418 S.W.3d 411
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Terri Metz (mother) and Thomas Steele (father) had a son, E.S., born June 25, 2003, with a 2004 paternity order placing custody with Metz.
- The parties continued living together until February 2009.
- Metz sought permission to relocate E.S. to Virginia in 2009, asserting a material change in circumstances; Steele opposed.
- Steele filed petitions for change of custody starting October 1, 2009, alleging disrupted visitation and other concerns; subsequent amendments raised tax, disability, and counseling issues.
- E.S. received counseling; the court appointed an attorney ad litem for the child in May 2010.
- A court order on June 22, 2011 denied relocation and granted no explicit custody modification; Metz appealed.
- The appellate court reversed the custody modification due to lack of proven material change and remanded for further relocation proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances existed to modify custody | Steele contends Metz’s actions reduced father–child relationship. | Metz argues the court correctly found a material change. | No material change; reversal of custody modification. |
| Whether the relocation petition was properly analyzed under the Hollandsworth factors | Metz argues relocation should be considered with presumption in favor of custodial parent. | Steele contends the court properly weighed interests. | Relocation analysis improper; remand for correct consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Torres, 118 S.W.3d 148 (Ark. App. 2003) (standard of de novo review with deference to trial court credibility)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (relocation factors and presumption in favor of custodial parent)
- Sill v. Sill, 228 S.W.3d 538 (Ark. App. 2006) (test for best interest and material change in custody)