Doughty v. Douglas II
2016 Ark. App. 463
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Joanne Doughty (appellant) and Richard Douglas (appellee) share one child, E.D.; Doughty (Arkansas resident) filed paternity proceedings in Garland County; Douglas resides in Australia.
- October 6, 2014 order (subject of companion appeal CV-14-954) awarded joint legal custody; later disputes over visitation led Douglas to file an emergency petition on November 24, 2014 seeking enforcement and emergency custody.
- The circuit court entered an ex parte emergency custody order (Nov. 24, 2014) granting custody to Douglas and suspending Doughty’s visitation; a December 8, 2014 hearing followed and the court issued a Custody Modification Order on December 31, 2014 placing custody with Douglas and requiring supervised visitation for Doughty unless she satisfied conditions.
- Doughty filed multiple notices of appeal (Dec. 22, 2014; Jan. 29, 2015) and numerous post‑order motions; this appeal (CV‑15‑250) raises challenges to the emergency order, December hearing rulings, and related orders.
- The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because Doughty’s appellate filings violated Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4‑2: her abstract reproduced the transcript verbatim (forbidden), her addendum improperly included voluminous materials from a companion docket (CV‑14‑954) and omitted required pages (missing pp. 107–14, including the interpleader order).
- The court granted Doughty’s previously‑filed motion to consolidate the companion cases under CV‑15‑250, ordered rebriefing, gave an extended 30‑day deadline, and warned that noncompliance could result in affirmance; it also cautioned that pro se litigants are held to the same rules as attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doughty) | Defendant's Argument (Douglas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance of abstract with Rule 4‑2(a)(5)(B) | Abstract preserves the trial transcript (claimed necessary) | Court rules require an impartial condensation, not verbatim reproduction | Abstract violates Rule 4‑2(a)(5)(B); rebriefing ordered |
| Addendum contents and inclusion of documents from companion case | Included extensive materials (argues relevance) | Addendum must contain only non‑transcript documents in the instant record | Addendum improperly includes documents not in CV‑15‑250; rebriefing ordered |
| Missing pages in addendum (jurisdictional/essential documents) | Missing pages were inadvertent or immaterial | Missing pages include interpleader order designated on appeal; necessary for review | Addendum must be corrected to include missing pages; rebriefing ordered |
| Consolidation and briefing schedule | Doughty sought to consolidate and proceed | Douglas did not oppose consolidation as reflected in court action | Motion to consolidate granted; 30‑day rebriefing deadline imposed; warning of possible affirmance for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268 (appellate court will not consider addendum documents not in the record)
- Barnett v. Monumental Gen. Ins. Co., 354 Ark. 692 (appellant is responsible for designating sufficient record for appellate review)
- Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365 (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys regarding compliance with appellate rules)
- Kennedy v. Byers, 368 Ark. 516 (court may affirm for failure to comply with appellate rules)