Raymond v. Kuhns
566 S.W.3d 142
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Christopher Raymond (appellant) and Linda K. Kuhns (appellee) share joint legal custody of two sons (born 2008 and 2010); Linda was designated primary physical custodian in the divorce.
- In 2017 Linda sought to relocate the children to Louisville, Kentucky to accept a UPS pilot job offering substantially higher future income; Chris opposed and moved to change primary custody to him.
- The circuit court held a bench trial (testimony from both parents, two counselors, and a UPS pilot) and issued a detailed order denying Chris’s custody-change motion and granting Linda’s relocation motion with conditions (expanded visitation, travel obligations, continued therapy, and phased moves).
- Key factual considerations: Linda’s anticipated income increase, UPS training/absences, comparable private-school placement in Louisville, support from Linda’s husband’s parents during training, and therapists’ differing views on the children’s adjustment.
- The court applied the Singletary joint-custody framework (no Hollandsworth relocation presumption) and found the relocation was in the children’s best interest. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Raymond) | Defendant's Argument (Kuhns) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should apply Hollandsworth presumption favoring custodial-parent relocation | Trial court applied Hollandsworth presumption (perceived) and thus shifted burden to Chris; Hollandsworth should not apply because custody is effectively joint | Singletary governs joint-custody relocation; no presumption applies; court should make a best-interest determination | Court applied Singletary (no presumption) and did not err in standard applied |
| Whether Linda’s proposed relocation is in the children’s best interest | Relocation harms continuity, children are thriving locally, counselor cautioned against move | Relocation yields substantial income increase, comparable schools, planned support and visitation, and steps to mitigate transition harms | Court found relocation in children’s best interest and imposed conditions; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether change of primary physical custody to Chris was warranted | Chris argued he should be primary custodian to prevent relocation and because of stability/therapist preference | Linda opposed and offered mitigation measures and plans to maintain continuity | Trial court denied change of custody; appellate court found no clear error |
| Sufficiency of visitation/transportation provisions to preserve parent-child contact | Chris argued proposed relocation would impede meaningful contact | Linda offered expanded visitation, travel commitments (fly-ins), and phased transition; court required specific transport/visit terms | Court approved relocation with detailed visitation and transportation conditions; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (announces presumption favoring relocation for custodial parent who spends significantly more time with child)
- Singletary v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. 506, 431 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2013) (presumption from Hollandsworth does not apply in joint-custody situations; use change-in-custody best-interest analysis)
- McNutt v. Yates, 2013 Ark. 427, 430 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. 2013) (standard of review in child-custody cases; de novo with deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Cooper v. Kalkwarf, 2017 Ark. 331, 532 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. 2017) (explains when a 60/40 time split falls within Singletary joint-custody analysis rather than Hollandsworth)
- Killingsworth v. Dittmar, 2018 Ark. App. 294, 552 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (Hollandsworth best-interest factors may be considered but the relocation presumption is inapplicable in joint-custody cases)
- Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132, 361 S.W.3d 823 (Ark. 2010) (lists best-interest factors for relocation: reason for move; educational/health/leisure opportunities; visitation/communication plan; extended-family effects; child preference)