Nichols v. Teer
2014 Ark. App. 132
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Tasha Nichols and ex-husband Troy have four children; custody was awarded to Troy in 2009 and later to Troy’s parents, Roger and Teresa Teer, in October 2010 after the Teers intervened and alleged parental instability.
- The 2010 order awarded permanent custody to the Teers, gave Tasha supervised visitation (initially at her mother’s home) and allowed relocation of visitation to Family Matters if a "disruption" occurred; Tasha was ordered to pay child support.
- Tasha filed a petition to change custody in February 2012, arguing a material change of circumstances based principally on the Teers’ refusal to communicate and their insistence on moving visitation to Family Matters, which she said she could not access or afford.
- At the February 2013 hearing, evidence included testimony that Tasha had been verbally abusive during visitations (causing a move to Family Matters), that she failed to pursue Family Matters registration, and that she had lapses in paying child support. The Teers testified the children had been in their care since April 2009 and were thriving at a private school they chose.
- The trial court found the Teers credible, concluded Tasha failed to prove a material change of circumstances, noted the Teers acted within the custody order in moving visitation to Family Matters, and found it was in the children’s best interest to remain with the Teers. Tasha appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Nichols' Argument | Teers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nichols proved a material change of circumstances warranting custody modification | Nichols argued that the Teers frustrated and effectively terminated visitation by requiring Family Matters and refusing communication, constituting a material change | Teers argued they acted under the custody order after disruptions by Nichols; any lack of visitation resulted from Nichols’ failure to register/schedule at Family Matters | Court held Nichols failed to prove a material change of circumstances; trial court’s credibility findings affirmed |
| Whether the Teers improperly interfered with visitation rights | Nichols contended the Teers stopped visitation without good cause and forced use of Family Matters to block visits | Teers said relocation followed repeated disruptions and abusive conduct by Nichols and complied with the order’s "disruption" provision | Court credited Teers’ testimony and found their actions reasonable and within the custody order |
| Whether transferring children from public to private school was a material change harming the children | Nichols argued removal without her consent was a significant change | Teers maintained their full custody gave them authority to enroll the children and the school showed no harm | Court found change of school was not a material change of circumstances absent evidence of harm |
| Whether Nichols could rely solely on best-interest showing or natural-parent presumption without proving material change | Nichols asserted she is fit, stable, and entitled to custody based on best interest/natural-parent status | Teers argued the modification standard requires proof of material change before best-interest analysis | Court held Nichols bore the burden to show material change first and did not reach best-interest or constitutional-presumption arguments (those claims were not preserved below) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (2005) (party seeking modification must show a material change in circumstances)
- Tipton v. Aaron, 87 Ark. App. 1, 185 S.W.3d 142 (2004) (trial court must first find a material change since the last custody order before addressing best interest)
- Camp v. McNair, 93 Ark. App. 190, 217 S.W.3d 155 (2005) (appellate court will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)