Cooper v. Kalkwarf
2017 Ark. App. 405
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Nathan Cooper and Shannon Kalkwarf divorced in 2012; their agreement awarded Shannon "primary physical custody" and the parties "joint legal custody," with a visitation rotation (modified by agreement) that the parties practiced post-divorce.
- The couple shares one minor son, B.C. Appellant (Nathan) paid child support; Shannon primarily paid school tuition and most out-of-pocket child expenses.
- Shannon remarried; her husband accepted a trauma-surgery fellowship in Houston and she filed to modify custody to relocate to Houston with B.C., citing career and family reasons.
- Nathan opposed relocation and moved for joint custody, arguing the case should be decided under Singletary (joint-custody standard) rather than under Hollandsworth (presumption favoring relocation for the primary custodian).
- The trial court found the parties did not have true joint custody, concluded Shannon remained the primary custodian, applied Hollandsworth (presuming relocation in the child’s best interest), granted Shannon’s relocation petition, and adopted a detailed visitation plan.
- On appeal the court reversed, holding the trial court improperly relied on Hollandsworth and should have analyzed the case under Singletary and Jones (joint-custody relocation framework), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cooper) | Defendant's Argument (Kalkwarf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for relocation when decree uses both "joint legal custody" and names a "primary physical custodian" | The arrangement was effectively joint custody; apply Singletary/Jones (focus on material change and best interest) | The decree and parties’ conduct show Shannon is primary custodian; apply Hollandsworth (presumption favoring relocation by primary custodian) | Court held trial court erred applying Hollandsworth; case should follow Singletary/Jones and was reversed and remanded |
| Whether parties shared "true joint custody" under the decree and conduct | Argues parties split time near-equally and practiced a shared schedule; evidence supports joint-custody treatment | Points to decree language, visitation percentages, and plaintiff’s payment responsibilities to show Shannon was primary custodian | Appellate court concluded the trial court’s finding of non-joint custody was incorrect on the record and chose Singletary framework (remand) |
| Burden of proof for relocation | Burden should be on the relocating parent under joint-custody analysis; best-interests inquiry controls | Relocating primary custodian benefits from Hollandsworth presumption that relocation is in the child’s best interest | Court required application of joint-custody standard (Singletary) rather than Hollandsworth presumption |
| Appropriate visitation arrangement post-relocation | Maintain substantial parent-child contact; current schedule and custodial realities should guide modification | Proposed a detailed visitation plan (monthly flights, splits of holidays/summer) to preserve father’s access | Trial court’s visitation plan was vacated for reconsideration under proper legal standard on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003) (establishes a presumption favoring relocation when one parent is the primary custodian)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. 506, 431 S.W.3d 234 (2013) (in joint-custody contexts, relocation disputes focus on material change and the child's best interest rather than a presumption for the custodial parent)
- Jones v. Jones, 2015 Ark. App. 468, 469 S.W.3d 402 (2015) (applies Singletary approach when custody language is ambiguous and parties’ conduct indicates joint-custody elements)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009) (custody-modification standard: modification only when circumstances change so that modification is in child's best interest)
- Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 335 Ark. 145, 980 S.W.2d 255 (1998) (discusses principles for interpreting custody agreements and parties’ conduct in custody disputes)