Winn v. Bonds
2013 Ark. App. 147
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Custody dispute over minor S.E., born June 23, 2007, between Whitney Winn and Jesse Epperson; custody previously shifted to Arline Bonds (Whitney’s former stepgrandmother) via guardianship and divorce context.
- Whitney and Jesse divorced Aug. 23, 2010; Whitney remarried and custody of S.E. fluctuated amid multiple court actions in Van Buren and Pulaski counties.
- Van Buren County granted Arline temporary guardianship in 2010; Van Buren proceedings were terminated in Nov. 2010.
- Pulaski County divorce proceedings later recognized jurisdictional issues and potential intervention by Arline; Arline sought to retain custody through expedited and final hearings.
- Trial court allowed Arline to intervene and, after a December 2010 emergency hearing, awarded Arline custody pending final custody hearing; final order granting custody to Arline entered Sept. 12, 2011; Whitney appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention standing | Whitney asserts Arline had no standing post-2010 guardianship termination. | Arline stood in loco parentis and had custody; intervening allowed to protect child's welfare. | No abuse of discretion; Arline had standing to intervene. |
| Temporary custody order | Whitney contends she was fit, entitled to parental presumption; temporary order favored Arline improperly. | Court balanced best interests; Arline's custody appropriate pending final hearing. | Temporary order affirmed; final custody to Arline later entered and not overturned on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. Bradford, 52 Ark.App. 81, 915 S.W.2d 723 (1996) (intervention standards and potential treating pleadings as amended)
- Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005) (standing of a person who stood in loco parentis)
- Pippinger v. Benson, 2011 Ark. App. 442, 384 S.W.3d 614 (2011) (standing to intervene in custody matters)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental due process and fundamental rights in custody decisions)
- Vairo v. Vairo, 27 Ark.App. 231, 769 S.W.2d 423 (1989) (temporary orders terminated by subsequent permanent order)
- Dunham v. Doyle, 84 Ark.App. 36, 129 S.W.3d 304 (2003) (parental preference in custody determinations)