595 S.W.3d 32
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Parties: Lache Price (appellant) and Christopher Price (appellee) share a minor child, H.P.; parties were granted true joint custody in the November 30, 2018 divorce decree.
- The divorce decree expressly reserved the relocation issue, directing Christopher to petition the court before permanently moving the child out of state.
- Christopher filed a motion to modify and to relocate to Indiana (filed Dec. 11, 2018); an evidentiary hearing was held April 12, 2019, and the court issued an order granting relocation on April 26, 2019.
- At the relocation hearing, evidence included Christopher’s two Indiana job offers, daycare plans, and family support there; the court also heard evidence about Lache’s cohabitation with Jeff Ingram (a convicted felon), her lack of income, and vehicle/registration/insurance issues.
- The circuit court’s relocation order found the move was in H.P.’s best interest and applied Singletary, but the order did not expressly find that a material change of circumstances had occurred since the prior custody determination.
- Appellate disposition: Because the circuit court failed to make the required material-change finding under Singletary, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the relocation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lache) | Defendant's Argument (Christopher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court reconsider evidence presented at the divorce hearing when relocation was expressly reserved? | Reintroducing previously litigated facts is barred by collateral estoppel/res judicata. | The relocation issue was reserved; plaintiff needed notice via a formal motion—evidence on relocation is admissible. | Court of Appeals: Trial court did not err; Bamburg allows flexibility and the decree reserved relocation. |
| In a true joint-custody case governed by Singletary, must the court find a material change of circumstances before changing custody for relocation? | No material change occurred since the divorce; same facts existed at the prior hearing. | New facts (jobs, daycare, substantial family support in Indiana) and the court’s reservation justify modification. | Court of Appeals: Trial court erred—order lacked the required material-change finding; reversal and dismissal. |
| May the court grant relocation solely on best-interest findings without making a material-change finding first? | Best-interest finding alone insufficient when joint custody governs; must first find material change. | Best-interest conclusion supports relocation despite procedural omission. | Court of Appeals: Even though best-interest was found, failing to make the material-change finding was reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singletary v. Singletary, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (no relocation presumption where parents share equal joint physical custody; require material-change analysis first)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (presumption in favor of relocation for sole/primary custodial parent)
- Bamburg v. Bamburg, 435 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. App. 2014) (res judicata treated flexibly in child-custody matters; trial court may revisit issues upon change in circumstances)
- Raymond v. Kuhns, 566 S.W.3d 142 (Ark. App. 2018) (change-in-custody requires showing of material change and best-interest analysis)