Custodial parent wants to move from Arkansas to South Dakota to take a job with better income and also to be closer to his ailing parents. Noncustodial parent objects and a hearing is held. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals upheld, that the custodial parent had sufficient reasons for moving and allowed the move. One of the factors mentioned in addition to the two above is that the custodial parent had other family members in South Dakota that would be involved in the child’s life (boating and other leisure activities were cited).

A very good discussion of how trial courts review a relocation request and the factors involved under the seminal case (Hollandsworth):
Mathews v. Schumacher

That was the central question in this case. Grandfather had been getting extensive visitation with his minor grandson. Mother decides to lessen the visitation. Grandfather files a motion with the court requesting that he continue to get extensive visitation with his grandson, and arguing that anything less would be harmful to their relationship. The trial court found that merely lessening the amount of visitation was not going to be harmful to the child. Had the visitation been stopped entirely then that would likely be harmful to the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Here’s the link…
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth

In this divorce case the attorney for the wife withdrew from representing her 13 days before the final hearing. On appeal, it was found that this was improper and the case was reversed and remanded.

This case provides a good discussion of the procedure that is to be followed when an attorney withdraws from a case. Also, the client’s rights in such a situation.

Here’s the link…
Duncan v. Duncan

Parents agreed to hold child back in kindergarten. Child turns 18 during her junior year in high school. At the end of the child’s junior year, payor parent stops paying child support, holding the position that the child “should have” graduated that year. Under the Arkansas statute in effect at the time, a payor is liable for child support until the child turns 18 “or should have graduated from high school, whichever occurs later.”

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that child support in this case should be paid until the child graduates. The reason being that the parties had agreed to hold the child back in kindergarten, so the child was going to graduate at the time that she should.

Had there been no such agreement then it appears the payor father may have had the winning argument.

Here’s the link…
Barker v. Barker Avery

Practice note: Here’s how A.C.A. 9-14-237(a)(1) now reads:

A.C.A. 9-14-237
(a)(1) Unless a court order for child support specifically extends child support after these circumstances, an obligor’s duty to pay child support for a child shall automatically terminate by operation of law:

(A)(i) When the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age unless the child is still attending high school.

(ii) If the child is still attending high school, upon the child’s high school graduation or the end of the school year after the child reaches nineteen (19) years of age, whichever is earlier;

(B) When the child:

(i) Is emancipated by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(ii) Marries; or

(iii) Dies;

(C) Upon the marriage of the parents of the child to each other; or

(D) Upon the entry of a final decree of adoption or an interlocutory decree of adoption that has become final under § 9-9-201 et seq. and thereby relieves the obligor of all parental rights and responsibilities.

We had previously posted that the Court of Appeals decided that a trial court had authority to place child support arrearage money into an account for a minor child. Well, today the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals. So it appears that a trial court does not have the authority to order child support arrearage funds to be placed into a separate account for the child, as opposed to paying the funds directly to the custodial parent.

Here’s the link…
Gilbow v. Travis

If you tweet, then follow me on twitter. Seriously, this is how we talk now?!?!

Here’s my page…
Kevin Hickey twitter page

Court of Appeals holds that a trial court may make decisions as to whether property is marital and/or whether it is actually owned by a person/entity not a party to the divorce. However, the trial court does not have the authority to rule that the parties must transfer by warranty deed a piece of property to a non-party. Non-parties need to intervene in the case if they believe they own the property.

Here’s the link…
Wise v. Wise

This father represented himself (pro se) in a custody case. He makes several arguments but the Court of Appeals rules against him on all of them.

Remember…get a lawyer!

Here’s the link…
Stacks v. Stacks

This case is about as protracted as it gets. Several hearings; multiple allegations; multiple drugs; multiple drug tests; and more.

Provides a good example of the types of evidence needed in these types of cases.

Here’s the link…
Poole v. Poole

It is common practice for a judge, at the conclusion of a hearing, to designate one of the attorneys to draft the order of the court. Sometimes the attorney drafts it immediately. Sometimes there is a delay due to a number of different reasons.

In this case, the court divided a retirement account held by the husband. It was divided equally between the parties. 4 years later the decree was finally entered. The retirement account increased significantly in value during that time. Husband wanted the division to be as of the date of the hearing, 4 years earlier, as opposed to the date the decree was entered. Wife objected.

The Court of Appeals held that the account is to be divided as of the date the decree is entered, as had been held in prior Arkansas cases. The husband failed to show he had suffered any injustice by the delay in getting the decree drafted.

I’m betting he would disagree.

Here’s the link…
Churchill v. Churchill