Grindstaff v. Strickland
2017 Ark. App. 634
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2014; mother (Grindstaff) was primary custodian of two young children; parties agreed to jointly decide medical, school, and extracurricular matters; non‑cohabitation clause prohibited third‑party cohabitation while children present.
- 2015 agreed order left primary custody with mother and specified visitation exchange locations after she remarried and moved to Springdale.
- Father (Strickland) petitioned in 2016 to modify custody, alleging parental alienation, poor communication, denial of visitation, school‑form omissions, children exposed to stepfather’s work, and mother’s residence with an unmarried couple in violation of the decree; he sought contempt and custody change.
- Mother counterclaimed for contempt, alleging father’s poor communication, failure to provide insurance, alcohol exposure at father’s home, and arrearage in support.
- At the November 2016 hearing the ad litem reported signs of parental alienation and opined contempt would not correct mother’s behavior; trial court found a material change based on the cumulative effect of mother’s conduct, changed custody to father immediately, found mother in contempt, and awarded fees; contempt against father dismissed as de minimis.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) no material change, (2) custody change not in children’s best interests, and (3) court should have used contempt powers before changing custody. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Grindstaff's Argument | Strickland's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification | Mother: isolated incidents, improved communication, cohabitation pre‑existed prior order, evidence favored her | Father: cumulative misconduct (alienation, poor notification/communication, school‑form omissions, cohabitation) showed material change | Affirmed — sufficient evidence supported finding of material change (court credited cumulative effect and ad litem) |
| Whether change of custody was in children’s best interest | Mother: no evidence children were harmed or aware of conduct; disruption would harm stability | Father: children showed preference for father; evidence of alienation and differing child behavior between homes | Affirmed — court properly weighed best‑interest factors after finding material change |
| Whether court erred by changing custody before using contempt powers | Mother: court should have attempted contempt sanctions first | Father/ad litem: contempt insufficient to correct repeated behavior; custody change appropriate to protect children | Affirmed — court not required to use contempt as a prerequisite and appropriately exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Campbell, 336 Ark. 383 (establishes standard for modifying custody: material change in circumstances and best interest analysis)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 353 Ark. 69 (appellate review of custody: de novo with deference to trial court’s credibility findings)
- Sharp v. Keeler, 99 Ark. App. 42 (trial court’s superior position to evaluate witnesses in child custody matters)
- Calhoun v. Calhoun, 84 Ark. App. 158 (once material change shown, court must weigh best interests; adverse impact on child not required as separate burden)
Affirmed.