608 S.W.3d 926
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Jason Shell and Kristi Twitty divorced in 2017; their parenting plan gave them shared legal custody but Twitty primary physical custody, with Twitty having roughly 75% of W.S.'s time and Shell about 25%.
- Twitty filed to relocate in February 2018 to accept higher-paying nursing work in Greene County; Shell counterclaimed seeking full custody.
- At the June 2019 hearing the circuit court found Twitty was the custodial parent, that a material change in circumstances had occurred, and that relocation was in W.S.'s best interest; visitation was modified to accommodate the move.
- The court grounded its relocation analysis on Hollandsworth and found Twitty entitled to the presumption favoring relocation because she was the primary custodial parent and spent substantially more time with the child.
- The court’s material-change findings rested on Shell’s failures to communicate/co‑parent and alleged controlling behavior (including an incident in W.S.’s presence); the court credited testimony and made specific factual findings.
- Shell appealed, arguing the court should have applied Singletary (no relocation presumption for joint custody) and erred in finding a material change; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of relocation presumption | Shell: Singletary applies because custody is shared; no Hollandsworth presumption | Twitty: She is primary custodial parent and spent significantly more time; Hollandsworth presumption applies | Court applied Hollandsworth — Twitty was primary (≈75% time), so presumption applied; Shell's argument rejected |
| Material-change requirement for modifying custody/relocation | Shell: No material change since divorce to justify modification | Twitty: Yes—Shell’s failure to communicate/coparent and controlling incidents constitute material change; employment and sibling factors relevant | Court found material change (failure to coparent, incidents) and proceeded to best-interest analysis; modification permitted |
| Best interest of the child and visitation adjustment | Shell: Relocation harms visitation and W.S.’s interests | Twitty: Relocation provides better employment, stability, sibling contact, and serves W.S.’s interests | Court found relocation in W.S.’s best interest, modified visitation to accommodate move, and denied Shell’s request for full custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (presumption favoring relocation for custodial parents with primary custody)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. 506, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (presumption not applicable when parents share joint or nearly equal custody)
- Grindstaff v. Strickland, 2017 Ark. App. 634, 535 S.W.3d 661 (Ark. App. 2017) (two-step test to modify custody: material change, then best interest)
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (trial court credibility and observations receive great deference in custody cases)
- Carver v. May, 81 Ark. App. 292, 101 S.W.3d 256 (Ark. App. 2003) (trial court’s superior position in child custody determinations)