Harral v. McGaha
2013 Ark. App. 320
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Richie Harral and Kimbra McGaha Harral divorced in 2000; their 1995 marriage produced two children, C.H. (1992) and B.H. (1997).
- The divorce decree (paragraph fourteen) provided joint custody with wife as primary physical custodian and required consultation on major decisions and access to medical records; either parent could obtain emergency health care and both were to inform the other of illnesses or needs.
- In 2009, the circuit court modified custody, awarding Richie full custody of B.H. and ensuring Kimbra standard visitation; C.H. remained in joint custody and no appeal involved her.
- Subsequently, Richie and Kimbra pursued contempt and modification petitions; Richie alleged Kimbra’s involvement with his former wife and issues around B.H.’s surgery and medical records.
- The 2011 final order granted Kimbra additional visitation when Richie was absent more than 24 hours; Richie challenged this modification, contending it violated the 2009 order.
- Richie was found in criminal contempt for excluding Kimbra from B.H.’s pre-operative area and for limiting medical-record access; the court ordered 20 hours of public-service work as purge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by holding Richie in contempt? | Richie contends the contempt was criminal due to indefiniteness of the order. | Kimbra argues the order was definite and violated by Richie. | Criminal contempt; order not definite; remanded for proper treatment. |
| Did the court err in modifying B.H.'s visitation? | Modification was improper; no material change in circumstances. | Change in circumstances and best interests support modification. | Modification upheld to allow additional visitation when Richie absent more than 24 hours. |
| Did the court err in failing to hold Kimbra in contempt for B.H.'s cell-phone use? | Kimbra violated the order by providing a cell phone to B.H. | Use was limited and ceased well before the 2011 order; not contempt. | No abuse of discretion; Kimbra not held in contempt. |
| Did the court err in awarding attorney’s fees to Kimbra? | Fees rely on merits of claims; if order was ambiguous, fee improper. | Inherent power to award fees; fee justified by disparity and success. | Fees not abused; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Applegate v. Applegate, 101 Ark.App. 289 (Ark. App. 2008) (distinguishes criminal vs. civil contempt and coercive vs. punitive effects)
- Ivy v. Keith, 351 Ark. 269 (2002) (contempt framework; punitive aspects indicate criminal contempt)
- Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 366 (2008) (order clarity; clear and definite terms required)
- Baber v. Baber, 378 S.W.3d 699 (Ark. 2011) (continuing jurisdiction over visitation; modification standard)
- Williams v. Ramsey, 270 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. App. 2007) (de novo consideration; review for clear error)
- Sharp v. Keeler, 256 S.W.3d 528 (Ark. App. 2007) (standard for modification in custody cases)
- Jones v. Jones, 898 S.W.2d 23 (Ark. 1995) (attorney’s fees in contempt cases; relation to merits)
- Kilman v. Kennard, 384 S.W.3d 647 (Ark. App. 2011) (substantial evidence standard; contempt findings)
- Holifield v. Mullenax Fin. & Tax Advisory Grp., Inc., 307 S.W.3d 608 (Ark. App. 2009) (definiteness of orders; enforceability in contempt)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. App. 2012) (attorney’s fees and domestic-relations discretion)