Doughty v. Douglas I
2016 Ark. App. 461
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child E.D., born 2010, parents Joanne Amy Doughty (mother, pro se on appeal) and Richard William Douglas (father, living in Australia); E.D. has a half-brother M.F.D. whose custody was resolved in a related case (Ferrara v. Doughty).
- Garland County Circuit Court (Oct. 6, 2014) awarded joint custody with final decision-making authority to Douglas and fashioned a transnational parenting-time plan anticipating E.D. attending school in Perth, Australia.
- The court ordered travel arrangements (parents to accompany until child can fly alone), Douglas to pay certain travel costs and retroactive child support of $27,810 for a specified period, and permitted a name change to include Douglas’s surname.
- Mother raised multiple challenges on appeal: best-interest error in splitting the siblings and removing primary custody; due-process and professional-conduct violations from alleged ex parte orders; disqualification and impropriety of the attorney ad litem and her expert; federal civil-rights claims; and procedural objections to the timeliness of Douglas’s cross-appeal.
- Douglas cross-appealed on jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the award of attorney’s fees to Doughty, and alleged briefing/record defects.
- The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits because both parties’ briefs and abstracts were deficient and key portions of the record (including prior hearings and depositions) were not properly abstracted; the court ordered rebriefing and consolidation under a different docket number.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doughty) | Defendant's Argument (Douglas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly determined child’s best interests in awarding final decision-making to Douglas and splitting siblings internationally | Court erred; splitting two young sons and removing E.D. from mother is not in child’s best interest | Court’s custody decision and parenting-time scheme were justified by coparenting ability and best-interest considerations | Not decided on merits—appeal deferred because briefing/record deficiencies; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether ex parte orders and procedural conduct violated Doughty’s due-process and rule/professional-conduct rights | Trial court routinely entered ex parte orders favoring Douglas’s counsel and ad litem, violating due process and rules | Proceedings and orders were proper | Not decided on merits—court required proper record and briefing before addressing substantive claims |
| Whether the attorney ad litem and her expert should have been disqualified due to alleged ethics investigations, conflicts, bias, and failure to meet administrative requirements | Ad litem and expert were unqualified, had conflicts/bias, and engaged in improper ex parte communications; must be discharged | Ad litem’s role and testimony were permissible | Not decided—court instructed appellant to include ad litem’s response and relevant prior-hearing material in the rebriefing record |
| Whether appellate briefs/records meet appellate rules and whether cross-appeal is procedurally proper | Doughty contends record designated was sufficient; argues cross-appeal untimely | Douglas contends briefing deficiencies by Doughty and relies on record citations; cross-appeal filed | Court held both briefs deficient under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 and Ark. R. App. P.–Civ.; ordered rebriefing, required specified transcripts/addenda, set firm deadlines, and consolidated dockets |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Monumental Gen. Ins. Co., 354 Ark. 692 (affirming requirement that appellant bring forward a sufficient record for appellate review)
- Lackey v. Mays, 100 Ark. App. 386 (discussing best practice of chronological arrangement of addendum materials)