Geren Williams v. Geren
2015 Ark. App. 197
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Divorce decree (2008) awarded custody of three children to LaDonna; decree anticipated equal parenting time and required Patrick to pay daycare (in lieu of child support).
- By 2013 Patrick remarried Sue; Sue and her sons lived with him. In August 2013 LaDonna transferred the two minor daughters from Greenwood to Fort Smith school district.
- Patrick filed for custody modification alleging changed circumstances: LaDonna drank and drove with the children, picked up children while intoxicated, left children alone while drinking, was cohabiting before marriage, and other welfare concerns. LaDonna denied most allegations and later married Tony Williams (Dec. 2013).
- At the May 2014 hearing, testimony conflicted on several points: frequency/extent of LaDonna’s drinking; whether Patrick had past alcohol problems but had since remediated them; childcare arrangements (Girls, Inc., relatives, spouses); and incidents including a near-drowning and interpersonal acrimony between LaDonna and Sue.
- The circuit court found three material changes: (1) LaDonna’s aggressive behavior/demeanor toward Patrick and Sue, (2) testimony about LaDonna’s alcohol use, and (3) testimony/demeanor of LaDonna’s husband vs. the credible testimony of Patrick and Sue, and transferred custody to Patrick.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no material change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody and therefore did not reach the best-interest inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LaDonna) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances occurred since the 2008 decree to justify custody modification | No—facts presented (drinking, attitude, new husband) either were not new or not material | Yes—LaDonna’s aggressive behavior toward Sue, her alcohol use, and credibility of witnesses justified change | Reversed—no material change found |
| Whether parental acrimony/changed demeanor alone can justify custody change | Acrimony is minor and not materially harmful | Acrimony (and trial demeanor) shows willful disruption and supports modification | Reversed—attitude toward Sue is insufficient alone |
| Whether evidence of LaDonna’s alcohol use supported modification | Drinking was occasional and not shown to have changed since the divorce; not shown to impair parenting | Testimony showed drinking, alleged driving after drinking, and picking up children smelling of alcohol | Reversed—no proof drinking increased or was unknown at time of decree; not a new material change |
| Whether credibility findings (favoring Patrick/Sue) can constitute changed circumstances | Credibility alone cannot create new facts or circumstances | Witness credibility supports factual findings of misconduct that justify change | Reversed—credibility determinations must relate to material facts; credibility alone is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332 (party seeking modification bears burden of proving material change)
- Tipton v. Aaron, 87 Ark. App. 1 (trial court must first find material change, then decide custody based solely on best interest)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 336 Ark. 379 (appellate review may find sufficient evidence of changed circumstances even if trial court did not make explicit findings)
- Myers v. McCall, 2009 Ark. App. 541 (evidence for modification limited to changes since prior custody order; unknown preexisting facts may qualify)
- Word v. Remick, 75 Ark. App. 390 (material-change standard requires conditions so materially changed as to warrant modification)
- Carver v. May, 81 Ark. App. 292 (contempt remedies preferred over custody modification for willful violations)
- Stellpflug v. Stellpflug, 70 Ark. App. 88 (change in attitude alone insufficient to support modification)
- Lloyd v. Lloyd, 343 Ark. 620 (noncustodial parent cannot create the change that supports modification)