Cooper v. Kalkwarf
2017 Ark. 331
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Cooper and Kalkwarf divorced in 2012; their agreement (incorporated into the decree) awarded Kalkwarf “primary physical custody” and Cooper liberal visitation (initially 3 nights/7; later a 5-5-1-3 rotation). Child born 2009.
- Kalkwarf remarried and petitioned in 2016 to relocate to Houston with the child because her husband had a trauma-surgery fellowship and better employment/education opportunities; Cooper opposed relocation and sought modification to reflect a joint-custody practice.
- At the relocation hearing both parents testified about their time with the child, parenting roles, and the practical effect of the proposed move on Cooper’s visitation (court found a large reduction in Cooper’s days if move granted).
- The circuit court found the decree ambiguous, reviewed parties’ conduct, concluded Kalkwarf remained the primary custodian, applied the Hollandsworth relocation presumption (placing burden on Cooper to rebut), and granted relocation while expanding Cooper’s travel/holiday/summer time and reducing his child support.
- The court of appeals reversed; this Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals opinion, and reversed and remanded the circuit court’s order because Singletary—not Hollandsworth—governed under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Kalkwarf's Argument | Cooper's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hollandsworth presumption favoring relocation for a primary custodian applies | Kalkwarf: decree labels her "primary physical custody"; presumption should apply | Cooper: parties actually shared joint/shared custody in practice; presumption should not apply | Hollandsworth presumption applies only when the relocating parent is labeled primary and spends significantly more time with the child; here Singletary governs |
| Whether the custody language and post-decree conduct establish joint custody | Kalkwarf: decree and practice leave her as primary custodian | Cooper: practice (near-equal time, shared decisionmaking, substantial contact) shows joint custody | Court held language ambiguous; reviewing conduct is appropriate and concluded parties did not have true joint custody for purposes of Singletary analysis; Supreme Court concluded under clarified standard Singletary analysis controls here |
| Proper analytical framework for relocation requests (presumption vs. best-interests/change-in-circumstances) | Kalkwarf: apply Hollandsworth presumption for primary custodians | Cooper: apply Singletary change-in-circumstances and best-interests analysis for shared-custody situations | Court clarifies Hollandsworth limited to parents who are primary custodians AND spend significantly more time with the child; otherwise use Singletary best-interests/change-in-circumstances approach |
| Standard for reviewing circuit court factual findings on custody/relocation | Kalkwarf: defer to trial court credibility and findings | Cooper: challenge application of presumption and ultimate legal framework | De novo review of mixed equity issues, but factual findings not reversed unless clearly erroneous; Court found the trial court misapplied the presumption under these facts and remanded for Singletary analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (announced presumption favoring relocation by a sole or primary custodial parent)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (Hollandsworth presumption inapplicable when parents share joint custody; require change-in-circumstances and best-interest analysis)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 291 S.W.3d 573 (Ark. 2009) (emphasizing best-interest-of-the-child as polestar consideration)
- Jones v. Jones, 469 S.W.3d 402 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (examining ambiguity in custody language and courts’ reliance on conduct to determine custody scheme)
- Bisbing v. Bisbing, 166 A.3d 1155 (N.J. 2017) (noting trend in other jurisdictions to apply a best-interests test in relocation cases rather than a presumption)