Starr v. Starr
2015 Ark. App. 110
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jonas and Lisa Starr divorced after separating in August 2013; the dispute concerned custody of their minor daughter S.S. (born 2004), whose paternity Jonas acknowledged.
- Jonas sought custody, alleging Lisa drank to intoxication and was verbally/physically abusive toward the children; he had custody of three older daughters from a prior marriage.
- Lisa counterclaimed and testified she and S.S. were close, that S.S. was doing well in school, and that she would facilitate S.S.’s relationship with her father and half-sisters; she admitted some drinking but denied it impaired her parenting.
- Multiple witnesses (friends, coworkers, family) gave conflicting testimony: some described Lisa as a competent, caring mother who was not impaired at work; others supported Jonas’s allegations about Lisa’s drinking or described Jonas as abusive toward Lisa and the children.
- The circuit court granted the divorce to Jonas but awarded primary custody of S.S. to Lisa, finding it was in the child's best interest; Jonas appealed, arguing (1) the custody award to Lisa was clearly erroneous given evidence of her drinking and (2) the award improperly separated S.S. from her three half-sisters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jonas) | Defendant's Argument (Lisa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court clearly erred in awarding primary custody of S.S. to Lisa | Lisa’s drinking and related conduct make her unfit; the evidence favors Jonas as a more stable, safe caregiver | Credibility and factual disputes are for the trial court; evidence showed S.S. thriving with Lisa and Lisa would encourage family relationships | Court affirmed: trial court’s best-interest finding for Lisa was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether awarding custody to Lisa improperly separated S.S. from her three half-sisters | Separation from siblings was harmful; siblings had a strong bond and should not be divided | Half-sibling separation rule is less forceful; Lisa has facilitated ongoing contact and shared schooling with T.S. | Court affirmed: no clear error; trial court permissibly considered best interest and practical continued contact among siblings |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Delgado, 389 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in custody cases)
- Evans v. McKinney, 440 S.W.3d 357 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (best-interest of the child is the primary consideration in custody decisions)
- Sykes v. Warren, 258 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (presumption against separating young siblings absent exceptional circumstances)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 32 S.W.3d 41 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (courts should not use sibling-preservation rule as a substitute for individual best-interest analysis)
- Donato v. Walker, 377 S.W.3d 437 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (best-interest inquiry controls where sibling separation results from custody award)
- White v. White, 446 S.W.3d 636 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming custody award despite separation from half-sibling when best interest supports decision)