Schreckhise v. Parry
568 S.W.3d 782
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Former spouses William Schreckhise and Janine Parry were awarded joint custody of their two children in a 2013 divorce decree with a specified weekday/weekend and holiday schedule.
- After Schreckhise remarried in July 2014, he implemented communication “rules” (limited in-person contact, email communications with spouses copied, separate parent-teacher conferences, restrictions on visiting near each other’s homes) that reduced direct interaction with Parry.
- Parry petitioned in March 2017 to modify custody, alleging a material change in circumstances: impaired parental communication, refusal to share child-related information (medical providers, overnight caregivers), and safety concerns related to Schreckhise’s adult stepson, David Garrison.
- The circuit court held a day-long hearing, found a material change in circumstances (noting the shift beginning August 2014 and instances involving Garrison where Schreckhise failed to inform Parry), and awarded Parry sole custody while largely preserving the preexisting visitation/time schedule.
- Schreckhise appealed, arguing (1) the communication changes did not constitute a material change in circumstances and (2) awarding primary custody to Parry was not in the children’s best interest; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting custody modification | Parry: Parties’ ability to cooperate deteriorated (rules, withheld information, safety incidents) making joint custody unworkable | Schreckhise: Imposed boundaries were reasonable responses to excessive communication and safety concerns; not severe enough to defeat cooperation | Affirmed: Court found a significant post-2014 communication shift and inability to effectively cooperate, constituting a material change |
| Whether awarding primary custody to Parry was in the children’s best interest | Parry: She fosters open communication and shares child-focused information; better for children | Schreckhise: Changing custody was unnecessary and may facilitate Parry’s relocation; not in children’s best interest | Affirmed: Court found Parry acted in children’s interests and Schreckhise prioritized his new marriage over communication; custody awarded to Parry while preserving time schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485 (2002) (circuit court’s superior position to judge witness credibility in custody matters)
- Glisson v. Glisson, 538 S.W.3d 864 (2018) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations)
- Vo v. Vo, 78 Ark. App. 134 (2002) (court’s superior position is especially weighty in cases involving minor children)
- Doss v. Miller, 377 S.W.3d 348 (2010) (parties’ mutual ability to cooperate on child-related decisions is crucial to joint custody)
- Geren Williams v. Geren, 458 S.W.3d 759 (2015) (petty complaints or parental attitude changes may not constitute a material change in circumstances)