Fudge v. Dorman
2017 Ark. App. 181
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeremy Fudge and Whittney Dorman divorced in 2010; Dorman initially had custody and voluntarily relinquished it to Fudge in 2011.
- An agreed order in 2013 left primary physical custody with Fudge.
- Dorman filed for a custody change on January 6, 2016, alleging a material change in circumstances and seeking emergency relief after a recent public drunken incident involving Fudge and his wife.
- The circuit court granted an ex parte emergency order but denied temporary emergency custody two days later, finding the incident did not occur in the children’s presence.
- On April 12, 2016, the circuit court ordered a permanent change of custody to Dorman, citing that Dorman’s circumstances had improved since she relinquished custody and that she was now better able to care for the children.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court failed to make specific findings showing a material change in circumstances and that the record did not support the court’s conclusions about Dorman’s stability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fudge) | Defendant's Argument (Dorman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances justified modifying custody | No; there was no sufficient change since the 2013 order | Yes; Dorman’s circumstances improved and warrant custody transfer | Reversed: court found no established material change |
| Whether the circuit court made adequate factual findings supporting change | Findings were conclusory and failed to compare past and present circumstances | Findings that Dorman settled her affairs supported change | Reversed: findings insufficient and omitted required specificity |
| Whether emergency (ex parte) custody was warranted based on Liberty Bowl incident | Incident did not place children in danger; emergency relief improper | Incident showed risk to children’s welfare meriting emergency relief | Emergency relief initially granted but temporary emergency custody later denied; court of appeals noted no emergency |
| Whether best-interest inquiry was properly addressed after change finding | Court should not have reached best-interest analysis absent material-change proof | Court evaluated parents’ capacities and found Dorman now better situated | Court of appeals held no need to reach best-interest inquiry because threshold (material change) was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Riddick v. Harris, 501 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. App. 2016) (standard of review for custody modifications)
- Alphin v. Alphin, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (deference to circuit court in custody cases)
- Williams v. Geren, 458 S.W.3d 759 (Ark. App. 2015) (need for specific findings comparing prior and current circumstances)
- Middleton v. Middleton, 113 S.W.3d 625 (Ark. App. 2003) (change in noncustodial parent’s circumstances alone insufficient to change custody)