571 S.W.3d 60
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (Emily Armstrong) and Father (Martel Draper) never married; child born 2016.
- April 2017 custody order: joint legal custody with mother designated as primary physical custodian; visitation schedule gave father specific weekday/every-other-weekend time and "all other times by agreement." Mother entitled to claim child as tax dependent; father ordered to pay support.
- Father filed ex parte petition in June 2017 to prohibit mother from relocating to Colorado with the child; full hearing held December 6, 2017.
- Evidence at hearing: mother provided most daily care, planned medical visits and meals, worked part time, relied on maternal relatives for support in Colorado; father exercised court-ordered visitation intermittently and lived locally with extended family involvement.
- Circuit court treated the case as a joint-custody matter (applying Singletary), found no material change in circumstances, and enjoined relocation.
- Court of appeals reversed, finding the arrangement did not amount to joint custody and directing application of the Hollandsworth presumption favoring relocation for a primary custodial parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody arrangement is "joint custody" such that Singletary analysis applies | Armstrong: order names joint legal custody but mother is primary custodian and she spends significantly more time with child; arrangement is not joint custody | Draper: order grants joint legal custody and contemplates additional agreed visitation, so Singletary (joint-custody) analysis should apply | Court: arrangement was not joint custody in practice; findings that mother spent significantly more time reversed the circuit court’s joint-custody characterization |
| Whether Hollandsworth presumption favoring relocation applies | Armstrong: as primary physical custodian who spends significantly more time with child, Hollandsworth presumption applies and father must rebut it | Draper: because order awarded joint legal custody and contemplated substantial additional visitation, Hollandsworth does not apply; use Singletary change-of-custody analysis | Court: Hollandsworth presumption should apply; remanded for circuit court to apply that presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003) (announces presumption favoring relocation for custodial parents with sole or primary custody)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (Hollandsworth presumption does not apply where parents share joint custody; use material-change and best-interest analysis)
- Cooper v. Kalkwarf, 532 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. 2017) (clarifies that the Hollandsworth presumption applies when the primary custodian also spends substantially more time with the child, not merely by label)