Westin v. Hays
2017 Ark. App. 128
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (Westin) was awarded sole custody by agreed paternity order in 2011; father (Hays) moved to modify custody in 2015.
- Trial court denied emergency relief but in Jan. 2016 granted Hays sole custody and ordered Westin to pay child support; Westin appealed.
- Trial evidence included multiple moves by Westin (5–7 moves, three out of state without notice), unstable employment, remarriage/divorce, a second child, questionable social-media posts, use of GoFundMe for school funds, and alleged failures in the child’s medical care and hygiene.
- Hays presented evidence of stable employment, marriage, home ownership, financial stability, and family support.
- Trial court found a material change in circumstances and that a custody change to Hays was in the child’s best interest; Westin challenged both holdings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Westin) | Defendant's Argument (Hays) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court relied on evidence not pleaded, violating due process | Trial evidence introduced facts not in the petition; Westin lacked notice | Petition alleged custodial neglect; evidence was relevant to neglect/parenting | Not preserved on appeal; objection at trial was limited; no reversible error |
| Whether facts proved a material change in circumstances to justify custody modification | Relocations alone are not a material change; moves did not harm child | Multiple moves without notice, instability, poor care, and hygiene showed material change | Court’s finding of material change upheld (deference to credibility findings) |
| Whether relocation claim (failure to give notice) barred custody change | Relocation alone insufficient; constitutional right to travel allegedly infringed | Failure to give required notice and other parental deficiencies warranted review | Relocation argument not preserved below; not reviewed on appeal |
| Whether change of custody was in the child’s best interest | Trial court failed to analyze each best-interest factor explicitly; result unsupported | Court considered relevant stability, parenting, conduct, and child preference factors | Best-interest finding not clearly erroneous; custody change affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2005) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in custody matters)
- Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2003) (relocation by custodial parent not per se a material change)
- Powell v. Ayers, 792 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 2001) (Mississippi rule requiring on-record analysis of each best-interest factor)