COURTLAND FAULKNER v. DANIEL McCAIN, 613 S.W.3d 746

Background

Parties entered an agreed paternity order in 2017: McCain named father; Faulkner awarded primary physical custody and both awarded joint legal custody.
From mid-2018 to early 2019 JM’s behavior deteriorated (hitting/spitting at daycare and school); JM was later diagnosed with ADHD and an adjustment disorder, placed in an alternative school, and began therapy and medication in early 2019.
McCain (living in Oklahoma) and Faulkner disputed co-parenting: McCain alleged lack of inclusion in medical/educational decisions and that Faulkner impeded visitation; Faulkner blamed McCain for JM’s behavior.
Evidence of controversial discipline in Faulkner/Paige’s household: spanking, removal of JM’s possessions, and a June 2018 incident where Paige briefly put adult handcuffs on JM; interim order later banned corporal punishment and limited discipline to the parents.
McCain moved to modify custody; the Pulaski County Circuit Court found a material change in circumstances, awarded full physical and legal custody to McCain, prohibited corporal punishment and prolonged solitary-withdrawal, and ordered therapy participation; Faulkner appealed.

Issues

Issue	Faulkner's Argument	McCain's Argument	Held
Whether a material change in circumstances occurred since the 2017 agreed order	No — evidence insufficient; court relied unduly on the ad litem; problems were mutual and not rising to material change	Yes — JM’s marked behavioral decline, diagnoses, inconsistent/insufficient therapy, and parental discipline/co‑parenting failures constitute material change	Court: Material change shown (behavioral escalation, diagnoses, discipline issues, and Faulkner’s refusal to co‑parent)
Whether awarding custody to McCain is in JM’s best interest	No — parental differences and therapy gaps do not justify removing JM; child’s preference is not dispositive	Yes — Faulkner/Paige’s discipline practices and failure to facilitate co‑parenting harm JM; McCain offers stability and school options	Court: Best-interest test favors changing custody to McCain; deference given to trial court credibility findings
Whether the circuit court improperly relied on the attorney ad litem’s report	Yes — report contains hearsay and should be given limited weight; court abdicated its fact‑finding	No — report is admissible and consistent with other evidence; court independently reviewed the record	Court: Considered the ad litem report but independently evaluated evidence; no reversible error in relying on it as part of the record
Whether discipline incidents (handcuffs, removal of belongings, corporal punishment) warranted restrictions or custody change	Incidents were isolated/minor; handcuffs brief and not abusive; court could limit discipline rather than transfer custody	Incidents demonstrate inappropriate/harmful discipline supporting custody change and prohibitions	Court: Found handcuffing troubling, prohibited corporal punishment and prolonged solitary-withdrawal, and treated disciplinary practices as factor supporting change of custody

Key Cases Cited

Cordell v. Cordell, 565 S.W.3d 500 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (articulates custody-modification standard and deference to trial court on credibility and best interest)
Geren Williams v. Geren, 458 S.W.3d 759 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (parental acrimony alone may not establish material change; stability is emphasized)
Jones v. Jones, 931 S.W.2d 767 (Ark. 1996) (material-change threshold and best-interest inquiry required before modifying custody)
Tracy v. Dennie, 411 S.W.3d 702 (Ark. 2012) (attorney ad litem reports are admissible but courts should weigh them appropriately)
Dorrell v. Dorrell, 441 S.W.3d 925 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (lists factors for determining child’s best interest)
Marler v. Binkley, 776 S.W.2d 839 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989) (court may prohibit corporal punishment rather than suspend visitation)
Lee v. Childs, 597 S.W.3d 124 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020) (trial court’s superior position to judge witness credibility in custody cases)