Mason v. Robertson, 2017 Ark. App. 370

Tonya Mason and Jonathan Robertson divorced; they share two children, including L.R., an autistic child with special needs. 2012 agreed order made Robertson primary custodian of L.R. and provided set visitation to Mason.
The 2012 order required Robertson to “provide services of his Nanny for the visitation and will pay for the cost, including transportation,” and allowed additional visitation “as agreed upon by the Parties.”
Robertson had an existing child-support arrangement (offset calculations resulting in $2,200/month) and an earlier agreed deviation for extraordinary expenses related to L.R. totaling $1,568/month.
Robertson petitioned to modify child support in 2015; extensive post-2015 litigation followed, including contempt motions and a March 2016 hearing.
The circuit court (Aug. 2016 order) interpreted the 2012 order to require a nanny for Mason’s visitation (but allowed Mason to propose her own nanny if shown safe), limited Mason to one additional visitation per month (with two weeks’ notice), and credited Robertson with $3,900/month in extraordinary expenses (using a rolling three-year average), reducing his support obligation.
Mason appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court on all issues, reviewing visitation de novo but giving deference where credibility findings mattered and applying abuse-of-discretion review for child-support findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mason)	Defendant's Argument (Robertson)	Held
Whether the court erred by requiring a nanny for Mason's visitation	2012 order did not mandate a nanny; requiring one denies Mason access absent a finding she is unfit or that a specialized caregiver is necessary	2012 order contemplated nanny presence given L.R.’s autism and prior agreement; consistency of caregiver is important	Court affirmed: 2012 order properly interpreted to require nanny; court open to Mason hiring her own nanny if shown safe
Whether limiting Mason to one additional visitation per month was erroneous	No new findings justified restricting previously open "additional visitation as agreed" provision	Parties cannot communicate; unrestricted additional visits were causing disputes; court limited visits to enforce order and protect child’s interests	Court affirmed: limitation reasonable given communication problems and best-interest standard
Whether the court properly found Robertson expends $3,900/month in extraordinary expenses for L.R.	Amount is unsupported and lacks specificity	Robertson’s testimony and exhibits supported the figure; court averaged three years of expenses and listed included categories	Court affirmed: finding supported by evidence and within trial court’s discretion

Baber v. Baber, 378 S.W.3d 699 (Ark. 2011) (standard of review for modification of custody/visitation; de novo review with deference to credibility findings)
Ward v. Doss, 205 S.W.3d 767 (Ark. 2005) (child-support determinations lie within circuit court’s sound discretion)