S NAME],

Appellee.

Appellate Case No.: [APPELLATE CASE NUMBER]
Appeal from the [LOWER COURT NAME]
Trial Court Case No.: [TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER]
The Honorable [TRIAL JUDGE'S NAME], Presiding

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

[ATTORNEY NAME]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[PHONE NUMBER]
[EMAIL ADDRESS]
[BAR NUMBER]

Attorney for Appellant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iii
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................ 1
• STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ........................ 2
• STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................ 3
• STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................. 5
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................... 10
• STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................. 11
• ARGUMENT ............................................. 12
  • I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER ALL STATUTORY BEST INTEREST FACTORS ............... 12
  • II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY MISAPPLYING THE STANDARD FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ............... 20
  • III. THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDINGS REGARDING APPELLANT'S PARENTING CAPABILITIES ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ............... 27
• CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ...................... 35
• CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................... 37
• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................. 38

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adams v. Williams, 836 N.E.2d 463, 470 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 13, 18

Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.W.2d 302, 308 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 11, 21

Carpenter v. Carpenter, 645 P.2d 476, 480 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 12, 15, 19

Davis v. Thornton, 802 S.E.2d 772, 775 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 11, 28

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 742 S.W.2d 357, 360 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 22, 24

Finley v. Finley, 657 N.E.2d 1140, 1145 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 14, 16

Garrison v. Knauss, 637 A.2d 1061, 1064 ([STATE] Super. Ct. [YEAR]) ............... 20, 23

Henderson v. Henderson, 568 S.W.3d 826, 831 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 12, 17

In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553, 559 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 29, 32

Jackson v. Jackson, 912 P.2d 1222, 1225 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 25, 26

Keller v. Keller, 823 N.E.2d 537, 541 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 30, 33

Langford v. Langford, 745 S.E.2d 600, 603 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 11, 28

Martinez v. Martinez, 728 A.2d 346, 350 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 21, 24

Nelson v. Nelson, 825 N.W.2d 811, 815 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 13, 19

Owens v. Owens, 896 S.W.2d 656, 659 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 22, 25

Parker v. Parker, 747 N.E.2d 1082, 1086 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 31, 34

Richardson v. Richardson, 653 S.E.2d 458, 463 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 14, 17

Smith v. Smith, 793 N.W.2d 251, 254 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 29, 32

Thompson v. Thompson, 868 A.2d 123, 127 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 23, 26

Wilson v. Wilson, 855 P.2d 375, 379 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]) ............... 30, 33

Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 569 N.W.2d 277, 280 ([STATE] [YEAR]) ............... 15, 18

Statutes and Rules

[STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER] ............... 1, 12, 14, 20

[STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER] (Best Interest Factors) ............... 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

[STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER] (Modification of Custody) ............... 20, 21, 22, 23

[STATE] Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule [RULE NUMBER] ............... 1, 11

[STATE] Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule [RULE NUMBER] ............... 3, 27

Other Authorities

American Academy of Pediatrics, Factors Affecting Child Development (2020) ............... 16, 31

[STATE] Family Law Practice Manual § [SECTION NUMBER] ([YEAR]) ............... 13, 22

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 79 ([YEAR]) ............... 24

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to [STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER], which provides for appellate review of final judgments in child custody proceedings. The trial court entered its Final Order Regarding Child Custody and Parenting Time on [DATE], and Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal on [DATE], within the thirty (30) day period prescribed by [STATE] Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule [RULE NUMBER]. This appeal is taken from a final judgment that disposes of all claims with respect to all parties, and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider and weigh all statutory best interest factors when awarding primary physical custody of the minor child(ren) to Appellee, particularly by: a. Giving insufficient weight to Appellant's historical role as primary caregiver; b. Failing to adequately consider the child(ren)'s established patterns of care and emotional bonds; and c. Overemphasizing temporary circumstances while disregarding long-term stability factors.

2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in misapplying the legal standard for modification of an existing custody arrangement by: a. Failing to require demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances; b. Not requiring proof that modification serves the best interests of the child(ren); and c. Improperly shifting the burden of proof to Appellant to demonstrate why the existing arrangement should continue.

3. Whether the trial court's factual findings regarding Appellant's parenting capabilities are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial, specifically: a. The finding that Appellant has been inconsistent in meeting the child(ren)'s educational needs; b. The determination that Appellant's work schedule creates an unstable environment; and c. The conclusion that Appellant has interfered with Appellee's relationship with the child(ren).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This appeal arises from custody proceedings concerning [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S NAME(S)], born [DATE(S) OF BIRTH], the minor child(ren) of Appellant [APPELLANT'S NAME] and Appellee [APPELLEE'S NAME]. The procedural history of this case is as follows:

On [DATE], Appellant and Appellee, who were [MARRIED/NEVER MARRIED], separated after [NUMBER] years of [MARRIAGE/COHABITATION]. Following the separation, the parties initially operated under an informal custody arrangement whereby the child(ren) primarily resided with Appellant, with Appellee exercising parenting time on alternating weekends and one weeknight dinner visit.

On [DATE], Appellee filed a Petition for [DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE/ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY AND CUSTODY] in the [LOWER COURT NAME] under Case No. [TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER]. The petition included a request for joint legal custody and primary physical custody of the minor child(ren).

On [DATE], the trial court entered a Temporary Order granting temporary joint legal custody to both parties, with Appellant maintaining primary physical custody and Appellee continuing the previously established parenting time schedule. This temporary arrangement remained in place for [NUMBER] months while the case proceeded.

On [DATE], Appellant filed a proposed parenting plan requesting continuation of the temporary arrangement as the permanent custody solution, with certain modifications to the holiday and summer vacation schedule.

On [DATE], Appellee filed a competing proposed parenting plan seeking primary physical custody of the child(ren), with Appellant to have parenting time on alternating weekends and one weeknight.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the custody issues on [DATES], during which both parties presented testimony and evidence regarding their respective parenting abilities, involvement in the child(ren)'s life, and proposed custody arrangements. The court heard testimony from [NUMBER] witnesses, including [LIST KEY WITNESSES: e.g., "the parties, the child(ren)'s teacher, a child psychologist who conducted a custody evaluation, and family members familiar with the parties' parenting"].

On [DATE], the trial court issued its Final Order Regarding Child Custody and Parenting Time, awarding joint legal custody to both parties but granting primary physical custody to Appellee, with Appellant to have parenting time on alternating weekends, one weeknight dinner visit, alternating holidays, and two weeks during summer vacation.

On [DATE], Appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to [STATE] Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule [RULE NUMBER], arguing that the trial court failed to properly consider all statutory best interest factors, misapplied the legal standard for custody modification, and made factual findings contrary to the evidence presented.

On [DATE], the trial court denied Appellant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment without a hearing, stating only that the original custody determination was supported by the evidence and in the best interests of the child(ren).

On [DATE], Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court, seeking reversal of the trial court's custody determination and reinstatement of Appellant as the primary physical custodian of the minor child(ren).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following facts are supported by the record and are relevant to the issues presented in this appeal:

Background of the Parties and Their Relationship

Appellant [APPELLANT'S NAME] and Appellee [APPELLEE'S NAME] [WERE MARRIED ON (DATE)/BEGAN THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN (YEAR) BUT NEVER MARRIED]. The parties' [MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP] lasted approximately [NUMBER] years before they separated on [DATE]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). During the [MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP], the parties had [NUMBER] child(ren): [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S NAME(S)], born [DATE(S) OF BIRTH], who [IS/ARE] currently [AGE(S)] years old. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Appellant's Role as Primary Caregiver

From the birth of the [CHILD/CHILDREN] until the parties' separation, Appellant served as the primary caregiver, handling the majority of day-to-day parenting responsibilities. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Specifically, Appellant:

1. Took [NUMBER] months of parental leave following the birth of [EACH/THE] child to establish bonding and care routines; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. Arranged [HIS/HER] work schedule to accommodate school drop-offs and pick-ups, attending approximately [PERCENTAGE]% of these transitions; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. Attended [NUMBER] out of [NUMBER] parent-teacher conferences and school events during the past [NUMBER] years; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

4. Coordinated and transported the [CHILD/CHILDREN] to all medical appointments, including well-child visits, dental check-ups, and specialist consultations; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

5. Managed the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] extracurricular activities, including [LIST ACTIVITIES], attending approximately [PERCENTAGE]% of games, recitals, and practices; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

6. Established and maintained consistent bedtime routines, meal schedules, and homework supervision; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

7. Fostered relationships between the [CHILD/CHILDREN] and extended family members on both sides. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

This primary caregiver role continued after separation, with the [CHILD/CHILDREN] residing primarily with Appellant under the temporary custody arrangement for [NUMBER] months prior to the final custody determination. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Appellee's Involvement in Parenting

Prior to separation, Appellee's involvement in parenting responsibilities was more limited due to [HIS/HER] work schedule and other commitments. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Appellee typically worked [NUMBER] hours per week, including frequent [EVENINGS/WEEKENDS/TRAVEL], which limited [HIS/HER] availability for daily childcare responsibilities. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Appellee's parenting involvement included:

1. Spending time with the [CHILD/CHILDREN] on weekends when not working, engaging in recreational activities such as [ACTIVITIES]; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. Attending approximately [PERCENTAGE]% of the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] major school and extracurricular events; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. Providing financial support for the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] needs and activities; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

4. Maintaining regular phone contact when unable to be physically present due to work commitments. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

Following separation, Appellee exercised regular parenting time on alternating weekends and one weeknight dinner visit. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Appellee reported taking steps to adjust [HIS/HER] work schedule to accommodate additional parenting responsibilities, including [SPECIFIC CHANGES]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

The Child(ren)'s Adjustment and Well-being

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] been thriving under the care arrangement established after separation, with Appellant as the primary custodian:

1. School records show consistent attendance and academic performance, with [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S NAME(S)] maintaining [GRADE LEVEL/GPA] throughout the separation period; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. The [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] teacher, [TEACHER'S NAME], testified that [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S NAME(S)] [HAS/HAVE] been emotionally stable and socially engaged at school, showing no signs of distress related to the family situation; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S NAME(S)] [HAS/HAVE] maintained involvement in extracurricular activities, including [ACTIVITIES], demonstrating consistent performance and enjoyment; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

4. The custody evaluator, [EVALUATOR'S NAME], noted that the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] a secure attachment to both parents but [HAS/HAVE] expressed comfort with the current living arrangement centered around Appellant's home as the primary residence. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

Housing and Stability Factors

Appellant has maintained stable housing since the separation, continuing to reside in the family home where the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] lived for [NUMBER] years. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This home is located in the same school district the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] attended since kindergarten, is approximately [DISTANCE] from the school, and is in a neighborhood where the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] established friendships. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Appellee initially moved to an apartment approximately [DISTANCE] from the family home following separation. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Three months before the custody hearing, Appellee purchased a new home in [LOCATION], which is approximately [DISTANCE] from the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] current school and would require a change in school enrollment if the [CHILD/CHILDREN] were to reside primarily with Appellee. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Employment and Availability for Childcare

Appellant is employed as a [OCCUPATION] at [EMPLOYER], working [SCHEDULE DETAILS] with flexibility to accommodate the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] school schedule and activities. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Appellant has arranged for [CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENTS] during working hours when the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [IS/ARE] not in school. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Appellee is employed as a [OCCUPATION] at [EMPLOYER], working [SCHEDULE DETAILS]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Appellee testified that if awarded primary custody, [HE/SHE] would [DESCRIBE CHILDCARE PLAN], which would involve [DETAILS OF ARRANGEMENT]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Co-Parenting Relationship and Communication

The evidence presented at trial showed that while the parties have experienced some communication difficulties following their separation, they have generally been able to exchange necessary information regarding the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] needs and activities. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Specific evidence included:

1. Text message and email exchanges demonstrating Appellant's consistent updates to Appellee regarding school events, medical appointments, and extracurricular activities; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. Testimony from [WITNESS NAME], who observed both parties attending the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] [EVENT] and communicating appropriately regarding the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] needs; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. Documentation showing that Appellant has facilitated video calls between the [CHILD/CHILDREN] and Appellee during Appellant's parenting time; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

4. Evidence that both parties attended mediation and attempted to develop a mutually agreeable parenting plan before proceeding to litigation. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

Expert Testimony and Evaluations

[EVALUATOR'S NAME], a licensed [CREDENTIALS], conducted a custody evaluation at the court's request. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). After interviewing both parties, the [CHILD/CHILDREN], and collateral contacts, observing parent-child interactions, and reviewing relevant records, [EVALUATOR'S NAME] recommended that:

1. The parties share joint legal custody of the [CHILD/CHILDREN]; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. Appellant continue to serve as the primary physical custodian, with Appellee having regular and liberal parenting time; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. The parties engage in co-parenting counseling to improve communication and cooperation. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

The evaluator specifically noted that "disrupting the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] current living arrangement would not serve [HIS/HER/THEIR] best interests given the stability and continuity provided in Appellant's care." (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Trial Court's Findings and Conclusions

Despite the evidence presented, the trial court awarded primary physical custody to Appellee, finding that:

1. Appellee's recent purchase of a home demonstrated increased stability and commitment to parenting; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

2. Appellant had been "inconsistent" in meeting the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] educational needs, citing two instances of tardiness in the previous school year; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

3. Appellant's work schedule created an "unstable environment," despite evidence of consistent employment and childcare arrangements; (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

4. Appellant had "interfered with" Appellee's relationship with the [CHILD/CHILDREN], based on one instance where a scheduled visit was rescheduled due to the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] illness. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER])

The trial court did not specifically address the custody evaluator's recommendation or explain its deviation from that recommendation. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Additionally, the court did not make specific findings regarding several statutory best interest factors, including the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] adjustment to [HIS/HER/THEIR] home, school, and community, or the importance of continuity in the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] care. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This appeal challenges the trial court's decision to award primary physical custody of the minor [CHILD/CHILDREN] to Appellee, arguing that this determination constitutes reversible error for three primary reasons:

First, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider and weigh all statutory best interest factors as required by [STATE] law. The court gave insufficient weight to Appellant's established role as the primary caregiver throughout the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] [LIFE/LIVES] and during the [NUMBER]-month period following separation. The court also failed to adequately consider the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] successful adjustment to [HIS/HER/THEIR] home, school, and community under the existing custody arrangement, and the potential disruption that would result from a change in primary custody. Additionally, the court overemphasized temporary circumstances, such as Appellee's recent home purchase, while disregarding long-term stability factors that favor Appellant.

Second, the trial court erred as a matter of law by misapplying the legal standard for modification of an existing custody arrangement. Under [STATE] law, when modifying a functioning custody arrangement—even a temporary one—the court must find both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification serves the best interests of the [CHILD/CHILDREN]. The trial court failed to identify any substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary custody arrangement that had been in place for [NUMBER] months. Instead, the court improperly shifted the burden to Appellant to demonstrate why the existing arrangement should continue, rather than requiring Appellee to prove why modification was necessary.

Third, the trial court's factual findings regarding Appellant's parenting capabilities are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial. The court's finding that Appellant has been "inconsistent" in meeting the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] educational needs is contradicted by school records and testimony demonstrating Appellant's regular involvement and the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] academic success. Similarly, the court's determination that Appellant's work schedule creates an "unstable environment" ignores substantial evidence of Appellant's consistent employment and reliable childcare arrangements. Finally, the court's conclusion that Appellant has interfered with Appellee's relationship with the [CHILD/CHILDREN] is based on a single isolated incident that was reasonably explained by the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] illness, rather than any pattern of interference.

For these reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court reverse the trial court's custody determination and remand with instructions to award primary physical custody to Appellant, with appropriate parenting time for Appellee.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standards of review applicable to the issues presented in this appeal are well-established in [STATE] law and vary according to the nature of the alleged error:

Abuse of Discretion Standard

This Court reviews a trial court's ultimate custody determination for abuse of discretion. Langford v. Langford, 745 S.E.2d 600, 603 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]); Davis v. Thornton, 802 S.E.2d 772, 775 ([STATE] [YEAR]). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons." Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.W.2d 302, 308 ([STATE] [YEAR]). While trial courts are afforded broad discretion in custody matters, this discretion is not unlimited. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court fails to consider all relevant factors, gives undue weight to a single factor, or reaches a decision that is contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Langford, 745 S.E.2d at 604.

De Novo Review of Legal Standards

Questions regarding the proper legal standard to be applied in custody determinations are questions of law that this Court reviews de novo. Baxendale, 878 N.W.2d at 309. When a trial court applies an incorrect legal standard or misinterprets the law governing custody modifications, this Court will reverse and remand for application of the correct legal standard. This includes review of whether the trial court properly applied the statutory best interest factors and the legal requirements for modification of an existing custody arrangement.

Clear Error Review of Factual Findings

The trial court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Davis, 802 S.E.2d at 776. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Langford, 745 S.E.2d at 605. This Court will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility, but will reverse factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Clear error review also applies to the trial court's application of the facts to the statutory best interest factors.

These standards of review guide this Court's analysis of whether the trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody of the minor [CHILD/CHILDREN] to Appellee rather than Appellant.

ARGUMENT

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER ALL STATUTORY BEST INTEREST FACTORS

The trial court's decision to award primary physical custody to Appellee constitutes an abuse of discretion because the court failed to properly consider and weigh all statutory best interest factors as required by [STATE] law. [STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER] establishes that in making custody determinations, courts must consider all factors relevant to the best interests of the child, including specific enumerated factors. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 645 P.2d 476, 480 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]); Henderson v. Henderson, 568 S.W.3d 826, 831 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]).

A. The Trial Court Failed to Give Proper Weight to Appellant's Role as Primary Caregiver

One of the most significant factors in custody determinations is the historical caregiving roles of the parties and the importance of continuity in the child's care. Adams v. Williams, 836 N.E.2d 463, 470 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]); [STATE] Family Law Practice Manual § [SECTION NUMBER] ([YEAR]). The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established that Appellant has been the primary caregiver for the [CHILD/CHILDREN] throughout [HIS/HER/THEIR] [LIFE/LIVES]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

As detailed in the Statement of Facts, Appellant:

1. Took primary responsibility for the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] daily care needs from birth;
2. Coordinated and attended the vast majority of medical appointments and school conferences;
3. Established and maintained consistent routines for meals, homework, and bedtime;
4. Facilitated the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] participation in extracurricular activities; and
5. Continued in this primary caregiver role during the [NUMBER]-month period following separation.

The [STATE] Supreme Court has recognized that "the primary caretaker is the parent who has taken primary responsibility for the care of the child, including, but not limited to, preparing and planning meals, bathing, dressing and grooming, medical care, teaching and educational needs, and purchasing clothes and necessities." Nelson v. Nelson, 825 N.W.2d 811, 815 ([STATE] [YEAR]). The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that Appellant meets this definition.

Despite this compelling evidence, the trial court's order contains only a cursory acknowledgment of Appellant's historical caregiving role, stating merely that "both parents have been involved in caring for the [CHILD/CHILDREN]." (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This generic statement fails to recognize the significantly different levels of involvement between the parties and gives insufficient weight to Appellant's role as the primary caregiver.

The trial court's failure to properly weigh this critical factor constitutes an abuse of discretion. As this Court has held, "while the primary caregiver factor is not dispositive, it is entitled to substantial weight in the best interests analysis, particularly for younger children who have known only one parent as their primary source of day-to-day care." Richardson v. Richardson, 653 S.E.2d 458, 463 ([STATE] [YEAR]); see also Finley v. Finley, 657 N.E.2d 1140, 1145 ([STATE] [YEAR]) (reversing custody award where trial court failed to give appropriate weight to mother's role as primary caregiver).

B. The Trial Court Failed to Adequately Consider the Child(ren)'s Adjustment and Stability Needs

[STATE] Code Ann. § SECTION NUMBER specifically requires courts to consider "the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community" when making custody determinations. This factor recognizes the importance of stability and continuity in a child's life. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 569 N.W.2d 277, 280 ([STATE] [YEAR]).

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] been thriving under the temporary custody arrangement with Appellant as the primary custodian:

1. School records showed consistent attendance and academic performance (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);
2. The [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] teacher testified about [HIS/HER/THEIR] positive adjustment and emotional stability (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);
3. The [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] maintained involvement in extracurricular activities and community relationships (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and
4. The custody evaluator specifically noted the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] secure attachment and comfort with the current living arrangement. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

The trial court's order, however, contains no specific findings regarding the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] adjustment to [HIS/HER/THEIR] home, school, and community under the existing arrangement. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). The court also failed to address the potential disruption that would result from changing the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] primary residence, particularly the need to change schools if the [CHILD/CHILDREN] were to live primarily with Appellee. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has consistently held that "stability and continuity in a child's life, particularly regarding established patterns of care and emotional bonds, are significant factors that must be carefully considered in any custody determination." Finley, 657 N.E.2d at 1146; see also Richardson, 653 S.E.2d at 464 (finding abuse of discretion where trial court failed to consider impact of custody change on child's established routines and relationships).

The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that "maintaining consistency in a child's environment and relationships is crucial for healthy development, particularly during times of family transition." (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). The trial court's failure to adequately consider this well-established principle constitutes an abuse of discretion.

C. The Trial Court Overemphasized Temporary Circumstances While Disregarding Long-Term Stability Factors

In awarding primary custody to Appellee, the trial court placed undue emphasis on Appellee's recent purchase of a home, characterizing this as evidence of "increased stability." (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This emphasis on a single, recent development while disregarding long-term stability factors constitutes an abuse of discretion. Henderson, 568 S.W.3d at 833 (finding error where trial court gave "disproportionate weight to recent changes while minimizing established patterns of care").

The evidence showed that Appellant has maintained stable housing in the family home where the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] lived for [NUMBER] years. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This home is located in the same school district the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] attended since kindergarten and is in a neighborhood where the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] established friendships. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). In contrast, Appellee's new home would require the [CHILD/CHILDREN] to change schools and adjust to an entirely new environment. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has cautioned against placing undue weight on recent changes in circumstances, particularly when those changes appear motivated by pending litigation. Zimmerman, 569 N.W.2d at 281; Adams, 836 N.E.2d at 471. The timing of Appellee's home purchase—just three months before the custody hearing—raises questions about whether this change was made primarily to influence the custody determination rather than reflecting a long-term commitment to stability.

Furthermore, the trial court failed to consider other significant stability factors that favor Appellant, including:

1. Appellant's consistent employment history and flexible work schedule that accommodates the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] needs (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);
2. Appellant's established network of family and community support (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and
3. The [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] established relationships with friends, teachers, and healthcare providers in proximity to Appellant's home. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

As this Court held in Nelson, 825 N.W.2d at 816, "stability in a child's life is not measured solely by physical surroundings, but by the consistency of relationships, routines, and emotional support." The trial court's failure to properly consider these factors while overemphasizing Appellee's recent home purchase constitutes an abuse of discretion.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY MISAPPLYING THE STANDARD FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY

The trial court committed legal error by failing to apply the proper standard for modification of an existing custody arrangement. Under [STATE] law, when a functioning custody arrangement exists—even a temporary one—the court must find both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification serves the best interests of the child before altering that arrangement. [STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER]; Garrison v. Knauss, 637 A.2d 1061, 1064 ([STATE] Super. Ct. [YEAR]); Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.W.2d 302, 308 ([STATE] [YEAR]).

A. The Trial Court Failed to Require Demonstration of a Substantial Change in Circumstances

When the parties separated, they established a custody arrangement whereby the [CHILD/CHILDREN] primarily resided with Appellant, with Appellee exercising parenting time on alternating weekends and one weeknight. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This arrangement was formalized in the court's Temporary Order dated [DATE] and remained in place for [NUMBER] months prior to the final custody determination. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

Under [STATE] law, when a court considers whether to modify an existing custody arrangement that has been functioning for a significant period, the court must first determine whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the establishment of that arrangement. Martinez v. Martinez, 728 A.2d 346, 350 ([STATE] [YEAR]); Garrison, 637 A.2d at 1065. This requirement applies even when the existing arrangement was established by a temporary order. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 742 S.W.2d 357, 360 ([STATE] [YEAR]) (holding that "when a temporary custody arrangement has been in place for a significant period and appears to be serving the child's needs, the court must find a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification").

The trial court's order contains no finding of any substantial change in circumstances that would warrant modification of the existing custody arrangement. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). Instead, the court treated the custody determination as if it were an initial determination, disregarding the [NUMBER]-month period during which the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] been thriving in Appellant's primary care. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

The only significant change in circumstances identified in the record is Appellee's purchase of a new home three months before the custody hearing. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). However, this Court has consistently held that a change in a parent's housing situation, standing alone, does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify modification of custody. Martinez, 728 A.2d at 351; Thompson v. Thompson, 868 A.2d 123, 127 ([STATE] [YEAR]) (finding that "improvements in a non-custodial parent's living situation, while commendable, do not alone justify disrupting a stable custody arrangement").

The trial court's failure to require demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances constitutes legal error requiring reversal. As this Court explained in Garrison, 637 A.2d at 1066, "the substantial change requirement serves the important purpose of preventing repeated litigation over custody and providing stability for children except in situations where a change is genuinely warranted."

B. The Trial Court Failed to Properly Apply the Best Interests Standard in the Context of Modification

Even if a substantial change in circumstances is established, [STATE] law requires that any modification of custody must serve the best interests of the child. [STATE] Code Ann. § [SECTION NUMBER]; Owens v. Owens, 896 S.W.2d 656, 659 ([STATE] [YEAR]). In the context of modification, the best interests analysis must take into account the child's interest in stability and the potential harm that may result from disrupting established patterns of care. Eldridge, 742 S.W.2d at 361.

The trial court's best interests analysis failed to properly consider the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] interest in stability and the potential harm from disrupting the existing arrangement. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). The court did not address the custody evaluator's specific recommendation that maintaining Appellant as the primary custodian would best serve the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] interests due to the stability and continuity provided in Appellant's care. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has emphasized that "in the context of modification, the best interests standard must be applied with careful attention to the child's need for stability and the potential trauma of disrupting established relationships and routines." Owens, 896 S.W.2d at 660. The trial court's failure to apply this principle constitutes legal error.

Furthermore, the trial court failed to consider that modification of custody necessarily involves a "comparative fitness" analysis that must account for the functioning of the existing arrangement. Jackson v. Jackson, 912 P.2d 1222, 1225 ([STATE] [YEAR]). As this Court explained in Thompson, 868 A.2d at 128, "when a child is thriving under an existing custody arrangement, the court must find not only that the proposed alternative would serve the child's interests, but that it would do so significantly better than the current arrangement to justify the disruption of changing custody."

The trial court's order contains no such comparative analysis and fails to explain how transferring primary custody to Appellee would better serve the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] interests than maintaining the existing arrangement with Appellant. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This failure to properly apply the best interests standard in the context of modification constitutes reversible error.

C. The Trial Court Improperly Shifted the Burden of Proof

Under [STATE] law, the party seeking modification of an existing custody arrangement bears the burden of proving both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification serves the child's best interests. Jackson, 912 P.2d at 1226; Martinez, 728 A.2d at 352. This burden-shifting approach recognizes the value of stability in a child's life and the importance of preventing unnecessary disruptions to functioning custody arrangements.

The trial court's order improperly shifted this burden to Appellant to demonstrate why the existing arrangement should continue, rather than requiring Appellee to prove why modification was necessary. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). The court stated that "Appellant has not demonstrated compelling reasons why the current temporary arrangement should be made permanent," effectively placing the burden on Appellant to justify maintaining the status quo. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This burden-shifting constitutes legal error. As this Court held in Thompson, 868 A.2d at 129, "in modification proceedings, the burden remains on the party seeking change to demonstrate why disruption of the existing arrangement is warranted." See also Owens, 896 S.W.2d at 661 (reversing custody modification where trial court improperly placed burden on custodial parent to justify continuation of existing arrangement).

The trial court's misapplication of the legal standard for modification—including its failure to require demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances, its improper application of the best interests standard, and its erroneous burden-shifting—constitutes reversible error requiring this Court to vacate the custody determination and remand for application of the correct legal standard.

III. THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDINGS REGARDING APPELLANT'S PARENTING CAPABILITIES ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

The trial court's custody determination rests on several factual findings regarding Appellant's parenting capabilities that are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial. While this Court generally defers to the trial court's factual findings, such deference is not warranted when the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Davis v. Thornton, 802 S.E.2d 772, 776 ([STATE] [YEAR]); Langford v. Langford, 745 S.E.2d 600, 605 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]).

A. The Finding That Appellant Has Been Inconsistent in Meeting the Child(ren)'s Educational Needs Is Clearly Erroneous

The trial court found that Appellant had been "inconsistent" in meeting the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] educational needs, citing two instances of tardiness in the previous school year. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This finding is clearly erroneous and contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence presented at trial.

The evidence established that:

1. Appellant attended [NUMBER] out of [NUMBER] parent-teacher conferences and school events during the past [NUMBER] years (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

2. The [CHILD/CHILDREN] maintained [GRADE LEVEL/GPA] throughout the separation period while in Appellant's primary care (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

3. [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] teacher, [TEACHER'S NAME], testified that Appellant was "consistently involved" in the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] education, regularly communicating with teachers and ensuring completion of homework (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

4. School records documented Appellant's regular participation in school activities and volunteer opportunities (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and

5. The two instances of tardiness cited by the court were explained by documented medical appointments that had been properly communicated to the school. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has held that "isolated incidents must not be given undue weight in custody determinations, particularly when they are reasonably explained and not part of a pattern of neglect or indifference." Smith v. Smith, 793 N.W.2d 251, 254 ([STATE] [YEAR]); In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553, 559 ([STATE] [YEAR]). The trial court's characterization of Appellant as "inconsistent" based on two explained instances of tardiness, while disregarding overwhelming evidence of consistent educational support, is clearly erroneous.

As this Court explained in Smith, 793 N.W.2d at 255, "a finding of parental inadequacy must be based on a pattern of behavior, not isolated incidents that are taken out of context." The trial court's finding regarding Appellant's support of the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] educational needs fails to meet this standard and is contrary to the weight of evidence.

B. The Determination That Appellant's Work Schedule Creates an Unstable Environment Is Contrary to the Evidence

The trial court found that Appellant's work schedule created an "unstable environment" for the [CHILD/CHILDREN]. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This finding is clearly erroneous and contradicted by substantial evidence in the record.

The evidence established that:

1. Appellant has maintained consistent employment as a [OCCUPATION] at [EMPLOYER] for [NUMBER] years (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

2. Appellant's work schedule of [SCHEDULE DETAILS] has remained stable and allows for regular availability during key times in the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] daily routine (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

3. Appellant has arranged for reliable childcare through [CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENT] during working hours when the [CHILD/CHILDREN] [IS/ARE] not in school (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

4. Appellant has flexibility to adjust [HIS/HER] schedule for the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] school events, medical appointments, and extracurricular activities, as confirmed by [EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE] (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and

5. The [CHILD/CHILDREN] [HAS/HAVE] thrived under this arrangement for [NUMBER] months since the parties' separation, with no evidence of instability or negative impact. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has recognized that "the mere fact that a parent works outside the home does not create instability or render that parent less capable of providing appropriate care, particularly when suitable childcare arrangements are in place." Wilson v. Wilson, 855 P.2d 375, 379 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]); Parker v. Parker, 747 N.E.2d 1082, 1086 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]).

The trial court's characterization of Appellant's stable employment and consistent childcare arrangements as creating an "unstable environment" is contrary to both the evidence presented and this Court's precedent. As noted in Keller v. Keller, 823 N.E.2d 537, 541 ([STATE] Ct. App. [YEAR]), "stability is measured by the consistency of care provided to the child, not by whether that care is delivered personally by the parent or through appropriate surrogate caregivers during working hours."

The trial court's finding is particularly troubling given that Appellee's work schedule of [SCHEDULE DETAILS] presents similar or greater challenges, yet the court did not characterize Appellee's employment as creating instability. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This inconsistent application of standards suggests that the court applied a different and more stringent standard to Appellant than to Appellee, which constitutes clear error. Wilson, 855 P.2d at 380.

C. The Conclusion That Appellant Has Interfered With Appellee's Relationship With the Child(ren) Is Not Supported by the Evidence

The trial court found that Appellant had "interfered with" Appellee's relationship with the [CHILD/CHILDREN], based on one instance where a scheduled visit was rescheduled due to the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] illness. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]). This finding is clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The evidence established that:

1. The single instance cited by the court involved a documented case of [ILLNESS] confirmed by [DOCTOR'S NAME], who recommended that the [CHILD/CHILDREN] not travel that weekend (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

2. Appellant promptly notified Appellee of the illness, provided medical documentation, and offered makeup parenting time the following weekend (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

3. Text message and email exchanges demonstrated Appellant's consistent updates to Appellee regarding the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] activities and needs (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

4. Appellant has facilitated video calls between the [CHILD/CHILDREN] and Appellee during Appellant's parenting time (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and

5. The custody evaluator specifically noted that "there is no evidence of parental alienation or interference with the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] relationship with either parent." (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

This Court has held that "a finding of interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship must be based on a pattern of deliberate conduct, not isolated incidents that have reasonable explanations." In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d at 560; Parker, 747 N.E.2d at 1087. A single instance of rescheduling visitation due to documented illness, with offered makeup time, does not constitute interference with the parent-child relationship.

As this Court explained in Smith, 793 N.W.2d at 256, "protecting a child's health and well-being by temporarily postponing visitation during illness, when done in good faith and with appropriate communication, is responsible parenting, not interference with the non-custodial parent's rights." The trial court's characterization of this isolated, explained incident as "interference" is clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence.

Furthermore, the trial court failed to acknowledge substantial evidence of Appellant's efforts to foster the relationship between Appellee and the [CHILD/CHILDREN], including:

1. Encouraging the [CHILD/CHILDREN] to share school projects and achievements with Appellee (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]);

2. Ensuring that Appellee was included in school communications and had access to the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] educational records (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]); and

3. Accommodating schedule adjustments requested by Appellee for special occasions. (R. at [RECORD PAGE NUMBER]).

The trial court's selective focus on a single incident while disregarding substantial evidence of Appellant's support for the Appellee-child relationship constitutes clear error. Keller, 823 N.E.2d at 542; Wilson, 855 P.2d at 381.

The trial court's factual findings regarding Appellant's parenting capabilities—that Appellant has been inconsistent in meeting educational needs, that Appellant's work schedule creates instability, and that Appellant has interfered with Appellee's relationship with the [CHILD/CHILDREN]—are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial. These erroneous findings formed the basis for the court's custody determination and require reversal.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's decision to award primary physical custody of the minor [CHILD/CHILDREN] to Appellee constitutes reversible error. The court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider all statutory best interest factors, particularly by giving insufficient weight to Appellant's established role as primary caregiver and the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] successful adjustment to the existing custody arrangement. The court further erred as a matter of law by misapplying the standard for modification of custody, failing to require demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances, and improperly shifting the burden of proof. Finally, the court's factual findings regarding Appellant's parenting capabilities are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial.

The trial court's errors have resulted in a custody determination that disrupts the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] stable living arrangement, requires a change in school enrollment, and significantly reduces the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] time with Appellant, who has been the primary caregiver throughout the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] [LIFE/LIVES]. This outcome is contrary to the [CHILD'S/CHILDREN'S] best interests and the weight of evidence presented.

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. REVERSE the trial court's custody determination awarding primary physical custody to Appellee;

2. REMAND this case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order awarding primary physical custody to Appellant, with appropriate parenting time for Appellee;

3. ALTERNATIVELY, remand this case for a new custody determination applying the correct legal standards and with instructions to properly consider all statutory best interest factors; and

4. GRANT such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

[ATTORNEY NAME]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[PHONE NUMBER]
[EMAIL ADDRESS]
[BAR NUMBER]

Attorney for Appellant

Dated: [DATE]

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation set forth in [STATE] Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule [RULE NUMBER]. This brief contains [NUMBER] words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Rule [RULE NUMBER]. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule [RULE NUMBER] as it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using [WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM] in [FONT AND SIZE].

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Appellant

Dated: [DATE]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [DATE], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Brief was served upon the following counsel of record via [METHOD OF SERVICE: e.g., "first-class mail, postage prepaid," "electronic filing system," "hand delivery," etc.] at the address(es) listed below:

[APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY NAME]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[EMAIL ADDRESS]

Attorney for Appellee

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Appellant

Dated: [DATE]