Baker v. Murray
2014 Ark. App. 243
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Christopher and Staci divorced in 2006; Staci was awarded custody of their daughter K.B.; Christopher sought custody modifications in 2011 (denied) and again in 2012–2013.
- The 2011 order required K.B. to attend counseling and both parents (and spouses) to participate as directed; Staci was found in contempt in 2011 for delayed enrollment but later stopped participating in joint co-parenting therapy in 2012.
- Christopher filed a December 2012 motion alleging multiple contempts and listing 13 grounds as a material change of circumstances to justify changing custody to him.
- Two-day hearing elicited testimony from the court-ordered therapist (Matthew Frederick), school staff, daycare director, and family members; therapist said K.B. improved in therapy, recommended continued joint counseling, and did not believe Staci’s conduct rose to parental alienation.
- Evidence included disputes over communication (shared Google calendar), parenting/discipline (spanking), remarriage/new sibling, K.B.’s extracurricular participation, and school tardies; court found both households loving and caring.
- The circuit court denied Christopher’s request to change custody, ordered continued therapy and improved communication (shared calendar), and denied contempt relief; Christopher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Baker's Argument | Murray's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances occurred to permit custody modification | Staci’s refusal to continue court-ordered joint therapy, alleged parental alienation, remarriage/new child, discipline and reduced extracurriculars constituted material changes | Those events did not amount to a material change; both homes are stable and loving; therapy cessation and other disputes don’t require custody change | Court found Baker failed to meet burden; no material change shown and custody remains with Murray |
| Whether the trial court failed to make/find a material-change threshold | Court’s order unclear on threshold; insists trial must state whether material change occurred | Trial court’s plain language and ultimate denial show it concluded Baker failed to prove material change; no special findings required absent request | Appellate court held the order reasonably reflects that no material change was found and declines to reverse |
| Whether violation of the therapy order required custody change | Therapy noncompliance is egregious and should support custody change | Violating order is sanctionable (contempt) but not necessarily a basis to change custody; remedy is contempt before altering custody | Court properly considered noncompliance but reasonably declined to use custody change as punishment; affirmed |
| Whether factual findings (discipline, alienation, remarriage impact, school issues) were clearly erroneous | Staci’s spanking, alleged alienation, favoring new baby, and K.B.’s tardies support changing custody | Testimony (therapist, teachers) showed no abuse/alienation, child thriving academically/extracurricularly; issues stem from parental conflict, not custody | Appellate court deferred to trial court credibility findings and held they were not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alphin v. Alphin, 90 Ark. App. 71, 204 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (standards for modifying custody and deference to trial court credibility)
- Henley v. Medlock, 97 Ark. App. 45, 244 S.W.3d 16 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (material-change threshold is required in custody-modification cases)
- Powell v. Marshall, 88 Ark. App. 257, 197 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (violation of custody-related orders does not automatically justify custody change; contempt is available)
- Middleton v. Middleton, 83 Ark. App. 7, 113 S.W.3d 625 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (remarriage alone is generally not a material change of circumstance)
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (consideration of remarriage and stability in custody analysis)
- Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark. App. 108, 953 S.W.2d 596 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (parental alienation is a significant factor in change-of-custody decisions)
- Hobby v. Walker, 385 S.W.3d 331 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (disagreement over parenting style generally not a material change)