2021 Ark. App. 192
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background
- Laramie and Jacob Ashley married in Feb. 2017; their daughter A.A. was born later that year. The parties separated Jan. 6, 2019; Laramie filed for divorce and sought primary custody; Jacob counterclaimed seeking joint custody.
- A full custody hearing was held on Feb. 21, 2020.
- Jacob is disabled from a workplace accident, currently on workers’ compensation, facing amputation of part of an arm, prosthetic fitting, training, and therapy; he lives in Booneville and plans to buy a house in Charleston where the child would attend school.
- The trial court’s decree awarded joint custody but retained Laramie as primary physical and legal custodian and decisionmaker for now; current visitation remained (two weekdays and every other weekend).
- The decree conditioned a future 50/50 custody split on Jacob’s moving to Charleston and establishing an independent living space; the court indicated it may later take evidence about housing adequacy before entering an order.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because the joint-custody portion was contingent on future events and further proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody order is final and appealable | Laramie argues joint custody was improper and not in child’s best interest, so the custody award should be appealable now | Jacob argues the decree is final as entered and contemplates future change when conditions are met | Held not final: the joint-custody award is conditional on contingencies (move and housing adequacy), so appeal dismissed |
| Whether joint custody should be reversed on the merits | Laramie contends parties do not cooperate and joint custody is not in A.A.’s best interest | Jacob seeks joint custody and plans to establish housing in Charleston to support 50/50 split | Not reached on merits due to lack of final order |
Key Cases Cited
- Kines v. McBride, 511 S.W.3d 352 (Ark. App. 2017) (appellate courts must raise and resolve finality jurisdictional issues to avoid piecemeal appeals)
- Barnes v. Newton, 10 S.W.3d 472 (Ark. App. 2000) (conditional language that adds nothing may be treated as surplusage; order may still be final)
- Beard v. Beard, 590 S.W.3d 174 (Ark. App. 2019) (custody order conditioned on future proof and subject to review hearing is not a final, appealable order)