595 S.W.3d 347
Ark.2020Background
- Phillip and Jill Pace were divorced in July 2015; the decree awarded joint custody of their daughter L.P., with alternating-week physical custody and equal rights and duties.
- After divorce, Phillip filed multiple motions (2016, 2018) seeking primary custody and supervised visitation, citing Jill’s substance-abuse issues and poor parenting/attendance concerns.
- The parties entered an agreed modification (Mar. 2017) adding behavioral and drug-use restrictions; later drug testing of Jill was ordered and was negative.
- At the June 2018 custody hearing, school staff testified L.P. arrived late, was frequently in extended care, appeared exhausted and defiant after Jill’s weeks; other witnesses disputed those portrayals and supported Jill’s parenting.
- The circuit court found a material change in circumstances but concluded L.P.’s best interests supported keeping the joint-custody arrangement, continued child support and school placement, and denied Jill’s request for attorney’s fees.
- Phillip appealed and Jill cross-appealed; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed both the custody decision and the denial of attorney’s fees and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Phillip) | Defendant's Argument (Jill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody should be set aside and Phillip awarded primary custody | Joint custody must be ended because the parents cannot cooperate, Jill’s substance abuse and conduct have harmed L.P., and a material change warrants primary custody to Phillip | Joint custody should remain; evidence does not show harm to L.P. and statutory preference favors joint custody | Court found a material change but held best interests favored maintaining joint custody and affirmed the status quo (no clear error) |
| Whether Jill should be awarded attorney’s fees | (N/A — Jill is cross-appellant) Jill argued fees were appropriate given income disparity and repeated litigation by Phillip | Phillip argued denial was within the court’s discretion | Court affirmed denial of attorney’s fees — no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dare v. Frost, 540 S.W.3d 281 (Ark. 2018) (standard of review in domestic-relations cases: de novo review with factual findings reversed only if clearly erroneous)
- Hoover v. Hoover, 498 S.W.3d 297 (Ark. App. 2016) (upholding modification of contentious custody provisions while retaining joint custody)
- Gray v. Gray, 239 S.W.3d 26 (Ark. App. 2006) (discussing parents’ ability to cooperate as a factor in joint custody analysis)
- Stibich v. Stibich, 491 S.W.3d 475 (Ark. App. 2016) (court of appeals’ approach emphasizing parental cooperation in joint-custody modification)
- McNutt v. Yates, 530 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. 2013) (deference to circuit court’s child-best-interest findings)
- Hydrick v. Hydrick, 275 S.W.2d 878 (Ark. 1955) (consideration of economic disparity when awarding attorney’s fees in custody disputes)