641 S.W.3d 4
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- Self and Dittmer divorced in Wisconsin (2012) and agreed to joint legal and physical custody of three daughters; they later moved to Northwest Arkansas and used alternate-week parenting.
- Dittmer registered the Wisconsin decree in Washington County and, in Aug. 2019, moved to modify custody to give her primary custody citing communication breakdown; Self sought primary custody as well. The court found a material change but kept joint custody after a Feb. 2020 hearing; that ruling was affirmed on appeal.
- Self filed a contempt motion (Mar. 2020) and a separate medical-authority motion; Dittmer filed for contempt and emergency modification seeking primary custody with supervised visitation for Self. Continuous litigation followed.
- An October–November 2020 hearing received testimony (including closed-door testimony from the children), counselor and ad litem reports; the ad litem recommended primary custody to Dittmer, citing parental alienation, poor coparenting, and volatility under joint custody.
- The circuit court issued a detailed oral ruling and a written order (Nov. 2021) finding a material change in circumstances and awarding Dittmer sole custody with standard visitation to Self. Self appealed, raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Self) | Defendant's Argument (Dittmer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pre-order texts | Texts predate the prior order and shouldn’t influence custody; admission prejudiced Self | Texts were admitted for impeachment and relevant to credibility and coparenting conduct | Court did not abuse discretion in admission context; no reversible prejudice shown |
| Alleged factual misstatements | Court misstated counselor testimony and presumed Self failed to notify about a runaway text | Court’s recitation was within its fact-findings and credibility determinations | No clear error; appellate court defers to trial court credibility calls |
| Sufficiency of best-interest finding | Children preferred father; court ignored red flags and medical-care examples favoring Self | Evidence (ad litem, counselor, emails, texts) showed alienation and harmful volatility; best interest favored mother | Best-interest determination not clearly erroneous; custody award affirmed |
| Denial of motion to reconsider | Posttrial motion identified "egregious mistakes" requiring reconsideration | No specific, developed errors were identified on appeal | Denial affirmed; appellant failed to develop or cite viable grounds on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Liberty Bank, 382 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. App. 2011) (appellate standard for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion and prejudice)
- Nat’l Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Coleman, 257 S.W.3d 862 (Ark. 2007) (written order controls over oral pronouncements)
- DFH/PJH Enters., LLC v. Caldwell, 284 S.W.3d 66 (Ark. 2008) (trial court may alter oral rulings upon further consideration)
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 608 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. App. 2020) (written order governs where oral ruling differs)
- Cochran v. Bentley, 251 S.W.3d 253 (Ark. 2007) (bench-trial findings reviewed for clear error)
- Wadley v. Wadley, 590 S.W.3d 754 (Ark. App. 2019) (deference to trial court on credibility in custody cases)
- Faulkner v. McCain, 613 S.W.3d 746 (Ark. App. 2020) (child preference is a factor, not determinative)
- Hester v. State, 208 S.W.3d 747 (Ark. 2005) (appellate court will not research or develop arguments for appellant)
- Hollis v. State, 55 S.W.3d 756 (Ark. 2001) (issues not briefed with authority may be refused consideration)
- Cooper v. Merwether, 549 S.W.3d 395 (Ark. App. 2018) (appellate court will not second-guess trial court’s weighing of evidence)
- Self v. Dittmer, 619 S.W.3d 43 (Ark. App. 2021) (prior appeal concerning continuation of joint custody)