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

Yes, that’s correct. Noncustodial parent is disabled and receives SSDI. His children also receive SSDI payments due to his disability. These payments go directly from the Social Security Administration to the custodial parent for the benefit of the children. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has determined that these payments are to be considered income to the noncustodial parent for purposes of determining a net income for child support purposes.

Here’s the link…
Arkansas Child Support Enforcement v. Jason Hearst

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