Glisson v. Glisson
538 S.W.3d 864
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Kellie and Steven divorced; circuit court entered decree Aug. 26, 2016, awarding joint custody with Kellie as primary custodian.
- Decree details parenting time: during school year Steven has every other Thursday–Monday plus an additional opposite-week Tuesday overnight (roughly 6 of 14 days); summers alternate weekly; holidays rotate.
- Court ordered mutual cooperation, information-sharing, and reduced Steven's child support to $349/month "based on the additional time he keeps the children."
- Attorney ad litem recommended joint custody and proposed the visitation schedule adopted by the court.
- Kellie appealed, arguing (1) the time division is not approximately equal so "joint custody" is improper, (2) joint custody is not in the children’s best interest due to Steven’s instability and inability to manage children’s special needs, and (3) the court failed to determine Steven’s income when setting child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether designation of "joint custody" was proper given division of time | Kellie: Time is not approximately equal so label "joint custody" is erroneous | Steven: Time allocation (school, summer, holidays) falls within approximate equality; ad litem supported joint custody | Affirmed — time split falls within statute's "approximate and reasonable equal" range |
| Whether joint custody is in children's best interest | Kellie: Steven is emotionally unstable and cannot handle SPD/allergies; joint custody harms children | Steven: Counseling and witness testimony show good parenting; past weekend care was unproblematic; ad litem recommended joint custody | Affirmed — court did not clearly err; credibility determinations left to trial court |
| Whether court properly set child support without finding payor income | Kellie: Court erred by not determining Steven's income before fixing support | Steven: Court reduced support based on additional parenting time (no income finding) | Reversed and remanded — court must determine payor income (or explain deviation) before applying support chart |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taylor, 353 Ark. 69 (de novo review of custody; appellate standard of clear error)
- Smith v. Parker, 67 Ark. App. 221 (definition of "clearly erroneous")
- Carver v. May, 81 Ark. App. 292 (deference to circuit court on child-welfare credibility findings)
- Cooper v. Kalkwarf, 532 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. 2017) (legislative intent that joint custody need not be exact 50/50; ambiguity in decree requires review of parties' conduct)
- Newman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 489 S.W.3d 186 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate refusal to reweigh evidence; credibility for trial court)
- Hall v. Hall, 429 S.W.3d 219 (Ark. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support amounts)
- Office of Child Support Enf't v. Pittman, 20 S.W.3d 426 (70 Ark. App. 487) (payor income must be determined before using child-support chart)
- Ryburn v. Ryburn, 432 S.W.3d 102 (Ark. App. 2014) (reversible error where court set support without determining payor income)