643 S.W.3d 875
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- Paternity was established in 2014: Day awarded sole custody; Haeber ordered to pay child support and granted unsupervised visitation with restrictions on communications.
- Repeated contempt findings against Haeber (2017–2020) for excessive or inappropriate communications with Day and the children, resulting in progressive limitations and supervised visitation.
- Haeber’s counsel withdrew in October 2020; an attorney ad litem for the children was appointed December 4, 2020 (retainer required).
- December 10, 2020 hearing proceeded with Haeber pro se after the circuit court denied his continuance request; court took judicial notice of the record.
- Court denied Haeber’s custody change, ordered Haeber to begin counseling and limited visitation to supervised Saturdays; awarded Day $3,000 in attorney’s fees (order filed December 28, 2020).
- Haeber appealed, arguing (1) denial of continuance, (2) trial was forced too soon after ad litem appointment, and (3) attorney-fee award was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Haeber's Argument | Day's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance after counsel withdrew | Counsel withdrew <60 days before trial; Haeber lacked time/ability to proceed pro se and needed continuance | Withdrawal occurred >2 months before trial; Haeber had opportunity and funds to hire counsel or pay ad litem; delay prejudicial to children | Denial was not an abuse of discretion — Haeber had time and chose not to secure counsel; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Trial shortly after appointment of attorney ad litem | Ad litem needed more than a week to investigate under standards of practice; trial timing prejudiced Haeber, especially pro se | No timely objection below; issue first raised in new-trial motion so not preserved on appeal | Not preserved for appeal; objection untimely under controlling precedent |
| Award of $3,000 attorney’s fees to Day | Haeber lacked funds and did not unduly delay or run up fees; Day did not fully prevail so fees were improper | Trial court has inherent authority in domestic relations matters; court familiar with parties and services; fee award within discretion | Affirmed — fee award within circuit court’s discretion; relative financial ability considered but not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodson v. Bennett, 2018 Ark. App. 444 (denial-of-continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McNutt v. Yates, 2013 Ark. 427 (appellant bears burden to show abuse of discretion and prejudice from continuance denial)
- T.S.B. v. Robinson, 2019 Ark. App. 359 (preservation requirement for appellate review of ad litem-timing objections)
- Cochran v. Bentley, 369 Ark. 159 (objections raised first in motion for new trial are untimely on appeal)
- Hudson v. Hudson, 2018 Ark. App. 379 (circuit court’s inherent power to award attorney’s fees in domestic-relations cases)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 2012 Ark. App. 483 (no requirement to apply Chrisco factors or make specific findings when awarding fees in domestic relations)
- Vice v. Vice, 2016 Ark. App. 504 (fee awards in domestic relations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Conley v. Conley, 2019 Ark. App. 424 (prevailing-party status not prerequisite to fee award in domestic relations)
- Baber v. Baber, 2011 Ark. 40 (recognition of circuit court discretion in awarding fees)
- Page v. Page, 2010 Ark. App. 188 (relative financial ability is a consideration in awarding fees)
- James v. Walchli, 2015 Ark. App. 562 (relative financial ability is relevant but not determinative)