Chastain v. Chastain, 2012 Ark. App. 73

Married in 2005 with two minor children; divorce decree 2009 awarded joint custody with mother as primary residence.
Marital settlement divided time via a “Secondary Residential Responsibility” schedule; joint and equal custody but with primary residential parent (mother).
Appellee moved to relocate with children to Fort Bragg, NC for a civilian contractor job; she claimed a material change in circumstances and better opportunities.
Appellant opposed relocation, arguing no substantial change and that move would harm his access and the children’s best interests.
Trial court held appellee as primary custodian, allowed relocation, and set a visitation schedule for appellant; appellate review followed de novo standard on custody questions.
This appeal consolidates challenges to the trial court’s interpretation of the settlement, the custody concept, and the relocation ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the trial court’s relocation ruling properly grounded in law and fact?	Chastain argued presumption and Hollandsworth factors not properly applied.	Chastain contends relocation presumption in favor of custodial parent exists and was properly rebutted.	Relocation permitted; presumption not rebutted; factors weighed in favor of relocation.
Did the court err in finding no true joint custody and in interpreting the agreement?	Chastain asserts joint custody as per agreement; evidence shows joint time.	Court correctly read primary residential parent language and tax-deduction provision as evidence of custodial intent.	Court’s interpretation not clearly against the evidence; upheld as correct.
Was it error to grant relocation without a specific best-interest finding?	Best interests were not expressly stated.	Court considered Hollandsworth factors and concluded relocation in children’s best interests.	No error; deference to trial court; record supports conclusion.
Did the trial court rely on evidence outside the record about tax deductions?	Trial court supposedly considered outside evidence regarding who claimed deductions.	No outside evidence was relied on; deduction issue not resolved and not dispositive.	No reversible error; court did not rely on outside-record evidence.

Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470 (Ark. 2003) (established relocation presumptions and best-interest framework)
Poff v. Peedin, 2010 Ark. App. 365 (Ark. App. 2010) (contract interpretation guidance for custody language)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Coughlin, 369 Ark. 365 (Ark. 2007) (contract interpretation and intention of the parties; ambiguity standard)
Shannon v. McJunkins, 2010 Ark. App. 440 (Ark. App. 2010) (joint custody interpretation; generous visitation not equal to joint physical custody)
Valentine v. Valentine, 2010 Ark. App. 259 (Ark. App. 2010) (deference to trial court’s credibility and best-interest determinations)