441 S.W.3d 925
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dorrells were divorced in 2009 by consent decree awarding joint custody of their daughter A.D., born in 2007, with a rotating schedule and school-choice agreement to be decided later.
- In 2013, Alanna filed a counterpetition seeking primary custody, asserting it was in A.D.’s best interest to reside with her and to address school placement.
- Timothy amended his petition seeking primary custody for himself, asserting it was in A.D.’s best interest.
- The circuit court granted Alanna primary custody on August 19, 2013, finding it was in A.D.’s best interest.
- Timothy moved for reconsideration and appealed, challenging the custody modification and raising issues related to statutory amendments and medical-expense reimbursements.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the custody modification, holding it was not clearly erroneous given A.D.’s stability, school considerations, and parental-work dynamics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the custody modification to primary custody proper? | Dorrell argues the modification was improper under the new joint-custody preference and failed to consider timely amendments. | Dorrell contends the modification served A.D.’s best interest given stability and logistics. | Modification held proper; best-interests standard satisfied. |
| May the court address amendments to 9-13-101 and medical-expense reimbursement on appeal? | Timothy argues 2013 amendments and medical expenses were improperly overlooked. | Alanna argues issues were not properly preserved for appeal and posttrial rulings were jurisdictionally defective. | We lack jurisdiction to address these issues; appealed matter limited to primary-custody modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bamburg v. Bamburg, 435 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. App. 2014) (factors in modifying child custody include stability and parental relationship)
- Hamilton v. Barrett, 989 S.W.2d 520 (Ark. 1999) (deference to trial court on credibility in custody cases)
- Rector v. Rector, 947 S.W.2d 389 (Ark. App. 1997) (consideration of past conduct and best interests in custody)
- Murchison v. Safeco Ins. Co., 238 S.W.3d 11 (Ark. 2006) (timeliness and jurisdiction in post-judgment motions)
- Preston v. Preston, 2014 Ark. App. 58 (Ark. App. 2014) (primary consideration in custody is the child’s welfare)
- Collier v. Collier, 2012 Ark. App. 146 (Ark. App. 2012) (joint custody voluntary but not favored under prior law)