Jones v. Jones
2015 Ark. App. 468
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Kelly Jones (appellant) and Michael Jones (appellee) divorced in 2013; decree awarded joint legal custody with Kelly as primary custodial parent and a detailed visitation schedule that yielded roughly 50/50 time.
- Kelly sought to relocate the two minor children to West Virginia shortly after the divorce; the decree required 60 days’ notice of any residence change.
- Michael sought modification and obtained a restraining order preventing removal of the children from the jurisdiction without court permission; he was briefly deployed but later reassigned to Little Rock AFB.
- The trial court conducted temporary and final hearings, appointed an attorney ad litem, and found the parties’ post-decree practice reflected mutual, flexible parenting (near-equal time).
- The court denied Kelly’s relocation request, holding Singletary (joint-custody relocation analysis) controlled rather than the Hollandsworth presumption favoring a relocating custodial parent; it also found no material change in circumstances and amended visitation to reflect actual practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hollandsworth presumption (custodial-parent relocation favored) applies | Kelly: as primary custodial parent, she is entitled to Hollandsworth’s presumption in favor of relocation | Michael: parties practice joint custody; Singletary controlling (require showing of material change and best-interest analysis) | Court: Held Singletary controls because parties’ decree and conduct reflect joint custody; Hollandsworth presumption does not apply |
| Whether relocation is permitted on best-interest/material-change grounds | Kelly: relocation improves finances, support network, schooling accommodations (504 plan), and was contemplated before divorce | Michael: relocation would substantially reduce his parenting time, harm parent-child relationship, and alter custody character; school comparisons favor current district | Court: Denied relocation — no material change shown and relocation not in children’s best interest; modified visitation to mirror actual practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (joint-custody relocation analysis focuses on material change and best interests rather than custodial-parent presumption)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (presumption favoring relocation for custodial parent)
- Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 980 S.W.2d 255 (Ark. 1998) (contract ambiguity resolved by examining other contract parts, parties’ intent, and conduct)