Cooper v. Kalkwarf
2017 Ark. App. 200
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2012; decree incorporated an agreement giving appellee (mother) "primary physical custody" and the parties "joint legal custody," with a visitation schedule approximating a split but not precisely 50/50 and $470/month child support from appellant (father).
- Mother remarried; her husband accepted a surgical fellowship in Houston; mother petitioned in 2016 to relocate the minor child to Texas so the family could live together and she could take a higher-paying position.
- Father opposed relocation, moved for joint custody, and produced evidence he had substantial parenting time (records showing ~60% of days in some periods); mother claimed she was the primary caretaker and would provide financial and educational advantages in Houston.
- Trial court concluded the parties did not share true joint custody, applied the Hollandsworth presumption favoring relocation by the primary custodian, granted relocation, and modified visitation to increase father's time relative to mother's proposed plan.
- On appeal, father argued the trial court should have applied the Singletary line (joint-custody relocation standard) rather than Hollandsworth; the Court of Appeals agreed the trial court applied the wrong legal test and reversed because mother failed to prove a material change in circumstances under Singletary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable relocation standard | Hollandsworth presumption applies because decree names mother primary physical custodian | Singletary controls because parties functionally shared joint custody; apply joint-custody test | Court: trial court erred using Hollandsworth; Singletary applied because parties effectively shared joint custody |
| Burden to relocate when joint custody | Mother argued relocation served child’s best interests and cited remarriage, husband's fellowship, career advancement, financial benefits | Father argued mother failed to plead/prove material change in circumstances; relocation would harm existing parent-child relationship | Held: Mother failed to establish a material change in circumstances required under Singletary; relocation petition denied (reversed trial order) |
| Characterization of custody regime | Mother/Trial court: decree’s "primary physical custody" designation means not joint custody | Father: conduct and testimony showed parity and shared parenting; joint-custody regime | Court of Appeals: parties’ conduct and testimony showed joint-custody characteristics; ambiguous contract resolved in favor of Singletary analysis |
| Effect of trial court error on outcome | N/A (trial court granted relocation under Hollandsworth) | Father: even if wrong test used, result should be reversed if mother did not meet Singletary standard | Court: although wrong test used, result was incorrect on the correct standard; reversal required because no material change shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (presumption in favor of relocation for the primary custodian)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. 506, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (joint-custody relocation governed by material-change and best-interest analysis)
- Jones v. Jones, 2015 Ark. App. 468, 469 S.W.3d 402 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (applied Singletary in ambiguous custody-language relocation context)
- Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 335 Ark. 145, 980 S.W.2d 255 (Ark. 1998) (principle for resolving contractual ambiguity by considering contract as whole, parties’ intent, and conduct)