Brantley v. Brantley
2017 Ark. App. 560
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Katherine Sipes and Dustin Brantley divorced in 2012; one child (D.B.) was born of the marriage and is the subject of the dispute.
- After allegations of abuse, DHS put a protection plan in place and an ex parte order of protection resulted in supervised visitation for Sipes; the abuse allegations were later ruled unsubstantiated and the order of protection was set aside.
- A 2014 psychological evaluation (not included in the appellate record) led the Garland County Circuit Court to change custody to Brantley and limit Sipes to supervised visitation; Sipes did not appeal that custody change.
- In May 2016 Sipes moved to modify visitation to remove the supervision requirement; at the August 2016 hearing she presented testimony from her therapist and from herself that she had improved and could safely have unsupervised contact.
- Brantley’s counsel referred repeatedly to the 2014 psychological evaluation during the hearing despite objections; the trial court allowed counsel to refer to the report but the report was not admitted into evidence.
- The circuit court denied Sipes’s request to remove supervised visitation (finding no material change or best-interest justification) but expanded unsupervised access for school and sporting events; Sipes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly considered and allowed references to a prior psychological evaluation not in evidence | Sipes: counsel and court relied on the 2014 evaluation improperly, relitigating prior facts | Brantley: references were relevant to show history and inform best-interest analysis | Court: No reversible error; report was not admitted and references were permissible in context |
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances to remove supervised visitation | Sipes: her therapy progress and testimony show a material change warranting unsupervised visitation | Brantley: prior findings and evaluation still justified supervised visitation | Court: Found no such significant/material change to warrant lifting supervision (assumed material-change issue moot for discussion) |
| Whether removing supervision would be in the child’s best interest | Sipes: increased contact without supervision is in child’s best interest based on her progress | Brantley: prior concerns and history weigh against unsupervised visitation | Court: Limitedly modified visitation (unsupervised for school/sports) but overall found unsupervised visitation not in child’s best interest |
| Standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings | Sipes: challenges trial-court findings as erroneous | Brantley: emphasizes trial court’s superior position to evaluate witnesses | Court: Applied de novo standard to custody matters but affirmed under clear-error deference to trial court credibility and discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Meins v. Meins, 93 Ark. App. 292 (explains requirement for a material-change showing to modify visitation)
- Baker v. Murray, 434 S.W.3d 409 (Ark. Ct. App.) (material-change is a threshold issue before best-interest analysis)
- Hoover v. Hoover, 498 S.W.3d 297 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate review in child-custody matters with clear-error standard)
- Myers v. McCall, 334 S.W.3d 878 (Ark. Ct. App.) (limits on relitigation; need to consider circumstances existing at prior order)
- Mason v. Robertson, 524 S.W.3d 452 (Ark. Ct. App.) (factors for reasonable visitation and trial-court discretion)
- McNutt v. Yates, 430 S.W.3d 91 (Ark.) (deference to trial court’s credibility determinations in custody matters)