Mossholder v. Coker
2017 Ark. App. 279
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents Ardith Laray Mossholder (Laray) and Daniel Coker divorced; two children H.C. (b. 2004) and D.C. (b. 2005) were the subject of repeated allegations by Laray that Daniel sexually abused them. Multiple DHS and sheriff investigations found the allegations unsubstantiated.
- After years of competing motions and shifting temporary custody, the circuit court ordered forensic evaluations; Dr. Paul Deyoub diagnosed Laray with borderline personality disorder and concluded the children denied abuse and had been coached by Laray.
- In August–September 2013, the trial court granted Martha Coker’s oral motion to intervene and placed the children in her temporary custody, finding neither parent fit for custody at that time.
- Martha filed a guardianship petition in January 2014; a January 2015 hearing led to a July 7, 2015 order appointing Martha permanent guardian, finding Martha suitable and Laray unsuitable (poisoning the children’s minds, coaching false statements, credibility problems), and suspending Laray’s visitation pending treatment.
- Laray appealed, arguing (1) Martha failed to properly intervene under Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(c); (2) Martha is an unsuitable guardian; and (3) Martha failed to prove Laray unfit. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laray) | Defendant's Argument (Martha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martha properly intervened under Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(c) | Martha never filed a written verified motion to intervene as required | Martha orally moved at hearing; court treated pleadings as conforming to proof; Laray had notice and defended the guardianship | No abuse of discretion; intervention was effective where there was no surprise or prejudice |
| Whether Martha is a suitable guardian | Martha is unsuitable because much of the alleged abuse occurred in her home and she protects Daniel | Martha has cared for the children, they are stable and thriving with her, and the court found Daniel did not abuse the children | Court did not clearly err: ample evidence Martha is suitable |
| Whether Martha had to prove Laray unfit before appointing a nonparent guardian | Laray: Martha failed because she did not produce proof Laray was unfit | Martha: statutory preference requires showing guardian is suitable and child’s best interest, not proving parental unfitness | Court: Martha was not required to prove Laray unfit; Fletcher controls — focus is on suitability and best interest |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings (coaching, credibility, best interest) were clearly erroneous | Laray disputes findings that she coached children and was not credible | Trial court relied on forensic evaluation, therapist testimony, multiple investigations, and observed testimony over many days | Findings not clearly erroneous; appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. Bradford, 915 S.W.2d 723 (Ark. App. 1996) (court may treat pleadings as amended to conform to proof when no surprise or prejudice)
- Winn v. Bonds, 426 S.W.3d 533 (Ark. App. 2013) (affirming oral intervention where written motion absence caused no surprise)
- Fletcher v. Scorza, 359 S.W.3d 413 (Ark. 2010) (natural-parent preference requires guardian be qualified and suitable; court need not first find parent unfit)
- Sherland v. Sherland, 465 S.W.3d 3 (Ark. App. 2015) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in child-custody matters)