Moix v. Moix, 2013 Ark. 478

Moix and Libby divorced in 2004; settlement/custody plan provided joint custody with Libby as primary and Moix with reasonable visitation, including a prohibition on overnight guests of the opposite sex.
2005 modification: Libby sought to limit visitation due to Moix’s relationship with Chad Cornelius; court granted a modification giving Libby full custody of R.M. and restricting Moix’s visitation to every other weekend and Wednesdays with no overnight visits.
Moix continued liberal overnight visitation with R.M. despite the 2005 order; later Moix’s prescription-drug addiction and injury led to inpatient treatment and switch to daytime visitation.
2012 modification: Moix sought expansion of visitation citing new circumstances (Libby remarried in 2010, R.M. age 12, desire for more time with father); Libby opposed due to Moix’s relapse and Chad’s presence.
Circuit court granted Moix increased visitation but imposed a non-cohabitation restriction prohibiting Chad from being present during overnight visits, finding no other factors against overnight visitation.
Arkansas Court of Appeals reverses and remands to make an explicit best-interest determination on the non-cohabitation provision; discusses case-by-case approach to cohabitation and public-policy against romantic cohabitation in presence of children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non-cohabitation restriction was in child’s best interest	Moix argues the ban is not automatically required; best interest must be shown case-by-case.	Libby argues the restriction is justified by public policy against unmarried cohabitation in presence of a child.	Remanded for explicit best-interest finding on the restriction.
Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying modification	Moix contends changes (remarriage, older child, improved stability) justify more time with father.	Libby contends changes are not substantial or adverse to child’s welfare; ongoing concerns persist.	Court did find a material change and modified visitation, but remanded for best-interest evaluation on non-cohabitation.
Preservation of error on material-change claim	Moix argues the appeal preserves the material-change issue; cross-appeal not required to contest it.	Libby asserts lack of cross-appeal limits review.	Appellate court retained jurisdiction; addressed material-change argument in context of best interests.

Alphin v. Alphin, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (parental conduct and stability considerations in custody)
Taylor v. Taylor, 110 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2003) (public policy against parental cohabitation in presence of children; case-by-case analysis)
Campbell v. Campbell, 985 S.W.2d 724 (Ark. 1999) (non-cohabitation purpose to promote stable environment for children)
Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Cole, 380 S.W.3d 429 (Ark. 2011) (Act 1 privacy issue; reaffirmed best-interest analysis in custody but not blanket bans)
Brown v. Brown, 387 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2012) (de novo standard; material-change standard in modification)