Orantes v. Orantes, 381 S.W.3d 758

Jacquelin Perez Orantes and Daniel Orantes are divorced (2005); original decree gave Jacquelin sole custody of J.O., with Daniel paying support and having visitation.
Daniel filed a 2009 motion for custody modification alleging material changes including Jacquelin’s immigration status and dangerous driving without a license, along with Daniel’s own improved status and stable home.
Hearing occurred December 14, 2009; expert Guillermo Hernandez testified TPS permits work, licenses, and that TPS can apply to both legal and illegal entrants; Daniel testified about his TPS and fear of Jacquelin taking J.O. to Mexico.
Jacquelin testified she remarried and has additional children; J.O. had her own bedroom in a two-bedroom home; Daniel admitted limited contact with J.O. and difficulty communicating due to language.
Trial court bench ruling stated Perez is an illegal alien and granted custody to Daniel based on a supposed substantial change in circumstances; a December 9, 2009 written order followed.
On appeal, the supreme court applied de novo review, held no material change of circumstances supported modification, and reversed and remanded to reinstate custody with Jacquelin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Material change in circumstances to modify custody	Orantes argues changes since the original order (immigration status, etc.) constituted a material change.	Perez argues no new material change existed since the original order.	No material change shown; trial court erred in modifying custody.
Whether immigration status can justify modification/related due process concerns	Orantes contends immigration status can be a factor in best interests.	Perez contends such consideration is improper under due process/policy.	Court did not resolve these issues; reversal was based on lack of material change, making additional arguments unnecessary.

Hamilton v. Barrett, 337 Ark. 460, 989 S.W.2d 520 (1999) (circumstances not presented at original order may be considered in material-change inquiry)
Brewer v. Brewer, 239 Ark. 614, 390 S.W.2d 630 (1965) (finality of agreed custody orders; settlement issues final when approved by court)
Campbell v. Campbell, 336 Ark. 379, 985 S.W.2d 724 (1999) (finality of custody decree; modification requires material change)
Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009) (de novo standard; sustained evidence review in custody appeals)
Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132, 361 S.W.3d 823 (2010) (framework for determining material change in custody)