Tribble v. Tribble, 2011 Ark. App. 407

Elizabeth Tribble appeals a custody award to William Tribble after divorce proceedings over their son, C.T., born Sept. 26, 2008.
The court granted an absolute divorce on general-indignities grounds and awarded custody to appellee with standard visitation.
At trial, evidence showed appellee primarily cared for C.T. with extensive grandparent involvement; appellant spent significant time away from home and pursued multiple jobs and activities.
Appellant’s relationship history with Tommy Hampton and travel/activities were highlighted as factors affecting care.
The trial court found appellant largely absent from C.T.’s life for about a year prior to separation and imposed custody in appellee based on the child’s best interests.
Appellant argues the custody ruling was a punitive reaction to her work, schooling, and extramarital relationship speculation; appellee contends appellant’s absence and concurrent caregiving by others justified custody to appellee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the custody award is supported by the evidence.	Tribble contends she was C.T.’s primary caregiver.	Tribble argues absence and care by others harmed C.T.'s welfare.	No; court’s findings supported appellee due to appellant’s absence and reliance on others.
Whether the court properly weighed appellant’s absence against appellee’s caregiving.	Tribble claims absence was not neglect but her work and schooling.	Tribble’s absence and extraneous trips harmed C.T.’s welfare.	Yes; court properly weighed caregiving and best interests in favor of appellee.
Whether extramarital relationship evidence influenced custody decision.	Tribble asserts no proven ongoing affair existed.	Tribble’s conduct and association were relevant to child’s welfare.	Yes; court could consider relationship factors in evaluating neglect and time with child.

Valentine v. Valentine, 377 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. App. 2010) (primary consideration is the welfare of the child; deference to trial court's credibility determinations)
Hollinger v. Hollinger, 986 S.W.2d 105 (Ark. App. 1999) (findings not clearly erroneous; custody not for punishment or reward)
Hepp v. Hepp, 968 S.W.2d 62 (Ark. App. 1998) (trial court's perception and credibility weigh heavily in child-custody decisions)