Ryan v. White
2015 Ark. App. 494
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Arneshia Ryan appeals a 7/28/2014 circuit-court order awarding joint custody of J.W. to Ryan and Britney White.
- J.W. was born out of wedlock on 6/26/2012; paternity was established by 6/11/2013.
- Ryan initially had primary custody; White sought custody after establishing paternity and visitation rights.
- Lawyer-driven factual history shows Ryan restricted White’s visitation and engaged in contempt proceedings for continued denial of access.
- The court awarded joint custody with a seven-day rotation and sanctioned Ryan $500 for contempt; statutory framework includes 9-10-113, 9-10-109, and 9-13-101.
- Appellate review is de novo on statutory interpretation and a clear-error standard for custody findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody is favored under 9-13-101 applies here | Ryan argues 9-13-101 favors divorce cases, not unmarried-child custody. | White contends 9-13-101(b) allows joint custody where best interest supports it. | Joint-custody favor applies conceptually; not controlling but considered in best interest. |
| Whether White met the statutory burden under 9-10-113 for custody | White argues 9-10-113 requirements were satisfied by paternity, support, and caregiving. | Ryan asserts lack of demonstrated care/support and best-interest justification. | Appellee met 9-10-113 requirements; custody awarded given best interest and care findings. |
| Whether a material change in circumstances was needed to modify custody | Ryan argues material change was required after earlier orders. | White contends temporary June 11, 2013 order did not create final custody; no material change needed. | No material-change burden required due to temporary orders and established paternity. |
| Whether paternity establishment affected custody presumption | Ryan asserts paternity did not erase mother’s custody presumption. | White argues paternity triggers equal custodial opportunities per 9-10-109. | Once paternity is established, presumption shifts toward father’s custodial rights. |
| Whether the circuit court properly awarded joint custody given best interests | Ryan contends joint custody could confuse a young child with 7-day rotation. | White and witnesses supported joint custody as best for J.W.’s ongoing contact with both parents. | Evidence supported joint custody as in J.W.’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwood v. Robinson, 315 Ark. 255 (1993) (parents of illegitimate children should have same custodial rights as married parents)
- Donato v. Walker, 2010 Ark. App. 566 (2010) (custody changes require considerations under 9-10-113 and don’t always require material change)
- Harmon v. Wells, 98 Ark. App. 355 (2007) (temporary custody orders; no final custody hearing needed to assess best interest)
- Sheppard v. Speir, 85 Ark. App. 481 (2004) (supports joint custody decisions for young children when appropriate)
- Fox v. Fox, 2015 Ark. App. 367 (2015) (affirms deference to circuit court on credibility and best interest)