Wilhelm v. Wilhelm
539 S.W.3d 619
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- This is an appeal from a circuit-court custody determination awarding custody to the appellee; the appellate court reviews custody findings de novo but will not reverse unless findings are clearly erroneous.
- The trial court made credibility-based factual findings after hearing witness testimony and determined the award to appellee was in the children’s best interest.
- Appellant argued the evidence did not support the circuit court’s findings and asked the appellate court to reweigh witness testimony and factors favoring her.
- Appellant contended the circuit court erred by refusing to consider or award joint custody.
- The circuit court expressly stated it considered joint custody but declined to award it because both parties were unwilling or not agreeable to a joint-custody arrangement.
- Appellant raised additional issues (child support and attorney’s fees/costs) contingent on reversal of the custody award; the appellate court declined to address them because it affirmed custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Appellee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s best-interest factual findings are supported by the evidence | Appellant: evidence and witness testimony favor awarding custody to appellant; trial court erred in its evaluation | Appellee: trial court properly weighed credibility and evidence; findings supported by the record | Affirmed; appellate court will not reweigh evidence or overturn credibility determinations absent clear error |
| Whether the appellate court may reweigh credibility-based findings | Appellant: asks the court to reweigh and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s credibility calls | Appellee: deference to trial court on credibility; appellate court should not reweigh | Held for appellee—credibility determinations are for the trial court |
| Whether the circuit court erred by refusing to award joint custody | Appellant: court should have considered/awarded joint custody | Appellee: trial court considered joint custody; parties were not agreeable, and joint custody is not mandatory | Held for appellee—court considered joint custody and properly declined where parties would not cooperate |
| Review of child support and attorney’s fees/costs (conditional) | Appellant: raised if custody reversed | Appellee: not reached if custody affirmed | Not addressed—issues reserved only if custody reversed; because custody affirmed, appellate court did not consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Burr v. Burr, 476 S.W.3d 195 (Ark. Ct. App.) (custody review standard; deference to trial court on credibility)
- Grantham v. Lucas, 385 S.W.3d 337 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate deference to trial court in custody cases)
- Fox v. Fox, 465 S.W.3d 18 (Ark. Ct. App.) (trial court’s superior position to evaluate witnesses in custody matters)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 47 S.W.3d 222 (Ark.) (best-interest of the child is the controlling consideration)
- Newman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 489 S.W.3d 186 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard for clear-error review and credibility deference)
- Sharp v. Keeler, 256 S.W.3d 528 (Ark. Ct. App.) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)
- Ford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. Ct. App.) (procedural and review principles in family/custody appeals)
- Louton v. Dulaney, 519 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App.) (statutory guidance on joint custody not being mandatory)