Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In 2012, the circuit court entered two child-custody orders leaving primary custody of the parties’ two minor children with Mother but granting Father certain decision-making authority with regard to the children. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s order. Mother appealed. Thereafter, the circuit court temporarily changed custody of the parties’ minor children to Father. On appeal, Father requested a permanent change of custody based on allegations of a material change in circumstances that occurred after the circuit court’s order. Because of the unique procedural history of this case, the Supreme Court remanded it for consideration of any pending matters related to the custody of the minor children. View "Goodloe v. Goodloe" on Justia Law

The State petitioned for an emergency stay of the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order declaring unconstitutional Act 144 of 1997 and Amendment 83, which banned same-sex marriage. The State asserted that an emergency stay was necessary because circuit clerks were uncertain about whether they were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples while the Supreme Court considered the State’s appeal. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the State’s appeal because there was no final order in this case where the circuit court did not rule on the issue of injunctive relief or on the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 9-11-208(b). The Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for an emergency stay and granted the motion to dismiss the State’s appeal, holding (1) the court’s order was not final, and therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) the circuit court’s order had no effect on Ark. Code Ann. 9-11-208(b) and its prohibition against circuit and county clerks issuing same-sex marriage licenses. View "Smith v. Wright" on Justia Law

Kylie Chitwood was born in 1990 during the marriage of Gordon and Jane Chitwood. In 1993, Gordon and Jane divorced, and Gordon was ordered to pay child support. In 2011, Kylie, then twenty years old, filed a complaint against Gordon to collect an alleged arrearage in child support that had accrued from 1999 to 2004. Gordon moved for summary judgment, arguing that Kylie’s complaint was barred under the law-of-the-case doctrine because in previous litigation Gordon had prevailed against Jane on her claim for unpaid child support for the same period. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Gordon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kylie’s present suit was barred by Jane’s previous suit. View "Chitwood v. Chitwood" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife had been married for more than twenty years when Husband filed for divorce. The parties were co-owners of Brave New Restaurant. After the circuit court entered a divorce decree, Husband appealed, contending that the circuit court committed reversible error by (1) dividing the goodwill in the restaurant, and (2) “double dipping” into the stream of his future income when it divided the goodwill of the restaurant and gave Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in concluding that the goodwill was corporate goodwill and dividing it as martial property rather than concluding that it was personal to Husband; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony to Wife after finding that the goodwill in this case was corporate goodwill. View "Brave v. Brave" on Justia Law

Myra and Charles Jones married in 1992. In 2011, Myra filed a complaint for divorce. After the circuit court entered a divorce decree, Charles appealed, contesting the circuit court’s division of property in four respects. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) by not awarding Charles a financial benefit in a home that Myra purchased before the marriage; (2) in its division of the parties’ vehicles; (3) by giving Myra an interest in Charles’s life-insurance policies; and (4) not imposing a constructive trust for the return of land in which Charles had deeded an interest to Myra. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

After the parental rights of Appellant were terminated Appellant filed a “Motion for Determination of Indigency for Purpose of Appointed Appellate Counsel.” The day Appellant’s indigency motion was heard, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order terminating his parental rights. At the hearing, Appellant’s counsel rested on an unsworn document asserting that his monthly take-home pay was $900 and that he had $750 in expenses. The attorney ad litem respondent by asserting that the document contradicted Appellant’s hearing testimony, in which he claimed he had a monthly income of $2100, and a home study, in which Appellant claimed a monthly income of $1700. The circuit court denied Appellant’s motion for indigency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant was not indigent. View "Cordero v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

After Mother was arrested on charges of possession of drug paraphernalia, the circuit court entered an order placing Mother’s child with the child’s biological father (Father). The child was subsequently adjudicated the child as dependent-neglected. At a six-month review hearing, the circuit court ceased reunification services, granted Father permanent custody, and closed the dependency-neglect proceeding sua sponte and without notice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Mother’s argument that the circuit court’s disposition was not authorized under the juvenile code was not preserved for appeal; and (2) the circuit court clearly erred in determining that it was in the child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of Father. Remanded with directions for the court to return custody of the child to Mother. View "Ingle v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

After Appellant, Mother of J.G., failed to pick J.G. up from school, the circuit court adjudicated J.G. dependent-neglected and removed J.G. from Mother’s home. After a permanency-planning hearing, the circuit court granted permanent custody to J.G.’s maternal grandmother and closed the case. The court also granted Mother extended unsupervised visitation of J.G. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it granted permanent custody of J.G. to his grandmother and closed the case where the court found Mother was in compliance with the case plan and making significant progress toward remedying the conditions that caused the removal. Remanded. View "Contreras v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced in 1999, and the circuit court granted primary custody of the parties’ three minor children to Mother. The circuit court later awarded custody of one of the parties’ children to Father and awarded child support and reimbursement of medical expenses to Father. Mother appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting Father’s objection to discovery requests regarding his financial condition, income, and assets. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting Father’s objection to Mother’s discovery request. Remanded with instructions for the circuit court to reconsider Mother’s request in light of her argument that the discovery request was relevant to the issue of child support. View "Hill v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced by decree that awarded joint legal custody of the parties' minor child and primary physical custody to Mother. Both parties remarried after the divorce. Mother subsequently filed a motion for change of custody seeking sole custody, alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred because her current spouse was being transferred to Texas. Father counterclaimed for sole custody. The circuit court awarded a change of custody of the child to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the circuit court correctly found that the parties enjoyed a true joint-custody relationship despite the designation of Mother as "primary physical custodian" of the child, the circuit court did not err in failing to apply the Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski presumption in favor of Mother; and (2) Mother's argument that the circuit court erred in failing to articulate the analysis it used in granting a change of custody was without merit. View "Singletary v. Singletary" on Justia Law