Hobby v. Walker
2011 Ark. App. 494
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brooke Hobby appeals a circuit court order denying her motion to change custody of G.W., who was 14 at the time.
- Original custody order entered in 2008 gave Tommy Walker care and custody, with Brooke having visitation and paying $75 weekly child support.
- Brooke filed on September 11, 2009 alleging a material change in circumstances and G.W.’s desire to live with her mother.
- At a July 21, 2010 hearing, testimony covered differing house rules, disciplinary practices, school concerns, transportation for vacations, and G.W.’s expressed wish to live with Brooke.
- The circuit court denied the change of custody, Brooke appealed, and the court reviewed for whether a material change in circumstances existed since the last order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a material change in circumstances warranting custody modification? | Brooke contends changes occurred since 2008. | Tommy argues no material change occurred. | No material change found; modification not warranted. |
| Should G.W.’s preference to live with her mother be given greater weight? | G.W. wants to live with Brooke. | Preference alone not enough without material change. | Court may consider preference but correctly found no threshold material change. |
| Did Brooke demonstrate a pattern of parental alienation sufficient to justify modification? | Tommy’s conduct shows alienation against Brooke. | Allegations do not reach material change threshold. | Evidence did not establish a material change in circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Harris, 379 S.W.3d 8 (2010 Ark. App. 160) (custody decisions hinge on child welfare and best interests)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009 Ark. ?) (changed conditions required for modification)
- Byrd v. Vanderpool, 290 S.W.3d 610 (2009 Ark. App.) (burden to show material change in circumstances)
- Henley v. Medlock, 244 S.W.3d 16 (2006 Ark. App.) (child’s best interests as threshold in custody matters)
- Stacks v. Stacks, 377 S.W.3d 265 (2009 Ark. App.) (weight given to child’s wishes in best-interest analysis)
- Turner v. Benson, 953 S.W.2d 596 (1997 Ark. App.) (child’s preferences may be considered but are not controlling)
- Carver v. May, 101 S.W.3d 256 (2003 Ark. App.) (alienation evidence weighed against modification)