Shields v. Kimble
486 S.W.3d 791
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Shields and Kimble divorced (2007). Arkansas court awarded custody of daughter B.K. to Shields, subject to Kimble visitation; Shields moved to Montana in 2007.
- Kimble successfully obtained a change of custody to himself in Arkansas (May 2009); appeal affirmed. Montana child-abuse proceedings (2008–2013) resulted in temporary orders placing B.K. in Montana custody; Montana Supreme Court later vacated those orders as void for lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction (Aug. 2013).
- Arkansas circuit court (Dec. 8, 2010) ordered Shields to return B.K. to Arkansas and warned that failure would lead to contempt proceedings; Shields failed to appear at a show-cause hearing (Nov. 8, 2012) and was found in contempt.
- After hearings, the Arkansas court awarded Kimble $15,539.94 in attorney’s fees and costs and sentenced Shields to 120 days in jail if she did not pay within 180 days (Dec. 22, 2014); also modified Shields’s visitation to supervised.
- Shields appealed, arguing (inter alia) that Montana’s emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA excused her conduct, the Arkansas order conflicted with Montana’s orders, she relied on professional advice and DHS, the contempt lacked sufficient evidence, her due-process rights were violated at certain hearings, and supervised visitation infringed her rights as a fit parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shields) | Defendant's Argument (Kimble) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montana’s emergency UCCJEA jurisdiction excuses Shields’ failure to obey Arkansas show-cause order | Montana properly exercised emergency jurisdiction, so Arkansas order conflicted/was inapplicable | Arkansas ordered Shields to appear and return the child; failure to appear not excused by Montana proceedings | Shields’ nonappearance to a clear Arkansas show-cause order was not excused by Montana jurisdiction; contempt stands |
| Whether Arkansas contempt order was void because it conflicted with Montana orders | Montana order placing child in MDHS custody conflicted with Arkansas return order, making Arkansas order unclear/void | Arkansas’s show-cause order clearly required Shields to appear; contempt based on failure to appear | The show-cause order was definite and clear; conflict did not excuse failure to appear; contempt valid |
| Whether reliance on professional/DHS advice legitimizes Shields’ refusal to return B.K. | She relied on DHS/counselors’ transition plan and professional advice to keep child in Montana for her safety | Contempt was for failing to appear at show-cause hearing, not solely for denying visitation; reliance on advice didn’t excuse nonappearance | Wakefield distinguished; reliance on professionals did not excuse failure to appear—contempt sustained |
| Sufficiency of evidence and due-process/parental-rights claims (including supervised visitation) | Insufficient evidence to show willful contempt; hearings and supervised-visitation order violated due process and parental rights | Court relied on Shields’ admissions (knew of order, failed to appear) and evidence of fees; procedural objections were not preserved on appeal | Substantial evidence supports contempt (willful failure to appear); due-process objections not preserved; visitation argument undeveloped—affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Ward, 434 S.W.3d 923 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishes civil and criminal contempt purposes)
- Holifield v. Mullenax Fin. & Tax Advisory Grp., Inc., 307 S.W.3d 608 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (defining civil-contempt types and requirements for clear orders)
- Henry v. Eberhard, 832 S.W.2d 467 (Ark. 1992) (appellate standard and review approach for contempt findings)
- Jolly v. Jolly, 719 S.W.2d 430 (Ark. 1986) (criminal-contempt burden: proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Wakefield v. Wakefield, 984 S.W.2d 32 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998) (mother’s reliance on DHS/professional advice excused refusal of visitation in different factual context)
- Morgan v. Century 21 Perry Real Estate, 79 S.W.3d 878 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) (issues not preserved below are not considered on appeal)
- Walters v. Dobbins, 370 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2010) (failure to develop an argument is grounds to affirm)