If you think your actions and words are not being seen/heard by your child, take a look at this case.

Here’s the link…
Zobrist v. Zorbrist

In this case, the trial court goes to great lengths to express its’ disgust with the mother and her affairs. However, the best interest of the children is the overriding concern, and the court ultimately decided to leave the children with her. (This case had a 6-day hearing over a two month period!)

Here’s the link…
Valentine v. Valentine

In a nutshell, if you consistently deny the noncustodial parent his/her visitation, and then you move halfway across the country with the children without permission of the court, don’t be surprised if you lose custody of your children.

Note: An interesting fact in earlier proceedings between these parties early in this opinion. Note that the trial judge in 2004 found the mother in contempt for failing to comply with court ordered visitation. The punishment? Community service! First time I’ve seen that one in a domestic case. Maybe not a bad idea.

Here’s the link…
Harris v. Harris

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

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

Custodial parent wants to relocate with child to another state. Noncustodial parent files for a change of custody. Court of Appeals upholds trial court’s decision finding no change in circumstances.

Here’s the link…
Schmit v. Schmit

It is generally assumed that a material change in circumstances will automatically result in a change of custody. But that is not the law. In Arkansas, the court will look to see if there has been a material change in circumstances. IF such a change has occurred THEN the court will determine what is in the best interest of the child - whether the child needs to stay with the current custodial parent or if a change to the noncustodial parent is warranted.

In a case affirmed today by the Court of Appeals, the trial court found a material change in circumstances but elected to leave the child with the custodial parent. The trial court gave stern warnings to the custodial parent about her behavior (she was saying things to the child that made the child wary of the noncustodial parent) but did not change custody. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court followed the law correctly.

Here’s the case…
Shively v. Shively Plautz

Custodial parent called his son a “problem child” to his face; told him that retaining an attorney cost him $1,000; called the child derogatory names during periods of anger; became less flexible on visitation after non-custodial parent filed for a change of custody; the child does not get along well with his new step-mother; and the child wants to have custody changed. Custody changed by the court? Nope. Arkansas Court of Appeals decided that these factors do not amount to a change in circumstances sufficient to change custody.

Here’s the link…
http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/coa/2009a/20090408/unpublished/ca08-908.pdf