Bishop v. Singletary
2013 Ark. App. 394
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Amy Bishop appeals a circuit-court order granting Joseph Singletary sole custody of their daughter C.S. born 2007.
- Decree in 2010 awarded joint custody with Amy having primary physical custody; no child-support provision; weekly alternate custody.
- Amy relocated to Texas in May 2011 for her spouse’s job; relocation prompted motion to modify custody and Joseph’s counterclaim for sole custody.
- Mediation reduced noncustodial visitation to one week per month; hearing held April 11, 2012.
- Circuit court found joint custody, held relocation a material change, awarded sole custody to Joseph, and did not apply Hollandsworth.
- This appeal argues Hollandsworth should apply to relocation in a joint-custody context; court reverses and remands to apply Hollandsworth
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hollandsworth presumption applies to relocation in joint custody | Amy contends Hollandsworth governs relocation by custodial parent | Joseph argues Hollandsworth does not apply due to joint custody | Presumption applies; remand to apply Hollandsworth |
| Whether relocation constitutes a material change in circumstances independent of the move | Amy argues relocation itself altered circumstances requiring reconsideration | Joseph asserts material change existed | Relocation not independently shown as material change; remand to apply Hollandsworth |
| How to interpret the decree's language of joint custody with primary physical custodian | Amy maintains the decree requires true joint custody with Amy as primary physical custodian | Joseph asserts the language allows relocation-based custody shift | Ambiguous contract language; fact-finding required; remand to apply Hollandsworth |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470 (2003) (relocation presumption for custodial-parent relocation; not automatic change of circumstances)
- Hurtt v. Hurtt, 216 S.W.3d 604 (2005) (divorce decree controls; primary-custody language governs unless modified)
- Chastain v. Chastain, 388 S.W.3d 495 (2012 Ark. App. 73) (analyzed joint custody versus primary custody; interpretation affects outcome)
- Lewellyn v. Lewellyn, 93 S.W.3d 681 (2002) (distinguishes between joint-custody-relocation and custodial-parent-relocation")
- Durham v. Durham, 120 S.W.3d 129 (2003) (applies Hollandsworth in joint-custody context)
- Lewellyn v. Lewellyn, 351 Ark. 346 (2002) (prior framework for change-of-custody vs relocation)