611 S.W.3d 714
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Mother (Callie Dacus) had sole custody of son D.G.I. by agreed order; father (Mathew Ingle) had visitation and later sought modification.
- Ingle lived in Saline County since 2013; Dacus moved from Fort Smith to Saline County in 2018–2019 and bought a house there; the child finished school season with his maternal grandmother in Fort Smith but now lives with Dacus in Saline County.
- Ingle filed a motion (Apr. 2019) to modify custody alleging a material change in circumstances because Dacus’s move made joint custody feasible; he later sought primary custody.
- At the hearing, Ingle emphasized improved circumstances (marriage, steady job, law school schedule) and closer proximity; Dacus testified she works variable hours, relies on family care, and moved to facilitate the child being closer to his father.
- The trial court found Dacus’s relocation was a change but not a material change warranting a custody change, declined to modify custody, and instead adjusted visitation to give Ingle more time.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dacus’s move to Saline County is a material change of circumstances justifying a custody modification | Ingle: moving closer made joint custody and a custody change feasible; therefore material change exists | Dacus: move benefitted child; move alone is not a material change and existing custody was working | Court: Move was a change but not sufficiently material to warrant modifying custody; threshold not met |
| Whether the possibility of joint custody after relocation requires altering custody | Ingle: relocation created a realistic opportunity for joint custody and is favored in Arkansas | Dacus: parties previously agreed to sole custody while living in same county; history shows existing arrangement worked | Court: Possibility of joint custody was not a new material circumstance; prior facts already permitted joint custody consideration |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered fairness to Dacus instead of child’s best interest | Ingle: court’s comment about it being "unfair" to punish Dacus for moving shows improper focus | Dacus: court’s remark was an observation and court otherwise considered child’s best interest | Court: Even if wording suggested fairness concern, threshold of material change was not met, so best-interest analysis need not be reached further; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellington v. Ellington, 587 S.W.3d 237 (deference to trial court credibility and custody findings)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W.3d 653 (custodial-parent relocation presumption in favor of move)
- Schreckhise v. Parry, 568 S.W.3d 782 (child’s welfare and best interest control custody decisions)
- Fudge v. Dorman, 516 S.W.3d 306 (party seeking modification must show material change since last custody order)
- Black v. Black, 456 S.W.3d 773 (custody not to punish or reward a parent)